The Lat. VS is wholly lost with the exception of two small fragments : of these the first is 1°, and is found in the pseudo-Cyprian treatise. Ad Novatianum (see Zahn's Gescfi. des Neutest. Kanons, ii. 797-801). The second, which embraces 106'"'*, was found by James in an 8th cent. MS in the British Museum, and published in his Apocrypha Anecdota, vol. i. A critical ed. of its text will be found in Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 372-375. To these we miwht also add TertuUian's De Cult. Fern. i. 2, and De Idol, iv., which may point to a Latin text of 8' and 99'.
The Eth. VS alone preserves the entire text, and that in a most trustworthy condition, (a) The Ethiopic MSS. — There are twenty or more of these in the different libraries of Europe. Of these about half are in the British Museum alone, which happily also possesses the most valuable of all the MSS — that designated Orient. 485 in its catalogue of Eth. MSS. (b) Editions of the Eth. Text.— On\y two edd. have appeared — that of Lawrence in 1838 from one MS, and that of Dillmann in 1851 from five MSS. Unhappily, these MSS were late and corrupt. The present WTiter hopes to issue later a text based on the incomparably better MSS now accessible to scholars. Such a text is actually presupposed in his translation and commentary of 1893. (c) Translations and Comrncntariet. — Trans- lations accompanied by commentaries have been edited bv Lawrence (1821), Hofmann (1833-1838), Dillmann (1853), Schodde (1882), and Charles (1893). Of Dillmann's and Schodde's translations the reader will find a short review in Charles (pp. 6-9). (rf) Critical Inquiries. — Some account of these will be found in Scliiirer, HJP II. iii. 70-73, and in Charles, Book of Enoch, 9-21, 309-311.
Of the many soholara who have written on this hook, the works al the following deserv; ipecial mention here :— Lucke, Einleit.
ind. OfTenb. (f. Johanna'', IS52 ; Ewald, Abhandl. uberd. afhtop. B. Henokh Entsteh., Sinn, und Zxutaminensetzung , 1S55 ; Kustlin, ' Ueber d. Entsteh. d. B. Henoch ' (Theol. lahrb. IS5«, pp. 240- 279, 370-3SO); Hil^enteld, ZKf Jiid. Apakalyptik, 1857, pp. 91- 184 ; Oebhardt, Dif 70 Hirten d. B. Henoch u. ihre Deutun/jfr. (ilerx' Archiv, 1872. vol. ii. Heft ii. pp. 163-246); Drummond, Jewish Messiah, 1887, 17-73 ; Lipsius in Smith and Wace'a Diet. Chr. Biajr. 18S0, ii. 124-128 ; Sohurer, HJP n. UL 64-73 ; Lawlor in Jaum. of Philology, xxv. (1897) 194-228.
IV. The different Elements in the Book,
WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND
Dates. — The Bk. of E. is a fragmentary survival of an entire literature tliat once circulated under his name. To tliis fact the plurality of books assigned to E. from the first may in some degree point ; as, for instance, the expression ' books ' in lOii^ ; Test. XII Patriarch. Jiid. 18 ; Origen, c. Celsum, v. 54, In Num. Homil. xxx-iii. 2, and elsewhere. Of this literature five distinct frag- ments have been preserved in the five books into which the Bk. of E. is divided (i.e. 1-37. 37-71. 72-82. 83-90. 91-108). These books were origin- ally separate treatises j in later times they were collected and edited, but were much mutilated in the course of redaction and incorporation into a single work. In addition to this E. literature, the final editor of the book made use of a lost Apoca- lypse, the Bk. of Noah, from which, as well as from otiier sources, he drew 6'-8' 9' 10'-»- " 17-20 39'- »• 413-8 43-44. 50. 54'-553 56'-57»* 59-60. 65-69" 71. 80-81. 105-107. This Bk. of Noah is mentioned in the Bk. of Jubilees 10" 21'". Another large fragment of the Bk. of Noah is <x> be found in the latter.
We have alread.v remarked that in the five hooks Into which the whole work is divided we have the writings of five different authors. Before we proceed to give some of the grounds for this statement, we shall give in merest outline the different constituents which the chief scholars on this subject have found in this work. Liicke in his Einl. in dif O^enb. d. Johamwi regards the book as consisting of two parta. The first part embraces 1-36. 72-105, written at the beg. of the Maccab. revolt, or, according to his later \-iew, in the reign of John Hyrcanus ; the second consists of the Similitudes, 36-71, and was written in the early days of Herod the Great. In the latter, however, there are some interpolations. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) ascribes the entire work to a Christian author of the 2nd cent. In this view he was followed later by Weisse and Philippi. Hofmann deserves mention in this connexion on the ground of his having been the first to give the correct interpretation of the seventy eliepherds in 89-90. Ewald {Abhandl. 1855) gives the following scheme : — Bk. I. 37-71, e. B.C. 144 ; Bk. II. 1-16. 81H 84. 91-105, c. B.O. 135 ; Bk. til. 20-36. 72-90. 106-107, c B.C. 128; 108 later. Bk. IV., the Bk. of Noah, 6»« S'-s 9' 101 ■»■ 11. J2b 17-19. 54'-662 60"0- M » 64-6918, somewhat later than the preceding. Eostlin in his essay, ' Ueber d. Entsteh. d. B. Henoch' (TAfof. Jahrb. 1856), a contribution of great worth, arrives at the following analvsis : — The groundwork, 1-16. 21-34. 72-105, c B.C. 110. The Simili- tudes, 37-71 and 17-19, before B.C. 64. Noachic fragments, 547- .552 60. 65-6928, possibly also 20. 823 2" 106-107. 108 is an Essene addition. Hilgenfeld (Jiid. Apok. 1857) regards the groundwork, consisting of 1-18. 20-36. 72-105, as written before B.C. 08 ; and the reraaming chapters as coming from the hand of a Christian Gnostic after the time of Saturninus. We should mention also the interesting studies of Tideman. ThT. 1375, pp. 261-296; Lipsius, art. 'Enoch' in Smith's Diet. Chr. Biog. ; Schiirer, HJP n. iii. 64-73 ; Drummond. The Jeiciih ilesnah, 1877, pp. 17-23 ; and Schodde, The Book of Enoch, 1882. As Dillmann changed his mind three times, and in each instance for the better, it will be enough to give his final analysis. The ground- work, 1-36. 72-105. in the time of John Hyrcanus ; the Simili- tudes and 17-19, before B.C. 64 : the Noachic fragments, 6^-8 8'^ 9' 101 U 20. 391. * 54'-662 60. 65-692» 106-107. 108, from a later hand.