We shall now proceed to discuss this question directly, and try to carry the criticism of the book one stage further towards finality. Disregarding the interpolations from the Bk. of Noah already mentioned, as well as the closing chapter, we shaU adduce a few of the grounds on which the com- positeness of the rest of the book is determined.
First of all, critics are agreed in ascribing the Similitudes (37-71) to a different autliorship from the rest. This is done on the following grounds :— (a) Certain names of God are found frequently in 37-71, but not elsf where in the book. (6) The angelology ditiers. (c) The deraonology differs. (d) The Messianic doctrine not only differs from
ENOCH, (KTIIIOPIC) BOOK OF
ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF 707
that of the rest of the book, but U uciqae in apocalyptic literature.
As for the remaining chs. 1-36, 72-104, all critics but Ewald and Lipsius have regarded them as the work of one and the same author. But these scholars have diii'ered much from each other on the determination of the diflureut elements present in these chapters, and have failed to gain the sutl'rage of other scholars as to the justness of their views. In one respect they are undoubtedly right. These chapters are of a composite nature ; the more closely they are examined, the more clearly they exhibit conflicting characteristics. When sub- mitted to a searching criticism they fall naturally into four distinct parts, i.e. 1-3G. 72-82, 83-90, 91-104, differing from each other in authorship, Bystem of thought, and date.
For the flrounds for theee conclusiona the reader must refer to Charlea^ Boofc 0/ Enoch, pp. 65-56, 187-189, 22()-221, 260-2(53. It will be ButBcient here to give some of the reasons for tlilTer- entiating' 83-90 and 91-104, as an illustration of the metliod there pursued in the criticiam of the earlier scrtiona. (o) The Heflsianic kingdom in 91-104 is finite in duration, whereas in 63-90 it is etemaL (6) In the former the Mu&sianic jud^nnent takes place at the close of the Messianic kingdom, in the Intter kt its beginning, (c) In the former there is a resurrection of the righteous only, in the latter a resurrection of apostate Jews also, (d^ In the former the building of the temple pre- cedes the final Judgment, in the latter it is subsequent to the final iudgment. (O In the former the scene of the Mc»aianic kingaom is apparently heaven, in the latter a purified earth. Now, our conclusion as to the distinct authorship of these two •ections on the grounds just given is strikingly conflrmcd when we observe the forcible dislocations that 91-104 have undergone at the hands of the final editor in order to adapt them to the chapters that precede. Former critics have re- marked that 93 must originally have preceded 911*17, because we have in 93 an account of the first seven weeks of the ten into which the world's hi8tor>- is divided, and in 9U2-17 the account of the remaining three weeks. They failed, huwe-./r, to observe that 92i, * Written by Enoch the scribe, this compitte doctrine of wisdom,' etc., formed originally the real buginning of this section. Next, on 92 follows 91' i" as a natural sequel, where E. summons his children to receive his parting words. Then comes the short Apocalypse of ten weeks, l>:ii-'0 OP*-'?, while 91"* l** form a natural transition to 94. This section nnderweiit these derangements in the process of its incorpora- tion into a larger work.
As our space does not admit dealing further with the actual criticism of the book, we shall confine ourselves to the state- ment of results, and to a brief sketch of the various independent writings contained in the entire work, with their probable dates.
Part I., consisting of chs. 1-36 (for the Noachic interpolations •ee above), was wntten at latest B.C. 170, and mainly from the
Srophetic standnoint of such chs. as Is 65-66. This is, un- ouDtedly, the oldi-wt part of the book, being anterior to 72-82. 68-90. 91-104, as it is used by the writers of these sections. As 83-90 was written not later than b.c. 161, 1-3A must be some years earher; and as there is no allusion to the massacres of Antiochufl Epiphanes, the above date (170) is the latest reason- able limit for its composition. This book, i.e. 1-36, is the oldest piece of Jewish literature that teaches the general resurrection of Israel, that de8cril>eH iSheol according to the conception that
grcvaJls in NT as opTioaed to that of OT, and that represents ehenna as a flna! place of punishment. The problem of the author is to Jvistify the ways of God to men. The rigJiteous will not always suffer (V). Sin is the cause of this Buffering, and the sin of man Is due, not to Adam, but to the lust of the angels— the watchers (9« * '0 108). Hence the watchers, their companions, and their children will be destroyed (10*l*>. 12)^ and their destruction will form the prelude to the first world- Judgment, of which the Dehii^e will form the completion (10' 3). But sin still prevails after the Deluge, through the inlluence of the evil spirits that go forth from the slaughtered children of the watchers and the daughters of men (16i). These act with impunity till the final judgment. In the meantime, char- •i.ter flntls its recomnenst-, tn some measure, iniiiiediately after death {'Z'l). In the last Judgment the watcherM, the demons, and all classes of Isr, with one exception, will receive their final award (1* 22'*X This Judgment is preceded bv a general nsur. of Israel (22). The wicked are cast into Oelienna (*.;7^, the earth Is cleansed from sin (102022)^ the Mess, kingdom is established with Jerus. as its centre (25'^), and God abides with men (26>). The Gentiles become righteous and worship God (lOa^X The righteous cat of the tree of life(2M«), and thereby enjoj patriarchal lives {b'J). As to whot befalls the righteovis after the second death, there is no hint in tliis fragmentary section.