Sectiox IV. : The Dream FisJo?i5.— There is only one interpolation — xc. 14>5. xc. 13-15 and xc. 16- 18 are doublets. There is close agreement with and evident knowledge of vi,-xi., but no depend- ence on them. The conceptions are more spiritual and developed. The date would be before 161 B.C., as Judas Maccabseus is still warring (xc. 13) ; the end is expected to be about 140 B.C., as the fourth period of twelve shephei'ds would end then. The problem is the continued depression of Israel after the Return, which is attributed to the neglect of its seventy angelic guardians.
Section v. — This section really commences with xcii. 1 (see heading), and the original order of the lirst four chapters was xcii., xci. 1-10, 18-19, xciii. 1-10, xci. 12-17, xciv. ; of these xciii. 1-10, xci. 12- 17 form the short 'Apocalypse of Weeks.' There is a close resemblance throughout xci.-civ. to i.- xxxvi., in phrases, references, and ideas, but the divergences are not less numerous (see Charles, p. 219 tf.). The righteous alone rise, and in spirit only, not in body, to walk in eternal light in heaven. Contrast the crude materialism of i.-xxxvi. The date is determined by the interpretation we put on ciii. 14, 15 — 'the rulers . . . did not remove from us the yoke of those that devoured us and dispersed us and murdered us.' If the massacre of the Pharisees by John Hyrcanus is meant, the date must be later than that year — 94 B.C. (cf. Parables). Otherwise, 104-95 B.C. (so Charles). The problem is ethical (the seeming impunity of the prosperous wicked — who, however,atdeath descend toSheoland the flame for ever), not national, as in Ixxxiii.-xc.
cv. — An independent Messianic fragment ; cvi.- cvii. — part of the earlier Book of Noah ; cviii. ])resuppose3 i.-xxxvi. and xci.-civ., and is later in date, and strongly ascetic, if not Essene, in tone.
Book of Noah. — Scattered through the work we find a aeriea of more or less fragmentary passages — vi.-xi., liv. 7-lv, 2, Ix., Ixv.-lxix. 25, cvi.-cvii., and probably xxix. 1, 2") — which generally refer
to Noah and the Deluge. Their inclusion appears to be due to the final editor, who forced into what are often awkward contexts fragments of this earlier work, or series of works, which we also know from Jub. vii. 20-39, x. 1-15, xxi. 10.
5. The text.— The text is not extant in the original Semitic form, but we possess a Greek translation of a part, and an Ethiopic version of the whole.
(1) The Greek version exists in duplicate to some extent, (a) The superior in point of text is to be found in Syncellus (Chronographia, ed. Dind. i. 20-23, etc.), who quotes vi.-x. 14, xv. 8-xvi. 1, and also gives viii. 4-ix. 4 in variant form. He also gives a quotation ' from the first book of Enoch concerning the watchers' (ed. Dind. i. 47) which does not occur in our present text, (b) The longer but less accurate text for i.-xxxii. (and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in duplicate) was discovered in 1886-7 at Akhmim, and published by Bouriant in 1892. Another fragment, in tachygraphic characters, exists in a Vatican Greek MS — no. 1809 (see at end of this art. ).
(2) The Ethiopic version, which is a translation from the Greek, is known in 29 MSS, of Avhich 15 are in England. The best are numbered gg^mqtu in Charles's Ethiopic text {g.v.). This text is in- ferior to that of the Syncellus Greek and is much nearer to that of the Akhmim Fragment (known generally as the ' Gizeh Greek').
(3) The Latin version is a mere fragment, cvi. 1-18, discovered in 1893 by M. R. James in the British Museum and published by him in that year in TS ii. 3.
(4) The quotations, both Greek and Latin, except for those in Syncellus, add little to the restoration of the true text. See Lawlor, art. in Journal of Philology, xxv. [1897] 164-225, and Charles's Intro- ductions under ' Influence on Patristic Literature' in his two recent editions.
6. Original language. — The original language is now admitted to be Semitic — either Hebrew or Aramaic. Chs. vi.-xxxvi. were almost certainly in Aramaic. The transliterations 4>ovKd (xviii. 8), /xav5o^apd (xxviii. 1), and ^a^S-qpci (xxix. 1), all show the Aramaic termination ; while in vi. 7 and viii. 3 the proper names are only appropriate in Aramaic. To the rest of the book (except Ixxxiii.- xc, which was possibly in Aramaic) Charles un- hesitatingly assigns a Hebrew original. In xxxvii.- Ixxi. ^c\\m\dit (OT and Semitic Stiidies, 1908, ii. 336- 343) argues for Aramaic, but is answered by Charles.
7. Poetical element. — This bulks largely in 1 Enoch, but was hrst recognized by Charles, who prints it in verse form in his two recent editions. Its recognition is of use in helping at times to restore the true order, and at times to excise dittographs.
8. Influence on NT.— (1) Diction and ideas.— (a) The Epistle of St. Jude is remarkable for con- taining, with the possible exception of 2 Ti 3^, the only two direct citations from pseudepigraphs in the" NT. And of these two citations the only one made by name is from the Book of Enoch, which is quoted as though it possessed much the same authority as a canonical book of jirophecy. It may be instructive to compare the words in Jude with the text of Enoch as restored by Charles :