VIII. Style. — It is obvious that the author was a poet of no mean order. His inspiration was high, his ideas elevated and pure. He had a creative fanc}' which could body forth new forms and shapes. Speak- ing out of the midst of his own time, he could throw himself back into tlie past, and mould it suital ly to his purpose. His language, too, has the living fresh- ness of a master. He was well acquainted with the book of Daniel, as is obvious fi'om the sjjirit of his pro- duction. Not that he was an imitator of that book — far from it ; his mind was too powerful and independ- ent. It is characteristic of him that he calls Jehovah Lord of Spirits, that he specifies as the seven spiritual beings th'.it stand before God the four highest angels, Michael, Kaphael, Gabriel, Phanuel ; and the three highest hosts, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Oplianim ; that he speaks of the Elect by way of eminence, the Son of Man, i. e. the Messiah. The charm of the ■writer's descriptions is irresistilde, transporting the reader into the highest regions of the spiritual world. With a genuine glow^ of feeling, and the elevation of purest hope, he carries us away, till we are lost in wonder at the poetic inspiration of one living at a pe- riod comparatively so late. His work must have cre- ated a new branch of writing at the time, leading to numerous imitations.
IX. Authorship. — The general unity whicli the book possesses in its present form marks it, in the main, as the work of one man. The several parts, w'hile thej' are complete in themselves, are still connected bj' the development of a common purpose. IJut internal co- incidence sliows with equal clearness tliat different fragments were incorporated by tlie author into his work, and some additions have been probably made afterwards. Different " books" arc mentioned in earlj' times, and variations in style and language arc dis- cernilile in the present book. To distinguish the orig- inal elements and later interpolations is the great prob- lem which still remains to be solved, for the different theories which have been proposed arc barely plausi- ble. In each case the critic seems to start with pre- conceived notions as to wTiat was to lie expected at a particular time, and forms his conclusions to suit his prejudices. Hoffmann and Weisse place the composi-
tion of the whole work after the Christian sera, because the one thinks that Jude could not have quoted an apocryphal Iiook (Hoffmann, Schriftheivds, i, 420 sq.), and the other seeks to detach Christianity altogether from a Jewish foundation (Weisse, Evangelienfrage , p, 214 sq.). Stuart {Am. Bihl. Repos. 1840) so far antic- ipated the argument of Weisse as to regard the Chris- tology of the liook as a clear sign of its post-Christian origin. Ewald, according to his usual custom, picks out the different elements with a daring confidence, and leaves a result so complicated that no one can ac- cept it in its details, while it is characterized in its great features b^' masterly judgment and sagacitj% He places the composition of the groundwork of the book at various intervals between B.C. 144 and B.C. cir. 120, and supposes that the whole assumed its pres- ent form in the first half of the centurj' before Christ. Liicke (2d ed.) distinguishes two great parts, an older part including chaps. i~xxxvi, and Ixxii-cv, which he dates from the beginning of the Maccabiean struggle, and a later, chaps, xxxvii-lxxi, which he assigns to the period of the rise of Herod the Great (B.C. 141, etc.). He supposes, however, that later interpolations were made without attempting to ascertain their date. Dillmann at first (id sup.') upheld more decidedly the unity of the book, and assigned the chief part of it to an Aramaean writer of the time of John Ilyrcanus (B.C. cir. 110). To this, according to him, "histori- cal" and "Noachian additions" were made, probably in the Greek translation {Einl. lii). Latterly, how- ever (in Herzog's Encyhlop. xii, 309), he has greatly modified this opinion. Kostlin (in Zeller's Jahrh. 1856, p. 240 sq., 370 sq.) assigns chaps, i-xvi, xxi-xxxvi, Ixxii-cv to about B.C. 110; chaps, xxxvii-lxxi to B.C. cir. 100-G4; and the "Noachian additions" and chap, cviii to the time of Herod the Great. Hilgen- feld himself places the original book (chaps, i-xvi, xx-xxxvi, Ixxii-xc, xci, 1-19 ; xciii, cv) about the be- ginning of the first centur}' before Christ {vt sup. p. 145 «.). This book he supposes to'have passed through the hands of a Christian writer who lived between the times "of Saturninus and jNlarcion" (p. 181), who add- ed the chief remaining portions, including the great IMessianic section, chaps, xxxvii, Ixxi. In the face of these conflicting theories it is evidently impossible to dogmatize, and the evidence is insufficient for con- clusive reasoning. The interpretation of the Apoca- lyptic histories (chaps. Ivi, Ivii, Ixxxv-xc), on which tlie chief stress is laid for fixing the date of the book, involves necessarih- minute criticism of details, which, belongs rather to a commentary than to a general In- troduction ; but, notwithstanding the arguments of Hilgenfeld and Jost {Gesch. Jvd. ii, 218 k.), the whole book appears to be distinctly of Jewish origin. Some inconsideralile interpolations may have been made in successive translations, and large fragments of a much earlier date were undoubtedly incorporated into the work, but, as a whole, it may be regarded as describing an important phase of Jewish opinion shortly before the coming of Christ. That the entire production ap- peared before the Clu'istian tera is clear!}' deducible from the fact that tlie Eoman empire never appears as a power dangerous to Israel. Yolkmar, however, con- tends (in the Zeilschr. chr morg. Gesellsch. 18G0, p. 87 sq.) that it was written by a disciple of Akilia to en- courage the Jewisli revolt under Bar-Cocheba ; a view which is ably controverted by Hilgenfeld (lb. p. Ill sq.).