Those who can should read the whole book in Laurence's translation, or still better in Dillmann's. But the more accurately translated portions given in Westcott and in Stanton will give some idea of the whole. The latter have been used in this chapter. The book is manifestly the work of a man of the most earnest convictions, one who believes in God, and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical infidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. On two things he is ever insisting: (1) that God's rule extends everywhere, over angels and men, no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this rule is a moral one, for He abundantly rewards righteousness, and fearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in harmony with the spirit and purpose of St. Jude, and it ought not to perplex us that he makes use of such a book.
But in any case it may reassure us to remember that, in spite of its being quoted _in_ Scripture, the Church has never been allowed to admit it _as_ Scripture. The mind of Christendom has never wavered as to the real character of the _Book of Enoch_. It is one of the many eccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its authority; but his special pleading has misled no one else (_De Cultu Fem._ I. iii.). Justin Martyr apparently knew it (_Apol._ II. v.), but there is nothing to show that he accepted it as a genuine revelation. Origen (_Contra Cels._ V. liv.: comp. _In Numer. Homil._ xxviii. 2; _In Joannem_, tom. vi., cap. xxv.: De la Rue, ii. 384; iv. 142) distinctly marks it as uncanonical and of doubtful value; Augustine (_De Civ. Dei_, XV. xxiii. 4) and Jerome (_De Vir. Illustr._ iv.) reject it as apocryphal; and soon after their time it seems to have disappeared from Western Christendom. As already stated, it is uncertain whether St. Jude was mistaken as to the true nature of the book: it is quite certain that the Church has been preserved from being so.
NOTE.--For a collection of parallels between the _Book of Enoch_ and 2 Peter and Jude see the _New Testament Commentary for English Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott, vol. iii., pp. 518, 519 (Cassells, 1879).
[125] Purvey has "But.... And.... But...." Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer, and the Genevan Version (following the reading of A) omit the conjunction altogether in the first place. It is the Rhemish Version which first introduces "And" into the first place; yet one might have expected that it, being made direct from the Vulgate, would have been correct in this particular.
[126] Hofmann, Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Lücke, Ewald, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Volkmar, Geiger, Langen, Sieffert, Philippi, Gebhardt, Wieseler, and others, especially Hoffmann and Dillmann, who have published complete translations with notes and explanations. Dillmann's work (Leipzig, 1853) is still the standard work on the subject, but is out of print. Schodde published an English translation with notes at Andover, 1882; and the English reader will find much information in the articles by Westcott in the _Dict. of the Bible_ and by Lipsius in the _Dict. of Chr. Biography_; also in Westcott's _Introduction to the Gospels_, pp. 73, 99-109, 7th ed.; in Schürer's _The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 54-73; in Stanton's _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and T. Clark, 1886), pp. 44-64, 88-95, 139, 140, 170-75, 311-15, 332-35, 347; and in Drummond's _The Jewish Messiah_, 1877, pp. 17-73. Murray's _Enoch Restitutus_ (Rivington, 1836) does not seem to be of much value.