their indulgence in their animal instincts, P. draws out the compari- son to the brute beasts, ‘“‘ which are born mere creatures of instinct, with a view to capture and slaughter,’”’ and then adds that the liber- tines will share their fate, since they mock at that higher world which is beyond their ken. Here there can be no doubt that P.’s language is far more obscure than that of J. Even J. is not quite clear. The true antithesis would have been “they rail at what transcends the senses, they admire what appeals to the senses and appetites”’ (and yet these are the causes of their ruin). Is it pos- sible that P., writing with an imperfect recollection of J., understood ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται to mean “‘perish among them,” 7.¢., among the brutes?
We have now to consider the very curious verse interposed be- tween J. vv. 8 and 10, P. ii. 10 and 12. Ind. it runs: ‘“ Michael, the archangel, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not venture to bring a judgment of railing, but said, ‘the Lord rebuke thee’”: in P. “ whereas angels, though greater in power and might, do not venture to bring against them a railing judgment before the Lord”. The former is a little difficult, but with the help of the Assumptio Mosis we can understand that, if the chief of the archangels abstained from using any contemptuous ex- pression against Satan, and contented himself with making his appeal to God, much more should frail and sinful mortals abstain from slighting language about the powers of the invisible world. What, however, is to be made of P? Standing by itself, it is merely a riddle, for which the answer is to be foundin J. That is to say, P. wrote with J.’s sentence in his mind, but for some reason or other chose to eliminate the points essential for its intelligibility. What was his reason? The same, I think, which led him to omit the details as to the fall of the angels, which are mainly derived from the Book of Enoch, in ii. 4, and the reference to the preaching of Enoch below. He objects, that is, to make use of these apocryphal writings, and generalises the story by dropping the proper names and by twice changing a singular into a plural (ἄγγελοι, αὐτῶν). So, too, a vague παρὰ Κυρίῳ takes the place of ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, and the vagueness is increased by the use of the indeterminate αὐτῶν and by the omission of the object of the comparative peifoves. In fact the sentence is meaningless except to one who was already ac- quainted with its parallel in J., though it may perhaps be true, as Dr. Bigg suggests, that P. felt himself justified in his generalisation by the remembrance of an obscure passage in the Book of Enoch.
I go on to J. ver. 11, ‘‘ Woe to them, for they have followed in