quidem deciderunt in terram in judicium” (En. xiv. 7). Tertullian quotes it as Scripture, calling Enoch the oldest of the prophets (Idol. xv., A pol. xxii.). He allows that its canonicity was denied by some, “ quia necin armarium Judaicum admittitur,’ and also because it was thought that, if it were a genuine writing of Enoch, it must have perished in the Deluge. He considers, however, that it should be received, be- cause of its witness to Christ, and because it has the testimony of the Apostle Jude. It is twice quoted in Clement’s Ecl. Proph, (Dind. iii. pp. 456, 474) as well as in Strom. iii. 9. Origen speaks doubtfully of the authority of Enoch: cf. C. Celsum, v. 54, ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ Φέρεται ds θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ ᾿Ενὼχ βιβλία, and In Fohannem, vi. 25, ὡς ἐν τῷ ᾿Ενὼχ γέγραπται, εἴ τῷ Φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον, also In Num. Hom, xxviii. 2, De Princ.i. 3.3. Hilary (Comm. in Psalm. cxxxii. 3) writes: “Fertur id, de quo etiam nescio cuius liber extat, quod angeli concupiscentes filias hominum, cum de caelo descenderent, in montem Hermon convenerant”’. Jerome says that the doubts entertained as to the epistle of St. Jude arose from his quoting an apocryphal book asan authority (De Vir. Ill. iv), “quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonia, a plerisque reicitur”. Cf. also Comm. in Ps. cxxxii.3 and Comm. in Titum, 1. 12. Augustine (Civ. Dez, xv 23. 4) and Chrysostom (Hom. in Gen. vi. 1) speak of the story of the angels and the daughters of men asa baseless fable. Still more severe is the condemnation passed on the book of Enoch with other apocryphal writings in Const. Apost. vi. 16. 2, as φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά.
Mr. Charles has also edited the Assumption of Moses (1897), which he regards as a composite work made up of two distinct books, the Testament and the Assumption of Moses.! “The former was written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 Α.Ρ., and possibly also the latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first cen- tury A.D. Of this only a few fragments have been preserved. The Greek version was translated into Latin not later than the fifth cen- tury” (pp. xiii., xiv.). ‘The book preserved in the incomplete Latin version, first published by Ceriani in 1861, is in reality a Testament and not an Assumption.” ‘The editing of the two books in one was probably done in the first century, as St. Jude draws upon both in his epistle’ (pp. xlvii and 1.). Thus Jude ver. 9” is derived from the
Cf. Schiirer, pp. 73-83.
2 See note on this, and add to the illustrative passages there quoted a scholium printed for the first time in James’ Test. of Abraham, p. 18: 6 διάβολος ἀντεῖχεν θέλων ἀπατῆσαι, λέγων ὅτι “Epsv ἐστιν τὸ capa, ὡς τῆς ὕλης δεσπόζων ' καὶ ἤκουσεν τὸ ᾿Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος, τούτεστιν 6 Κύριος ὁ πάντων τῶν πνευμάτων