was translated into English by Dr. Laurence, then Professor of Hebrew in Oxford ; and thus the public were favoured, for the first time, with the whole book iu English, A.D. 1321. In 1833 a second, improved edition of the translation ap peared ; and, in 1838, the third edition, revised and enlarged. To the translation is prefixed a pre liminary dissertation of 59 pages, giving some account of the book, its author, the time and place of its composition, etc. etc. It has also been translated into German by Dr. Hoffman!) of Jena. According to Angelo Mai there is a MS. copy of the book of Enoch among the Ethiopic codices of the Vatican, which must have been brought into Europe earlier than Bruce's MSS. In 1334 Riip pell procured another MS. of Enoch from Abys sinia, from which Hoffmann made the second part of his German version.
In 1840 Gfrorer made and published a Latin version in his Prophetre veleres Tsendepiginphi, etc. Being taken from the English and German trans lations it has little value.
In 1838 Laurence edited the original work in Ethiopic from Bruce's MSS. In 1S51 Dittman» published it in Ethiopic from five MSS. (Liter Helicon, zEthopice, Svo) ; which was fol lowed in 1853 by a German version, with a general introduction and copious explanations (Das Buds Henoch, nebersetzt and erkleirt, Leipzig, 8vo). On this standard edition a judgment must now be formed of the original work ; not on the imper fect and faulty editions of Laurence and Hoff mann.
There is little doubt that the Ethiopic translation exhibits the identical book, which, as most believe, Jude quoted ; and which is also mentioned or cited by many of the fathers. The fragments preserved by Syncellus (reprinted by Laurence, Hoffmann, and Dillman) are obviously the same, the devia tions being of little importance. It is manifest also, to any one who will compare the quotations made by the fathers with the Ethiopic version, that both point to the same original. The extracts in question could not have been interpolations, as they are essential to the connections in which they are found.
The book was never received into the series of canonical writings. The Apostolical Constitirtions expressly style it apocryphal (vi. 16) ; while Origen (contra Celsain) affirms that it was not reckoned divine by the churches ; although in another place he hints that some of his contemporaries were of a different opinion. In the Synopsis of Scripture published with the works of Athanasius, as well as in the writings of Jerome and Augustine, its non canonicity is distinctly stated. The only ancient writer who reckoned it of divine authority was Ter tullian, who undertakes to defend it against the objections by which it was then assailed (See his treatise De Creltzt Faininaram). His arguments,
however, are puerile.
The Greek translation, in which it was known to the fathers, appears to be irrecoverably lost. There is no trace of it after the 8th century. The last remnants of it are preserved by Syncellus. The Ethiopic was made from it, not from the Hebrew.
The leading object of the writers, who were manifestly imbued with deep piety, was to comfort and strengthen their contemporaries. They lived in times of distress and persecution, when the enemies of religion oppressed the righteous. The outward circumstances of the godly were such as to excite doubts of the divine equity in their minds ; or at least to prevent it from having that hold on their faith which was necessary to sustain them in the hour of trial. In accordance with this, the writers exhibit the reward of the righteous and the punish ment of the wicked. To give greater authority to their affirmations, they put them into theonouths of Enoch and Noah. Thus they have all the weight belonging to the character of eminent pro phets and saints. The narrative of the fallen angels and their punishment, as also of the flood, exemplifies the retributive justice of Jehovah ; while the Jewish history, continued down to a late period, exhibits the final triumph of His people, notwithstanding all their vicissitudes. Doubtless the authors lived in times of trial ; and looking abroad over the desolation, sought to cheer the sufferers by the consideration that they should be recompensed in the Messianic kingdom. As for their wicked oppressors, they were to experience terrible judgments. The writers occasionally de light in uttering dire anathemas against the wicked. It is plain that the book grew out of successive times and circumstances by which they were sur rounded. It gives us a glimpse not only of the religious opinions, but also of the general features which characterized the whole period. The book belongs to the apocalyptic literature of the period between the close of the O. T. canon and the advent of Messiah. It is therefore of the same class of composition as the fourth book of Ezra, and the Jewish Sibyllines. The principal interest attaching to it arises from its contributing to our knowledge of the development of Jewish Messianic ideas subsequently to the writings of inspired pro phets. In tracing the gradual unfolding and growth of those ideas among the Jewish people, we are the better prepared for the revelation of the N. T.