Ethiopic Enoch.— Whether Pico della Mi randola possessed a manuscript of this book is still uncertain. According to Fabricius, it was stated by many, on the testimony of Reuchlin, that he had purchased a copy of it for a large sum of money. In Reuchlin's treatise,
ante cabalistica> (1517), Simon does not question the possible survival of some such books as that of Enoch, but declares that he cannot af ford, like Mirandola, to buy at great expense the 70 books of Ezra. Mirandola himself speaks of his purchase and indefatigable study of these books, both in his
written in 1489, p. 178, and in
hominis dignitate,> p. 330. A description of his cabalistic codices was given by Gaffarel in 1651 (reprinted in Wolf, 'Bibliotheca hebraica,' I, 1715) ; in the first manuscript, ascribed to Recanati (13th century), there are some extracts from the He brew Enoch. This may have given rise to the rumor. But Reuchlin refers directly to the book of Enoch in (De verbo mirifico,> written in 1494 (Lyon 1552, pp. 92f). Here Sidonius lashe's the gallows-birds who place splendid titles in front of the volumes they offer, Elsely declaring that one is the book of Enoch an other the book of Solomon. It would seem, therefore, that Reuchlin had heard of a sepa rate book of Enoch being offered for sale. Since Ethiopic texts were published as 'Thal &van" by Potken already in 1513 and Reuchlin knew in 1515 that Benignus had studied the "Chaldicn letters used by Prester John, it is not altogether improbable that the book to which he referred 20 years earlier was the Ethiopic Enoch and that such a work may have drifted into Mirandola's library; but it may have been a Hebrew Enoch. There can be no question that Guillaume Postel before 1553 was shown a copy of the Ethiopic Enoch at Rome by an Abys sinian priest and had its contents explained to him, as he refers to the Noachic interpolations. Gilles de Loches, a Capuchin missionary who spent seven years in Egypt, reported to Peiresc that he had seen (c. 1630) this book in Ethiopic script and language, and gave the title correctly. Gassendi relates that Peiresc purchased an other manuscript. This was afterward found by Ludolf not to be the book of Enoch and it has not been published yet, though it contains the story of Enoch's birth. James Bruce se cured a copy of Ethiopic Enoch in Abyssinia in 1769 and brought to Europe three manu scripts. A brief account appeared in Michaelis
Already Grotius, familiar only with the Syncellus fragments, expressed the opinion that the book of Enoch originally was small, but grew gradually by expansion. Laurence (1821) pointed out some of the more obvious Noachic sections, and de Sacy (1822) suspected Chris tian interpolations. Murray (1836), who con tended for a genuine nucleus, recognized among the extensive later additions several dis tinct books and assigned a separate authorship to lxxii-lxxxii. Bruno Bauer (1841) main tained that there were several authors and es pecially that xxxvii-lxxi formed a book inserted in the larger volume. Dillmann (1853) as sumed a different authorship for cvi-cvii and cviii and a number of interpolations. Sieffert (1867) argued a distinct origin for lxxxiii-xc. Through the studies of Krieger (1845), Ewald (1854) and Hilgenfeld (1857) the marked dif ference between xxxvii-lxxi and the rest of the work became generally recognized; and through the analytic work of 0. Holtzmann (1888) and Charles (1893) wide currency was given to the view that the volume is made up of five distinct books by different authors, viz., 1, i-xxxvi ; 2, xxxvii-lxxi; 3, lxxii-lxxxii; 4, lxxxiii-xc; 5, xci-cv, and two shorter ap pendices. cvi-cvii and cviii. This division is
indeed largely suggested by sub-headings in the text itself. But within each of these books a lack of unity has also been felt by critics and it has been explained either by accretion or by compilation. It is thought that an original work has been expanded in the course of trans mission, or a compiler is supposed to have pieced it together from various sources. The earlier and more widely accepted theory is that of accretion, but in recent years several schol ars have favored a documentary theory similar to that now in vogue in Pentateuchal criticism. It is therefore proper to consider the composi tion as well as the date and original language of each book separately.
Book I unquestionably contains some dis parate elements. It is likely to have begun originally in vi, 1, since i-v seems to be a gen eral introduction to a larger volume which, however, did not as yet include xxxvii-lxxi. While xvii-xix and some other passages appear to be interpolations, the attempt to explain the seemingly identical roles of Semyaza and Aza zel by the compilation of two documents is less convincing. The idea of a Greek original has no defender to-day in the case of this or any other part of Ethiopic Enoch. Those who have made a special study of the subject are sub stantially agreed that Book I was written in Aramaic from which it was translated into Greek. As the descriptions of the fall of the angels, Enoch's mediation and his celestial journey give no clear indications of date; the relation to Book IV, which evidently is some what younger, must decide. Some scholars have thought of the period preceding the Maccabean uprising, the majority, on what would seem more adequate grounds, of the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.) .
In Book II the outlines of a ground-plan are clearly discernible; inserted excerpts from a book of Noah are equally unmistakable in liv, 7-1v, 2; 1; and lxv-lxix, 25. That the re mainder is not a Joseph's coat without seams, as it was once called, is now universally ad mitted. But while some recent critics, like Ap pel and Gry, assume a compilation of different documents, one designating the celestial guide as "the angel who went with me." another as •the angel of peace," and a third being particu larly interested in wisdom, most scholars have resorted to the theory of more or less exten sive interpolations. Some have been satisfied with indicating as such xli, 3-8; xliii ; xliv; lix; lx; lxx lxxi. Others, like Bruno Bauer, Boucher, Drummond, Pfleiderer, De Faye and Bousset, have looked upon all the passages re ferring to the Messiah as Christian interpola tions. In the case of these Schmidt thinks of successive expansions, first by Jewish, and then by Christian hands. The idea of a Christian origin of the Parables, held by Hilgenfeld, Vernes, Kuenen, Tideman, Stanton, Konig and Conlin, is no longer advocated. As to the original language there is still a decided differ ence of opinion between the two scholars who have published the results of special investiga tion upon this point; Charles thinks that it was Hebrew, Schmidt that it was Aramaic. The former assumes that the Ethiopic was made from a Greek version, in which the New Testa ment term for the "Son of Man" was uni formly used, by an Aramaic-speaking Jew who rendered it in three different ways, correspond ing to three Aramaic expressions. The latter thinks that the absence of even the slightest sign of acquaintance with this particular book in patristic literature throws doubt upon the existence of a Greek version, and in any case deems it probable that the translation was made by an Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christian who used two other terms besides the one uniformly employed in the New Testament, because he found three expressions for of man' in the Aramaic original before him. In regard to the date, the most widely accepted view at the present time is that this book was written not long before 63 B.C. kings and the mighty,' who are often mentioned as persecutors, are supposed to be Alexander Jammu and the Sadducees. It is difficult however, to see how they could be charged with putting their gaith in the gods they have made with their own hands" (xlvi, 7) ; and many scholars have con sidered it more natural to understand the phrase as referring to pagan rulers. If Roman emperors and governors are meant, the time of Gaius Caligula (37-41 A.D.) is more likely than that of Herod the Great. A Jewish expansion in the time of Domitian is not improbable; and it is significant that those ideas and expressions which have their closest counterparts in the Gospels and present the Messiah in a more transcendent character than is found anywhere in Jewish literature, fit very loosely in the con text and are connected with a title which even in the Gospels appears to be a translation, not of a Greek, but of a Christian Aramaic original.