Book III, dealing with astronotny, has no doubt a few interpolations. The endeavor to prove that it is a compilation of four documents dovetailed into one another does not seem to be called for by the facts. If Jubilees was written in Hebrew, as is probable, this book may have been written in the same language. Like Jubi lees and Slavonic Enoch, it advocates a solar year of 364 days; it is quoted in the fortner work (iv, 17, 21) and may be dated c. 110 a.c. The author makes the longest day of the year 16 hours, which led Laurence and Murray to infer that his home was near the Caspian or the Black Sea; and Martin thinks that it may in dicate the use of a document written in the latitude of Constantinople. It isepossible that the writer reflected upon the len of the day in the region where he suppose the antedilu vians to have lived. In Book IV there are some obvious additions. The original language is supposed to be Aramaic. In the histonc vision the 70 shepherds are no longer conceived of as either native or foreign rulers, but as angels; yet it is admitted that the four periods of their domination represent the Chaldman, Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, and the great horn in xc, 9, is assumed to refer either to Judas Maccabmus or John Hyrcanus. The lat ter is more probable, and the date is likely to be c. 108 ac. Dislocations and interpolations are also found in Book V. It may have been writ ten in Hebrew in the 1st century z.c. Not much later the two appendices seem to have been penned in the same language. The first of them has been assigned by some scholars to the Noachic stratum; others have surmised for it an independent Essene origin. Recent critics have been inclined to ascribe to the 2d century B.C. the book of Noah, from which excerpts have been copied in the book of Enoch; this is doubtful, and some of the appropriated pas sages may have been interpolations in the Noah apocalypse.
The influence of Babylonian, Persian and Greek speculation, mythical and scientific, upon this literature is unmistakable, though it has occasionally been exaggerated. It reveals the growing conceptions of angels and demons, heaven and hell, the Messiah and his kingdom, the last judgment and the resurrection, in the generations immediately preceding the appear ance of Jesus. If the onginal of the Parables could be found, or the later accretions removed with a high degree of certainty, the actual ap proach to the Christology of the New Testa ment might be determined with greater assur ance than now is possible. The eschatological notions seem to have been in a fluctuating state. There is nowhere a clear allusion to a resurrec tion of the body; inunediately after death spirits pass to their destiny of joy or suffering and appear to be clothed with a spiritual body; yet a final judgment is emphasized, and at least in Book I a return to terrestrial life seems to be contemplated. The work as a whole pre sents numerous problems that cannot be solved until the Semitic original is recovered.
Slavonic Enoch.— This book was first pub lished by A. Popov in 1380 from a manuscript written in 1679 in a South Russian dialect under the title
In 1886 Sokolov found at Belgrade a Bulgarian manuscript of the 16th century reoresenting the same recension. Novakovifi published in l&S4 a Serbian manuscript of the 16th century. found at Belgrade, representing a different recension. Of the same type are a manuscript in Vienna of the 16th century, one of the 17th owned by Barsov in Moscow, and a number of frag ments, some as old as the 14th century, pub lished by Tichonravov, Pypin, and Popov. It has become customary to designate the former recension, which is longer, as A, t'he latter as B. Of A an English translation was made by Morfill (1896) ; Bonwetsch gave a Gentian ver sion of both A and B (1896) ; excerpts of A were rendered into Latin by Szekely (1913) ; and both A and B were translated into Eng lish by Forbes (1913). Charles, Bonwetsck Harnack, Schfirer and Szekely have looked upon A as a faithful translation of the Greek text and B as an abbreviated copy of the Sla vonic translation, and have therefore concluded that the author was an Alexandrian Jew writ ing his work in Greek. Charles indeed main tains that some parts may originally have been written in Hebrew, since he thinks they are quoted in the Testaments of the Twelve Patri archs, but deems it impossible to separate them from their context Unfortunately, none of the nine passages in that work in which Enoch is quoted can be regarded as having come from this book, as Schiirer has shown. But Schmidt has pointed out that practically every passage cited to prove either familiarity with the Greek version of the Bible or acquaintance with Hel lenistic thought is absent in B. He does not consider it possible that a Christian Slav, living in the 10th or llth century, could have pos sessed such a marvelous Icnowledge of the ten dencies of thought among the Alexandrian Jews, or could have had any motive for exer cising his skill in the removal of every touch of Greek influence. But if A represents an Alexandrian expansion of a Greek text still free from the peculiarities indicating a local origin, the latter may well be a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic book written in Palestine at some time between 50 B.c. and 70 A.D. Other books of Palestinian origin are equally silent concenfing the Messiah and a physical resur rection. The interest in a solar year of 364 days (xvi, 5 B) may point to a penod not very long after Eth. Enoch lxxii-lxxxii and Ju bilees; the later Greek recension A has a year of 365% days (xiv, 1; xvi, 5). A few Chris tian interpolations have been suggested, espe cially by Schilrer and Szekely. Those worthy of consideration, such as the statement concern ing the pre-eminence of the eighth, i.e., the first day (xxxiii, 1, 2), the prohibition of oaths in very nearly the words of Jesus (xlix, 1, 2) and the condemnation of sacrifices (xlv, 3), are found in the longer recension. The counsel not to requite evil (1, 4) need not be Christian. But in the ethics of the original work there is an unmistakable approach to the teachings of Jesus. Origen knew this work as a part of his Greek book of Enoch, and refers to the descriptions in xxiv, 2, and xlvii, 3. It reveals no acquaint ance with Eth. Enoch xxxvii-lxxi.