Enoch in nt

Enoch, the son of Jared (Gn S""), is mentioned in three passages of the NT ; traditional exegesis has found an allusion to him in a fourth. 1. In Lk 3" he has a place among the ancestors of our Lord. 2. In He 11' it is said that ' by faith Enoch was translated.' His faith is inferred (v.') from the LXX word einjpia-niffev (Gn 5, ** ; this verb is used in translating the Heb. 'to walk with [before]' in Genesis II. cc. 6» 17' 24« 48", Ps 114», Sir 44'«, cf. Ps 2.">^ 34").

Nothing is added in He 11» to tlie record of Gen. I.e. (LXX), except the explanatory phrase toO ^tj ISeif Bdvarov. \\ ith tliis exposition in the Alexandrian Epistle to the Hebrews it is interesting to compare the allegorical interpreta- tion of PhUo de Ahr. §§ 3, 4. The name 'E^wx 's exjilained by him as meaning (lis hv 'EXXTj^-ts (Inoiev) xfxapicr/x^i'O! (i.e. -i:n is connected with i;n).

The /ifrdffeffu is explained as vph rb pfKnov /ktojSoXt) ; the ovx rfvplaiKTo as signifying either that after repentance the old evU life is blotted out as though it had never been, or that the good man (6 dffTeios) uwoxwpet Kal fxbvuciv iyair^. Though in the original Hebrew of Sir 44'* Enoch is de- scribed as "an exanijile {lit. sign) of knowledge' (ef. aiireaiy ai'roO, Wis 4"), yet in the Greek and Old Latin (Cod. Am. 'ut det gentilms pa-niten- tiam '), as in PhUo, he is repre.

sented as ' an ex- ample of repentance.' In Sir 49" {ifeX-fiiKpBri dTrA T^t yJif ; cf- Cod. Am. in 44" ' translatus est in SaraJdiso') his translation is interpreted literally, osephus {Ant. I. iii. 4) uses an ambiguous classical plira.se, ' He went unto the Deity {anexupriJey irpis tA flfioi') ; hence neither is his death recorded.' For Jewish and Christian legends about Enoch, see the references in Schiirer, HJP II. i. 342, 11. iii. 70. 3.

In Jude ' the description f/3J»^of iwA 'ASipi is taken from the Book of Enoch (60 9:)'), and a passage from that book (!'• ') is quoted as a warn- ing actually uttered by the patriarch, dealing pro- phetically {iirpoip. Kal Toi>Tois) with the false teachers of the apostolic age. The text of the passage in Enoch comes to ns in three forms, (a) The Akliintm fragment : Srt Ipxerai aily toU [.

Vf] fivpidam airrov Koi toU ayioi^ auTou noi^aat KpLjip Kara TrdfTojy, Kal dwo\^(Tei wiyras rous dtre^eU Kal 4K^y^(i (MS Xfcfft) TratTaf adpKa repl rdyrwi' tpyitiu t^s dirtfitias eiVru)' Ctv rjff^^rjaav Kal aKXrjpujv wf ^XdXrjffay X67w»' xal W(pl irdyruyy thy KaTeXd\r](rav Kar aiVroC dpJlpTwXol iaepeis. {h) Ad Novatinnum 16 (Hartel, Ci/prinn, iii. p. 67 ; Harnack, Texte u. Untersurh. xiii. 1, B-ssigns the treatise to Sixtus II. of Rome, cf. '?enson, Ctj/iruin, p. 5.i7ir.

): ' Sicut scriptum est: Ecce venit cum multis milihus nuntiorum suorum facere judicium de omnibus et perdere onines impios et arguere omnem camem de oninihus factis imiiiorum quie fecerunt impie et de omnibus verbis inipiis qua> de Deo locuti sunt pcccatores.' (c) Tile Etliiopic version (ed. Charles, p. r>'.\) : ' And lo I He comes with ton thousands of (His) holy ones to exc(^ute judgment upon them, and lie will destroy the ungodly, and will convict all llesh vru_ I.

— di of all that the sinners and ungodly have wrought and ungodly committed against Him.' It is clear that Jude* quotes loosely and abbreviates, but it will be noticed that (1) in ISou Jude agrees with Novat. Eth. against Gr. ; (2) in iXiy^ai he coincides with Novat. alone, as possibly (for the tense of to'?!«7 is ambiguous) in ffxde. On the importance of the citation in nd Novat. and its independence of Jude (contrast Westcott, Canon, p. 374), see Harnack, op. fit. p.

57, and especially Zahn, Uesch. des Nf.nt. Katwns, ii. p. 797 11'. It may be added that Jude's quotation from Enoch was regarded (a) by Tertul- lian, De Cult. Fern. i. 3, as upholding Enocli ; (j3) by some referred to by Jerome, De Vir. Illust. 4, at condemning Jude. 4. A very common Patristic opinion, found as early as Tert. Do A nima, 50 ; Hippol. De A ntichr. 43 (cf. Bonwetsch, Texte u. Untersuch. xvi. 2, p. 48), identified 'the two witne.sses ' of Rev 11 with Enoch r.

nd Elijah (see the references in Speaker's Com- \ncntary, p. 651). F. H. Chasb. ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF— I. Short Account of the Book. — In Gn 5" it is said of Enoch that he walked with God. This expres.sion was taken in later times to mean that he enjoyed superhuman privileges, by means of which he received special revelations as to the origin of evil, the relations of men and angels in the past, their future destinies, and particularly the ultimate triumph of righteousness.

It was not unnatural, therefore, that an ajiocalyptic literature began to circulate under his name in the centuries when such literature became current. In the Hook of Enoch, translated from the Etliiopic, we have large fragments of such a literature proceeding from a variety of Pharisaic writers in Palestine, and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (see next art.), translated from the Slavonic, we have additional portions of this literature.

The latter book was written for the most part by Hellenistic Jews in Efjypt. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch was written in the second and first centuries li.C. It was well known to the writers of NT, and to some extent influenced alike their thought and diction. Thus it is quoted as a genuine work of Enoch by Jude ('■''•). Phrases, and at times entire clauses, belonging to it are reproduced in NT, but without acknowle<lgiiient of their source. Barnabas {Ep. iv. 3, xvi. 5) ([uotes it as Scripture.

It was much used by the .Jewish authors of the Book of the Secrets of h. and of the Book of Jubilees ■ in tlie Testaments of the XII Patriarchs its citations are treated as Scripture, and in the later apocalypses of Barucli and 4 Ezra there are many tokens of its inlluence. Thus during the 1st cent, of the Christian era it jios.sessed, alike with Jew and Christian, the authority of adeutero- canonical book. In the 2nd cent, of our era it was rejected by the Jews, as were also many other .

Jewish Messianic writings that had been tr^ into Greek and well receiveil in the Christian Church But witli the earlier Fathers and apologists of Christianity it preserved its high position till aliout the close of the 3rd cent. Henceforth it gradually fell into discredit, and finally was banned by the chief teachers of the Church. Thus the hook cea-sed to circulate in all but the Church of Aby.ssinia, where it was rediscovered in 1773 by Bruce.

This traveller brought home two MSS of this book, and from one of these Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch in 1H'21. II. OrioiNAI. LANOUAitE. — Apocalyptic scliolare • In the text of Judo tlifre are Boino iniportiint variiuita, ilia cliicf beiiitc the«y : (1) in v.K K cur.^ tiiili. ami. rfu<i i» tuipmfn aiyinn «»I/An (cf. Vouat.); (2) 111 V.IB K O&h. fOr w. rmt irtSu> rLMul Cera ^-^x^'.

706 ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF ENOCH, (ETHIOPIC) BOOK OF are now practicallj' a^eed tliat E. was derived from a Sem. orij,'inal. The only question at issue now is : Was the orijjinal in Heb. or Aramaic ? Halevy, in the Journal Asintique, 1867, pp. 352-395, decides in favour of the former ; and, so far as our present materials i;o, this view may be regarded as valid. Some Dutch and German scholars, it is true, think that it is po.

ssible to prove an Aram, original by means of tne Aram, forms preserved in the Gizeh Greek fragment, i.e. ^ouxa in 18', fiaySo^apa in 28', and pa^Sripa in 29'. The first is undoubtedly an Aram, form of ~'3, and the two latter of "ij"!?.

But it is over-hasty to conclude from the presence of these two Aramaisms upon an Aram, original : for exactly on the same grounds we should be obliged to conclude to an Aram, original of Neh 2", where the Aram, form Alvi is found in the LXX as a, transliteration of ]•]!. In the Eth. VS also of Jos 5', 1 K 5" [En". "], and Ezk 1'* there are trans- literations of Heb. words in Aram, forms. III. Versions. — Greek, Latin, and Ethiopic. — The Heb.

original was translated into Greek, and the Greek in turn into Ethiopic and Latin. Of the Gr. VS chs. 6-9 8-10'* 15-16' have been pre- served in the Chronography of George Syncellus (c. A.D. 800) ; 89^-« in a Vatican MS published by Mai in the Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, vol. ii. ; and 1-32 in the Gizeh MS discovered only a few years ago, and published in 1892. A critical edition of this last fragment by M.

Lods appeared shortly afterwards, and in 1893 it was edited by the present writer with an exhaustive comparison of the Eth. and Gr. VSS of 1-32 as an appendix to his work on Enoch. This study led to the foUomng con- clusions : — ' The Eth. VS preserves a more ancient and trustworthy form of text than the Gizeh Greek MS ; it has fewer additions, fewer omissions, and fewer and less seriou>> corruptions of the text ' (Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 324). The other two Gr.

fra":ments will be found in the same work. The Lat. VS is wholly lost with the exception of two small fragments : of these the first is 1°, and is found in the pseudo-Cyprian treatise. Ad Novatianum (see Zahn's Gescfi. des Neutest. Kanons, ii. 797-801). The second, which embraces 106'"'*, was found by James in an 8th cent. MS in the British Museum, and published in his Apocrypha Anecdota, vol. i. A critical ed. of its text will be found in Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 372-375.

To these we miwht also add TertuUian's De Cult. Fern. i. 2, and De Idol, iv., which may point to a Latin text of 8' and 99'. The Eth. VS alone preserves the entire text, and that in a most trustworthy condition, (a) The Ethiopic MSS. — There are twenty or more of these in the different libraries of Europe. Of these about half are in the British Museum alone, which happily also possesses the most valuable of all the