02.07.2013 Views

the-book-of-enoch-r-h-charles - Fallen Angels

the-book-of-enoch-r-h-charles - Fallen Angels

the-book-of-enoch-r-h-charles - Fallen Angels

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Introduction xxxiii<br />

Weisse, Die Evangelien-Frage, 1856^ pp. 214-224. Weisse<br />

agrees with H<strong>of</strong>mann and Philippi in maintaining a Christian<br />

authorship <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>book</strong>, but his advocacy <strong>of</strong> this view springs<br />

from <strong>the</strong> dogmatic principle that <strong>the</strong> entire idea <strong>of</strong> Christianity<br />

was in its pure originality derived from <strong>the</strong> self-consciousness<br />

<strong>of</strong> Christ.<br />

KosTLiN, ' Ueber die Entstehung des Buchs H<strong>enoch</strong>' [Theol.<br />

Jahrb., 1856, pp. 240-279, 370-386). Kostlin, as we have<br />

already remarked, contended against Ewald that <strong>the</strong> <strong>book</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />

Enoch did not arise through <strong>the</strong> editing <strong>of</strong> independent works,<br />

but that by far <strong>the</strong> larger part <strong>of</strong> Enoch was <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> one<br />

author which through subsequent accretions became <strong>the</strong> present<br />

<strong>book</strong>. Though this view must be speedily abandoned, it must be<br />

confessed that <strong>the</strong> articles in which it is advocated are masterly<br />

performances, and possess a permanent value for <strong>the</strong> student <strong>of</strong><br />

Enoch.<br />

HiLGENPELD, Bie jMiscIie Apokalyptih, 1857, pp. 91-184. This<br />

work, like that <strong>of</strong> Kostlin, is <strong>of</strong> lasting worth and indispensable in<br />

<strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> Enoch. We cannot, however, say so much for <strong>the</strong><br />

conclusions arrived at. Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se are, in fact, demonstrably<br />

wrong. According to Hilgenfeld, <strong>the</strong> groundwork consists <strong>of</strong><br />

1-16 20-36 72-105 written not later than 98 b. c. The later<br />

additions, i. e. 17-19 37-71 106-108 are <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> a Christian<br />

Gnostic about <strong>the</strong> time between Saturninus and Marcion. There<br />

are no Noachic interpolations.<br />

There is no occasion to enter on <strong>the</strong>, for <strong>the</strong> most part, barren<br />

polemic between Hilgenfeld and Volkmar on <strong>the</strong> interpretation<br />

and date <strong>of</strong> Enoch, to which we owe <strong>the</strong> following writings<br />

<strong>of</strong> Hilgenfeld : ' Die jiidische Apokalyptik und die neuesten<br />

Forschungen' (Zeitschr.f. wissenscliaftl. T/ieol., iii. 1860, pp. 319-<br />

334} :<br />

' Die Entstehungszeit des urspriingliehen Buchs H<strong>enoch</strong> '<br />

[Z. f. w. Theol., iv. 1861, pp. 212-222) : 'Noch ein Wort iiberdas<br />

Buch H<strong>enoch</strong>' {Z. f. w. Theol., v. 1862, pp. 216-221). In<br />

Z. f. w. Theol., XV. 1872, pp. 584-587, <strong>the</strong>re is a rejoinder to<br />

Gebhardt (see below).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!