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

Ixiv The Booh of Emdi
The last argument I will answer first. The reader has only to
refer to tlie list of parallels between the N.T. books and the Parables
on pp. xcv sqq. in order to learn that the Parables did influence, and
that directly, the writers of the N.T. Further, Tertullian's words,
when discussing the authenticity of 1 Enoch, cannot be adequately
explained, unless as bearing on passages in the Parables referring to
the Son of Man :
' Cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino
praedicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiiciendum est quod
pertineat ad nos. ... A ludaeis potest iam yideri propterea reiecta,
sicut et cetera fere quae Christum sonant ' {De Cultu Fern. 1^). The
Noah Apocalypse, moreover, which is interpolated in the Parables,
is referred to in Origen, Contra Celsum 5^^ (i. e. tovs dyyeAous) yei/e-
frOai KaKovi, koL Ko\d^€crOai Secr/xois vTroftX.Tj6ivTas iv yfj' o6ev Kai ras
Ofp/j.a's irrjyas €Lvai to. iKuvuiv BaKpva (1 En. 67^' ^1' ^^). This evidence
necessitates the existence of a Greek Version of the Parables.
Let us turn now to the next argument. The Ethiopic must have
been made direct from the Aramaic because of the three forms in
which the title ' Son of Man ' is given in the Ethiopic, since these,
according to Schmidt, correspond exactly to tlie three forms in
Aramaic. But here I must join issue. We have, unless I have
failed wholly in this study, seen that the evidence adduced by
Schmidt for an Aramaic original is quite inconclusive, and that on
the contrary the evidence so far points, though not conclusively, to
a Hebrew original. For this conclusion other evidence will be
adduced later. We are not, therefore, predisj)osed to accept such an
extraordinary thesis as that the Ethiopic must have been made
directly from the Aramaic. Before dealing directly with the titles
in question we might point to two facts which render this thesis not
merely improbable, but incredible. 1°. No known Ethiopic version
has been made directly from the Aramaic. 2o. The Book of Enoch,
by its artificial division into five books, like the five books of the
Pentateuch, the five books of the Psalms, the five Megilloth, the five
books in Proverbs, in Sirach, the five divisions in the Pirkc
Aboth, and the five books of the Maccabean wars by Jason of Cyrene
(see Hawkins ^ Uorae Synopticae, p. 164), was after its kind a care-
fully edited work in which the fragments of a literature were put
together with just as much fitness and insight as that of the Proverbs
or the Pirke Aboth. This fivefold division was thus a well-known
Jewish device, and, since according to the use of the book made by
the N.T. writers it existed in its completed form in the first half of
the first century A. D , if not nearly a century earlier, we cannot