The book of Enoch : translated from Professor Dillmann's Ethiopic ...

io The Book of Enoch.
Bucli Henoch {Zeitschr. D. 31. G. vi. 1852, pp. 87-91) ; Schrift-
beweis (2nd Ed.), i. 420-23 ; Die heil. Schrift N.T/s zusam-
menhdngend untersucht, vii. 2, p. 205 sqq. Hofmann regards
Enoch as the work of a Christian writer of the second century
a. d. His chief contribution to the understanding of Enoch is
his correct interpretation of the seventy shepherds in lxxxix-xc.
Dillmann. See above under editions ; also Zeitschr.
D. 31. G. y 1 861, pp. 126-131. This is a criticism of Volkmar's
theory.
Jellinek, Zeitschr. D. M. G., 1853, p. 249.
Gildemeister, Zeitschr. D. M. G. }
1855, pp. 621-624, gives
the Greek fragment of Enoch from the Codex Vaticanus
(Cod. Gr. 1809) and discusses the relative merits of the
Greek and Ethiopic versions.
Ewald, Abhandlung uber des athiopischen Bitches Henokh
Enistehung, Sinn und Zusammensetzung ', 1855; History of
Israel, v. 345-349 (transl. from the Germ.). It was the merit
of Ewald first to discern that Enoch was composed of several
originally independent books. It is, in fact, as he declares,
f the precipitate of a literature once very active which revolved
. . . round Enoch ' Hist. (v. 349). Though this view was at
once assailed by Kostlin and nearly every other critic since,
its truth can no longer be denied, and Holtzmann's declara-
tion that ( the so-called groundwork (i. e. i-xxxvii ; lxxii-cv)
is composed of a whole series of sections, some of Pharisaic
and others of Essene origin' (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1890,
p. 497), is a notable sign of the return to Ewald's view. But
though future criticism must confirm Ewald 's general judg-
ment of the book, it will just as surely reject his detailed
analysis of its parts. His scheme is
(1) Book I, xxxvii-lxxi (with the exception of certain in-
terpolations), circ. 144 b. c.
(2) Book II, i-xvi; lxxxi. 1-4 ; Ixxxiv; xci-cv, circ. 135 B.C.
Book III, xx-xxxvi; lxxii-xc ; cvi-cvii, circ. 128 b. c;
(3)
cviii later.