02.07.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

310<br />

<strong>The</strong> Book <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong>.<br />

Lods: Le Livre d'Henoch, Fragments grecs, decouverts a<br />

Akhmim, publies avec les variantes du texte ethiopien, traduits et<br />

annotes, Paris, 1892. For some unexplained reason France<br />

has not till the present made any original contribution to the<br />

study <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong>, though it has been prolific enough in works<br />

<strong>of</strong> a secondary importance on this subject. But M. Lods has<br />

broken through this evil tradition and presented us with<br />

a work <strong>of</strong> first-class importance, a work that is at once<br />

learned, scholarly, and judicious. I have been obliged, how-<br />

ever, to traverse his main conclusions on the relative values<br />

<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Ethiopic</strong> version and the Giz. Gk. text; but this<br />

is due not to the fault but the misfortune <strong>of</strong> M. Lods, as<br />

he was not acquainted with any better representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />

<strong>Ethiopic</strong> version than Dln.'s corrupt text. See further, p. 319.<br />

On some other occasion I hope to review at some length this<br />

attractive and suggestive <strong>book</strong>.<br />

CRITICAL INQUIRIES.<br />

Bissell : <strong>The</strong> Apocrypha <strong>of</strong> the Old Testament, 1880, pp.<br />

66$ } 666. In this short account <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong> the usual analysis<br />

into Groundwork, Similitudes, and Noachian fragments is<br />

accepted.<br />

Schwally : Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1893. <strong>The</strong> traditional<br />

division <strong>of</strong> the <strong>book</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong> into the Groundwork, Simili-<br />

tudes, and Noachic interpolations is here assumed, p. 136.<br />

<strong>The</strong> author, however, is very arbitrary in his interpretation <strong>of</strong><br />

the text and is <strong>of</strong>ten demonstrably wrong; and this is all<br />

the more to be regretted as his work is at once original and<br />

suggestive. <strong>The</strong> instances in which the <strong>book</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong> is<br />

used or interpreted will be found given at length on p. 300<br />

<strong>of</strong> Schwally's <strong>book</strong>.<br />

ZOckler : Die Apocryphen des Alten Testaments i 1891,<br />

pp. 426-436. Like most writers this author assumes the<br />

<strong>book</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enoch</strong> to consist <strong>of</strong> a Groundwork <strong>of</strong> chapters i-xxxvi;<br />

lxxii-cv (135-105 b. a): the Similitudes (<strong>of</strong> uncertain date)

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!