wards the west by a path which was seen by them, and that at every period of their appearance."

One specimen from the "Book of the Revolutions of the Luminaries of Heaven." Six gates Enoch sees in the east, and six in the west, through which the sun, moon, and stars, rise and set. He then proceeds to give an account of the

sun:

Chap. LXXI. 6. seq. "First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the Sun; the orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with splendid and flaming fire. As to its chariot, where it ascends the wind blows. The sun sets in heaven, and returning by the north, [the reader will mark this conception], to proceed towards the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of heaven. In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by a great gate. It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at the rising of the sun. And in the fourth gate, through which the sun with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it. There are twelve open windows, from which issues out a flame, when they are opened at their proper periods. When the sun rises in heaven goes forth through this fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven, on a level with it descends. During that period, the day is lengthened from the day, and the night curtailed from the night, thirty days. And then the day is longer by two parts than the night. . . . The sun now returns to the east, entering into the sixth gate, and rising and setting in the sixth gate 31 days, on account of its signs. At that period the day is longer than the night, being twice as long as the night... becoming twelve parts, and the night six parts."

it

The reflecting reader will see at once, by the tenor of this last passage, that the author must have lived in, or been acquainted with, regions of latitude much higher than Palestine; for what he says can apply only to the regions between 45 and 49 degrees of latitude. An oriental Jew, living high up in ancient Media, where many of the ten tribes were carried in their exile, (2 K. 17:6), might easily become acquainted with this relative length of the day and night in the Caucasian regions above him, i. e. on the north of the Euxine and Caspian Seas. But it is not easy_to_suppose, that facts of this nature were familiarly known in Palestine. The Scriptures never advert to them.

Thus have I endeavored to make my readers in some measure acquainted with the nature and manner of the work before me. It is time now to turn our attention to other objects.

The Christology of the Book of Enoch is one of the most prominent and interesting features of the work. Of course it must be so to all, who wish to know, from other sources than the Bible, what were the early opinions of the Jews and Christians respecting the Messiah. We have been often told, and by authors of distinguished reputation in the learned world, that the common views of Christians respecting the exalted character and nature of the Messiah, are all the result of speculation subsequent, by many scores of years, to the rise of Christianity and to the composition of the New Testament. It has been averred often and loudly, that the Jews of our Saviour's time never had the least expectation of an "incarnate God," as their Messiah, and that the scoffing and infidelity of the Jews, at a later period, arose from the circumstance that Christians set up extravagant claims in behalf of their supposed Redeemer. Many books and treatises have been written to establish these positions; and the proof to which resort has been had, in most or all of them, has been, what is said in the Talmud and in the Rabbinical writings, (long subsequent to the origin of Christianity), in regard to this subject.

What I at present propose is quite a different sort of appeal, and one of much higher authority. How could the Rabbins of the Talmud and other Jewish productions, brought up to utter maledictions against the Saviour, do less than give degrading views of him in opposition to the high claims of Christians, claims even to a nature truly divine? Is it reasonable to expect any thing less, than that the rancorous disputants among them would disclaim the idea that a Messianic glory is predicted in the Old Testament, of such a nature and character as that in which Christians believed, and which they endeavored to establish and defend?

We have before us, however, a book of an earlier date than the usual works of the Rabbins. On the supposition that the apostle Jude has quoted it, (which is, and has been, the general opinion of critics), then the Book of Enoch is older than some parts of the New Testament, to say the least. HOW MUCH OLDER- -is a question, on which something must now be said, in order to prepare the way for an account of its CHRISTOLOGY. It is the more necessary to discuss this subject, because I am dissatisfied with Dr. Laurence's conclusion respecting the age of the book before us.

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. I.

15

In his Preliminary Dissertation (p. xxiii. seq.) he has discussed this question in a very ingenious and able manner; as he is wont to do most questions which he undertakes to discuss. His general argument to show the terminos intra quos it must have been written, is plain to every attentive reader of the book, and has a fair claim to be deemed conclusive. It is briefly this: As Jude, in his epistle, quotes from the book, so it must have been written previous to that period, (which was probably in the last quarter of the first century.) And inasmuch as the writer has every where borrowed not only words and phrases from the book of Daniel, but made this book a kind of model, and copied after its tenor, as well as adopted its imagery and machinery; so the Book of Enoch must have been written subsequent to the Book of Daniel.

This is plain and satisfactory; and it is abundantly confirmed, as we shall soon see, by the contents of the book itself.

In chap. lxxxiv-lxxxix. is an allegorical narrative of the leading events belonging to the history of the Jews. This history is carried on to the number of seventy kings or princes who had dominion over them. These are divided into three different classes; viz. (1) Thirty-five. (2) Twenty-three. (3) Twelve. The first class are evidently the kings of Judah and Israel, mentioned in sacred writ, viz. 20 of Judah, and 17 of Israel. Dr. Laurence supposes, that we must read thirty-five instead of thirty-seven; and makes out his catalogue accordingly, omitting some few kings whose reign was too short to deserve notice, such as Jehoahaz, Zimri, Tibni, Zechariah (son of Jeroboam), and Shallum. But I take seventy here, as Lücke and Hoffmann do, to be merely a round symbolical number, and therefore do not feel the need of such a minute correction of the text in the Book of Enoch.

It is unnecessary to specify by name the thirty-seven kings of Israel and Judah, inasmuch as they are all recorded in the Scriptures. But the second class of Shepherds, (as the Book of Enoch names them,) evidently comprehend the foreign kings who had dominion over the Jews. Of these twentythree are reckoned; viz. four Babylonian monarchs, Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, Neriglissar, and Belshazzar; eleven Persian, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius

Hystaspes, Xerxes, Artaxerxes Longimanus, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, Arogus or Arses, and Darius; eight of Macedonian or Grecian origin, Alexander, Ptolemy Soter, Ptolemy Philadelphus, Ptolemy Euergetes, Ptolemy Philopator, Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, and Antiochus Epiphanes. From the hands of the last named king, the government of Judea was wrested by Judas Maccabæus and his associates.

The third and last class consists of twelve only, which comprehends the closing list of princes belonging to the Jewish nation. These Dr Laurence reckons, by commencing with Mattathias, the father of Judas Maccabæus, and then reckoning after him Judas Maccabæus, Jonathan, Simon, John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I., Alexander Jannæus, Alexandra his widow, Aristobulus II., Hyrcanus, Antigonus, and Herod. Thus he supposes, as it was natural to do with these views, the author of the book before us to have lived in the reign of Herod, which extended to 34 years, because the catalogue of kings ends with him. A fair conclusion, no doubt, at least one altogether probable, provided Dr. L. begins his last reckoning at the proper place.

But I have doubts of this; first, from the history of the Hasmonean or Maccabæan family; and secondly, from other passages in the book of Enoch, which seem to indicate a later origin of the work than the time of Herod; as we shall see in the sequel.

Confining myself to the first point for the present, I remark, that the Jewish history does not shew that any of the Hasmonean family were properly kings, until Simon (143 B. C.) obtained from the Syrian King, Demetrius, a royal edict declaring the Jews to be a free and independent people, and relinquishing all claims for tribute, custom, and taxes. This had not been done before. Soon after this, by a general assembly of the Jews at Jerusalem the office of High Priest and Regent was confirmed to Simon, and made hereditary in his family. Beginning here, then, as the most natural place of reckoning, (for the previous leaders of the Jews, had been such only by virtue of the exigences of revolution, and not by any formal choice,) we must go on, in order to make out twelve, and include Archelaus (A. D. 2), and Agrippa (A. D. 38.) Besides these two, we must, as justice properly requires, reckon in Alexander, who came

after Aristobulus II.; for he not only contended many years to obtain the sovereignty of Judea, but he had the whole country, at two different times, in his power and under his sway. The number 12 is thus made out, by this mode of reckoning; and as to Agrippa, he was the last Jewish king, who had possession of the country of Palestine.

Dr. Laurence objects, that if we go beyond the reign of Herod, we must make out 15 princes instead of 12, even if we begin to reckon with Judas Maccabæus. But to make out this, he includes all three of Herod's Sons, viz. Archelaus, Philip, and Herod Antipas; whereas the two latter had no dominion over Judea. It seems to me, therefore, not only that his mode of reckoning is unnecessary, but that it is far from being the most probable. Still, which ever method of reckoning is adopted, it brings the composition of the book of Enoch within quite restricted limits. It must have been written subsequent to the commencement of Herod's reign, and before the epistle of Jude was written.

There is one thing said in the book of Enoch (chap. 89: 25), respecting the last twelve shepherds, i. e. kings, which has not a little perplexed the commentators on this production, viz. that "the last twelve... destroyed more than those who preceded them," that is, more than the other 58 kings. How can this be said, with any probability of the Hasmonæan race of kings, or even of some of their successors?

Of Mattathias, Judas Maccabæus, and Jonathan his brother and successor, all of them successful vindicators of Jewish liberty, this is obviously untrue; and therefore Dr. L.'s mode of reckoning which includes these leaders, becomes the more improbable. But, commencing with Alexander Jannæus (B. C. 104), we find almost every sovereign, from that time downward, involved in bitter and bloody domestic wars, either against rivals or against factions in the state. I can scarcely doubt, that the writer of the book of Enoch had Herod most of all in his eye, when he penned the above general characteristic of the last dynasty of kings. The Jews as a body had a strong hatred of this tyrannical and bloody prince.

The writer, moreover, seems to have had a very low opinion of kings in general; for in chap. 89: 33, he represents the whole of the seventy shepherds or kings as brought