ARTICLE V.

CHRISTOLOGY OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH;

With an account of the Book itself, and Critical Remarks upon it.

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Seminary at Andover.

THE time has been, when the deepest interest was felt among the Literati of Europe, in respect to the book named at the head of this communication. Hidden treasures are generally sought for with great avidity; but when brought to light, and cupidity or curiosity has been satisfied, the interest in them is very apt to subside.

During the earliest ages of the Christian church, the book of Enoch was well known, and, as it would seem, stood among many in high repute. Even a canonical writer of the New Testament, viz. Jude the author of an Epistle, appears to have quoted from it. At least this has generally been so understood, both in ancient and in modern times. That the reader may judge for himself, as to the probability of this, I will place the passage from both the writings in question before him.

Jude vs. 14, 15.

Enoch, Chap. II.

"And Enoch also, the seventh "Behold he comes with ten thoufrom Adam, prophesied of these, say-sands of his saints, to execute judging Behold the Lord cometh with ment upon them, and destroy the ten thousands of his saints, to exe- wicked, and reprove all the carnal, cute judgment upon all, and to con- for every thing which the sinful and vince all that are ungodly among ungodly have done and committed them of their ungodly deeds, which against him." they have committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The question, whether Jude has actually quoted the book of Enoch, is one, indeed, about which there has been, in modern times, some diversity of opinion. In the sequel I may resume the consideration of it, after some account of this book has been given. For the present it may suffice to remark, that the ancients, who were acquainted with the so

called Book of Enoch, seem to have been almost or quite unanimous in maintaining the affirmative of this question. The Testament of the twelve Patriarchs refers to it as ypa Ενώχ, βίβλος Ενώχ, γραφὴ νόμου Ενώχ, γραφὴ ἁγία Ενώχ (with some variation of Mss. as to the reading ayia), and λóyog 'Èvwx. Tertullian, in defending the authenticity of this writing, says: "Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet;" De Hab. Mulieb. cap. 2. Jerome, in speaking of Jude's epistle as one of the books which was rejected by some, says, that it was thus rejected, "quia de libro Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea [sc. epistolâ] assumit testimonium," Catal. Script. Ecc. c. 4; i. e. it was rejected because Jude quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch. Again, the same writer in his Comm. in Epist. ad Titum, c. I., speaking of the book of Enoch says: "De quo Judas in epistolà suâ testimonium posuit." And finally, Augustine (de Civ. Dei, XV. 23) says: "That Enoch, the seventh from Adam, wrote some divine things, we can not deny, cum hoc in epistolâ canonicâ Judas apostolus dicat." In the same work (Lib. XVIII. cap. 38) he says: "Nonne etiam in canonicâ epistolâ apostoli Judæ prophetasse prædi

catur ?"

Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Anatolius (Alexand.), and Hilary, all of whom refer to the book before us and quote from it, say nothing which goes to establish the idea, that any Christians of their day denied or doubted that a quotation was made by the apostle Jude from the book of Enoch. Several, and in fact most, of these writers do indeed call in question the canonical rank or authority of the book of Enoch; but the apologies which they make for the quotation of it by Jude, shew that the quotation itself was, as a matter of fact, generally conceded among them.

At all events, most persons who compare the two passages, as above cited, will be spontaneously inclined, at first view, to the same opinion that was embraced by the ancient fathers. The contrary of this can never be made out, perhaps, with satisfactory certainty. And while such is the case, it becomes a matter of deep interest, to know something particular about a book, on which so much honour was apparently bestowed by the apostle Jude.

After the time of Jerome, we find very little said concerning the book of Enoch, until the eighth century. Near the close of this, Georgius Syncellus, a monk of Constantinople

(fl. 790), in a work entitled Chronography from Adam to Diocletian, made large extracts from what he names the first Book of Enoch. These were first published by Joseph Scaliger, in his notes to the Chronicus Canon of Eusebius, at Paris in 1652, and at Amsterdam in 1658. The whole of these extracts are also reprinted, in a beautiful manner, in Dr. Laurence's English translation of the book of Enoch, 1st edit. 1821, 2nd edit. 1832. They may also be found in Fabricius' Codex Pseudep. Vet. Test. Vol. I. p. 179 seq. They shew, beyond all reasonable question, that the book of Enoch, which was quoted by Syncellus, was the same book for substance which now lies before us in an English version; at least, so far as the quotations proceed they shew this, while the quotations made by other ancient writers serve the purpose of proving the same thing in regard to the book of Enoch in general; as we shall see in the sequel.

The latest mention that is made of the book of Enoch, as extant and well known in former times, is that of Nicephorus, a patriarch of Constantinople (fl. Cent. IX.); who, in his List of Canonical and Uncanonical Books, inserted at the close of his Chronographic Compendium, mentions the book of Enoch as belonging to the latter class, and assigns, for the measure or extent of the book, 4800 ríxo. This would seem to correspond very well with the extent of the book as it now lies before us.

From the time of Nicephorus down to the period when Scaliger published an edition of Syncellus, nothing of consequence appears to have been either said or known respecting the book of Enoch. But the large extracts of very curious matter which Syncellus had made, and which were now published, soon awakened a lively sensation throughout. Europe, in regard to that ancient work. Scaliger himself spoke in very disparaging terms of the book, so far as it was disclosed to him by Syncellus; although he maintains that the apostle Jude has quoted it. After him, Grotius, Cave, Grabe, Walton, Simon, Pfeiffer, Witsius, Drusius, Ludolf, Hottinger, Van Dale, Buddæus, Heber, and others, wrote more or less respecting the book of Enoch; most of them saying many things which are not worth perusal now, since the discovery and publication of the book itself.

At one time in the 17th century, strong hopes were entertained, that the book had been discovered in the Ethiopic

language; for there seems, from some cause not now known, to have existed at that period an apprehension, that the book was still extant in the Ethiopic. A monk from Egypt, by name Ægidius Lochiensis, assured the famous N. C. F. Peiresc of Pisa, that he had seen the book in the Ethiopic language. Peiresc, at a great expense and with much effort, at length obtained possession of the book which had been thus described. Ludolf, the famous Ethiopic scholar, afterwards visited the Royal Library at Paris where it was deposited, in order to examine it; but he found the volume which Peiresc had so dearly obtained, to be nothing more than a worthless tract, replete with fable and superstition.

From this time all hopes of obtaining the book seem to have died away throughout Europe. Many things were said, here and there, and many conjectures indulged, respecting it; but it was generally supposed, that it must be ranked among the books irrecoverably lost.

Accident, so to speak, at last gave to Europe, what ages and generations had sought for in vain. A little more than half a century ago, James Bruce, the well known traveller in Abyssinia, published a copious account of that country, of which very little was then known in Europe. Bruce staid in Abyssinia during nearly six years, made himself in a good degree familiar with the language of the country, which is Ethiopic for substance, and brought home with him a large collection of curious and interesting objects. Among these were three copies, in Ethiopic, of the long sought for book of Enoch. It holds a place in the Canon of the Abyssinian or Ethiopic Scriptures, and is arranged immediately before the book of Job. One copy was presented by Bruce to the Royal Library at Paris; another to the Bodleian Library at Oxford; while a third was reserved for his own use.

The report from France of the reception of such a present was spread abroad, and reached England before it was known there that one of its own libraries was enriched with the like treasure. The famous antiquarian and Egyptian scholar, the late Dr. Woide, librarian of the British Musæum, immediately obtained letters, from the then Secretary of State, to the English Ambassador at the Court of Paris, requesting him to assist the zealous librarian in procuring a copy of the Paris manuscript of the book of Enoch,

SECOND SERIES, VOL. III. NO. I.

· 12

This was accomplished, and Dr. Woide brought back the copy to England; where it remained among his papers, until his death. Bruce states, that Dr. W. translated the Ethiopic MS. at Paris; but Dr. Laurence assures us that this is a mistake, inasmuch as no such translation has been found among the papers of Dr. W., all of which came into the hands of the Delegates of the University Press at Oxford. The book of Enoch was merely transcribed by Dr. W., and that somewhat imperfectly. It was not translated; nor does it appear that Dr. W. was competent to the task.

Zeal for the cause of this long sought relic of antiquity appears to have expired for a long time in England, along with the librarian of the British Musæum. In France the Book of Enoch scarcely awakened a sensation; for the horrors of the revolution and its sequel exclusively occupied the public mind there, for a long period. Recently, however, in England, Dr. Laurence, the present Archbishop of Cashell, and late Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, turned his attention, while at the University, to the study of the Ethiopic; and, as the fruits of this, he brought before the world a translation of the Book of Enoch into the English language, in 1821. A new edition of this work appeared at Oxford in 1832, somewhat corrected and enlarged.

The reader may desire to know something more of the history of the other two Mss. of the Book of Enoch, brought from Abyssinia by Mr. Bruce. The copy at Paris remained unnoticed, until the late learned De Sacy, of the Oriental School in Paris, translated a part of it into Latin, viz. chap. vi.-xvi., also chapters xxii. and xxxi., which he published in the Magazin Encyclopedique, Tom. I. p. 382, seq. Mr. Murray, the editor of the octavo edition of Bruce's Travels, has given, in a note to that edition, a brief and very imperfect summary of the contents of the Book of Enoch, made from the copy that was deposited in the library of Mr. Bruce. To Dr. Laurence belongs the honour of revealing to the world the treasure that had been hidden for so many ages, and which was almost universally supposed to be lost. irrecoverably.

Dr. L. has prefixed to his translation a Preliminary Dissertation, in which he has given a brief account of the literature of the book, and made some very acute and sensible