(5) Internal Chronology: The Book of Noah
The fragments of the Book of Noah above alluded to present an intrusive element in the Book of Enoch. These, though fairly numerous, are not so numerous as Dr. Charles would claim. Those that show clear traces not only of being interpolations, but also of being interpolations from this Book of Noah, are found only in those portions of the Book that appear to be written by the author of Enoch 37 through 71.
In them and in the Noachian fragments there are astronomical portions, as there are also in the portion that seems to proceed from another hand, chapters 1 through 36; 72 through 91. When these are compared, the simplest account of the phenomena of the heavens is found in the non-Noachian portions, the first noted chapters 37 through 71; 92 through 107; the next in complexity is that found in the Noachian interpolations; the most complex is that contained in chapters 72 through 91.
This would seem to indicate that the earliest written portion was chapters 37 through 71; 92 through 107. Our view of the date of this middle portion of En, the Book of Similitudes, is opposed by Dr. Stanton (Jewish and Christian Messiah, 60 through 63; 241 through 44), who maintains that it is post-Christian. For this decision he rests mainly on the use of the title "Son of Man." This title, he says, as applied to the Messiah, is unknown in rabbinic literature. Rabbinic literature is all so late as to be of no value.
The Mishna has few traces of Messianic belief, and was not committed to writing till the end of the 2nd century, when the difference between church and synagogue was accentuated. He further states that it was not understood by the Jews who heard our Lord, and brings as proof
Joh_12:34, "The Son of Man must be lifted up. Who is this - the Son of Man?" Dr. Stanton (Jewish and Christian Messiah, 241) so translates the passage.
To us, the last clause is a mistranslation. The Greek usage in regard to hoútos ho would lead us to translate: "Who is this peculiar kind of Son of Man?" This is the meaning which suits the context. our Lord had not in all the preceding speech used the title "Son of Man" of Himself. This sentence really proves that the multitude regarded the title as equivalent to Messiah or Christ. It might be paraphrased, "The Christ abideth ever; how sayest thou then, the Christ must be lifted up? Who is this Christ?" In fact, our Lord's adoption of the title is unintelligible unless it were understood by His audience as a claim to being Messiah.
It had the advantage that it could not be reported to the Romans as treasonable. There are supplementary portions of Enoch which may be neglected. At first sight
Rom_10:1-3 appear to declare themselves as Noacinan, but close inspection shows this to be a misapprehension. If we take the Greek text of Syncellus, Uriel the angel sent to Noah. The Ethiopic and Gizeh Greek are at this point clearly corrupt. Then the introduction of Raphael implies that the first portion of this chapter and this Raphael section are by the same author.
But the Raphael section has to do with the binding of Azazel, a person intimately connected with the earlier history of the Jews. Should it be objected that according to the Massoretic reckoning, as according to that of the Septuagint, Noah and Enoch were not living together, it may be answered that according to the Samaritan they were for 180 years contemporaries. In chapter 68 Noah speaks of Enoch as his grandfather, and assumes him to be a contemporary of himself. Moreover, we must not expect precise accuracy from Apocalyptists.
(6) External Chronology
When the internal chronology of the book is fixed, the way is open for considering the relation of external chronology. Dr. Charles has proved that the Book of Jubilees implies the Noachian portion in the Enoch Books. There are notices of the existence of a Book of Noah (Jub
Rom_10:13). There is reference also to a Book of Enoch (Jub 21:10). Dr Charles would date the Book of Jubilees between 135 and 105 bc.
If, then, the Book of Noah was already known, and, as we have seen, the Book of Enoch was yet older, it would be impossible to date Enoch earlier than 160 bc. Personally we are not quite convinced of the correctness of Dr. Charles' reasonings as to the date of the Book of Jubilees, as will be shown at more length later. There appears to us a reference in Enoch 66:5 to the campaign of Antiochus the Great against the Parthians and the Medes. Early in his reign (220 bc) he had made an expedition to the East against the revolted provinces of Media and Persia, which he subdued.
This was followed (217 bc) by a campaign in Palestine, which at first successful, ended in the defeat of Raphia. In the year 212 bc he made a second expedition to the East, in which he invaded India, and subdued into alliance the formidable Parthian and Bactrian kingdoms. The expectation was natural that now, having gained such an access of power and reputation, Antiochus would desire to wipe out the dishonor of Raphia.
It was to be anticipated that along with the nationalities from which ordinarily the Syriac armies were recruited, the Parthians would be found, and the earlier subdued Medes. The description of the treading down of the land of the Elect is too mild for a description of the desecration wrought by Epiphanes. If we are right, we may fix on 205 bc, as the probable date of the nucleus.
The Book of the Lummaries of the Heavens which we feel inclined to attribute to the same hand as Enoch 1 through 36 contains a history of Israel that terminates with the Maccabean Struggle still proceeding. Dr. Charles would date this portion at 161 bc. Personally, we should be inclined to place it a few years earlier. He would place chapters 1 through 36 before the Maccabean Struggle. According to our thinking the genuine Noachian fragments fall between these.
The Book of Noah seems to have existed as a separate book in the time when the Book of Jubilees was written. It is dependent on Enoch, and therefore after it. The use of portions taken from it to interpolate in the Enoch Books must have taken place before the Maccabean Struggle. There are other passages that have every appearance of being interpolations, the date of which it is impossible to fix with any definiteness.
(7) Slavonic Enoch
In the year 1892 the attention of Dr. Charles was directed to the fact that a Book of Enoch was extant in Slavonic. Perusal proved it not to be a version of the book before us, but another and later pseudepigraphic book, taking, as the earlier had done, the name of Enoch. It is totally independent of the Ethiopic Enoch Book, as is seen by the most cursory consideration. It begins by giving an account of Enoch's instruction to his descendants how he had been taken up to the seventh heaven.
Another manuscript adds other three heavens. In the third (?) heaven Enoch is shown the place of the punishment of the wicked. In the description of the fourth heaven there is an account of the physical conditions of the universe, in which the year is said to be 365 1/4 days; but the course of the sun is stated as a course of 227 days; which appears to be all that is accounted for. Here the independence of the Slavonic Enoch is clear, as the Ethiopic Enoch makes the year 364 days.
There are many points of resemblance which show that the writer of the Slavonic Enoch had before him the book which has come down to us in Ethiopic, but the relationship is not by any means so close as to be called dependence. The definite numbering of the heavens into seven or ten is a proof of its later date. It is related to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and also to the Ascension of Isaiah.
We cannot quite acknowledge the cogency of the proofs that any portion of this Book has been composed in Greek: hence, we cannot agree with Dr. Charles that it was composed in Alexandria. The resemblances to Philo are too few and slight to be convincing. That some of it was originally Hebrew Dr. Charles admits. The date Dr. Charles assigns to it - 1-50 ad - seems reasonable, with this qualification, that it seems nearer the later than the earlier of these dates.
A double translation, with the certainty of some interpolations and the probability of many more, makes any decided Judgment as to date hazardous, so much has to depend on resemblances between books in cases where it is impossible to decide which is dependent on which. It is at once an interesting and a valuable addition to our knowledge of the mind of the age preceding the publication of the gospel.
(8) Secrets of Enoch
In imitation of this Book and in some sense in dependence on it was written a rabbinic Book of the Secrets of Enoch. It is attributed to Rabbi Ishmael, who was a prominent figure in the rebellion of Barcochba. Enoch is there noted as Metatron. It follows to some extent the course of the Slavonic Book of Enoch. It is this book that is referred to in the Talmud, not the more important book quoted by Jude.
Linear Mode
