The First Prophet
ENOCH
3382 bc -3017bc
Seventh from Adam
The Son of Jared
ENOCH
ENOCH, is the name of four biblical persons. The first is the oldest son
of Cain (Gen. iv. 17); the second, the son of Jared (Gen. v. 18) this one is the Prophet; the third, the son of Midian (Gen. xxv. 4); the fourth, the oldest son of Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14).¹ Of these the second alone is of importance and interest to us, not only on account of the mysterious prominence given him in Gen. v., but especially from the fact that an inspired writer of the New Testament, Jude, in his letter ver. 14, mentions him as a Prophet, and produces a quotation from a book attributed to Enoch. The existence of such a book does not, however, rest on the authority of this statement alone; but in the early literature of the church there is a whole chain of evidences to this effect. Nearly all of the church Fathers knew of an apocryphal Book of Enoch, and their description of the work and in citations quoted from it prove satisfactorily that it was virtually the same as that which is now before us.
The archaeological findings at the Qumran Cave in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls, has confirmed, by the finding of book fragaments, the fact that the book was in use prior to and during the first century ad, meaning in the time of Christ. The work of Enoch was a given a text to be quoted by all who knew their Tankh (Old Testament).
Among the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of Barnabas refers to such a work. In chap. 4. v.3 Enoch is cited, and the character of the quotation points to chap. 80 of our book as its probable source, while in the statement of the same Epistle 16. v5, although
¹ The last two are transcribed in the authorized version Hanoch, the others Enoch.
1.
introduced with the important words: 8X(g4 (D º (D”NZ, we find almost the very words of
En. 89: 56. From that time on to about the seventh century Christian literature, to which
alone we owe the preservation of the important work, produces ample proof of the constant
use and high standing of this book. Beside the Jewish-Christian Testament. xxl Patriarch.,¹ a
production of the second century, the church Fathers² Justin Martyr,³ Clemens of
Alexandria,4 Origen,5 Irenaeus,6 Tertullian,7 Eusebius, Jerome, Hilary,8 Epiphanius,9
Augustine, and others refer to and use it. 10 The majority of these statements are indeed
simply allusions and general references; but they are of such a character that their source in
the present Book of Enoch can generally be found to a certainty, the writers in this respect
following the example of Jude, whose citation is taken from En. 1: 9, and is not a literal
reproduction. The Fathers all, with possibly the one dissenting voice of Tertullian (De Cult.
Fem. i. 3) deny the canonicity of this book, and properly regard it as apocryphal; some going
even so far as to deny the canonicity of Jude because he had dared to quote an apocryphal
work.¹¹ The precedent for this step was given in the Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 16, in strong
words. When, after the time of
¹ Cf. on 2: 1; 15: 5; 19: 2; 25: 5; 61: 10; 89: 50.
² Their references have been collected and discussed in Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol.
i. 1722, pp. 160-224, and in Philippi, Das Buch Henoch, 1868, p. 102-118.
3 Cf. on 15: 8, 9; 16: 2.
4 Cf. on 8: 3; 16: 2; 19: 3.
5 Cf. on 6: 5, 6; 19: 1, 3; 21: 1.
6 Cf. on 10: 3; 14: 7.
7 Cf. on 8: 2; 16: 2; 19: 1; 82: 3; 99: 6, 7.
8 Cf. on 6: 6.
9 Cf. on 6: 6; 16: 2.
10 Cf. the discussion of these in Hoffmann, Das Buch Henoch, 1830-38, pp. 887-916.
11 Cf. Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. 4.
2.
Augustine, the period of literary death robbed the church of many of her noblest monuments
of literature, the Book of Enoch, too, was lost, and later investigators had to be content with
the references in the Fathers, and a few extracts made by the learned monk of the eighth
century, Georgius Syncellus, in his Chronography.¹ A short time after him, in the ninth
century, the book is mentioned as an apocryphon of the New Testament by the Patriarch
Nicephorus.² The fragments preserved by Syncellus, varying indeed in minor points of
expression, are still virtually an extract from the book as we have it now. They are divided
into two parts; the first containing chap. 6: 1 to chap. 9: 4, the second chap. 8: 4 to chap. 10:
14, and chap. 15: 8 to chap. 16: 1; in addition to which there is a small part not found in the
Ethiopic. Here comes into consideration also a small fragment of the Greek Enoch found
after the discovery and publication of the Ethiopic version. We refer to the Greek text of
chap. 89: 42-49, written with tachygraphical notes, and published from a Codex Vaticanus
(Cod. Gr. 1809) in facsimile, by Angelo Mai in Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, vol. ii. These verses
were deciphered by Prof. Gildemeister, who published his results in the Zeitschrift d. Deutsch.
Morgenländ. Gesellschaft, 1855, pp. 621-624. In Jewish literature, the Book of Enoch did not
stand in such high regard as it did among Christian writers, and consequently was not so
extensively used. It was, however, neither unknown nor ignored altogether. Already in the
work so frequently cited in early Christian literature as I [T$08”Ô or º 8gJ¬ (X<gF4H, a
production of the first
¹ Published in Dillmann’s translation, pp. 82-86.
² Cf. Niceph. (ed. Dindorf), I. 787.
3.
Christian century, the references are frequent and unmistakable.¹ A comparison of the
statements of this book of the Jubilees, especially p. 17 sq. of the Ethiopic text (ed.
Dillmann), with those of Enoch forces us to the conclusion that the author of the former
book could not have written as he did without an exact knowledge of the contents of the
latter. Of the use made of the book by later Jewish writers, we have a brief account by A.
Jellinek in the Zeitschrift d. D. M. G. 1853, p. 249. The clearest example in this respect is
found in Sohar, vol. ii. Parasha (-:” p. 55 a (ed. Mant. et Amsterd.): “Comperimus in libro
Hanochi, Deum illi, postquam, sustulisset eum in sublime, et ostendisset ei omnes thesauros
superiores et inferiores, monstrasse etiam arborem vitae et arborem illam, quam interdixerat
Adamo, et vidit locum Adami in Paradiso, in quo si Adamus observasset praeceptum illud,
vixisset perpetuo et in aeternum mansisset.” In vol. i. Parasha Bereshit, p. 37 b there is a
remark that covers about the same ground, with the additional statement that the Book of
Enoch was “handed down” to him from the time when he began to associate with
superterrestrial beings.²
The existence of such a Book of Enoch, made certain from these numerous quotations,
was the source of considerable perplexity and anxiety to Christian theologians, and numerous
and curious were the conjectures concerning its authorship and character. In the
¹ Rönsch finds nineteen such references in the book of the Jubilees. Cf. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah,
p. 71.
² The Hebrew text of this quotation is found in Philippi, l. c. p. 121. According to Philippi’s statements
there are also references to Enoch in the Assumptio Mosis, a fragmentary production of the first or second
century, A.D., and in 4 Ezra and in the Sibylline Books. Cf. l. c. p. 105 sq.
4.
beginning of the seventeenth century it was confidently asserted that the book, mourned as
lost, was to be found in an Ethiopic translation in Abyssinia, and the learned Capuchin monk
Peirescius bought an Ethiopic book which was claimed to be the identical one quoted by Jude
and the Fathers. Ludolf, the great Ethiopic scholar of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, however, soon proved it to be a miserable production of a certain Abba Bahaila
Michael.¹ Better success attended the efforts of the famous English traveller James Bruce,
who discovered three copies of the book, and brought them, in 1773, with him to Europe.²
One of these found its way into the Bodleian Library, the other was presented to the Royal
Library of France, the third was kept by Bruce. Since that time other copies have been
brought from Abyssinia. Strange to say, no use was made of these important documents until
the year 1800, when Silvestre de Sacy, in his Notice sur le livre d’ Enoch, in the Magazin
Encyclopédique, an vi., tome I. p. 382, gave as specimens of the book the extracts and Latin
translation of chap. 1 and 2, chap. 5-16, and chap. 22 and 32, from which then, in 1801, a
German translation was made by Rink. There again the matter rested until 1821, when Prof.
Laurence, afterwards Archbishop of Cashel, published an English translation from the MS.
in the Bodleian, with the title: “The Book of Enoch, the Prophet: an apocryphal production,
supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in
Abyssinia; now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library. Oxford, 1821.”
The second edition of this work
¹ Cf. Ludolf, Commentarius in Hist. Aethiop., p. 347.
² Cf. Bruce, Travels, vol. ii. p. 422 sq.
appeared in 1833, the third in 1838. In the same year in which the third edition appeared,
Laurence edited the Ethiopic text as: “Libri Enoch Prophetae Versio Aethiopica.” Both text
and translation are unreliable, and must now be regarded as entirely antiquated.¹ Laurence’s
text is divided into one hundred and five chapters, which division was accepted by
investigators down to Dillmann. He very properly made the division into one hundred and
eight chapters. Prof. A. G. Hoffmann, of Jena, issued a full translation of Enoch with copious
notes, in two parts, as: Das Buch Henoch in vollständiger Uebersetzung, mit fortlaufendem
Commentar, ausführlicher Einleitung und erläuternden Excursen. For Part I., chap. 1-57, issued
1833, Hoffmann could use only Laurence’s text and translation, but for Part II., chap. 58-108,
he, in addition to these aids, consulted a MS. copy brought by Dr. Rüppell from Abyssinia
and deposited in Frankfurt am Main. In the second part many of Laurence’s mistakes are
corrected, but not all by any means. With these aids at his disposal, Gfrörer made his Latin
translation of the book in 1840, as: “Prophetae veteres Pseudepigraphi, partim ex Abyssinico
vel Hebraico sermonibus Latine versi”; but this was again unsatisfactory. The book of Rev.
Edward Murray, “Enoch Restitutus, or an Attempt,” etc., London, 1836, must be regarded
as a total failure.² All these sins were atoned for when the master-hand of A. Dillmann issued
the Ethiopic text in 1851, as: “Liber Henoch, Aethiopice, ad quinque codicum fidem editus,
cum variis lectionibus.”³ Two years later the same
¹ Cf. the severe judgment on Laurence by Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, p. lvii.
² Cf. Hoffmann, Zweiter Excurs, pp. 917-965.
³ From this edition our translation has been made.
6.
author published his accurate translation of the book, with reliable notes, as: Das Buch
Henoch, übersetzt und erklärt, a work of singular acumen and vast learning, which is the
standard translation of Enoch to this day. The publication of these two works inaugurated
a series of happy studies by Lücke, Ewald, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Langen, Gebhardt,
Tideman, and others, who have all sought to give solutions of the many difficulties presented
by this most mysterious book, but with very different results.¹
Before proceeding to the special examination and analysis of the book before us, it is
highly important that the question of the trustworthy or untrustworthy character of the
Ethiopic translation be discussed. Is the Ethiopic translation a reliable version of the Greek
Enoch? For it is evident that the translation belongs to the early period of Ethiopic literature,
when the literature in the Greek language was copied and translated by the Abyssinian
theologians, before the introduction of Arabic influence and models. Enoch is, then, like all
of the best specimens of literature in Abyssinia,— the Bible, the Book of the Jubilees, the
fourth Book of Ezra, Ascensio Isaiae, and Pastor Hermae,—translated from the Greek.
Whether the Greek is the original language of the book, or the Hebrew or Aramaic, will be
discussed later; here we have to decide on the relation existing between the Ethiopic and the
Greek, from which our Enoch is a translation. As the Greek text, with the exception of some
fragments, has been lost, this question cannot be apodictically decided, but there are means
of reaching a probable result, sufficient to
¹ The results of these investigations will be mentioned and used in the Special Introduction and in the
Notes.
7.
permit us to trust the text as we find it in the Ethiopic translation. This result can be reached
in two ways, first by analogy, by seeing whether those translations of which the original Greek
has been preserved are faithful representatives of these originals, and thus learning the
general manner in which translations were made in Ethiopia, and secondly by comparing the
fragments of Enoch that still remain with the translation. Following the first method, we
naturally begin with the comparison of the version of the Bible, translated in the early days
of Christianity among the Ethiopians, not from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint. Here
only one authority has a right to speak, the editor of the Octateuchus Aethiopicus, Prof.
Dillmann. As late as 1877, after years of diligent research on this subject, his judgment of this
translation and its relation to the Greek is as follow:¹ “With regard to the translation, it must
be said that it is a very faithful one, generally giving the Greek text verbatim, often even the
relative position of the words; it abbreviates only now and then whatever seemed superfluous,
and must, on the whole, be called a successful and happy version. Notwithstanding its entire
fidelity to the Greek text it is very readable and, especially in the historical books, smooth,
and frequently coincides with the meaning and words of the Old Testament in a surprising
manner. Of course there is a difference in this respect between the different books. The
Ethiopic translators were by no means very learned men, and had not an absolute command
of the Greek language; especially when they had to translate rare words and technical terms
this clearly appears, and consequently
¹ Cf. Herzog, Real-Encyklopädie (2d edition), vol. i. p. 204.
8.
some misunderstandings and mistakes have crept into the text through the fault of the
translators.” This version of the Old Testament is, then, on the whole, a faithful copy of the
Septuagint.
The same must be said of the translation of Pastor Hermae, although here “the sins of
omission” are much more frequent, especially in Similitudines iv., v., and vi., which are rather
an epitome of the Greek than a translation. Positive mistakes do, indeed, now and then
occur,¹ but the main deviations from the Greek are found in the omissions. These are by no
means of much importance as to contents, except possibly in Sim. v. 2, and it would be
difficult to decide who made these omissions, whether they were already found in the original
of the translator, or introduced by him, or are to be ascribed to a copyist.² A close comparison
between the Ethiopic and the Greek text proves conclusively that the former is what can be
called a good translation.
As the Greek text of the Physiologus has never been issued in a critical edition, a reliable
examination of the fidelity of the old Ethiopic translation can scarcely be made, yet the
evidences seem sufficient to justify an opinion equally as favorable as that passed on the
version of the Bible and on Pastor Hermae.³
The Greek text of the Ascensio Isaiae recently discovered, and published by Gebhardt
in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Theologie, 1878, pp. 330-353, is evidently a different
recension from the one
¹ Cf. Dillmann, in Zeitschrift d. D. M. G. xv. p. 121 sqq.
² Cf. Patres Apostol. ed. Gebhardt, Harnack et Zahn, Prolegomena to Hermas, p. xxx.
³ Cf. Hommel Die Aethiop. Uebersetzung des Physiologus, etc., 1877, p. xliii, sq.
9.
from which the Ethiopian made his translation, hence a comparison could produce but few
positive results.
From the evidences, then, that can be regarded as valid we are, from analogy, allowed
to expect that the Ethiopic translation of Enoch will, on the whole, be a faithful one,
although occasional mistakes and omissions may occur. This opinion is confirmed by an
examination of the remaining fragments of the Greek text. Comparing our text with that of
Syncellus it is at once apparent that they do not always agree. But this does not impeach the
veracity of the Ethiopic, for Syncellus furnishes his own evidence that he did not quote
literally, but in a free manner. Chap. 8: 4 to chap. 9: 4 he gives twice, and the two quotations
are far from being alike, thus showing that Syncellus, in his extracts from Enoch, as he was
accustomed to do when citing other works, does not pretend to quote literally, but simply to
give the sense. Certainly Syncellus has occasionally, as in 6: 6, the better text, but in other
places the Ethiopic wording, as the notes show, is decidedly to be preferred. This comparison,
then, in no manner injures the claim of the trustworthy character of the version before us.
Gebhardt¹ has attempted to draw capital from the Greek fragment of 89: 42-49, and on
the basis of these few verses has reached a very pessimistic conclusion on the Ethiopic text
of Enoch, especially chap. 89 and 90. But here there is really but one verse where the Greek
presents a better reading,² and this verse is of little importance, and can in no wise affect the
¹ Cf. Merx, Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T., ii. 2, p. 242 sq.
² Cf. Notes. Tideman, l.c. p. 282 sqq., reaches the same conclusion.
10.
conclusion that we have in Enoch, as translated by the early Ethiopic church, a faithful copy
of the Greek. Consequently we can proceed to the examination of the book itself with but
little hesitancy. Excerpt. Rev. George H. Schodde
The first Prophet announced not only blessing, but also judgement to come.
He saw mankind divided into two classes, the saints and the ungodly (Jude 14); he foretold the coming of the Lord with the former (saints) to execute judgement on the latter (ungodly). The conflict no only between man and Satan, but between men and God, and that its termination would be effected only by a coming to earth of the LOrd himself. In the sanctifying powerof this truth Enoch walked in Holy separation from the ungodly, and in holy fellowship with God, for three Hundred Sixty-Five Years, before his translation, since he had this tesimony that he pleased God.
“But with the righteous He will make peace,
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them.
“And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall all be prospered,
And they shall all be blessed.
“And He will help them all,
And light shall appear unto them,
And He will make peace with them” (1 Enoch i. 8).
ENOCH CHAPTER LXII.
1. And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: ‘Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.’
2. And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory,
And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him,
And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.
3. And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty,
And the exalted and those who hold the earth,
And they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory,
And righteousness is judged before him,
And no lying word is spoken before him.
4. Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail,
[And she has pain in bringing forth]
When her child enters the mouth of the womb,
And she has pain in bringing forth.
And they shall be terrified,
And they shall be downcast of countenance,
And pain shall seize them,
When they see that Son of Man Sitting on the throne of his glory