The Book of Enoch

xxxvii. 2, 5; xxxviii. 2; xli. 5; lxxxiii. 5; lxxxv. 2; xcix. 5. Further, he has omitted to translate the opening words of xxxvii. 1 and a clause in xci. 6. As for the interpretation of the book, it has been pressed and strained to support the critical views that Dillmann then held, but which he has long since abandoned. His critical views, indeed, have undergone many changes, but these are undoubtedly in the right direction.

In his edition of 1853, Dillmann insisted that the book proceeded from one author, with the exception of certain historical additions (vi–xvi, xci. 12–17, xciii, cvi–cvii) and certain Noachic interpolations (liv. 7–lv. 2, lx, lxv–lxix. 25; and also compare xx, lxx, lxxv. 5, lxxxii. 9–20, cviii).

In 1860, in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie (1st Ed., vol. xii, pp. 308–310), and in 1871 in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon (vol. iii, pp. 10–13), he recognized the separate authorship of xxxvii–lxxi and asserted, along with Ewald, its priority to the rest of the book.

In 1883, in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie (2nd Ed., vol. xii, pp. 350–352), he abandoned his original standpoint so far as to describe the Book of Enoch as a mere "combination of the Enoch and Noah writings," and conceded that xxxvii–lxxi are later than the rest of the book. His final analysis is as follows: (1) i–xxxvi, lxxii–cv, with the exception of certain interpolations, form the groundwork and were composed in the time of John Hyrcanus. (2) xxxvii–lxxi, together probably with xvii–xix, were written at the latest before 64 B.C. (3) The Noachic fragments vi. 3–8, viii. 1–3, ix. 7, x. 1, 11, xx, xxxix. 1, 2a, liv. 7–lv. 2, lx, lxv–lxix. 25, cvi–cvii. (4) cviii.

Yet despite every defect, Dillmann’s edition will always maintain a unique position in the Enoch literature.

SCHODDE. The Book of Enoch translated with Introduction and Notes, Andover, 1882. The introduction is interesting and the bibliography, though incomplete, is helpful, but the arrangement of the text and notes in this edition is most inconvenient. The translation is made from Dillmann’s Ethiopic text. But the work as a whole is unsatisfactory. All of Dillmann’s slips and inaccuracies, with one or two exceptions,