_THE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO CAIN:
THE LIBERTINES AT THE LOVE-FEASTS.
THE BOOK OF ENOCH._
"These are they who are [hidden] rocks in your Love-feasts when they
feast with you, [shepherds] that without fear feed themselves, clouds
without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit,
twice dead, plucked up by the roots; wild waves of the sea, foaming
out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of
darkness hath been reserved for ever.
"_But_ to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied,
saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of His holy ones, to
execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all
their works of ungodliness which they have ungodly wrought, and of
all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against
Him."--ST. JUDE 12-15.
St. Jude leaves off comparing the libertines with other sinners--Cain
and the Sodomites, Balaam and the impure angels, Korah and the
unbelieving Israelites--and begins an independent description of them.
Nevertheless, there is reason for believing that he has Cain, Balaam,
and Korah in his mind in framing this new account of them. The
description falls into three parts, of which this is the first. Each
of the three parts begins in the same way: "These are" (οὗτοί
εἰσιν). And each is balanced by something said on the other side,
which is introduced with a "But" (δέ). In the case before us the
"But" introduces a warning given prophetically to these libertines by
Enoch (vv. 14, 15). In the second case St. Jude quotes a warning given
prophetically to his readers by the Apostles (vv. 17, 18). In the
third he exhorts his readers himself (vv. 20-23). This threefold
division has been rather generally ignored. It is quite obliterated in
the Revised Version by the division of the paragraphs, and also by the
substitution of an "And" for the first "But:" "_And_ to these also
Enoch prophesied." The Vulgate is right with _autem_ in all three
places, followed by Wiclif with "Forsothe" in all three places. Luther
is not only right in his rendering of the conjunction with _aber_ in
all three places, but also in his division of the paragraphs. But
since Wiclif all English versions have obscured this threefold
description of the ungodly with the three corresponding warnings or
exhortations.[125]
"These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they
feast with you." The difference between this and the parallel passage
in 2 Peter is of special interest here; for it looks as if whichever
writer used the work of the other remembered the sound rather than the
sense. We have here ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ... σπιλάδες; but in 2 Peter
ii. 13 σπίλοι ... ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις (with ἀγάπαις as a various reading,
probably taken from this passage). It is possible that there may be no
difference of meaning between σπιλάδες and σπίλοι. The former, which
is St. Jude's word, almost invariably means "rocks," but in an Orphic
poem of the fourth century means "spots." The latter, which is used in
2 Peter ii. 13 and Eph. v. 27, generally means "spots," but sometimes
means "rocks." So that "spots" may be the right rendering in both
Epistles, and "rocks" may be right in both. More probably, however, we
should understand "spots" in 2 Peter, and "rocks" here. The Revised
Version inserts "hidden" as an epithet--"_hidden_ rocks in your
love-feasts"--which is hardly justifiable, because the word seems to
mean reefs over which the sea dashes, as distinct from rocks which are
wholly covered (so in the _Anthologia Palatina_, ii. 390; and in a
fragment of Sophocles the word has the epithet "lofty," ἐφ' ὑψηλαῖς
σπιλάδεσσι, and "lofty hidden rocks" would be almost a contradiction
in terms). Moreover, "hidden" does not seem to be right even as an
interpretation; for these profligates were not at all hidden; they
were utterly notorious and scandalous. They made no secret of their
misconduct, but gloried in it and defended it. Yet this fact does not
make the name "rocks," or "reefs," inappropriate. A reef may be a very
dangerous thing, although it is always visible. It may be impossible
to avoid going near it; and proximity to such things is always
perilous. So also with these ungodly men: St. Jude's readers could not
wholly avoid them, either in society or in the public services of the
Church, but their presence disturbed and polluted both. The whole
purpose of the love-feasts was wrecked by these men. Like Cain, they
turned the ordinances of religion into selfishness and sin.
We cannot doubt that when St. Jude wrote the eucharist was still part
of the agape or love-feast, as when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians
(A.D. 57, 58). It was still "the Lord's _Supper_" not merely in name,
but in fact (1 Cor. xi. 17-34; Acts xx. 7-11). It is almost certain
that when Ignatius wrote his Epistles (_c._ A.D. 112) the eucharist
was still united with the love-feast. He writes to the Church of
Smyrna, "It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to
hold a love-feast" (viii.). This must refer to the two sacraments, the
administration of which are the chief functions of the priestly
office. Ignatius cannot have meant that a love-feast apart from the
eucharist might not be held without the bishop. When Justin Martyr
wrote his First Apology (_c._ A.D. 140) it is evident that the two had
been separated; his description of the eucharist (lxv.-lxvii.) implies
that no love-feast accompanied it (see Lightfoot, _St. Ignatius and
St. Polycarp_, I., pp. 52, 387; II., p. 312: Macmillan, 1885). We may
regard it, therefore, as certain that even if this Epistle be placed
late in the first century, St. Jude is here referring to a state of
things very similar to that which St. Paul rebukes in the Church of
Corinth; the love-feast accompanied by the eucharist was profaned by
the shameless indulgence of these libertines.
The love-feast symbolized the brotherhood of Christians. It was a
simple meal, in which all met as equals, and the rich supplied the
necessities of the poor. Anything like excess was peculiarly out of
place, and it was the duty of the rich to see that the poorer members
of the congregation were satisfied. But it would seem as if these
profligates (1) brought with them luxurious food, thus destroying the
Christian simplicity of the meal; and (2) brought this, not for the
benefit of all, but for their own private enjoyment, thus destroying
the idea of Christian brotherhood and equality. There is nothing in
the word used for "feasting with you" (συνευωχούμενοι) which
necessarily implies revelry or excess, but in this connexion it
implies censure. To turn the love-feast into a banquet was wrong,
however innocent a banquet might be in itself. We might translate the
word "when they feast _together_," instead of "when they feast _with
you_;" and this would imply that at the love-feast they kept to
themselves, and did not mix with their poorer brethren. This makes
good sense; but if this translation is adopted, we must beware of
interpreting it to mean that these libertines had become schismatics,
and had set up a love-feast of their own. They could not be "rocks in
your love-feasts" if they did not attend the love-feasts.
There are two other uncertainties in these opening clauses--one of
construction, and one of translation. (1) Ought we to take "without
fear" with what precedes, or with what follows--"when they feast with
you without fear," or "that feed themselves without fear"? As in ver.
7, with regard to "of eternal fire," we are unable to decide with
certainty. Both constructions make excellent sense, and nothing can be
urged as being strongly in favour of either. English versions are
divided. The Rhemish has "feasting together without fear." Purvey, the
Authorized, and the Revised take "without fear" with "feeding
themselves." Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan aim at being as
ambiguous as the Greek; they place "with out feare" between the two
clauses with a comma on each side of it. (2) Does "feeding themselves"
mean that they fed themselves _instead of feeding the flock_? (Ezek.
xxxiv. 2, 8; Isa. lvi. 11). If so, the Revisers give the right
interpretation with "shepherds that without fear feed themselves;" but
this is interpretation rather than translation. Or does it mean that
they fed themselves, _instead of waiting to be fed by the shepherds_?
If so, it is quite misleading to call them shepherds. As we have seen
already (p. 390), there is no reason for thinking that these
profligates set up as teachers or pastors. We shall be safer if we
render the Greek participle (ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες) by a participle:
"pasturing themselves," or "shepherding themselves." Lucifer, as Dr.
Salmon points out, renders it _semetipsos regentes_, which shows that
he understood it in the latter sense. Yet this second view does not
imply anything schismatical in their conduct, but merely that they
were selfish and disorderly. They kept their own good food, and
consumed it among themselves at the love-feast, instead of throwing it
into the common store, and allowing it to be distributed to all by the
elders. With full recognition of the fact that there is much to be
said for other views, the following rendering may be accepted as on
the whole preferable: "These are they who are rocks in your
love-feasts, feasting together without fear, pasturing their own
selves."
In what follows St. Jude piles metaphor on metaphor and epithet on
epithet, in the effort to express his indignation and abhorrence. But
we cannot say that "no doubt also in the comparisons which he employs
he has an eye to the original intention of the love-feast." It is
somewhat forced to say that the love-feast "was to have the blessing
of the rain from heaven; it was meant to be a cause of much fruit in
the whole Christian community." But assuming that "waterless clouds"
and "fruitless trees" may be made to refer to the love-feasts, what
are we to make of "wild waves" and "wandering stars" in that
connexion? It is better to regard the subject of the love-feasts as
ended, and to take the similes which follow as quite independent.
These men are ostentatious, but they do no good. It was perhaps
expected that their admission to the Church would be a great gain to
Christendom; but they are as disappointing as clouds that are carried
_past_ (παραφερόμεναι) by winds without giving any rain; and in the
East that is one of the most grievous among common disappointments.
How the framers of the Authorized Version came to perpetrate such a
contradiction in terms as "trees whose fruit withereth, without
fruit," it is not easy to see. No earlier English version is guilty of
it; nor the Vulgate (_arbores autumnales, infructuosæ_); nor Beza,
with whom Calvin agrees (_arbores emarcidæ, infrugiferæ_); nor Luther
(_kahle unfruchtbare Bäume_). The Greek (δένδρα φθινοπωρινά) means
literally "autumn-withering trees;" _i.e._ just at the time when fruit
is expected they wither and are without fruit. The parable of the
barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9) is perhaps in St. Jude's mind. The
epithets form a natural climax--withering in autumn, fruitless, twice
dead, rooted up. These profligates were twice dead, because they had
returned after baptism to the death of sin: the end of such men is
that they shall be rooted out at the last (Ps. xxx. 28; lii. 5; Prov.
ii. 22). When he calls them "wild waves of the sea, foaming out their
own shames," St. Jude is perhaps thinking of the words of Isaiah: "The
wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters
cast up mire and dirt" (lvii. 20). But the wording of the Septuagint
is utterly different from that which we have here; it is the thought
that is similar.
What are we to understand by "wandering stars"? Not planets, nor
comets, neither of which either _seem_ to wander while one looks at
them, or _do_ wander, in St. Jude's sense, as a matter of fact. Both
have their orbits, to which they keep with such regularity that their
movements can be accurately predicted; so that they are symbols rather
of Christian lives than of the course of the ungodly. Much more
probably St. Jude means "falling stars," or "shooting stars," which
seem to leave their place in the heavens, where they are beautiful and
useful, and to wander away into the darkness, to the confusion and
dismay of those who observe them. Thus understood, the simile forms a
natural transition to the prophecy of Enoch which follows. St. Jude's
thoughts have once more gone back to the fallen angels in the _Book of
Enoch_. Angels, like stars, have a path to keep, and those who keep it
not are punished. "I saw the winds which cause the orb of the sun and
of all the stars to set.... I saw the path of the angels.... I
perceived a place which had neither the firmament of heaven above it,
nor the solid ground underneath it; neither was there water above it,
nor anything on wing; but the spot was desolate. And there I saw seven
stars, like great blazing mountains, and like spirits entreating me.
Then the angel [Enoch's guide] said, This place, until the
consummation of heaven and earth, will be the prison of the stars and
the host of heaven. The stars which roll over fire are those which
transgressed the commandment of God" (xviii. 6, 7, 13-16). In another
terrible place he sees stars bound together, and is told that these
are "the stars which have transgressed," and that "this is the prison
of the angels," in which "they are kept for ever" (xxi. 2, 3, 5, 6).
These extracts make it highly probable that when St. Jude compares the
ungodly to "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath
been reserved for ever," he is thinking once more of the "angels which
left their proper habitation," who are "kept in everlasting bonds
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (ver. 6). After
this return to the ideas contained in the _Book of Enoch_, the
quotation of the prophecy comes quite naturally; and all the more so
because, as Irenæus indicates, Enoch forms a splendid contrast to the
fallen angels: they lost their heavenly habitation by displeasing God,
whereas he was taken up to heaven for pleasing Him. His words show
that he was acquainted with the _Book of Enoch_, and accepted it as
trustworthy: "But Enoch also without circumcision, by pleasing God,
although he was a man, discharged the office of ambassador to angels,
and was translated, and is preserved even until now as a witness of
the just judgment of God: while angels by transgression fell to earth
for judgment; but a man by pleasing Him was translated for salvation"
(_Hær._ IV. xvi. 2). Having compared the profligates to the stars, or
angels, who fell from heaven to earth, St. Jude passes on readily to
quote the warning of one who was taken up from earth to heaven.
And the way in which the prophecy is introduced makes us still more
clear as to the source from which St. Jude derived it: "Enoch, _the
seventh_ from Adam, prophesied." Nowhere in the Old Testament, and
nowhere else in the New, is Enoch said to be "the seventh from Adam."
But he is called "the seventh" in the _Book of Enoch_, where he is
made to say, "I have been born the seventh in the first week"
(xcii. 4), although in order to make seven both Adam and Enoch have to
be counted (xxxvii. 1). The number seven is possibly symbolical,
indicating perfection. Thus Dr. Westcott takes Enoch to be "a type of
perfected humanity" (_Dict. of the Bible_). Yet it is also possible
that he is called "the seventh" in the _Book of Enoch_, and
consequently by St. Jude, in order to mark the extreme antiquity of
the prophecy, or to distinguish him from other persons of the same
name (Gen. xxv. 4; xlvi. 9).
But a careful comparison of the passage in question, as quoted by
St. Jude, and as it stands in the translation of the _Book of Enoch_,
is the chief means of determining the source of the quotation. This,
however, cannot be made satisfactorily until we can place the Greek,
of which the Ethiopic version of the _Book of Enoch_ is a translation,
side by side with St. Jude's Greek.
ENOCH. ST. JUDE
Behold, He cometh with ten Behold, the Lord came with ten
thousands of His holy ones, to thousands of his holy ones to
execute judgment upon them, execute judgment upon all,
and to destroy the ungodly and to convict all the ungodly
and reprove all the carnal [or, of their works of ungodliness
and will destroy and convict which they have ungodly wrought,
the ungodly with all flesh], _and of all the hard things which_
for everything which the ungodly sinners _have spoken
sinners and the ungodly have against Him_ (vv. 14, 15).
done and committed against Him
(chap. ii.).
It will be observed that there is nothing in the _Book of Enoch_ to
correspond with the saying about "the hard things which sinners have
spoken against God." This in itself is almost conclusive against the
hypothesis, which on other grounds is not very probable, that some
later writer copied the prophecy as given by St. Jude, and inserted it
into the _Book of Enoch_. If so, why did he not copy it exactly? Why
did he not only slightly vary the wording, but omit a rather important
clause? The passage is very short, and a writer who was anxious to
make St. Jude agree with the reputed prophecy would be likely to make
the agreement exact. On the other hand, if St. Jude is quoting loosely
from memory, or from a Greek or Aramaic original, of which the text
varied somewhat from the Ethiopic translation which has come down to
us, everything is explained. He would be tenacious of the clause about
"hard things spoken against God," as a warning to those who "set at
nought dominion and rail at dignities." It is of course possible that
both the author of this book and St. Jude independently make use of a
traditional saying attributed to Enoch. But seeing that the work was
in existence when St. Jude wrote, was probably well known to his
readers, and contains most of the passage which he quotes; and seeing
that elsewhere in his Epistle he seems to refer to other parts of the
book, far the more reasonable view is that he quotes directly from it.
The case therefore is parallel to that of the reference to _The
Assumption of Moses_ in ver. 9. St. Jude probably believed the
prophecy to be a genuine prophecy of Enoch, and the writing in which
it occurs to be a genuine revelation respecting the visible and
invisible world; but even if he knew its apocryphal character, its
appositeness to the subject of which he is so full might easily lead
him to quote it to persons who would be familiar with it. We have no
right to prejudge the question of fitness, and say that inspiration
would certainly preserve its instruments from wittingly or unwittingly
making use of a fictitious apocalypse. Our business, as reverent and
therefore honest students, is to ascertain whether this writer does
derive some of his material from the document which, after the lapse
of so many centuries, was given back to us about a hundred and twenty
years ago. If on critical grounds we find ourselves compelled to
believe that this document is the source from which St. Jude draws,
then let us beware of setting our own preconceptions above the wisdom
of God, who in this case, as in many more, has been pleased to employ
an unexpected instrument, and has made a human fiction the means of
proclaiming a Divine truth.
It remains to give some further account of the intensely interesting
writing which St. Jude appears to have used. The Books of Daniel,
Ezekiel, and Zechariah gave to the Jews a love of visions,
revelations, and prophecies which at times was almost insatiable; and,
when the gift of prophecy came to an end, the three centuries between
Malachi and the Baptist, during which it seemed as if Jehovah had
departed from His people, and "answered no more, neither by dreams nor
by prophets," appeared dreary and intolerable. What had been written
by Moses and the Prophets did not satisfy. Fresh revelations were
desired; and the reality being absent, fiction attempted to stop the
gap. Such writings as the _Book of Enoch_, _Assumption of Moses_,
_Testament of Moses_, _Eldad and Modad_, _Apocalypse of Elijah_, etc.,
etc., were the result. This desire for prophecies and revelations
passed over from Judaism into the Christian Church, and was quickened
rather than satisfied by the Revelation of St. John. During the first
two centuries of the Christian era such literature continued to be
produced by Jews and Christians alike; and specimens of it still
survive in the _Apocalypse of Baruch_ and the _Fourth Book of Ezra_ on
the Jewish side, and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ on the Christian; the
_Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_ being apparently a Jewish
original with Christian interpolations. But in most cases only the
titles survive, and where the revelation or prophecy is attributed to
an Old Testament character we are unable to decide whether the fiction
was of Jewish or of Christian origin.
It is strange that such a writing as the _Book of Enoch_ should have
been allowed to disappear entirely from the West after the fourth
century, and from the East after the eighth. The quotations in the
_Chronographia_ of Georgius Syncellus, some portions of which are not
found in the recovered Ethiopic Version, are the last traces that we
have of it until early in the seventeenth century, when it was
rumoured that it was extant in Abyssinia, and late in the eighteenth,
when it was found there. The revelations which it professes to make
respecting judgment, heaven, and hell might have been expected to make
it a special favourite with Christians from the fourth to the tenth
century, during which period one of the commonest topics of
speculation was the end of the world. Moreover, there was the passage
in Jude, with the notices in Barnabas, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, and others, to keep the book from being
forgotten. But it was generally believed that the end of the world
would be heralded by two great signs--the downfall of Rome, and the
coming of Antichrist. About these the _Book of Enoch_ contains no
hint, and the absence of such material may have caused it to pass out
of knowledge. Englishmen have the honour of giving it back to Europe.
James Bruce brought the Ethiopic translation from Abyssinia in 1773,
and Archbishop Laurence published an English translation of it in
1821, and an Ethiopic text in 1838. Since then the scholars who have
edited it or commented on it have been almost exclusively Germans.[126]
It is generally acknowledged that the book is a composite one.
Probably the original writer incorporated older materials, and his
work has probably been interpolated by later hands. Whether any of
these supposed interpolations are Christian is still debated; and the
question scarcely admits of a decided answer. On the one hand, there
are expressions which would come much more naturally from a Christian
than from a Jew; on the other, it is difficult to see why a Christian
should insert anything at all, if he did not insert what might teach
others Christian truth. Messianic passages abound; and in them the
Messiah is called, again and again, "the Son of man" and "the Elect
One;" twice He is called "the Anointed" (xlvii. 11; li. 4), twice "the
Righteous One" (xxxviii. 2; lii. 6; where Laurence translates
otherwise); once He is "the Son of the offspring of the mother of the
living," _i.e._ Son of the son of Eve (lxi. 10); and once the Lord
speaks of Him as "My Son" (civ. 2). This Messiah is the Judge of men
and angels, by the appointment of Jehovah. "In those days will the
earth give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will
give back that which has been entrusted to it, which it has received,
and destruction (Abaddon) will give back what it owes.... And in those
days will the Elect One sit upon His throne, and all secrets of wisdom
will come forth from the thoughts of His mouth; for the Lord of
spirits hath given it to Him, and hath glorified Him" (l. 1, 3). "Then
the Lord of spirits made to sit upon the throne of His glory the Elect
One, who will judge all the works of the holy" (lx. 10, 11;
lxviii. 39). But this Messiah is not much more than a highly exalted
angel. He is not the Word; he is not God. That this Son of man has
already lived upon the earth is not indicated. Of the name Jesus, the
Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there is not a trace.
There is no hint of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine
of the Trinity. In a word, everything distinctly Christian is absent,
even from that section (xxxvii.-lxxi.) which makes the nearest
approaches to Christian language, and which is probably a later
insertion. It is difficult to see what object a Christian could have
in writing just this and no more. The fact that so many of the angels
have Hebrew names favours the view that the original was in Hebrew or
Aramaic, of which the Greek, from which the Ethiopic version is taken,
was only a translation. If so, this also is in favour of Jewish,
rather than of Christian origin.
Those who can should read the whole book in Laurence's translation, or
still better in Dillmann's. But the more accurately translated
portions given in Westcott and in Stanton will give some idea of the
whole. The latter have been used in this chapter. The book is
manifestly the work of a man of the most earnest convictions, one who
believes in God, and fears Him, and is appalled at the practical
infidelity and utter godlessness which he finds around him. On two
things he is ever insisting: (1) that God's rule extends everywhere,
over angels and men, no less than over winds and stars; (2) that this
rule is a moral one, for He abundantly rewards righteousness, and
fearfully punishes sin. Nothing, therefore, could well be more in
harmony with the spirit and purpose of St. Jude, and it ought not to
perplex us that he makes use of such a book.
But in any case it may reassure us to remember that, in spite of its
being quoted _in_ Scripture, the Church has never been allowed to
admit it _as_ Scripture. The mind of Christendom has never wavered as
to the real character of the _Book of Enoch_. It is one of the many
eccentricities of Tertullian that he upholds its authority; but his
special pleading has misled no one else (_De Cultu Fem._ I. iii.).
Justin Martyr apparently knew it (_Apol._ II. v.), but there is
nothing to show that he accepted it as a genuine revelation. Origen
(_Contra Cels._ V. liv.: comp. _In Numer. Homil._ xxviii. 2; _In
Joannem_, tom. vi., cap. xxv.: De la Rue, ii. 384; iv. 142) distinctly
marks it as uncanonical and of doubtful value; Augustine (_De Civ.
Dei_, XV. xxiii. 4) and Jerome (_De Vir. Illustr._ iv.) reject it as
apocryphal; and soon after their time it seems to have disappeared
from Western Christendom. As already stated, it is uncertain whether
St. Jude was mistaken as to the true nature of the book: it is quite
certain that the Church has been preserved from being so.
NOTE.--For a collection of parallels between the _Book of Enoch_ and
2 Peter and Jude see the _New Testament Commentary for English
Readers_, edited by Bishop Ellicott, vol. iii., pp. 518, 519
(Cassells, 1879).
[125] Purvey has "But.... And.... But...." Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer,
and the Genevan Version (following the reading of A) omit the
conjunction altogether in the first place. It is the Rhemish Version
which first introduces "And" into the first place; yet one might have
expected that it, being made direct from the Vulgate, would have been
correct in this particular.
[126] Hofmann, Gfrörer, Lützelberger, Lücke, Ewald, Köstlin,
Hilgenfeld, Weisse, Volkmar, Geiger, Langen, Sieffert, Philippi,
Gebhardt, Wieseler, and others, especially Hoffmann and Dillmann, who
have published complete translations with notes and explanations.
Dillmann's work (Leipzig, 1853) is still the standard work on the
subject, but is out of print. Schodde published an English translation
with notes at Andover, 1882; and the English reader will find much
information in the articles by Westcott in the _Dict. of the Bible_
and by Lipsius in the _Dict. of Chr. Biography_; also in Westcott's
_Introduction to the Gospels_, pp. 73, 99-109, 7th ed.; in Schürer's
_The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_, Div. II., vol. iii.,
pp. 54-73; in Stanton's _The Jewish and the Christian Messiah_ (T. and
T. Clark, 1886), pp. 44-64, 88-95, 139, 140, 170-75, 311-15, 332-35,
347; and in Drummond's _The Jewish Messiah_, 1877, pp. 17-73. Murray's
_Enoch Restitutus_ (Rivington, 1836) does not seem to be of much value.