by the Fathers, than the work which bore the name of the patriarch Enoch. I shall notice some of these references to it, by and by. At present I observe, that all the fragments of it, extant in their writings, in the shape of quotations which profess to be taken directly from it, are extant in Greek; which so far implies that the work was written in Greek, or if composed in any other language, was so speedily translated into Greek, and copies of the version were so generally circulated, as to supersede the original. There would be nothing surprising in this last fact; for there is a parallel instance of a translation's superseding an original in two much more remarkable cases, the present Greek of St. Matthew's Gospel, and that of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews; at least, if the uniform tradition of ecclesiastical history with respect to both, and especially with reference to the former, that they were written in the vernacular Hebrew of Palestine, is to be received as true. The Liber Enoch, from which Dr. Laurence made his translation, exists only in the Ethiopic; and for the history of the copy which he has followed in the version-how it was discovered in Ethiopia, and brought to England thence, by our countryman Bruce-I refer the reader to the Preliminary Dissertation of the learned translator. The first point which I shall endeavour to establish, preparatory to the investigation of the date of the work, is what we may probably suppose was the country of its author, and what the language in which his work was written; with respect to the latter of which points, I shall have the pleasure of agreeing with Dr. Laurence, but upon the former it will be necessary to dissent from him.

In the first place, then, it is the opinion of the learned translator, in which I entirely concur with him, that the work was written in Hebrew; that is, as I apprehend, in the vernacular language of Palestine; though this, indeed, is no necessary consequence of its being written in Hebrew.

For first, Dr. Laurence himself has shewn a, that references are extant in the most ancient of the Cabalistical writings, to such a work as this Book of Enoch; whence it may be inferred, that the work itself was known to be written in Hebrew.

Again, in the book itself, chap. vii. sect. ii. verses 7,8, there is an account given of the origin of the name of mount Hermon or Armon; which derives it from the fact that the apostate angels descended from heaven first on that mountain, and there entered into their mutual covenant of apostasy. "That "mountain therefore was called Armon, because

66

they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by "mutual execrations." This explanation of the name will hold good only in one of the cognate languages, the Hebrew, Syriac, or Chaldaic b.

Again, chap. civ. 8, 9. we meet with a presentiment very plainly expressed, that whatever language the work itself was written in, it should be translated into others: "But when they shall write all

a Preliminary Diss. page xxi. xxii. xxiii. The edition which I refer to is the second edition, Oxford, 1833.

b This is one of the particulars contained in the Liber Enoch, as we have it at present, which goes furthest to identify the Book, in the main, with that which was known, under the same name, to the Fathers. The definition of the name of mount Hermon in question, is referred to by them, as often as any thing contained in the Book besides.

66

my words correctly in their own languages, they "shall neither change nor diminish them; but shall "write them all correctly." Now this presentiment would be much more probable of a work written originally in Hebrew, than of one composed in Greek. The idea of the translation of a work written in any of the Oriental languages into Greek, was natural enough; but that of the version of a work composed in Greek, into any of the Oriental languages, was just the reverse. Accordingly it was observed by Scaliger, from the internal evidence of the passages recited from the Greek book of Enoch, in Syncellus, that they were evidently translations from the Hebrew, or some other of the cognate Oriental tongues c.

Now this point being presumptively established, it is a natural inference from it, that the author of a work, which was written in Hebrew, (especially if that was vernacular Hebrew,) was probably a Jew of Palestine, who both lived and wrote his work, in that country. Dr. Laurence, indeed, is of opinion that he was one of the remnant of the ten tribes, whom Shalmaneser planted in Halah, and Habor, and in the cities of the Medes; understanding, with Grotius and other commentators, by Halah, Colchis, and by Habor, Iberia d. Whether Halah is truly the same with Colchis, and Habor with Iberia, is a question upon which I do not consider it necessary to enter at present, as having no connection with the further inquiry of the date, or birthplace of the Book of Enoch, except the following very precarious one: viz. that chapter lxxi. where the author is explainc Preliminary Diss. xx. d Ibid. xxxvii-xxxix.

C

ing his theory of the revolution of days and nights, supposing all along that the sum total of the component parts of a day and a night, at every point of the year, is eighteen, he observes, verses 18, 19, that the longest day has twelve of these parts, and the shortest night has six. According to the principles of such a theory, every one of these parts of a day and a night, must be supposed to contain one hour and twenty minutes of our time, or what is the same thing, of ancient equinoctial time. The longest day, then, upon the author's principles, contained sixteen hours of our time, and the shortest night eight: whence Dr. Laurence infers that the author must have lived in some country where this might be the case, not lower down than forty-five, nor higher up than forty-nine degrees of north latitude; the former of which is beyond the limits of Judæa, but the latter not beyond those of Colchis and Iberia.

But it is manifest that this reasoning never can be considered conclusive, unless it may be assumed as certain that the writer is speaking with strict mathematical exactness, when he is defining the longest day to contain twelve parts out of the eighteen, and the shortest night six. The hours of the ancients were perpetually varying in length; and at all times of the year except the two equinoctial points, the ὥραι καιρικαὶ and the ὥραι ισημεριναὶ differed more or less widely asunder. To reduce them to an equality, or to specify the former, at a given period of the year, in terms of the latter, was no very easy task; and it may well be doubted whether the author of the Book of Enoch was competent to do this, or possessed the means of measur

ing solstitial time by equinoctial, with the necessary precision. That he adopts a rude and imperfect system of astronomy in general, plainly appears from the chapter in question and those which follow it, wherein he endeavours to account for a variety of the heavenly phenomena. His estimate of the lengths of days or nights at individual points of the year, measured in such and such proportions of a whole wybepo-whether containing eighteen, or four and twenty, equal parts in all-might be just as rude and imperfect. Nor is it clear, whether he reckons the whole duration of the longest day from sunrise to sunset, or from twilight in the morning, to dusk in the evening. This latter mode of reckoning, for the meridian of Jerusalem, would make the longest day very nearly sixteen hours of our time in all. Nor are there wanting statements in ancient authors, with respect to the different lengths of the day in different countries, to keep in countenance the assertion of our author, if understood, wπλатe Ady, of the duration of the longest day even between the parallels of Judæa .

There are indications, however, in the course of the work, which appear to me, though Dr. Laurence has not referred to them, to point sufficiently clearly

e Vide the Uranologicon of Petavius, Geminus, i. 2. E; iv. 17. A; iv. 22. D: the author of the Appendix to the Phænomena of Ptolemy, 93. D-94. A: Achilles Tatius, Isagoge ad Aratum, cap. 25. 148. C: 35. 159. D: Hipparchus, in Arati Phænomena, lib. i. 5. 179. D-Strabo ii. caput ultimum, circa fin. 355. 56. 350-362-Agathemerus, Geographica, i. viii. apud Geographos Minores, ii: Ptolemæi Arabia, apud Geographos Minores, iii. p. 28—Mathematica Compositio, lib. ii. 6: Cleomedes, De Sublimibus, lib. i. cap. 6.