Emil Schürer.

A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) online

. (page 7 of 51)
Online LibraryEmil SchürerA history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) → online text (page 7 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

the third Abraham, in the fourth Moses, in the fifth the temple
is bnilt, at tlie end of the sixth it is destroyed again, in the
seventh an apostate generation arises, and at the end of those
weeks the righteous are instructed in the mysteries of heaven ;
in the eighth righteousness receives a sword, and sinners are
given into the hands of the righteous, and a house is built for
the great King ; in the ninth the judgment is revealed ; in the
tenth and in the seventh part of it the final judgment will
take place. Chaps, xciv. to cv. contain woes upon the wicked
and the ungodly, the announcement of their certain destruc-
tion, and an exhortation to cherish joyful expectations
addressed to the righteous (very diffuse and full of mere
repetitions). In chaps, cvi. and cvii. we have a narrative of
the birth of Noah and what took place at it. The wonderful
appearance of this personage gives Enoch occasion to predict
the flood. Chap, cviii. contains " a further writing by Enoch,"
in which he tells hows he had got certain information from an
anLjcl reuardin*: the fire of hell to which the souls of the


wicked and the blaspheming are to be consigned, as well as
regarding the blessings that are in store for the humble and
the righteous.

As may be seen from this outline of its contents, this book
purports to be a series of revelations with which Enoch was
iavoured in the course of his peregrinations through heaven
and earth, and of his sojourn among the heavenly spirits.
These revelations he committed to writing for the benefit of
mankind and transmitted them to posterity. The contents
are of an extremely varied character. They embrace the
laws of nature no less than the organization and history of
the kingdom of God. To impart information regarding the
whole of those matters is the purpose and object of this
mysterious book. The work furnishes but few data that can
be turned to account in the way of enabling us to make out
the circumstances under which it was composed. Conse-
([uently the views that have been expressed relative to this
are of a widely divergent order. Still a certain consensus of
opinion has grown up with regard to at least a few leading
points. In the lirst place we may say that the view of J.
Chr. K. von Hofmann, Weisse, and Philippi, to the effect that
the entire book is the work of a Christian author (Hofmann
holding that the interpolations are but of a trifling character)
is confined pretty much to those writers themselves.^* In
the case of the whole three of them the entertaining of such a
view is essentially due to dogmatic reasons, while, in the case
of Hofmann and Philippi in particular, it is to be attributed
to a desire to get rid of the fact that our book is quoted in
the Epistle of Jude (for they would have us believe that
conversely it was that passage in the Book of Jude that first
suggested the writing of the book now under consideration).
But speaking generally, it may be afhrmed that there is
scarcely any modern scholar who holds that the whole work
was composed by one and the same author. Even Dillmanu,

^3 Liicke, who at one time (1st ed.) was also disposed to favour this viev
decidedly abandoned it afterwards.


M'ho in his translation and exposition still continued to
assume a substantial unity of authorship (the interpolations
being only trifling, although tolerably numerous), has — in spite
of Wittichen's almost entire concurrence in it — long ago
abandoned this view. He is now at one with almost all the
critics in holding that the book consists of several pieces, and
all of them entirely different from one another. On tliis
assumption it is almost universally admitted that the so-called
"allegories" chaps, xxxvii.-lxxi., are above all to he ascribed to
a separate autltor (so for example Krieger, Liicke, 2nd ed.,
Ewald, Dillmann latterly, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Langen, Sieffert,
Eeuss, Volkmar). Likewise in the case of the other leading
sections of the book (i.-xxxvi. and Ixxii.-cviii.), interpolations
more or less numerous are almost universally acknowledged
to exist, althongli there is considerable diversity of opinion as
to where in each instance they begin and end. Again, there
is, comparatively speaking, a high degree of unanimity with
regard to the date of the composition of each of those leading
sections, above all, of the one containing the visions (Ixxxiii.-
xc). Volkmar alone has found his predilection for the time
of Barcocheba too much for him in this instance as well,
preferring, aS he does, to regard the portions in question as
having been written by one of Akiba's disciples. All the
others are agreed in holding that they belong to the second
century B.C., either limiting the date to the earlier years of
the Maccabaean period (so Krieger, Liicke, 2nd ed., Langen), or
finding it further on, viz. in the days of John Hyrcanus (so
Ewald, Dillmann, Kostlin, Sieffert, Reuss, likewise Witticlien),
or even so late as the time of Alexander Jannaeus (so Hilgen-
feld). But it is with respect to that section which, as regards
its contents, is the most important of any, viz. the allegories,
chaps, xxxvi.-lxxi., that o])inion fluctuates most of all.
Here Hilgenfeld and Volkmar agree with Hofmann, Weisse,
and Philippi thus far, that in common with these latter tht-y
ascribe the section in question to a Christian author (Hilgen-
feld to a Gnostic ^^'riler). All other critics rel'er it to some


pre-Christian period, Langen to the earlier days of the
Maccabaean age in common with the rest of the book, Ewald
to somewhere about 144 B.C., Kostlin, Sieffert, and Dillmann
(Herzog's Eeal-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 351 sq.) to some date previous
to 64 B.C., Krieger and Liicke to the early part of Herod's
reign, while Eeuss refrains from suggesting any date at all.

Such unanimity as has thus far been secured may serve
at the same time to give us an idea how far we can here
hope to obtain results of a trustworthy character. If there is
one thing more certain than another it is tliis, that the hook
is not all the production of one and the same author. Not only
is the section containing the allegories, chaps, xxxvii.-lxxi.,
undoubtedly a perfectly independent portion of the book, but
all the rest of the work is composed of very heterogeneous
elements, and obviously interspersed with a great number of
longer or shorter interpolations. Confining ourselves to the
leading portions of the work, the following groups may be
distinguished : —

1. The original writing, i.e. the leading portion consisting
of i.-xxxvi., Ixxii.-cv., but with the restriction just referred to.
The only clue we get to the date of its composition is that
furnished by the historical vision in chaps. Ixxxv.-xc. Here
we have a representation of the entire history of the theocracy
from Adam down to the author's own day, and that under
the symbolism of cattle and sheep. In a vision presented to
him in a dream, Enoch saw how a white ox (Adam) once
sprung out of the earth ; and then a white cow (Eve) ; and
along with this latter yet other cattle, a black ox (Cain) and a
red one (Abel). The black ox gored the red one, which
thereupon vanished from the earth. But the black ox begat
many other black cattle. Thereupon the cow just referred to
(Eve) gave birth to a white ox (Seth), from which sprung a great
many other white cattle. But stars (angels) fell from heaven,
and after having had intercourse with the cows of the black
cattle (the daughters of Cain), they begat elephants, camels,
and asses (the giants). And so in this way the history is


proceeded with, tlie theocratic line being always represented
by the white cattle. From Jacob onwards white sheep are
substituted fur the white cattle. The symbolic character of
the representation is patent all through, while it presents
liardly any difficulty in the way of interpretation till we
come to the point where the sheep are attacked by wild
animals, i.e. till the hostile powers of Assyria and Babylon
come upon the stage. For in Ixxxix. 55 it is narrated how
the Lord of the sheep delivered them into the hand of the
lions and tigers and wolves and jackals, and into the hand of
the foxes, and all manner of wild beasts ; and how the
wild beasts began to tear the sheep to pieces. And the Lord
forsook their house (Jerusalem) and their tower (the temple),
Ixxxix. 56, i.e. He withdrew His gracious presence from them
(for there is no question of the destruction of these till a
much later stage). And He appointed seventy shepherds to
feed the sheep, and charged them to allow as many to be
torn to pieces by the wild beasts as He would order them, but
not more (Ixxxix. 59, 60). And he summoned "another"
and commanded him to write down the number of sheep
destroyed by the shepherds (Ixxxix. 61-64). And the
shepherds fed them " each his time," and delivered the sheep
into the hand of tlie lions and tigers. And these latter
burnt down that tower (the temple) and destroyed that house
(Jerusalem, Ixxxix. 65, 66). And the shepherds delivered to
the wild beasts far more sheep than they had been ordered to
do (Ixxxix. 68-71). And when tlie shepherds had fed the
Hock twelve hours, three of those sheep came back and began
to rebuild the house (Jerusalem) and the tower (the temple),
chap. Ixxxix. 72, 73. But the sheep were so blinded as to
mingle with the beasts of the field ; and the sliepherds did
not rescue them from the hand of the beasts (Ixxxix. 74, 75).
But when ficc-and-tlnrty^* shepherds had fed them, all the

^* Dillmann rcails thirty-six, wliicli is not supported by inaimscri[it
authority. Tlie manuscripts read thirty-seven. IJnt, from what follows,
thtie wiu harUv be a iloulit that thirtv-live is tlie correct rea'liiijr.


fowls of the air, the eagles, the hawks, the kites and the
ravens came and hegan to prey upon those sheep and to peck
out their eyes and to devour their flesh (xc. 1, 2). And
again when three-and-twenty shepherds had tended the flock
and eight-and-Jifty times in all were completed (xc. 5), then
little lamhs were born of the white sheep, and they began to
cry to the sheep ; but these pay no heed to them (xc. 6, 7).
And the ravens swooped down upon the lambs and seized one
of them, and tore and devoured the sheep, till horns grew
upon the lambs, and, above all, a large horn shot out to whicli
all the young ones betake themselves (xc. 8—10). And the
eagles and the hawks and the kites still continue to tear the
sheep to pieces. And the ravens sought to break to pieces
the horn of that young sheep and struggled with it ; and it
strove with them. And the Lord came to the help of that
young one ; and all the beasts flee and fall before him (xc.
11—15). Here the narrative breaks off. For what follows
seems for the author to lie in the future. It is only further
remarked that the Uvelve last shepherds had destroyed more
than those who had preceded them (xc. 17).

In their endeavours to interpret this narrative, so clear and
perspicuous in all the leading points, the expositors seem
almost to have vied with each other in trying who would
misunderstand it most. Strangely enough, all the earlier
expositors down to Llicke inclusive have taken the first thirty-
seven shepherds to mean the native kings of the kingdoms of
Israel and Judah I It is true no doubt that in the present
day all are agreed that the seventy shepherds are intended to
represent the period during which Israel was subjected to the
sway of the Gentile powers. " But it is a strange misappre-
hension, into which almost all the expositors have been
betrayed, when they suppose that the seventy shepherds are
intended to represent a corresponding number of Gentile
rulers. The whole narrative leaves no room whatever to
doubt, that the she2Jherds are rather to he ^tnderstood as angels
who are entrusted with the duty of seeing that only as many


of ihe slieep are torn to pieces as God iuteads and no more.
So far as I am aware, up till the publication of the first
edition of the present work, Von Hofmann was the only-
writer who recognised this {Schrifiheweis, i. 422).^'' It is, as
it is impossible to doubt, the wild beasts and the birds of
prey that represent the Gentile rulers. Consequently the
shepherds must have some other meaning altogether. But
they certainly cannot be taken as representing human beings,
for throughout the entire vision these latter are, without
exception, represented under the symbolism of animals,
whereas the angels appear even in chap. Ixxxvii. under that
of men. And that the shepherds are as matter of fact
intended to represent .angels is still further confirmed by what
follows : (1) Before they commence to tend the iiock they all
appear before God at one and the same time, and from Him
receive their commission to feed the flock one after the other
(Ixxxix. 59). IIow could this apply to Gentile rulers? Or
are we to think of them as in a pre-existent state ? (2) At
the judgment they are classed along with the fallen angels
(xc. 20 sqq.). (3) The angel that is summoned to write down
the number of sheep that are destroyed is in Ixxxix. 6 1 briefly
spoken of as " another," which would surely justify us in assum-
ing that the shepherds mentioned immediately before belong
to precisely the same category as this " other." (4) Nor can
the shepherds be identified with the Gentile rulers for this
further reason, that according to, Ixxxix. 75 they are also
entrusted with the duty of protecting the sheep from the
wild beasts. Consequently they are evidently an impartial
power placed over the sheep and the wild beasts alike, or
they are meant to be so at least.^^ The thought in the
author's mind then is this, that from the moment that in

^* Since then tliis view has been endorsed by Kcssclring (^Lit. Ccntralhl.
1874, p. lo3), Uiummond {Tlie Jiuixh Mci^siah, p. 40 sqq.) and Wieseler
{Zeilschr. dcr dcutsc/un morgcidaiuL Gcmlbch. 188i;, p. 18iJ).

1'' Even in the later Jewish lla-rpaHali we meet with the idea tliat
SL'Venty angels were set over the Gentile world, that is to say one over each


accordance with the divine purpose Israel was assailed and
subjugated by the Gentile powers, God appointed angels whose
duty it was to see that these powers executed upon Israel the
judgment with which He intended them to be visited ; and not
only so, but also to see that they did not oppress and persecute
Israel unduly. But the watchers neglect their duty; they
allow the wild beasts to destroy a greater number than they
ought to have done, and, as is predicted toward the conclusion,
they are for this to be cast into hell-fire along with the fallen

It would lead to too great a digression M-ere we to do more
in the way of refuting the misapprehensions here in question.
We must content ourselves with briefly stating what — follow-
ing Dillmann and Ewald above all — we conceive to be the
correct interpretation. The numbers in the text serve to
show that the author divides the time of the duration of the
Gentile supremacy into four peo^iods arranged thus: 12 + 23 +
23 + 12, which are simply intended to denote in a general
way two shorter periods (at the beginning) and two longer
ones (in the middle). For every calculation pretending to
chronological exactness must be radically erroneous, whether,
with Hilgenfeld, we take year -weeks or, with Volkmar,
take decades as our basis. Nor can there be any doubt as to
where the different periods are intended to begin and end.
The Jlrst begins with the time when the Gentile powers
(consequently that of Assyria in the first instance) began to
turn against Israel, and extends to the time of the return of
the exiles in the reign of Cyrus, the only difficulty here being
as to who are meant by the three returning sheep (Ixxxix. 72).
Probably the author here alludes to Zerubbabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, the less prominent colleague of Zerubbabel, viz.
Joshua, being left out of account. The second period extends
of the seventy Gentile nations. See Targitm of Jonathan on Deut.
xxxn. 8. Pirke de-Rahbi Eliezer, chap. xxiv. Wagenseil's note on Sola
vii. 6 (in Surenhusius's Mishna, iii. 263 sq.). Schegg, Evangelium
nnch Lukas iihers. und erklart, ii. 69. Also the expositors generally on
Luke X. 1.



from Cyrus to Alexander tlic Great. Fur the siibstitiition of
the birds of prey for the wild beasts (xc. 2) plainly marks the
transition from the Persians to the Greeks. The third
extends from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Nothing but stubborn prejudice can prevent any one from see-
ing that, by the symbolism of the lambs (xc. 6), the Maccabees
are to be understood. Lastly, the fourth period extends from
the commencement of the Maccabaean age on to the author's
own day. Tliat, everything considered, this latter coincides
with the time of the Hasmonaean princes it is impossible to
doubt. And it is very likely that, by the great horn which
is mentioned last, it is John Hyrcanus that is referred to.
Only we feel bound to agree with Gebhardt, who, owing to
the uncertain character of the Ethiopic text, warns us against
being too detailed in our interpretation. But (seeing that
from the beginning of the Maccabaean age onwards the times
of twelve shepherds had elapsed) this may be regarded as
certain, tlcat the author wrote some time in the last third of
the second century B.C. If we compare the 12 + 23 + 23 + 12
times, that are put down to represent the four periods, with
the actual duration of those periods, we will find that, for the
eye of the author looking backwards, the length of the time
is foreshortened. He represents the third period (333-175
B.C.) as being of precisely the same length as the second,
whereas in point of fact this latter was considerably longer
(537-333 B.C.). And for his eye the first period dwindles
down still more. All this is exactly what we might expect
in the case of one who is looking back upon the events of the

If we were to be allowed to assume that the author of
the historical vision is, in the main, the author of chaps,
i.-xxxvi., Ixxii.-cv. as well, then the date of the composition
of the whole of those sections would thereby be determined
at the same time.

2. The allegories, chaps, xxxvii.-lxxi. (with the exception
of the Noachian portions). Even on a hasty perusal one


cannot fail to notice that the allegories form one distinct
whole, and that they are different from the remaining portions
of the book. In fact there cannot be the slightest doubt
but that they are the production of a different author. The
use of the names of God, the angelology, the eschatology,
and the doctrine of the Messiah differ essentially from
those of the rest of the book (comp. especially Kostlin, pp.
265-268). And as little can there be any room to doubt
that they are of a later date than the original work. For the
favourite notion of Ewald, that they rank first in point of
time, has been sufficiently refuted by Kostlin (pp. 269-273).
Among the peculiarities of the allegories we notice this in
particular, that a decided prominence is ^iven in them to the
Messianic hope and the person of the Messiah, whereas, in
the other parts of the book, those are matters that are touched
on once or twice at the most. This again is connected with
a further peculiarity to which Kostlin in particular has
directed attention, namely, that here, instead of its being the
wicked and the ungodly in general who appear in contrast to
the pious, as is the case in the rest of the book, it is rather
the Gentile rulers, the kings and the powerful ones of the
earth (chaps, xxxviii. 4, 5, xlvi. 7, 8, xlviii. 8-10, liii. 5, liv.
2, Iv. 4, Ixii. 1, 3, 6, 9-11, Ixiii. 1-12). This circumstance
serves to explain why it is that precisely in these allegories
such decided prominence is given to the Messianic hope.
But when, it may now be asked, were they composed ? The
only passage which furnishes any clue to the date is chap.
Ivi., where it is predicted that, in the closing period, the
Parthians and Medes would come from the east and invade
the Holy Land, but that they would encounter obstacles at
the holy city, when they would turn upon and destroy each
other (Ivi. 5-7). When Kostlin would have us infer from
this passage that the writing here in question must have been
composed previous to the year 64 B.C., as otherwise we should
have expected that the Eomans would have been mentioned
as well, we may reply that such an expectation is absolutely


groundless and unwarrantable. It would be much nearer the
truth to conclude, with Liicke, that this passage presupposes
what had already taken place, viz. the Parthian invasion of
Palestine (40—38 B.C.), the recollection of which would have
some influence in shaping the author's eschatological hopes, so
that, according to this, the allegories would be composed at
the very soonest in the time of Herod. On the other hand, the
prediction to the effect that the Parthian power would collapse
outside the walls of Jerusalem, presupposes that the city was
still standing, as otherwise it would surely have been necessary
first of all to predict its restoration. But the main question
now is this, are the allegories of pre- or of post- Christian
origin ? An answer to this question is all the more desirable,
that it is precisely in these that we find so many points of
contact with the Christology and eschatology of the Gospels.
But unfortunately it is extremely difficult to arrive at any
positive decision. However, this much at least ought to be
admitted, that the view of the Messiah presented in the part
of the book at present under consideration is perfectly explic-
able on Jewish grounds, and that, to account for such view,
it is not necessary to assume that it was due to Christian
influences. - Nothing of a specifically Christian character is to
be met with in any part of this section. But, supposing the
reverse to have been the case, it is, to say the least of it,
quite incredible that a Jew would have been likely to have
borrowed it, and so there would be nothing for it but to
pronounce at once in favour of a Christian origin. And this is
what has actually been done by all those who cannot see
their way to admit the pre-Christian origin of the writing
(Ilofmann, Weisse, Ililgenfeld, Volkmar, Philippi). But no
sooner is such a view seriously entertained than the difficulties
begin to accumulate. An anonymous Christian author would
scarcely have been so reserved as to avoid making any
allusion to the historical personality of Jesus, Surely if the
writer had any object in view at all it would be to win
converts to the faith. But how could he hope to accomplish


this object, if he always spoke merely of the coming of the
Messiah in glory, merely of " the Chosen One " as the Judge
of the world, without making the slightest reference to the
fact that, in the first place, He would have to appear in His
estate of humiliation ? Surely any one who candidly weighs
the arfTuments on the one side and on the other must feel con-
strained to admit that the pre-Christian origin is decidedly
more probable than the Christian one. Further, the objection
based upon the circumstance that, according to Matt. xvi.
13-16, John xii. 34, the expression "Son of man" M-as not
as yet a current designation for the Messiah in the time of
Christ, whereas it is of frequent occurrence in this sense in
the allegories, is without force. For we are by no means at
liberty to infer from those passages that the expression " Son
of man " was not at that time currently in use as a Messianic
title. In the case of the passage in John this inference is
based simply upon false exegesis (see, on the other hand,
Meyer for example). The passage in Matthew again is
disposed of by the circumstance that, in its original form as
preserved in Mark viii. 27 = Luke ix. 18, the expression
" Son of man " does not occur at all.

3. The Noachian ^portions. The investigations of Dillmann,
Ewald, and Kostlin have already sufficiently proved that the
passages liv. 7-lv. 2, Ix. 65-lxix. 25 break the sequence, and

Online LibraryEmil SchürerA history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ .. (Volume 2 pt.3) → online text (page 7 of 51)