In any case, there is no indication that the doctrine of the gospels on this subject is based on Enoch, although the book may copiously illustrate both what Christ taught as true and what He attacked as false.

The doctrine of Redemption in the Similitudes appears to be that the Elect and Righteous One, being beheld with the eye of faith and love by the elect and righteous, will draw them into His glory; but He will not be beheld by the godless, and when at last they are forced to behold Him, they will behold Him with fear and without love, and their end will be shame.

The earlier part of Enoch (ch. 1—36) is justly described in Dr Charles's valuable edition (p. 27) as containing "naive and sensuous views of the kingdom" of God. But the rest, taken as a whole, and especially the Similitudes, is of a much more spiritual character. Even though all of it should prove to be pre-Christian, it would have some bearing on our Lord's time, indicating that there might exist in others besides John the Baptist aspirations after a higher righteousness than that of those Pharisees whom the gospels so bitterly condemn.

them, apparently indicating non-sensuous existence incompatible with "eating." Against the inference that this view extends to the extract from Enoch, there may be urged the following words (En. 51) “Their faces will be lighted up with joy because in those days the Elect One has appeared, and the earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it, and the elect will go to and fro upon it." Does not the mention of "the earth"-it may be asked-imply earthly, or sensuous existence? The answer is, Ist, that the sensuous earth cannot "rejoice," 2nd, that, according to En. 45, God will "transform the earth.” It would seem, then, that both “the earth” and the earthly bodies of the sons of Adam are to be "transformed " into something beyond the region of the senses and into the region of angels.

66

So far as concerns the two passages alleged above from the Similitudes, it does not seem to me proved that they refer to a resurrection of the "body" in the popular sense of the term, or that they contemplate a resurrection restricted to Jews.

NOTE II

THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST

SI Touching" and "drawing near"

[2999 (i)] The object of the following paragraphs is, not to compare and discuss the gospel accounts of the selfmanifestations of Christ after the Resurrection, but to collect and classify facts with a view to comparison and discussion in The Fourfold Gospel.

αν

It was pointed out in 2889 that the dropping of av might convert an account of a woman desiring to touch the risen Saviour (such as we find in John) into an account of women actually touching Him (such as we find in Matthew). But a much more potent cause of confusion might be found in the fact that in Hebrew (both old and new) and in Aramaic, the same word may mean "touch" and "draw near to1." And the same ambiguity exists in the Syriac versions of the Gospels2.

1 [2999 (i) a] In Daniel ix. 21, where the LXX has πрoσnyуσé μoi, Theodotion has aró μov (and comp. Dan. x. 10). In Gen. iii. 3, xx. 6, xxxii. 25 (and freq.) where Heb. has and LXXaro, Onkelos has P, which in Heb. would mean "draw near to," but, in later Heb., Aram., and Syr., would also mean "touch." In Numb. iii. 10, xvii. 28, "cometh nigh," LXX has “toucheth," comp. Numb. iii. 38 “ cometh nigh,” LXX" toucheth" but A "approacheth (пpoστорevóμεvos)." The non-LXX translators have "draw nigh" in Numb. iii. 10, 38, but in Numb. i. 51, LXX ὁ προσπορευόμενος, Field gives ̓́Αλλος· ὁ ἁπτόμενος.

2

[2999 (i) 6] Thus in Jn xx. 17 touch me not,” μή μου ἅπτου, SS (Burk.) has "Do not draw near to me," whereas Mrs Lewis has "Touch"

But the reader must not suppose that any mere confusion of similar words sufficed to produce the divergent accounts of Christ's Resurrection. Here, as almost always, the rule holds good, BEWARE OF SINGLE CAUSES. Theological motives would naturally be at work; anthropomorphism and antanthropomorphism; differences between Hebrew and Jewish (ie. post-captivity) thought (or, at all events, Hebrew and Jewish expression), and the influence of these differences on early Christian thought comparing Hebrew scripture with Jewish interpretation; Semitic and non-Semitic conceptions of matter, spirit, body, angelic nature, divine nature-so that where one writer might say "the Lord," another might prefer "an angel"; and, where one might describe an angel as "bodiless," another might reserve that epithet for disembodied spirits (2824* foll., 2998 (lvi) d).

[2999 (ii)] In considering the tradition peculiar to Matthew, that the women "approached [Christ] and held fast his feet and worshipped him," we have to bear in mind that this ambiguous word, "approach" or "draw near to," or "touch," may become, when applied to "feet," more than usually ambiguous, because the meaning may be (1) "fall as suppliants at a person's feet," (2) "touch and grasp his feet." And the story of Zipporah (Exod. iv. 25)—who is regarded by some of the translators of O.T. severally as “falling before the feet” of Jehovah (or Jehovah's angel) or as “touching" them, or as 'holding" them-shews how easily the mere act of prostra

(Murdock "touch," Etheridge "touch, or approach"). In Mt. xxviii. 9 (where SS is missing) ékpárŋoav avтoû тoùs Tódas, the Syr. (Walton) has a non-ambiguous word ("grasped his feet"). But in Mt. ix. 25 ékpárησev TĥS XEɩpòs aνTηs, SS has "touched" or drew near" (Walton "grasped"), which might be ambiguous if the context, “hand,” did not make the meaning clear. Mk i. 31 "approached...and grasped her hand" is parall. to Mt. viii. 15 touched her hand." On the parall. Lk. iv. 38—9 (Syr.) containing the phrase "a great fever was grasping her," and omitting the "grasping" of the "hand," see Fourfold Gospel, "Touch."

tion might be taken to mean "touching" or "grasping1." Also the fact that elsewhere Matthew has a tradition (peculiar to himself) that Jesus "drew near and touched the disciples," when combined with the present instance of "drawing near and holding fast" (also peculiar to Matthew) suggests that both of these traditions may be "conflations," omitted by other evangelists because of the uncertainty of the text2.

§2. God "meeting" man

[2999 (iii)] It has been objected (Apologia, p. 68) that Matthew's mention of "meeting" (Mt. xxviii. 9 "Jesus met them") is inconsistent with the hypothesis of a spiritual

46

1 [2999 (ii) a] Compare the different versions of Exod. iv. 25 (R.V.) cast [it] at his feet," marg. "made [it] touch his feet," as given by Field: Heb. “Et tangere fecit (s. ‘et tetigit")," LXX проσéжеσe [the word used in Mk iii. II of the demoniacs "falling against," or at the feet of," Jesus], Αλλος· ἤγγισε, Ag. Theod. ἥψατο, Sym. ἁψαμένη. Here the Syr. has "and grasped his feet." Onkelos-who uses a form of p, "bring near," or "offer "-is rendered by Walton "and offered it before him," but by Etheridge "and approached before him." Thus, in one and the same Hebrew original, this ambiguous verb is rendered “touch,” "fall before (as a suppliant),” “approach" and "grasp." "At the feet of," if referring to the feet of Jehovah, or an angel (as the Targumists appear to think) may mean little more than "in the presence of," which Onkelos substitutes. I am informed by Dr Büchler that in Nedarim three rabbis of 2nd cent. differ as to whether Zipporah touched the feet of (1) Moses, (2) the angel, (3) the child. For the double meaning of 2 (act. and mid.) in Syr. see Thes. Syr.; and for inferences from the confusion of touch" and "draw near," see Fourfold Gospel, "Touch."

66

2 [2999 (ii) 6] Comp. Mt. xvii. 7 "Jesus approached (πрoσîì‹v) and touched them and said, 'Arise...,'" not in the parall. Mk ix. 8, Lk. ix. 36. Also comp. Mt. iv. 24 "they brought," SS " were drawing near (j'ap),” Palest. “drew near (127p),” which might be confused with “touched”; the parall. Mk (which shews signs of conflation) and Lk. are as follows:Mk iii. 10-11 (lit.)

"They kept falling upon (èTMɩπίπτειν) him that they might touch him...falling against (poσéπɩπTOV) him."

Lk. vi. 19

"kept seeking to touch him" (Etheridge," approach to him," SS "touch," hithp. of 27p).

presence. But on the contrary the notion of God as “meeting" Israel, in what we should call a spiritual manner, underlies the whole of the Mosaic Law, though disguised in A.V. under the mistranslation "tabernacle of testimony" instead of "tabernacle of meeting" The particular word here used by Matthew, Úπýντησεv (v.r. ȧπývτησev) is rather rare in LXX2; but σvvavτáw is used in various forms to describe God, or angels,

1

[2999 (iii) π] "Of meeting," regularly rendered μaprvpiov, “of testimony," by LXX, but σvvrayĥs, “of meeting," by Aq. in Numb. iii. 7, iv. 25. Evvτáoow in N.T. is used by Mt. alone (xxi. 6, xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10 quoting Zech. xi. 13) but only in the active. The middle ráoσoμai, however, is used by Mt. (and only once elsewhere in N.T., Acts xxviii. 23 Takáμevoi.....ημépav) in Mt. xxviii. 16 “the mountain where Jesus had appointed [meeting] for them." Here the Syriac (Walton) (SS is lost) has, the equiv. of Heb. Ty, “arrange meeting."

[2999 (iii) b] Matthew probably had some form of in his original, and it was rendered éráĝaro as it is by LXX in 2 S. xx. 5 “appointed time." But Ty" is rendered by the middle σvvráσσoμai in Exod. xxv. 22 (so Aq. etc., but LXX mistransl.) "there will I meet with thee," and by Aq. in Amos iii. 3 "agreed" or "made an appointment."

2 [2999 (iii) c] YTаvтáo occurs (7) in LXX, but not in canon. LXX exc. Dan. x. 14 (LXX) únavτýoetaι (Theod. аπ.) “shall befall." Wisd. vi. 16, Sir. xv. 2 v. ¿s μýτnp describe Wisdom as “anticipating (Sir. Heb. DP, Vulg. obviabit)" those who love her, as the father anticipates the returning prodigal son by running to meet him. In Sir. xii. 17 it means befall.” In Tob. vii. i καὶ ἦλθεν...[κ. Σάρρα δὲ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ] κ. ἐχαιρέτισεν αὐτὸν κ. αὐτὸς αὐτούς, the masc. αὐτός (as well as the context) shews that the clause I have bracketed is corrupt. It is om. by and the other versions. It may be a conflation of an ambiguous clause in the context like that in the Itala "haesit cordi eius" (Chald. “the love for Sarah entered his heart," Heb. "his soul was knit to the soul of Sarah,” Β ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐκολλήθη αὐτῇ σφόδρα) in the form “ obviam venit eius cor cordi," taken literally and referred to Sarah instead of to Tobit (see Tobit ed. Neubauer).

[2999 (iii) α] Υπαντάω differs from ἀπαντάω in that the former mostly has more of voluntariness-"going to meet a friend, or enemy; whereas άπаvтάw may mean "meet with [an accident]," "light upon [evil]." Comp. Ammon. (Steph. viii. 121) ὑπαντῆσαι ἐπὶ ὁδοῦ λέγεται, ἀπαντῆσαι δὲ τὸ περιτυχεῖν δίκῃ· οἷον, ἀπήντησε κατὰ τὴν δίκην, ἀντὶ τοῦ περιτυχεῖν. Απάντημα is used with δαιμονίου in Tob. vi. 8 (N), and (ib.) ἀπάντημα by itself means "mischance."