This is a subject which cannot be thoroughly appreciated without studying the book in detail, especially from its doctrinal standpoint, and seeing in how many aspects it represents the doctrine and the popular conceptions of the Jews during the two last pre-Christian centuries. To do this here would involve a far too extended investigation; it must suffice to indicate a few of the many points which should be studied; from these it will be seen how important the book is for the study of Christian origins. Charles says that “the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books put together”; and he gives a formidable list of passages in the New Testament which “either in phraseology or idea directly depend on, or are illustrative of, passages in 1 Enoch,” as well as a further list showing that various doctrines in 1 Enoch had “an undoubted share in moulding the corresponding New Testament doctrines.” These passages should be studied—and they will be found to be a most interesting study—in Charles’s work already referred to several times, pp. xcv.-ciii.; and with these should be read the section on the Theology of the Book of Enoch, pp. ciii-cx. Another book of great value and interest—also already quoted—is Burkitt’s _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_. In dealing with the subject of 1 Enoch and the Gospels, this writer points out that the former “contains a serious attempt to account for the presence of Evil in human history, and this attempt claims our attention, because it is in essentials the view presupposed in the Gospels, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. It is when you study Matthew, Mark, and Luke against the background of the Books of Enoch that you see them in their true perspective. In saying this I have no intention of detracting from the importance of what the Gospels report to us. On the contrary, it puts familiar words into their proper setting. Indeed, it seems to me that some of the best-known Sayings of Jesus only appear in their true light if regarded as _Midrash_ upon words and concepts that were familiar to those who heard the Prophet of Galilee, though now they have been forgotten by Jew and Christian alike” (p. 21). He then gives an illustration of this from Matt. xii. 43-45, Luke xi. 24-26. Of still greater interest are his remarks upon the relationship between 1 Enoch lxii. and Matt. xxv. 31-46; he believes that “the Similitudes of Enoch are presupposed in the scene from Matthew.” The whole of the discussion which follows should be read.