In fairness to truth, the hypothesis ought at least to have been suggested, that the _Book of Enoch_ in its present form is simply a transcript—with numerous pre‐Christian and post‐Christian additions and interpolations—from far older texts. Modern research went so far as to point out that Enoch is made, in Chapter lxxi, to divide the day and night into eighteen parts, and to represent the longest day in the year as consisting of twelve out of these eighteen parts, while a day of sixteen hours in length could not have occurred in Palestine. The translator, Archbishop Laurence, remarks thus: The region in which the author lived must have been situated not lower than forty‐five degrees north latitude, where the longest day is fifteen hours and a‐half, nor higher perhaps than forty‐ nine degrees, where the longest day is precisely sixteen hours. This will bring the country where he wrote as high up at least as the northern districts of the Caspian and Euxine Seas ... the author of the _Book of Enoch_ was perhaps a member of one of the tribes which Shalmaneser carried away, and placed “in Halah and in Habor by the river Goshen, and in the cities of the Medes.”(141) Further on, it is confessed that: It cannot be said that internal evidence attests the superiority of the _Old Testament_ to the _Book of Enoch_.... The _Book of Enoch_ teaches the preëxistence of the Son of man, the Elect One, the Messiah, who “from the beginning existed in secret,(142) and whose name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, before the sun and the signs were created.” The author also refers to the “other Power who was upon Earth over the water on that day”—an apparent reference to the language of _Genesis_, i. 2.(143) [We maintain that it applies as well to the Hindu Nârâyana—the “mover on the waters.”] We have thus the Lord of Spirits, the Elect One, and a third Power, seemingly foreshadowing this Trinity [as much as the Trimûrti] of futurity; but although Enoch’s ideal Messiah doubtless exercised an important influence on primitive conceptions of the Divinity of the Son of man, we fail to identify his obscure reference to another “Power” with the Trinitarianism of the Alexandrine school; more especially as “angels of power” abound in the visions of Enoch.(144) An Occultist would hardly fail to identify the said “Power.” The Editor concludes his remarkable reflections by adding: