THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENOCH is known to us through an Old Slavonic version of which there are two recensions. One is represented by Codex Chludovianus, written in Southern Russia in 1679 and published by Popov in 1880, and Codex Belgradensis, written in Bulgaria in the 16th century and discovered by Sokolov in 1880. The other is found in Codex Belgradensis Serbius, written in the 16th century and published by Novakovic in 1884; Codex Vindobonensis Slavonicus 125, written in the 16th century and collated by Bonwetsch; Codex Moscovitanus Barsovii, written in the 17th century; and a number of fragments published by Popov, Pypin, and Tichonravov, some of them as old as the 14th century. It has become customary to designate the former recension, which is longer, as A, and the latter as B. Of A an English translation was made by W. R. Morfill, which was provided with an introduction by R. H. Charles (The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Oxford, 1896). Nathanael Bonwetsch gave a German Version of both A and B (Das slavische Henochbutch, Berlin, 1896). Excerpts of A, of sufficient length to give a good idea of its contents, were rendered into Latin by Stephanus Szekely (Bibliotheca Apocrypha, Freiburg, 1913); and both A and B were translated by Nevill Forbes in R. H. Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II, Oxford, 1913. Charles, Bonwetsch, and Szekely agree in regarding B as a mere resume of A, or as an incomplete and truncated text, while they consider A, aside from a few minor interpolations, as in the main a dependable rendering of the Greek original. This view has been adopted by Harnack (Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, II, 1, Berlin, 1897), Littmann (Jewish Encycl. V, New York, 1903), Bousset (Die Religion des Judentums, Berlin, 1903), and Schfirer (Geschichte des Judischen Volkes, III, 4th ed. Leipzig, 1909). Bonwetsch (Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1896, p. 155) called attention to the fact that the question whether A and B already existed as independent recensions in the Greek had not been raised by Charles, but did not discuss it himself, though it may perhaps be inferred from his emphasis upon the substantial