Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift 9781472550682, 9780567624062, 9780567192516

Table of contents :
Contents
Foreword
Preface
I. The Books of Enoch: An Emerging Consensus
II. Errors in Studying the Parables of Enoch
III. Does the Parables of Enoch Antedate Jesus
Conclusion
The Contributors
Abbreviations
I. Ancient Documents
II. Modern Publications
I Son of Man: Scholarly Opinions
Chapter 1 The Son of Man Debate Revisited (1960–2012)
I. Is “Son of Man” a Generic Reference to a Group that also Includes the Speaker?
II. Can One Use the Galilean Aramaic of the Rabbis for the Interpretation of the Gospels?
III. Do Some of the Peculiarities of Galilean Aramaic Undermine the Theory of בר נש/נשא as an Exclusive Self-Reference?
Conclusion
Chapter 2 The Son of Man in Mark
The Authority of the Son of Man
The Suffering Son of Man
The Coming Son of Man
The Servant Son of Man
II The Parables of Enoch: Are They Jewish and Prior to Jesus?
Chapter 3 The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch
Purpose
Preliminary Observations
Philology
Seeking the Date of Composition for the Parables of Enoch
Provenience of the Parables of Enoch
The Parables of Enoch and the Jesus Traditions
Conclusion
Chapter 4 Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht
Survey From R. H. Charles to the Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli 2007
Post-Camaldoli Studies
Conclusion and Implications
Chapter 5 Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man” and the Importance of the Parables of Enoch
The Son of Man in Daniel
The Son of Man in 1 Enoch
The Son of Man in the Gospels
Similarities and Differences between 1 Enoch and the Synoptics
Chapter 6 Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts
Introduction
Moses in Texts from the Land
Moses in Hellenistic Texts
Conclusions
Comparison
Chapter 7 The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology and Landscape
Geography
Agriculture and Botany
Historical Insight from Archaeology
Archaeology of Migdal-Tarichaeae
Summary
Conclusion
III The Parables of Enoch and New Testament Theology
Chapter 8 Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch? τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸ ς τοῦ  νθρώπου; (Jn 12:34)
Introduction
Developing Consensus
A Paradigm Shift
The Provenience of the Parables of Enoch
The Provenience of the Parables of Enoch: The Case for Migdal
Son of Man in Parables of Enoch
Son of Man in the Gospels
The Son of Man and Jesus’ Theology: A Hypothesis
Conclusion
Chapter 9 Matthew and the Parables of Enoch
Matthew 25:31-46 as Matthean Redaction
Matthew’s Messianism: Texts and Influences
Matthew 25:31-46 and the Parables of Enoch
Conclusions
Chapter 10 The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels
Introduction
The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch
Conclusions
Chapter 11 The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man
Diachrony and Synchrony
The Johannine Son of Man Sayings
Conclusion
Chapter 12 The Enochic Son of Man and the Apocalyptic Background of the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel
The Enochic Son of Man
The Johannine Son of Man
The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in the Gospel of John
Is John a Response to the Parables of Enoch?
Conclusion
Chapter 13 The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man in the Early Enoch Tradition
Introduction
Enoch as Scribe in the Early Enoch Tradition
Conclusion
Chapter 14 The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity
Introduction
Background of 1 Enoch
Methodology
The Parables of Enoch and the Canonical Gospels
1 Enoch in Early Christianity
Summary of the New Testament Parallels to 1 Enoch
Citations of the Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity
Conclusion
Conclusion
Introduction
Survey of the Preceding Chapters
Conclusion
Select Bibliography on “the Son of Man” and the Parables of Enoch
The Fruits of 500 Years of Research Devoted to Early Jewish Texts
Concerning the Select Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and related studies series

Executive Editor James H. Charlesworth Editorial Board of Advisors Motti Aviam, Michael Davis, Casey Elledge, Loren Johns, Amy-Jill Levine, Lee McDonald, Lidija Novakovic, Gerbern Oegema, Henry Rietz, Brent Strawn

PARABLES OF ENOCH A Paradigm Shift

Edited by

James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square 175 Fifth Avenue London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10010 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com First published 2013 © James H. Charlesworth, Darrell L. Bock, with contributors, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. James H. Charlesworth, Darrell L. Bock, and contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: ePDF:

978-0-567-19251-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production

Published in Honor of Luminaries who have shared our search for the origin of the Parables of Enoch. Matthew Black Ray Brown Joseph Fitzmyer Walter Harrelson Ephrem Isaac Michael Knibb Klaus Koch Helge Kvanvig Paolo Sacchi Michael Stone Loren Stuckenbruck B

Contents Foreword James H. Charlesworth

ix

Preface James H. Charlesworth

xiii

The Contributors

xix

Abbreviations

xxi

I. Son of Man: Scholarly Opinions   1. The Son of Man Debate Revisited (1960–2012) Geza A. Vermes 2. The Son of Man in Mark James D .G. Dunn

1 3 18

II. The Parables of Enoch: Are They Jewish and Prior to Jesus?    3. The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch James H. Charlesworth

35

4. Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht Darrell L. Bock

58

5. Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man” and the Importance of the Parables of Enoch Paul Owen 6. Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts James VanderKam and Dulcinea Boesenberg 7. The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology and Landscape Mordechai Aviam

37

114 124

159

Contents

viii

III. The Parables of Enoch and New Testament Theology

171

8. Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch? James H. Charlesworth

173

9. Matthew and the Parables of Enoch Grant Macaskill

218

10. The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels Leslie Walck 

231

11. The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man Francis J. Moloney

269

12. The Enochic Son of Man and the Apocalyptic Background of the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel Benjamin E. Reynolds

294

13. The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man in the Early Enoch Tradition 315 Loren T. Stuckenbruck 14. The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity Lee Martin McDonald 

329

Conclusion James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock

364

Select Bibliography on “the Son of Man” and the Parables of Enoch The Fruits of 500 Years of Research Devoted to Early Jewish Texts James H. Charlesworth

373



376

Index

Concerning the Select Bibliography Blake A. Jurgens

391

­

Foreword Five years ago, in a conversation with Darrell Bock, I mentioned that I had become impressed with a major consensus developing among those who were devoted to the study of early Jewish apocalypticism and focused on the Parables of Enoch (= 1En 37–71). We both expressed concern that too many New Testament scholars were oblivious of the paradigm shift. Yet, almost all experts recognize that Jesus must be studied not only within the history of “Christianity” but, even more importantly, within the history of Early Judaism. Bock and I decided to organize a colloquium of experts who would devote a study to one aspect of the Son of Man concept in light of the rapidly advancing international research devoted to the Parables of Enoch and early Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. In focus is the following question: “What is the date and provenience of the Parables of Enoch and did the terms, titles, and concerns unique to it influence Jesus and the Evangelists?” The present volume is the result of the intense labors of many experts. Each study is selfcontained; many are lengthy. New Testament scholars’ myopic focus on New Testament Greek may have been once comprehensible when one observes that a century ago most were trained only in Greek and Latin; but a focus on Greek is no longer justifiable or understandable in light of the worldwide recognition of the importance of Second Temple Judaism; it is clearly the matrix of Jesus and the early traditions in the New Testament. Some New Testament specialists have even expressed the opinion that for the study of Jesus, Aramaic is as important as Greek; some New Testament experts imagine Aramaic is more important. The disconnect of New Testament experts with Early Judaism specialists is hindering advanced research of first-century ce Jewish phenomena. A more disturbing disconnect between scholars and preachers, generally speaking, is apparent. Preachers tend to imagine that the Son of Man is human; he represents humanity. In contrast, the Messiah is a heavenly being. Thus, Christians affirm that in Jesus is wed the truly human and divine. While that Christian perspective and confession is important and should not be undermined, it is imperative to emphasize what many scholars have been emphasizing for almost a century. In Jewish texts that defined Jesus’ Judaism, the Son of Man is a celestial and heavenly being and the Messiah is a human anointed by God to serve him on earth. One may contemplate that while Jesus inherited the cosmic Son of Man from Jewish apocalyptic thought, he conceivably added to the title the suffering he experienced throughout his life, thus creating the humble Son of Man who could not find a home on earth (1En 42:1, Phil 2:6-11, Jn 1:1-18).

­x

Foreword

As most of my seminary colleagues lament, there is too much disconnect between seminary teaching and Church believing. Without a return to the sources, as the Reformation leaders stressed, the exodus from the so-called Church will continue. I hope this colloquium devoted to the origin and influence of the Parables of Enoch with all the excitement it generates will help build bridges between the seminary and the Church. I am most grateful to Darrell Bock who was the first to read and help me improve each chapter. His own work is a masterful Forschungsbericht of studies devoted to the date of the Parables of Enoch. One might begin with his chapter to see the seismic shift from J. T. Milik, who influenced so many savants like E. P. Sanders, to the present chapters, which clarify how and why most experts on the Parables of Enoch are convinced the masterpiece is Jewish and antedates Jesus from Nazareth. I have endeavored to make these chapters readable to those who have not mastered Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, supplying translations and putting ancient languages within parentheses. The use of Latin terms known from the Vulgate to illustrate points in the Parables of Enoch were omitted and English equivalents are used; since Latin is not known to all readers and the use of that language would suggest the Parables of Enoch is extant in Latin. German and French technical terms that are not loan words in English were translated. The numerous ways of abbreviating or representing 1 Enoch 37–71 are recast as the Parables of Enoch. Other alterations such as supplying full bibliographical data and abbreviating all ancient books that appear with chapters and verses, are the expected task of an editor. I consider this collection a major contribution to scholarship and a service to the average intelligent reader. I consider it paradigmatically important to discern “Who influenced whom?” The consensus of these chapters is that the Parables of Enoch has influenced the Evangelists and perhaps Jesus. Dunn would not agree (but he was not privy to these fresh explorations) and Vermes is focused on Jesus’ use of “the Son of Man.” I concur with Vermes’ conclusion that “Son of Man” in Jesus’ words is a circumlocution for “I.” That is harmonious with the arguments in these chapters, even though they diverge at points with Vermes, as they have an eye primarily on the Parables of Enoch. Professor Loren Stuckenbruck served as an important dialogue partner; he helped me polish my contributions, protecting me from many misinterpretations. Jon David Shearer helped me edit these chapters. Blake Jurgens spent three months working with me to finalize all editing. Jurgens also prepared a helpful bibliography that will guide those who are devoted to advancing research, especially in the areas now opened for fresh exploration. I added an introduction to his selected bibliography to provide some chronology to the startling advances by scholars. Dominic Mattos and T&T Clark significantly serve the Academy and the Church. I am grateful for their assistance and support. Those who contributed chapters to this collection worked carefully with me; all were gracious about my heavy editing. The volume is dedicated to 12 specialists (wonderful colleagues)

Foreword

xi

whose labors have brought much light to the study of Early Judaism and Christian Origins. How specifically? They have enlightened our comprehension of “the Son of Man” and of the origin and perspicacity of the Parables of Enoch. James H. Charlesworth 4 July 2012 Ramat haSharon, Israel Princeton, NJ

­

Parables of Enoch

Preface The Books of Enoch: Status Quaestionis James H. Charlesworth The present volume is designed to announce a paradigm shift in research focused on the Parables of Enoch. This complex document has been judged by some scholars to be a second- or third-century Christian composition. Now that virtual consensus, assumed by some New Testament scholars, is being challenged by specialists in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Many leading scholars in distinguished universities throughout the world have shifted the status quaestionis of the Parables of Enoch (= 1En 37–71). These experts now judge the Parables of Enoch to be Jewish. They concur that the work, most likely, was composed just before, or roughly contemporaneous with, Jesus from Nazareth. The author was probably an erudite Jew living in Galilee. His work represents the pinnacle of apocalyptic and messianic thought among devotees of Enoch. This volume reflects and strengthens the paradigm shift that has already taken place in many research groups. A document once placarded as influenced by the Gospels is now being recognized as preserving traditions that inspired the Evangelists and conceivably Jesus.

I. The Books of Enoch: An Emerging Consensus According to biblical traditions, only Enoch and Elijah did not die and could thus be present to guide the faithful on earth. Some Jewish traditions also reflect the belief that Moses is established in heaven on a golden throne (Orphica 32–33 [Long Version in OTP 2.800]; cf. Mk 9:4).1 The seventh human after Adam, Enoch, is perceived to be with God, yet present to help and nourish God’s elect on earth. The source of this belief is grounded in Gen 5:23-24, “All the days of Enoch came to 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him” (TANAKH). Thus, some early Jews imagined that Enoch knew the solar calendar that defined the angels’ calendar, was morally perfect, and was immortal, living in heaven with God. These reflections developed in numerous Jewish circles, yet many of these Jewish groups should not be imagined to be Enoch groups. The devotion 1. 

See the chapter in the present book by J. C. VanderKam and D. Boesenberg.

Preface

­xiv

to Enoch is evident in writings not composed within a putative Enoch group, namely Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other compositions. In its presently received form in the Ethiopic tradition, the Books of Enoch is a collection of at least five books honoring “Enoch,” as well as other apocalyptic traditions or writings. The evolution of the Books of Enoch may be summarized as follows:2 Name 1 Book of the Watchers 2 Book of the Luminaries 3 The Dream Visions 4 The Epistle of Enoch 5 Parables of Enoch

Chapters Date 1–36 circa 300–200 bce 72–82 prior to 200 bce 83–90 about 160 bce 91–105 before 100 bce 37–71 37 bce–66 ce

Appendices: 6 Birth of Noah 7 Another Book of Enoch

106–07 108

prior to 100 bce not clear; prior to 37 bce?

Most of the seven sections are composite and are a depository of traditions associated especially with Enoch and Noah; many show Jewish redaction. The Book of the Watchers seems to portray the generals of Alexander the Great as giants striding over the earth and wreaking havoc. The Book of the Luminaries is extant in the oldest Aramaic copy of the Enoch corpus found in the Qumran caves. This book may preserve the oldest traditions in the corpus. The Dream Visions, in 90:6-42, conclude with historical allusions of the Maccabean revolution. The Epistle of Enoch seems to antedate the kingship of Alexander Jannaeus. The Parables of Enoch, as the present collection demonstrates, reflects the period inaugurated by Herod “the King of the Jews,” and probably was completed before (or during) the ministry of Jesus from Nazareth. The Appendices are difficult to date as they preserve old traditions. Note the conclusion in which Enoch educates his son, Methuselah: “I have recounted in the books” (108:10).

II. Errors in Studying the Parables of Enoch The perception of the date and provenience of the Parables of Enoch was marred by five developments.

2.  The notes draw attention to publications in which I present scholarly opinions or my own research. For full notations, see the following chapters. For a burgeoning consensus on the date of the earliest Enoch books, see J. H. Charlesworth, “A Rare Consensus Among Enoch Specialists: The Date of the Earliest Enoch Books,” in The Origins of Enochic Judaism, ed. G. Boccaccini (Henoch 24; Turin: Silvio Zamorani editore, 2002), pp. 225–34.

Preface

­xv

First, R. H. Charles emended chapter 71 so that Enoch is depicted looking into heaven at another figure, “that Son of Man.” We now have over 120 copies of the Parables of Enoch. None supports Charles’ emendations. Enoch sees himself as that Son of Man: “And that angel came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me, ‘You are that Son of Man who was born for righteousness’ … .” Conceivably with the rhetoric of shock and irony known in other ancient compositions (cf. Mk 14:62),3 the author of the Parables of Enoch concludes with an apocalyptic epiphany in which Enoch is allowed to perceive that he is that Son of Man. Has Enoch seen his heavenly Twin? Second, an influential scholar claimed that the Parables of Enoch dates from the third century ce; and that it is a Christian composition that reflects the Son of Man traditions in the Gospels. The specialist was J. T. Milik. Virtually no Enoch scholar follows Milik’s lead; yet many New Testament experts assume Milik to be correct, and continue to ignore the importance of the Parables of Enoch. In the process, they misperceive the varieties of Jewish thought that were regnant in Second Temple Judaism. These pre-70 apocalyptic traditions and scrolls provide the foreground of Jesus’ mind and clarify the philosophical and theological presuppositions of New Testament authors. Third, numerous scholars are persuaded that the Parables of Enoch postdate 68 ce because they have not been found among the Qumran Scrolls. Such scholars miss the point that we have so little of what was known to the Qumranites and what was placed in the caves. Most of what was in the Qumran Caves was taken by the Romans, destroyed by them, or lost through deterioration of millennia. Moreover, hundreds of fragments are not yet identified. Hence, none of us can claim with certainty that the Parables of Enoch was not known to the Qumranites. Copies of this work could have been taken with those who fled Qumran in 68 ce or before (and conceivably taken in modernity by Bedouin). In addition, the possible absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran cannot help us date the work for a more important reason. At Qumran, the Parables of Enoch would have been anathema, since Enoch is lauded as the Son of Man, the cosmic and eschatological Judge. As is widely perceived, the Qumranites revered Moses and claimed that only the Righteous Teacher was chosen by God to know all the mysteries (1QpHab 7). Likewise, the Parables of Enoch do not advocate the solar calendar that is a hallmark of Qumran thought and a source of their polemics; rather 1 Enoch 41 lauds the moon as “light to the righteous.” Fourth, some biblical experts argue that the Parables of Enoch is not quoted by the Fathers of the Church, and thus must be a late Christian document. They miss the point that many early Jewish works are not quoted by the Early Scholars of the Church. Most importantly, however, the Parables of Enoch would have been rejected by early Christians, since they believed Jesus, not Enoch, is the Son of Man. Moreover, the Parables of Enoch was not unknown to early Christians, since it is likely that Matthew and John knew the work and that the author of the Odes of 3.  Note that in Mk 14:62 the Messianic Secret is broken with Jesus’ declaration that he is the Son of Man who is “seated at the right hand of the Power [= God],” and that he “is coming with the clouds of heaven.”

­xvi

Preface

Solomon may have been influenced by the Parables of Enoch, and that Solomonic pseudepigraphon antedates 125 ce.4 Fifth, too many experts assume the existence of a Pentateuch of Enoch. This division does not do justice to the full corpus, and an Enoch Pentateuch is not as clear as Milik claimed. Within the Books of Enoch are many complex traditions; some may come from a Book of Noah. The books are numbered in a confusing manner and seem to reflect translation and much later editing. For example, does “Book Five” begin at 91 or 92 (as with the fifteenth-century Ms A [OTP 1.12])? Perhaps medieval Ethiopic scribes added the book numbers (e.g. at 72 some Ethiopic manuscripts omit “three,” and “Book” is supplied by some translators). Finally, we should bring into perspective that there are also many other Jewish compositions attributed to Enoch and these reveal early traditions (viz., the Coptic Enoch Fragments, 2En, 3En); these diverse Enoch traditions do not reflect or contribute to a putative Pentateuch of Enoch.

III. Does the Parables of Enoch Antedate Jesus In the following collection, scholars are focusing, inter alia, on the following ten pivotal questions concerning the Parables of Enoch: 1) Are the reasons for dating the Parables of Enoch after 70 ce now unconvincing? 2) Does the composition not mirror the Parthian invasion of 40 bce? 3) Does the author curse not only kings and rulers, but also landowners? 4) How are the author’s ideas related to developing Jewish thoughts within Second Temple Judaism? 5) Is the elevation of Enoch portrayed in 1En 71 foreshadowed? 6) How is the portrayal of Enoch comparable to the depiction of other Luminaries, like Moses? 7) Is the literary development of messianism in the Parables of Enoch to be situated after the Psalms of Solomon and prior to 4Ezra? 8) Can one discern in the Parables of Enoch a development of the Son of Man concept after Daniel but before the Gospels?5 9) How and in what ways was Jesus possibly influenced by the Parables of Enoch? 10) Which New Testament documents and related compositions seem to show the influence of ideas unique to the Parables of Enoch? 4.  Charlesworth, “The Naming of the Son of Man, the Light, the Son of God: How the Parables of Enoch May Have Influenced the Odes of Solomon,” in “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke, ed. P. Allen, M. Franzmann, and R. Strelan (Early Christian Studies 12; Strathfield, NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2007), pp. 31–43. 5.  Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450–68. N.B. also, K. Coblentz Bautch in NIDB 2.263: “… the scholarly consensus is that the booklet derives from either the 1st cent. BCE or CE and is Jewish in origin.” That consensus is clarified in the present collection.

Preface

­xvii­

In the future, scholars will explore the full implications of the paradigm shift. The Books of Enoch is a library of books that were composed over at least three centuries. The authors were Jewish geniuses who knew literature and lore. They seem to have opposed the Temple cult and preferred Enoch over Moses. The latest document in the Books of Enoch is the Parables of Enoch; the author(s) obviously reflected on the coming of the Messiah who is the Son of Man; he will serve as the eschatological Judge of the wicked (kings, rulers, and landowners). Is it conceivable that Jesus discussed many ideas and traditions with those behind the Books of Enoch? How are we to explain that only the Galilean Enoch group (probably) and Jesus (conceivably) believed that the Messiah is the Son of Man and the final Judge? Did Jesus develop his concept of the Son of Man in dialogue with those within the Enoch groups? Did some Jews imagine that Jesus, perhaps like Enoch, saw a celestial figure who represented apocalyptically his own Twin, Double, or primordial One? The concepts, terms, and titles in the Books of Enoch have influenced the theologies and Christologies found in numerous New Testament documents. Discerning how and in what ways these influences occurred, and how significant they are, define a major area for future research in Second Temple Judaism and the study of Christian Origins. No one needs to be reminded that Jude quotes as prophecy a passage from the Books of Enoch that has been recovered in Aramaic and from the late first century bce. Then, why did no one New Testament author quote from the Parables of Enoch?

Conclusion The Books of Enoch constitute a collection of writings stimulated by imagining a living Enoch who shares the wisdom he has obtained from traveling into the future and into distant regions of the cosmos. What is the best way to contemplate and appreciate such books written over more than three centuries by various Jews living perhaps first in Judea and then in Galilee? I prefer to perceive the different works, composed over centuries, as an Enoch Library. This Library preserves traditions that antedate the fourth century bce and other traditions and compositions that continue into the first century ce. The Library includes books and traditions associated with Noah whose “eyes are like the rays of the sun,” and speaks “from the hands of the midwife” (like Jesus in Sura Maryam in the Koran). The child seems to be from the angels (106-107), is the savior from the flood, and the great-grandchild of Enoch.6 Ultimately, all reflections, in their edited forms, are devoted to the incomparably perfect “man” – Enoch – seventh after the first human; he is revealed to be “that Son of Man” who is the eschatological Judge. 6.  See Charlesworth’s texts, translations, and introductions of the Book of Noah as well as the Noah traditions found in the Qumran Caves in “The ‘Book of Noah’ and the Qumran Noah Fragments,” volume 8 of the Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project (in press).

­

­

The Contributors Mordechai Aviam was for 11 years the District Archaeologist of Western Galilee for the Israel Antiquities Authority. He is now the Director of the Institute for Galilean Archaeology at the Kinneret Academic College, Israel. Darrell L. Bock is Executive Director of Culture Engagement and Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Texas, U.S.A. Dulcinea Boesenberg is a Ph.D. student at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A. James H. Charlesworth is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and Editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey, U.S.A. James D. G. Dunn is Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, U.K. Grant Macaskill is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of St. Andrews, U.K. Lee Martin McDonald is President Emeritus and Professor of New Testament Studies Emeritus at Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. Francis J. Moloney earned the D.Phil. (Oxon) in 1976 on “the Son of Man” in the Fourth Gospel. He is past president of the CBA and served as distinguished professor in Melbourne, Jerusalem, Rome, and Washington, D.C. He presently is Provincial Superior of the Salesians of Don Bosco in Australia. Paul Owen is Associate Professor of Greek and Religious Studies at Montreat College, North Carolina, U.S.A. Benjamin E. Reynolds is Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen, U.K. Loren T. Stuckenbruck is the Chairman of New Testament Theology at the Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Germany.

­xx

The Contributors

James VanderKam is the John A. O’Brien Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A. Geza A. Vermes is Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford, U.K. Leslie Walck received his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. He is currently Pastor of Colfax Lutheran Church, Colfax, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Abbreviations All abbreviations, both for primary sources and technical terminology, follow SBL style. Pseudepigraphic references are according to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha edited by James H. Charlesworth. All references to the Dead Sea Scrolls are according to the abbreviations found in the volumes of the Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project.

I. Ancient Documents Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Gen Genesis Song Song of Songs Ex Exodus Isa Isaiah Lev Leviticus Jer Jeremiah Num Numbers Lam Lamentations Deut Deuteronomy Ezek Ezekiel Josh Joshua Dan Daniel Judg Judges Hos Hosea Ruth Ruth Joel Joel 1-2Sam 1-2 Samuel Amos Amos 1-2Kgs 1-2 Kings Obad Obadiah 1-2Chr 1-2 Chronicles Jonah Jonah Ezra Ezra Micah Micah Neh Nehemiah Nah Nahum Esth Esther Hab Habbakkuk Job Job Zeph Zephaniah Ps/Pss Psalms Hag Haggai Prov Proverbs Zech Zechariah Eccl(Qoh) Ecclesiastes (or Qoheleth) Mal Malachi New Testament Mt Matthew 1-2Thes 1-2 Thessalonians Mk Mark 1-2Tim 1-2 Timothy Lk Luke Titus Titus Jn John Phlm Philemon Acts Acts Heb Hebrews Rom Romans Jas James 1-2Cor 1-2 Corinthians 1-2Pet 1-2 Peter Gal Galatians 1-2-3John 1-2-3 John

­xxii

Abbreviations

Eph Ephesians Jude Jude Phil Philippians Rev Revelation Col Colossians II. Modern Publications AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchistentums ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BBET Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie BDAG W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon BDF A Greek Grammar of the NT BÉHÉSR Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des hautes etudes. Sciences religieuses BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniesium BGBE Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BibSciRel Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose BLE Bulletin de literature ecclésiastique BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CCSA Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum CCWJCW Cambridge Commentaries on Writings from the Jewish and Christian World CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary (Chicago Press, 1999) CIJ Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum CRINT Compendia rerum idaicarum ad Novum Testamentum CSA-SE Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclessiasticorum DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément (ed. L. Pirot and A. Robert; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1928) DRev Downside Review

Abbreviations DSD DSSE

xxiii

Dead Sea Discoveries Florentio García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999) EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament EHS/T Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe 23, Theologie ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienes ETR Etudes théologiques et religeuses ExpT Expository Times FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten and Neuen Testaments GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Greg Gregorianum HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTCNT Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUAS Hebrew University Armenian Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IG Inscriptiones graecae (editio minor; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1924) IGA Inscriptiones graecae Aegypti JbPT Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JR Journal of Religion JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement JSNTSS Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lectio divina LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies MdeB Le Monde de la Bible MRTS Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies

­xxiv NedTT NewDocs

Abbreviations

Nederlands theologisch tijdschift New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (ed. G. H. R. Horsley and S. Llewlyn; North Ryde, N.S.W.: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Marquarie University, 1981) NF Neue Folge NGWG Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NTOECL New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edn.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press) NTT Norsk Theologisk Tidsskrift OCP Orientalia Christiana periodica OGIS Orientis graeci inscriptions selectae (ed. W. Dittenberger; 2 vols.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903–5) OTP Old Testament Pseudepgrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth: 2 vols.; Garden City, NY: 1983–85) PG Patrologia cursus completus: Series graeca (ed. J.-P. Migne; 162 vols.; Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–64) PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PL Patrologia cursus completus: Series Latina (ed. J.-P. Migne; 217 vols.; Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–64) PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece QC Qumran Chronicle RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumran RHR Revue de l’historie des religions RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SC Sources chrétiennes SD Studies and Documents SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum Sem Semitica SIG Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (ed. W. Dittenberger; 4 vols.; 3rd edn.; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1915–24) SJSJ Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism SNTS Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas/Society for New Testament Studies SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SPB Studia Post-Biblica STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

Abbreviations

­xxv

Str-B H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–61) SVTP Studia in Veteris Testimenti Pseudepigraphica TANZ Texte und Studien zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. G. W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–76) TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren; trans. J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green; 8 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–) ThR Theologische Rundschau TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie (ed. G. Krause and G. Müller; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977–) TRef Theologia Reformata TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum TU Texte und Untersuchungen TWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuem Testament (ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–79) UGFL Università di Genova Facoltà di lettere VC Vigiliae christianae VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Bible Commentary WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Alten und Neuen Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

­

­

I Son of Man: Scholarly Opinions

­

Chapter 1 The Son of Man Debate Revisited (1960–2012) Geza A. Vermes My involvement with the “son of man” question began over 50 years ago. Like many scholars before me, I was struck by the curious Greek idiom ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (“the son of the man”) in the Synoptic Gospels. It figures, if my counting is correct, 61 times; it is always issuing from the lips of Jesus.1 No third person ever describes or addresses him as “son of man.” While for modern New Testament scholars “son of man” is a problem, it did not seem to be so in Jesus’ age. It was neither unclear, nor shocking, for Galilean audiences. No one ever asked Jesus what he meant when he referred to himself as “the son of man,” nor did any of his critics query the legitimacy of its use. It appeared to be a common, everyday turn of phrase. So after examining all the Gospel passages, I reached the conclusion that “son of man” was the speaker’s particular way to allude to himself in special circumstances. I called it a circumlocutional self-reference. Needless to say, I was not the first to argue for such an understanding. Julius Wellhausen,2 perhaps the greatest luminary among biblical scholars, voiced the same opinion at the very end of the nineteenth century: “[Jesus] uses it [the phrase “son of man”] not esoterically at all, not only in front of his disciples, yet no one is surprised and asks for explanation. All allow it to pass without being astonished, even the quarrelsome Pharisees ... who were not inclined to accept something unintelligible.”3 It has long since been recognized that the expression “the son of man” is not genuinely Greek, but represents the Hellenized version of a phrase current in 1.  [Vermes’ point here is accepted by all in this colloquium. I add notes, in brackets, to anchor Vermes’ superb and brilliant insights within the present chapters. JHC.] 2.  [I have allowed Vermes to use full names and have not abbreviated them as in other chapters. I wish to preserve the personal links forged by Vermes. JHC.] 3.  Skizzen und Vorarbeiten VI (Berlin, 1899), p. 199. The same idea can be traced back to Théodore de Bèze’s Novum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum on Mt 8:20 (Geneva, 1557), as I discovered in D. Burkett’s book, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp. 82–83. [If the Pharisees ostracized the Jews behind the Parables of Enoch, then perhaps Jesus’ closeness to (and conceivable influence from) the Enochic concepts, terms, and titles would probably have caused more polemics against Jesus’ use of “the Son of Man.” Vermes’ point should not go without careful reflection and discussion. JHC.]

­4

Parables of Enoch

ordinary, possibly colloquial, Galilean Aramaic spoken in the first century ce. Hence, I surmised that if we wished to make any sense of the New Testament idiom, we would have to look for an Aramaic sense. Therefore I set out on a voyage of discovery, looking for the extant sources of the phrase in Galilean Aramaic. The inquiry started in 1960 and five years later a conclusion was reached. My usually reliable intuitive self told me that I was on the right path, but it was not without trepidation that I made my findings public before the select forum of an International New Testament conference organized by Professor F. L. Cross of Christ Church in Oxford in September 1965. It was my first public performance in the city of the dreaming spires a few days after my arrival in Oxford as the newly appointed Reader in Jewish Studies.4 My original extensive, but by no means exhaustive, inquiry into the Aramaic evidence concerning the phrase “son of man” was based on the printed editions of the Jerusalem Talmud and the Palestinian Targumim, including Paul Kahle’s edition of the fragments from the Cairo Genizah.5 I was further able to avail myself of the then unpublished Targum Neofiti 1 of the Vatican Library, of which I obtained a photocopy through the kindness of the late Professors Paul Kahle and Alejandro Díez Macho.6 For the Aramaic sections of Genesis Rabbah I used the critical edition of this midrash.7 Finally, I also had at my disposal the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon, which was then still a novelty, having been first published in 1956.8 My essay was a minor linguistic revolution as well as a theological bombshell that threatened to blow sky high the then widely held view that in Second Temple Judaism “the son of man” was the commonly employed title of an eschatological or messianic personality. It created quite a stir in the second half of the 1960s.

4.  The lecture, delivered in the large South School of the University’s Examination Schools in High Street, was entitled “The Use of bar nash / bar nasha’ in Jewish Aramaic.” It appeared two years later as Appendix E in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 1967 [2nd edn.]), pp. 310–28, and was reissued in my Post-biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 147–65. It provoked a fair amount of echoes and I dealt with the critical comments in a lecture at the Sixth International Congress of Biblical Studies at Oxford in 1978, subsequently published under the title “The Present State of the Son of Man Debate,” JJS 29 (1978), 123–34. It was reprinted in “The ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JSNT 1 (1978), 19–32, and again with bibliographical supplements in my Jesus in his Jewish Context (London: SCM, 2003), pp. 81–90, 168–70. The interpretation of the expression and its association with Jesus in the Gospels are the subject of further discussions in two of my books, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973, and London: SCM, 2001), pp. 137–65, and The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (London: Penguin, 2004), pp. 234–65. 5.  Masoreten des Westens II (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), pp. 1–65. 6.  The edition of this important codex started in 1968: A. Díez Macho, ed., Codex Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense de la Biblioteca Vaticana I–VI (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Scientíficas, 1968–79). 7.  By J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965). 8.  N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon (Jeruslaem: Magnes Press, 1956). For the latest edition of the text, see D. A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon (Leiden: Brill, 2009). [The revised, corrected, and expanded edition of 1ApGen, by Machiela, will appear in the Princeton DSS Project; in press. JHC.]

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­5

Making use of the results of research conducted from the late nineteenth to the middle of the twentieth century as well as of my own quest for Aramaic examples of “son of man” as a reference by the speaker to himself, I arrived at four conclusions. The first two were in line with previous findings by A. Meyer, H. Lietzmann, and others,9 while the third and fourth were my own: (1) In Aramaic, the phrase “son of man,” both in the indefinite and the definite forms, could designate “man” in general. (2) It could serve as an indefinite pronoun, viz. “one” or “someone,” like the German man or the French on, both deriving from “man.” (3) It could be employed in monologues or dialogues, within contexts implying awe, reserve or modesty, as an oblique and deliberately equivocal reference to the speaker. Arnold Meyer gave as a parallel the well-known Aramaic expression )rbg )whh (“that man”), used in cases when the speaker means “I,” but does not want to be explicit. I adduced in support of this proposition 11 examples of #n rb / #n) rb that I thought one could interpret as a circumlocutional self-reference.10 (4) The phrase “son of man” nowhere figures as a title.

The lecture, delivered before a select cosmopolitan audience, and its printed version, attracted a fair amount of attention. Among scholars expressing agreement, the pride of place belongs to Charles H. Dodd, by then an octogenarian, who did not hesitate to reformulate a lifetime of Gospel exegesis to adjust it to the newly assimilated information about the Aramaic use of “son of man.”11 Further approval was voiced among others by Otto Michel,12 Henry

9.  A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache: Das galiläische Aramäisch in seine Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu in der Evangelien überhapt (Freiburg im Breisgau and Leipzig: Mohr, 1896); H. Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (Freiburg im Breisgau and Leipzig: Mohr, 1896); idem, Zur Menschensohnfrage (Freiburg im Bresgau and Leipzig: Mohr, 1899). See also, G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930); P. Fiebig, Der Menschensohn: Jesu Selbstbezeichnung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des aramäischen Sprachengebrauches für “Mensch” (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901); J. Y. Cambel, “The Background of the Term ‘Son of Man,’” ExpT 59 (1947/48), 283– 88; M. Black, “The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus,” ExpT 60 (1948/49), 32–36; E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleerup, 1946); idem, “Ben ’adam und bar’enash im Hebräischen und Aramäischen,” Acta Orientalia 21 (1953), 57–65; 91–107; idem, Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien (Lund: Gleerup, 1955). 10.  yBerakot 3b, 5b and 5c, yShabbat 3a, yKetubbot 35a, yShebi‘it 38d, Genesis Rabbah 7:2, 38:13, 79:6; Palestinian Targum (Genizah) Gn 4:14; Neofiti Gn 4:14. 11.  The Founder of Christianity (London: Fontana, 1970), pp. 119–21, 184. 12.  “Der Menschensohn in der Jesusüberlieferung,” Theologische Beiträge 2 (1971), 119–28.

­6

Parables of Enoch

Wansborough,13 Mogens Müller,14 Reginald Fuller,15 Günther Schwarz,16 John R. Donohue,17 and Dogulas R. H. Hare.18 A curiously powerful backhanded compliment is offered to the theory by some later critics, who are perplexed by its continued attractiveness even though ultimately they end up by rejecting it.19 A fairly balanced view is advanced by Russell Morton in a recent useful encyclopedia article.20 Among the scholars who were inspired by my paper, but believed they could refine and improve it, Barnabas Lindars21 and Maurice Casey22 deserve special mention. Both agree that “son of man” entails an element of self-reference, but in the wake of Joachim Jeremias’ claims, they conclude that it is not an exclusive one as I claim. Lindars moreover insists that only the definite (or emphatic) form of the noun )#n) rb (the son of man) can bear the specific meaning envisaged by him. Casey, while insisting on the non-exclusive element, accepts, as I do, that both the definite and indefinite forms )#n) rb or #n rb can be used because the extant sources of Galilean Aramaic point to a progressive weakening of the distinction between the two forms. So the first objection leveled against my thesis was formulated as a counterclaim: “son of man” is applicable only in cases when the idiom primarily designates man in general. The second objection, a linguistic one, was raised by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. He asserts that the Aramaic texts chosen by me as evidence for interpreting the New Testament are unsuitable. They all belong to the age of late Aramaic that starts in 200 ce and consequently 13.  “Jesus of Galilee: The Son of Man,” Clergy Review 60 (1975), 760–66. 14.  “The Expression ‘Son of Man’ as used by Jesus,” Studia Theologica 38 (1984), 47–64. 15.  “The Son of Man: A Re-consideration,” in The Living Text, ed. D. A. Groh and R. Jewett (Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 1985), pp. 207–17. According to Fuller, Jesus used bar nasha’ as the equivalent of an indefinite pronoun as Americans might say “Can’t a guy do what he likes?” meaning “Can’t I do what I like?” 16.  Jesus “Der Menschensohn:” Aramäistische Untersuchunge justice to the Gentiles n zu den synoptischen Menshensohnworte Jesu (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986). 17.  “Recent Studies of the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” CBQ 48 (1986), 484–98. 18.  The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990). 19.  Note, for example, the odd statement of D. Burkett: “Despite the lack of evidence for this theory, it continues to attract adherents” (The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation [Cambridge: CUP, 1999], p. 87). More recently, A. Yarbro Collins remarked, “Although Vermes’s thesis … has been severely criticized, it has continued to be used … even by some of his critics” (including Yarbro Collins herself). See Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 162. 20.  “Son of Man,” in The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, ed. C. A. Evans (New York and London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 595–97. See also D. Flusser with R. S. Notley, The Sage of Galilee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 110. 21.  See “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1975/6), 52–72; “The New Look on the Son of Man,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 63 (1981), 437–62, and especially Jesus, Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1983). 22.  “The Son of Man Problem,” ZNW 67 (1976), 147–54; idem, Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1979); idem, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1998); “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem,” JSNT 25.1 (2002), 3–32 (for bibliography, see n. 1); see especially The Solution of the Son of Man Problem (London: T & T Clark, 2009).

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­7

postdates Jesus. Fitzmyer contends that I should have limited myself to biblical or Qumran Aramaic. The third type of difficulty, linked to other peculiarities of Galilaen Aramaic, is the brainchild of Paul Owen and David Shepherd.23 I will deal with them by answering three questions: (1) (2) (3)

Is “son of man” a generic reference to a group that includes the speaker? Can one use the Galilean Aramaic of the rabbis for the interpretation of the Gospels? Do some of the peculiarities of Galilean Aramaic undermine the theory of #n()) rb as an exclusive self-reference?

I. Is “Son of Man” a Generic Reference to a Group that also Includes the Speaker? The concept of the generic inclusive “son of man” was introduced into the debate in 1967 by the renowned German New Testament specialist, Joachim Jeremias.24 In his view, “son of man” was not an exclusive self-reference. Rejecting the parallelism between )rbg )whh (that man) and )#n) rb as a circumlocution for “I,” he maintained that whereas )rbg )whh always represented the “I” of the speaker, “son of man” had primarily a generic meaning comprising every member of the human race; in that sense it could apply to the speaker, too. For Jeremias, the Aramaic “that man” and “son of man” were not synonyms. I thought I had dealt with this last point in a paper published in 1978,25 but since it continues to be repeated,26 let me refresh the argument. According to a well-known midrashic story, attested in several sources, the first-century ce Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, an escapee from besieged Jerusalem, was brought before Vespasian, the commander of the Roman forces. Yohanan is said to have greeted him with the Latin words: “Vive Domine Imperator!” (“Long live my Lord, the Emperor”). Vespasian’s surprise and concern is recorded in Aramaic: “You have greeted me with a royal salute although I am not a king. If the king [Nero] hears this, he will kill ‘that man’ [i.e. me].”27 The Aramaic expression “that man,” )rbg )whh, could indeed stand for the “I” of the speaker. This meaning is clearly expressed in Ekah Rabbah 1:5 where the worried Vespasian exclaims: “You have killed me … When the king 23.  “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar ’Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?,” JSNT 81 (2001), 81–122. 24.  J. Jeremias, “Die älteste Schicht der Menschensohn-Logien,” ZNW 58 (1967), 159–72. See also, F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London: SCM, 1967), p. 23, n. 4; C. Colpe, “υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” TDNT (1972), 8.403–04; B. Chilton, “(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus,” in Authenticating the Words of Jesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 259–68 25.  See Jesus in his Jewish Context, p. 83. 26.  See A. Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, p. 164. 27.  See Lamantations Rabbah 1:5 §31; Ekah Rabbah 1:5 (ed. Buber, p. 67); Abot de-R. Nathan I. 4 II.6 (ed. Schecter, pp. 12b, 10a); b.Gittin 56ab; Yalqut Shim‘oni §415.

8­8

Parables of Enoch

[Nero] hears of this, he will dispatch someone to execute me.” But )rbg )whh can also identify Yohanan ben Zakkai, as appears in the Babylonian Talmud, Giṭṭin 56a, where Vespasian tells him that by his unwisely worded greeting he brought capital guilt on himself. This story proves that the significance of )rbg )whh is not univocal, but contains an element of equivocation similar to ())#n()) rb. Such an ambivalence pertains to the nature of a circumlocution as will be shown further on. Let us now turn to “son of man” and the widely held, but in my view mistaken, opinion that it represents, in Barnabas Lindars’s words, “[T]he idiomatic use … in which the speaker refers to a class of persons, which whom he identifies himself.” Admittedly, such an understanding is not impossible, but two good reasons militate against its adoption for the interpretation of the “son of man” sayings of the Gospels. In the first instance, it would be pure platitude to assert that a statement employing the “son of man” idiom applies to the speaker merely on account of his being a member of the human race. The sentence “The son of man is going to die” hardly calls for a circumlocution if it simply means that on account of his human nature the speaker is not immortal. It would be just as easy to say, “I, like everybody else, will die one day.” Not only is such a generic formula superfluous; it is also counterproductive if it is meant to account for the New Testament usage. When Jesus declares that “the son of man” is able to pardon sins, he clearly does not intend to state that every human being possesses the power of forgiveness of the equivalent charisma of healing the sick. Neither would the phrase “The son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him” (Mk 9:31) make any sense if taken in the generic meaning even with the inclusion of the speaker. The real problem lies in the inability or unwillingness of the protagonists of the generic “son of man” theory to grasp the purpose of a circumlocution of the type envisaged and to perceive the underlying psychological issues. The notion of circumlocution, as I employ it, does not mean verbiage, the use of many words when one would suffice, but evasive or equivocal talk demanded by particular circumstances. For instance, in many societies, ancient and modern, death is a taboo subject, the direct mention of which must be avoided. Superstitious people believe that uttering a fateful word might bring about nefarious consequences. In contemporary genteel language the verb “to die” is frequently replaced by less frightening substitutes such as “to pass away” or “to fall asleep.” Few people in our post-classical society know that a cemetery is a “sleeping room.” A family pet is not “killed,” but “put down” or “put to sleep.” In Aramaic, by contrast, it is the subject that is obscured: it is )rbg )whh (that man), also )tty) Kh (that woman), or )#n rb Nydh (this son of man) or simply ())#n rb (a man or the man) who dies or is killed. It is irrelevant that some of these sentences in given circumstances can be understood as general statements. It is the intent of the speaker that matters and not the other possible meanings of the idiom. Here the true significance of “son of man” is not primarily generic, but specific, and

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­9

the speaker knows, and most of his listeners can guess, what he is talking about. The circumstances requiring evasion or equivocation of this kind are multiple. The motive may be modesty. As the French say, “Le moi est haïssable” (“the ‘I’ is detestable”). To declare, “I have the authority to pardon sins” sounds pretentious and offensive. To say, “the son of man” has this power is more discreet and acceptable. Quite often, though not always, the audience gets the message, too. Take for instance the anecdote about the Babylonian Kahana, who came to Galilee to study with Rabbi Yohanan, but the new surroundings were not to his liking. One day he put a surreptitious question to his teacher: “If #n rb [a man] is despised by his mother, but honored by another of his father’s wives, where should he go?” Yohanan replied: “He should go where he is honored.” Thereupon Kahana departed. Rabbi Yohanan was later told: “Kahana has gone to Babylon.” “What!” – exclaimed Yohanan. “Has he gone without taking leave?” “The story he told you,” the disciples said, “was his way of asking for permission” (y.Berakhot 5c). In this case the reason for using circumlocutional language was shyness and embarrassment. Kahana knew what his words meant and so did his fellow disciples, but the old teacher missed the point.28 Let me make my point as clear as I possibly can. A circumlocutional selfreference is a statement made by a speaker about himself, framed in the third person form with “son of man” as the surrogate. In circumstances of modesty, self-effacement, fear or awe, this speaker uses roundabout talk because he does not want to call a spade a spade. Understood in this meaning, the “son of man” idiom makes full sense and can be applied to all the Gospel passages that display the corresponding Greek phraseology. The internal logic of the argument can be illustrated. Professor Richard Bauckham, explicitly a holder of the theory of the generic inclusive use of “son of man,” at the end comes down to an interpretation almost identical with mine. He lists no fewer than 16 cases indicating that Jesus employs ‫ רב שנא‬as a deliberately ambiguous self-reference. People accustomed to the Galilean manner of speech understood that Jesus was speaking about himself.29

II. Can One Use the Galilean Aramaic of the Rabbis for the Interpretation of the Gospels? The second objection was voiced by a leading expert of Qumran Aramaic, Joseph A. Fitzmyer.30 In his opinion, I have picked the examples to support 28.  Yarbro Collins blames me for misinterpreting such generic texts; see Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, p. 161. Her error lies in overlooking the non-generic, exclusive, intention underlying the passage. 29.  “The Son of Man: A Man in my Position,” JSNT 23 (1985), 23–33. 30.  He happens to be a classmate of mine from Louvain 60 years ago, and a much appreciated sparring partner ever since.

­10

Parables of Enoch

my theory from the wrong period and from the wrong kind of language. They all belong to late Aramaic sources, postdating Jesus by a couple of centuries or more. Only Jewish Aramaic in use in the first century ce is acceptable for a linguistic comparison with the Gospels. It goes without saying that for Fitzmyer only Qumran Aramaic provides valid comparative material. The inappropriateness of the rabbinic Galilean Aramaic immediately becomes patent, he claims, by the constant occurrence of the shortened form of the noun #n/)#n. In the Aramaic of the age of Jesus, as well as in biblical Aramaic, the initial letter aleph still existed. In earlier times we have the fully written #n)/)#n) and not #n/)#n, in the truncated form.31 Fitzmyer’s criticism, also repeated by Delbert Burkett, Paul Owen and David Shepherd,32 and Adela Yabro Collins,33 must be tackled from two separate angles. Starting with the shortened form of #n/)#n without the opening aleph, it is well known that in the later phrases of Palestinian Aramaic the initial aleph is regularly missing. There are, however, solid reasons to think that the weakening and loss of this consonant goes back at least as far as the first century ce. Apart from the notorious slackness of the Galilean pronunciation of gutturals, we find a number of attestations of the Jewish names Eleazar / Eliezer in an abbreviated form whether transcribed in Greek or written in Aramaic. As is well known, the New Testament mentions two persons called Lazarus (Lk 16:20; Jn 11:1, etc.). The same name, spelled “Lazar,” figures also in Josephus (War 5.567). An inscribed potsherd from Masada, dating from the first century 34 ce, also mentions a “Lazar son of Masaraios.” To these items should be added three first-century ce ossuary inscriptions from Jerusalem,35 mentioning “Shallon daughter of Li‘ezer,” “L‘azar” and “Eli‘ezer son of Lazar.”36 The regular substitution of Lazar for Eleazar in the Palestinian Talmud must be seen in this context. It was not a late innovation. Perhaps even more directly relevant are the examples from the non-literary Aramaic legal documents from Murabba‘at 18.3 and 19.10, 24, which attest the elision of the initial aleph from the noun Pn) (face) and the verb rm) (to say).37 The same phenomenon is attested in an Aramaic apocryphal version of 31.  Review of M. Black (see n. 3) in CBQ 30 (1968), 417–28; “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 85–113; “Another View of the ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JSNT 4 (1979), 58–65. 32.  See Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God. 33.  Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, p. 163. 34.  H. M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II (779.4) (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), pp. 119–20. 35.  [Many examples of the spellings noted by Vermes are presented in L. Y. Rahmani, Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority, 1994). JHC.] 36.  J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum II (Vatican: Città del Vaticano, 1952), nos. 1296, 1309, 1337. In the last example, both the ’aleph and the ‘ayin are dropped. 37.  J. T. Milik, DJD 2, pp. 101, 105.

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­11

Genesis found at Qumran (6Q8.8) with Nwrmy equalling “they say.”38 In his classic Aramaic grammar, Gustaf Dalman asserts without further ado that #n and )#n are normal examples of the dropping by the Galileans of the opening aleph with the vowel that is attached to it. 39 In sum, the omission of the aleph in #n/)#n rb does not disqualify the Aramaic “son of man” from being used in the exegesis of the Gospels. Let us now return to Fitzmyer’s main quarrel with the examples from the Palestinian Talmud and Targum and from Genesis Rabbah. His rejection of these sources on the ground that, unlike the Qumran texts, they illustrate a stage of the Aramaic language that is more recent than the language spoken by Jesus is questioned by Jonas C. Greenfield, arguably the greatest Aramaic expert in the second half of the twentieth century: Some scholars have thought that the Qumran texts bring us closer to the vernacular in use and not only to the literary language. They have assumed that this is the sort of Aramaic that stands behind the Greek of certain New Testament books. Others have claimed that Qumran notwithstanding, one must turn to later Palestinian Aramaic for evidence for this. The latter position seems more plausible to me at present, since my view is that Qumran Aramaic is Standard Literary Aramaic. However, if the proposed Aramaic proto-Gospel, if it ever existed, was in literary Aramaic, then there is no reason why Qumran Aramaic may not be used for reconstructing it. But the ipsissima verba of a Galilean [meaning Jesus] ought best to be recovered by use of later Galilean Aramaic.40

In brief, if we lived in paradisiacal conditions and had at our disposal an abundant variety of Aramaic comparative material, each item dating from the first century ce, it would indeed be unnecessary to have recourse to texts originating from a later era. Alas, this is not the case, but in my view, and according to that of true specialists, the Galilean Aramaic of the rabbis is a reliable substitute. Let me put the facts in relief. No literary source transmitting the language – above all the idiomatic and colloquial language – spoken in Galilee in the age of Jesus can be found. In reality, very few Aramaic writings of any description survive from that period, and not a single piece represents the dialect of Galilee.

38.  M. Baillet, DJD 3, p. 118. 39.  Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischesn Aramäisch (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905 [2nd edn.]), pp. 96–97. 40.  J. C. Greenfield, “Aramaic and its Dialects,’’ in Alkanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, ed. S. Paul, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 368 (originally issued in Jewish Languages: Theme and Variations, ed. H. H. Paper, pp. 29–43 in 1978 and consequently it should have been available to Fitzmyer and his epigones). For a similar opinion, see also S. Fassberg, “Qumran Aramaic,” Maarav 9 (2002), 19–31.

­12

Parables of Enoch

Is the geographical provenance of the evidence of any importance? The answer must be “yes.” The Gospels tell us that the language spoken by firstcentury ce Galileans could easily be recognized. They report that when during the night preceding the crucifixion, Peter attempted to deny that he was a follower of Jesus, the bystanders immediately retorted that his “speech” (λαλιά) betrayed his regional, Galilean, identity (Mt 26:72; Mk 14:70). This Galilean “speech” unquestionably entailed local accent. In this respect we find a telling anecdote regarding Galilean pronunciation, or mispronunciation, in a passage of the Talmud. A provincial Jew was riled by the merchants in a Jerusalem marketplace because they found his Aramaic hard to understand: “You stupid Galilean – they asked – are you looking for something to ride on [rmx = a donkey], or something to drink [rmx = wine], or some material for clothing [rm( = wool], or a sacrificial victim [rmy) = lamb]?”41 The selection of words alluded to exemplifies the weakening and interchangeability of gutturals in the Northern dialect. No doubt further points of difference concerned vocabulary and grammar, as can be deduced from the available rabbinic witnesses of Galilean Aramaic.42 Since, not counting ossuary inscriptions devoid of literary or colloquial characteristics, the only linguistic evidence contemporaneous with Jesus is found in the few Aramaic phrases and words written with Greek letters in the Gospels, such as ταλιθα κουμ (“Little girl [literally, little lamb], get up,” Mk 5:41)43 and in the lexical, grammatical and syntactical Aramaisms in the New Testament Greek of the Evangelists,44 meaningful research into the Aramaic background of the “son of man” idiom can only be based on extant texts which postdate the time of Jesus. Admittedly, such a comparison can only count as second best, but it is still considerably better than nothing at all. It is generally agreed that the Gospels’ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is the Greek rendering of )#n/#n rb, and this concordance strongly corroborates the presumption that the relevant Aramaic, attested in rabbinic quotations and in the Palestinian Targumim, was already current in the first century ce.45

41.  (b.Erubin 53b). The fact that one of the possible purchases was a sacrificial animal proves that the legend originates from, or at least envisages, the pre-70 ce period when the Temple cult was still functioning. Another illustration of sloppy Galilean pronunciation may be found in yBerakhot 4d: “It is taught. They do not send before the ark (to participate in public prayer), people from Haifa, Betshean and Tibon because they pronounce het as he and ‘ayin as ’aleph.” 42.  G. Dalman, Grammatik, pp. 44–51; E. Y. Kutscher, Studies in Galilean Aramaic (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1976). 43.  It is likely that the masculine form of the imperative κουμ (=Mwq) echoes Galilean dialectal slackness. The correct feminine form is κουμι (= ymwq), attested in some Greek manuscripts and ancient translations. 44.  See G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930 [2nd edn.]); M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 1967 [3rd edn.]). 45.  See J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 728.

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

13

III. Do Some of the Peculiarities of Galilean Aramaic Undermine the Theory of ‫נשא‬/‫ בר נש‬as an Exclusive Self-Reference? A broad frontal attack was launched in 2001 on the “son of man” as an Aramaic self-reference theory by Paul Owen and David Shepherd,46 who at that time were graduate students in Edinburgh University under the supervision of the Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology, Larry W. Hurtado.47 In a ponderously entitled 41-page-long article, Owen and Shepherd set out to combat an enemy army consisting of the combined forces of Geza Vermes, Barnabas Lindars, and Maurice Casey. They are aware of my pioneering role, but they also know that from time to time Lindars and Casey follow their own separate paths.48 Nevertheless, Owen and Shepherd do not appear to perceive the full impact of the divergences, and in their final conclusion they lump the three of us together as though we were of the same mind.49 The dark forest prevents them from seeing the individual trees. The three main parts of the Owen and Shepherd study investigates: (1) the use of the definite form )#n/#n rb in late Western Aramaic; (2) the loss of the determinative force of the definite form of the noun in Qumran Aramaic; and (3) the use of the Aramaic terms for “Man” at Qumran and in earlier sources. Discerning readers will quickly notice that the issues Owen and Shepherd examine mainly concern the theories of Lindars and Casey, and in particular their insistence on the generic meaning of “son of man” and the need for the use of the definite form of the Aramaic noun for their interpretation of the Gospel citations. Since neither topic affects my view of the relationship between the New Testament idiom and its Aramaic substratum, it was up to Linders and Casey to respond. Sadly, Barnabas Linders did not live long enough to stand up for his ideas, but Maurice Casey promptly dealt with the charges in a quietly authoritative tone and in full detail.50 My own task remains, therefore, to examine those elements of the Owen–Shepherd criticism which tangentially affect my theory. To begin with their hostility to the use of the Palestinian talmudic, midrashic and targumic sources on account of their date, it derives from their adoption of J. A. Fitzmyer’s stance,51 which I have already countered.52 If they had borne in mind the dialectal peculiarities involved in the Aramaic “son of man” idiom, for which no direct evidence exists from the first century ce, Owen 46.  “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar ’Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?,” JSNT 81 (2001), 81–122. 47.  In Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 290–302, Hurtado wholeheartedly endorses their work. 48.  See, for example, art. cit., p. 88, and n. 33, p. 89, n. 35, p. 105, n. 92. 49.  See p. 121. 50.  “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd,” JSNT 25.1 (2002), 3–32. 51.  See art. cit., pp. 96–97. 52.  See also my review of J. A. Fitzmyer and D. J. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), in JTS 31 (1980), 580–82.

Parables of Enoch

­14

and Shepherd might have understood that it is preferable to work with written sources of Galilean Aramaic of the rabbinic period than to rely on the small amount of geographically, linguistically, and thematically distinct Aramaic material from Qumran. Owen and Shepherd also object to my conclusion that the Galilean Aramaic texts use indistinctly the indefinite and definite forms of “son of man” ()#n rb and #n rb) to express one and the same idea. Moreover, they assume, in the wake of E. Y. Kutscher, that the printed editions of the Galilean Aramaic writings are unreliable because they are based on manuscripts copied by European scribes. These scribes, Kutscher states, were familiar with the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud and as a result, deliberately or unintentionally, tended to superimpose the Babylonian (Eastern) Aramaic dialect on the Galilean variety.53 Having read this manifesto of Kutscher, Owen and Shepherd infer that his work “casts into doubt much, if not all, of Vermes’s evidence for the definite form )#n rb in Western sources.”54 Quite apart from the need to point out that Kutscher’s assessment of the role of the scribes is mere supposition, Owen and Shepherd are misguided in their charges leveled against my evidence – since in my view there is no difference in meaning whether you read )#n rb or #n rb. I never intended to document the presence or absence of the definite form of the idiom in Western Aramaic sources. Having read their charge, I was nevertheless prepared to spend a few minutes on doing some checking. The co-authors’ quibble arises from my reference to )#n rb in the definite form in the critical edition of Genesis Rabbah 38.13 (reproduced from the British Library manuscript, Add. 27169), although in the textual apparatus the indefinite form (#n rb) is recorded in the light of four other manuscripts. From this, Owen and Shepherd surmise that this #n rb “may well represent the original Western (Galilean) Aramaic flavour of the text.”55 Does this bizarre assertion suggest that in their opinion the definite form )#n rb is necessarily Eastern, and the indefinite )#n rb ipso facto Western? I am sure E. Y. Kutscher would have been nonplussed by such a contention. Kutscher, in fact, makes a positive suggestion towards establishing the authentic Galilean Aramaic text of Genesis Rabbah. He draws attention to an important witness reliably transmitting Galilean characteristics, the Vatican Codex Ebr. 30.56 Does the reading of this “reliable” manuscript differ from that chosen by Theodor and Albeck in their critical edition? I had a look and found that in our passage (38.13) it also has the definite form )#n rb. The only insignificant difference Ebr. 30 displays is that it reads ‫ אשנ‬with the consonant he at the end whereas the printed text gives )#n with an aleph. As the ancient used to say, “For a wise man this should be enough” – Sapienti sat.

53.  See art. cit., p. 2. 54.  Art. cit., p. 91. 55.  Ibid. 56.  Art. cit., p. 4.

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­15

Fluctuation between the definite and the indefinite forms of the Aramaic noun has been accepted as a regular occurrence even by the specialists of Qumran Aramaic. The common opinion has been that from the end of the preChristian era the distinction between the two forms was progressively fading.57 This phenomenon is magnificently illustrated in the Palestinian Targum on Gen 9:5-6 preserved in a manuscript from the Cairo Genizah:58 Hebrew: Targum:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning;

Hebrew: I will require it of every beast and of man (Md)h). Targum: I will require the soul of man (h#n rb) of the hand of one another. Hebrew: Whoever sheds the blood of man (Md)h), Targum: Whoever sheds the blood of man (#n rb), Hebrew: Targum:

by man (Md)b) shall his blood be shed; by the hand of man (#n rb) shall his blood be shed;

Hebrew: Targum:

For God made man (Md)h) in his own image. For in an image from before the Lord he created man (h#n rb).

In the Hebrew of Gen 9:5-6 the term “man” (Md)) appears four times, always with the definite article. In the Aramaic translation, we have the definite form h#n rb in the first and in the last cases, but the Targumist uses the indefinite #n rb on the second and third occasions. The logical inference is that in the genuine Galilean dialect of the Palestinian Targum exhibited by manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, the two forms are interchangeable and no desperate attempt at explaining this away, contrived by Owen and Shepherd, will alter this fact.59 57.  J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Cave 1 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971 [2nd edn.]), p. 221. T. Muraoka, “Notes on the Aramaic of the Genesis Apocryphon,” RQ 8 (1972–74), 13. 58.  Bodleian Ms Heb. d 49, fol. 48r, reproduced in M. L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of the Palestinian Targum in the Pentateuch (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1986), p. 25. The variants in the corresponding section of Targum Neofiti are not significant. )#n is always spelled with aleph and #n rb and )#n rb are two words. The only difference worth noting is that in Neofiti it is Adam and not “the son of man” who is created in God’s image. However, the marginal variant reads )#n rb. 59.  “But what of the absolute forms barnash provided by the Targumist? It may be that the Targumist did not find or choose to read the determined vocalization preserved in the Masoretic Text ba ’adam. Perhaps this, along with the idiomatic addition of ‘the hand of,’ has influenced his choice to revert to an absolute form twice in the heart of his rendering. This would be entirely understandable given the contextual inappropriateness of the determined ‘the man’ (ha-’adam / barnashah) to the ear of a Western Aramaic speaker” (art. cit., p. 94). (I like the two Edinburgh graduate students’ pretence to know what sounded contextually inappropriate to the ear of a Western Aramaic speaker.) One looks forward with some misgivings to the appearance of “Who is the son of man?”: The

Parables of Enoch

­16

In short, misled by their obsession with an irrelevance, the role of the indefinite or definite form of bar nash / nasha in the Galilean Aramaic of the age of Jesus, they have written 41 pages without contributing a ha’p’orth of real substance to the advancement of the interpretation of “the son of man” sayings in the Gospels.

Conclusion Instead of finishing on a negative note, I prefer to end this survey with a positive proof in favor of the exclusive self-reference theory. Presented in their synoptic parallels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke clearly vindicate the reciprocity of the Greek “son of man” and the “I” of the speaker; this speaker is always Jesus. The Gospel examples will be followed by extracts from Galilean Aramaic writings. The key words appear in italic letters. New Testament “son of man” / “I” parallel sayings Blessed are you when men hate you on account of the son of man. Mt 5:11     Blessed are you when men revile you ... on my account.60

1. Lk 6:22

Mk 2:10 That you may know that the son of man has authority to forgive sins ... I say to you take up your pallet and go home. Lk 5:24 That you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins ... I say to you, rise, take up your bed and go home. Mt 9:6 That you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins – he then said to the paralytic – Rise, take up your bed and go home. 61 2.

3. Mt 16:13 Who do men say that the son of man is? Mk 8:27 Who do men say that I am? Lk 9:18 Who do people say that I am?62 4. Mk 10:45 The son of man came not to be served but to serve. Mt 20:28 The son of man came not to be served but to serve. Lk 22:27 I am among you as one who serves.

Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, ed. L. W. Hurtado and P. L. Owen (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2011). 60.  See W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel according to St Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), vol. 1, p. 462. 61.  Although the “I” is missing, the identity of the speaker is evident. 62.  In Mt 16:15, Mk 8:29 and Lk 9:20 the “I” formula continues.

The Son of Man Debate Revisited

­17

Aramaic “son of man” / “I” parallel sayings Behold you have banished me from the face of the earth ... but #n rb (the son of man) is unable, O Lord, to hide from you (Genizah Targum). Behold you have banished me from the face of the earth ... but I (yl) am unable to hide from you (Targum Neofiti). 2. yBerakhot 3b I would have asked the Merciful One to create two mouths for the son of an )#n rbl – one to study the Torah, and one to provide him with all his needs. 3. yShabbat 3a I would have asked the Merciful One to create two mouths for this son of man (‫ רנשאלב להדין‬or ‫ ברנשא להדין‬for this, for the son of man)63 – one to study the Torah, and one to provide him with all his64 needs. 4. GenR 79:6 Not even a bird is caught without the will of Heaven. How much less the soul of #n rb (the son of man)? (TheodorAlbeck). Not even a bird is caught without the will of Heaven. How much less y#pn (my soul).65 1. Gen 4:14

I believe the message of these comparative tables is a stark and eloquent Q.E.D.66

63.  This expression directly parallels )rbg )whh “that man” = me. 64.  A variant reading gives ykrwc, “my needs.” 65.  This variant reading comes from the Bodleian Ms. Opp. Add. 3, fol. 142v. In the parallel text of Esther Rabbah 3, “the soul of )#n rb” is replaced, not by the first person singular, “my soul,” but by the first person plural, ‫נפשתנא‬, “our souls,” applying the statement to both Simeon ben Yohai and his son. 66.  For my interpretation of the “son of man” passages in the Gospels, see G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973, and London: SCM, 2001), pp. 137–65; The Changing Faces of Jesus (London: Penguin, 2001), pp. 38–41, 175–77; and The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (London: Penguin, 2004), pp. 234–65.

­

Chapter 2 The Son of Man in Mark James D. G. Dunn The issue in focus in this chapter is the possible influence of the Son of Man imagery in the Parables of Enoch upon the Gospel of Mark.1 Hopefully, the clarification of that issue, or indeed resolution of that issue, will be a major step towards both a more precise dating of the Parables of Enoch and a clearer assessment of the when and how of the document’s influence. To what degree does the Gospel of Mark contribute to a clarification or resolution of that issue? If we take as our starting point the widespread consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the late 60s or early 70s of the first century 2 ce, then the issue subdivides neatly into two questions. (1) Does the Gospel of Mark show evidence of influence from the Parables of Enoch on the Gospel itself? That is, does Mark’s presentation of the Son of Man motif in his Gospel show awareness of or influence from the Son of Man imagery in the Parables of Enoch? (2) Even if the answer to this first question is “No,” the further question still has to be asked. Does the tradition on which Mark draws provide evidence of a broader range of reflection in Second Temple Judaism which could well have found expression in the Parables of Enoch? That is, could the Parables of Enoch and Mark’s tradition be justly regarded as different or divergent expressions of a common or similar range of reflection within late Second Temple Judaism? This latter question, of course, includes the specific issue of whether Jesus himself knew of or was influenced either by the Parables of Enoch or by a more diffuse reflection which also came to expression in the Parables of Enoch. But the issue should not be limited or confined to the question of specific influences on Jesus himself, or indeed, of influences on early Christian reflection on the status and significance of Jesus. The broader challenge is to see how much we can learn about eschatological, apocalyptic, and messianic speculation in late Second Temple Judaism (first century bce and first century ce). The simplest way to proceed is to note and briefly examine the Son of Man references in the Gospel of Mark, in each case asking of the passage the above 1.  [In brackets and in the notes, I add references to other chapters in this collection; that will anchor Dunn’s marvelous reflections with other research presented now. JHC.] 2.  For example, W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1975), p. 98; M. D. Hooker, The Gospel according to St Mark (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1991), p. 8; M. E. Boring, Mark: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2006), pp. 14–15.

The Son of Man in Mark

­19

two questions. There are 13 of these passages – 2:10, 2:28, 8:31, 8:38, 9:9, 9:12, 9:31, 10:33, 10:45, 13:26, 14:21(2), 14:41 and 14:62. In the scholarly discussion of the last century or so, they (or the Son of Man references in the Synoptics as a whole) have traditionally been subdivided into three groups: the earthly Son of Man (2:10, 28, 10:45); the suffering Son of Man (8:31, 9:12, 31, 10:33, 14:21, 41); and the heavenly Son of Man (8:38, 13:26, 14:62).3 Here, without presupposing the appropriateness of such a division, we will treat and group them in accordance with the way they function in Mark.

The Authority of the Son of Man The first two Son of Man sayings in Mark are linked by the theme of authority. They are of particular importance as the first sounding of the Son of Man theme in Mark, and because their focus on the authority of the Son of Man is so distinctive.4 (1) Mk 2:10 – “. . . the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth”. In context, these are words attributed to Jesus. He has announced to the paralysed man, “Child, your sins are forgiven” (2:5). Some of the scribes there present thought that by so doing, Jesus was guilty of blasphemy: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (2:7). Jesus responds by asking which is easier: to say to the paralysed man, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and take up your mat and walk” (2:9). Then comes the Son of Man reference: “But in order that you might know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the earth.” Jesus also says the latter words, “Stand up, take up your mat and go to your house” (2:10-11). The healing words succeed (2:11), leaving the obvious inference that the forgiving words had already succeeded. Two features call for comment. (a) “The Son of Man” here is obviously a title for Jesus. The Son of Man’s “authority to forgive sins” explains and justifies Jesus’ preceding announcement of forgiveness of the paralysed man’s sins. Evidently, Jesus was understood to have forgiven sins as “the Son of Man.” (b) The claim in effect that Jesus had thus been exercising divine authority (“Who can forgive sins but God alone?”) is strengthened by the addition of “on the earth” to the key statement (“the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on the earth”).5 The implication is that the forgiving of sins is an exercise of heavenly authority, and quite possibly also that “the Son of Man” is a heavenly being, exercising his heavenly authority “on earth.”

3.  Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1952), vol. 1, p. 30; F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1963, 1995), pp. 32–53; idem, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1969), pp. 28–53; M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967), pp. 77–173; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (German: 1975; ET Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 183–90. 4.  Hooker, Son of Man, however, argues that all the Son of Man sayings in Mark are linked to the question of Jesus’ authority. 5.  In the manuscript tradition the phrase “on the earth” varies in its position; see J. Marcus, Mark 1–8 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday), p. 218.

­20

Parables of Enoch

Whatever the tradition drawn on by Mark at this point, the most obvious conclusion to draw is that both features were intended by Mark and that this episode brought to expression an important element of Mark’s Christology – Jesus as the Son of Man, exercising heavenly or indeed divine authority by forgiving sins and healing. We need not go further into the question whether Jesus used the phrase “(the) son of man,” or the same phrase as a title (“the Son of Man”) at this point or in such a situation during his mission, or whether he announced sins forgiven or forgave sins, or whether he did so in implicit claim to be exercising divine authority.6 In Mark’s Gospel the titular force of the phrase, its reference to Jesus himself, and the high Christology implied are all sufficiently clear and sufficiently explicit to provide grist for the mill of our central issue. As to possible influence from the Parables of Enoch, what is most immediately relevant is the fact that declaration of sins forgiven or the actual forgiveness of sins is never attributed to the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. So the key feature in Mark 2 cannot be attributed to knowledge of the Parables of Enoch on the part of Mark or to influence from the Son of Man motif in the Parables of Enoch on Mark or on his tradition (or on Jesus). More intriguing, however, is the issue of whether the claim that Jesus exercised a heavenly authority, perhaps as himself a heavenly being, reflects a more widespread similar expectation or reflection in Second Temple Judaism. Here at once it can be noted that forgiveness of sins was part of the eschatological expectation and hope expressed in the prophets and in early Judaism.7 Not to be ignored is the fact that such forgiveness is consistently attributed to God and never explicitly attributed to an intermediary or heavenly redeemer figure, even when such a figure is part of the expectation or hope. At the same time, however, the association of the high priest with the ritual of the Day of Atonement meant that it was quite natural for 11QMeleh 2.4-8 to link Melchizedek with eschatological atonement and freeing from iniquity. And in Rom 11:26-27 it is equally unsurprising that Paul could bring together two Isaiah passages to link God’s taking away of sins with the coming of “the deliverer” coming out of Zion (Isa 59:20-21; 27:9). So, while we cannot infer any influence from the Parables of Enoch on Mk 2:10, we can say that the attribution of this heavenly authority to Jesus as the Son of Man may reflect a wider hope and expectation also shared at Qumran and elsewhere within late Second Temple Judaism. This episode was being understood as the realization of this hope, albeit only in this particular case. And Jesus was being presented as the one who brought this hope to realization, that is, as one who acted as God’s representative in exercising such authority. The status and authority attributed to the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch was not all that distant from the status and authority here attributed to Jesus.

6.  Discussion in E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985), pp. 273–74; J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 739–41, 787–88. 7.  For example, Isa 33:24; Jer 31:34; Jub 22:14.

The Son of Man in Mark

­21

(2) Mk 2:28 – “the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” This comes as the conclusion to one of the sequence of controversy stories which gives the impression that Mk 2:1–3:6 had been taken over by Mark as a preformed unit.8 The episode climaxes in Jesus’ response to the criticism of some Pharisees that by plucking (and eating) ears of grain on a Sabbath journey Jesus’ disciples were doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath (2:23-24). The story is a classic form of apophthegm or pronouncement story, building up to the climax of Jesus’ saying: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So then, the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath” (2:27-28).9 An immediate issue here is whether the key phrase is a title. In Mark’s Gospel the most natural reading (especially after 2:10) is that Mark intended his readers / audiences to take the phrase as a further reference to Jesus as “the Son of Man.” The obvious inference is that Jesus’ teaching, or defence of his disciples’ action, is to be read / heard as an expression of his own lordship over the Sabbath. Whether the disciples’ action was unlawful or not, Jesus had authority to declare its acceptability. This would include, of course, the implication that Jesus as the Son of Man had authority to interpret the Torah in a definitive way. The issue is a little more complex, since the tradition on which Mark was drawing could have intended the key phrase to be read in a non-titular way. If the Sabbath was made for man (ἄνθρωπος; 2:27), then “the son of man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθπώπου) is lord of the Sabbath” (2:28).10 Such a setting of “man” and “the son of man” in poetic parallel was very familiar in Hebrew (or Aramaic) usage, as is clear from the well-known example in Ps 8:4 – “What is man (ἄνθροπος) that you are mindful of him, or the son of man (υἱὸς ἁνθρώπου) that you care for him?”11 That is to say, in the earlier form of the tradition, Jesus could simply have made the logical deduction that if the Sabbath was made for human beings then human beings are over the Sabbath not under it; they have authority over the Sabbath, or freedom in the way they honor the Sabbath, and are not bound slavishly by the Sabbath’s authority.12 8.  V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (London: Macmillan, 1959), pp. 91–92; H. W. Kuhn, Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1971), pp. 53–98; R. A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), pp. 82–84; J. D. G. Dunn, “Mark 2.1–3.6: A Bridge between Jesus and Paul on the Question of the Law, ” in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), pp. 10–31; A. Y. Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007), pp. 182–83. 9.  R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), pp. 39–54; V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1949), pp. 63–87. 10.  The issue does not arise from Matthew and Luke, neither of whom has a parallel to Mk 2:27; for them “the Son of Man” is only titular. 11.  In its attempt to avoid gender specificity NRSV loses the verbal play which is central to these passages: “What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?” (Ps 8:4); “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath” (Mk 2:28). 12.  So argued by M. Casey in several publications; see most recently The Solution of the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (LNTS 343; London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), pp. 121–25; cf. Guelich, Mark, pp. 128–29; Marcus, Mark 1–8, p. 531; Collins, Mark, p. 204. Earlier bibliography in Taylor,

Parables of Enoch

­22

In the latter case the question of influence from the Parables of Enoch or from the Daniel 7 vision hardly arises. Jesus was remembered as simply using the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom which denoted ordinary mortals. Jesus was remembered as teaching that the well-being of human beings was more important than the obeying the Torah (or particular interpretations of the Torah). The further issue of whether in such an earlier form of the tradition Jesus was remembered as referring to himself by this phrase (“the son of man” meaning something like “a man like me”)13 need not detain us. Such a selfreferential usage by Jesus would, of course, help explain how the more generic phrase came to be regarded as a titular self-reference (“the Son of Man”). But the key issue is whether this later reading of the phrase, as expressed in Mark’s rendering of the tradition, gives evidence of influence from the Parables of Enoch or from a wider circle of reflection. It is certainly possible to argue so – that one of the factors influencing the development from a generic (“the son of man”) to a titular usage (“the Son of Man”) in the retelling of this episode was the wider reflection about the “one like a son of man” in the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:14), including the heavenly Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch. Yet here again there is no precedent in such wider reflection for the thought of the Son of Man’s lordship over the Sabbath. On the contrary, the saying of Mk 2:28 seems to grow directly out of the episode retold by Mark and needs no further alleged stimulus or influence to explain it. Jesus was remembered as disputing with some Pharisees regarding observation of the Sabbath. In that dispute itself or in an early retelling of it the assertion that the welfare of human beings was more important than observance of various Sabbath rulings used the phrase “the son of man.” The resulting reference to Jesus as the Son of Man presumably reflected a wider Son of Man Christology in earliest Christianity, but otherwise there is no indication of any direct influence from a wider Son of Man reflection within Second Temple Judaism.

The Suffering Son of Man As already indicated, several of the Markan Son of Man passages can be treated together – that is, the ones usually grouped together as the suffering Son of Man sayings. Note the following: (3) Mk 8:31 – Jesus to his disciples – the first Passion prediction: “He began to teach them that the Son of Man must endure much suffering and be rejected Mark, pp. 197–98, 219, and D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp. 87–96. Boring regards such an interpretation as “a too post-Enlightenment, humanist reading of Mark” (Mk 91), without raising the question of preMarkan tradition. 13.  See discussion in Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 726–28, 739–42, with further bibliography.

The Son of Man in Mark

(5) (6) (7)

(8)

(11) and (12) (13)

­23

by the elders and the high priests and the scribes, and be put to death, and after three days rise again.” Mk 9:9 – Jesus to Peter, James and John who accompanied him up the mount of transfiguration: “he instructed them not to tell anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Mk 9:12 – Jesus to Peter, James and John who accompanied him up the mount of transfiguration: “How is it written regarding the Son of Man that he has to endure much suffering and be treated with contempt?” Mk 9:31 – Jesus to his disciples – the second Passion prediction: “he was teaching his disciples and telling them that the Son of Man is to be handed over into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed he will rise again.” Mk 10:33 – Jesus to the twelve – the third and most detailed Passion prediction: “the Son of Man will be handed over to the high priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him, and after three days he will rise again.” Mk 14:21 – Jesus to the twelve during their last supper together: “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is handed over.” Mk 14:41 – Jesus to Peter, James and John in the garden of Gethsemane: “the hour has come, look! The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”

The common thread linking all these passages is clear. Mark reports or retells the Christian community’s tradition or recollection that Jesus predicted his own suffering and death. More to the present point, he did so consistently by referring to himself as “the Son of Man.” Here the question arises whether the tradition goes back to one or more sayings which made a word-play between “the son of man” and “man / men.” This is indeed a possibility, as Mk 14:21 suggests: “the son of man goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man (ἄνθρωποϛ) by whom the son of man is handed over. It would be better for him if that man had not been born.”14 It is also possible that Mk 9:31, which preserves such a play (“the son of man is to be handed over into the hands of men”), was the root from which the more elaborate Passion predictions developed.15 Or that a similar word-play between “son of man” and “men” featured in various teachings of Jesus which were the basis of the different Passion predictions.

14.  Cf. Casey, Solution, pp. 134–36, 210. Casey argues that 8:31 “is a somewhat explicative translation of a genuine prediction by Jesus of his suffering, death and resurrection after a short interval” (pp. 202–11; quotation is from 211). 15.  J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), pp. 281–82: “The masal ‘God will (soon) deliver up the man to men’ (Mark 9.31a) is thus the ancient nucleus which underlies the passion predictions.” Cf. B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1983), p. 68. Casey denies that an Aramaic reconstruction is possible (Solution, p. 209).

­24

Parables of Enoch

Personally I think it highly likely that the tradition of Jesus referring to himself as “the son of man” does indeed go back to Jesus himself.16 The feature (use of the phrase, and probably in self-reference) is so distinctive of Jesus’ speech within the Jesus tradition and so lacking elsewhere, that the most obvious inference to be drawn is that the appearance of the phrase in the Gospel traditions is to be directly traced back to Jesus’ own usage.17 The possibility that the appearance of the phrase in the Jesus tradition goes back to Jesus’ own use of the Semitic idiom, “son of man,” referring to a typical human being or to himself as such, does not settle the issue. For in Mark’s usage the phrase once again has to be understood in a titular sense – “the Son of Man.” Moreover, if we give the context and central position of the first Passion prediction (Mk 8:31) the significance it seems to deserve, we have to infer that for Mark (and his tradition?) the title “the Son of Man” was a more appropriate or effective designation for Jesus than “Messiah” (8:27-33). The question, then, is whether the introduction of the titular sense (by Jesus or subsequently) reflects some wider reflection regarding the “Son of Man.” Here the most striking feature, of course, is that the most obvious root of such “Son of Man” reflection in Second Temple Judaism (Dan 7:13-14) includes a considerable degree of suffering. That is, the interpretation already given to Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7 presupposes that the man-like figure (“one like a son of man”) symbolizes or represents “the saints of the Most High.” For it is “the saints of the Most High” who suffer horrendously (7:7, 19-21, 23-25), and it is “the saints of the Most High” who thereafter receive the dominion and kingship given to the “one like a son of man” (7:13-14, 22, 26-27). If we are to look for a precedent or root for the idea of the Son of Man as a representative figure vindicated and exalted after intense suffering, then we hardly need to look beyond Daniel’s vision and its interpretation.18 In other words, there is certainly the possibility that this strand of the Jesus tradition was influenced by Dan 7:13-14 – whether already in Jesus’ own teaching or subsequently does not really matter here. What is striking, however, is that the subsequent reflection inspired by Daniel’s vision, in the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra in particular, seems to have been inspired only by the triumphant and glorious heavenly figure of Dan 7:13-14, and not at all by Daniel’s antecedent vision (7:7-12) and its interpretation linked to the vision of 7:13-14.19 The most 16.  [Vermes also sees Jesus’ use of the son of man to be authentic; Jesus used it to refer to himself. Also, see Charlesworth’s “Did Jesus Know the Tradition in the Parables of Enoch?” in this book. JHC.] 17.  The probability in this case is so high that it can be regarded as virtually certain (Jesus Remembered, pp. 737–39); I discuss the whole Son of Man issue at some length (##16.3-5). 18.  For more detail, see C. A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2001), pp. 16–17, 57. 19.  Although the portrayal of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch may be influenced by Isa 52–53, it is only the theme of the Servant’s exaltation which the Parables of Enoch draw upon in that portrayal; “the human suffering experienced by the servant ... is here a characteristic of the righteous and chosen ones, the earthly clients of the heavenly Righteous One and Chosen One” (G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.139; on 4Ezra 13, ABD 6.141).

The Son of Man in Mark

­25

obvious inference to be drawn from this is that the suffering Son of Man motif in the Jesus tradition may have been dependent or indeed drawn from Daniel 7. And, if so, it was drawn directly from Daniel 7, without noticeable influence from any other reflection inspired by Daniel’s vision.20 The Passion predictions indicate that the hope of vindication for the Son of Man in terms of resurrection was part of, and indeed integral to, this strand of Son of Man teaching within the Jesus tradition. Hence, this also explains my inclusion in the above listing of Mk 9:9 as part of the same tradition. This feature of the Son of Man suffering and vindication sayings in the Gospels cannot be attributed to influence from the Parables of Enoch or other Son of Man reflection. Indeed, it is difficult to attribute it to the influence of Daniel’s vision. Though Dan 12:1-3 does envisage resurrection as a hope for Israel (God’s people) subsequent to “a time of anguish, such as never occurred since nations first came into existence,” that expectation is not related to Daniel’s earlier vision of the man-like figure. A more plausible reason for the linkage of the hope of resurrection to the suffering Son of Man material is that this is what the first Christians believed had happened in the case of Jesus. He had suffered and been executed. But three days later he had been raised from the dead.21 This was such an unprecedented claim to make (that the resurrection of the dead had already begun in the resurrection of Jesus),22 that the conviction itself, whether Jesus prepared them for it or not, provides a complete explanation for the inclusion of the confidence of vindication by resurrection in the sayings themselves. In short, here again the Markan Son of Man tradition is best explained as derived from Jesus’ own teaching and / or the impact that his execution and resurrection made on his disciples.

The Coming Son of Man Another grouping of the Markan Son of Man sayings can be described as linked by the coming of the Son of Man as a shared theme. Note these passages: (4) Mk 8:38 – Jesus says, “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (10) Mk 13:26-27 – Jesus forewarns about the suffering which will happen in the last days: “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of earth to the end of heaven.” 20.  [Cf. the contrary conclusion found in Macaskill’s and Walck’s chapters. JHC.] 21.  There certainly seems to be evidence of at least some early Christian shaping of the Passion predictions in that Matthew and Luke change Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day” (Mt 16:21 / Lk 9:22; Mt17:23; Mt 20:19 / Lk 18:33), presumably in the light of the fact that “on the third day” described more accurately what the first Christians believed had happened. 22.  The unprecedented character of this claim is not sufficiently appreciated in many discussions of Jesus’ resurrection; see Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 866–76; cf. particularly N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), pp. 685–718.

­26

Parables of Enoch (14) Mk 14:62 – At the hearing before the high priest’s council, Jesus responds to the high priest’s question, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” by answering, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

In this sequence it is not so obvious that the Son of Man is a self-referential phrase. Even if the earlier references to the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel would leave the readers / audiences little choice but to identify the coming Son of Man with Jesus, there remains another possibility: that in the earlier tradition Jesus had been remembered as looking for vindication by a heavenly figure (other than himself), or for the intervention of such a figure in the climax Jesus expected for this age. This indeed has been a popular and influential view in mid-twentiethcentury German scholarship: that the earliest and most primitive talk of the Son of Man in the Jesus tradition was Jesus’ hope for the intervention of or for his own vindication by the heavenly figure he referred to as the Son of Man.23 The dispute on this point poses the issue for us. Was the imagery expressed in this hope, whether self-referential or not, derived from elsewhere? Does it indicate the influence of a preceding Son of Man reflection, whether from the Parables of Enoch or in other Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic speculation? The most immediate cross-reference or allusion is to Daniel’s vision. For the talk of the Son of Man “coming in the clouds” (ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαιϛ; Mk 13:26) or “coming with the clouds of heaven” (ἐρχόμενον μετά τῶν νεφελῶν τοῡ οὐρανοῡ; 14:62) certainly invites the inference that the language was drawn from or the imagery influenced by Dan 7:13 – “behold one like a son of man came on the clouds of heaven” (ἐπὶ τῶν νεφαλῶν τοῡ οὐρανοῡ … ἤρχετο). In Greek New Testaments both Markan passages are usually presented as quotations from (or almost explicit allusions to) Dan 7.13. So it can be safely concluded that the formulations of Mk 13:26 and 14:62 were influenced by the imagery of Daniel’s vision. Is there a similar allusion in Mk 8:38? The answer depends on the weight given to talk of the Son of Man “coming.” The reference to a coming with angels naturally suggests a heavenly journey, that is, a journey from heaven or through the heavens. Such a journey, on or with clouds, is another way of expressing a heavenly journey. The association of the coming of the Son of Man with the mission of angels in Mk 13:26-27 is a reminder of how natural it would have been for anyone familiar with Jewish apocalyptic imagery to see a coming with clouds and with angels as complementary. In any event, the clarity of the quotation from or allusion to Dan 7:13 in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 is sufficient in itself to leave little doubt that the Jesus tradition at these points was influenced by Daniel’s vision.24 23.  Bultmann, History, pp. 112, 151–52; Hahn, Hoheitstitel, pp. 32–42, Titles, pp. 28–34; other bibliography in Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 735, nn. 121–23. Casey regards Mk 13:26 and 14:62 as “completely secondary” (Solution, pp. 242–45, 266). 24.  The point is generally agreed by commentators; see, e.g., Taylor, Mark, pp. 518, 568–69; D. Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), p. 224; Collins, Mark, pp. 600, 615, 705.

The Son of Man in Mark

­27

Can we go further and detect influence of the Son of Man reflection which grew out of Daniel’s vision during the late Second Temple period? 25 Here it is striking that the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is never spoken of as “coming” or as “coming with / on / in clouds.” The very parallel which allows, and indeed demands, recognition of the influence of Dan 7:13 is completely lacking between the Markan Son of Man and the Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch. To be sure, in the Parables of Enoch the “kings” and the mighty are similarly told that they will “see my elect one sitting on the throne of glory” (1En 55:4; 62:3), “that is, the throne of God himself” (51:3).26 But is the talk of “having to see” or “see and recognize” (as a judgmental rebuke) sufficient to establish the link?27 The Parables of Enoch also envisage angels involved in eschatological mission, somewhat parallel to Mk 13:27, though in judgment rather than to save (1En 53:3; 54:6; 62:11; 66:1-2). But these missions are not particularly related to the Son of Man, so any allusion is to a broader speculation about angelic involvement in the last days and cannot be linked specifically to the Parables of Enoch with any confidence. More promising is the fact that both Mark and the Parables of Enoch speak of the glory or glorification of the Son of Man. Indeed, the most persuasive example of influence from the Parables of Enoch on the Jesus tradition in the Synoptic Gospels is precisely at this point. Jesus’ saying in Mt 19:28 envisages “the Son of Man seated on the throne of his glory” in judgment. And in the Parables of Enoch “that Son of Man” is envisaged as “sitting on the throne of his glory” (1En 62:5; 69:29). Similarly, “the Elect One,” who is clearly identified with “that Son of Man,”28 is repeatedly said to sit down “on the throne of his glory” to judge (45:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:3). So it is quite plausible to see a trace of influence from the Parables of Enoch on the Matthean presentation of the Son of Man.29 The point is, however, that in the Jesus tradition the imagery of the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory is to be found only in Matthew. So if the 25.  The influence of Daniel’s vision may also be detected in Ezekiel the Tragedian 67–89 (W. Horbury, “The Messianic Associations of ‘the Son of Man’,” JTS 36 [1985], 34–55), but the imagery is different, and the reference is to Moses’ future role, not to a messianic figure (Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, pp. lxxvii–lxxviii). 26.  M. Hengel, “Sit at My Right Hand!”, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), pp. 119–225 (here pp. 187–88). 27.  “Seeing” is regularly used in describing heavenly visions, and of seeing a heavenly figure enthroned in judgment; but the thought in Mk 14:62 is more of vindication. The Lukan parallel, Lk 22:69, omits the talk of “seeing.” 28.  [One of the surprising developments since the early 1970s is the widespread recognition that the Elect One, the Son of Man, and the Messiah are the same celestial person in the Parables of Enoch. Moreover, they are most likely titles. I have changed my mind over the past 40 years. See Bock’s chapter. JHC.] 29.  See further J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohn der Bilderreden des äthiopischen Henoch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1969), esp. ch. 6. In the Matthean parallel to Mk 14:62 (Mt 26:64), Matthew does not use the phrase “throne of glory,” which suggests that the “seeing” of 1En 55:4; 62:3 was not an influence on the tradition.

­28

Parables of Enoch

presence of this imagery is to be counted as evidence (the only clear evidence so far) of influence from the Parables of Enoch, such influence cannot be detected in the Jesus tradition prior to Matthew. In fact, the Matthean parallel may be counted as evidence for the existence and knowledge of the Parables of Enoch in the last two decades of the first century ce.30 But it can tell us little or nothing about the influences which shaped the Markan Son of Man traditions. Indeed, the more the case is pressed for seeing in the Matthean imagery evidence of influence from the Parables of Enoch, the more significant it may be that there is no similar evidence with regard to the Markan Son of Man material. On the contrary, the absence of such evidence in Mark may well indicate that the reflection on the role of the Son of Man found in the Parables of Enoch was not known in the middle of the first century. 4 Ezra 13 does not take us any further forward. It is certainly very clear that the passage is presented as a more or less explicit exposition of, or reflection on, the vision of Daniel.31 4 Ezra 13 is introduced as a “dream,” as in Dan 7:1. In both cases, the dream begins with the wind(s) stirring up the sea (Dan 7:2; 4Ezra 13:2). In Daniel’s vision, four great beasts “came up out of the sea” (Dan 7:3), something which 4 Ezra passes over – perhaps preferring to draw on the earlier dream in Daniel 2.32 Rather, the central figure in 4 Ezra’s dream is the one who “came up out of the heart of the sea” (13:3). This figure, referred to throughout the vision as “man” or “that man” (13:3, 5, 12, 25, 51), is introduced as “something like the figure of a man” (13:3), a fairly obvious allusion to Dan 7:13 (“one like a son of man”). Of course, 4 Ezra postdates Mark by some years. But still the question demands an answer: does 4 Ezra 13 reflect a Son of Man tradition already circulating before Mark wrote his Gospel? The only way to answer this sensibly is to ask whether there is any evidence of 4 Ezra and the Markan Son of Man tradition sharing any features which are distinctive of 4 Ezra. In fact, the answer is a fairly straightforward “No.” The one point of clear contact between the Markan coming Son of Man sayings and Daniel 7 was the talk of the man-like figure “coming with the clouds of heaven.” 4 Ezra 13:3 departs from Daniel’s language and says instead, “that man flew with the clouds of heaven.”33 4 Ezra 13 also differs from the Markan tradition in that it retains the force of the Aramaic idiomatic usage (“son of man”). In referring only to the “man” or “that man,” 4 Ezra 13 gives evidence that the Parables of Enoch’s interpretation 30.  Matthew’s Gospel is usually dated to the 80s or 90s ce. [See Macaskill’s and Walck’s chapters in which it is argued, independently, that Mt was influenced by the Parables of Enoch. JHC.] 31.  M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), p. 383. 32.  The “great mountain” in 4Ezra 13:6-7 obviously draws on the stone which destroyed the statue in Nebuchadnezzer’s vision and which became a “great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Dan 2:34-35, 45). 33.  Recognition of allusion, of course, does not depend on precise verbal linkage; but the success of the argument for the dependency of the Synoptic Son of Man tradition on the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra actually depends on the demonstration of such links.

The Son of Man in Mark

­29

of Daniel’s vision did not inevitably lead to speculation regarding an exalted heavenly figure entitled the “Son of Man.”34 The most obvious way to read these several interpretations of Daniel’s vision is as equally dependent directly on Daniel and without indication of any degree of interdependence. They each indicate that Daniel’s vision stirred up a great deal of interest and reflection during the first century ce. They each indicate direct influence from Daniel’s vision. But they do not indicate interaction between any two of them. From the Markan coming Son of Man sayings we can deduce or infer no evidence that the reflection on Daniel 7 expressed in either the Parables of Enoch or 4 Ezra was known to or influential upon those who shaped the Jesus Son of Man tradition. The coming Son of Man sayings pose another issue which should be at least mentioned. This is the issue of the direction in which the Son of man was to come.35 The more we see the influence of Dan 7:13 on the formulation of these sayings, the more likely that the “coming” was understood as a coming to “the Ancient of Days.”36 That is, the earliest form of these sayings may have been an expression of the hope for Jesus’ vindication, following his sufferings as the Son of Man. Possibly this early thought is still present in Mk 8:38 and 14:62. In the latter, it would be an appropriate response to the high priest’s question, “you will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds,” to be vindicated by and before God.37 In which case we probably have a further indication of how the first Christians further shaped a specifically Christian interpretation of Daniel 7. Now the coming of the Son of Man is to be understood as the coming (the “second coming”) of Christ from heaven. It is hardly necessary to pursue or elaborate this possibility any further here. But it may provide further evidence that the theological and apocalyptic reflection inspired by Daniel 7 took many diverse and independent directions.

The Servant Son of Man The one remaining reference to the Son of Man in Mark deserves separate treatment. Note these excerpts: (9) Mk 10:45 – Jesus responds to the disciples’ anger with James and John because the latter two had asked Jesus for seats on Jesus’ right and left hand “in your [Jesus’] glory” (10:37). Jesus highlights the contrast between his 34.  See also Stone, Fourth Ezra, pp. 211–12. 35.  Taylor, Mark, p. 569; Hooker, Mark, p. 362; Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 757–58. 36.  Hooker, Son of Man, pp. 167–71; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 342–43, 534, 611–13. 37.  I have suggested that the enduring form of Mk 14:62 was achieved by the combination of Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13, and that the insertion of Ps 110.1 may have contributed (unintentionally or otherwise) to the impression or interpretation that the “coming” was from heaven, rather than to God (Jesus Remembered, pp. 749–51). Evans, however, notes that “sitting” and “coming” need not be as inconsistent as some assume, since the throne envisaged may have been God’s chariot throne (cf. Ezek 1:10), that is, moving while seated (Mark, p. 452).

­30

Parables of Enoch

discipleship group and the usual understanding of greatness in wider society. “Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you is to be servant of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.” This passage raises several important questions. Since it is such a clear statement of atonement theology (Jesus’ death as a “ransom”) the question has usually arisen as to the extent to which it has been shaped by the developed theology of the first Christians. The fact that the parallel version in Lk 22:24-27 lacks the reference to ransom heightens the suspicion that the ransom reference is a sign of Christian reflection on and elaboration of an earlier saying which spoke only of greatness and leadership in terms of service – “the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and he who rules like the one who serves. For who is the greater, he who reclines (at table) or he who serves? Is it not he who reclines? But I am among you as one who serves” (Lk 22:26-27). Noticeable also, not least here, is that the Lukan version lacks a reference to the Son of Man.38 However, the Son of Man and ransom references are clear in Mark. So whatever the tradition-history behind the Markan form of the saying, Mk 10:45 is clearly a Son of Man saying, though fairly unique when set alongside the rest of the Markan Son of man sayings. For us the more important issue is whether the Markan version shows evidence of or influence from earlier Son of Man reflection within Second Temple Judaism. The issue has been sidetracked for most of the mid-twentieth century discussion by the strong case made for influence from Isa 53. Joachim Jeremias famously argued that the phrase “a ransom for many” was a reference to “the many” of Isa 53:10-12,39 and subsequently went so far as to claim that the Markan saying “relates word for word to Isa 53:10-11, and indeed to the Hebrew text.”40 Morna Hooker, however, in effect had already responded equally as strongly that there is “not the slightest evidence to show” that the two terms (Mark’s “ransom” and Isaiah’s “offering for sin”) “were ever connected.”41 Instead, she linked Mk 10:45 to the suffering Son of Man motif in Mark: “it is precisely because he is Son of man and as Son of man that Jesus suffers.”42 She is also open to the possibility that as a Son of Man saying it goes back to Jesus. In which case, Jesus may have “recognized that the rejection of his authority must lead to suffering, and yet looked for final vindication.”43 38.  Bultmann is typical of those who think Mk 10:45 is secondary: “Lk 22:27 is doubtless original over against Mk. 10:45, which has formed its conception of Jesus from the redemption theories of Hellenistic Christianity” (History, p. 144). 39.  J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1960; ET London: SCM, 1966), pp. 181–82. 40.  J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology. Part One: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), p. 292. See also Evans, Mark, pp. 120–23. 41.  M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1959), pp. 74–79. 42.  Hooker, Servant, p. 77; also Son of Man, pp. 140–47 (see esp. p. 146). 43.  Hooker, Son of Man, p. 147.

The Son of Man in Mark

­31

In other words, any distinctiveness in Mk 10:45 (the servant Son of Man) is merged into the theology expressed in Mark’s sustained suffering Son of Man motif, and any distinctiveness of Mk 10:45 within the Markan Son of Man motif is lost to sight. Equally lost to sight is the possibility that the distinctiveness of Mk 10:45’s Son of Man may show influence from or evidence of earlier reflection regarding the Son of Man. An alternative suggestion of possible influence shaping Mk 10:45 focused on the saying’s distinctive “servant” imagery.44 Peter Stuhlmacher expresses the possibility clearly: If one compares the saying with Dan. 7:9-14 and the Son-of-man tradition dependent on this text in 1 Enoch, a strange contrast emerges ... In Daniel and 1 Enoch the Son of man is made ruler and judge, to whom the service of angels and the adoration of the nations are due. In Mark 10:45 it is precisely this place of honor that the Son of man rejects.45

This makes good sense, and allows the possibility that the saying in its Markan form was not simply a development of a non-Son of Man saying (as in Lk 22), but a development of a “son of man” saying of Jesus himself. That is, that it was Jesus himself who drew the contrast between his concept of his own mission as “a man like me” in the role of servant and the vision of the man-like figure in Daniel’s vision given rule and lordship.46 In this scenario, then, Daniel’s vision could have stimulated Jesus’ own understanding of his mission, drawing from it his hope of vindication after suffering, but also drawing from it by way of contrast his call to serve. And even if we cannot press the point for Jesus’ own self-understanding, it would still be strongly arguable that the earliest Christian formulation of the saying was devised by way of contrast with the triumphant representative of the saints of the Most High in Daniel’s vision. Stuhlmacher also considered the possibility that the saying was influenced as much by 1 Enoch as Daniel. This claim is no doubt because, like the main body of German scholarship, the Parables of Enoch are dated to the first century bce. But Stuhlmacher also noted that the language of “serving” (diakonein) is not drawn from Isa 53:11 (LXX).47 Diakonein rather corresponds to the Aramaic 44.  C. K. Barrett, “The Background of Mark 10:45,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 1–18 (see esp. pp. 8–9); Hooker, Son of Man, p. 142; and particularly P. Stuhlmacher, “Vicariously Giving His Life for Many, Mark 10:45 (Matt. 20:28),” in Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986), pp. 16–29 (see esp. p. 21). See also Casey, Solution, pp. 131–34. 45.  Stuhlmacher, “Vicariously Giving His Life,” p. 21; though in a subsequent treatment of Mk 10:45, focusing on the influence of Isaiah 53 – “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 147–62 – Stuhlmacher pays no attention to the influence from or contrast with Daniel 7. 46.  See further Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 812–15. 47.  LXX of Isa 53:11 speaks of the Servant as “the just one who serves many well” (Collins,

­32

Parables of Enoch

root sms, which “occurs in only one place in the Old Testament, namely Dan 7:10, which speaks of the service myriad angels render God, who had taken his place on the judgment throne.”48 It is a natural deduction that the one like a son of man who comes to the Ancient of Days and is given to share in the latter’s sovereignty, glory and power, would likewise be served by the myriad angels. The occurrence of the motif of “service,” then, greatly strengthens the probability that a contrast was intended with the Danielic man-like figure and Jesus the Son of Man in Mk 10:45. Indeed, the presence of the service motif in Dan 7:9-14 strengthens the likelihood that the saying was coined precisely to make this contrast, whether by Jesus or subsequently.49 That, however, is about as far as can safely be argued. The Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch is certainly built on Daniel’s vision. The Son of Man sits on the throne of judgment, the nations fall down before him, and the angels execute judgment, though not explicitly at the behest of the Son of Man. The motif of “service,” which gives Mk 10:45 its distinctiveness, is lacking in the Parables of Enoch’s vision of the Son of Man. This means simply that if the distinctive feature of Mk 10:45 (“the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve”) can be explained as a deliberate contrast with the vision of the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:9-14, then that allusion to or influence from provides a sufficient explanation of Mk 10:45.To postulate further knowledge of or influence from the Parables of Enoch is unnecessary. Mk 10:45 does not provide any evidence for the existence of or influence from the Parables of Enoch. In summation, the Markan Son of Man motif probably does show the influence of Daniel’s vision, whether on Jesus himself or on the early Christian reflection expressed in the Markan Son of Man sayings. They provide no clear indication or evidence, however, of further influence from the other Second Temple Jewish reflection on Daniel’s vision such as we find in 1 Enoch or 4 Ezra. The only obvious sign of such influence, in fact, is the use of “the Son of Man” as a title, though even here we should recall that the interpretation of Daniel’s vision in 4 Ezra refrains from using that title. In fact, 4 Ezra may be counted as putting a question mark against the thesis that “the Son of Man” was already established as a title in the speculation regarding a heavenly figure of redemption or judgment derived from Daniel’s man-like figure.

Mark, p. 500). But (1) the Hebrew is quite different; (2) the LXX uses douleuein not Mark’s diakonein (Stuhlmacher, “Vicariously Giving His Life,” p. 19), though doulos and diakonos are here near synonymns (Mk 10:44-45); and, most important, (3) Isa 53:10-12 hardly invites the contrast of Mk 10:45 as Dan 7 does. 48.  Stuhlmacher, “Mark 10:45,” p. 21. 49.  [Dunn wisely acknowledges that between Jesus and the Evangelists are the kerygmata in which the proclamation of Jesus was influenced by exegetical reflections. Yet, in the NT, only Jesus is “allowed” to use the term “the Son of Man.” JHC.]

The Son of Man in Mark

33

More to the point in relation to the Markan Son of Man tradition is the question of when the use of the Son of Man as a title appeared in the tradition on which Mark drew. We have already noted that at least several of the Markan sayings could be well explained in terms of Jesus referring to himself as “the son of man,” a man like me. This is certainly very arguable in the cases particularly of Mk 2:28, 9:31, 10:45, and 14:21.50 The suggestion includes the possibility that Jesus himself was influenced by Daniel’s vision, given that in Dan 7:13 we are not yet dealing with a title. In other words, the appearance of “the Son of Man” as a title referring to Jesus in Mark may simply be explained by the facts (a) that Jesus referred to himself as “the son of man,” and (b) that he also drew some of the inspiration for the character and outcome of his mission from Daniel’s vision. The emergence of the Son of Man as a title in the Jesus tradition may most simply be explained by the early Christians transforming Jesus’ own characteristic idiomatic self-reference into a title.51 Does the emergence of the Son of Man as a title in the Jesus tradition, whenever that happened, at the very least provide evidence that there was a strand of late Second Temple speculation about the Son of Man – that is, that the reflection which came to clearest expression in the Parables of Enoch was already well developed and well known in late first century bce or early first century ce? The problem with such a thesis is that the Gospels or the New Testament generally contains no reference to such speculation (apart, perhaps, from Matthew’s knowledge of and influence from the Parables of Enoch). The point is simple, though rarely, it would appear, posed.52 If there was such a speculation current at the time of Jesus, would we not expect some usage of the phrase “son of man” in reference to Jesus, idiomatic or titular, to call for comment from Jesus’ disciples or audiences? If Jesus was at all influenced in the understanding of his mission by Daniel’s vision, and if there were already other well-developed Son of Man elaborations of that vision, then it would be very odd indeed if no one asked Jesus, or of Jesus, “Are you [or is he] the Son of Man (about whom others speculate)?” It is also very odd that we find no confessional statement from Jesus’ disciples informed of Jesus’ significance by reference to this wider reflection: “You are [or he is] the Son of Man.” The complete absence of such data within the Jesus tradition, or the Christology of the earliest churches, is very striking.53 It can only mean that no such reflection 50.  The larger argument, of course, depends on other Son of Man sayings outside Mark, like Mt 12:32 / Lk 12:10, Mt 8:20 / Lk 9:58, and Mt 11:19 / Lk 7:34 (see, e.g., Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pp. 742–45). But here I limit the discussion to the Markan data; see above n. 12. 51.  This is the conclusion which I reach (Jesus Remembered, pp. 759–61). 52.  I have raised the point several times – e.g., Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980, 1989 [2nd edn.]), pp. 84–85, where I also note that the Parables of Enoch and 4Ezra appear to be independent reflections on Daniel 7, and show no awareness of or dependence upon earlier post-Daniel reflection (they show simply that Daniel’s vision excited a lot of reflection) – but the point has made little impact; Bock’s Forschungsbericht does not refer to it. 53.  Marcus thinks that in the Gospels Jesus “generally treats the Son of Man as a known quantity” (Mark 1–8, p. 530). Such an argument simply sharpens my point: if “the Son of Man” was indeed “a known quantity,” why is there never any hint of what that “known quantity” was or

Parables of Enoch

3­34 4

was widely known or influential.54 And the most obvious corollary to draw is that the Parables of Enoch had either not yet been composed or were known only to a very small and esoteric group which did not exercise much, if any, influence – not even at Qumran! Considering all the evidence provided by Mark, the most obvious conclusions to be drawn are: (1) (2)

(3) (4) (5)

that the Markan Son of Man traditions emerged from Jesus’ own usage of the phrase, very possibly influenced in part by Daniel’s use of a similar phrase in his vision in Daniel 7; that the titular sense of the phrase in early “Christian” usage emerged only in the interpretative retelling of the Jesus tradition because it was a natural development within the early tradition-history of the Jesus tradition to regard Jesus’ self-referential phrase as a title; that influence from Dan 7:9-14 on the Markan Son of Man tradition is indisputable, whenever it began to take effect; that, since the influence of Daniel’s vision provides a full explanation of the complete Markan motif, no further influence from within Second Temple Judaism is needed to explain the Markan Son of Man tradition; and that the absence in the Gospels of any allusion to any other Son of Man speculation is best explained by the in effect complete absence within Second Temple Jewish society of speculation on Daniel’s vision such as we find in the Parables of Enoch – with the probable conclusion that the Parables of Enoch were not known in the first half of the first century ce.

any questions concerning how Jesus related to it? Contrast Jn 12:34, “Who is this Son of Man?” – a question which arises solely from the Johannine Jesus’ own usage. 54.  [Dunn’s point needs to be discussed in depth. No one in the present colloquium seems to claim that the Son of Man was a well-known title within Early Judaism. Was it unique to the Jews who believed the claims in the Parables of Enoch? Was Enoch proclaimed “that Son of Man” (1En 71) only much later and in reaction to the claims in the Gospels? Again, Dunn’s brilliance challenges all of us. To what degree should the burgeoning consensus be modified? JHC.]

­

II The Parables of Enoch: Are They Jewish and Prior to Jesus?

­

­

Chapter 3 The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch James H. Charlesworth

Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to explore the most likely date for the compositions of the Parables of Enoch. In the process, I shall introduce a new argument for dating this challenging work.1 I shall also briefly reflect on the most likely provenience of this challenging and stimulating masterpiece.

Preliminary Observations The Unity of 1En 37–71 Many experts in Second Temple Judaism have assumed that R. H. Charles, in 1893, correctly judged chapter 71 to be “most certainly a later addition” and that the “title ‘Son of Man’ is used in an absolutely different sense in this chapter.”2 Years later, in the second edition of The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, Charles changed his mind. He concluded that chapter 71 is not an addition: “This chapter seems to belong to the Parables, though in the first edition I thought otherwise.”3 During the last sessions of our meetings in Camaldoli, I pointed out that chapters 70 and 71 do present Enoch in an exalted position. All scholars present tended to agree. I then stressed that such an elevation was foreshadowed in chapters 37–69. All present also agreed, even the esteemed expert who had argued consistently that the last chapter was an addition.4 How tenable is that position? First, there is no manuscript evidence for an addition, and today we have over 120 Ethiopic manuscripts of the Parables 1.  This chapter is an expanded and revised version of a work published in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450–68. Also, see my earlier “The Date of the Parables of Enoch (1En 37–71),” Henoch 20 (1998), 93–98. 2.  R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), p. 183. 3.  R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1912 [2nd edn.]), p. 142. 4.  The distinguished scholar who argued during the Enoch Symposium in Italy that 1En 70 and 71 are redactional is John Collins. He offered many insightful and almost persuasive arguments for his conclusion, and I admire his brilliance, knowledge, and graceful ways of disagreeing with me.

­38

Parables of Enoch

of Enoch and each has chapters 70 and 71.5 Second, Charles saw reasons to abandon his first impression. Third, if there is foreshadowing of chapters 70 and 71 in chapters 37–69, then 70 and 71 may have been intended by the author when he supplied foreshadowing while composing chapters 37–69. Thus, I am persuaded that no convincing case has been made for chapters 70 or 71 to be a later addition to the Parables of Enoch.6 Who is the Son of Man? Is the figure some unknown celestial being who will be eventually revealed by God. Or, is God revealing that the Son of Man is Enoch? Charles offered a translation that was the vade mecum of scholars from about 1913 until 1983. What was his translation in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English of 1913? Charles presented this translation: “This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness … [Charles’ emphasis].”7 How could Charles obtain such a misleading translation? He did so by emending the text. Yet, almost a century later, with a considerable increase in manuscript evidence for 1 Enoch, no manuscript has been discovered that can support such a restoration. Why did Charles’ advice darken counsel? It was because scholars were misled. They assumed that chapter 71 might be a later addition and that, in this chapter, Enoch is urged to look toward some figure who is announced to be that Son of Man. As noted from the beginning, it is clear that Charles changed his mind and perceived that chapter 71 belongs to the Parables of Enoch. Is the document known as the Parables of Enoch a Christian Composition? Another savant of 1 Enoch also misled experts on Early Judaism and Christian Origins. For decades, J. T. Milik claimed to be able to demonstrate that the Aramaic fragments of Enoch found in the Qumran caves would prove that the Parables of Enoch was a Christian composition that considerably postdated the first century ce. Note Milik’s words: “In conclusion, it is around the year A.D. 270 or shortly afterwards that I would place the composition of the Book of Parables.”8 Today, many biblical scholars incorrectly assume that the Parables of Enoch is a Christian work; they also imagine that this consensus is shared. It is now clear that most experts of Second Temple Judaism conclude 5.  I am grateful to Professor Loren Stuckenbruck for this information; he has spent the past two years searching for additional copies of Ethiopic Enoch or the Books of Enoch. 6.  G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam (actually Nickelsburg) argue that 70:12 provides the original conclusion to 37–69, while the rest is an addition. See their 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012). If Enoch is already “the Son of Man” in these verses, as some manuscripts state, then the remaining section of the Parables of Enoch adds nothing surprising. 7.  R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), vol. 2, p. 237. 8.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), p. 96.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­39

that the Parables of Enoch is Jewish. In 1977, during a congress of specialists on 1 Enoch, no one agreed with J. T. Milik’s well-known conclusion that the work is Christian.9

Philology One of the main problems in working on the Parables of Enoch is the fact that it is preserved only in Ethiopic and in late medieval copies. It seems obvious that this text derives from an earlier Aramaic text. Hence, one eye should be on the Ethiopic text, and another on the putative Aramaic original. The Aramaic bar ’ĕnāš, “the Son of Man” (or the non-titular “the son of man”),10 and bar nāšâ, which also means “the Son of Man” (or the non-titular “the son of man”), possess virtually identical meanings in Aramaic documents and sometimes merely represent different dialects. No morphological nor grammatical key is provided to help translators or exegetes discern if the words are intended generically for the human, as a technical term, or as a title. We have no proof that the words should be capitalized, since capitalization does not appear in Aramaic. How should scholars discern what is intended by the implied author? What philological or contextual evidence helps the scholar to comprehend that an expression has become a terminus technicus, and then a title? These are questions that should be kept in mind as we continue.

Seeking the Date of Composition for the Parables of Enoch The Parables of Enoch reinterprets and expands on Daniel’s vision of “one like a Son of Man.” This document certainly reflects a significant development in the Jewish understanding of Daniel 7.11 The work is thus to be dated after 164 bce, when Daniel reached its present form. The Parables of Enoch constitutes the second vision of Enoch. The document is preserved in the Books of Enoch, which is a library of books attributed to 9.  See J. H. Charlesworth, “1977 (Tübingen; Eberhard-Karls Universität): The Books of Enoch,” and “1978 (Paris; Châtenay-Malabry): 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch and Luke and the Dating of the Parables of Enoch,” The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTS MS 54; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1985), pp. 102–10. For the Italian version, see Gli pseudepigrafi dell’Antico Testamento e il Nuovo Testamento, trans. G. Boccaccini (Studi Biblici 91; Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1990), pp. 224–36. 10.  In Aramaic the construct state almost always indicates determination. To denote indetermination of the first element in a genitive construction, an Aramaic scribe tended to indicate a circumlocution. See F. Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963 [rev. edn.]), p. 25. In Aramaic, the emphatic or determined state is not simply identical to the meaning of the English noun with an article. In the Targumim and Midrashim, as in Syriac, the emphatic state has sometimes lost its definite meaning. 11.  See esp. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2001).

­40

Parables of Enoch

Enoch by a group of Jews living in Palestine, most likely in Galilee (as we shall see). The earliest portions of this work, especially chapters 1–36, were composed about 300 bce. This apparent, and new, consensus was announced recently.12 The date of the latest (or youngest) document in the Enoch corpus is clearly the Parables of Enoch. In the following pages, I shall summarize why a date for the Parables of Enoch during the time of Herod the Great (40–4 bce) or the early decades of the first century ce is most plausible. In 1En 37–71 (the Parables of Enoch), we find references to the Elect One, the Righteous One, the Messiah or the Anointed One, and the Son of Man (if that is the proper translation of the Ethiopic). All these terms or titles may be imagined to denote the same figure, since their functions are virtually identical (Black, VanderKam, and Nicklesburg).13 In chapter 53, the Righteous One is clearly identified as the Elect One. In 60:10, Enoch is a “son of man” who will know “the hidden things.” This verse uses the same terminology in Ge’ez applied elsewhere in the Parables of Enoch to “the Son of Man;” but in 60:10 the expression does not function as a title as it does apparently in 71:14. In 60:10, the term does not reveal a celestial Judge who has sufficient knowledge and enduring righteousness; and Enoch is to know hidden things only “according [to the degree] to which it will be permitted.” Unfortunately, unlike Aramaic and Greek, Ge’ez does not distinguish between “a son of man” and “the Son of Man.” Yet, the interpreter of the Parables of Enoch must make such distinctions. In chapter 61, the Elect One is placed “on the throne of glory” by the “Lord of the Spirits,” which is a unique name for God. This name for God is found only in the Parables of Enoch, and it appears there over 100 times. In chapter 62, the Elect One and “that Son of Man” is shown seated on the heavenly throne. All the mighty on the earth are called to acknowledge and salute the enthroned Elect One, “that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory” (6:5). At this point, in chapter 62, we first hear about the enthroned “Son of Man.” The Son of Man was hidden “from the beginning.” He is thus introduced as sharing qualities with God, since both are said to be hidden. He is now revealed to the elect on earth. All, even mighty kings, will fall down and worship the Son of Man. In the final days – the days of judgment – sinners will be ashamed before the Son of Man. In the third parable of Enoch, found in chapter 69, all judgment is given to the Son of Man. Eventually, the Son of Man seats himself on “the throne of glory.” He is thus either identified with the Elect One or revealed to be the Elect One. One may not be able to discern which meaning was intended 12.  Charlesworth, “The Books of Enoch or 1 Enoch Matters: New Paradigms for Understanding Pre-70 Judaism,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 437–54. 13.  See their reflections in The Messiah, edited by Charlesworth, et al. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992).

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­41

by the implied author. It is certain, nevertheless, that, after the composition of the Parables of Enoch, many Jews would imagine the Son of Man to be the Elect One. With the exception of chapter 71, during the writing and compiling of the compositions now found in 1 Enoch, no person is clearly identified as the Son of Man. No convincing evidence is given that Enoch might be the Son of Man, even though his divine nature evolves through the centuries of speculation and reflection, and is clearly foreshadowed in chapters 37 to 69. Is there a discernible evolution of the portrayal of Enoch? The elevation or “deification” of Enoch that some specialists find astonishing and a non sequitur in 1 Enoch 70 and 71 is adumbrated, I am persuaded, already in Gen 5:22-24 which was being copied by Palestinian Jews and exegetically enriched within oral and written traditions. Recall the passage: hnf#$f twO)m' #$l#$; xla#$ew@m;-t)e wOdylIwOh yr'xJ)a Myhil)vh?-t)e K7wOnxJ K7l@'hat;y@iwa twOnbfw@ Mynib@f dlewOy@w Early Jews imagined that Enoch walked continuously with God and was thus morally perfect. hnF#F$ twO)m' #$l#$;w@ hnF#F My#^%i$#i$w; #$m'xf K7wOnxJ ym'y;-lk@F yhiy;wa Enoch lived 365 years. Those Jews behind the Books of Enoch who followed the solar calendar would be attracted to “perfect” Enoch. Myhi$l)v wOt)o xqalF-yk@i w@n@ney)'w: MyhiOl)vhf-t)e K7wOnxj K7l@'hat;y@iwa Enoch walked continuously with God and was not because God took him. The author implies that Enoch did not die. The repetitive formula in Genesis 5 “and he died” (tmoy@fw) is conspicuously absent. The expression w@n@ney)'w: is odd and the author seems to know that fact by adding: Myhi$l)v wOt)o xqalF-yk%. Enoch is no longer present among humans on earth; he is alive. God took him. He is with God in heaven. Those who composed the Books of Enoch believed that Enoch was alive and communicated to them God’s will and the meaning of the times.

The elevation of Enoch in 1 Enoch 70–71 is thus an expected development of an apocalyptic hermeneutic that defines the Books of Enoch. If the biblical author imagines Enoch in heaven with God, it seems to follow, using apocalyptic circuitous “logic,” that the one in heaven near God, “that Son of Man,” could be Enoch. According to many Ethiopic manuscripts, in 70:1 Enoch is a human – a “son of man.” His name is raised up before the Lord of the Spirits. In the present volume, L. T. Stuckenbruck illustrates that another manuscript reading for 1 Enoch 70:1 should come into focus: “Afterwards it happened that the living name of the Son of Man was exalted in the presence of the Lord of Spirits above all those who live on dry land (Eth. semu ḥeyāw la-we’etu walda egwela ’em-ḥeyaw ’m-’ella yaḥādderu diba yabs).” If this Ethiopic text is preferred, from the beginning of chapter 70 readers of the Parables of Enoch would gain the impression that Enoch is to be identified with the heavenly “Son of Man,” since Enoch speaks in the first person and declares that he is transcendent, seeing the first humans.

­42

Parables of Enoch

Chapter 71:5 continues to clarify that Enoch is the one who speaks in the first person and is “in the heaven of heavens.” The conclusion seems to evolve: the “Son of Man” relates to Enoch himself. This title does not focus on Enoch as a human being; he is someone being singled out or set apart for a special purpose. Perhaps, the early Jew who composed this masterpiece imagined that the human Enoch finally perceives his heavenly counterpart, his eternal self and his Godgiven task to serve as eschatological Judge. What seems clear is that the elevation of Enoch continues and reaches its zenith in chapter 71. That is, the climax of the book of the Parables of Enoch comes in the final chapter. He is greeted by “that angel,” perhaps Michael, who has come to Enoch along with “that Head of Days,” Gabriel, Raphael, Phanuel, and countless numbers of other angels. Michael seems then to be the one who speaks to Enoch. Here are his words to him (1En 71:14): You are the Son of Man who was born to righteousness, and righteousness remains over you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not leave you. [Knibb]14 You are the Son of Man who is born for righteousness, And righteousness abides upon you, And the righteousness of the Chief of Days forsakes you not. [Black]15 You, son of man, who art born in righteousness and upon whom righteousness has dwelt, the righteousness of the Antecedent of Time will not forsake you. [Isaac]16 Tu sei il figlio dell’uomo nato per la giustizia e la giustizia ha dimorato in te e la giustizia del Capo dei Giorni non ti abbandonerà. [Fusella]17 You are the Son of Man who is born to righteousness, and righteousness has remained with you. The righteousness of the Antecedent of Days will not forsake you. [Olson]18

14.  M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), vol. 2, p. 166. 15.  M. Black, The Books of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), p. 68. 16.  E. Isaac in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), vol. 1, p. 50. 17.  L. Fusella in Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, ed. P. Sacchi (Turin: Unione TipograficoEditrice, 1981), vol. 1, pp. 571–72. 18.  D. Olson, Enoch: A New Translation (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2004), p. 135.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­43

You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you. [Nickelsburg and VanderKam]19

The recent translations placard the difficulty in discerning the presence of the definite noun in Ethiopic. However, all of them reveal that Enoch is the Son of Man (or that son of man). It is clear, according to this narrative, that Enoch receives a celestial status that is superior to the one he was accorded in the Hebrew Bible and previously in the Books of Enoch. Though foreshadowed in the earlier sections of 1 Enoch and even in the Parables of Enoch, in 1 Enoch 71 Enoch is now revealed to have a unique cosmic status. He is now revealed to be the heavenly Man, that Son of Man. Most likely, 4 Ezra is also important for understanding the reinterpretation of Daniel 7. 4 Ezra 13 contains a reference to one like the figure of a man who comes out of the sea. He is revealed to be the Messiah. The original Hebrew text may have mentioned “the Son of Man,” but only Latin (ille homo and vir) and Syriac (bar nasha and gabra) manuscripts preserve this pseudepigraphon. It is also difficult to use this text to comprehend Jesus’ time and message; it postdates 70 ce. It is judicious not to base conclusions regarding the meaning of pre-70 Son of Man traditions on 4 Ezra, but it is also wise to keep this text in perspective since it clearly preserves traditions that antedate 70. We may now revisit the conclusion that 1En 37–71 is Jewish. There is no obvious “Christian” thought in them. Jesus is never mentioned, and there is no allusion to him. The Son of Man is certainly not Jesus. The Son of Man is revealed, in the final scene, to be none other than Enoch. What date should be given, or imagined, for the Parables of Enoch? Do they antedate Jesus and the Evangelists? Five reasons support a dating of this work to the time of Herod and the Herodians: the insignificance of the fact that no fragment of this work has been identified among the hundreds of thousands of fragments found in the Qumran caves; the late composition of the document within 1 Enoch; the fact that it was not composed at Qumran; the reference to a Parthian invasion; and the curse on the landowners. First, one cannot be certain that this document was absent or unknown at Qumran. One may only point out that no fragment of the Parables of Enoch has been identified among the Qumran fragments. This fact may be insignificant for numerous reasons. Many compositions are not found there, including Esther, 1 Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon. Some biblical or ancient Jewish documents are clearly preserved in extremely miniscule fragile fragments – some of these disintegrated before they were identified. Over one hundred fragments remain unidentified within the Qumran corpus (there are also fragments still unavailable to scholars [at least two of them belong to 1 Enoch and both are from chapters 1–36]). 19.  G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Transaltion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), p. 95.

­44

Parables of Enoch

Conceivably about 10 to 20 percent of what was placed in the Qumran Caves is available for us to study. Let me illustrate this point that has not been adequately perceived by scholars, including Qumranologists. The Bedouin reportedly found seven full manuscripts in Cave I, but later the archeologists recovered fragments from over 70 documents once hidden in this cave. From Cave II comes very little evidence of manuscripts; maybe there was more in this cave. Cave III, which was discovered by R. de Vaux, preserved a few documents, most notably the Copper Scroll. Cave IV is two caves because they were found at the same time and de Vaux numbered both “Cave IV;” he knew it would be impossible to distinguish the precise provenience of the many fragments. No full scrolls are traceable to Cave IV; all we have are hundreds of thousands of fragments from full scrolls. There may have been over 400 documents in those two caves called “Cave IV;” it is conceivable that we have less than 2 percent of what had been placed there.20 Caves V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, most of which had collapsed centuries before they were discovered, produced only minuscule fragments. We can only speculate as to how many manuscripts they once contained. From Cave XI comes some large scrolls, as from Cave I, but certainly no expert will state that we have all of what was hidden in that cave. Near Cave V are at least two “caves” that collapsed centuries ago; thus, we cannot now know what documents may have been placed in them. Obviously, if Josephus was allowed by Titus to take some scrolls to Rome (as he mentions in his Life), he and others in the Roman army most likely took with them some scrolls that had been hidden in caves near Qumran which were then visible, and which were most likely easily accessible with stairs and wooden bridges. Cumulatively, perhaps we possess only about 10 to 20 percent of the manuscripts that were in the Qumran caves before, or in, June 68 ce. Thus, the absence of identifiable fragments of the Parables of Enoch from Qumran is neither remarkable nor a viable reason for dating the composition.21 For dating the Parables of Enoch to the Herodian period, far more disconcerting than the absence of identifiable fragments among the Qumran corpus is the absence of quotations of this document in the works of the early scholars of the Church. How can one explain this fact? This question is not easy to answer. The early scholars of the Church most likely considered the Parables of Enoch unworthy of citation. For them, the elevation of Enoch as the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch clashed with the Christian affirmation that 20.  Not well known are two facts. The Bedouin do not know the caves by number. Also, they began to report that all fragments they still possessed were from Cave IV since these were deemed more valuable. 21.  J. C. Greenfeld and M. E. Stone also rightly dismiss the argument that the absence of a book among the Qumran fragments is datum for dating a book. See Greenfeld and Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977), 51–66. To be modified in their argument, however, is the claim that the calendar would not be at home at Qumran. We now know that mixed calendars were known at Qumran.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­45

ancient prophecy proved Jesus of Nazareth was not only divine but also the Messiah and the Son of Man. These early Christians most likely reasoned that if Enoch is the Son of Man and should be identified as the Messiah, then it should not be translated from Aramaic to Greek or explored and mined for Christian proclamation (kerygma) and teaching (didache). Yet, while quotations of the Parables of Enoch are not found in early “Christian” documents, it is likely that the composition influenced some New Testament authors, especially Matthew,22 John,23 and perhaps Revelation.24 Moreover, the author of the Odes of Solomon, which was completed by or before 125 ce, was most likely influenced by the Parables of Enoch, especially the vision of Enoch’s exaltation in which he is named “the Son of Man.” In Ode 36, the Odist reports a vision, delivered ex ore Christi, in which he sees Jesus brought “before the Lord’s face” and because he was “the Son of Man” was “named the Light, the Son of God” (36:3).25 Likewise, a document dated about the time of the Odes of Solomon or slightly earlier quotes 1 Enoch 1–36 as prophecy; the author clearly knew the Book of the Watchers and may have known the Parables of Enoch. Why? In Jude 14 the quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9 is introduced by identifying Enoch as “the seventh from Adam” (ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ). This is interesting because in 1 Enoch the only passage in which Enoch is identified in this way is preserved in the Parables of Enoch at 60:8 (sāb’a ’em-’adām; cf. 37:1).26 Although each person could have counted the number in Genesis, no other early Jewish author did so in the extant literature; hence, we should be open to the probability that Jude’s introduction of Enoch in this way betrays an awareness of the Parables of Enoch. If so, we should acknowledge that the Books of Enoch may have circulated as a collection of scrolls, and not only as individual scrolls. Did Jude perhaps know the Books of Enoch in a Greek codex?27 Second, if the Parables of Enoch is the latest composition in the corpus defined by 1 Enoch and was composed in Galilee, as now seems evident to 22.  This possibility is affirmed now by many specialists. See, now, the chapter by L. Walck. Also, see D. L. Bock’s review chapter. 23.  See esp. the chapters by F. Moloney and B. Reynolds. Also, see D. L. Bock’s review chapter. 24.  That the author of Revelation was influenced by the Parables of Enoch is defended by A. Yarbro Collins; see an assessment of her work in D. L. Bock’s review chapter. Also, see Charlesworth, “The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societies, ed. Charlesworth and G. S. Oegema (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4; New York and London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 193–242. 25.  Charlesworth, “The Naming of the Son of Man, the Light, the Son of God: How the Parables of Enoch May Have Influenced the Odes of Solomon,” in “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke, ed. P. Allen, M. Franzmann, and R. Strelan (Early Christian Studies 12; Strathfield, NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2008), pp. 31–43. 26.  I am indebted to L. T. Stuckenbruck for this insight. 27.  Over the past few decades, we have learned that the Greek codex existed in the first century ce.

­46

Parables of Enoch

many Enoch specialists (see the following), then the document might not have been known in Jerusalem or Judea before 68 ce and, thence, would not be expected to be present in the Qumran library. Third, scholars agree that the Parables of Enoch were not composed at Qumran. It would have to be taken to Qumran by one who was both sympathetic to the ideas in the document and one who knew that its portrayal of Enoch would have been respected at Qumran. The Jews who followed the ideas in the Rule of the Community would not have been open to the claim that the Messiah is to be identified as the Son of Man; and, indeed, that an archangel revealed that the titles define only Enoch.28 Such a concept would have been abhorrent to those who composed and those who later believed the tenets in the Pesharim. The interpretations of Habakkuk included for the Qumranites a status for the Righteous Teacher that was superior to Enoch and not only to Habakkuk but also to the other prophets to whom God did not reveal “all the secrets.”29 To admire Enoch as “that Son of Man” would also clash with the Davidic and Levitical concepts of the Messiah regnant at Qumran. The origin of Wisdom at Qumran, moreover, is not to be reduced only to Enoch; recall that the Parables of Enoch identify themselves as “the vision of wisdom which Enoch … saw” (37:1). Indeed, the manuscripts at Qumran that were not composed there would have been taken to Qumran by those who shared the main tenets of Qumran thought. The Parables of Enoch most likely would not have been a wise choice for someone coming to Qumran and seeking admission into the Yaḥad. They revered a solar calendar (really a solar-lunar calendar) and 1 Enoch 41 has a thought unattractive to Qumran thought. The Qumranites polemized against the established Jews who followed a lunar calendar. The Jews at Qumran would have rejected the Parables of Enoch in which Enoch, who “saw all the secrets in heaven” (41:1) praises the “moon’s path” and claims it is “light to the righteous” (41:8). Why is that so? If the paleographical dating of the Qumran fragments of 1 Enoch is to be taken seriously, then the Books of Enoch were important primarily for the early life of the Qumran Community. More importantly, the Qumranites would not have agreed with the author’s elevation of Enoch. Despite the diversity of thought at Qumran, it seems prima facie evident that the Qumranites would not have agreed with the claim that involved celebrating Enoch above Moses or the Righteous Teacher.

28.  For Qumran messianic thought and texts, see Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1998). 29.  See Charlesworth, “Revelation and Perspicacity in Qumran Hermeneutics?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture, ed. A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref (STDJ 93; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 161–80.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­47

Fourth, the invasion mentioned in chapter 56 seems to refer to the Parthian invasion of 40 bce.30 Recall the passage in the Parables of Enoch: “the Parthians and Medes” will “come like lions from the lairs” and they will “trample upon the land of my chosen ones, and the land of my chosen ones will become before them a tramping-ground and a beaten track. But the city of my righteous ones [= Jerusalem] will be a hindrance to their horses” (56:6-7). This Parthian invasion was lengthy and extensive, as we learn from Josephus in Antiquities 14. According to Josephus, Pacorus, the Parthian general and son of the Parthian king, assisted by Barzaphranes, the Parthian satrap, occupied Syria in 40 bce.31 Meanwhile, Judea was in a civil war with two rivaling Hasmoneans: Antigonus II and Hyrcanus II. The Parthians marched against Judea, with Pacorus proceeding along the coast and Barzaphranes moving southward in the interior. Herod the Great and Phasael, his brother, were engaged in the battle. The Parthians entered Jerusalem (Ant 14.344), put Hyrcanus and Phasael in chains, but failed to trick and catch Herod. He and his family fled to Masada, but the Parthians plundered Jerusalem and ravaged the countryside, even destroying Marisa (Ant 14.363-64). Eventually, the tide turned in favor of Herod. Herod was declared “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate in the same year (40 bce). He now had to fight against the Hasmoneans and the Parthians whom the Romans under Pompey and Antony had never conquered. The Parthian invasion of 40 is now documented by recent excavations along the western littoral of the Dead Sea.32 Chapter 56 is ambiguous. Most likely it mirrors from some distance of time or space the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. This is the most likely scenario, in light of Josephus’ account and the archaeological excavations from Jericho to Ein Gedi. Thus, the Parables of Enoch would postdate 40 bce, but probably not by many years or decades, since as with the reference to Pompey in Psalms of Solomon 2, the crisis seems rather recent and still disturbing to the author, 30.  Sacchi contends rightly that 1 Enoch 37–71 refers to an actual event, the Parthian invasion of 40 bce, and that the Parables of Enoch should be dated shortly after that time. See Sacchi, “Qumran and the Dating of the Parables of Enoch,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Charlesworth (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), vol. 2, pp. 377–95. 31.  For further thoughts, see Charlesworth, “Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?” in the present volume. 32.  See A. Schalit, König Herodes: Der Mann und Sein Werk (Studia Judaica 4; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1969), pp. 74–80. Also see the evidence of this Parthian invasion in M. Mazar, T. Dothan, and I Dunayevsky, En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of Excavations 1961–1962 (‘Atiqot English Series 5; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1966). The hoard of 20 bronze coins of Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 bce) discovered near the bathhouse and on the paved patio surrounding the swimming pool of the Hasmonean palace in Jericho are also, most likely, evidence of the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. See E. Netzer, “Jericho – Exploration Since 1973,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2, p. 686; Y. Meshorer, “Mattathias Antigonus,” Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2 vols. (New York: Amphora Books, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 87–98; D. Hendin, “Mattathias Antigonus (Mattatayah), 40 to 37 B.C.E.,” Guide to Biblical Coins (New York: Amphora, 1996 [3rd edn.]), pp. 93–99.

­48

Parables of Enoch

who seems to have remembered how the walls of Jerusalem had been “a hindrance to” the “horses” of the Parthians, who were famous for their skilled horsemanship. Thus, 1En 56 may indicate that the Parables of Enoch should be dated within a generation of the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. Fifth, let me introduce a final – and new – argument that may clinch the conclusion for dating the Parables of Enoch. Quite surprisingly, curses appear directed not only against kings and rulers, but also against landowners. Note these excerpts (italics mine):33 Those “who possess the earth” are the sinners who will be judged and condemned (38:4). The “mighty kings” will be destroyed (38:5). After a discourse on the desired place to dwell, the author notes that the Chosen One will make the ground a blessing so that the “chosen ones” may finally dwell on it (45:5). When the Son of Man appears he will destroy “the kings and the powerful from their resting-places” who along with “the strong” will be punished (46:4). When the Son of Man appears “the kings of the earth and the strong who possess the dry ground … will not save themselves” (48:8). At the time of judgment (presumably), “the kings and the powerful” will be thrown into a valley burning with fire (54:1-2; cf. 55:4). The “kings and the mighty and those who dwell upon the earth” are the sinners and lawless ones who will be destroyed before the Lord of Spirit (62:2). In that time of judgment, “all the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who possess the earth” or “the land” will receive pain (62:3-6). At that time, “all the mighty kings, and the exalted, and those who rule the dry ground” will fall down and worship the Most High, setting their hopes now on the Son of Man (62:9). “In those days the mighty kings who possess the dry ground” will beseech the angels of punishment but they descend into the torments of Sheol (63:1-10; cf. 63:12).

Among those condemned are kings and rulers. Well known are the curses of kings and rulers in the Hebrew Bible. Notably, a king or kings are cursed in 1Kgs 21:10, 13, Isa 8:21, and Eccl 10:20. And, a ruler or rulers are cursed in Ex 22:28 (cf. Lev 4:22, Prov 28:15). Most scholars rightly conclude that the words “the kings of the earth” in the Parables of Enoch clearly denote the Roman emperors. Are others also included for condemnation and final judgment? It is clear that the Enoch community also suffered under those who were wealthy and oppressive. This phenomenon is not new in the Parables of Enoch. Suffering under the rich is also present in earlier Enoch compositions. What is new in the Parables of Enoch and unrepresented in the earlier Enoch compositions? According to the text of the Parables of Enoch, a new group is singled out for punishment. They are “the powerful” who “possess 33.  The translation is that by M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­49

the land” or “dry ground.” The Ethiopic word for “dry ground” can mean the division of the cosmos into the waters and the earth (or dry ground), but every good translator of the Ethiopic knows that one must keep in mind that the Ethiopic itself is a translation, and the underlying Aramaic (or Hebrew) is not always accurately represented. Is the Ethiopic word for “dry land” simply a mythological reference to the Flood? The most likely answer is probably “no.” Only to a certain extent does the expression “dry ground” reflect the Noah traditions that helped shape the final form of 1 Enoch;34 far more important is the sociological context of the text. Thus, the Ethiopic term for “dry land” should not be seen only in terms of creation or Noah and the Flood. Sociologists have developed the insight that a text usually mirrors a social environment. Thus, those singled out for punishment are usually powerful people who have caused the author of a text, his group, and related communities to suffer. Studying the Parables of Enoch with historical and sociological imagination includes pondering who are the strong who control the dry land and cause Jews to suffer. What is meant by the “dry ground” and who possesses or rules over it (48:8 and 63:1-10)?35 Before the efforts of settlers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to drain the swamps and marshes, Palestine was defined by two types of land: the dry land and the swamps and marshes. Thus, “the dry ground” in the Parables of Enoch most likely refers to the cultivatable land near wet areas or swamps. Where were swamps located in Palestine before 70 ce? They defined the low country near the coast, the vast areas west of the Kinneret, and especially the land in the Hulah Valley. The latter was one inhospitable swamp that covered over 30 miles from Banias to Capernaum. One cannot imagine swamps today, when one looks down on the fertile valley below Rosh Pinna. The verdant area of Yesud HaMa‘ala, north of Hazor and the Dishon stream, was a threatening swamp until about 100 years ago. The dry ground was characterized by vineyards and farms which produced primarily grapes, wheat, and barley. The author of the Parables of Enoch laments that he and other Jews labor on such dry land, while the strong, the sinners, eat of the produce of such land. The ground left to Jews would be the swamps – or non-dry ground. These undesirable portions of the so-called Holy Land produced only snakes and insects. If one drained the swamp, it became dry ground and would be owned by the strong and mighty who “possess the dry ground” (48:8), who are also those who “rule the dry ground” (63:1-10). 34.  See Charlesworth, “The ‘Book of Noah’ and the Qumran Noah Fragments” in vol. 8 of the Princeton DSS Project, in press. 35.  Notably, in 1En 62:1, some scribes changed “those who possess the land (or the earth)” to “those who inhabit (or dwell on) the earth.” See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, p. 79. Also see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), p. 256. This alteration indicates that later copyists did not understand the sociological meaning of taking and possessing the dry land, a setting now clarified by the present research.

­50

Parables of Enoch

To the author, these are sinners and lawless ones, who will soon be judged and punished by the Son of Man. Note another translation of the ones who will be punished; they are “the mighty landowners” (48:8).36 Perhaps with an intentional paronomasia, the author states that the landowners will be “like grass in the fire” so that they shall burn before the elect ones (48:9). Who are the ones who have caused the righteous to suffer? They seem to be the infidels who have taken the land. The “sinners” are the oppressors, and those who “eat all the produce of crime” (53:2). It becomes clear at this point that they who toil for the produce of the land are the Jews who till the dry ground that is no longer theirs. According to chapter 62 alone, the evil ones are “the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords” (or “those who possess the earth”).37 In fact, this refrain appears no fewer than three times in this chapter (62:1, 3, 6). What stands out as an addition to a well-known typos (the cursing of kings and rulers) is the mentioning of “landlords.” The formula appears again in 62:9, but this time the “landlords” are replaced by “those who rule the earth” (62:9). Who then are the “landlords” (Isaac), “those who possess the earth” (Knibb,38 Nickelsburg, VanderKam), or “those who occupy the earth” (Olson)? It is clear that the author is thinking about those who would be punished in the eschatological judgment, since all of 1En 62 is about the final judgment. Such expectations not only fortify the hope of the oppressed, but also often mirror reality, especially disturbing conditions. Hence, we should explore further and seek to discern the author’s vision. What is it? The author dreams about being relieved of oppression, to be able to rise, to eat, and to rest with the Son of Man (62:14). The oppressors, the sinners, are the landowners who have taken food away from those who were promised the Land, the Jews. Soon, these Jews, mirrored in the Parables of Enoch, will be able finally to rise, eat, and rest (62:14). We can imagine that many Jews in this Enoch community are obviously exhausted, hungry, and so oppressed they can find no rest. The historian who is influenced by sociological research is trained to balance data and distinguish the conceivable from the probable. Who are the ones who rule the dry ground? The answer becomes clearer in the next chapter. Note how chapter 63 ends: “And thus says the Lord of Spirits: ‘This is the law and the judgment for the mighty and the kings and the exalted, and for those who possess the dry ground, before the Lord of Spirits’” (63:12; Knibb). The emphasis falls on the last named: “the landlords” or “those who possess the dry ground.” The Jews of the Enoch community have lost their land to others; they can no longer be landlords. Who are those who posses the dry land and how does such identification help us date this document?

36.  See the translation by E. Isaac in OTP 1. 37.  In 1 Enoch, Nickelsburg and VanderKam prefer “those who possess the earth.” 38.  In 62:1, Knibb has “those who dwell upon the earth.” This translation is identical to Charles’ rendering in the second edition of The Book of Enoch.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­51

We have seen that those cursed are landowners. Who are those who are repeatedly singled out for judgment and condemnation? Who are the powerful or the strong that possess the “dry ground”? Who are “those who rule the dry ground”? Those who own the dry land are clearly condemned by those who desire the dry land and have lost it. What sociological crisis explains this curse on landowners or those who possess the dry ground? The most plausible explanation is the disenfranchisement experienced by many wealthy Palestinian Jews. Among these are the wealthy Hasmoneans. During the time of Herod the Great primarily, but also during the rule of his sons and grandsons, Palestinian Jews were losing their farms and becoming tenant farmers. Herod the Great seized the estates of the Hasmoneans, and taxed the Jews heavily to support his massive building projects. Along with this taxation from the Herodians and the increase in money demanded by the sacerdotal aristocracy in Jerusalem, many Jews lost their farms or estates. They lost all the dry land, the cultivatable land. The tax collectors and their collaborating investigators raised the land tax (tributum) and demanded excessive additional payments so that Jews were becoming landless. That is to say, many of the Jews lost their land to Herod and his aristocrats; not only the small landholders, but also many of the estate owners, lost their land to Herod and his hierarchy (Ant 17.304-14). Most of these new landowners were not Jews, and lived away from the land they owned; they even lived outside the Land, as is evident in Jesus’ parable of the Wicked Tenant Farmers. The demotion of Jews from landowners to tenant farmers was exceptional during Herod’s reign. This crisis may also add historical insight into the story or legend that Hillel established the prozbol so Jews would not become bankrupt.39 Through taxation and intrigue, Herod and his hierarchy eventually controlled virtually two-thirds of the fertile land by the time he died. Causes other than taxation undermined the ability of Jews to make a profit from farming. For example, the great famine of 25 bce, about 12 years after Herod finally defeated his main rivals at the Arbel, stunned many farmers so they could not afford to pay their debts. They lost their land, becoming either laborers or tenant farmers on what had been their ancestor’s land. During Herod’s regime, the Roman quislings acquired vast amounts of land from Jews.40 How Herod exacerbated the land tax on Palestinian Jews is too well known to document here.41 Herod’s taxation system was sometimes so 39.  This judgment seems evident even if Hillel is not the author of the prozbol. See C. Safrai in Hillel and Jesus, ed. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997), pp. 312–13. 40.  This judgment seems to refer mainly to Galilean farmers. Some scholars point out that many Jews were better off economically after Herod’s reign than formerly. See esp. L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), vol. 2, p. 336. 41.  See especially the following: M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 2 vols., rev. P. M. Fraser (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957 [2nd edn.]); J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1969);

­52

Parables of Enoch

severe that he had to remit portions of the taxes (Ant 15.365, 16.64). Complaints against severe taxation undermined and ended Archelaus’ reign, and Jewish delegates complained to Caesar that the taxation had led to the “loss of their property,” which primarily meant their homes and farmland. It is obvious how the loss of land would impact any farmer, especially a Jew who believed that his farm or estate was part of the Land he inherited through God’s promise to Abraham. The loss of one’s own land would be unbearable when a Jew knew he could no longer control the land on which he had buried his ancestors, including, conceivably, his father and mother. Without any doubt, most scholars would perceive that such shocking developments would have left an impact on a text composed by a Palestinian Jew during the crisis. This catastrophic event – the loss of Jewish land and property to Herod and other Roman quislings – appears, in my judgment, to be mirrored in the Parables of Enoch. Thus, we perceive the reason for the appearance of a new typos – cursing the strong who steal the dry land from Jewish farmers. Therefore, we have discerned another reason why the work called the Parables of Enoch was most likely composed sometime shortly after 37 bce and, conceivably, up until the time of Jesus’ ministry. Archaeological excavations strengthen the conclusion we obtained by focusing on texts. The recent excavations help us understand that two-thirds of the desirable land (the dry land) was lost to the Herodian dynasty from the end of the first century bce to the first two decades of the first century ce. The appearance of large sumptuous manor houses and palatial abodes witness to a new development in the Herodian period. Extreme wealth, as in imperial Rome, is evident in ancient Palestine. Elegant glass wine pourers and beautifully crafted wine glasses have been discovered in Sebaste. Gold and silver jewelry appears in many places, including Jerusalem. Bronze lion-faced decorations for wooden chests have been found not only in Pompeii and Herculaneum, but in Jerusalem. The concentration and monopolization of vast wealth by a few is witnessed in a poignant and palpable fashion throughout ancient Palestine, from the Herodian palaces in Dan to the extravagances southward, especially at Ramat Hannadiv north of Caesarea Maritima,42 the coastal city of Caesarea, the Upper City of Herodian Jerusalem, and Herodian Jericho. J. Klausner, “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” in The Herodian Period, ed. M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baras (The World History of the Jewish People; Jerusalem, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1957), pp. 180–205; S. Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Section One; Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), vol. 2, pp. 631–700; D. E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of his Day (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 8; Lewiston, Queenston: Mellon, 1986). 42.  See the magnificent publication by Y. Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv Excavations (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society, 2000). Looking south and west from Ḥorvat ‘Eleq helps one imagine the extreme wealth some Herodians enjoyed at the expense of others. I am grateful to Hirschfeld for insightful discussions at Ramat Hanadiv. The so-called exchequer of the Treasury under Herod the Great, Ptolemy, owned a village named Arus (War 2.69, Ant 17.289). In König Herodes, A. Schalit pointed out that Herod really had no exchequer for the area he ruled (p. 222).

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

­53

Almost all of the new landlords were Romans and others who were considered pagans by Jews. When the Jewish author called them “the powerful” (46:4, 54-55), “the strong” (48:8), and “the mighty” (62:2), he revealed his feelings of impotence in a land that had been promised to him as a descendant of Abraham. The author of the Parables of Enoch represents a Jewish community that yearns for another place, because of “those who rule the dry ground” (62:9 [Knibb]). The author hopes that “the Chosen One” will make the ground a blessing so that the “chosen ones” may finally dwell on it (45:5). While the Qumran Community and others yearned for the restoration of the Land promised to Abraham, the Enoch group suffers the loss of farming land, yearns for another place, and curses those who have stolen the good land for farms and vineyards. Summary The social conditions mirrored in the Parables of Enoch have become more clarified. It reflects many decades of Roman occupation. It probably best represents the period during the peak of King Herod’s reign (20–4 bce) when more and more non-Jews were becoming landowners. What does that make Palestinian Jews? They are relegated to be tenant farmers. The “kings of the earth” in the Parables of Enoch are clearly the Roman emperors; but some Jews may have included King Herod in that group, since he was judged to be non-Jewish and perceived to be disturbingly pro-Roman. Most scholars will have little difficulty in perceiving that the Parables of Enoch is an anti-Herodian polemic. Herod the Great and his elite group have overtaxed the Jewish landowners and demoted them to tenant farmers. The loss of land (and the Promised Land might be in the mind of the author, and certainly some Palestinian readers of 1En 37–71) would be monumentally significant for Jews who knew not only the promise to Abraham but also realized that their parents and forefathers were buried on the land, or vineyard, that they had once owned. This resulting hatred and malice would have burned its way into our literature; most likely that sociological context shapes our text of the Parables of Enoch.

Provenience of the Parables of Enoch The cumulative result of recent research is monumental. The Parables of Enoch do not depend on the Gospels (as Milik claimed). Rather, the Evangelists either depend on this earlier Jewish apocalyptic work, or are influenced by the traditions that are preserved in it. If the Gospels preserve echoes of Jesus’ own words, and at times accurately preserve them, then “the Son of Man” is most likely an expression known to some Galilean Jews prior to Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. This conclusion seems to follow from the probability that the provenience and origin of the Books of Enoch is most likely in Galilee. For example, the

­54

Parables of Enoch

Watchers do not descend on a spot in Judea. They descend on Mt. Hermon in Upper Galilee. Moreover, the best location for those who live near swamps – non dry ground – and lament the loss of dry ground to the Herodians and their henchmen, is the Hulah Valley, the large swampy area from Dan or Banias to Bethsaida or Capernaum.43

The Parables of Enoch and the Jesus Traditions Prospect If the Parables of Enoch is not only Jewish, but represents the thought of some intellectually influential Jewish groups in Galilee, then we should revisit some allegedly closed debates among New Testament scholars. There seem to be reasons now to postulate that, since some Jews were developing the concept of “the Son of Man,” Jesus could have used the expression to denote a heavenly figure. This hypothesis seems more likely than ten years ago, thanks to intensive work on the Books of Enoch within the Enoch Seminar and spectacular discoveries in Galilee that date from Jesus’ time. Interpretation of Jesus’ sayings is the crucial issue and problem. While the Evangelists used Son of Man as a title, we cannot discern if Jesus used the expression as a technical term or as a title. He may have chosen bar nasha (“Son of Man”) because it was a vague concept, and not a title. Thus, Jesus may have imagined that God was free to shape the Son of Man concept and define it. Hence, the term became a recognizable title only as Jesus’ life was revealed to him and to those who witnessed to him. In the Parables of Enoch the Son of Man is a celestial judge. It is significant that in the words attributed to Jesus, the Son of Man is assumed to be the judge at the end of times (cf. Mk 8:38, 13:24-27; esp. Jn 5:27). Is some relationship between the Jesus traditions and the Enoch traditions or texts revealed by this observation and perception? As we seek to discern this possible link between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels, it is helpful (perhaps imperative) to recognize the appearance of “the Son of God” and “Son of the Most High” at Qumran. In A Daniel Apocryphon (Aramaic Apocalypse 4Q246), a heavenly figure is introduced as “the Son of God” (l) yd hrb) “and the Son of the Most High” (Nwyl( rbw). Like the Son of Man in the Books of Enoch, the eschatological mediator is primarily the judge: “He will jud[ge] ([N]ydy) the land in truth and all will make peace.” His kingdom will be “an eternal rule (Ml( N+l#).” But, this figure is a militant figure (“he will wage war”) and he is not called “the Son of Man.” The parallels to those with the Son of Man in the Gospels are not as impressive as those provided by the Parables of Enoch.

43.  For further reflections on the possible provenience of the Parables of Enoch, see Charlesworth’s other chapter: “Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?”

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

55

Clearly pertinent for comprehending the unique thoughts in the Parables of Enoch, but less important than A Daniel Apocryphon, is the Birth of Noah ar (4Q534 ar).44 This document refers to “the Elect of God ()hl) ryxb).” He knows “the secrets of humankind” and “the secrets of all living things.” He is exceptional: “His wisdom will reach to all nations.” No one will be able to oppose him. This text refers to a celestial and eschatological figure, perhaps Noah. The connections with the story of Jesus are significant, but in the extant fragments there is no evidence that he is either the Son of Man (although he seems to obtain enlightenment by reading “the three books” of Enoch) or that he will be Judge. The Evangelists certainly portray Jesus as the Son of God and the Son of Man. Both refer to Jesus’ divine and heavenly status. The Son of Man sayings in the Gospels frequently reveal the belief that Jesus, as the Son of Man, will serve as the cosmic judge at the Day of Judgment. To what extent are Jesus’ traditions shaped here by Enoch traditions? Are the influences only on the later Evangelists?45 The biblical tradition is that only God is Judge. Recall the Psalter memorized by all erudite Jews: God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings He pronounces judgment. How long will you judge perversely, showing favor to the wicked? Selah Judge the wretched and the orphan, vindicate the lowly and the poor, rescue the wretched and the needy; save them from the hand of the wicked. (Ps 82:1-4; TANAKH)

Strikingly, within the hundreds of Jewish documents that antedate 70 ce, only in the Parables of Enoch and only within Jesus’ teachings do we find references to the Son of Man as the eschatological Judge. How is that concurrence to be explained?46 Jesus is reputed to have said that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58; cf. GosThom Log. 86). Most likely, using forms known from Wisdom literature (which are present in the Books of Enoch), Jesus is reported to have claimed that he cannot find a dwelling on earth. Moreover, he is reputed to have referred to himself as the Son of Man. It is significant, therefore, to perceive what the author of the Parables of Enoch states about 44.  See Charlesworth’s introduction, text, and translation in the Princeton DSS Project, in press. 45.  See Charlesworth, “The Naming of the Son of Man, the Light, the Son of God: How the Parables of Enoch May Have Influenced the Odes of Solomon,” in “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke, ed. P. Allen, M. Franzmann, and R. Strelan (Early Christian Studies 12; Strathfield, NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2007), pp. 31–43. 46.  See my reflections and hypothesis in section III of this book, “Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?”

­56

Parables of Enoch

Wisdom. This Jew presented as revelation the claim that “Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell” (42:1). Is this parallel significant? Scholars will assess such parallels between Jesus and the Books of Enoch differently. Some will see no relationship, many will appeal to common Jewish traditions, others will recognize some indirect influence, and perhaps a few will imagine that maybe Jesus knew this particular Enoch tradition and perhaps the written document. Is it not conceivable that Jesus discussed ideas, concepts, and terms with those in or related to the Enoch group?

Conclusion Six reasons disclose the most probable date for the Parables of Enoch. First, it is insignificant that no fragment of this document has been identified among the fragments found in the Qumran caves. Second, the Parables of Enoch is clearly the latest composition within 1 Enoch, and there are reasons to conclude it would not have had sufficient time to make its way to Qumran. Third, the document was not composed at Qumran and contains concepts and perceptions that would not have been acceptable at Qumran. Fourth, the reference to a Parthian invasion makes best sense in light of what is known, from Josephus and archaeological research, about the invasion of 40 bce. Fifth, the multitudinous curses on the landowners and those who monopolize the “dry land” make best sense during the period of the land-grabbing by Herod and the Herodians. Sixth, the early Christians may have avoided the Parables of Enoch because it lauds Enoch as the celestial Son of Man and eschatological Judge. Such a claim undermines the kerygma. Cumulatively then, dating the Parables of Enoch to the time of Herod the Great and the Herodians has become conclusive.47 The Parables of Enoch (1En 37–71) appears to be a Jewish work that antedates Jesus, and the author seems to imagine a connection among the Messiah, the Righteous One, and the Son of Man. The work most likely took shape in Galilee, not far from where Jesus centered his ministry. He, thus, could have been influenced by this writing or the traditions preserved in the Parables of Enoch. In this case, his own self-understanding may have been shaped by the relationship between the Son of Man and the Messiah that is found only in the Parables of Enoch. If those in the Enoch group were known as the great scholars who had special and secret knowledge, and if they lived in Galilee, then Jesus would most likely have had an opportunity to learn firsthand about their teachings through discussions and debates. Some of the Bultmannians (notably H. Conzelmann) claimed that “the Son of Man” is a term and title that originates only in the post-Easter community. Conzelmann argued that all the Son of Man sayings in the words of Jesus are 47.  I note that this conclusion was shared by almost every leading specialist on 1En or Second Temple Judaism. M. Knibb remains unconvinced of this early dating and prefers a date sometime in the second half of the first century ce.

The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch

57

suspicious. They seem to be the creation of Jesus’ post-Easter followers.48 The Son of Man Christology is not linked to Jesus; it originated in “the church,” which – in my estimation – should be renamed (in order to avoid anachronisms) “the Early Palestinian Jesus Movement.”49 According to Conzelmann, in the early “church,” the term Son of Man first appeared as a title and celebrated the earthly life and celestial origin of Jesus of Nazareth. The title reveals nothing about Judaism or the historical Jesus. It ushers us into the world after Jesus when “Christianity” begins to separate from regnant Judaism. Many specialists are now seeing more clearly that New Testament Christology flows from Jesus’ words and self-understanding. Conzelmann’s professor, R. Bultmann, stressed that Jesus is not the foundation of New Testament Theology. He is the presupposition of New Testament Theology.50 These scholars, Bultmann and Conzelmann, were primarily trained in Greek and in the New Testament; they were not experts in Second Temple Judaism and they should not be judged in terms of improved data and methodologies. If the preceding reflections are valid, then speaking personally, I would recast Bultmann’s famous and influential dictum. He claimed that Jesus is the presupposition of New Testament Theology. Far more likely, Jewish apocalyptic and eschatological reflections on the Messiah, the Son of Man, God’s Rule (the Kingdom of God), and the coming Day of Judgment are the presuppositions of Jesus’ mind.

48.  H. Conzelmann, Jesus, trans. J. Reumann (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1973). 49.  Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (ABRL; New York, London: Doubleday, 1988); see esp. pp. 13, 20, 24, 31, 59, 89, 97, 103, 124, 142, 143, 167, 199, 233, 236. 50.  Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), vol. 1, p. 3 (his italics): “The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.”

­

Chapter 4 Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht Darrell L. Bock Since the first discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the winter of 1947, the study of Second Temple Judaism (c. 300 bce–70 ce) has become a major area for advanced research. Before this monumental discovery, the study of early Jewish texts was primarily related to how they connected with Christian documents. Now, the appreciation of Judaism’s diversity in this period has led to more careful consideration of these texts on their own terms. That has been a significant gain for the historical study of the period in which Jesus lived and out of which “Christianity” began to develop. One of the effects of this new development has been that New Testament studies often has not kept pace with what has taken place in Second Temple Jewish studies, even though nearly everyone has recognized the overlap between the early “Christian” movement and Second Temple Judaism. The result has been that findings in Second Temple Jewish studies have not been picked up for the implications in New Testament studies. In many ways, where the pendulum was stuck too far in one direction in the past, it has now swung in the other direction. Perhaps there is no greater example of this situation than the debate and uncertainty over the date of the Parables of Enoch (= 1 Enoch 37–71). The goal of my chapter is to trace this discussion from the work of R. H. Charles through the international work of the Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli plus a few subsequent studies. Having determined what are the key issues, we can then discuss their implications for the current study of the New Testament. In summation, this chapter is a plea for Second Temple Jewish scholars and New Testament scholars not to lose contact with each other as research and reflection continue in each specialty. There is much to be gained for the study of each area and their interrelationships if scholars in the two disciplines stay in better contact with each other.

Survey From R. H. Charles to the Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli 2007 R. H. Charles (1893): 90–79 or 70–64 bce In 1893, R. H. Charles published his study on 1 Enoch.1 He argued in this edition that the original was in Hebrew and then was translated into Greek, 1. 

R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005 [reprint of 1893

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­59

although later he held to a mixed Aramaic and Hebrew original like Daniel (p. 21). He saw the work as a whole in three parts (p. 25): the “ground work” (chs. 1–36; 82–104), the distinct Parables of Enoch, and interpolations, especially from Noahic works (scattered within chapters 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 41, 43–44, 54, 55, 59, 60, 65–69:25; 106–07). Charles dated the Parables of Enoch to either 94–79 or 70–64 bce. He argued that in contrast to chapters 91–104, the suffering that is treated is not about the abuse by the rich, but of a graver sort, acts that mean their “blood is now crying to heaven for vengeance” (pp. 29–30). These opponents are not the Sadducees and their supporters from the nations; they are the Hasmonean princes because Rome is not yet named. Charles deepens this point in noting later in his book that (1) the Sadducees did not support the Herodians, excluding them as referents in the text; and (2) Rome is not noted as a world power, something that also requires a pre-63 bce date (pp. 107–08). The sum of all of these factors leads Charles to a date between 95 and 63 bce when Rome became the key power of the region. He prefers 94–79 or 70–64 bce because in 79–70 the Pharisees “enjoyed unbroken power and prosperity under Alexandra,” so those years are excluded. Charles seems to lean towards 94–79 bce because he sees 56:5–57:3a as a likely interpolation. He defends the “kings and the mighty” in 38:5 as the Hasmoneans and Sadducees because the texts of this section seem to be looking at figures within Israel. The only possible exception to seeing a referent internal to Israel is found in 46:7 which refers to faith in gods made with hands. Charles sees this text as an exaggeration with parallels in the Psalms of Solomon 1:8; 8:14; 17:17, as well as 1 Enoch 99:7 and 104:9. These parallels turn on whether the latter Enoch texts look at sinners within the nation who are said to be idolaters. That conclusion is not so clear, although there is a precedent for it in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. In addition, Charles argues that the messianism of the other portions of 1 Enoch is not the same as in the Parables of Enoch because the other portions of 1 Enoch were composed in a period when the Hasmonean family carried the edn.]). Charles based his work on two British Museum manuscripts, what he called G and G1 (dated to the beginning of the sixteenth century; p. 2). The Greek fragments he worked with came in four parts (6-9:4; 8:4-10:14; 15:8-16:1; and 89:42-49), none of which are relevant for us. For comparison, in OTP 1 (1983), E. Isaac used a fifteenth-century manuscript (A), now in Germany, as his base text, while comparing it to a late eighteenth-century manuscript at Princeton (B), Charles’ text (C), and Charles’ apparatus (EC). Charles’ Greek fragments were consulted but not that much use was made of the Qumran Aramaic Fragments of Enoch. Isaac says that key manuscripts of the Ethiopic he worked with were 2080 (fifteenth century), 4437 (seventeenth century), and 4750 (seventeenth century). Isaac’s discussion of the issues of dating for the Parables of Enoch is very thin (p. 7). He speaks of the first century ce, and refers to the SNTS Pseudepigrapha group that we will examine below. A more comprehensive look at the mss. can be found in S. Uhlig, Das Äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 5.6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1984), pp. 470–83, which notes around 40 mss. of the text or of fragments in Ethiopic. The texts divide into two textual families (p. 477). In addition, he notes fragments in Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. However, the Parables exist today only in Ethiopic manuscripts. 1 Enoch as a whole was seen as canonical in the Ethiopic Church.

­60

Parables of Enoch

nation’s hope (pp. 30–31). Messianic hope went in two directions as belief in the Hasmoneans waned: one is in the direction of a prophetic messianic figure, a likely allusion to Psalms of Solomon 17–18 that dates to the Roman period; and the other in a more transcendent image working with the hope of Daniel and the Son of Man, an allusion to the portrait of the Parables of Enoch. Charles ends his initial discussion of this issue with five contrasts between chs. 91–104 and 37–71 (p. 32).2 They are: (1) no role for the Messiah in 91–104, while the Messiah is key in 37–71; (2) resurrection for all Israelites in 91–104 versus only for the righteous in 37–71; (3) in 37–71 the messianic kingdom is temporary, while in 91–104 it is permanent; (4) in 37–71, the messianic judgment comes at the end of the messianic period, while in 91–104, it comes at the beginning; and (5) 37–71 has a resurrection of the spirit only, while in 91–104, there is a resurrection of the body. In evaluating these five contrasting claims, it is not so clear how points (1) and (3) fit together or where else a judgment can go but at the beginning if the messianic kingdom is eternal and pictures the vindication of the nation. Charles’ date held sway for decades and raised the possibility that the messianic speculations in the Parables of Enoch may have impacted Jesus and the early Church. It was only when assessments came of the Enochic texts found at Qumran that things changed. This leads us directly to the work of J. T. Milik, but there is one other key study we need to introduce that appeared just as the Qumran Scrolls were being discovered. E. Sjöberg (1946): first century ce This fundamental study is one of the most important monographs on this material.3 Rather than summarize his view of dating, we will be interacting with his views throughout this chapter as others take up this or that part of his many important theses. To introduce and summarize his work would make many of the subsequent discussions redundant. So we handle Sjöberg as we proceed. For now, I will simply overview a few key observations. Sjöberg points out that 1 Enoch 56:5-8 best connects with the Parthian threat of 40–37 bce. I will be taking a look at this passage and the discussion surrounding it repeatedly in this study. On the date of this section, Sjöberg sees the Parables of Enoch as emerging in the first century ce. He also discusses in detail theories related to the origin of the concept of the Son of Man as eschatological Judge, as well as proposed interpolations in this material. I shall pick these views up as they become relevant to the debate.4 2.  To make the case that chs. 37–71 are distinct, Charles reviews differences in a variety of areas from the rest of 1 Enoch on pp. 106–07. These areas are: names of God; angelology; demonology; messianic doctrine; the scene of the messianic kingdom, which in chs. 37–71 is the new heaven and earth; and the duration of the kingdom and life which in both cases is eternal in chs. 37–71. 3.  E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleepup, 1946). 4.  These two issues surface in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992).

Dating the Parables of Enoch

61­

J. T. Milik (1976): c. 270 ce Clearly, J. T. Milik’s proposal is paradigmatically different from Charles. A full three-century difference existed between his proposal and that of Charles.5 Matthew Black called his proposal a “rude shock” for Jewish messianic and New Testament Christological study.6 Milik began the presentation of his views with the note that a better name for the section is not the Parables of Enoch but simply the “Second Vision of Enoch,” a part of what he also called the Enochic Pentateuch that appears in two volumes (1En and then the Parables of Enoch). The bulk of the section consists of three sapiential discourses. There are three such units: chapters 38–44 (which is like the earlier Watchers), 45–57 (on the renegades), and 58–59 (on the just and righteous). This section is followed by the Vision of Noah (60–64), Noah’s Visit to Enoch in paradise (65–66), and the Lord’s Word to Noah (67). The Words of Michael follow in 68:2–69:29. The Parables of Enoch concludes with an epilogue (70–71). Milik saw the writer as having had access to Greek versions of other portions of 1 Enoch, especially the Book of the Watchers. Milik regards the author’s copy of the Watchers as superior to C, S, and E. Milik then turned to the issue of the date for the Parables of Enoch. He regarded it as “quite certain” that this section is not pre-Christian. He appeals to evidence of lack of presence and usage, as well as genre. For presence, Milik’s major reason is that no Semitic or Greek version of the text has shown up at Qumran. So he regards the Parables of Enoch as a Christian Greek composition, making use of the Septuagint (LXX), and gaining its inspiration from the New Testament. Milik’s claim that there is no “quotation” from the Parables of Enoch in the first to fourth centuries seems sustained, even though Enoch himself is a frequently cited figure in this period. In fact, the book does not appear until the early Middle Ages and in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and 2 (Slavonic) Enoch. Finally, there is no evidence for the Parables of Enoch in Coptic literature or in the Byzantine tradition, as it appears only in Ethiopic. When it comes to genre, Milik compares the work to the Sibylline Oracles, which flourished in the second to fourth centuries. These roots lend the Parables of Enoch their metric style. Milik makes his case here by pointing to two parallels. The first parallel is in Sibyllines 2:215-35 which is similar to 1 Enoch 61:6. However, it is the second that is the more important allusion. Both Sibyllines 5:93-110 and 1 Enoch 56:5-7 contain allusions, in Milik’s view, not only to the Parthians’ war with Rome from 40 bce, but also to what Milik sees as a contemporary conflict between Sapor I and Valerian in 260 ce. In this text, a reference to the “right of the Parthians and Medes” becomes a reference to the “Palmyrenes” with aid of an appeal to Safaitic inscriptions to connect the 5.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 89–100, makes the argument we summarize here. 6.  M. Black, “The Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 37–71) and the Son of Man,” ExpT 88 (1976– 77), 5–8. The quotation is from p. 5.

­62

Parables of Enoch

Medes with Palmyrenes. In addition, the term “right” takes on the meaning of “western.” It is clear that this multilingual argument works hard to justify the connection, turning the Enoch reference into a metaphorical cipher for a later period. Despite all the labor, he calls the connection “fairly obvious” for him. The result is that he places the composition of the section somewhere near 270 ce. Consequently, Milik concluded that the author of the Parables of Enoch constructed the section on the model of the Sibylline Oracles. Connecting the Sybils with Noah and Enoch was not unusual in Judaism of the period (as is well known, SibOr 3:810-11, 827 connects Sibyl with Noah). The Christians of Byzantine Egypt saw Sibyl as the sister of Enoch, citing a text from a Tiburtine Sibyl that comes from the late fifth and early sixth century, a Coptic Enochic fragment, and an Arabic work on the History of Joseph. Finally, Milik sees numerous Christian elements in this section of 1 Enoch (61:1), as well as understanding in it reflecting other late doctrines (like a Mithraic parallel in 69:6-7, which has points of contact with a Hermetic tract on Isis; connections between this section and the Two books of Yeu). Obviously, Milik’s work is an important counter-thesis to Charles, placing the work in a post-first-century context. It did not take long for the responses to set in, especially from other specialists who worked in Second Temple studies. Meanwhile, the proposal had devastating impacts on New Testament studies. The Revised Schürer (1979): late first century (at the earliest) The impact of Milik’s study on New Testament study can be seen in the revised edition of E. Schürer’s monumental study of the Jewish People in the time surrounding Jesus.7 In a section discussing Jewish messianic views, the authors state the following: “Until the Qumran discoveries, the Parables of Enoch, found only in the Ethiopic version of that work, have been regarded as furnishing evidence for a (pre-Christian) supernatural Messiah. Their absence from 4Q Aramaic Enoch, and related considerations, probably require this work be placed at the earliest in the late first century A.D.” The note goes on to cite Milik’s work, while citing the resultant debate over whether the material is Jewish, a Jewish composition, or a Christianized apocalypse. The main discussion of 1 Enoch takes place in Schürer vol. 3:250-68. Here the history of the text’s discovery is noted with discussion of the recovery of three manuscripts by James Bruce in 1773, as well as the publication of English translations in 1821 (R. Laurence) and 1851 (A. Dillmann). The division of the Parables of Enoch is noted – First Parable (38–44), Second Parable (45–57), 7.  Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 2:520 and n. 26. It should be noted here that E. P. Sanders makes little use of this material in his assessment of Paul and the Judaism of his time. He sees the other sections of Enoch as Maccabean, but dates the Parables of Enoch as more than likely post-Christian, not deciding whether 56:5-6 is about the third century, as Milik suggested, or is about Trajan, as Hindley argues (J. C. Hindley, “Towards a Date of the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 14 [1967–68], 557–65); Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977), pp. 346–48.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­63

and Third Parable (58–69) – along with the use of a Book of Noah that breaks the continuity of the section. The Parables of Enoch end with a conclusion (70–71), a unit that includes Enoch’s ascension. This revised Schürer discussion dates all the other units of 1 Enoch to the “first four decades of the second century B.C.” (p. 256), with Watchers and Heavenly Lights placed possibly as early as the third century bce. The work would have existed in an early combination of four key units (Heavenly Lights, Watchers, Dreams, and Admonitions) in the second century bce. The date of the fifth unit, the Parables of Enoch, is debated. The only potentially datable unit is 56:5-7, which is attributed either to a period prior to Rome’s conquest of Judea-Palestine (Charles) or alludes to the Parthian invasion of the region in 40 bce (Sjöberg).8 The discussion then turns to the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran and summarizes Milik’s argument. The redactors of Schürer then note that “scholarly opinion has so far shown little inclination towards accepting Milik’s thesis,” especially the third-century dating and their attribution to a Christian author (p. 257). There is lacking any truly distinctive Christian traits that reflected Jesus’ teaching in the Parables of Enoch. The lack of evidence for the Parables of Enoch in the patristic materials cannot establish the date for this material. One point, however, is said to stand. It is the lack of attestation of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran (p. 258). The discussion does note the view of others that this silence is either accidental or lacks significance. In fact, they argue that to jump from the absence of the Parables of Enoch to positing a Christian authorship after the end of the Qumran Community is a “logical fallacy” (p. 258). Next, the allusion in 56:6-7 comes in for special attention. The Parthian view pointing to 40 bce is noted initially, along with two more recent suggestions. First, Hindley, as already noted, appeals to the defeat of the Parthians in 115–17 ce by Trajan and to a “subsequent imaginary advance on the Holy Land” (p. 258).9 Second, Suter argues for “Parthian” standing as a “nickname” for “Roman” with an allusion to the mission of Petronius to place Caligula’s effigy in the Jerusalem Temple.10 Hindley sees none of the options as workable, because the text sees a Parthian and Median invasion halted by the city of my chosen ones (Jerusalem?) followed by internecine strife. Sheol then swallows up the attackers. The authors argue that the text is better seen as an eschatological reference with a note observing that after 70 ce only the Parthians could have existed as an opponent to the Romans (p. 258, n. 21). The note also observes the Jewish belief that Persian horses in Israel was seen as a sign of the approach of the Messiah (bSanh 98 a-b; LamR 1:13 [41]). It should be noted that of the historical options for 1 Enoch 56, the closest one is the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. The Trajan suggestion has to posit an invasion of the Holy Land and does not work. The placement of Caligula’s 8.  E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch, p. 39. 9.  J. C. Hindley, “Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 14 (1967–68), 557–65. 10.  D. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 29–32.

­64

Parables of Enoch

effigy is hardly an invasion in the normal sense. The difficulty with the Parthian suggestion is whether Herod’s connection to Rome would be seen as equal to the text’s language of the city of the chosen ones stopping them. The article closes by discussing dating with varying opinions belonging to the first century ce. The dates range from the turn of the century to the end of the century, but this discussion ventures the opinion that the “last quarter of the first century” is the most likely period for the writing (p. 259). The reasons are: common themes between the Parables of Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, connections to Matthew, and the concept of a pre-existent, concealed and revealed Messiah. All these factors fit into this historical period. Thus, there seems to be a slight disjunction between this volume 3 summary in the revised Schürer (last quarter of the first century) and the earlier note in volume 2 (late first century at the earliest). Whereas the discussion in volume 2 seems to have left the discussion open because of Milik, the volume 3 discussion does reflect one of the options many Second Temple Jewish scholars held even after Milik, raising doubts about the way Milik addressed the issue despite his prominent role in publishing the Aramaic fragments of Enoch. It is to the immediate reaction to Milik among Second Temple experts that I now turn. The studies that follow all interact directly with Milik’s claims. They raise questions about most of his key conclusions. The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar Groups in Tübingen (1977) and Paris (1978), chaired by Charlesworth11 The Tübingen Seminar took a look at 21 manuscripts related to the Books of Enoch as well as discussing the views of Milik. E. Isaac, who treated the manuscripts, argued that Milik had been too dependent on editions by J. Flemming and R. H. Charles in doing his work. Isaac argued that the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch could have appeared between 350 and 550 ce. Isaac cited examples where readings that Milik makes are not in the better manuscripts of Enoch. The Paris Seminar took a closer look at Milik’s views on the Parables of Enoch, as well as treating other issues not related to their dating.12 M. Knibb presented a paper on the dating of the material that argued for a date near the end of the first century ce.13 The absence of this material at Qumran suggests a post-68 ce date, as did the way the Son of Man theme was handled in parallel to uses in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra 3–14. There was agreement in the group that the Sibyllines Oracles were not a significant parallel, while whether one could base much on 1 Enoch 56:6-7 is debatable. Does it refer to the Parthian challenge of the first century bce or is the passage too imprecise to be used?14 Knibb’s 11.  James Charlesworth, “The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars in Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1979), 315–23. 12.  Nickelsburg treated the issue of wealth and riches in 1 Enoch 92–105. 13.  This paper was eventually published and its details will be discussed next. 14.  There is a significant typo here in the discussion on 56:5-7 on p. 321, confirmed to me by email from James Charlesworth on October 1, 2007. The text reads 40 A.D. but the date should be 40 B.C.E.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­65

paper and the discussion that followed argued that this section is Jewish and was ultimately Semitic. Another key issue was the untrustworthy nature of editions current at that time. In summation, “no scholar concurred with Milik’s date for the Parables” (p. 322). In addition, there was no doubt this material was Jewish and not Christian, given the lack of explicit Christian allusions to a Jesus figure. A topic still needing sorting out was whether this material was pre-Christian, making this material of potential relevance to Jesus’ teaching, or whether it was post-Christian, working either independently of the Gospels and / or in reaction to Christian teaching. M. A. Knibb (1979): late first century ce The previously mentioned report of M. A. Knibb to the SNTS Seminar was also published in NTS.15 It is a careful review of Milik’s view on the dating of the Parables of Enoch, which he says has negative and positive arguments. Milik’s key negative arguments were the absence of the material at Qumran and the non-use by the Fathers of the first to fourth centuries ce. Knibb counters that Milik’s suggestion that 1 Enoch existed in a two-fold division into the fifth century (Astronomy and then a tetrateuch) is less than certain based on the evidence we have. He notes it could be correct, but is hardly certain because “we do not at present possess the evidence which would enable us to trace the stages by which the Books of Enoch acquired the form which it possesses in the Ethiopic version” (pp. 347–48). Moreover, Knibb notes that even if Milik is right that this material was added at this late date, it still does not get to the question of the material’s date and origin. Next Knibb discusses the argument involving Sibylline Oracles parallels with its claim about a third-century referent for 56:5-7 supported by a suggested allusion to Pseudo-Philo. He notes the debate over which way the dependence goes in these passages. Knibb observes that all such an observation would show is that we are no earlier than 100 ce. He goes on to contend that the Sibylline Oracles are not the closest genre at hand, but that the account of the heavenly journey within 1 Enoch itself is more parallel. When it comes to 56:5-7, Knibb argues that the language is too imprecise to nail down any specific event, given it is not an interpolation, which also is possible. Even more problematic is reading “right” as “western” so that it represented an allusion to the Palmyrenes. It is more likely “right” means “South” (1Sam 23:19 MT; 1En 76:2 with the overlap of yäman in Ethiopic). Knibb subsequently looks at the evidence for a first-century date and a Jewish origin. He regards the evidence of Jewish origin as “overwhelming” (p. 350). First, there is no clear allusion to Jesus’ life, death, or resurrection as in portions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Ascension of Isaiah. Two other points also show a Jewish context: the language of composition is 15.  M. A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1979), 345–59. This paper was given in two key venues in 1978: at King’s College, the University of London, and at the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar in Paris.

­66

Parables of Enoch

more likely Semitic than Greek16 and the themes are expressed in a Jewish manner. Here it is the Son of Man that comes in for special attention with a mixture of royal, servant, and pre-existence themes (Isa 11:1ff., Ps 110; Isa 49:1ff.; Prov 8:23 ff.).17 The identification of the Son of Man with Enoch also fits such a context (see the option of Melchizedek at Qumran in 11QMelch). Can one get more specific? Here the appeal of Sjöberg to Roman rulers as those criticized in 1 Enoch only gives a large window of 63 bce to 135 ce. Sjöberg makes much of the silence about the fall of the Temple to date the work before 70 ce, but Knibb is less certain of this claim. Knibb then turns his attention to what is certainly becoming a key passage for this discussion, specifically 1 Enoch 56:5-8. He suggests that the text is like Ezekiel 38–39. He reviews the options of before 64 bce (Charles) and 40–37 bce (Sjöberg), as well as Milik’s view appealing to the third century ce. He adds the fourth suggestion of Hindley looking to Trajan in 113–17 ce. Knibb rejects Hindley’s suggestion, mainly because there is a lack of clear evidence that the Parthians were seen as a real threat during the period Hindley suggests. Moreover, it is not clear that Jews would have seen such an invasion negatively since the Jewish rebellion met with Parthian sympathy. So Knibb argues that 1 Enoch 56 is general in character and rooted in an Old Testament background. This observation makes a specific date impossible to determine, given the Parthians were a threat at any point after 40 bce. Knibb also suggests that this text is sufficiently out of character with the rest of the section that it may be an independent piece of tradition used by the author or an interpolation. In my view, looking at the alternatives, what Knibb’s analysis does show is that if the remark is not general but specific, it is the window tied to 40 bce that is the most likely candidate for the Parthian threat being viewed negatively (as Charlesworth shows now in his chapter). What is more difficult to decide is if the remark is specific or general. Subsequent study to be noted below will return to this issue and address it more fully. The last key area Knibb examines is the argument that parts of the New Testament are dependent on the Parables of Enoch. However, he sees little promise here, rejecting the connections Charles argued for as being too general to point to specific use. For Knibb, only Rev 6:15-16 and Mt 19:28 require comment. For Revelation, Knibb does note there is overlap, but that a source tied to Isa 2:19, 21 and Hos 10:8 cannot be excluded. He also notes the lack of a mention of a woman in childbirth, which is in 1 Enoch, as well as no mention of the Son of Man.18 For Matthew, Knibb looks closely at the case for this made by Theisohn. Although acknowledging the language is close, Knibb questions if the phrase “throne of glory” gives sufficient basis to “show dependence on the Parables” (p. 257). Knibb suggests this is a “striking parallel” but “a 16.  Here Knibb appeals to the Semitic roots of 1 Enoch 45:3 and 52:9. 17.  J. Theisohn, Der auserwälte Richter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) is central here. 18.  However, it must be noted that this title is not used independently of Jesus and his presence in the New Testament texts.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­67

much broader influence of the Parables needs to be demonstrated” (p. 357). Of course, if there is a connection here, then we are likely dealing with a source that existed before the fall of the Temple in 70 ce.19 What we are starting to see are a series of possibilities that point to a pre-70 date. None of the arguments are self-sufficient, but does not the combination of possibilities raise the likelihood that a pre-70 origin of the Parables of Enoch is most likely? For his part, Knibb favors a date in the late first century ce. Here he argues that Enoch’s silence about the fall of Jerusalem does not suggest a pre-70 date, but the absence at Qumran points to a date after 68 ce. But why would a text written in the latter years of Qumran’s existence from a source outside of Qumran make its way to the Qumran Community before the nation and Community are overcome by Rome? Knibb’s observation here suggests the text may not be very early, say first century bce, but it certainly does not show the text is as late as he implies. The key argument for Knibb appears to be that what the Parables of Enoch claim about the Son of Man parallels 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra and so fits the late first century ce, although he recognizes “how tentative this must be” (p. 359). C. L. Mearns (1979): early first half of the first century ce A third major article on the Parables of Enoch appeared in vol. 25 of NTS.20 This work by C. L. Mearns also evaluated Milik and made its own proposal. Mearns begins by noting the range of proposals from the second century bce (Frey) to Milik’s third-century ce option, including Charles’s pre-Roman midfirst-century bce proposal, the Parthian period of 40 bce, Sjöberg’s appeal to the period of Herod in light of the silence on the fall of Jerusalem, and Hindley’s view on Trajan.21 Mearns next turns to Milik’s view. Mearns accepts Milik’s proposal that the Manichaeans substituted the Parables of Enoch for the Book of the Giants, and produced a revised Enochic Pentateuch. However, he rejects the third-century ce dating because it stands on “slender grounds” (p. 361). First, Mearns argues that the lack of citation of the Parables of Enoch is because when Matthew and Revelation took up the perspective, a need to cite other passages was diminished. He later adds that this would be especially the case because Christianity of the second to fourth centuries came to have fewer Jewish adherents and, because of this, the Books of Enoch circulated on the fringes of Judaism and proto-Christianity. Second, the same explanation applies to the circulation of ancient versions in the Coptic. Third, Mearns judges that 1 Enoch 56 is far too general to suit the dating given to it by Milik. Moreover, it better 19.  Knibb also discusses a potential parallel of Mt 13:40-43 but finds a connection much less convincing. 20.  C. L. Mearns, “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1979), 360–69. 21.  J. B. Frey’s view is found in “Apocalyptique” in Pirot’s Supplement au Dictionanaire de la Bible 1: cols. 361–62. His view dates from 1928.

­68

Parables of Enoch

fits the Parthian period of 40 bce. He observes that the language is influenced by 2Kgs 18:13–20:11 and Isa 36–38. Fourth, he rejects Milik’s argument that in Isa 61:1 winged seraphim are only known in Christian texts, citing Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1 as examples. Mearns also directly challenges the silence argument emerging from the lack of material from Qumran. He argues that such texts as the Christians appropriated to themselves would not have been welcome there. These ideas would have become “tainted” (p. 362). He argues that a similar motive caused the Book of the Giants to be excluded later by the Manichaeans. For a first-century ce date, Mearns argues that the Testament of Abraham, a late first-century composition, used concepts in polemic with Enoch’s role as eschatological Judge in 1 Enoch 71. He argues that the shorter recension of the Testament of Abraham in chapters 11–12 limits Enoch’s role in that it denies Enoch is a Judge. In my own view, this detail shows at the least that the ideas that the Parables of Enoch reflect were in the Jewish Zeitgeist and in circulation at this time. He continues the argument by suggesting that a look at Revelation 4 versus 1 Enoch 40 indicates a roughness to the Enochic version that makes it look earlier. He also appeals to a relationship between Matthew 25 and 1 Enoch 62 in which Enoch comes first because the New Testament references are more developed. Mearns goes on to appeal to conceptual parallels between New Testament exaltation themes and 1 Enoch (1Tim 3:16; Phil 2:6-11; Eph 2:5; 5:14; Col 2:15, as well as numerous Johannine texts and Hebrews only speaking of exaltation). Mearns sees significance in these conceptual overlaps and concludes this discussion by saying: “The affinity between exaltation theologies of the Similitudes and of the primitive church in the New Testament is therefore a further factor which favors an early date for the Similitudes” (p. 367). Given these parallels to eschatology as it would have been in the late 40s ce in earliest “Christianity,” the Parables of Enoch must belong to a “correspondingly early date” (p. 369). Mearns is one of the few that has appealed extensively to parallels in the Christian material as a means of dating the Parables of Enoch. This may be another “it is in the air” argument, given that the Palestinian Jesus Movement was rooted in Judaism. J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone (1977): first century ce The next publication that we consider comes from two Jewish scholars.22 Greenfield and Stone examine two issues in Milik’s work: his claim about an Enochic Pentateuch and his dating of the section as late and Christian. They challenge Milik’s hypothesis on the Enochic Pentateuch because the material finds at Qumran are not a good source by which to reconstruct the textual history. They point to how such a method would fail with the Mosaic Pentateuch and with Jubilees. They also observe how manuscript preservation 22.  J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977), 51–65.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­69

changed at Qumran, with earlier manuscripts limiting themselves to one composition, while later manuscripts have as many as three. In the end, they call this theory a “chimera” (p. 55). They also reject Milik’s view on dating, arguing that the absence of a text at Qumran is not an argument for its non-existence at the time. Esther becomes the example. It is sometimes countered that 1 Enoch and Esther are not parallel because parts of 1 Enoch were found at Qumran, just not 37–71. But in fact, the counter-argument is not the real point. If an entire existing book (Esther) was not found, then what if a portion of a book (1En 37–71) was missing? Can one really make so much of its absence? They posit four other options for Esther: (a) it existed and was not yet known; (b) it was not seen as canonical; (c) it was not considered worthy of study; and (d) pure accident. In treating the nature of the Enochic cycle of books and traditions in Judaism, the authors note that the Parables of Enoch would not have been acceptable to those at Qumran because of the equation the work made in chapter 41 of the sun with the moon, reflecting a different calendrical concern, and one the Qumranites rejected. Against a Christian composition are two points: (a) the lack of any allusion to the life of Jesus, a point made by others critical of Milik; and (b) the fact that Enoch is said to be this Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71. This makes him a competitor for the role of the Righteous Teacher, something Qumran would not have been likely to embrace. They appeal to Sjöberg’s work as showing that the New Testament has not influenced this material. They next examine two texts they say have historical significance, once again 56:5-7 and 67:8-9. They have no doubt about the allusion to the Parthians of 40 bce. They suggest the mention of Medes in the text may well reflect the fact that the Medes were vassals of the Parthians, while the discussion of strife among the invaders alludes to the constant strife among the kingdoms adjacent to Parthia. They also challenge Hindley’s claim that the Parthian invasion was seen positively by some Jews against the negative reading in 56:5-7. They argue that as a sectarian text such an invasion would be seen as negative. In the process they reject Hindley’s Trajan option, noting that reaching Antioch, 300 miles away from Jerusalem, is hardly tantamount to taking Jerusalem. They are even more emphatic when it comes to rejecting Milik’s case for a late date, calling the argument for ties “pure fiction” (p. 59). The supposed allusion to the Palmyrenes simply does not work, “and does not reflect” credible epigraphy. In treating 67:8-9, they accept the claim that this text alludes to the curing impact of the waters of Calirrhoe and the relief Herod sought there when he was grievously ill (War 1.33.5 §§657-58). This allusion points to the same first-century bce period as the Parthian reference. They argue that these two references point to a first-century bce origin; thus, the work is contemporary to the late Qumran Scrolls. They also regard the lack of any Greek or Byzantine evidence for this section of 1 Enoch as arguing for its direct route from Semitic to Ethiopic. This argues against a composition in Greek by Christians.

7­70 0

Parables of Enoch

They also challenge Milik’s idea of a substitution of the Book of Giants. Allusions from a likely Apocalypse of Enoch are reflected in Manichaean documents that point to an older date for the Parables of Enoch. The article concludes with a postscript interacting with Milik’s views in a volume he shared with Matthew Black, but nothing here really impacts the date discussion.23 In this final section, they discuss Milik’s theory about 1 Enoch 61:1 and the seraphim, rejecting Milik’s reading of the text that they were wingless, but instead arguing that the text states that they took on wings, meaning they used another vehicle for flight. David Suter (1979): late first century bce to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce The key monograph to emerge in this period came from David Suter, who dedicates a full publication to this discussion.24 Suter initially goes over ground already noted, the views of Charles, Hindley, and Milik. He argues that the roots of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is not a reflection of a Christian reading. Suter goes in a fresh direction when he discusses the date by highlighting how the Parables of Enoch may feed into the Hekhalot tradition, a point that argues for a text from Judaism.25 Suter then turns to a direct consideration of the section’s date. He rejects taking 1 Enoch 56:5-7 as a historical reference, arguing that it is an apocalyptic motif. He seems to miss the point that a problem with this stark choice is that often an apocalyptic motif is rooted in a historical example. Suter also rejects an appeal to 1 Enoch 67:8 and Herod. Here the issues are two-fold. First, Herod only went to the springs once but the Parables of Enoch suggests Herod regularly utilized the spring. Second, the springs become the context of a judgment, which the Herod example lacks. These objections appear to have more substance. Suter rightly imagines that a two-fold heaven reflects less development than a seven-fold heaven. He argues that the seven-fold heaven reflects secondcentury ce themes, so the two-fold heaven in the Parables of Enoch is earlier. However, the key to Suter’s argument is his view that Matthew reflects a perspective that seems aware of this section of 1 Enoch, possessing Son of Man emphases that the other Gospels do not have. Matthew refers to “the throne of his glory” in two passages, a phrase that is also in 1 Enoch (Mt 19:28; 25:31; 1En 90:20).26 In addition to this, the emphasis on the Son of 23.  The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). 24.  Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch; see esp. pp. 11–33. 25.  Suter cites works by Gershom Scholem, John Strugnell, and Jonas Greenfield. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York; Schoken Books, 1961 [3rd edn.]), pp. 41–43; John Strugnell, “The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran – 4Q Serek Sirot Olat Hassabat,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VT Sup. 7: Leiden: Brill, 1959), pp. 319–45; Jonas Greenfield, “Prolegomenon,” 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973), pp. XVI– XVIII and XXXII–XXXV. 26.  Suter notes the following texts that Matthew has about this authoritative Son of Man: 16:27; 16:13; 17:9-13; 19:28; 13:41-43; 25:31.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­71

Man as eschatological Judge and a separator of the righteous and unrighteous in Matthew is also a parallel idea (Mt 25:31-46; 1En 90:20-27). The weakness in this claim is that Suter has to argue a use of the Apocalypse of Animals and the Parables of Enoch for this argument to work, since Matthew 25 is parallel to chapter 90 in 1 Enoch. Consequently, the title “the Son of Man” is from the Parables of Enoch, while the judgment image comes from some other document or tradition. Suter’s final argument concerns the silence about the fall of Jerusalem, an argument already noted. He argues that a text like 1 Enoch 56:5-7 does not look likely for a post-70 scenario, since Jerusalem stops the invasion of the mighty and the kings. This lack of reference to the fall is in contrast to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which are “obsessed with the destruction of the holy city” (p. 29). Suter thus presents a most compelling point. In summation, Suter argues that an early first-century ce date is seen in (a) the lack of concern over the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce; (b) the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Matthew; and (c) the lack of a seven-fold heaven, while the more primitive Angelic Liturgy shows how an early first-century bce text would describe the throne of God, a description that is less developed than what we see in 1 Enoch 37–71. So Suter places the work somewhere between the late first century bce and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce. As added support, Suter argues that the accusations of idolatry fit Caligula better than Herod, looking to an emperor versus a client-king. This point also is well made, with the caveat that if Herod is seen as being closely tied to Rome, and he certainly was, and a supporter of the emperor worship of Caesar, which he certainly was, then the preference for Caligula is not as strong as it might at first appear. These are points Suter is aware of as he notes Sebaste and Caesarea Maritima had temples to Augustus. Suter’s study is important because it suggests that there are two solid candidates for the background to this material, one tied to Herod and the other tied to Caligula, both options predating the fall of Jerusalem.27 J. VanderKam (1982): first century ce The final essay examining Milik’s thesis emerged after some of the dust of the initial reaction had settled.28 This study begins by noting that Milik worked with the Aramaic fragments from 1952 on and that in the end he has identified 11 such manuscripts. VanderKam notes that Milik’s contribution is significant in making available the oldest texts of the Books of Enoch, noting that the fact 27.  Suter also presented a short state of the discussion about the time his dissertation was published: “Weighed in the Balance: The Similitudes of Enoch in Recent Discussion,” RSR 7 (1981), 216–21. 28.  J. VanderKam, “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of I Enoch: Reflections on J. T. Milik’s The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4,” MAARAV 3 (1982), 85–97. On p. 88 and n. 4, VanderKam briefly overviews the history of the text and how many manuscripts each critical version has worked with in determining the text, while p. 88 and n. 9 lists the key reviews that Milik’s book on the Aramaic Fragments at Qumran generated.

­72

Parables of Enoch

that these texts are in Aramaic may well end debate on the original language of those sections found at Qumran. Milik’s identification of these fragments has provided an invaluable service. The paleographical work in 1 Enoch 1–36 and 72–82 allows one to date these works earlier than had been previously believed. Milik’s identification of the Book of Giants as a source adds yet another piece to the Enochic source puzzle. VanderKam then goes on to treat two of the more controversial of Milik’s proposals: the relationship of the Book of Giants to the Parables of Enoch and the theory of a third-century ce date for the Parables of Enoch. VanderKam concludes that it is the Book of Giants discussion that in the long run is more important for Enochic studies. With regard to it, VanderKam sees good evidence for a third-century bce date for the Astronomical Book and the Book of the Watchers. He also thinks a good case has now been made for the existence of a Book of Giants as a source. When it comes to the issue of dating, several of VanderKam’s arguments are now familiar to us. (1) He rejects the idea of an Enochic Pentateuch, noting that Jubilees gives evidence of Enochic material not found at Qumran. (2) The lack of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran is not decisive for dating, as these materials could have been produced and circulated among groups outside of Qumran. (3) The Parables of Enoch are unlikely to have been originally composed in Greek or be Christian in origin since they lack the normal traits and indicators of a Christian document, namely lacking any reference to Jesus and identifying the Son of Man as Enoch. (4) Milik’s claim that the Parables of Enoch uses the Gospels is unlikely, especially given that all one needs for the Enochic perspective is the Old Testament.29 (5) He rejects Milik’s appeal to the Sibylline Oracles, arguing that all the supposed parallels are too general just to point to the Sibyllines. (6) He rejects Milik’s c. 270 ce date for the allusions in 56:5-7 and suggests that 40 bce is a solid candidate for what is the treacherous process of identifying a historical referent behind an apocalyptic text. These reasons make Milik’s dating unconvincing. When we come to the period of discussion that followed immediately after Milik’s proposals, we find that his late dating is consistently being rejected and the window for the origin of the Parables of Enoch is falling into a period running from c. 40 bce to the end of the first century ce, although several factors lean slightly into the earlier pre-70 ce part of this window. Have such views held over the last two decades or so? S. Uhlig (1984): Hasmonean period into the first century ce S. Uhlig’s edition of 1 Enoch appeared in 1984 (JSHRZ).30 Uhlig divides the discussion of date into two basic approaches: (1) at the end of the Hasmonean era or at the Roman conquest; and (2) in the Christian era, either around 40 ce 29.  On this point, VanderKam is distinct from Suter’s claim of Synoptic dependence on Enoch. 30.  S. Uhlig, Das Äthiopische Henochbuch, pp. 574–75.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­73

or into the second century ce. In surveying the views, Uhlig does not interact so closely with the debate that Milik’s proposal raised, although he does note Milik’s view of the Ethiopic Pentateuch and of the date for the Parables of Enoch.31 Uhlig opts for the earlier period for the origin of the Parables of Enoch, although he holds open the possibility that redaction extended into the first century ce. Four factors lead him in this direction. First, he rejects the idea that the absence of this material at Qumran is significant. Noting that this is an argument from silence (and noting the example of Esther), he argues that some terminology from this material does show up in the texts (appealing to the work of Greenfield and Stone) and that one should not limit the circles interested in this material to those at Qumran. He also says that comparisons with the Targum Jonathan points to Aramaic roots. Second, Uhlig questions the Enochic Pentateuchal proposed by Milik. He rightly sees it more likely that individual texts were in circulation. Third, the one date that can be determined is from 1 Enoch 56:5-7 and is the oblique reference to the Parthian invasion in 40 bce. The argument for the period of Trajan, as Hindley claims, is not convincing. Fourth, citations and allusions show links with Jubilees, 2 Baruch, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as Tertullian and Origen indicated. These allusions point to a pre-Christian origin. Uhlig argues that some of the original material derives from Maccabean times, with redactions in the second half of the first century bce, and a final redaction in the first century ce. Uhlig concludes that the work is Jewish and not Christian. Christian attention to this material is a product of “Wirkungs- und nicht der Entstehungsgeschichte” (p. 575). The absence of the material at Qumran is related to its time of origin and the fact that those at Qumran rejected it. G. Bampfylde (1984): 1 Enoch 56 written c. 50 bce G. Bampfylde dedicated an article exclusively to the historical allusions in the Parables of Enoch, especially chapter 56.32 The claims of Milik and Hindley triggered this focus. The author opts for a Jewish origin, especially since no Christian would identify Enoch as the Son of Man. The lack of the discovery of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran is insufficient ground to determine the date of the section; many other sects exist. Bampfylde uses Merkabah mysticism as an example of such a sect and argues that the identification of Enoch and Metatron in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in Gen 5 points to the presence of such ideas considerably before the date of origin suggested by Milik. Milik’s idea that the Parables of Enoch was composed in Greek is also rejected, as she notes the use of Azazel belongs to an early period and fell out of common use later among Jews. Likewise, knowledge of documents in the New Testament is 31.  32. 

On 56:5-7, Uhlig equates Milik’s view with Hindley’s, although his view is different. “The Similitudes of Enoch: Historical Allusions,” JSJ 15 (1984), 9–31.

­74

Parables of Enoch

unlikely, because Jesus simply sits and judges in Matthew. The New Testament Son of Man does not appear in the glory of the angels, nor does he send them or come in, or with, the clouds in Matthew – themes which do appear in the Parables of Enoch. The appearance of a Noah passage in 68:2–69:29 that also has some contact with the Qumran Noah fragments (now edited by Charlesworth) also speaks against a Christian origin. It is not obvious how a Christian would have knowledge of what was present to pre-70 Jews, as is now obvious from the texts preserved in the Qumran caves. Finally, the Parthians would not be the Palmyrenes of the third century because the Parables of Enoch depict historical events on a cosmic scale, and the Palmyrenes were far too insignificant and isolated to elicit such attention. Bampfyle turns to Hindley’s arguments for a setting involving Trajan. The appeal to the Neroian Redivivus is rejected. 1 Enoch 56 is not looking at a single leader of the Parthians and Medes. Nero also did not slay his mother and father as 56:7 implies. Moreover, the opposition of Jerusalem implied in the chapter is much less likely after 70 ce when Jerusalem’s walls had been razed. Also, in the period of Trajan the Parthians were never aggressors against Rome; they simply filled a vacuum left on her departure. With these two options excluded, Bampfylde turns to Parthian history. After overviewing the rise of the Parthians starting with Tiradates in 248 bce, Bampfylde notes that the Medes were not yet in the picture until 174 bce. Only after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes IV in 164 bce did Mithridates I extend the empire to cover Persia. At this point, Bampfylde examines 1 Enoch 56. Among nine key observations made about the chapter, the important ones are the following: (1) the passage is about the Parthians and Medes together; (2) the East was peaceful until they are stirred up by the angels; (3) the Parthians and Medes move west as aggressors; (4) Jerusalem is still a walled city; (5) there is an attack on Jerusalem, or one is pending; and (6) the alliance fights amongst itself before the elect.

One option considered is Mithridates’ capture of Demetrius II in 139 bce, but the Medes were not yet fully integrated and Parthian power was not yet a transregional threat. This exploration leaves only one option: the western invasion of Pacorus, son of the Parthian King Orodes I, in the mid-first century bce. Bampfylde adds that these attacks start as early as 50 bce, so that this is the earliest point one can consider. The Parthians’ success against the Roman Crassus in 53 bce meant that the Parthians looked more menacing to those in the West, especially since their heavy cavalry was superior to Roman armor, as 1 Enoch 56:8 may suggest. This first Parthian invasion in 51–50 bce best fits the background, even better than the last invasion in 41–40 bce, since the Jews welcomed their invasion at this point and 1 Enoch portrays the Jews as against this invasion. Nothing else happens with the Parthians between 38 bce and 227 ce. Bampfylde is

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­75

impressed by Colpe’s famous TDNT article on “the Son of Man.” Colpe opted for a date between 40–38 bce and 70 ce (on the premise of a lack of references to the fall of Jerusalem in the Parables of Enoch) and prefers a date earlier in the period rather than later, despite the lack of finds at Qumran.33 In particular, it is the uniqueness of the Parthian threat in 50 bce, with Rome temporarily defeated, that makes this date likely. By the time of 41–40 bce, the Roman threat had returned, so much so that the Parthians were now welcome as far as Jerusalem was concerned, so that this event is not so likely to be the event mirrored in 1 Enoch 56.34 In summation, the challenge to Milik’s date was widespread among leading experts in Second Temple Judaism. And significantly, a key move against his view came from a former ally. Matthew Black (1985): pre-70 ce Matthew Black originally was open to Milik’s suggestions. However, as he prepared his commentary on 1 Enoch, he revised his position. Thus, we deal with his later view on the issue.35 Black regarded the issues we are covering as important, saying at one point, that making such a determination “is laid upon the conscience of every interpreter of the parables” (p. 18). After reviewing Milik’s thesis, Black argues that the grounding of the thesis goes beyond Milik’s claim about the lack of this section from Qumran. It also appeals to the silence of the early Fathers and to a claim about the original version being in Greek. So Black begins his analysis by noting that although the Ethiopic version is likely rendered from the Greek, the allusions and syntax show a Semitic origin, rejecting Milik’s claim that the section was originally composed in Greek. He argues that a careful look at the nature of the biblical allusions and the evidence of translation Ethiopic point in this direction. Black argues for four sources for the Parables of Enoch: a Son of Man source, one using the title Elect One, Noah apocalypses, and Michael discourses. The section as a whole, as Milik has shown, is modeled after the first vision in 1 Enoch. This gives the section its literary unity, while the thematic unity is built around the role of the Son of Man at the judgment. The work then is in its third language by the time it is rendered into Ethiopic. To make the case, Black went through a series of apparent mistranslations that are fixed with a plausible Aramaic and / or Hebrew background. Most he called “ambivalent” (p. 187). These examples come from 1 Enoch 45:3, 52:9; 65:6, 8, and 10 (in two distinct locales), while 59:1-2 from a Noah apocalypse is best solved by a Hebrew solution. Black leaned towards a Hebrew Vorlage as a result of this fairly split analysis. 33.  TDNT 8:423, n. 180. 34.  As far as the allusion in 1E 67:4-13 is concerned, Bampfylde sees this chapter as an interpolation, but also accepts an allusion to Herod which allows it to be dated before 4 bce. 35.  M. Black, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 18, 181–88, 221–22.

­76

Parables of Enoch

Next, Black tackled the dating question. He began by noting that 1 Enoch 56:5-7 points to the threat of the Parthians to Jerusalem and suggests the Roman period as a result. In fact, he noted that this favors a date in the earlier part of the period, not the later part (emphasis is his, p. 187). A pre70 ce date cannot be ruled out for some of the material. Against Hindley, there is no evidence of a direct threat to Jerusalem in the period of Trajan. Following Sjöberg, the best date seems to be 40 bce, although there is no evidence that Black was aware of the Bampfylde essay which came out close to the time of Black’s publication.36 He rejected a metaphorical reading because Jerusalem is a “defended and defensible city” at the likely time of writing, and the text anticipates success for Jerusalem in stopping the threat (emphasis his, p. 187). Black viewed Milik’s position as highly unlikely. For Black, it is wrong to limit the allusions to persecutions in 47:1-4 and 62:11 to the persecutions of Christians by Decius and Valerian since many persecutions predate these. Black concluded by supporting, among others, Charles’s suggestion of a Hebrew Urschrift that can be dated “to the early Roman period, probably pre-70 A.D.” (p. 188). A note follows, arguing that the Son of Man texts in 1 Enoch show no specifically Christian traits and even identify the Son of Man as Enoch (emphasis his, p. 188). The absence of any clear allusion to the founder of Christianity is “truly remarkable,” and stands against the claim of a Christian origin for this text (p. 188). Black went on to argue that 1 Enoch 71, in which the Son of Man figure is tied to Enoch, is modeled not only on Daniel 7 but also on the throne vision of 1 Enoch 14–15. This throne next to God’s throne is the most distinctive of the features of the Son of Man portrait and overlaps with Enoch–Metatron associations in the tradition. Black argued that these connections also point to a Hebrew backdrop. The next major discussion of this issue came at a Symposium held in Princeton in 1992. We turn to these publications next for they might indicate a direction in how those working in Second Temple texts and those concentrating on the New Testament could handle this issue. Articles in The Messiah (1992): first century ce This volume had 28 contributors wrestling with the issue of the Jewish views of the Messiah and its relationship to Christianity.37 Only a few of the chapters spend any time treating the question concerning the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and whether it has any impact on the development of Christian views. Many of the authors note the consensus that had emerged that the Parables of

36.  When Black actually discusses 56:5-7 on pp. 221–22, he only mentions Sjöberg’s 40 option in this period. So it appears Bampflyde’s essay was published after Black wrote this material. 37.  J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Development in Earliest Judaism and Christianity.

bce

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­77

Enoch is likely a first-century ce work.38 What is fascinating is to see the use or non-use made of this observation. Charlesworth warns that to imagine Jews agreeing on a uniform – and distinct – definition of titles such as “Messiah,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One” and “Son of Man” is misleading. He cites the pre-70 ce Parables of Enoch as evidence that the titles could be interchangeable. Charlesworth rightly indicates the fluidity in meaning and that it is difficult to discern when words shift from terms to “titles.” Borsch speaks of a “growing consensus among those who work most closely with 1 Enoch that the Parables of Enoch are fully Jewish and were probably written before 100 or quite possibly 70 C.E.” (p. 141). Earlier Borsch noted how the early idea of the Parables of Enoch being a possible influence on Christian expression had become less common. He says: “The lack of 1 Enoch 37-71 at Qumran, and a possible later date for it with its Son of Man references along with a different way of reading the Gospel sayings and other materials, led to the suspicion that this Jewish Son of Man conception was ‘created, not by thinkers of New Testament times, but modern critical scholarship’” (p. 131).39 In moving through his survey of the Son of Man problem, he notes his own take that 1 Enoch 62:5 has the Son of Man seated and seen, something that cannot be explained by Daniel 7 alone. Borsch perceives that the Parables of Enoch preserve probable “evidence for non-Christian reflection on the figure from the Son of Man that goes back to the time of Jesus” (p. 141). Borsch concludes with a series of rhetorical questions: “Is the strong association of the Son of Man with messianic attributes and titles in 1 Enoch 37–71 a formulation of this work or a sign of a more widespread phenomena?”40 Borsch implies a positive answer, noting as well the overlap between the ideas of shame, angels, and the Son of Man while discussing the enigmatic Lk 12:89 (1En 61:10; 62:9-12; 63:11; p. 144). Does Jesus refer to himself or someone else here, even if it comes from him? Borsch finds it hard to attribute a reference to Jesus, but the problem here is the consistency with which this title is put on Jesus’ lips in the Gospels. Suggesting that it is likely Jesus referred to another in this instance, it seems obvious that such a distinct person would not have been shocking within a pre-70 Jewish context in Palestine. Borsch seems to come a long way in working through the possible influence of an early date, but then stops just at the edge of the Christological precipice, even though the evidence does seem to lean in this direction. By this term (Christological precipice), I mean seeing a connection between Jesus and some form of high Christology rooted in Jesus’ self-understanding. If Jesus had such 38.  For example, Charlesworth’s introductory chapter, Borsch’s treatment of the origins of Son of Man, Black’s treatment of the Parables of Enoch, VanderKam’s essay on the variety of titles in 1En 37–71, and Adele Yarbo Collins’ treatment of Revelation. 39.  Borsch cites Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 8. 40.  In raising this issue, Borsch points to work by Chrys Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), and S. Kim, “Son of Man” as the Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985).

­78

Parables of Enoch

an understanding, then the origins of key emphases emerging in the earliest forms of the Palestinian Jesus Movement were not creations of that community, but had their origin in Jesus’ own mission and teaching. Such a view represents a “parting of the ways” within critical New Testament studies between those who see exaltation themes as rooted in the early Jesus community versus those who see those roots going back to Jesus. Such a parting of the ways really produces two very distinct ways of understanding early Christian history; in other words, a precipice of difference about early Christian origins. In The Messiah, Matthew Black took a fresh look at dating issues he addressed earlier and also looked to the question of Christological origins. Black first discussed the messianism of the Parables of Enoch, arguing that the Son of Man figure in Daniel has a “quasi-human and suprahuman dimension” (p. 147). Later, he noted that he saw the figure originally as a figure for a “quasi-angelic Israel” (p. 150). He also treated the view that “the Son of Man” and “the Elect One” are distinct figures in 1 Enoch, a view tied to J. Coppens. Black argued that the figures are one (“The same Elect Son of Man”, p. 149), as Charlesworth also perceived in his introductory chapter to this collection. Black elaborated that there is a two-tier tradition development before we get to the Parables of Enoch, as seen in the “Anointed One” references in 48:10 and 52:4, not to mention chapters 70–71. Black then surveyed the themes tied to the figure in the Parables of Enoch: these include the Son of Man (1) as Judge; (2) as Vindicator or Deliverer with two sub-themes (Enthronement and Royal-Wisdom themes); and (3) in relationship to the Ebed Yahweh (“Servant of the Lord”).41 The throne vision of 71:14 reflects a pure Jewish apocalyptic theme with parallels in Enoch–Metatron. It is modeled after 1 Enoch 14–15 (cf. also 1En 61:8). In chapter 61:8, the Lord of the Spirits places the Elect Son of Man on the judgment throne. When it comes to the Servant, the key text is 48:4 with its allusion to the light to the Gentiles from Isa 42:6 and 49:4. So Black saw a fusion of judgment, royal, and Ebed themes in this figure in 1 Enoch, with the key idea being the exaltation or in effect an apotheosis of this figure (p. 161). This brings Black to the question of dating. Black spoke of a developing consensus that the section is a basically Jewish work composed somewhere in the first century bce to the first century ce. He then restated his view. He saw Christian editing as possible in sections (1En 70:1). He had not changed his thinking here, but did take a new look at evidence for the influence of the Parables of Enoch on the New Testament. In particular, he wished to challenge the view of C. Colpe as expressed in his TDNT article on the “Son of Man” that there is little evidence of such influence.42 At most, for Colpe and for Theisohn, one can see influence at Mt 19:28 and 25:31. Theisohn also holds to a partial influence of the idea for the session, a view Black saw as a step beyond Colpe’s apocalyptic stylization. Black then 41.  This section is really a very detailed consideration of the work of J. Theisohn. 42.  Black cites specifically ch. 8 in which Colpe says that the Parables of Enoch “yields nothing directly pointing to it as a source of New Testament Son of Man Christology.”

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­79

asked a key question: “How are we to evaluate such a ‘partial influence’ when it has to do with a central ‘conceptual model’ so unique and theologically radical as the idea of ‘one like a man’ seated on a glorious judgment throne, especially if we accept Theisohn’s view that it is always God’s Judgment Throne on which the Son of Man is seated?” (p. 163). This reflects the “sum and substance of a whole Jewish Son of Man messianism” (p. 163). It is nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible or Jewish tradition until we get to the New Testament. Black suggested that the idea of a Son of Man as an eschatological Judge beside the Lord of the Spirits is a picture of royal authority, like that of being seated at God’s right hand, and is reflected in Mk 14:62. The conceptual parallels are so strong that they allow for only two possibilities: either the Parables of Enoch influenced the Gospels, or, the other way around. Black thinks it more likely that the influence is from an extant “core of Elect Son of Man sayings, originally in Hebrew” (p. 165). Black argued for a unity in the Parables of Enoch’s portrait based on the modeling of 1 Enoch 70–71 on 14–15, so that 70–71 is an appropriate climatic end. Here the Enoch–Metatron connection is important. He saw the kabbalistic dimension as pointing to a later date for this portion, yet Black seems to be double-minded here. The final redactor he saw as a member of this kabbalistic Jewish group of the first or second century ce, but likely reproducing an earlier pre-Christian Enoch Son of Man tradition. This is because there was no effort once this material ended up in Christian hands to remove the Enoch Son of Man equation in 71:14, suggesting it was a well-established idea. It is at this point that we hit what I call the “Christological precipice.” Are we to understand Jesus to have had a Christological identity whereby he saw himself at the center of God’s program, or did he simply announce the program? Did Jesus think of himself or another as the Son of Man and did the early Palestinian Jesus Movement reflect or revise Jesus’ thinking about the Son of Man? As Black noted, Colpe opted for Jesus seeing another figure as Son of Man, but Black thinks this is not so clear. Black noted that it is precisely here that the dating of the Parables of Enoch could be relevant. Here is how he stated it: “If we take seriously the possibility, however, mooted above, that the Son of Man-Enoch as eschatological Judge was known—if, like its later Metatron parallel, esoteric, possibly Essene or North Palestinian—form of early pre-Christian Jewish messianism, then it may well have been known or in circulation among apocalyptic circles of the time of Jesus” (p. 167). Such speculation is seen in the Gospels (Mk 8:28-29, 9:9-13; Lk 9:8, 19). Black concluded: “It is by no means inconceivable that the tradition of Enoch as the Son of Man, preserved in the Parables, was also known to Jesus of Nazareth, and similarly interpreted and applied by him to his own role in his mission as prophet of the coming kingdom—not in terms of an Enoch redivivus Son of Man-Messiah, but as an Enoch-like apocalyptic teacher and prophet, adopting and adapting the classic Enoch tradition to the Son of Man’s futuristic role as eschatological Judge, but first to his earthly ministry as Servant of the Lord” (p. 167). Black even noted how Martin Buber considered this possibility.

­80

Parables of Enoch

Black closed his discussion citing George Caird’s idea that the Son of Man may have allowed Jesus to indicate his essential unity with humanity, without having to claim to be the Messiah, to be both weak and humble as well as “the predestined representative of the new Israel and bearer of God’s judgment and kingdom.”43 Caird suggested that the corporate overtones allowed him to invite others to join and to predict the triumph of the cause he served. One might question Caird’s hesitation on messianic implications. It might be better to say that the title drew attention to a distinct and, in some ways, more comprehensive view of mission than highlighting the title of Messiah would have for his audience, making it the preferred title of choice. Nonetheless, what Black’s article suggested was a fresh angle in considering the relationship between the dating of the Parables of Enoch and its possible impact on an emerging fresh apocalyptic eschatology that presented itself in what became known as “Christianity.” Alongside the Black article is the work of James C. VanderKam on the key titles of “Righteous One,” “Messiah,” “Chosen One,” and “Son of Man” in 1 Enoch 37–71. VanderKam’s essay does not discuss the relationship of these titles to Christology. Rather, the focus is on the Parables of Enoch. For our purposes, the key section is his discussion on Literary Issues (pp. 176–85). He starts by noting Sjöberg’s discussion of possible interpolations (Noahic units: 39:1-2a; 54:7–55:2; 60; 65–69:25; cosmology: 41:3-8; 43–44; 59; wisdom: 42; national messianic sections: 50; 56:5-8; 57; conclusion: 70–71). Sjöberg regarded some of the proposed additions as original (41:3-8; 43–44; 50; 56:5-8; 57). For our concerns, only the status of 1 Enoch 70–71 will be in focus. VanderKam starts with the status of 70–71, noting that many scholars see these chapters as added later. In particular, two reasons are often given for this view: (1) the chapters themselves are repetitious; and (2) the difficulty of reconciling a pre-existent Son of Man with the claim that Enoch is the Son of Man in 71:14.44 On the first point, VanderKam’s response begins with a note that 70–71 are not redundant but proceed through stages of ascent (paradise [70:2-4], lower heavens [71:1-4], heaven of heavens [71:5-16]). He notes that in 71:1 the verb used for exaltation is also used in Isa 52:13. Another term reflects the term for taking up Enoch in Gen 5:24. Second, a reversed genealogy of Enoch appears in 37:1, showing that Enoch’s career is in view as he is called “son of man” at that point, especially when one notes that 38–69 cover events before his removal from the earth.45 On the matter of pre-existence, VanderKam notes the relevant texts first (esp. 48:3, 6; 62:7; also 39:6-7; 40:5; 46:3; 70:1). VanderKam suggests that these texts may only indicate that the Son of Man existed before his true identity was made clear to others. 1 Enoch 48:3 only speaks of the name being 43.  Black cites the full citation as it appears in Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: CUP, 1977), p. 20. 44.  The question is raised about how Enoch does not recognize himself as this figure elsewhere in the section. 45.  See the similar insights in the present chapters by Charlesworth and Stuckenbruck.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­81

known before the creation of the sun and stars, and so refers to the awareness of such a figure to come. 1 Enoch 48:6 is a stronger text, with its reference to being hidden before the world was created. The expression parallels Isa 49:2. This also could mean the “premundane election and concealment of his identity” (p. 180). The strongest text for pre-existence is 62:7, in which from the beginning the Son of Man is hidden and preserved in the presence of the Most High. The issue in this verse is when is “the beginning”? It could be that he is hidden in terms of his identity at the beginning of his career and revealed later. He adds that such a more temporally confined reading makes sense in the context, so that this text does not refer to pre-existence at all. VanderKam goes on to argue for a unity in the portrait of this figure in the section. He argues that the genealogy goes in this direction, as does the parallel between 1 Enoch 14 and Daniel 7. VanderKam deals with the claim that such an “auto-vision” is without precedent by noting that it is clear that Enoch, after his assumption, is a highly exalted figure who shares in the judgment. He also raises the theme in some Jewish texts of a heavenly counterpart (GenR 68:2 and Prayer of Joseph A, 1-3, 7-8). VanderKam thus raises the valid insight that Enoch may be viewing his celestial counterpart. Moreover, the seeming separation between Enoch and the Son of Man in 70:1 speaks against this view, since 70:1 is simply an introduction to 70–71.46 This observation makes it unlikely that the author would introduce a distinction in 70:1 only to identify Enoch and Son of Man in 71:14. In the end, Enoch is simply seeing what he will become. So 1 Enoch 70–71 can be seen as an “integral and organic conclusion to the Similitudes” (p. 185). VanderKam does not treat the date of this section here. That is an argument he makes later in a distinct work we shall soon review. The final essay we treat from this symposium is by Adele Yarbo Collins. She examines the book of Revelation and the Son of Man tradition. The relevant point for our study is in Rev 14:14 as she considers the roots of the image of the Son of Man being seated. She critiques the claim of Louis Vos that the background is found in the Gospel tradition.47 For the seating of the Son of Man imagery, Yarbro Collins notes that although Daniel 7 and 4 Ezra 13 do not have a seated Son of Man, the Parables of Enoch does. She agrees with other scholars that the Parables of Enoch preserve a historical allusion to the Parthians in 40 bce and to Herod’s use of the warm waters at Callirhoe. She thus places the date of the Parables of Enoch in the early first century ce. The Parables of Enoch has a seated Son of Man who is Judge (69:27). Yarbro Collins argues that it is likely that the author of Revelation was familiar with apocalyptic traditions reflected in that text. 46.  In this discussuion, VanderKam briefly treats the possibility of a different reading in 70:1 in Ms U that speaks of “a son of man” being raised up to the Lord of spirits, a reading that more clearly connects Son of Man to Enoch. VanderKam argues that since only one Ms has this reading it is unlikely to be original. We shall revisit this question later when we discuss Olsen. Also, see Stuckenbruck’s chapter in the present volume. 47.  L. Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen: Kok, 1965).

­82

Parables of Enoch

In fact, it is hard to show if Revelation is influenced by the Parables of Enoch or by the traditions tied to the Gospels. If the author of Revelation had access to one, he could well have had access to the other, or even to both. What is important here, however, is the willingness to entertain such a possibility by someone working with the New Testament. In summation, this symposium appears to have had several essays that began to seriously reconsider the Parables of Enoch’s influence on Jesus and the early stages of the Palestinian Jesus Movement, something an early date for this section carries as a significant implication. J. J. Collins (1995): pre-70 ce John J. Collins produced a careful study of the views of the Messiah in Judaism in which he takes a focused look at the Parables of Enoch.48 He begins with the date, which he places before 70 ce for seven reasons. (1) He rejects the absence of the text at Qumran as significant because other Jewish texts whose date we know is early do not appear there (e.g., PssSol, TMoses). (2) The equality of the sun and moon in 1 Enoch 41 would make the book unacceptable to Qumranites. (3) The “community of the righteous” is a different assembly than those at Qumran. (4) If the material was produced in the latter years of Qumran in a different community, one would not expect it to show up there. (5) It is doubtful a Jewish writer would have made use of the expression “Son of Man” as a messianic figure after its appropriation by Christians.49 (6) Mt 19:28 and 25:31 seem to be influenced by the section with its seating of the Son of Man on the throne of his glory. (7) There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in the Parables of Enoch. Collins then goes on to discuss the Son of Man as he appears in the Parables of Enoch. There is the clear use of Dan 7:9-14, but he questions attempts to suggest that the Son of Man in this material, including chs. 70–71, is identified with Enoch. He regards 70:1 as teaching that Enoch is brought into the presence of the Son of Man (contra VanderKam and others). He rejects any reading that appeals to manuscript U because he sees that reading as the simpler idea. He also argues that 48:3 points to the Son of Man’s pre-existence (also contra VanderKam). So what should one make of 71:14 and its seeming identification of the figures? Collins has several options here. First, it is a later addition made by someone responding to Christian claims. The transition from third to first person in 71:3 looks like it could be a seam. The problem is that the identification is difficult, both for an author or a redactor, given the seeming distinction between the figures in 70:1. A second alternative is that Enoch is seen as assimilated to a heavenly figure much like Metatron is connected to Enoch in 3 Enoch, although this would mean he is transformed into a new angel versus an existent one, an idea that looks to be hard for the concept of pre-existence in the section. 48.  The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), pp. 177–82. 49.  This argument appears to be questionable to me given the existence of 4 Ezra.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­83

The final option is that 71:14 should be rendered “a son of man” since it lacks a demonstrative.50 In this case, Enoch is not being identified with the Son of Man. The objection to Collins’ view is that the terminology of 71:14 does look to mirror the description of the Son of Man when he is introduced in 46:3. Collins suggests that the parallel need not mean identification, but only that the righteous, of which Enoch is the first, share the exalted destiny of the Son of Man. As a whole, the portrait transfers a work on earth in Daniel to the heavenly sphere, a creative use of Daniel 7 that places the figure in the heavens. Collins’ essay again shows how another specialist in Second Temple texts places the Parables of Enoch in a pre-fall of Jerusalem context, even seeing the influence of the text on one Gospel. His view on the Son of Man–Enoch issue turns on what one does with 70:1 in relationship to 71:14. Here it is hard to see which side has the best of the argument, since a tension in terms of consistency exists with either reading. Still, it seems that 1 Enoch 46:3 is significant in setting up an equation of the figures that a mere mirroring of status appears to understate. Is there any other evidence that can be brought to bear on this issue? It is here that the focused studies of Knibb and Olsen on 1 Enoch 70:1 enter the picture. Knibb (1995): first century ce This study covers the contribution of the pseudepigraphical texts for Jewish messianism (PssSol 17–18; 1En 37–71; 4Ezra; 2Bar, T12P)51 along with what Qumran shows us about similar themes. Knibb says only a little about dating here. He prefers a date “towards the end of the first century ce,” but recognizes that there might be good reason to see a date earlier in the first century (emphasis his; p. 171). For this earlier date, he points to the possible use of the Parables of Enoch in Mt 19:28 and 25:31 and the silence of the material on the fall of Jerusalem. Knibb begins by noting similarities in the handling of the Son of Man between 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra: the seating on the throne, the judging of the wicked, and the worship by kings, the mighty, and all those who dwell on dry ground.52 There is more debate on pre-existence and hiddenness. So Knibb begins with the debate over whether 1 Enoch teaches a pre-existent Messiah, opting against VanderKam, to see such a view in the texts VanderKam treats (48:3, 6 and 62:7). Knibb also observes that the titles common in 1 Enoch

50.  Charlesworth points out that the section is extant only in Ethiopic and that this language, like Syriac (but unlike Aramaic and Greek), does not have a clear way to represent the determinative. 51.  M Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995), 165–84. 52.  See Charlesworth’s fresh suggestion that “dry ground” indicates the period of the Herodians, since they took almost all the farmland from the Jews, leaving them only swamps as in the Huleh Valley.

­84

Parables of Enoch

do not appear in general at Qumran (“Righteous One,” “Chosen One,” “Son of Man”), although 4Q252 5:3 “messiah of righteousness” is close (note also where the righteousness theme emerges, 1Q28b 5:21-22, 26; 4Q246 2:5-6). He does note a couple of texts that generate attention (11Q13; 4Q246). He notes that 11Q13 mentions a heavenly being who exercises judgment; with descriptions coming from texts of the Psalter that describe God (2:10 using Ps 82:1; 2:10b-11a using Ps 7:8b-9a). This appears to be an angelic-like figure. The judgment theme in 2:13 is like 1 Enoch 46:4-6; 49:4; 55:4 61:89; 62:3; 69:26-29. Knibb enriches our data bank for Jewish portrayals of a heavenly being who is given judgment. Knibb sees 4Q246, the “Son of God,” as more likely a messianic text versus being about a Seleucid king because of the apocalyptic context. The key parallels here are the exalted status of this figure and that he is an object of worship (2:7) and a judge in the eschatological judgment (2:5-6). Knibb concludes his treatment with a look at 1 Enoch 70–71. Against VanderKam, Knibb sees a distinction between Enoch and the Son of Man in 70:1 and appears to favor the idea that this material was added later, even though it is a fitting climax to the unit. Yet Knibb also sees 71:14 pointing to an exalted Enoch as Son of Man. Knibb closes his remarks by seeing VanderKam’s view of the heavenly double as the likely explanation of this identification with the Prayer of Joseph, Fragment A being the key text. Knibb’s essay suggests that ideas like those in the Parables of Enoch come from the first century ce as the Qumran themes indicate. It also shows how complex are some of the issues tied to 1 Enoch 70–71. Olsen (1998): no date given, treats 1 Enoch 70:1 This study simply tackles a single key issue through textual criticism. The question is which variant of 70:1 is likely to be original and what is the implication of this decision for 71:14 and the equation of the Son of Man with Enoch.53 Chapter 70:1-2 reads in Charles’ translation: “And it came to pass after this that his name during his lifetime was raised aloft to that Son of Man and to the Lord of Spirits from amongst those who dwell on the earth. And he was raised aloft on the chariots of the spirit and his name vanished among them.” Olsen points to the valuable study of Maurice Casey in noting some new textual variants related to 1 Enoch 70:1.54 Previously the variant was seen in Charles’ Ethiopic Ms U (as well as the later W and V) and reads: “Now it came to pass after this that the name of that son of man was raised aloft while he was still alive to the Lord of the Spirits.” The difference in the reading is one word that translates as “unto him.” The variant lacks the term. If this is the preferred 53.  D. Olsen, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP 18 (1998), 27–38. 54.  M. Casey, “The Use of the Term [sic] “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976), 11–29.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

85­

reading, then 70:1 and 71:14 are not in tension, nor are the Son of Man and Enoch distinguished.55 Olsen sees three issues in the discussion that favors the distinction: (1) additional manuscript evidence needs attention; (2) questionable English translations have hampered discussion; and (3) insufficient attention to the environment for the Parables of Enoch. Among the manuscripts, at least four, if not five, of the texts read the omission (1768, 2463, 6974, 7584, and possibly 2080). This is significant because U was known for capricious omissions of which this text was seen as an example. Before we knew about these recently discovered manuscripts, the traditional reading seemed less likely. Olsen suggests that for some this new evidence might even argue that the balance of the external evidence is tipped in the minority reading’s favor. Olsen next challenges some of Charles’ translation regardless of the text chosen: “his name vanished among them” should be “and his name went forth in their midst.” The expression “his name during his lifetime” should be “his ever-living name.” Finally, the phrase “raised aloft” in both uses in verses 1-2 should be rendered “exalted” in the first use and “raised up” in the second. Such corrections lead to the following: “And it happened afterwards that the immortal name of that Son of Man was exalted in the presence of the Lord of Spirits beyond all those who live on the earth. He was raised aloft on a chariot of wind and his name was often spoken among them.” This reading fits an identification of Son of Man with Enoch. Finally, Olsen tackles the context of these verses in the Ethiopian Church. Noting that different titles are used in 70:1 and 71:14, he argues that the addition of a clarifying preposition in 70:1 likely came from a scribe, because in the Church Jesus was seen as the Son of Man, not Enoch. In 1 Enoch 71:14 the phrase “son of the male” appears, a title never used of Jesus in the Ethiopic Church. In fact this phrase appears only three times in this section (62:5 and 69:29 [twice]). Here the manuscripts preserve some interesting things. The Tana Manuscript has “that one” for the title, while some manuscripts of the Ethiopic 2 family have “son of the woman.” In 69:29 three manuscripts (N, G, EMML 2080) have the same phrase “son of the woman”, while B removes “son of.” EMML 6281 has “the Son, the likeness of the Father.” Changes are also made in the first use of the title in 69:29 as “son of” is dropped (Mashafa Milad), “he” is substituted for “Son of Man” (Charles’ A), and “for he is the Son: a secret plan has appeared” shows up in place of the title (EMML 6281). Only 1 Enoch 71:14 leaves the title alone in all manuscripts. In other words, this identification with Enoch is “one of the most stable and uniform lines in the entire Parables of Enoch” (p. 36). The use of an alternate expression for Son of Man was no problem when Enoch is in view, since the title in this case did not point to Jesus. An “Ezekiel” reading of 71:14 looks to have been an early, perhaps even original, reading. 55.  Also, see the brilliant contribution in the chapter by Stuckenbruck.

­86

Parables of Enoch

Olsen concludes that the text saw Enoch as Son of Man from a very early point. This study appears to answer some of the issues Knibb raised against seeing a unified reading in this final section. Next we turn to the writer of the most recent full commentary that addresses the book as a whole. Nickelsburg (2001, 2004): late first century bce George W. E. Nickelsburg has written one of the two volumes he is assigned to author on 1 Enoch.56 In addition, he has produced a translation with James VanderKam57 and an introductory text to Judaism.58All of his discussions up to this point have been brief. In the commentary’s introduction, he dates the section “to the late first century B.C.E.” (p. 7). The rationale he gives is tied to his earlier treatment in 1981 that is updated now in 2004. The distinctive nature of this study is the heavenly tableaux that pictures the judgment and events associated with it. The introduction to the translation outlines the Parables of Enoch as consisting of three parables (38–44; 45–57; 58–69) and an epilogue (70–71). Four types of material make up the unit: (1) a series of journeys; (2) narratives of Noah and the Flood; (3) events leading to the judgments; and (4) judgment allusions. The Parables of Enoch are dated to the turn of the era. 1 Enoch 56:5 “may refer to the invasion of the Parthians in 40 B.C.E.” (p. 6). The description of the Chosen One is most likely presumed in the gospel traditions about Jesus, the Son of Man. In his introductory text to Judaism, Nickelsburg says the date of this section is “notoriously difficult” (p. 221). He accepts the work of Greenfield and Stone that rejects the lack of presence at Qumran as a key argument and notes that the difference in astronomical views may explain its absence. Evidence for an early date is ambiguous. 1 Enoch 56 could either be a reference to the Parthians or a future invasion that is an interpolation. 1 Enoch 67:8-13 could refer to Herod at Calirrhoe or mythic geography. He suggests that other evidence points to this material being known at the turn of the era. 1 Enoch 62–63 is a reworked theme of an exalted formerly persecuted righteous man with Enoch being seen as the prototype in the Wisdom of Solomon 4:10-15. Might that Jewish author know of the Enochic tradition? The New Testament shows a judging Son of Man in contrast to Daniel 7 where he appears after this judgment. The Parables of Enoch conflate Daniel 7 with the Servant figure. Mt 24:37-44 and Lk 17:22-27 with the parallel between the

56.  G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg / Fortress, 2001). 57.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg / Fortress, 2004). 58.  Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981).

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­87

days of Noah and those of the Son of Man recalls the typology of Flood and judgment in 1 Enoch. Mt 25:31-46 may reflect 1 Enoch 62–63. Nickelsburg rightly judges that this section is not a Christian work. There is nothing explicitly Christian. In fact, Enoch is the Son of Man. The material with its repetitive “Son of Man” looks like it is earlier than the use of the technical term as a title in the Gospels. The exact setting cannot be determined and the original language is likely to have been Aramaic. Nickelsburg’s summaries offer little fresh evidence, but appear to see only a short distance between the last events in view and composition. This is the earliest proposed date since Charles. Hannah (2003): early second century ce at the latest This essay picks up on another “in the air” argument.59 Taking a cue from the fact that only the Parables of Enoch among the Second Temple writings has a Son of Man or Chosen One figure seated on a throne next to God, Hannah intends to compare the image with the similar texts in Revelation to see if this idea was in circulation (Rev 3:21; 22:1, 3 are explicit, while other texts assume the scene such as Rev 4–5; as well as 4:10; 5:1, 7, 13; 6:16; 7:15; 21:5). Hannah opens with the important observation that Revelation does not really reflect the language of Ps 110:1, a text usually supposed to be behind such references in Christian literature. This indicates the possibility that the idea of a figure seated next to God may well come to us through independent strands of tradition. Hannah sees several texts as potentially fitting into this alternative line of tradition (Phil 2:9-11; Eph 4:10; and, perhaps, Rom 10:6). Much of the early section of Hannah’s essay covers the question of whether one throne shared between God and the Son of Man figure is in view, or whether there is more than one throne in view. This issue is not at first glance directly relevant to our topic except for the possibility that if more than one throne is in view then this would indicate another line of tradition. This is an idea Hannah wishes to defend. Here Hannah begins by appealing to Polycarp’s adaptation of 1Pet 1:21 in Phil 2:1 with his reference to giving Jesus Christ “glory and a throne at his right side.” Hannah sees Polycarp splicing 1Pet 1:21 with 3:22. He suggests that the throne “appears to be a separate throne” (p. 74).60 He also points to the Apocalypse of Peter 6:1 and, perhaps, the Ascension of Isaiah 11:32-33 as sharing this idea. The Apocalypse of Peter speaks of angels seated with Jesus “on the throne of my glory at the right hand of my heavenly Father.” It is the throne that is said to be at God’s right hand, not just Christ. In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus is said to be at God’s right hand and the angel of the Holy Spirit is at the left hand. Hannah observes that “while separate thrones are not mentioned, they are probably in view” (p. 74). The book’s implicit subordinationism in 9:27-41 is said to support this distinction. The existence of 59.  D. Hannah, “The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch,” ZNW 94 (2003), 68–96. 60.  Hannah notes a parallel in TJob 33:3.

­88

Parables of Enoch

multiple thrones at each heavenly level is also said to support this idea. Finally, Rev 3:21 also supports a two-throne view. The idea that believers will share his throne as he shares his Father’s throne supposes Jesus’ throne is next to that of the Father. A plurality of thrones also appears in Rev 20:4 for the martyrs’ single throne noted in 3:21. Hannah does see that all these texts are late in comparison to the New Testament texts that allude to Ps 110:1. He notes that such an allusion may point to the thrones of Dan 7:9. Hannah goes on to point out that such an idea also existed in the larger Umwelt of these texts, pointing to the Iliad 8.436-442, in which lesser gods sit on klismoi while Zeus sits on a golden thronon. Now it is important to note against Hannah that this distinction in this other image is not a case where the description of the throne applies to both chairs, something the visualization also shows. So it is less than clear that Hannah’s parallel is really a parallel. Part of what makes the Jesus image so strong is the conceptual overlap including the terminology, which pictures a proximity and unity in sharing glory that would be immediately striking to any Jew of the period. Nonetheless, Hannah’s key point is that a dual throne (bisellum) and multiple thrones were “in the air” (p. 77). Again, because of notes of subordinationism and the temporary nature of the rule presented in the image, Hannah sees 1Cor 15:23-28 picturing multiple thrones. In contrast, sharing the throne is found in Revelation 4–5 and in Hebrews with its right-hand emphasis (Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2). The presence of this throne, explicitly in the heavenly room, points to heaven’s inner sanctuary. In Mt 19:28 and 25:31, the description of “the throne of glory” also pictures the divine throne of God. Hannah argues that Revelation and Hebrews sees one throne, while Polycarp, the Apocalypse of Peter and probably the Ascension of Isaiah and 1 Corinthians 15 imagine two thrones. The rest of these kinds of texts are said to be ambiguous. What is one to say about this claim? Hannah next takes up the response to his position as presented by Richard Bauckham.61 Bauckham argues for a shared throne. He gives several reasons: (1) Singular sovereignty is in view in Judaism pointing to a singular throne. (2) The widespread backdrop of Ps 110:1 is for it. (3) Jesus’ participation in cosmic rule and the scope of his authority over heaven and earth is for it. (4) The imagery of the “height” in Second Judaism is for it. (5) The worship Jesus receives is for it. Hannah says he finds himself almost persuaded by this line of response. But he still has a rejoinder. Bauckham “assumes a thorough going consistency of logic” in the various Christian authors (p. 79). The possibility of a heavenly vice-regent along the lines of Metatron cannot be ruled out (3En 10:3-6), a position that included homage (14:1-5). Hannah does recognize that 3 Enoch is a late text but his point is that such a category was contemplated. However, this argument is not as strong as it first appears, because the Metatron figure appears 61.  R. Bauckham, “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. C. C. Newman, J. Davila, and G. Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 43–69.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­89

in a text whose entire image is a polemic against this view. In other words, what is being contemplated, even in this reduced form, is seen as unacceptable as Metatron’s punishment by God shows. Thus, this text may actually make Bauckham’s point about a perceived unity of sovereignty even as it supports Hannah’s idea that such imagery comes in various forms. Hannah argues that to see worship as supportive of unity is to argue in a circle. Worship given to Jesus need not have seen “the worship due to God alone” (p. 80). I find this rejoinder hard to accept in a Jewish context where a heavenly scene is in view. In fact, I think Hannah’s discussion about one or two thrones is somewhat misdirected from the start. Even though we are dealing with the images of heaven, it is clear we are also dealing with metaphorical imagery that represents the heavenly realm in picturing God at all. The very idea of thrones intimately connected directly to God is the point, not whether there is one or two of them. It is the idea of sharing God’s glory that is the point of the image. Nonetheless, Hannah argues that assuming a uniformity of early Christology is hard to accept. However, one must distinguish between a variety of imagery and a uniform concept that such variety could well indicate, especially in a framework where the uniqueness of God’s glory is the most important backdrop. So, although Hannah is quite right to raise the possibility of distinct imagery, this in itself does not mean that a distinct concept is in view when the issue is honor being given to God in a heavenly context. One final point needs to be made here. It is not entirely clear that Hannah has actually made his point that the imagery itself is as distinct as he claims. Most of the texts that speak directly of a throne at the right hand of God could be nothing more than a synecdoche, a metaphorical shorthand, that has the authority represented in place of the person who bears it. Hannah may be overly literal here. However, my key point is that regardless of the specific imagery, the image itself, placed in its theological context, namely that of the first commandment, favors a singularity of shared authority being in view and being the point that is being contended for in these texts. Next, Hannah discusses the Parables of Enoch. He does not take a long time to introduce the issue of dating, simply noting that the consensus sees a date no later than the early second century ce. Here his emphasis is on the conceptual parallel. He takes a careful and full look at the idea of the throne of glory to show that here it is the divine throne that is in view, an idea also present in 1 Enoch 45:3; 47:3; 55:4; 60:2; and 62:3. Most especially 61:8-9 with the Elect one on this throne is relevant to us. Despite the lack of a definite article in Ethiopic, the expression is so consistently about God’s throne that it should be read in this manner. From this throne the Son of Man executes an eschatological judgment. Next, Hannah considers the uniqueness of the Parables of Enoch within the Second Temple literature. This is important because if this seated idea does not come from Ps 110:1, then it most likely comes from here, since there are no other texts with this combination of themes. Hannah claims that the eschatological judgment belongs primarily to God, not Christ, citing

­90

Parables of Enoch

Rev 20:11-15 and 22:1-5. In contrast, Rev 5:6 and 7:17 points to the Christ’s communion with God. Revelation is different in that the sharing of the throne is most explicit in this book, just as it is unique in the Parables of Enoch among Second Temple texts. Hannah then examines the texts where similar sorts of things take place. This is something I have examined in detail elsewhere.62 Hannah even notes how some rabbinic teaching notes that angels do not have knees and cannot sit (yBer 1,1 2c; GenR 65,21; LevR 6,3; PesR 22,6; possibly even the early text 4Q405 20-21-22 ii, 7 [=11Q17 vii, 4-5]). Adam and Abel (TAb), as well as Metatron (3En), sit on separate heavenly thrones, as well as an otherwise unknown figure in 4Q491 11, 4Q427 7, 4Q471b 6-7, 4Q491 11 i,6, and 4Q491 11 i,5. What is not clear is whether these texts discuss a heavenly throne. Among the figures seen to be referred to here are the Righteous Teacher63 and the eschatological priestly Messiah.64 Hannah also notes the possible theme in divine wisdom (Wisdom 9:3; 1En 84:2-3), but also discusses the debate that surrounds such a view in each of these texts, limiting their significance as evidence. Staying with the theme of exaltation, Hannah discusses the famous example of Moses being seated on thrones in a dream he relates for Jethro’s interpretation. This text from Exagoge of Ezekiel 68–82 is often seen as a midrash in Ex 7:1, where Moses is said to be god to Pharoah, a text often rendered more softly as “like God to Pharoah.” This is a second-century bce text. He challenges this exalted reading arguing that (1) in lines 100–04 Moses is clearly presented as mortal after the vision; and (2) Jethro’s interpretation points to Moses’ earthly career as the point. So Moses in this text is God’s earthly counterpart. It is true that this text is an interpretation of a dream and is not an eschatological text, but more a presentation of a special status as God’s agent, but the seating on the thrones (note the allusion to Dan 7:9) does point to how Moses can be called “God.” The distinction here is both important and yet begins to be a crossing of the line. Finally, Hannah notes the rebuke of Rabbi Akiba for his view that David was seen seated at God’s side, a view the rabbis say is treating the Divine Presence as profane (bHag 14a; bSanh 38b). This also sees plural thrones in an allusion to Dan 7:9. At Akiba’s time any seating by God was deemed suspect, at least by some. The attitude here is like that in the rebuke of Metatron in 3 Enoch. The illustration emphasizes a point made earlier in assessing Hannah. 62.  D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Jewish Examination of Christ (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). 63.  M. G. Abegg, “Who Asended to Heaven? 4Q427 and the Teacher of Righteousness,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. C. A. Evans and P. W. Flint (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 61–73. On this text, see also M. Smith, “Ascent to the Heavens and Deification in 4QMa,” in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin, ed. L. H. Schiffman (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), pp.181–88. 64.  Collins, The Scepter and the Star, pp. 136–49.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­91

Any seating in heaven that is seen as placing a figure’s honor too close to God raised questions for many Jews. The number of thrones does not matter; the sharing of honor does. Hannah closes his essay by noting how unique the Parables of Enoch are in terms of a heavenly seating. His claim that no other figure can claim this privilege is exaggerated, but what is unique among Second Temple texts is that this is the only text where the Son of Man sits on such a throne. Hannah says the result of his study falls short of evidence for literary dependence, but what he goes on to say is worth quoting in full: Nonetheless, given John’s [the author of Revelation] usual practice of freely transforming themes and motifs he inherited from the Old Testament, one should not rule out the possibility that the Similitudes were known to him. The real significance, however, of this throne motif as it appears in both Similitudes and the Revelation lies not in the possibility of literary dependence, but rather in the different emphases the two texts give it. In the Similitudes it serves to buttress the claim the Son of man will judge “the kings and the mighty” for their misdeeds, while in Revelation it elucidates the relation of the Son to the Father.65

Again we think Hannah makes too much of the difference here. The scene that depicts the shared throne has the Lamb worthy to open the books of judgment (Rev 4–5). The Christ figure judges in Rev 19, a scene that is surely to be seen as part of the eschatological judgment. The point can be made that the Parables of Enoch and Revelation are more alike than Hannah suggests. The significance of Hannah’s essay, despite our reservations about aspects of his case, is that ideas the Parables of Enoch reflect are very much “in the air” in the first century ce, at least by the end of that century. The range of Jewish speculation about such scenes shows this, and may well point to the likelihood that the ideas are earlier than their appearance in works like Matthew and Revelation. The final set of studies we examine were part of the international Enoch Seminar, where the topic in 2005 was the Parables of Enoch and the Son of Man. This will be followed by two key studies subsequent to this international gathering. The Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli, 2005: 50 bce to 70 ce The third meeting of the Enoch Seminar was in Camaldoli, Italy, in 2005 and involved almost 60 scholars. This Seminar concentrates on issues tied to the figure of Enoch and books associated with him. It meets every two years. The topic of this meeting was the Parables of Enoch and produced a full volume of studies running to over 500 pages.66 In general, most of the essays argued 65.  “The Throne of His Glory,” p. 96. 66.  Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007). This study encompasses 33 essays divided into six key topics, plus a bibliography. My survey will draw from studies in two of the relevant areas: the

­92

Parables of Enoch

for a date at the turn of the era or in the early first century, before the New Testament books where written. Among the essays, a few dissenting voices for this slightly earlier date were present. We treat the key essays on the dating issue in some detail and summarize others that touch on the question in a significant way. Pierluigi Piovanelli on Herod the Great’s Rule The first essay we consider treats the unit’s social setting, examining the quality of the translation we have and the difficulties it presents before examining the cultural and social values the book reflects.67 Piovanelli sees the material as fitting into a Jewish apocalyptic setting, reflecting as it does a development of the Book of the Watchers. The Parables of Enoch serves to bring those earlier discussions of judgment up to date. The text points to a two-fold division of humanity, surprisingly not guaranteeing an automatic place of blessing to those of the sect. The key antagonists in the unit are the sinners, but most especially the kings and the mighty. This direct and explicit challenge to political leaders as opposed to economic oppression is “a novelty in the Enochic tradition” (p. 372). Such political identifications in the Book of the Watchers are done indirectly through metaphor. In 1 Enoch 92–105, it is the rich who oppress, not the rulers. Following the earlier work of Suter, Piovanelli argues that the text develops Isa 24:17-23 and calls for a reversal of the entire cosmic order. However, the Parables of Enoch is not sectarian but have another opponent of the Jewish people in view. To use sociological terms, the social setting is “revolutionarist” (expecting a supernatural intervention that will change the world), “manipulationist” (claiming esoteric knowledge that enables a person to influence the world), “thaumaturgical” (believing in miracles dispensed by supernatural agency), and “spiritualistic” (communicating with the dead) (p. 374). The setting reflects the “ensemble of the Jewish people falling under the domination of a new and merciless dynasty” (p. 375). Such a setting explains its lack of presence at Qumran. First, it was written after the Qumran Community was founded; but more than that, its values are more universalistic, pacifist, and tolerant than the ideas found in the Qumran Scrolls. All of this makes the reign of Herod the Great (37–4 bce) the most likely time for such a work. In other words, the setting fits a time after the Parthian invasion (1En 56:5-7) and before the Idumean king’s death.68 Piovanelli also social setting of the Parables of Enoch and the dating of the book. The other areas were: the structure of the text, the Parables of Enoch within the Enoch Tradition, the Son of Man, and the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple literature. Virtually every essay in the Son of Man section points to an origin of the Parables of Enoch before the end of the first century ce. 67.  P. Piovanelli, “A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty who Possess the Earth: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 363–79. 68.  In this, Piovanelli follows P. Sacchi, “Qumran e la datazione del Libro delle Parabole di Enoc,” Henoch 25 (2003), 149–66. I did not evaluate this work since I do not read Italian.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­93

accepts an allusion in 67:5-11 to Herod’s attempt to find relief at Callirhoe. He argues that what is lacking is any mention of the Roman occupation from Judea to Samaria, Caligula’s attempt to put a statue in Jerusalem, the fall of Jerusalem in 70, and the final Bar Kochba revolt. He suggests that Herod tried to convince Jews of the Pax Romana brought by Augustus, but that the group behind the Parables of Enoch was not convinced. The contrastive point of view, appealing to the last age being brought in by Rome can be seen in Virgil’s Fourth Epilogue with its still enigmatic prophecy of a delivering figure tied to Rome. Where Virgil looks for a key ruler, the Parables of Enoch looks to a divine savior and testifies to the restored and vindicated community. Virgil’s Aeneid Book 6 elevates Augustus to such a status. The Parables of Enoch looks to a divine savior. They also testify to the work of manipulationists through the angels in a call from the mystical to the millennium. Piovanelli’s essay gives a detailed argument for a first-century bce date for the Parables of Enoch, a case emerging from Italian scholars of Second Temple Judaism. Boyarin, for one, in response to this essay, argues that the case for the Parables of Enoch not being Qumranian has been made. He also contends that Piovanelli’s essay makes a good case for an anti-Roman concern.69 How does this perspective look in comparison to other essays at Camaldoli? Lester Grabbe questions Charles and Piovanelli Lester Grabbe looks at how the themes of the Parables of Enoch fit into Second Temple Judaism.70 Grabbe rejects Charles’ assumption that the rulers in view must be Jewish and thus are the Hasmoneans. More relevant for the more recent discussion is his take on 1 Enoch 56:5–57:2. Here he argues against a Parthian connection on two grounds: (1) the passage suggests that Jerusalem was not taken and had fought amongst themselves; and (2) there was no second invasion, as 57:1-2 seems to suggest. The passage for him is “a metaphor for the eschatological defeat of Jerusalem’s enemies” (p. 391). Although later suggesting that the date given is possible, he argues that the passage “is so vague that one could plausibly interpret it as a general reference to a potential invader, not a reference to an actual historical event” (p. 394). In saying this, Grabbe does not deny that the allusion to the Parthians may well exist, but argues that the language is not precise enough to allow much in the way of conclusions. There is a problem with this argument. Historians have observed that it is quite often the case that a “pattern” does have roots in an actual event, even if its details are somewhat altered. The best candidate in this regard for 1 Enoch 56 is the Parthian invasion which is why it has remained well entrenched in the discussion (and developed significantly in the present collection by Charlesworth). Such a move in a pseudepigraphical work using veiled 69.  D. Boyarin, “Was the Book of Parables a Sectarian Document? A Brief Brief in support of Pierluigi Piovanelli,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 380–85. 70.  L. Grabbe, “The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Society,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 386–402.

­94

Parables of Enoch

apocalyptic language is not surprising. One can name events like the Exodus or the locust plague as the base of “the Day of the Lord” or the return from exile as a picture of God’s merciful deliverance as examples. The handling of Jewish tradition in the Parables of Enoch also fits here. Grabbe observes that there is near universal recognition that this work is a Second Temple Jewish text, but beyond this, he argues, it is hard to make much of sociological observations that also are tied to a changing theological climate. In this way, Grabbe is more pessimistic about what can be determined than is Piovanelli. While questioning that there is such a thing as “Enochic Judaism,” Grabbe does note that this text has traits that are closest to groups that had a concern to honor Enoch. In summation, for him it is a “messianic group” that has not withdrawn from Jewish society and has rejected a military solution for Israel, a kind of ancient intellectual Jewish messianism. Charlesworth: pre-New Testament, possibly a presupposition of Jesus’ mind James H. Charlesworth takes a close look at the case for dating in his summary essay.71 His study begins with a look at the unity of the section, as well as arguing that 1 Enoch 71 is not a later addition. There is absolutely no manuscript support for it being added. More important is that 70–71 look like they are foreshadowed in 37–69. He also rejects Milik’s claim that this material is Christian, repeating points he made almost 30 years ago in summarizing the work in the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Group, a study we considered earlier. There is nothing Christian in this material. Jesus is not mentioned, and Enoch is the Son of Man. Charlesworth raises the question of how the Son of Man eventually became a technical term and looks for a date for composition through raising the issues tied to this question. Overviewing the section, Charlesworth takes a close look at 1 Enoch 71, especially 71:14. The Son of Man is clearly identified as Enoch according to six recent translations coming from the period 1978–2004 (Knibb, Fusella, Isaac, Black, Olsen, Nickelsburg-VanderKam). Five factors point to a date for the Parables of Enoch in the time of Herod and the Herodians: (1) the insignificance of its absence at Qumran; (2) the late composition of documents within 1 Enoch explaining the lack of citation in some first-century documents; (3) the fact that it was not composed at Qumran; (4) the reference to the Parthian invasion of 40 bce; and (5) the curse on the landowners who are relegating Jewish farmers to tenants of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants. He works through these points one at a time. The absence of the discovery of this material at Qumran needs to recall that many works of the period are not found there: works such as Esther, 1 Maccebees, and Psalms of Solomon are not present. Second, thousands of fragments are yet to be identified and we may only have a small portion of what was originally present in the Qumran caves.72 71.  “Can We Discern the Composition Date for the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 450–68; revised in the present volume. 72.  Charlesworth suggests that today we have only about 10 to 20 percent of what was

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­95

Charlesworth also discusses the issue of the absence of such citations from the Fathers, a point often ignored by advocates of an early date. He admits that this is not an easy question to answer, but makes some helpful observations. Why would an early Christian cite a work that has identified the Messiah and the Son of Man to be someone other than Jesus? Second, if the work falls into the middle of the first century, it may not have been known at Qumran or in Jerusalem before 70 ce. Thus, its late composition explains its absence in certain settings. Third, this work was not composed at Qumran. The theology of the Parables of Enoch runs against the Community’s compositions and gives a role to Enoch that gives the Righteous Teacher a less prominent role. The text also runs counter to Davidic and Levitical themes of the Community, as well as lowering the role of wisdom found at Qumran. No one would have brought such a text to Qumran and sought to be received into that Community. 1 Enoch 56 is most likely a reference to the Parthian invasion.73 Charlesworth notes how disruptive this invasion was by reviewing the details in Josephus’ Antiquities 14. He suggests that the composition would not have followed this event by many decades since the reference appears to be recent on analogy with allusions to Pompey in the Psalms of Solomon. The scene seems to trouble the author and the role of the walls in halting the invasion is specifically noted. Last comes a fresh and challenging new argument: that the curses include the landowners (38:4-5; 45:5; 46:4; 48:8; 54:1-2; 55:4; 62:2, 9; 63:1-10, esp. 3-6, as well as v. 12). This community suffered at the hands of the wealthy and includes a description of them as those who own the dry land. Jews are tilling land that is no longer theirs. Eschatological expectation mirrors reality to give hope, and so, the author of the Parables of Enoch looks to the future and to heaven for relief from the oppression. The remarks suppose “the disenfranchisement experienced by many Palestinian Jews. And among those are the wealthy Hasmoneans” (p. 462). It is Herod the Great and his sons who seized such land and his taxes served to support the many building projects he undertook. In fact, his family controlled “virtually two thirds of the fertile land” (p. 463). This was a distinctive feature of his rule. This situation is what the Parables of Enoch mirrors, placing the composition “sometime between 37 and 4 B.C.E—and conceivably up until the first two decades of the first century C.E.” (p. 464). Archaeology supports this scenario. The period of Herod’s rule, especially from 20 to 4 bce, looks to be the period that is described by the Parables of Enoch. More and more non-Jews were becoming landowners. Charlesworth concludes that “The cumulative result of this recent research is monumental” (p. 465). The Evangelists “either depend on this earlier Jewish apocalyptic work or are influenced by the traditions preserved in it.” Some originally in the Qumran caves. 73.  See also in this collection, L. Arcari, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 478–86. He sees the same event in view and explains why the portrait of Josephus has some differences from what is in view here.

­96

Parables of Enoch

Galilean Jews may well have understood such ideas as Jesus taught, ideas like those found in the Parables of Enoch, given that the provenience may well be in Galilee as “the Watchers” come to Mount Hermon, and the Hulah Valley is a likely locale for those who live near swamps and have lost the dry land for cultivation. All of this opens up, Charlesworth notes, debates tied to the issue of the Son of Man in the New Testament. This is what I have called above the “Christological precipice.” It suggests a self-understanding by Jesus that points to where early “Christianity” ended up in many of the texts we now associate with the New Testament. This line is much more direct than ideas that suggest that the Palestinian Jesus Movement created such ideas in reaction to the disappointment of Jesus’ rejection. Judaism had a long experience with martyrs and with rejection without exalting its victims. Jesus is an exception to this rule. Something in him probably motivated this theme; rather than something in the community that followed him created the ideas. In fact, in his conclusion, Charlesworth suggests that the Bultmannian solution, with its separation of the Son of Man Christology from Jesus, shows a significant lack of knowledge of Second Temple Judaism by those making such claims. Perhaps the impulse for this understanding came from reflections tied to Enoch that itself developed imagery from Daniel 7. Only Jesus claimed that this figure was not a great luminary of the past, Enoch, but one through whom God was now working. As Charlesworth closes, “I would recast Bultmann’s famous and influential dictum. He claimed that Jesus is the presupposition of New Testament theology. Far more likely, Jewish reflections on the Messiah and the Son of Man and Jewish conception of God’s rule and the coming day of judgment are the presuppositions of Jesus’ mind” (p. 468).74 Does this claim have any other additional support? It is here that claims of potentially previously unseen allusions in the Parables of Enoch may become relevant, if they can be substantiated. So argue three other essays in this collection, each making a case for one fresh allusion.75 Eschel, Olsen, Hannah: the possibility of relevant allusions Hanan Eschel introduces the Pesher technique before discussing his claim for an allusion to the Parables of Enoch section. He argues that 1 Enoch 56:5-7 “incorporates a Pesher to Deut 33:9, composed after 40 B.C.E., that interprets the verse as an allusion to certain acts of Matthias Antigonus” (p. 488). He reads the verse as teaching that the angels will anger the Parthians and kings of the Medes so that they invade Palestine, but that Jerusalem ends up a hindrance 74.  Note that Charlesworth’s essay has been reworked and expanded for a chapter in the present book. 75.  H. Eschel, “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 487–91, and D. C. Olsen, “An Overlooked Patristic Allusion to the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 492–96. D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 469–77.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­97

to them. A civil war breaks out among the Jews; this is mirrored in 56:7 which claims that relatives and neighbors will not know one another. The intertext is Deut 33:9, with its message about the division among families after the Golden Calf incident. The passage also appears in 4QTestimonia and 4QFlorilegium. The contrast here looks like it could have been applied to Antigonus, who mutilated his uncle Hyrcanus II to prevent his becoming high priest. Eschel argues that the writer of the Parables of Enoch knew this Pesher. Now, this claim can best be described as ingenious, but hardly established. It is hard to be certain that the division in view in 1 Enoch is particularly priestly as Eschel suggests. Olsen suggests that Origen’s Commentary on John points to the birth of Jared and is a possible allusion to 1 Enoch 37:1. However, he considers that Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses 1.15.6 alludes to 1 Enoch 54:4-6. In both, Azazel acts as an instrument of Satan to lead humanity astray. The closest parallel to the Parables of Enoch is here, although some material overlaps with the “Watchers” outside of the Parables of Enoch. Even if this is the case, and it could be, the date of the allusion is too late to help us with dating, although it does raise a question about Milik’s claim about a lack of references in the Fathers until the fourth century ce. Darrell Hannah looks to another possible point of contact that also had been noted earlier, namely 1 Enoch 67:8-13, the healing waters of Calirrhoe, and the death of Herod (Ant 17.168-72; War 1.656-58). His goal is to show the likelihood of this allusion. He notes that there were other famous hot baths in the area, as well as others more internationally known. This makes a precise identification difficult. Are there more precise indicators? Before turning to these, Hannah looks at two general considerations. (1) Calirrhoe was one of the most famous baths in the Roman East. It is mentioned by Pliny (Natural History 70–72), Ptolemy (Geography 15:6 [Nobbe 16.6]), and Solinus Polyhistor (De mirabilibus mundi 35:4). Ptolemy mentions only five sites in the East. The rabbis referred to Lasha (Gen 10:19) as Calirrhoe (y Meg 1.11 71b; Gen Rab 37:6; Targ. Ps.-Jon. Gen 10:19; Targ. Neofiti Gen 10:19). Archaeology shows the area was in heavy use during the Herodian period. (2) Herod’s visit was surely well known in the area. His command to arrest and execute numerous Jewish nobles during this time would have brought much attention to the circumstances of his death. Thus, while these factors cannot prove the connection, they show the possibility of the allusion. Is there anything more? Hannah introduces the “Noahic” interpolations as a fresh factor. 1 Enoch 67:1-7 excerpts a Noah apocryphon. It is a first-person text where Noah speaks. 1 Enoch 67:8-13 shifts to focus on the kings, mighty ones, and nobles who possess the earth. This Hannah sees as inserted into the text of the Parables of Enoch. This is a factor long recognized by Enoch scholars. Hannah argues that if 67:8-13 is seen as distinct from 67:1-7, then verses 8-13 can be seen as an intentional update of

9­98 8

Parables of Enoch

material. The understating of some Jews about Herod as seen in numerous notes in Josephus fits this description very nicely, seeing Herod’s disease as divine punishment (Ant 15. 65-87; 207-46 219, 319-22). Herod’s visit in the last part of March, 4 bce, is a good candidate for this allusion. Hannah argues that if this is an interpolation, then it was added with much of the Parables of Enoch already written and likely would be a fairly recent addition. Hannah next tackles objections. The first objection is that the valley is tied to the west, a description that at first glance looks to disqualify Calirrhoe. (1) The description is in verse 4, not in the interpolation. (2) The Vorlage behind the term may be a reference to Arabia, which can be associated with Calirrhoe, east of the Jordan. (3) Genesis locates the Noah account in Mesopotamia, so that the west may refer to the west of Mesopotamia, which fits. The second objection involves the reference in 1 Enoch 67:6 to a smell of sulfur, while Calirrhoe had a reputation for sweet water (War 1.657; Ant 17.171). First, the response is that this description is not in the interpolation. Second, the waters in Calirrhoe are actually of mixed water types. A third objection is that this practice is common among the Romans and so a specific event is not necessarily in view. However, if this text is an interpolation, then the motive for an addition is unlikely to be such a common practice, but something more specific. In his summary, Hannah notes that his view is dependent on accepting an interpolation as present, something that is seen as likely by many who have studied this text. Of the three attempts to see allusions just described, the last by Hannah looks to be the most likely. It has the implication of helping us to date the Parables of Enoch and to locate its setting sometime between the end of the first century bce and the early decades of the first century ce. The likelihood is yet another indication that this material may well have been circulating at the turn of the era; and thus “in the air” during Jesus’ ministry. Nickelsburg, Boccaccini, Chialà: other key remarks about the dating Three more essays from the Enoch Seminar discuss the date in a significant way.76 Each takes a different angle in approaching the issue. Nickelsburg works with the structure of the Parables of Enoch, Boccaccini treats idea-paradigms, and Chialà examines the development of the idea of “the Son of Man.” Each comes to the conclusion that the Parables of Enoch originated before Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee and clearly prior to the composition of the Gospels. Nickelsburg argues for a date in the early decades of the first century ce on the basis of the use of the Son of Man tradition by Mark, Q, and Paul. Each reflects the Parables of Enoch, not Daniel. He also questions whether this tradition comes from elsewhere for three reasons. (1) The Wisdom of Solomon 76.  Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 34–47; Boccaccini, “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Judaism,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 263–89; S. Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 153–78.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­99

tradition has a special place for Enoch. (2) The Q parallel points to the days of Noah, which is an indication of the use of Noahic traditions like those in the Books of Enoch. (3) The allusion to Calirrhoe in 1 Enoch 67 also points to an early date (p. 47). The earlier portion of his article develops the rationale for the Noahic materials. He also sees 1 Enoch 70:3-4 and 71 as later additions. Boccaccini argues through idea paradigms as he makes his case. He notes five key paradigms: Wisdom for revelation, apocalyptic reversal, messianic power, the covenant of Law, and Enochic corruption which explains the presence of evil. He traces the development of these paradigms through the books of Second Temple Judaism. Sirach merges wisdom and covenant while rejecting the apocalyptic and Enochic ideas. The Parables of Enoch rejects the presence of Wisdom, arguing that Wisdom could not find a home. This is a reaction to Sirach. Wisdom is tied to the Son of Man. It also works with the Enochic tradition of this luminary being a recipient of special revelation. The result is a tension with two mediators present, Enoch and the Messiah. This tension is resolved in 1 Enoch 71 when Enoch is identified as the Son of Man. This same combination of wisdom, apocalyptic, and messianic traditions is found in New Testament Son of Man texts. The Parables of Enoch avoids the identification of Wisdom and Torah of later rabbinics, as well as contrasting the emphasis of the linkage of Wisdom and Messiah like that found in the New Testament. Rather, the Parables of Enoch reflects a three-fold presence of Wisdom, apocalyptic, and Messiah like that of earlier Christian traditions. Boccaccini sees it as difficult to view such a unit of thought developing after 50 ce, because this three-fold fusion belongs to the earlier not the later period. This three-fold association would have been less attractive after the Christian development and less likely in the developing rabbinic context. After that period and the subsequent developments, the Parables of Enoch died a slow death as covenantalism took over Judaism and Jesus won the battle in terms of who was the mediator (pp. 288–89). Chialà traces the development of the Son of Man title. The Parables of Enoch takes a symbol from Daniel 7 and turns it into a full character. 1 Enoch 46:1-4 is a clear example of such a development. Expressing his preference for a late-first-century bce date or an early-first-century ce date, Chialà notes that in the Parables of Enoch the Son of Man judges, while in Daniel he only has dominion and is not portrayed as judging. The identification of the Son of Man with Enoch in 1 Enoch 71 is yet an addition of specific identity pointing to a yet later stage and to the likelihood that ch. 71 is a later addition. The New Testament portrait of the Son of Man is more like the Parables of Enoch than Daniel, since the Son of Man judges. Chailà concludes: “By the end of the first century C.E., it seems that all ‘Son of Man’ language is attentively avoided, and this should weigh as a critical factor in dating the Parables of Enoch. Once the Christian era had begun, there was no longer any mention of “the Son of Man” in Judaism, not even among the specific group of Jews who wrote the 2 Enoch, and later the 3 Enoch. Christian literature also abandoned

­100

Parables of Enoch

the title, and Christology developed around the titles Messiah and “Son of God” (pp. 177–78). The title lost interest in Christianity either because of the use by Gnostics, the weakened eschatological tension, or because the title was no longer useful in a more Pharisaic Jewish context, as well as in the Gentile context. In my view, the only question here is whether Chialà has overstated the case, given the appropriation of the Son of Man in 4 Ezra. Each of these essays presents some fresh reasoning for an early date rooted in the history of ideas. Once again the best “fit” is earlier versus later. Suter, Stone, and Sacchi: reactions to Suter’s preference for a later date The last three studies are summaries of this entire discussion as it was presented at Camaldoli.77 Suter’s essay is a superb overview of the state of discussion at his time along with some reaction to proposals at the Seminar. He continues to hold, but with slightly less force, that the vague nature of the allusion in 1 Enoch 56 and the likelihood it is metaphorical. This makes 1 Enoch 56 questionable to use for dating. He works through the passages and claims for the section point by point. As such, it is the best defense of a later first-century date. First, the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran is the usual reason scholars opt for a later date. Here Suter takes the work of Knibb, already noted, as an example, as well as publications by Lindars,78 who argued that the Parables of Enoch seeks to name the Son of Man and that the New Testament shows no evidence of use of this material. All of this, of course, depends on how one views chapters 70–71 and handles claims that the New Testament, especially Matthew, shows evidence of a perspective closer to 1 Enoch rather than merely working with Daniel. In response to the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran, Suter notes that other early Jewish compositions are not found there (viz., Esther) and contends that treating the absence of 1 Enoch at Qumran as significant ignores other arguments tied to the preferences of the Qumran Community on calendar (sun and moon issues) and its clear presentation of a leader that led, in part, to its isolation from Judaism (the Righteous Teacher [who clearly lived in pre-Roman Palestine] not Enoch). Next, he interacts with Sacchi and Boccaccini, who argue that the history of ideas points to an early date, as well as observing that all Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha after 100 bce are absent from the Community. Such arguments, Suter seems to suggest, qualifies the strength of the “absence” argument. Second, Suter considers 1 Enoch 56:5-8. He argues that the debate here is over whether the passage fits into a specific circumstance (early date) or is 77.  D. Suter, “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 415–43; M. Stone, “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; or, Some Considerations on David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 444–49; Sacchi, “The 2005 Camaldoli Seminar on the Parables of Enoch: Summary and Prospects for Future Research,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 499–512. 78.  B. Lindars, “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1775), 52–72, and his Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in Light of Recent Research (London: SPCK, 1983).

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­101

an apocalyptic myth or interpolation (later date). Here he works through the contrasting suggestions by Hindley (113–17 ce) and Bampfylde (51–50 bce). Hindley’s problem is the portrayal of Jerusalem as still standing, while the case against Bampfylde is that the Parthians never directly threatened Jerusalem and an underplaying of the apocalyptic context of the passage. He turns next to Sacchi, who notes the absence of mention of Jerusalem’s fall as favoring an early date, as well as the passage looking to the Parthian threat around 40 bce. Suter himself follows Lars Hartman and argues that the passage involves “the motifs of apocalyptic myth or a vague memory of the Parthian invasion” (p. 422). Now, the point to be made here is that one need not choose between the Parthian allusion and the presence of an apocalyptic use. The event is the basis of a hermeneutical patterned event (also called typology) appealed to within apocalyptic. As such, the allusion to a specific event does help us to date the Parables of Enoch and need not be taken as only an allusion to the event, because of the typology appealed to through the historical allusion preserved in an apocalypse. In addition, it is the combination of such an allusion with the lack of description of a razed Jerusalem and burned Temple that leans the discussion to favor an early date. Third, Suter is aware of these issues, so he deals with the silence of the Parables of Enoch about the fall of Jerusalem. He does see this as significant; still, he thinks it is more important that the crimes of the kings and mighty are not addressed. This factor appears also to qualify Suter’s confidence about a later date without bringing him to change his mind. Fourth, on the allusion to Calirrhoe in 67:4-13, Suter takes up claims like those by Hannah noted above. He notes how Greenfield and Stone see the remark as pointing to a Herodian day, while Bampfylde looks to a slightly earlier origin. He finds it difficult to make a specific connection to Herod’s journey, arguing that this explains why it is not as much discussed in the literature. He also argues that this use of springs is too common to Roman culture to be specific. None of that response really interacts with the details Hannah presents. Fifth, Suter examines the appeal to the kings and the mighty. This detail led Charles to his early date. However, for most specialists the Romans are in view, with some like Hindley and Knibb including the Parthians in the mix. In contrast, Bampfylde sees the enemy as tied to the Hasmonean period, but at a date later than Charles. Suter sees Caligula as the likely context, while Charlesworth and Sacchi perceive a Parthian–Herodian context. Suter correctly speaks of a consensus that the likely period of composition of the Parables of Enoch is 40 bce to 70 ce, a date slightly earlier than older discussions that leaned to the latter part of the first century bce. Sixth, Suter asks if there is more help for dating from somewhere else. So, he turns to the social context. He notes that the work is seen as Jewish, not Christian, and that the question may well turn ultimately on the potential use of this material by the Gospels. A recent feature in the discussion is whether the Parables of Enoch fits in with a Hekalot emphasis, which might make it

­102

Parables of Enoch

later. On this question, Suter answers “yes,” while Orlov says “no.”79 Orlov argues that the 3 Enoch terminology of a son of man does not equal Enoch’s specific character of the Son of Man. Suter responds that Enoch as Son of Man is like 1 Enoch 71:14. This issue is hard to resolve. Suter suggests that the lack of preservation of the book in some segments of Judaism may well be explained by its continuation in the Hekalot line of Judaism and its absence from other lines. The Hekalot question needs more attention, but it is hard at this point to base much on it when the connection itself is based on a single conceptual tie. Piovanelli’s essay places the context as Herodian, while Gieschen and Boyarin look to speculations about either angelmorphic Christology (Gieschen) or the two powers in heaven teaching (Boyarin).80 Gieschen argues that John’s Gospel and Revelation show more influence from the Parables of Enoch than does Matthew. So we have informed views which emphasize how the title is used pointing to an earlier date, while the issue of how the transcendent relates to the mundane world may point to a later date. The discussion shows how finely balanced everything is. Seventh, Suter turns to the affinity of the Parables of Enoch to other Jewish literature. Knibb notes connections to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (a later period), while Bampfylde looks to the Songs of Solomon (an earlier one). These approaches “seem to cancel each other out” (p. 431). Mearns offers what Suter considers a helpful distinction in appealing to exaltation without resurrection of the late 40s. Resurrection development came later. But, in my view, this model for doctrinal development by Mearns seems most questionable. The tradition Paul relates in 1Cor 15:1-3 must reflect old conceptualization, since such a bodily resurrection teaching must be the context for Paul’s own conversion in the mid-30s. Casey opts for similar but independent development of these themes between those responsible for the Parables of Enoch and Christians.81 In summation, Suter sees this area as potentially helpful but quite subjective, although he does acknowledge that the ideas-paradigm approach of Boccaccini may well open up a helpful avenue of exploration. Eighth, Suter turns to the influence of the Parables of Enoch on the New Testament. He begins by noting how many New Testament specialists have explained the Son of Man in the New Testament as strictly a development of Daniel 7 within “the church.” Here the name of Norman Perrin is most prominent.82 But the work of Theisohn raised the possibility that there was 79.  A. A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (TSAJ 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2005). 80.  C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998), esp. pp. 156–57; Boyarin, “Was the Book of Parables a Sectarian Document?” Boyarin was noted above. 81.  M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979). So also J. Coppens, Le Fils d’Homme (BETL 55; Leuven: Petters, 1981). 82.  N. Perrin, “The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity: A Suggestion,” BR 11 (1966), 17–28.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

103

influence from 1 Enoch in passages reflected in Matthew.83 Suter closes this section with this comment: “The distinctive sayings in Matthew may establish a terminus ad quem, but not necessarily an absolute date. As we proceed, it becomes apparent that a multi-phased approach to dating is necessary” (p. 435). Ninth, and last, Suter looks at identifying and dating traditions behind the Parables of Enoch. Here he uses the recent work by D. Burkett as a key.84 Burkett notes two roads taken to counter Perrin’s view that the Son of Man is a product of an “early church” midrash on Daniel 7. One route is taken by Nickelsburg, where the common model of the transcendent Judge and Deliverer is in view. The other is the view of Collins, that common assumptions about Daniel 7 are at work.85 Suter observes that it is not clear in Nickelsburg whether it is an exegetical process or a traditional process at work here. He also notes that the two are not necessarily at odds. Suter’s point appears to be that if an exegetical process is in view then the door is open for Perrin’s explanation. Collins sees a pre-70 ce dating, and accepts evidence that Matthew used the Parables of Enoch. He argues that Daniel 7 is the source of the concept, that the Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra are independent, and that “common assumptions” were at work in these interpretations. The Parables of Enoch and 4 Ezra both see a Messiah who is pre-existent and transcendent, and both are directly involved in the defeat and judgment of the wicked. Both may also be related to Isaiah’s suffering figure. Burkett critiques both views, arguing that they do not sufficiently distinguish between Son of Man as Judge and Son of Man as Warrior. The Judge is transcendent, but the Warrior is earthly. 1 Enoch 37–70 does not equal chapter 71, nor does 4 Ezra 13:1-13 equal its interpretation. As a result, we do not have a unified point of view. In addition, the discussion between Collins’ and Walck’s essays at the meeting and the views of Geischen and Boyarin still need discussion.86 Suter closes his study with Burkett’s claim that Jesus or the “early church” is responsible for the view of the Son of Man that appears in the New Testament. For him, the discussion of the date of the Parables of Enoch is not significant. Suter contrasts his own position to the call by Black that this area not be ignored by New Testament scholars, a view Black traces back to Colpe’s TDNT article on the Son of Man. Suter questions whether there is influence or existence of an apocalyptic Son of Man in Early Judaism. He sees a transmission line running to the Hekalot tradition, but also sees evidence that these teachings have impacted Matthew and antedate the horrors of 70 ce. His educated guess 83.  Theisohn, Der Auserwählte Richter, pp. 153–82. 84.  D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: CUP, 1999). 85.  We have noted their work above. Collins’ work, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992), 448–66, is also in view here. 86.  L. W. Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables and the Gospels,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 299–337. His essay goes through in detail the argument that the Parables of Enoch did influence Matthew.

­104

Parables of Enoch

is that the period of Caligula might be best, accepting Mearns’s look at the development of exaltation theology. He also admits to liking the treatments of Nickelsburg and Boccaccini, but sees that as working with the later scenario of Caligula. He sees a parallel process between 1 Enoch and the “church,” not a use by them. Stone’s response to Suter argues for a turn of the era date, although with some hesitation. He observes that the issue has generated so much energy because of the Son of Man’s presence in the Gospels. He uses 1 Enoch 56 as the example case. Stone favors a Parthian allusion here, even though Knibb is correct that the Parthians were a long-term Roman enemy and could simply be a stereotypical enemy. However, the lack of a widespread reference to the Parthains (only here, SibOr 4:124; 5:438) makes a stereotypical reference less likely. Rome played that role far more commonly. 1Enoch 67:4-13 only works if 1 Enoch 56 is a historical reference. A post-70 date is difficult, given the absence of reference to the fall, but other works also postdate the fall without such mention (TAb). The issue of the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran also needs attention. This, Stone reasserts, proves nothing, given examples like Esther and 2 Chronicles. There are too many fragments left unidentified to be sure that something is not there. The absence of several works from this same period, as others note, is also important, adding to the point that nothing is proved here. The choice of sun and moon being equal factors in the calendar (1En 41) also suggests why the material was missing. Finally, Stone notes the use of the Son of Man in 4 Ezra, something he had done detailed work on earlier.87 Here, he concluded that the vision of 4 Ezra 13 is older than 4 Ezra. This makes it unlikely to be merely a late first-century product of the author (and also points to a traditional process in Suter’s terminology). This makes it an independent witness to such ideas. It comes at a period where a human eschatological figure has passed from consideration. All of this points to a date “in the latter part of the first century B.C.E., or somewhat later” (p. 449). In the final summary of the Seminar, Paolo Sacchi weighs in with his observations. He argues that only internal criteria are available for our use in this issue. There are four avenues: (1) look for patristic citations to set a latest date; (2) look for literary sources for an earliest date; (3) look at the book’s ideology; and (4) explore historical allusions. As our study has shown, this has all been done. Sacchi says the fourth approach is the most secure. Sacchi begins examining essays that are cautious about dating. He argues that Suter’s conclusions are very cautious and reveal a clear tension. He acknowledges a relationship between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch as Theisohn and Walck claim, and then considers a “parallel” process. Against this, Sacchi argues, is one stubborn fact, well known for a long time to New Testament scholars: the title only appears on Jesus’ lips in the Gospels. He observes, “If this phrase depended only on the Evangelists, then most likely 87.  Stone, Features of Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS 35; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989).

Dating the Parables of Enoch

105

it would have been used more frequently. I think this problem should be considered more carefully” (p. 507). I agree. There is something almost sacred about its restrictive use. If such a prominent title was the creation of the Palestinian Jesus Movement or of Hellenistic believers, then why is there not more evidence of their free use in confession of such a concept? Sacchi notes the Hekalot angle, an angle he is not at all convinced about, but that warrants more study. He also argues that Gieschen’s essay needs more attention. Sacchi turns to the essays arguing for a more narrow and earlier date. Sacchi observes that the reference to the Parthians points to them and not anyone else, since it is rare merely to substitute one historical name for another versus representing an enemy in apocalyptic. Real events stand behind the apocalyptic points as Arcari argued. Sacchi is also intrigued by Charlesworth’s suggestion of the background. The observation about landowners from Charlesworth is the first of several new arguments in the essays. Sacchi notes that Eschel’s claim of an allusion to Antigonus is new and interesting, but in the end perhaps a bit too complicated. Hannah has pointed to Noahic interpolations. This argument Sacchi seems to like. Olsen’s study points to the likelihood that the Fathers knew this material but were reluctant to cite it. Sacchi asserts: “In sum, we may observe that those scholars who have directly addressed the problem of dating the Parables all agree on a date around the time of Herod” (p. 510). He goes on to list several others present who favored this conclusion, but did not argue for it in detail, and to note that those who are more cautious about the date offer no real alternative, only a date range, although this may ignore Suter’s proposal for Caligula as a possible period. Sacchi finishes by arguing, “The burden of proof has now shifted to those who disagree with a Herodian date. It is now their responsibility to provide evidence that would reopen the discussion” (p. 511). This claim sums up current research and is insightful. Thus, Sacchi is certainly correct about this burden of proof. Our Forschungsbericht has shown a building up of evidence that, although not airtight, does seem to point to the Herodian period as the best locale for the origin of the Parables of Enoch. The key determining issues include: (1) the nature of the imagery in 1 Enoch 56:5-8 and its possible relationship to 67:813; (2) the unity of 1 Enoch 70–71 with the rest of the composition; (3) the possible connection of the Son of Man portrait in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels; (4) the development of Son of Man imagery in Second Temple Judaism and in the context of key idea-paradigms functioning in that period; (5) the significance, or lack of significance, of the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran; and (6) the question of the connection of the Parables of Enoch and Hekalot tradition. In general, the first issue of 1 Enoch 56 and 67 likely favors an early date. It looks as if the second issue of the unity of 1 Enoch 70–71 with the Parables of Enoch makes little difference to the dating question. This is because if the

­106

Parables of Enoch

material is a unit, then that can explain its lack of reception at Qumran with its commitment to Enoch as the key eschatological figure. If the concluding material was added later, then the bulk of the Parables of Enoch is older and also points to an earlier date. The third issue suggests an early date, if a connection between the materials can be shown. Such a connection looks likely for Revelation, while it is possible, but less clear, in the Evangelists. Of the Evangelists, Matthew seems to reflect its influence the most, but the idea of a judging Son of Man may point to conceptual influence across all of its apocalyptic uses. So the fourth issue of the development of the Son of Man also leans towards an early date. The fifth issue of the material’s absence at Qumran is one that looks like it leans toward a later date at first glance, although our survey has brought up several independent reasons to regard this conclusion as uncertain. The sixth issue of the Hekalot connection might favor a later setting, although it also could be a sign of development over time. So three issues (1, 3, and 4) look to favor an early date. One appears to not make a difference (2), while two of the other issues, which at first look to favor a later date, are in fact of less compelling power than they initially seem. Only a detailed look at each of these key areas or new evidence might help us to move closer to more of a determination. Nonetheless, the current state of research makes a turn of the era date for this material (from c. 40 bce to the first half of the first century ce) the most likely setting with the period earlier in this range more likely than the later. This range sees the Herodian context as more likely but allows room for the Caligula context as a second option. One factor that is not disputed is that there is no reference to the fall of Jerusalem in the Parables of Enoch. This is yet another key fact that favors an earlier date over one in the latter part of the first century ce. In summation, the likelihood is that the Parables of Enoch and ideas like them were in circulation at the time of the rise of the movement Jesus started. Such a dating has potentially huge implications for the interaction of Second Temple studies and New Testament studies, especially those tied to Jesus.

Post-Camaldoli Studies Finally, there are two major post-Camaldoli pieces to consider. One is a journal article challenging the emerging consensus on the Parables of Enoch. The second is a major commentary on this material. Ted Erho (2011): 50 bce to 100 ce This essay examines the effort to date the Parables of Enoch on the basis of the allusion to 1En 56:5-8.88 It challenges the consensus that this passage refers 88.  Ted M. Erho, “Historical-Allusional Dating and the Similitudes of Enoch,” JBL 130 (2011), 493–511. This article is a later version developing other work by Erho, “The Ahistorical Nature of 1 Enoch 56:5-8 and Its Ramifications upon the Opinio Communis on the Dating of the

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­107

to the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. This essay examines issues of method and presents seven reasons why 1 Enoch 56 is not a solid reference to the Parthian invasion and then suggests that dating linked to such a singular allusion is a very tenuous way to make the case. Erho notes that some of his seven arguments are stronger than others. Erho’s seven arguments follow and then I shall comment.89 (1) The “historical events during the Parthians invasion fail to cohere very well with the contents of 1En 56:5-8.” (2) “An examination of Parthian history will show many other possible historical settings that could have informed the background of the text.” (3) “A number of elements present in 1En 56:5-8 were components of the Greco-Roman characterization of the Parthians.” (4) “The terms ‘Parthians’ and ‘Medes,’ universally assumed to denote respectively the same specific referents throughout the corpus of Greco-Roman literature, are not perfectly harmonious in this regard.” (5) “The presupposition that the text accurately reflects its lost Vorlage stands on an at least nominally unstable foundation.” (6) “The possibility that 1En 56:5-8 may represent an interpolation or source material, the prospect of which has been raised by several scholars, presents another cautionary dilemma.” (7) “The available evidence does not unequivocally support the contention that the text alludes to a specific event in the history of the Jews, as a fitting archetype is lacking.” Of these seven arguments Erho is clear that his most important argument is that the details of the Parthian event, especially as presented in Josephus and the 1 Enoch 56 text, do not match well enough to make the identification. In fact, this point helps to show that argument 7 is merely a restatement of argument 1. Erho recognizes that his arguments 4, 5, and 6 are not strong, but merely possibilities to consider. Though each is a possibility, they add weight as potential supporting arguments only if the basis for identification is suspect. This really leaves us with only arguments 1–3. Of these, as we just noted and Erho acknowledges, it is the first that is key. If a solid connection to a specific event exists, then looking for other scenarios, or for stereotypical language, also becomes less important. So the key to this challenge is whether the details of the text differ enough from what we know about the Parthian invasion of 40 bce to be discounted as the reference.

Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 40 (2009), 23–54, and “Internal Dating Methodologies and the Problem Posed by the Similitudes of Enoch, JSP 20 (2010), 83–103. These articles emerged from his earlier M.A. thesis study at Trinity Western University, “A Reassessment of the Role of 1 Enoch 56:5-8 for the Dating of the Similitudes of Enoch: A Critique of the Historical-Allusional Method and a New Suggestion for Understanding the Text from a Traditional-Historical Perspective.” 89.  These seven arguments cited below appear on pp. 496–505 of the article “HistoricalAllusional Dating.”

­108

Parables of Enoch

Erho’s argument against a connection is basically the case made earlier by Lester Grabbe. Grabbe argued against a Parthian connection on two grounds: (1) the passage suggests that Jerusalem was not taken and the people had fought amongst themselves, and (2) there was no second invasion as 57:1-2 seems to suggest. I responded above to Grabbe’s objections by noting that the event alluded to in the past as a basis for prediction in a pattern prophecy (or what is called typological text) is not designed to be replicated in exact detail, but is an event that is like the end time prediction. The event of the end will be a more intense form of the mirrored event. Erho stresses in his rejection of the connection that the Parthians did not engage in a siege of Jerusalem but were invited in, as Josephus tells us in Antiquities 14.340 and in War 1.254. In fact, the context in Josephus is more complex than the “invitation” description suggests. Herod is put under pressure by the Parthian involvement, even as there is a divided response from Jewish leaders that Grabbe notes. This can give the sense of a siege, not in an extremely literal sense, but in the sense of a real battle for leadership of the people with something at stake. So the text can fit, and does fit, more closely than Erho suggests. Still, the point the article makes that the case for this connection is not as solid as some suggest has some merit. What this observation does not change are some other important elements of the text, such as the lack of reference to the Romans. The absence of Rome makes it more likely to be a text from the early period Erho allows for the Parables of Enoch versus the latter part of the period, especially the post-Temple destruction. Other points of incongruity that Erho discusses are less significant. He says there is a lack of agitation in prompting them to go to war. This may be the case, but the fact is that they are there putting pressure on Herod. If they wish to fight, and be deceptive in doing so, as they are in Josephus’ account, then agitation of some sort is present. He says the size of the force is not large enough to be eschatologically significant. However, once again the mirror event is always of a lesser scale than the ultimate encounter, which is more cosmic. Josephus is clear that Herod felt the pressure of their presence and sensed he was at real risk. Erho supposes that the small force precludes more than one nationality being present (so not Parthians and Medes), but in fact there is no way to know this as this is a classic example of an argument from silence. The lack of division in the Parthian cause is said not to fit verses 7-8. This again confuses the event in a lower key for the eschatological event that is intensified in its description in the passage. Perhaps this debate boils down to the idea that what Erho sees as stereotypical language about Parthians and historical conflict, I prefer to read as the lesser background event that mirrors a more intensified conflict to come of which the Parthian invasion was a smaller precursor. In the end, what is interesting is that even with Erho’s caution and rejection of the connection, all he does is expand the normal date range of the view he challenges about 50–70 years into a period where there are other reasons to

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­109

be less confident that the expanded range really gives us a likely date. In fact, it is a sign of the care of Erho’s article that he notes that the significance of his discussion about dating for the Christian origins discussion changes very little about that distinct question. He concludes his article with a postscript that says, “the proposed expansion of the acceptable date range to include the beginning of the Christian era does not dramatically alter this quest, as (a) a reasonable possibility still exists that the Similitudes of Enoch were composed prior to the ministry of Jesus, and (b) even if this is not true, most of the major ideas contained therein would have probably been circulating in ancient Palestine before their incorporation into this composition.”90 So we have in this article a caution about not overstating the case for a connection with the Parthian invasion of 40 bce in 1 Enoch 56:5-8, while noting that this changes little about where we should place that text in relationship to Christian origins. Nickelsburg and VanderKam’s Commentary (2011): late decades bce and early decades ce This technical commentary on the Parables of Enoch and then on chapters 72–82 represents the completion of a life’s work on 1 Enoch for George Nickelsburg.91 We have already surveyed his views in his earlier work, including an earlier release of his translation for this commentary. James VanderKam also had already expressed himself on these issues earlier. However, this work reflects their latest thinking on these issues. They note five factors that have helped to set the date of this material. Before noting that list, the authors argue that after the book of Daniel is the earliest date the book could have been written and so a date after the Maccabean conflict is identified as the starting point (terminus post quem). (1) The book lacks an overview of Israel’s history like other apocalypses which complicates getting a fix on the work’s dating. (2) Two passages are raised as possible historical events: (a) 1 Enoch 56:5-7 (the invasion of the land by the Parthian and Medes) and (b) 67:5-13 (Herod’s use of the baths of Kallirhoē [an alternate spelling for Callirhoe]). They note that these references are disputed. (3) The absence of this material at Qumran is said by some to preclude a date before 68 ce. (4) Parallels in other Jewish literature 90.  Erho, “Historical-Allusional Dating,” 511. Erho also dismisses a connection of the spring waters to Callirhoe (p. 507, n. 41), but I still regard the case made by others here as more likely. Erho appeals to the valley in the west and places it in relationship to Jerusalem, arguing that Callirhoe is to the east of Jerusalem. However, this vision is in a context involving Noah, so it is not clear if the west has Jerusalem as its reference point. Other points for making a connection to the early part of Erho’s range appear in our summary of this discussion at the conclusion of this article. 91.  George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2011). The discussion of dating is on pp. 58–66.

­110

Parables of Enoch

are said to only give possible indications of the date. (5) How one relates the material to the Gospels is also noted as a factor to weigh. Needless to say, this list of factors hardly points to a definitive date and shows why there is so much discussion of the matter. Their discussion opens with consideration of the absence of this material at Qumran. They note that Esther, Judith, the Testament of Moses, and Psalms of Solomon are not present at Qumran, without causing scholars to date them after the demise of the sect. They suggest that the bifurcation of the Enoch traditions explains why some parts of the material are present there and others are not. They argue that the details of the Parthian threat do match the picture of Josephus despite the counter-claims of some. For the view that these accounts match, they cite the work of Luca Arcari in the Camaldoli volume on Enoch and the Messianic Son of Man.92 They argue that this factor makes a pre-70 ce date almost certain, since the walls of Jerusalem were breached in that Roman invasion and this 1 Enoch text predicts no such result. They also include in a footnote the observation that one would expect some kind of an allusion to this event if the material was written after the fall of Jerusalem.93 The likely allusion to Kallirhoē looks to the end of Herod the Great’s life and points to a date after 4 bce for the Noahic interpolation which is where the allusion in 67:8-13 is located. The rest of the work is likely earlier. That these springs are located to the west involves two observations. First, the valley described runs from the Valley of Hinnon down the Kidron Valley to the eastern shores of the Dead Sea, where Kallirhoē discharges sulfuric fumes from its water. Second, the perspective of the vision is Noah’s home in Mesopotamia, making the valley to the west.94 Connections between 4 Ezra and Wisdom 4:18–5:13 and our Enoch passage also point to this date range. 4 Ezra is dependent on the Parables of Enoch and dates to the end of the first century, giving us an initial terminus ad quem. The parallels to Wisdom in 1 Enoch 62–63 looks to use the unique Enochic information about Enoch as a righteous one par excellence and points to an early first-century date.

92.  Luca Arcari, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthians Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messianic Son of Man (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 478–86. 93.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 60–61, n. 118. 94.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, p. 289.

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­111

They note that connections of the material to the New Testament are much in dispute, something the essays in this volume also demonstrate. Here the appeal involves texts in Matthew (24:30-31; 25:31) and Q (Mt 24:37-39 = Lk 17:22-30; Mt 24:43-44 = Lk 12:39-40; Mt 10:32-33 = Lk 12:8-9).95 So a likely date is placed between 40 bce and the early decades of the Common Era. The terminus post quem is the Parthian invasion and the terminus ad quem is the destruction of Jerusalem (40 bce to 70 ce). The Wisdom connection pushes the date into the earlier portion of the first century of the Common Era. The key part of the Parables of Enoch (excluding interpolations) are said to date from the end of Herod’s reign to the early decades ce. The way the kings are said to possess the land points to this period (47:7; 52:7-8; 63:10; also chapter 47; 53:2, 7). The work reflects a frustration at the violence, oppression, amassed wealth, and war that looks for divine deliverance in a theodicy driven, apocalyptic vision (38:5; 48:9; 63:12). Roman rulers and their Herodian clients are the target of critique. A wrong religion (41:2; 45:1; 46:7) and an extravagant building program may be in view, including a temple to Augustus at Paneion (45:4-5; also known as Panias or Caesarea Philippi). The text does not fit any known sects of Judaism, including the Hasidim, the Qumranians, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. It is not clear if we can speak of an Enochic Judaism but the texts and traditions at work here are eclectic and all do focus on the figure of Enoch. The provenience is unclear. So this work represents a summary of the evidence many make for a window in the late first century bce to the early decades of the Common Era. As such, it is appropriate that our survey ends here.

Conclusion and Implications Sacchi argues that discussions like those surrounding the date of the Parables of Enoch should open a fourth quest for the historical Jesus which should begin “with a careful study of Jesus’ milieu” (p. 512). As a New Testament Jesus scholar, I think that a concern for the Jewish milieu has been a focus of the third quest and Jesus Research for decades; a fourth quest is not needed. However, Sacchi’s point is very well taken, if refined. What is needed is not only a careful study of Jesus’ milieu, but a tighter focus on that milieu. This requires more direct interaction between New Testament Jesus studies and the Second Temple Jewish history of traditions. Most New Testament scholars access the Jewish milieu, if they do at all, through later Jewish texts like the Mishnah or the Midrashim (if not through the potentially anachronistic Talmud). A better appreciation of the role of Second Temple reflections on the Tanach will be more helpful in applying the Jewish milieu to the historical quest.

95.  These associations are detailed in 1 Enoch 2, pp. 70–72.

­112

Parables of Enoch

Since Second Temple studies has become a discipline on its own, and rightly so, it and New Testament scholars have lost regular contact with each other. This is most unfortunate, because the findings of both of these disciplines are very much related to each other, especially as the early Palestinian Jesus Movement is becoming more appreciated in its earliest phases as an attempt to be a Jewish-oriented expression of the old faith. My chapter indicates one example where such careful attention may lead to a reconfiguration of a long-held debate. The other chapters in this volume hope to develop the implications of this fresh appreciation for the date of the Parables of Enoch for both New Testament studies and Second Temple Judaism. The starting point for such discussion is the strong likelihood that the Parables of Enoch are Jewish and most likely were composed prior to the work of Jesus of Nazareth or contemporaneous with his Galilean ministry. Seven reasons support this starting point: (1) A variety of points urge us not to expect to find the Parables of Enoch at Qumran. (a) It was a late addition to the Books of Enoch. (b) It held to a different calendar than the Qumran Community. (c) The Righteous Teacher is more important to the Community than Enoch, so it would not welcome a document in which Enoch becomes the key eschatological figure. (2) The best date for the Parthian invasion discussed in 1 Enoch 56 is 40 bce. Although this connection is not certain, it seems the best candidate, especially given the nature of pattern fulfillment in eschatological texts and the lack of connection to an enemy like Rome in this material. One thing can be said. If the invasion is stereotyped, it is not foreseen as coming from Rome and the West but from older historical opponents that lie to the East. This is part of the rationale for seeing a historic backdrop that takes the reference to the Parthians as concrete and not merely stereotypical. (3) One should not expect to see the Parables of Enoch cited by Christians because Jesus is the Son of Man for them, not Enoch. (4) The relegation of Jews behind the Parables of Enoch best fits the Herodian period with potential allusions to Calirrhoe. (5) The making of Jews into “tenant farmers” on what was their land and the reference to being pushed off of dry land makes sense only after Herod the Great. (6) The Wirkungsgechichte of the Parables of Enoch helps fit the time of 4 Ezra which as Stone has shown has pre-70 traditions in it, as does 2 Baruch. (7) The Parables of Enoch does not mention the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple in 70 ce which makes best sense if this text predates this event.

These reflections powerfully show the value of Second Temple Jewish study and Jesus Research working more closely side by side, rather than as isolated

Dating the Parables of Enoch

­113

disciplines. In an era that often demands increasing specialization because of the size of each of these key disciplines, scholars in each area must not lose sight of the benefit of staying aware of and in touch with one another.

­

Chapter 5 Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man” and the Importance of the Parables of Enoch Paul Owen The influence of Daniel’s programmatic vision, in the seventh chapter of his collected memoirs (the canonical version of Daniel), upon early Judaism and nascent Christianity should not be understated. Nowhere does this reveal itself more clearly than in the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) and the Christian Gospels.1 In this essay, we will examine the way the “son of man” figure has been incorporated into the theologies of these texts, as a window into the developing messianic understanding of Second Temple communities who received the traditions of the Jewish Scriptures, and reflected upon their divine significance. We will see that there is a remarkable degree of correspondence between the general outline of the handling of the “son of man” material in these literary and historical contexts from the period surrounding the lifetime of the historical Jesus.

The Son of Man in Daniel Daniel’s vision of the “son of man” is set in the time frame of the “first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (7:1).2 The text claims to make use of Daniel’s written record of his dream, which has been passed on to later hands (7:1). In that record he describes what he saw, as he offers a descriptive summary of the four “beasts” who appeared, each with its own symbolic meaning. The four beasts make their appearance in consecutive order. Each beast represents a “king” who shall arise “out of the earth” (7:17).3 There is an evident contrast here with the 1.  The weight of modern scholarly consensus plainly dates the Parables of Enoch in the historical context of Jesus and the birth of the early Christian movement in the early first century ce. See the discussion of Darrell Bock, “ Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht,” in the present volume. Also see J. H. Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 450–68 [revised and expanded in this book]. Also in the same volume, D. D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” pp. 469–77. 2.  Probably 553 bce. Belshazzar was the son and viceroy of King Nabonidus. 3.  The beasts are variously interpreted. The first beast clearly symbolizes Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. The second is either a Median empire or the Medo-Persian kingdom under

Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man”

­115

“son of man” figure in verse 13, for he alone comes “with the clouds of heaven.” In other words, he comes from the realm of God, beyond the locale of the rulers of temporal kingdoms: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (v. 13). In Daniel’s initial description of this figure, there are a number of related features. First, the “son of man” (Aramaic bar enash) comes with the “clouds of heaven.” In keeping with the previous appearances of the four beasts, this is an earthly appearance, for it would be meaningless and redundant to say that someone showed up in heaven “with the clouds.” The point of this language is to locate the coming of the “son of man” to earth from the region of heaven. Then Daniel records that “he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (v. 13). In light of the description of the earthly tribunal given in verses 9-10,4 and the subsequent reference to the “coming” of the Ancient of Days (v. 22), the most likely setting for this presentation is once again the earthly world, now subjugated to the authority of Israel’s God. The “son of man” stands before God’s throne and receives an unprecedented reward: “And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (v. 14).5 There has been a great deal of scholarly inquiry about the meaning of this language, quite out of proportion to the clarity of the vision. Someone who looks “like a son of man” is clearly an individual. There is no indication within the text that the individual is merely a symbol for a group of people.6 Though kings stand for and represent their kingdoms, they do not simply amount to those kingdoms. Certainly there is symbolic language at work here. The description of God in verse 9 does not have to mean that God is literally an aged man with white hair. Nonetheless, the symbolism serves to illuminate the characteristics of an individual character. There is no reason not to assume the same for the unnamed “son of man” (or human being) who makes his appearance in verse 13. The best argument for seeing the “son of man” as a symbol for a larger body of people (the elect of Israel) is the appeal to the language of verses 18 and 22. Cyrus. The third is either the Persian kingdom or the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great. The fourth is either the Macedonian / Seleucid or the Roman kingdom, viewed as the setting of the eschaton. 4.  It could be (and has been) argued that Dan 7:9-10 describes a heavenly tribunal, and that the son of man makes his appearance in heaven, arriving from earth. However 7:22 clearly looks back on this scene, and says that the Ancient of Days “came” for the judgment, which seems to mean that he came to earth, since he comes to bring an end to the tyranny of the little horn that persecutes the saints. This would imply that the “son of man” also comes to earth to execute that judgment. Admittedly, it is possible that this is a heavenly scene, and that the “coming” of the Ancient of Days and the son of man should be understood loosely as a divine intervention, such as when the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce is described as Jesus’ coming (Mt 24:27 cf. 26:64). 5.  The Aramaic verb pelach (“serve”) could be translated “worship,” which would be even more striking (cf. Dan. 3:28). Certainly there would be no expectation in the text that the Gentiles would one day “worship” the Jews alongside God. This is an important clue as to the meaning of the “son of man” image (see below). 6.  Contra Maurice Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem (London: T&T Clark, 2007), pp. 82–91.

­116

Parables of Enoch

Dan 7:18 says that “the saints of the most high shall receive the kingdom,” and verse 22 says that “the saints possessed the kingdom.” But this hardly means that the “son of man” is to be equated with the saints, since verses 13-14 could easily have described it that way had such a meaning been intended. A vision of the elect receiving their vindication from God would not be out of place here. These references to the blessing of Israel at the eschaton need mean nothing more than that the “son of man” shares the kingdom he has received from the Ancient of Days, with the suffering and vindicated saints. His kingdom is now their kingdom. Nowhere does Daniel say that all the peoples of the earth shall serve the saints, as it says of the “son of man” (7:14). In fact, verse 27 shifts to the singular precisely to avoid this conclusion: “His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all realms shall serve and obey him” (my translation); this verse looks back to the homage paid to the “son of man” in verse 14. It is clear in any event, that “all peoples, nations, and languages” (v. 14) would include the people of Israel herself (being one of the earthly nations). So Israel cannot be the referent of the “son of man” symbol. This is one argument which really should be put to rest. Scholars who advocated this corporate conception may have been trying to avoid an interpretation of Daniel’s vision which happens to correspond with the New Testament and early Christian understanding. This reading of Daniel is amply supported by the Parables of Enoch (1En 37– 71).7 There are a number of descriptions of God’s eschatological agent in these chapters, which clearly draw from, and particularize, the “son of man” language in Dan 7:13.8 We will discuss each of these in turn.

The Son of Man in 1 Enoch 1 Enoch 46 In this chapter of the Parables of Enoch, the “son of man” terminology appears in several places. It clearly draws from the imagery of Daniel 7.9 The description of God in 46:1 closely follows Dan 7:9: “And there I saw 7.  Though complete copies of 1 Enoch are extant only in Ethiopic, including all of the material in the Parables of Enoch, scholars are in agreement that the original language was Aramaic or Hebrew, or both (as with the book of Daniel). See M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 1–7; M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), pp. 37–46; and E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1.6. All translations of 1 Enoch herein are taken from Black, unless otherwise indicated. 8.  It is well known that there are three Ethiopic expressions for “son of man” which are used in the Parables of Enoch material: walda sabe’; walda ’eguala ’emmaḥeyaw; and walda be’esi. However, whatever the nuances in the expressions, it does not seem that this has any great bearing upon the present discussion. They can easily be accounted for on the hypothesis of different translators and editors. See Black, The Book of Enoch, pp. 206–07. We agree with Maurice Casey: “We have already seen that the use of three different terms for ‘son of man’ in this text is puzzling, but does not seem to be of any significance” (The Solution, p. 109). 9.  So Black, The Book of Enoch, p. 206. M. Casey acknowledges that the imagery in this chapter is derived from Daniel 7, though he conveniently ignores the fact that the “son of man”

Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man”

­117

One who had a head of days, and his head was white like wool.” What is important is that two individuals are depicted in the vision: “And with him was another whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the angels” (v. 1). This makes it apparent that Daniel 7 was being read as a description of God and his eschatological agent. That agent is then described in the following terms: “This is the Son of Man to whom belongs righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him; and all the treasures of that which is hidden he reveals because the Lord of Spirits has chosen him” (46:3).10 The text goes on to describe the “son of man’s” role in God’s judgment in a manner that recalls and builds upon Dan 7:13-14: “And the Son of Man whom you have seen shall rouse up the kings and the mighty from their couches and the strong from their thrones, and he shall loosen the loins of the powerful and break the teeth of sinners” (46:4). 1 Enoch 48 A similar description is found in chapter 48. In a scene of the heavenly world, we are told: “And at that time the Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and his name before the Chief of Days” (48:2). This alludes quite clearly to the appearance of the “son of man” in the presence of the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13. The Enochic text goes on to elaborate the transcendent significance of the “son of man” figure, stating that, “before the sun and the ‘signs’ were created before the stars of the heavens were made, his name was named before the Lord of spirits” (48:3). This attributes to the “son of man” a pre-existent identity (cf. 1En 62:7). The role of the “son of man” is then correlated in verse 4 with the functions of the “servant” from Isa 42:6 and 49:6.11 One of his accomplishments will be the salvation of the Gentiles: “He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled in their hearts” (v. 4). Then it adds: “All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him” (v. 5). It is difficult not to see an allusion here to Dan 7:14 (cf. Isa 49:7; 60:10), which says of the “son of man” that, “all peoples, nations, and languages should designation is itself derived from 7:13, and shows an individualistic interpretation of the vision. See Maurice Casey, The Solution, p. 98. 10.  Casey insists that “son of man” cannot be used as a title here, “because Enoch in asking the question is making clear that he does not know who this being is” (The Solution, p. 98). But this is a strange kind of logic. Because Enoch does not know the identity of the figure, therefore “son of man” cannot be a title for him? The fact is that the revelation of the specific identity of the “son of man” is a blessing bestowed on the elect in the Parables of Enoch (cf. 1En 69:26). Casey also carts out the argument that “son of man” cannot be a title because in Aramaic this is just “an ordinary term for man” (p. 98). But Casey is quite wrong about this. M. Black rightly calls it a “capital error” to assume that the relevant Hebrew and Aramaic expressions “could not be used as a designation or with titular force for a particular individual, especially for one of a class” (The Book of Enoch, p. 206). 11.  See Black, The Book of Enoch, p. 210.

­118

Parables of Enoch

serve him,” as well as 7:27 (“all realms shall serve and obey him” [i.e., the son of man]).12 1 Enoch 62 In another judgment scene, the Parables of Enoch again interpret the Danielic “son of man” material in light of their eschatological expectations, in the context of their reading of scriptural texts. Here, the “son of man” is correlated with another Isaianic title (“the Elect One”), taken from Isa 42:1: “Open your eyes and lift up your horns, if you can, to acknowledge the Elect One” (62:1). In verse 2 the “spirit of righteousness” is poured out on the Elect One, and “the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, and all the unrighteous are destroyed before his face” (62:2). It goes on to say that, “all the kings and the mighty, and the exalted and those who possess the earth,” shall “see him and recognize him, because he sits on the throne of his glory” (62:3). This language in 62:2-3 appears to draw upon the prophetic expectations of Isa 11:1-4. All of this biblical imagery serves to illuminate the judgment scene from Daniel 7.13 We are told that, “from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of his [heavenly] host, and revealed him to the elect” (62:7). Significantly, the Parables of Enoch clarifies the important question of the relationship of the “son of man” to the elect saints who are rewarded in Daniel’s vision: “And all the elect shall stand before him on that day. And all the mighty kings and the exalted and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and set their hope on that Son of Man, and petition him and supplicate for mercy from him” (62:8-9). Without question, this shows an understanding that the end of Dan 7:27 refers to the obeisance paid to “him” (the son of man), not “it” (the kingdom of the saints).14 And it explains the shift in terminology from “son of man” to “saints” in Daniel 7. The elect will stand with the “son of man” in the last days, and thus of course have a share in his kingdom, the fruits of his victory over the wicked of the earth (cf. 63:11: “their faces shall be filled with darkness and shame before that Son of Man”). 1 Enoch 69 The conclusion of the Third Parable contains several more illuminating “son of man” references. In verse 26 we are told that the elect rejoiced because “the 12.  1 En 48:10 pushes this imagery in an explicitly messianic direction: “And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth, and before them they shall fall and not rise again ... For they have denied the Lord of spirits and his Anointed One” (cf. 1En 52:4). Casey (The Solution, pp. 101–02) manages to miss the fact that 1 Enoch 48 shows a creative, messianic linking of passages from Isaiah with the “son of man” image from Daniel 7. 13.  On the textual issues in 62:5, see Black, The Book of Enoch, pp. 235–36. Due to the difficulty of the problem, we have omitted verse 5 from the present discussion. Cf. Casey, The Solution, pp. 102–03. 14.  Casey misses the fact that this chapter illuminates the relationship between the rule of the “son of man” and the saints in Daniel 7 (The Solution, p. 103).

Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man”

­119

name of the Son of Man had been revealed to them.”15 Verse 27 describes his enthronement at the time of judgment: “And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was given to the Son of Man, and he will cause the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth.” Likewise verse 29: “And from henceforth there shall be nothing corruptible, for that Son of Man has appeared, and has seated himself on the throne of his glory … and the word of the Son of Man shall be strong before the Lord of spirits.” Again, the influence of Dan 7:13-14, with its sweeping description of the universal dominion of the “son of man,” is evident. It is also strikingly similar to the language employed in Matthew’s Gospel: “So when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. And all the nations will be gathered before him” (25:31-32; my translation). 1 Enoch 70–71 The scholarly discussion surrounding these chapters is well known.16 There are differences of opinion respecting translation, interpretation and textual history, all of which will affect the understanding of the relationship between Enoch and the “son of man” figure.17 The reading of 70:1, which speaks of a man who is “raised up to the Lord of spirits from those who dwell on the earth,” is troubled by manuscript variants, and may either function as a title referring back to “the / that Son of Man” mentioned in 69:29, or as an oblique reference to the ascension of “a son of man” (i.e., Enoch). 1 Enoch 71:14 is capable of different translations, which directly affect the meaning. Does it identify Enoch as the “son of man” referred to throughout the Parables of Enoch (“You are the Son of Man”)?18 Or, should it be rendered as a form of direct address (“You, son of man”)?19 1 Enoch 71:17 is relatively straightforward: “And so there shall be length of days with the Son of Man.” However, it still leaves open the interpretive question as to whether or not this is a reference to Enoch, and if so, what is the textual and historical relationship between these chapters and the other material in the Parables of Enoch.

15.  As throughout his discussion, Casey seeks to explain away most of the references to the “son of man” by dismissing them as “anaphoric” references to “the figure of the previous chapters” (The Solution, p. 105), ignoring the fact that, without recourse to the definite article, “the demonstratives are, for the most part, required in Eth. to indicate unequivocally that it is no ordinary ‘son of man’ that is meant” (Black, The Book of Enoch, p. 206). 16.  See M. A. Knibb, Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 161–75. 17.  See the discussions of the relationship between Enoch and the “son of man” in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Sabino Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” pp. 153–78 [159–63]; H. S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” pp. 179–215 [197–210]; and J. J. Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” pp. 216–27 [221–27]. 18.  So Black, The Book of Enoch, p. 68. 19.  So Isaac, “1 Enoch,” p. 50.

­120

Parables of Enoch

In any event, what is found in these chapters is consistent with what has been encountered thus far. We see once again that the language “son of man” can be used to describe the characteristics of the figure (whether Enoch or someone else) who clearly functions within the Parables of Enoch as God’s chief agent in the context of eschatological hopes inspired by the visions of Daniel 7 and other prophetic and potentially messianic texts (especially those found in Isaiah).

The Son of Man in the Gospels It is well known that the “son of man” expression (ho huios tou anthropou) appears in the Greek text of the Christian Gospels as a title for Jesus, most likely derived from the Aramaic expression bar enasha and / or its Semitic equivalents. Because this saying appears so often on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels, and rarely appears anywhere else in the New Testament, it is also widely acknowledged that of all the messianic titles, the “son of man” title has the best claim for authenticity.20 At the same time that The Parables of Enoch was most likely circulating in Palestine (early first century ce), the historical Jesus was speaking of himself by way of allusion to Dan 7:13 through the “son of man” expression. It has often been noted that the expression “son of man” appears in three different settings in the Synoptic Gospels. What is often not noted is that each of these sets of sayings appears to link Daniel 7 with other textual traditions in the Old Testament. We will suggest below that Psalm 8 and Isa 52–53 provide those linkages. Some Synoptic sayings depict a unique role for the Son of Man in the final judgment, and these (whether judged authentic or not) are widely acknowledged to be indebted to Dan 7:13-14.21 Other sayings in the Gospels, though, emphasize the present, earthly authority of the Son of Man. For example, Mk 2:10 asserts that the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus) has “authority on earth to forgive sins.” Mk 2:28 gives the Son of Man authority over the Sabbath, so that he has the right to determine how it should be observed. In answer to a question concerning his identity (Mt 11:3), Jesus replies by asserting the Son of Man’s authority to welcome sinners into God’s fellowship (Mt 11:19). Mt 8:20 highlights the irony of the fact that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head, whereas even the animals have their dens (the irony presuming that he has the right to an earthly home). In Mt 13:37 the Son of Man sows the seed 20.  Though this has been disputed by Norman Perrin and a few other skeptics, who see the title as arising out of Christian exegetical reflection. It is true that many individual “son of man” sayings are viewed as inauthentic by a variety of modern scholars (especially the suffering and apocalyptic sayings); but that the expression itself goes back to Jesus in some fashion (even if only to make generic statements, or as a means of modest self-reference) is largely a given. 21.  For example, see Mk 8:38; Mk 14:26; Mk 14:62; Lk 12:40; Lk 17:24, 26; Mt 13:41; Mt 19:28; Mt 24:30; Mt 25:31; Lk 12:8; 17:30; 18:8; 21:36.

Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man”

­121

of the elect in God’s kingdom (13:24), or in other words, he has the authority to determine who the elect are (13:38). In Lk 19:10, the Son of Man comes to earth with the authority to save the lost. Those sayings which emphasize the earthly actions and calling of the Son of Man are characterized by an emphasis upon his authority. While it is possible that Dan 7:13-14 plays a role here (since it, too, emphasizes the Son of Man’s authority on earth),22 it is possible that the Danielic text is itself linked with another Old Testament passage in these particular “son of man” sayings. Identifying this connection may help to explain the irony that is present when Jesus says of the animals in Mt 8:20: “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” One passage in the Old Testament which speaks of the earthly authority of the son of man over all things, including the animals, is Ps 8:4-8: What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man [Hebrew ben adam] that you give attention to him? For you have made him a little lower than the gods, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have authority over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, that swim the paths of the seas. (my translation and emphases)

Here we see that the “son of man” has authority on earth, having been crowned in the beginning with glory and honor as the image of God. He has authority over all the things that God has created, including all the animals. This explains why it is such an irony in Mt 8:20 that the Son of Man presently has nowhere on earth to call his home, whereas even the animals beneath him have their dens. The other Synoptic sayings in this “earthly Son of Man” category also make sense in light of the fact that authority has been given to the “son of man” over “all” created things. The fact that the expression “son of man” appears in both Ps 8:4 and Dan 7:13 suggests that these Gospel sayings reflect an early, dominical interpretive tradition, in which the images from both texts have been linked and applied to the earthly life of Jesus himself.23 Perhaps Dan 7:13ff. is viewed as an expansion and interpretation of the full meaning of Psalm 8.24 The final category of “Son of Man” sayings which appear in the Synoptics addresses the “suffering” of the Son of Man. In Mk 8:31 Jesus teaches that, “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed.” In Mk 9:12 Jesus asks how it is “written 22.  Especially in light of the fact that Jesus appears to have applied the “son of man” language of Dan 7:13 to himself when speaking of the final judgment. 23.  An individualistic interpretation of Psalm 8 may also be found in 1QS 11.20, which adds a supralinear he to particularize the “son of man” in the psalm: “What indeed is [the] son of man (ben *ha*adam) among all your marvelous deeds?” 24.  It does not matter that the original context of the psalm is addressing the unique dignity of the human race. Early Christian exegesis of Psalm 8 saw it as anticipating the incarnation and subsequent glorification of Jesus (cf. Heb 2:5-9). This interpretation may also be at work in the Gospel tradition, supplemented with Dan 7:13.

­122

Parables of Enoch

concerning the Son of Man, that he must suffer many things and be treated with contempt.” Again in Mk 9:31: “The Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill him.” Mk 10:33-34 adds more details. There Jesus explains that in the city of Jerusalem, the “Son of Man” will be handed over to the Gentiles, “and they will mock him, and scourge him, and spit on him, and kill him.” In Mk 10:45 we read: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” It is commonly accepted that such passages, which anticipate the suffering of Jesus in the Gospels, draw upon the imagery of Isa 52–53, where God’s “servant” suffers as an act of atonement for the transgressions of God’s people. What is often not noted is the presence of “son of man” terminology within this very passage: “Behold, my servant shall act with wisdom; he shall be high and lifted up and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished by you, so will his appearance be changed beyond human recognition, and his form beyond the sons of man (bene adam); and he will sprinkle many nations. Kings will shut their mouths when they see him” (Isa 52:13-15, my translation). The following chapter goes on to describe the grief and suffering of this figure, linking it with the act of atonement for sin (53:4-12). But, what must not escape our notice is that, in terms of the terminology of the text itself, Isaiah 53 describes the suffering of a particular “son of man,” for he is said to be the one whose appearance will be transformed “beyond the bene adam.” This of course presumes that he is one of the bene adam. The section of Isaiah from which the suffering of Jesus the Messiah is anticipated, is a section which specifically calls God’s “servant,” who suffers and dies on behalf of the people of God, a “son of man.” Once again, it seems likely that in this case, Dan 7:13, which describes the exaltation of the “son of man,” who represents the persecuted elect of Israel in the last days, is viewed as a description of the final vindication of the “son of man” who suffers for the atonement of the sins of “many” (Isa. 53:12).

Similarities and Differences between 1 Enoch and the Synoptics It may be instructive at this point to summarize the similarities and differences between the handling of Dan 7:13 in 1 Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels. First, we list the similarities: Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics interpret Dan 7:13 as the depiction of a particular individual, who is “messianic” in status. Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics see the Son of Man as the agent of the final judgment of the wicked (cf. 1En 46; 48 and Mt 13:41). Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics link the Son of Man with Isaiah’s “servant” terminology (cf. 1En 42:6 and 49:6 and Mk 10:45). Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics see the Son of Man as God’s agent of salvation (cf. 1En 48:4 and Lk 19:10).

Aramaic and Greek Representations of the “Son of Man”

123

Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics identify the Son of Man with the titles Elect One and Messiah (cf. 1En 62:1; 48:10 and Mt 12:18; 16:16). Both 1 Enoch and the Synoptics speak of the “throne” of the Son of Man (cf. 1En 69:27 and Mt 25:31).

The only real difference of substance appears to be that whereas the Synoptic Gospels apply Dan 7:13 specifically to events and characteristics in the life of Jesus, there is no such application to the figure Jesus in 1 Enoch (hardly surprising). Another difference might be that there is no direct description of the suffering of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, whereas this is a major emphasis in the Synoptic Gospels. However, Wisdom does appear to be a descending figure, rejected by humankind, who then ascends to heaven in 1 Enoch 42. And Wisdom is closely associated with, if not identified with, the Son of Man and Chosen One in the Parables of Enoch (1En 42:1-3 cf. 48:1-2; 49:1-4; 51:3).25 Is the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch understood to be a suffering figure, like Jesus, who embodies God’s wisdom on earth, suffers human rejection, and then receives heavenly vindication from God, both in heaven and at the eschatological judgment? This reading of the Parables of Enoch is suggestive, and its potential for illuminating the understanding and mission of the historical Jesus is certainly worthy of further study and exploration.

25.  It is true that the Messiah in the Parables of Enoch is never identified with Wisdom directly, unless it is in 42:1-3. But he clearly is viewed as the source of wisdom for the elect in 48:1-2; 49:1-4; and 51:3. And the parallels are suggestive. Wisdom pre-exists in the heavens (42:1-2), and so does the Son of Man (48:2-3). Wisdom comes down to dwell among men before departing (42:2), and so does the Son of Man (70:1-2). Wisdom is vindicated and takes a place in heaven with God (42:2), and so does the Son of Man (69:27-29). George Nickelsburg notes: “The Parables of Enoch’ portraits of this agent of deliverance draws much of its language and imagery from three biblical sources or traditional interpretations of these sources. The basic texts are: Daniel 7; Isaiah 11 and Psalm 2; Isaiah 42, 49, and 52–53. Through the use and elaboration of this material, the author has created a composite figure whom he considers to be the referent in texts about the heavenly one like a son of man, the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah’s servant of the Lord” (“Son of Man,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary [1992], vol. 6, pp. 137–50 [see esp. p. 138]). Also: “Although the son of man is not identified as Wisdom, aspects of the Wisdom myth have colored the Parables eclectic portrait of this heavenly figure” (Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” p. 139).

­

Chapter 6 Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts James VanderKam and Dulcinea Boesenberg

Introduction Among the heroes in the Hebrew Bible, Moses must rank at or near the top in any listing. If we work with the completed text of the Scriptures, we find him playing remarkable roles. His birth and adventures in his early months fall into patterns known from hero stories in literature.1 He experienced two kinds of endangerment: he was, by order of the Pharaoh, to be drowned immediately after birth with all other Hebrew boys (Ex 1:22); and when his illegal survival could not be kept secret, his mother, who had seen he was a lovely child (2:2), kept him alive in a reed basket (2:3-4). His extraordinary good fortune of being found and pitied by the daughter of the very Pharaoh who had sentenced him to an early death and of being raised as her son only enhances the reader’s expectations for what sort of man he will become. The mature Moses, who had to flee his comfortable surroundings because of his justifiably violent acts, encountered the Lord himself at the bush on Horeb where he heard the Deity’s own name revealed and explained to him (3:1-15). The numinous scene took on added significance when God used it to commission Moses to lead Abraham’s descendents from Egypt to the land long ago promised to them. Despite his reluctance, he served the rest of his life as the ruler of the nation, was credited with setting up its judicial system (Ex 18; cf. Deut 1:9-18), and functioned as military commander (e.g., Ex 17:8-16). The stories in the remainder of Exodus and again in Numbers are peppered with accounts of miracles he performed (e.g., the plagues, drying the sea, water from the rock) and with reports about his conversations with God. He was the one through whom God made the Sinai covenant with his people and the one whom God summoned to meet him on the mountain (Ex 19–24). Moses served as mediator also in the sense that he tried to defend the people before an angry God; the most famous incident occurred during the golden calf episode (see 33:12-23 for his intercessory words). 1.  For views on a folklore pattern and its applicability to the Moses story, see A. Brenner, “Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‘Birth of Hero’ Pattern,” VT 36 (1986), 257–73; C. Houtman, Exodus (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; 3 vols.; Kampen: Kok / Leuven: Peeters, 1993–2000), 1:290-91; W. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), pp. 155–59.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­125

Perhaps his greatest distinction was that God regularly spoke with him face to face as one speaks with a friend (Ex 33:11; see Num 12:8; Deut 34:10). The legal parts of the Pentateuch are replete with expressions such as “And the Lord said to Moses,” “And the Lord commanded Moses,” and Deuteronomy provides a summary of many of them. His task as legislator – mediator of the Torah – is overwhelmingly attested, but so too are his roles as prophet and priest. Deut 18:18-22 relays the Lord’s promise that he would raise up a prophet like him; to him the Lord would speak and to him the people were to listen. Num 12:6-8 shows that there were other prophetic figures, but Moses was unique among them. The Lord did indeed speak through the others in visions and dreams. “Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face – clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the Lord” (12:7-8).2 When he passed from the scene at age 120, his epitaph focused on his prophetic work and miracles: “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. He was unequaled for all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, and for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel” (Deut 34:10-12). Moses performed priestly functions as well. He was from a Levitical line (Ex 2:1; 6:16-25) and is said to have offered sacrifices (e.g., Lev 8:1417). Furthermore, he, by divine orders, saw to the construction of the desert sanctuary (Ex 35–40), directed the rites through which the priesthood began to function (Lev 8–9), and received revelations about sacrifices and festivals. The Pentateuch, therefore, presents Moses not only as a wonder-working hero but also as a governmental leader and general, a legislator, a mediator, a prophet, and a priest. At times his special role as recipient of revelation allowed him to see into the distant future and to know what would happen to Israel in times to come (e.g., Lev 26; Deut 28–30). The Lord disclosed to him what would transpire after his death (e.g., Deut 31:16-22), and the blessing Moses pronounced on the Israelite tribes (Deut 33) shows that he knew what awaited them. It is difficult to imagine a more stunning résumé than the one Moses compiled. With these qualifications and more, one might reasonably expect that Moses would be at the center of the later literary exercise of representing and glorifying scriptural heroes. True, he was already on a pedestal, though he showed occasional weaknesses, but the surprising fact is that Moses is not the most prominent among the biblical characters who become the protagonists of the rewritten scriptural works or the apocalypses. He is surely not ignored in this vast literature, but he does not experience the degree of authorial or biographical inflation that, say, Enoch, Ezra, or Baruch does in relation to their scriptural portraits. In fact, in many cases Moses is presented as carrying out his scriptural roles, with only modest enhancements of them.3 2.  Scriptural quotations are from the NRSV. 3.  See S. Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Survey,” JSP 7 (1990), 102.

­126

Parables of Enoch

This paper approaches the evidence for the literary afterlife of Moses in Second Temple Jewish literature outside the Hebrew Bible to discern the ways in which the writers present him.4 It will become apparent that for centuries the literature written about him in the Land advanced his credentials to only a limited degree, while the Hellenistic literature shows more of a tendency to supersize his biography.

Moses in Texts from the Land 1. Ben Sira “Jesus son of Eleazar son of Sirach of Jerusalem” (50:27) composed the Hebrew original of the lengthy sapiential work at some time in the first third of the second century bce.5 One of the sage’s most notable statements is his declaration regarding Wisdom whom he so highly extols: “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob” (24:23). The statement assigns a lofty status indeed to the Mosaic Law and marks a step beyond any description of it in the Hebrew Bible (though see Deut 4:5-8), but Moses himself, apart from having the glorious Law associated with his name, receives no upgrade in his status from Ben Sira who has little more to say about him than a smattering of claims derived from the Pentateuch. Ben Sira’s most extended section about Moses comes as he “sings the praises of famous men, our ancestors in their generations” (44:1). It would have been unthinkable to omit Moses from such a survey, and Ben Sira duly accords a section to him (44:23-24–45:5). Commentators often note that the Moses pericope, consisting of c. 5.5 verses, is dwarfed by the 17 verses lauding his brother Aaron (45:6-22, supplemented by four verses on Phinehas in 45:2326)6 to say nothing of the 21 verses regarding Simon (50:1-21), though the relative sizes of the sections are influenced by the priestly emphasis of chs. 44– 50. He speaks of Moses in glowing terms, but virtually every line in 44:23f.– 45:5 derives from the Pentateuch.7 The emphasis lies on the Law that God revealed to him and on his special relationship with the Deity.8 The descriptor “Moses, whose memory is blessed” (v. 1) is not cited from the Hebrew Bible, but it would be a reasonable inference from Deut 34:10-12. The next clause –

4.  Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 80–81, includes works related to the Hebrew Bible such as 1 Esdras in his survey. 5.  See, for example, P. Skehan and A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 8–10. 6.  For example, Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” p. 86, though he writes that Ben Sira emphasizes Moses’ authority. 7.  Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, pp. 510–11. 8.  G. Sauer, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira (ATD Apokyphen 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 306–07 (he notes that the Exodus itself goes unmentioned).

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­127

“He made him equal in glory to the holy ones”9 – may relate to Ex 4:16 where Moses is to serve as God for his brother who will speak to the people and 7:1 where the Lord makes him like God to the Pharaoh.10 Yet it is not impossible that the text hints at a quasi-angelic status for him (see the sections on the Animal Apocalypse and 4Q377 below). 2. The early Enoch literature The role, or rather the lack of one, that Moses plays in the early texts associated with Enoch raises intriguing questions. The modest part he occupies in them has been an element in the argument that there was a non-Mosaic, Enochic Judaism.11 However that may be, Moses fails to appear in the two oldest booklets: the Astronomical Book (1En 72–82) and the Book of the Watchers (1–36). Nevertheless, there is no reason why he should have been mentioned in either of them, given the topics they cover. The case is different in the first two Enochic apocalypses. a. The Apocalypse of Weeks (1En 93; 91:11-17) The short, schematic apocalypse, written perhaps around 170 bce,12 covers history from creation to the judgment and beyond. It divides history into periods that the writer terms “weeks,” and in this scheme Moses should belong to week 4. The description of the week reads: “After this there will arise a fourth week, and at its conclusion, visions of the holy and righteous will be seen, and a covenant [šer‘at] for all generations and a tabernacle will be made in it” (93:6).13 The events at Sinai are transparently under consideration, and Moses should have been part of them. Though in Exodus he was centrally involved in the revelation of the Law and the construction of the tabernacle, the Apocalypse of Weeks passes over his participation in silence. One could attribute 9.  The Hebrew text indicates that “god” appears here where the Greek has “holy ones.” 10.  Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, p. 509. Ps 8:6 (v. 5 in English) – making mankind a little lower than God – was interpreted as referring to Moses in b Roš. Haš. 21b (M. Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira [Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972 (3rd edn.)], pp. 309–10 [in Hebrew]). C. Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls [STDJ 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002], pp. 8–9) thinks the passage indicates that “Sirach is an important, and perhaps the earliest, witness to the combination of the deification at Sinai and in Exod 7:1” (8). His over-reading of ch. 45 is in line with similarly unjustified inferences from the Qumran texts that are examined below. 11.  G. Boccaccini has argued for this position in a number of publications; see, e.g., Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002). 12.  For a summary of the options and a case for dating the apocalypse to c. 170, see VanderKam, “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1-10; 91:11-17),” CBQ 46 (1984), 511–23. 13.  The translation is from G. Nickelsburg and J. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004). Where Nickelsburg gives the translation covenant, a rendering as Law is also possible. For this and for the textual problem indicated by the brackets, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), p. 436 (comment on v. 5a), p. 446.

­128

Parables of Enoch

his absence to the fact that the writer abbreviates drastically to summarize an entire era in one sentence, or to his practice of not naming characters (there are no names, other than Enoch’s, in the introductory line in 93:3a), but neither suggestion adequately addresses the problem. The seer refers to recognizable characters without naming them in the lines about weeks 1 (Enoch), 2 (Noah), 3 (Abraham), and 6 (Elijah). There is no such representation of Moses, however. Consequently the absence of Moses from the Apocalypse of Weeks is difficult to ignore. As Nickelsburg comments about the covenant or Law in 93:6: “This is the only explicit reference to the Mosaic covenant/Torah in the whole Enochic corpus.”14 And there it is not identified as Mosaic. b. The Animal Apocalypse (1En 85–90) The work is usually dated to the late 160s bce because the last recognizable event the seer “predicts” occurred around 164 bce.15 The revelation contains a much longer, more detailed survey of history than the Apocalypse of Weeks. The many individuals and nations who populate it are represented as different kinds of animals and birds. Moses and his era are treated in 89:15-38. Virtually all of the events involving him are drawn from the scriptural accounts.16 For example, the writer describes his flight from Egypt to Midian as: “And a sheep [= Moses] that had escaped safely from the wolves [= Egyptians] fled and went off to the wild asses [= Midianites]” (89:16). Moses is an actor in the drama especially in vv. 16-18 which concern not only the flight to Midian but also the subsequent return to Egypt. From that point the survey speaks of Egypt, Israel, and God but not of Moses. Even in the story of splitting the sea Moses does not figure (vv. 23-27). He reappears in v. 28 where he leads the people in the wilderness and in v. 29 where he climbs Mount Sinai. In vv. 30-31 he accepts the fearful people’s request that he approach God on the mountain for them, and in vv. 32-35 the golden calf episode and Moses’ part in it take center-stage. 1 Enoch 89:36 may mark a significant departure from simply recasting the Exodus narratives. “And I [Enoch] saw in this vision, until that sheep [= Moses] became a man and built a house for the Lord of the sheep and made all the sheep stand in the house.” In the Animal Apocalypse, humans are represented as animals; when a human / animal becomes a man as Moses does here, it may mean he becomes angelic (see 90:21, 22). The theme of Moses’ transformation from sheep to man is repeated in v. 38, the verse that also reports his death. The

14.  1 Enoch 1, p. 446. 15.  See the discussion in P. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 61–79. The dating issue is complicated by the presence of supplementary material in 90:13-15, but Tiller thinks it was added soon after the original composition. 16.  Nickelsburg comments about 89:13-38: “The space devoted to the events related to the exodus (from the selling of Joseph to the death of Moses = Genesis 37–Deuteronomy 34) exceeds the treatments both of the rebellion of the watchers and the flood and of Israel’s history from Joshua to Manasseh. All but a few lines of this section correspond to the Book of Exodus” (1 Enoch 1, p. 378).

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­129

reading in 89:36 is confirmed by 4QEnc 4 10.17 In the Animal Apocalypse, the only other character who becomes a man is Noah (89:1, 9 – he changes from a bull to a man), but the Aramaic fragments corresponding with these verses lack any such reference.18 Whatever the textual status of Noah’s transformation in the earliest form of the Animal Apocalypse, the meaning of Moses becoming a man is important in determining how the writer assessed him. Tiller dismisses Dillmann’s claim that the author could not imagine animals building a structure and points to Ex 34:29-35 (Moses’ shining face) as possibly the text to which the writer is alluding. But the inability of beasts to build is not a serious problem for the author since in 89.72-73 three sheep build a tower, though admittedly not a very good one, and in 90.19 the sheep wield a sword. The superficial meaning is that Moses becomes an angel, but the significance is not altogether clear. Dimant suggests that this transformation symbolized the divine wisdom granted to Moses for this task. It is more likely an interpretation of Exod 34:29-35 where Moses’ face shines as a result of his speaking with God. Moses’ ability to speak with the Lord face to face (Exod 33:11); his having seen the back side of God (33:18-23); and his role as spokesperson for God would certainly give him at least some kind of angelic status.19

The change in Moses occurs just before the building of the tabernacle, a fact which makes one think that any textual trigger for it would be in the immediately preceding chapters, such as the scene identified by Tiller. So, while it is possible that Moses becomes angelic, the meaning of his becoming a man may be that his appearance changed as in Ex 34:29-35 (see above on Ben Sira and below on 4Q377).

17.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), p. 205. 18.  Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 238–39. Milik renders 4QEne 4 i 13-16 (the lines corresponding with 1En 89:1 in Ethiopic) as: “[And one of] the four went to one of the [white] oxen [and instructed him]; and he made for himself a ship, and dwelt inside it; [and the three oxen enter]ed with him into the ship, and the ship was covered and roofed [over them.]” In the same ms., at 4 ii:4-5 there may not be enough space for a reference to his becoming a man in 89:9 (see ibid., 241–42). Tiller thinks the theme of Noah becoming a man is “an interpolation modeled after the transfiguration of Moses rather than that it was omitted from the Aramaic” (A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, p. 259). Nickelsburg adds that both for Noah (in the Ethiopic) and for Moses the notice that they became a man is immediately followed by a reference to their building something (the ark, the tabernacle). “Does this author find it impossible to imagine a bull or a sheep with a hammer in his paw, or is it suggested that Noah and Moses attained an angel-like status?” (1 Enoch 1, p. 375). The suggestion that the image of an animal building something was a problem for the author goes back to A. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch uebersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853), pp. 257, 261. 19.  Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, pp. 295–96. His reference to Devorah Dimant is to her essay “Jerusalem and the Temple in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) in Light of Qumran Sectarian Thought,” Shenaton 5–6 (1981–82), 183, n. 29 (Hebrew). There she prefers Dillmann’s interpretation (she also thinks the building is not the tabernacle; it is a symbol for worship), though she considers the possibility that the divine wisdom needed for his tasks is meant.

­130

Parables of Enoch

3. Jubilees Moses is an unusual character in Jubilees, a mid-second century bce rewriting of Genesis and the first part of Exodus. He is the one to whom God, through an angel of the presence, revealed the contents of the book; the implication is that he is the writer of Jubilees (less ch. 1) and also of the Pentateuch which Jubilees calls “the book of the first Law” (6:22). That Moses is the author of an extensive literature is a step beyond the claims made for him in the Torah. There he writes (e.g., Deut 31:24), but he is never identified as the author of Genesis or the first 24 chapters of Exodus. The author keeps Moses’ role as the recipient of the revelation before the readers’ eyes by periodic statements reporting that the angel paused from his narrative to give Moses specific instructions related to it (there are 22 instances of this after the introductory section in 1:1–2:1).20 Consequently, he is more than simply a character in the literary framework of the book; the reader encounters him throughout the long revelation.21 The Moses of Jubilees also has the curious distinction of hearing his preSinai life rehearsed for him by the angel (chs. 47–50). There is virtually nothing in the angelic report beyond what Exodus contains,22 although there are some variations and the whole account is cased in a Jubilean chronology. One difference is that the prince of Mastema is said to be the one who opposed him and tried to help the Egyptian magicians in their contests against him (48:9; cf. CD 5.17-19; 4Q374 2 ii:6; and Ex 7:8-13, 22; 8:7). Moses executes his traditional function as intercessor in 1:19-21 where he responds to God’s prediction of Israel’s apostasy from the covenant concluded just the day before. In the book Moses receives other revelations of the future as well (see also ch. 23), but the content of them offers little more than what one reads in passages such as Lev 26; Num 24:3-9, 15-24; and Deut 28–33. 4. The Qumran Scrolls A number of the works identified among the Qumran Scrolls have received (or once received) from their modern editors titles containing the name of Moses. These are the ones recorded in E. Tov’s list of the Qumran materials:23 20.  See VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 24–25. For the date of the book, see pp. 17–21. 21.  Hafemann includes Jub among the works that highlight Moses’ roles as mediator and intercessor (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 89–90). He is the mediator of authoritative revelation; moreover, the author saw fit to mention his function as intercessor in 1:19-21. 22.  An exception is 47:9 which says that his father Amram taught him to write – a Jubilean theme. By choosing Sinai as the setting where the angel revealed Jub to Moses, the author was forced to include Moses’ own past in his survey of pre-Sinai events. While there is little in Jub regarding Moses beyond what is said of him in Exodus, the writer does, of course, omit a considerable amount of the material about him. 23.  Tov, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2010). In Tov’s lists, question marks indicate uncertainty about the identification.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­131

1Q22 Words of Moses (1QApocryphon of Mosesa?) 1Q29 Liturgy of 3 Tongues of Fire (1QApocryphon of Mosesb?) 2Q21 Apocryphon of Moses? 4Q374 Exodus / Conquest Tradition (formerly Apocryphon of Moses A) 4Q375 Apocryphon of Mosesa (formerly Apocryphon of Moses B) 4Q376 Apocryphon of Mosesb? 4Q377 Apocryphal Pentateuch B (formerly Apocryphon of Moses C) 4Q385a Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca (formerly Pseudo-Mosesa) 4Q387 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb (formerly Pseudo-Mosesb) 4Q388a Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc (formerly Pseudo-Mosesc) 4Q389 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cd (formerly Pseudo-Mosesd) 4Q390 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce (formerly Pseudo-Mosese) 4Q408 Apocryphon of Mosesc?

Of course, Moses is mentioned in other texts as well. For example, his name occurs in the expression “as he commanded through Moses” (1QS 1.2).24 An examination of Moses’ roles in the various texts enumerated above shows that there are few instances in which more is attributed to him than the authors and editors of the Pentateuch had recorded about him.25 Some of the roles that he plays are documented in these texts: a. 1Q22 (Apocryphon of Moses)26 God speaks to Moses in the fortieth year of the Exodus (so the chronological situation is that of the Book of Deuteronomy)27 and apparently tells him to convey the divine disclosures to Eleazar, Joshua, the leaders of the Levites, and the leaders of the priests as well as the people (1:3-4). The Lord predicts apostasy on the part of Israel (1:5-11), including calendrical transgressions, in words strongly reminiscent of Jubilees 1:9-14.28 Otherwise, the topics are familiar from the Scriptures, especially from Deuteronomy. When he gave the title “Dires de Moïse” (“Words of Moses”) to the text, Milik suggested it could as well have been called the Little Deuteronomy just as Jubilees is 24.  J. Bowley in “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed,” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, ed. Peter Flint (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 159–60, says that Moses is the scriptural character named most often in the sectarian texts and that almost all of those references have to do with the Torah. See also G. Brooke, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Looking at Mount Nebo from Qumran,” in La construction de la figure de Moïse, ed. T. Römer (TranseuSup 13; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), pp. 209–12. 25.  As Bowley comments, there seems little interest in his biography (“Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 171). 26.  The official edition is by J. T. Milik, “Dires de Moïse,” in Qumran Cave 1, ed. D. Barthélemy and Milik (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), pp. 91–97, with Plates 18 and 19. 27.  The words “fortieth year” are not preserved in 1:1 but are restored by the editor on the basis of several clues such as the eleventh month (in 1:1 = the month in Deut 1:3) and 2:5 where the speaker says it has been forty years since the Exodus. 28.  E. Tigchelaar, “A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:710 and Jubilees 1:9, 14,” DSD 12 (2005), 303–12.

­132

Parables of Enoch

called the Little Genesis in some ancient sources, so close is 1Q22 to the setting, style, and content of Deuteronomy.29 b. 4Q374 (Exodus/Conquest Tradition) This speaks of Moses in frg. 2 ii:6 and, it has been claimed, in 2 ii:7-10 as well. Line 6 reads: “[And] He made him as God over the mighty ones and a cause of reeli[ng] to Pharaoh.”30 The passage is clearly based on Ex 7:1 where the Lord makes Moses like God to the Pharaoh,31 but C. Fletcher-Louis argues that the next lines also refer to Moses and make him divine.32 For him, Moses would be the one who had compassion on someone (line 7), caused his face to shine on them for healing (line 8), and the one, though others had not known him (“you” in the text), before whom others melted, trembled, and staggered (line 9). As that seems implausible and God is far more likely to be the subject,33 the text says less than Fletcher-Louis claims and remains within a scriptural framework. c. 4Q377 (Apocryphal Pentateuch B)34 This may offer the most intriguing information about Moses in the Qumran literature. In 2 ii.4-6 someone says: “Cursed is the man who will not stand and keep and d[o … ] through the mouth of Moses his anointed one, and to follow YHWH, the God of our fathers, who … to us from Mt. Sin[ai …” Also, in lines 10–12 the writer says: “And Moses, the man of God, was with God in the cloud. And the cloud covered him because … when he was sanctified, and like a messenger he would speak from his mouth, for who of fles[h] is like him, a man of faithfulness and … who were not created {to} from eternity and forever …”35 The designation of him as God’s anointed (wxy#m) is not derived from 29.  Milik, “Dires de Moïse,” p. 92. 30.  The official edition is by C. Newsom, “4QDiscourse on the Exodus / Conquest Tradition,” in Qumran Cave 4 XIV Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (consulting ed. J. VanderKam; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 99–110, with Plate 13. The translation is from her edition. 31.  Ibid., 104. 32.  All the Glory of Adam, pp. 136–41. 33.  So Newsom, “4QDiscourse,” pp. 104–05. Fragment 7 2 refers to a mediator who may be Moses, perhaps reflecting the situation in Ex 20:18-20 (ibid., 107). For arguments against FletcherLouis’s reading of 4Q374, see P. Makiello, “Was Moses considered to be an Angel by those at Qumran?” in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, ed. A. Graupner and M. Wolter (BZAW 372; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), pp. 116–22; Brooke, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 213–14. 34.  The publication is by VanderKam and Monica Brady, “377. 4QApocryphal Pentateuch B,” in VanderKam and Brady, consulting eds., Qumran Cave 4 XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), pp. 204–17, with Plates 50–51. See also É. Puech, “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377, Pentateuque Apocryphe B: l’exultation de Moïse,” RevQ 83 (2004), 469–75, for some other suggested readings and restorations. The excellent study by J. Zimmermann (Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran [WUNT 2/104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998], pp. 332–42) appeared before the text was published and contains a preliminary edition. 35.  The translations of 4Q377 are from VanderKam and Brady in DJD 28:214.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­133

the Hebrew Bible,36 although Moses was considered a prophet and prophets are called anointed ones in the Scriptures (1 Kgs 19:16; Isa 61:1; Ps 105:15 = 1Chr 16:22). A similar usage appears in CD 5:20–6:1 (see 4Q266 3 ii:7-9; 269 4 i:1-3): “And at the time of the desolation of the land there arose removers of the bound who led Israel astray. And the land was ravaged because they preached rebellion against the commandments of God given by the hand of Moses and of his holy anointed ones, and because they prophesied lies to turn Israel away from following God.”37 Moses receives the biblical appellation “the man of God” in line 10 (see Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; Ps 90:1; Ezra 3:2),38 and it appears that he is the one sanctified in line 11.39 In that line he is also said to be “like a messenger / angel,” although it is not stated that he actually is one. Moses frequently served as a messenger of divine communications during the years when he led Israel, and that seems to be what line 11 suggests is the meaning here when it adds right after the term: “he would speak from his mouth” (see TMos 11:17). The final preserved line of the column calls him a “man of faithfulness” (Mydsx #y)), as in 4Q378 3 ii + 4 6 (where it is definite) and seems to continue by declaring that no one had been created like him,40 though the text is broken. It may be that the writer is developing the statements of Deut 34:10-12 where Moses is an unparalleled prophet (the text may refer to “wonders” as in Deut 34:11).41 36.  As Bowley writes (“Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 175–76), the use of “his anointed” is not eschatological in this text. Zimmermann had explained the prophetic connections it has in the text and adduced parallels (Messianische Texte, pp. 337, 339–40); see also G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet: Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the Qumran Library (STDJ 47; Leiden: Brill, 2003), pp. 124–27. He rightly recognizes the prophetic character Moses assumes in this part of 4Q377 (see also p. 179), but goes beyond the evidence when he speaks of the “angelified or deified figure of Moses” in 4Q374 and 377 (p. 127). For a fuller study of “his anointed” here, see H.-J. Fabry, “Mose, der ‘Gesalbte JHWHs’. Messianische Aspekte der MoseInterpretation in Qumran,” in A. Graupner and M. Wolter, eds., Moses in Biblical and ExtraBiblical Traditions, pp. 129–42. 37.  The translation is from G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin, 1997). See also A. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 100–02. He deals with the reference to Moses as “his anointed” in the context of studying prophets as anointed ones. 38.  See Jassen, Mediating the Divine, pp. 116–19. 39.  DJD 28:216. There attention is drawn to bYoma 4a, in which R. Simeon b. Laqish is dealing with Moses’ ascent to God in Ex 24:16: “Moses ascended in a cloud, was covered by a cloud, and was sanctified by a cloud, so as to receive the Torah for Israel in sanctity, as it is written, ‘And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai’ (Ex. 24:16)” (translation of Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud, vol. 5, Tractate Yoma, Tractate Sukkah [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005], p. 10). 40.  The expression could be rendered “who of fles[h]” (as in DJD 28) or “who is a messenger” (e.g., Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, p. 141); in the context where Moses is compared to all others who have been created, the former seems the preferable understanding (so also Puech, “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377,” p. 474). 41.  On the titles given to Moses in this section, see Zimmermann, Messianische Texte, p. 339; VanderKam and Brady, DJD 28:216. Fletcher-Louis (All the Glory of Adam, pp. 141–48)

­134

Parables of Enoch

d. 4Q378 (4QApocryphon of Joshuaa)42 In 3 ii + 4 5-6: Joshua says: “And we obeyed Moses … a man upright and great …” As Newsom notes, the first phrase resembles Josh 1:17a (“as we obeyed [listened to] Moses in all things, so we will obey you”); the adjectives “upright” and “great” are not applied to Moses in the Hebrew Bible43 but are quite natural in connection with what the Scriptures report about him. These appear to be the most important descriptive statements about Moses, some of which are based on the Pentateuch and some of which draw inferences from passages in it or perhaps go even slightly beyond it in praising Moses. In a well-preserved work such as the Temple Scroll in which Moses is the implied recipient, his role is unexpectedly modest: “… the author’s effort to remove every mention of Moses and to portray God as speaking in the first person means that although the author conjures Moses’ authority for extrabiblical laws, Moses himself remains invisible.”44 If the so-called Pseudo-Moses texts are in fact Moses texts, he would be associated in them with predicting distant events; but it seems unlikely that the earlier attribution of them to Moses is correct.45 Two later pseudepigraphic works devote extensive sections to Moses and offer a number of statements about his status. 5. The Testament of Moses46 The Testament of Moses centers on the final instructions of Moses to Joshua and depends strongly on parts of Deut 31 (with the Song of Moses in Deut thinks 4Q377 also speaks of a divinized, angelic Moses and finds in it a blending of God and Moses that is supposed to address tensions between various scriptural passages. His reading of the passage is unconvincing. For example, to say Moses is greater than all flesh does not entail he belongs to a different category than other humans (see p. 142). His understanding of Moses as the subject of dm( in line 8 has been effectively refuted by W. van Peursen, “Who was standing on the mountain? The Portrait of Moses in 4Q377,” in A. Graupner and M. Wolter, eds., Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, pp. 99–113; and by Makiello, “Was Moses considered an angel by those at Qumran?” in the same volume, pp. 122–26. See also Brooke, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 214–15. 42.  For the edition, see Newsom, “378. 4QApocryphon of Joshua,” in Qumran Cave 4 XVII Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (consulting ed. J. VanderKam; DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), pp. 241–62, with Plates 17–20. The translation is Newsom’s. 43.  Ibid., pp. 245–46. 44.  D. Falk, “Moses, Texts of,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. L. Schiffman and VanderKam (2 vols.; New York: OUP, 2000), 1:578. He provides a very helpful overview of the references to Moses in the texts found in the Qumran caves. See also Bowley, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 177–78. 45.  See D. Dimant’s short history of research on the relevant manuscripts in the “General Introduction” to her edition of 4Q383, 385-90 in Qumran Cave 4 XXI Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), pp. 1–3. While she thought for a time that some parts of these manuscripts came from a Moses text, she eventually determined that he was not the speaker in them. 46.  At least in its final form the work dates from early in the first century ce (see the survey in N. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung [JSJSup 67;

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­135

32 and Josh 1).47 In 1:14 the reader learns that God designed and prepared Moses from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant. The passage seems not to teach that he was pre-existent; it says, rather, that, even before creation, God’s plan and Moses’ assignment in it were in place.48 According to 3:10-14 (he is called a mediator again in v. 12; cf. 11:17-19), his words will be acknowledged as true in the exile. In this early passage the reader has an indication that the revelation Moses conveys to Joshua is more eschatological or apocalyptic than in Deuteronomy;49 in fact the apocalyptic survey of the future occupies the larger part of the book (2:1–10:10). In the Testament of Moses, Joshua is the character who enhances Moses’ résumé in the laments he raises as the great leader is about to die: “What place will receive you or where will be the marker of your sepulcher? Or who as a man will dare to move your body from place to place? For all who die, there are appropriately their sepulchers in the earth, but your sepulcher is from the rising to the setting of the sun, and from South to the limits of the North, the whole world is your sepulcher” (11:5-8).50 To these remarkable questions and assertions he adds his concern about what Israel’s enemies will think and do when they learn Moses’ life has ended: “Moreover, when the kings of the Amorites hear (of your death), believing that there is no longer with us that sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, master of leaders,51 faithful in all things, the divine prophet for the whole earth, the perfect teacher in the world, now believing that they can storm us, they will say, ‘Let us go up against them’” (11:16). Joshua has the Amorite kings continue their musings by referring to the result of Moses’ absence: if Israel sins against God, there will be no “advocate for them who will bear messages to the Lord on their behalf in the way that Moses was the great messenger. He, in every Leiden: Brill, 2000], pp. 27–30). According to Nickelsburg (“An Antiochan Date for the Testament of Moses,” in Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers, ed. G. Nickelsburg [SBLSCS 4; Cambridge: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973], pp. 33–37), a much earlier form of the text (in the 160s bce) was updated in the first century ce. J. Tromp (The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary [SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993], pp. 116–17) assigns the entire book to the first quarter of the first century ce. Hafemann comments that the choice of Moses as the pseudepigraphic protagonist of the text, as in Jub, demonstrates the authority and prestige that he enjoyed (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” p. 90). 47.  See Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis, pp. 314–18. The book is explicit about its dependence on Deuteronomy (see 1:5), though some find the verse textually problematic (but see Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 135–36). 48.  D. Tiede, “The Figure of Moses in The Testament of Moses,” in Nickelsburg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Moses, p. 90; Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 142–43. Note 12:4-7, 13, where Moses directs attention away from himself and toward God and his plan. 49.  Tiede, “The Figure of Moses,” pp. 88, 92. 50.  The translation is from J. Priest, “Testament of Moses,” in OTP 1:933. Joshua’s questions may have received an answer in the original form of the book, but the ending of it is now lost. See the comments in Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 244–46. 51.  The text has “master of the word.” Tromp (The Assumption of Moses, pp. 254–55) thinks the text originally had “the word of the Lord”; see Priest, “Testament of Moses,” p. 934, n. m, for a defense of his “leaders.”

­136

Parables of Enoch

hour both day and night, had his knees fixed to the earth, praying and looking steadfastly toward him who governs the whole earth with mercy and justice, reminding the Lord of the ancestral covenant and the resolute oath” (11:17). 52 While some of Joshua’s descriptions of Moses derive from the Hebrew Bible, several of the best parallels to the various expressions used to praise Moses can be found in Jewish Greek literature in statements about Moses or even about Wisdom herself (for Moses as a “holy prophet,” see WisSol 11:1; “a divine man,” Ant 3.170; “manifold” used of Wisdom, WisSol 7:22).53 No doubt the author thought extremely highly of Moses, but one wonders whether he wished to convey a note of caution in this regard because he has Moses praise God’s role but downplay his own significance: “Yet (this is) not on account of either my strength or weakness, (it is) simply that his mercies and long-suffering have lighted on me” (12:7; see all of vv. 4-7).54 After surveying Greek sources regarding Moses, D. Tiede has written as follows about the way in which he is presented in the Testament of Moses: “By contrast, the TM does not appear to be remodeling the image of Moses according to any contemporary non-biblical paradigms of the great man. That is, the author of the TM does not reclothe the Moses of biblical tradition in the garb of a nationalistic hero, philosopher-sage, or statesman; but by a few subtle strokes, he highlights those aspects of Moses’ portrait which Jews of the Hasmonaean-Herodian era who knew the biblical writings could recognize as pertaining to the office of prophet.”55 That may be underrating what is said about him, but Moses is undeniably the greatest prophet and mediator though not heavenly or angelic. 6. Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities56 The Biblical Antiquities may belong to a later time than the other texts surveyed,57 and it betrays some growth in the status accorded to Moses. In it he is the subject in chs. 9–19 – the largest segment of text devoted to any person, thus making him the “most dominant figure” in the book.58 He makes 52.  Hafemann emphasizes Moses’ role as intercessor in chs. 11–12 (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 91–94). 53.  See Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 253–58, for more references. 54.  Tromp (The Assumption of Moses, pp. 265–66) effectively argues against Wayne Meeks’ conclusion that according to 12:6 Moses will have an intercessory role even after his death (see Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology [NTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967], pp. 160–61). 55.  Tiede, “The Figure of Moses,” p. 87 (see also pp. 91–92). 56.  Hafemann finds the same focus on Moses as mediator and intercessor in LAB as in Jub and the TMoses (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 94–101). 57.  D. Harrington favors a date around the time of Jesus (“Pseudo-Philo,” in OTP 2:299); Nickelsburg summarizes the evidence but does not decide whether it comes from before, during, or after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce (Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005 (2nd edn.)], p. 269). H. Jacobson (A Commentary on PseudoPhilo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation [2 vols.; AGAJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 1:199-210) favors a post-70 ce date. 58.  F. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: OUP, 1993), p. 52.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­137

his first appearance during the Egyptian bondage when Israelite elders were considering not having children because of the royal plan to kill the boys and enslave the girls. Moses’ father Amram refused to accept their pessimistic scheme that would preclude fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham, declared that he and his wife would raise a family, and urged them to do likewise.59 His resolve pleased God who promised to him: Because Amram’s plan is pleasing to me, and he has not put aside the covenant established between me and his fathers, so behold now he who will be born from him will serve me forever, and I will do marvelous things in the house of Jacob through him and I will work through him signs and wonders for my people that I have not done for anyone else; and I will act gloriously among them and proclaim to them my ways. And I, God, will kindle for him my lamp that will abide in him, and I will show him my covenant that no one has seen. And I will reveal to him my Law and statutes and judgments, and I will burn an eternal light for him, because I thought of him in the days of old, saying, “My spirit will not be a mediator among these men forever, because they are flesh and their days will be 120 years.” (9:7-8)60

Moses’ roles are biblical,61 but here they are predicted, not described as in the Pentateuch; and these predictions are not the first time the Lord had thought about Moses, as he had him in mind already in Gen 6:3 (the 120-year limit on life fits the length of Moses’ life). A further prediction about Moses before his birth came in a vision seen by his sister Miriam.62 She was to tell her parents that he would be thrown into water and later would dry up water; he would also do miracles and become the leader (9:10).63 Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities relates Moses’ birth in 9:12-16 and indicates that he was circumcised (v. 13); the Pharaoh’s daughter recognized him as a Hebrew from his circumcision (v. 15). Though the royal daughter named him Moses, his mother called him Melchiel, and he became glorious above all others (v. 16).64 The tenth chapter of the book briefly sketches the exodus from Egypt and the rescue at the sea, duly noting Moses’ role in both (vv. 1, 4-6).

59.  For the structure of the section and parallels, see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, pp. 52–58. 60.  The translation is by Harrington in “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2. The italics mark a biblical citation (Gen 6:3). 61.  No other character in the book is said to serve God eternally (Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, pp. 57–58). See Jacobson (A Commentary, 1:411-19) for an explanation of the passage and parallels to its statements. 62.  LAB thus joins the T Moses in claiming that Moses’ role was predicted before his birth (Hafemann, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 95–96). 63.  See Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:404. As he notes, the passages give a reason for God’s choice of Moses for his extraordinary role – something Exodus fails to deliver. 64.  For a comparative study of the Moses birth story, see Harrington, “Birth Narratives in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and the Gospels,” in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., ed. M. Horgan and P. Kobelski (New York: Crossroad, 1989), pp. 316–24.

­138

Parables of Enoch

The Sinai experiences and revelations are the subjects of ch. 11. A supplement to the account in Exodus is the more extended description of what God showed to Moses on the mountain during his first 40-day stay: he disclosed not only the Law and tabernacle but also the tree of life, a branch of which he used to sweeten the waters of Marah (v. 15).65 According to 12:1 the light of his face, when he came down from the mountain, exceeded the splendor of the sun and moon.66 The writer credits him with a lengthy intercessory speech in the incident of the golden calf (vv. 8-9; see also 15:7) and seems to say that among God’s later revelations to him was information about the ways of paradise (cf. 13:9). For several chapters after this the text recounts, with alterations but not ones involving Moses directly, the stories about the census (ch. 14), the spies (15), the rebellion of Korah (16), Aaron’s rod (17), and Balaam (18). Chapter 19 contains Moses’ farewell and death. In 19:2-5 he predicts the material in Deut 31:16-18 and recalls passages such as Deut 18:18-22 and 34:1012: “But then you and your sons and all your generations will rise up after you and lament the day of my death and say in their heart, ‘Who will give us another shepherd like Moses or such a judge for the sons of Israel to pray always for our sins and to be heard for our iniquities?’” (19:3).67 In v. 7 he is shown all the land, but he does not enter it so that he does not have to see the graven images the people will serve there although he is apparently allowed to see the Temple (see also v. 10).68 After he intercedes for the people one more time in vv. 8-9, the Lord shows him the land and so much more – such as the place from which manna came “even unto the paths of paradise” (v. 9).69 He learns that in the future, if Israel sins, Moses’ staff will function as a reminder of the covenant like the rainbow after the flood (v. 11).70 To Moses he says: “Now I will take you from here and glorify you with your fathers, and I will give you rest in your slumber and bury you in peace. And all the angels will mourn over you, and the heavenly hosts will be saddened. But neither angel nor man will know your tomb in which you are to be buried until I visit the world. And I will raise up you and your fathers from the land of Egypt in which you sleep and you will come together and dwell in the immortal dwelling place that is not subject to time” (v. 12). The point is further explained in v. 13. Moses asks about the amount of time that has passed and that remains, and the Lord answers his bold question.

65.  See Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:478. 66.  As commentators have noted, the author switches the shining face story from Moses’ second descent of Sinai after a 40-day stay to the first (e.g., Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:482-83). 67.  Murphy comments that “Pseudo-Philo chooses intercessory prayer for sinful Israel as the most important characteristic in a leader” (Pseudo-Philo, p. 91). The shepherd language comes from Num 27:17 (Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:615-16). 68.  Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” p. 327, n. h; Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:622-27. 69.  Murphy notes that several times the book places Israel’s story in a “cosmic framework” (e.g., Pseudo-Philo, p. 93); see Jacobson, A Commentary, 1:636. 70.  Hafemann aptly says that Moses thus becomes “a perpetual intercessor for Israel’s sins” (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” p. 98).

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

139­

The Moses section ends with a remarkable report: And when Moses heard this, he was filled with understanding and his appearance became glorious; and he died in glory according to the word of the Lord, and he buried him as he had promised him. And the angels mourned at his death, and the lightnings and the torches and the arrows went all together before him. And in that day the hymn of the heavenly hosts was not sung because of the passing of Moses, nor was there such a day from the one on which the Lord made man upon the earth, nor shall there be such forever, that the hymn of the angels should stop on account of men; because he loved him very much. And he buried him with his own hands on a high place and in the light of all the world. (19:16)

The writer thus moves comfortably beyond the brief report of his burial in Deut 34:5-12 to produce a spectacular account not unlike the story of his ascent of Mount Sinai.71 In summation, the Second Temple texts from the Land that deal with Moses (and not all of them do, not even the ones that could have mentioned him such as the Apocalypse of Weeks) show the following trends. They retain the framework of the scriptural stories about Moses and the roles he plays in them; at times those roles undergo some expansion or enhancement but not large ones. A few texts offer what may be hints in the direction of his becoming angelic (possibly in Ben Sira; the Animal Apocalypse; 4Q377), but they appear to be reformulations of scriptural texts such as Ex 7:1 and 34:29-35. The latest of the texts surveyed, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, exhibits a greater development in the direction of exalting Moses, though even it does not claim he bypassed death.

Moses in Hellenistic Texts In sources from outside the land of Israel, Moses at times undergoes greater enhancement than in the texts considered thus far. This section of the paper will consider the writings of six Diasporic Jewish authors who develop the character of Moses. Omitted are those works which mention Moses merely in connection with the Law, as for example 2 Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas. The first five authors examined below likely all lived and wrote in Egypt, while the last, Josephus, wrote in Rome. These authors differ from one another in the extent to which they adhere to the scriptural narrative, the literary forms they utilize, and the degree to which their works betray an apologetic intent. Nonetheless, in both form and content, all these authors were influenced by the Egyptian or Greco-Roman world in which they lived. 71.  On the passage, see Jacobson, A Commentary, 2:652-56. Hafemann regards it as a “middle-of-the-road compromise” between the more reserved account in Deut 34 and the later versions in which Moses does not die (“Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” pp. 98–99). See pp. 99–100 for other, scattered references to Moses in LAB.

­140

Parables of Enoch

1. Demetrius the Chronographer Five fragments of the writings of Demetrius the Chronographer are preserved by Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica, where he excerpted Demetrius’ work from Alexander Polyhistor. A sixth fragment is found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata. A reference in this last fragment to Ptolemy IV Philopator suggests that Demetrius likely wrote at the end of the third century 72 bce. Though our knowledge of Demetrius is limited, it is clear that he has at least two concerns in his retelling of the scriptural narrative. Most obviously, he seeks to determine the chronology of his ancestors by fixing and aligning the dates of scriptural events. Additionally, Demetrius, who knew some early Greek translation of the Pentateuch,73 is concerned with answering questions raised by the scriptural text itself. This does not preclude the possibility that Demetrius knew Hebrew; he may have preferred the chronology of the LXX because of his desire to push his national history as far back as possible.74 Moses is mentioned in both Fragment 2 (Praep. ev. 9.21.1-19) and Fragment 3 (Praep. ev. 9.29.1-3). Demetrius’ comments on Moses in Fragment 2 are limited to the chronological task of determining when Moses and his closest relatives lived. His comments here follow the Greek Scriptures. Both the LXX and Demetrius describe Moses’ mother Jochebed as Amram’s uncle’s daughter (thus, cousin), whereas the MT describes her as Amram’s aunt (Ex 6:20).75 Fragment 3 shows Demetrius’s concern with Moses’ character. In spite of his general faithfulness to the Greek Scriptures, Demetrius makes minor interpretive moves which answer questions raised by the text and preserve Moses as a reputable hero. In the first place, he claims that Moses marries an Israelite. A reader of the MT or the LXX would assume that Moses’ wife Zipporah is a Midianite (Ex 2:16), and might wonder why Moses would marry a nonIsraelite.76 Demetrius claims that she was “of the stock of Abraham” (τοῦ Ἁβραὰμ γένους [Praep. ev. 9.29.1])77 by his wife Keturah and proves this with a genealogy from Keturah to Zipporah. The first four generations (Keturah, Jokshan, Dedan,

72.  H. W. Attridge, “Historiography,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone (CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), p. 161; C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors (4 vols.; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1983–96), 1:51. 73.  J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000 [2nd edn.]), p. 34, n. 29; Holladay, Fragments, 1:52-53; G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 158–59. 74.  Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, pp. 159, 165. 75.  According to the genealogical information given in 1Chr 5:27-28 and Num 26:59, Jochebed is Amram’s father’s sister. Lev 18:12 declares that it is unlawful for a man to marry his father’s sister. This likely prompted the change. 76.  Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, p. 160. While Deut 7:1-4 only prohibits Israelites from marrying foreigners from seven specific nations, the text was often understood to be a ban on marrying all Gentiles. This interpretation is assumed in yAbod. Zar. 1:9, for example. 77.  This translation is from J. Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” OTP 2:843-54.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

141­

Reuel / Raguel78) match the genealogy given in LXX Gen 25:1-3.79 Note that Reuel / Raguel does not appear in any extant Hebrew version of this passage. While the Scriptures seem to indicate that Reuel / Raguel and Jethro are different names for the same person and most interpreters take this position, Demetrius presents Reuel / Raguel as the father of Jethro.80 Jethro is then the father of Zipporah, as in Ex 3:1 in both the LXX and the MT. Demetrius goes on to explain how Moses, who was seven generations from Abraham, and Zipporah, who was only six generations from Abraham according to his chronology, would have been the right age to marry each other. Demetrius does this by explaining that Abraham fathered Jokshan (Zipporah’s ancestor) when Isaac was already a grown man and having sons of his own. However, it seems as though the precise ages given by Demetrius are his own invention.81 Thus, Demetrius argues that Moses’ marriage is endogamous in the sense of marriage within one’s tribe or ethnic group. This is distinct from endogamy as marriage of one’s closest relations, which is forbidden in Lev 18. However, marriage to one’s close relatives was common in the Greek world, as demonstrated by Plutarch’s contrasting Greeks with Romans in asking, “Why do [the Romans] not marry women who are closely akin to them?” (The Roman Questions, 108). The possibility remains open that Demetrius here appeals to the respect for endogamy in his Hellenistic milieu. Additionally, Demetrius ensures that Moses is monogamous by conflating Zipporah with Moses’ Ethiopian wife. From Gen 25:2, Demetrius learns that Midian is one of the sons of Abraham through Keturah. Demetrius then relies on the tradition preserved in Gen 25:6, that Abraham sent the offspring of Keturah (including Midian) into the East, to explain that Zipporah lives in a city named after one of her relatives. Finally, Demetrius presumably assumes that Ethiopia is in the East (Praep. ev. 9.29.3);82 thus he can claim that Zipporah is an Ethiopian. So, Moses is not only endogamous, but also monogamous.

78.  The Hebrew Reuel is commonly transliterated into Greek as Raguel. 79.  B. Z. Wacholder argues that the LXX of Gen 25:3 is dependent on Demetrius’s chronology (Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature [Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1974], pp. 101–02). Against this, Sterling (Historiography and Self-Definition, p. 159, n. 124) and Collins (Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 34) argue that Demetrius copies his genealogy from the LXX. Given the challenge of dating both texts and the likelihood of multiple versions of the LXX, it is probably not possible to decide the matter. 80.  There is much scriptural confusion over the name of Moses’ father-in-law. He is called Reuel / Raguel (Ex 2:18), Jethro (Exod 3:1), and Hobab (Num 10:29; Judg 4:11). Additionally, some LXX variants call Moses’ father-in-law Jethro in Ex 2:18. 81.  See Wacholder, Eupolemus, pp. 100–01. Presumably making Reuel / Raguel the father of Jethro, and thus adding an extra generation, makes it easier for Moses and Zipporah to be approximately the same age. However, it may also be a way to deal with the multiplicity of names. 82.  This final move is difficult to account for. The Hebrew #wk is translated into Greek as Ethiopia. Cush was both an area in the approximate location of present-day Ethiopia and a region in northern Arabia. If Demetrius knew this, then he could reasonably place Ethiopia / Cush east of Egypt, and perhaps even east of Israel. However, it is also possible that Demetrius simply thought the one and only Ethiopia was in the East.

­142

Parables of Enoch

J. J. Collins labels monogamy as a Jewish concern.83 However, polygamy is easily supported from the scriptural text,84 whereas monogamy was common practice under Athenian law and later in the Hellenistic world. It is not clear to what extent Jewish preference for monogamy at Demetrius’ time was influenced by the Hellenistic milieu. Diodorus Siculus reports that according to Hecataus of Abdera, “when [the Jews] became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations (both under Persian rule and under that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians), many of their traditional practices were disturbed” (40.3.8). Thus it appears that, over time, Jewish marriage practices were reshaped to reflect the surrounding culture. Demetrius himself may be ensuring that Jewish marriage practices conform to the Hellenistic world’s standard of monogamy. 2. Artapanus The fragments of Artapanus’ writings are preserved by Eusebius in book 9 of his Praeparatio evangelica, and Eusebius knew Artapanus only through the summaries of Alexander Polyhistor. A small portion of the text is also preserved by Clement of Alexandria. In spite of our third-hand evidence, it appears as though Artapanus’ presentation was limited to three figures from Israelite history: Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. In regard to all three, Artapanus is concerned only with their exploits in Egypt, and he presents each as a founder of culture. While Artapanus knew a version of the LXX,85 his narrative is not limited by the scriptural text. The only certain factors in dating Artapanus’ work are his reliance on the LXX and Polyhistor’s knowledge of his work.86 The bulk of Artapanus’s text is devoted to the figure of Moses. Notably, Artapanus does not present Moses as a lawgiver.87 This scriptural commonplace gives way to images of culture-bringer and national hero.88 To present Moses as the inventor of all things beneficial to humanity Artapanus ascribes to Moses a long list of the “many useful benefits” (Praep. ev. 9.27.4)89 he created for the Egyptians: [Moses] invented boats and devices for stone construction and the Egyptian arms and the implements for drawing water and for warfare, and philosophy. Further he 83.  Between Athens and Jerusalem, pp. 34–35. 84.  Well-known examples of men who took multiple wives are Jacob, Hannah’s husband Elkanah, and Solomon. 85.  J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p. 128; Sterling, Historiography and SelfDefinition, pp. 173–74. 86.  Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, pp. 168–69. 87.  E. S. Gruen notes this omission (Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998], p. 157). See also Collins, “Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (JSJSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 44–57, esp. p. 46. 88.  Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 43. 89.  All translations of Artapanus’s writings are from Collins, “Artapanus,” OTP 2:898-903.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­143

divided the state into 36 nomes and appointed for each of the nomes the god to be worshiped, and for priests the sacred letters, and that they should be cats and dogs and ibises. (9.27.4)

Of particular interest is Moses’ contribution to Egyptian religion. Moses’ intent in these inventions was to maintain “the monarchy firm for Chenephres” (9.27.5), his adoptive father and the king of Egypt, thus presenting Moses as an ideal Egyptian. In spite of Moses’ goodwill, Chenephres buried “the creatures which Moses had made sacred … because he wished to conceal Moses’ inventions” (9.27.12). Perhaps even more remarkably, Artapanus attributes a natural event to Moses. Moses strikes the Nile with his rod to initiate the first plague, and the resultant inundation is the first annual flooding of the Nile River. Moses not only lays the foundation for all Egyptian culture, but also provides the sustenance for all Egyptian life!90 Additionally, the Ethiopians learn circumcision from Moses. According to Artapanus, Moses encounters the Ethiopians while on military campaign against them. Even though they are his enemies, the Ethiopians love Moses “so much that they learned the circumcision of the genital organs from him” (9.27.10). Artapanus appears to be reframing the Greek tradition that circumcision began in Egypt to the advantage of Moses, the inventor of all things.91 Artapanus also identifies Moses with multiple legendary figures. He equates Moses with the Greek figure Mousaeus (9.27.3) and claims him as the teacher of Orpheus (9.27.4), who the Egyptians claimed had visited Egypt and returned to Greece with the rites which he had learned.92 Artapanus not only associates Moses with the known and revered Mousaeus, but also reverses the common relationship between Mousaeus and Orpheus so as to exalt Moses as the fount of Greek culture.93 Artapanus also associates Moses with Hermes. Because the Egyptians loved Moses for his inventions, he “was deemed worthy of godlike honor by the priests and called Hermes, on account of the interpretation of the sacred letters” (9.27.6). Additionally, E. Gruen points out that Artapanus “shrewdly exploited stories about Egyptian and other Near Eastern heroes and divinities, notably Sesostris, Semiramis, Isis, [and] Osiris,” by attributing their accomplishments to Moses.94 In his attempt to idealize the figure of Moses, Artapanus not only brings new material to the narrative of the LXX, but he also reshapes its storyline. One of the more problematic events in the scriptural presentation of Moses is his killing of the Egyptian in Ex 2:11-15. In this account, Moses sees an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, and having checked to make sure no one is watching, he 90.  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 128–29. 91.  Holladay, Fragments, 1: 236, n. 63. 92.  Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 41, n. 62; Sterling, Historiography and SelfDefinition, p. 178. 93.  Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 41, n. 62. 94.  Heritage and Hellenism, p. 158.

­144

Parables of Enoch

kills the Egyptian and buries him in the sand. Once Moses discovers that his murder is known, he flees to Midian. Artapanus, in an attempt to avoid this image of Moses as an ashamed murderer who runs away, presents a different legend which is known to us also from the writings of Josephus.95 In this version of Moses’ life, Moses is selected to lead the Egyptians into battle against the Ethiopians. When Moses succeeds against all odds, the Egyptian king, Chenephres, is jealous of him and plans to kill him. However, Moses hears of the plot in time and kills his attacker in self-defense. This story serves the narrative function of moving Moses from the safety of the Pharaoh’s palace to exile in Midian or Arabia, which is necessary to set up the next major events of his life. This legend further maintains the scriptural detail that Moses killed an Egyptian, but creates a scenario which exalts Moses and in which such killing is justified.96 Even this problematic element of the scriptural text is put to the service of presenting Moses as an ideal Egyptian hero. 3. Aristobulus The fragments of Aristobulus’ writing are preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastica historia, book 7, and Praeparatio evangelica, books 8 and 13. Parts of these fragments are also preserved in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata. Aristobulus likely wrote during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 bce)97 and lived in Alexandria.98 Aristobulus refers to Moses as “our lawgiver” and calls him a prophet who is full of “wisdom and … the divine spirit” (8.10.4).99 Such a description appears to follow the LXX. However, Aristobulus’ image of Moses is shaped by his interpretation of the Mosaic Law as not only compatible with but also the source of Greek philosophy. Thus, for Aristobulus, Moses is more properly a foundational philosopher. In the first place, Aristobulus argues for a philosophical reading of the Law. He allegorically interprets the Scriptures’ anthropomorphisms; for example, when Moses speaks of God’s hands, he means God’s power (Praep. ev. 8.10.69). Such a move is intended both to challenge Jews “who are devoted to the letter alone” (8.10.5) and to show that the Mosaic Law does not stand in

95.  For a summary of the possible relationships between the legend as presented in Artapanus and in Josephus, see D. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983), 135–56, esp. 139–43. 96.  Barclay notes that “Artapanus has managed to use Ex 2.10-15 to produce a faultless Moses” (“Manipulating Moses: Exodus 2:10-15 in Egyptian Judaism and the New Testament,” in Text as Pretext [Sheffield: JSOT, 1992], pp. 28–46, esp. p. 34). See also Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, p. 180. 97.  Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 187; Holladay, Fragments, 3:45-46, 74; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–87), 3.1:579. 98.  Holladay, Fragments, 3:75. 99.  All translations of Aristobulus’ writings are from A. Yarbro Collins, “Aristobulus,” OTP 2:831-42.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

145

tension with the Hellenistic philosophy which Aristobulus so admires.100 In his conception, Judaism is a “philosophical school” (13.13.8), and the Jews are “a nation of philosophers.”101 Second, Aristobulus not only identifies similarities between the Jewish Scriptures and Greek philosophy, but he is so bold as to claim that the Mosaic Law properly understood is the source of the great Greek philosophers and poets.102 In Fragment 2, while lauding Moses as wise and filled with the divine spirit, Aristobulus claims that among those who admire Moses are philosophers and poets “who took significant material from him and are admired accordingly” (8.10.4). In Fragment 3 he claims that Plato “imitated our legislation and that he had investigated thoroughly each of the elements in it” (13.12.1) and that Pythagoras “transferred many of our doctrines and integrated them into his own system of beliefs” (13.12.1). To make such dependence plausible, Aristobulus claims that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek prior to “the conquests of Alexander and the Persians” (13.12.1). In Fragments 4 and 5, Aristobulus quotes from Orpheus, Aratus, Hesiod, Homer, and Linus to demonstrate that the source of their wisdom is the Jewish Scriptures. Some scholars have noted that many, though certainly not all, of these citations are pseudonymous. It is likely that Aristobulus did not pen these verses himself but rather found them in florilegia containing Jewish forgeries.103 4. Ezekiel Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge is a Hellenistic tragic drama written in iambic trimeter. Fragments of this text comprising 269 lines are preserved in Eusebius’s Praeparatio evangelica, Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, and Pseudo-Eustathius’s Commentarius in Hexaemeron.104 Ezekiel certainly knew some version of the LXX,105 as evidenced by multiple textual parallels,106 and for the most part, he is faithful to its storyline. However, two additions in particular serve to enhance Moses’ image – Ezekiel’s description of Moses’ education and Moses’ dream vision and its interpretation. 100.  P. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. E. Stone (CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), p. 278; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 188; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974), 1.164; Schürer, History, 3.1:582. 101.  Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” pp. 275–76; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, p. 164. 102.  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 150; Schürer, History, 3.1:582. 103.  Holladay, Fragments, 3:70-71; Schürer, History, 3.1:583. 104.  Eusebius knew Ezekiel through the writings of Alexander Polyhistor; the same is probably also true of Clement (H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel [Cambridge: CUP, 1983], pp. 36–37). 105.  As with Artapanus, we can say confidently only that Ezekiel wrote after the translation of the LXX and before his work was summarized by Alexander Polyhistor. For a discussion of the possibilities of a more precise dating, see Holladay, Fragments, 2:308-11. 106.  Holladay, Fragments, 2:302; Jacobson, Exagoge, p. 40.

­146

Parables of Enoch

The scriptural text makes no comment on Moses’ education; many later narrators fill in this gap,107 and Ezekiel is no exception. According to Ezekiel, Moses received both a Jewish and a royal education. Before returning to the palace, Moses received instruction from his mother concerning “all things … pertaining to [his] father’s God and race” (34-35).108 Once in the princess’ care, Moses was taught all things necessary to be a prince (36-38). In the context of the story, this would be an Egyptian education, though J. Barclay has suggested that Ezekiel’s audience, being Greek, would have imagined a Greek education.109 Perhaps the most interesting element of Ezekiel’s text is Moses’ report of a dream vision and his father-in-law’s interpretation of it (68-89), a portion of the text which thoroughly departs from the scriptural Exodus account. According to Ezekiel, prior to the scene at the burning bush, Moses reports a dream in which he sees an immense throne on Mount Sinai (68-69), upon which “sat a man (φώς)”110 with crown and scepter (70-72). The φώς then gives the scepter and crown to Moses and invites him to sit upon the throne; the φώς himself leaves the throne (74-76). Moses gazes over the whole earth and counts the number of the stars (77-80). Moses’ father-in-law serves as dream interpreter. He says to Moses, “you shall cause a mighty throne to rise, and you yourself shall rule and govern men” (85-86). Additionally, he claims that Moses’ seeing the whole earth and all the stars means that Moses will have the gift of prophecy to see “things present, past, and future” (89). The variety of scholarly opinions regarding the meaning of this text testifies to its difficulty. The first challenge is to determine who is the φώς sitting on the throne. While the word itself usually means “man,” most scholars have identified the φώς as God.111 This is a reasonable decision given that the φώς is pictured seated on a throne in the heavens. Andrei Orlov stands as the most compelling voice of dissention, arguing that the φώς is best understood as Moses’ heavenly counterpart.112 107.  See A. Hilhorst, “‘And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22),” in Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 153–76. 108.  All translations of Ezekiel’s Exagoge are from R. G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” OTP 2:803-19. 109.  Barclay, “Manipulating Moses,” p. 36. 110.  Note that while φῶς means “light,” the less common φώς means “man.” 111.  For example, W. Meeks claims he “can be no other than God himself” (The ProphetKing, p. 148). 112.  A. Orlov, “In the Mirror of the Divine Face: The Enochic Features of the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. G. J. Brooke, H. Najman, and L.T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 183–99, esp. pp. 192–95; Orlov, “Moses’ Heavenly Counterpart in the Book of Jubilees and the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian,” Biblica 88 (2007), 153–73. Two other dissenting voices are M. Hadas, who describes him as “a royal personage” (Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion [Morningside Heights, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959], p. 99), and Y. Gutman, who says that the φώς is probably not God, but some human figure, perhaps Enoch (The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature [2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958], 2:43 [in Hebrew]).

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

147

Another difficulty is determining which texts and images influenced Ezekiel in constructing this dream vision of the heavenly throne. It is relatively certain that Ezekiel would have known at least the mountain-top vision of God in Exodus 24, and perhaps also the throne vision in Ezek 1:26; these seem to have influenced his presentation. Dreams and visions are also widely attested in the Scriptures, and Ezekiel was likely aware of those in Gen 28, 37; Isa 6; and Dan 2, 7. Additionally, Ezekiel’s throne vision displays many similarities with Enochic literature, as various scholars have observed. Pieter van der Horst has helpfully identified multiple points of contact between the dream vision in the Exagoge and Enoch’s heavenly journeys as recorded in 3 Enoch:113 God makes a throne for Enoch which is similar to the throne of Glory, God’s own throne (10:1); God gives him a garment of Glory and a royal crown (12:1-3); God makes him ruler over all kingdoms and all heavenly beings (10:3); all the angels of every rank, and the angels of sun, moon, stars, and planets, fall prostrate when Enoch sits on his throne (14:1-5); he knows the names of all the stars (46:1-2…); God reveals to him all the secrets and mysteries of heaven and earth so that Enoch knows past, present and future (10:5; 11:1; cf. 45:1; 48(D):7).114

Van der Horst admits that some of these parallel elements are already present in 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch. Orlov finds further similarities between Ezekiel’s throne vision and the Enochic literature, pointing to the “oneiromantic [throne] perspective”115 shared by both narratives and the main figure’s journey beyond the earthly realm.116 All this strongly suggests that Ezekiel was aware of some Enochic traditions and utilized them in his own drama.117 There is also the possibility that Ezekiel’s inclusion of a throne vision is influenced by his Hellenistic milieu. Jane Heath has argued that the image of Moses on God’s throne would have reminded his audience of Homer on the throne of Zeus. This image of Homer in the guise of the god was common by the second century when “Smyrna minted coins showing Homer enthroned as Zeus, holding a scepter and a bookroll in place of a thunderbolt.”118 A similar image appears in the relief by Archelaos of Priene, suggesting such images were common.119 113.  While the final form of 3En is later than the fourth century, P. W. van der Horst argues that the relevant material is much older (“Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34.1 [1983], 21–29, esp. 24–25). 114.  “Moses’ Throne Vision,” pp. 24–25. 115.  Orlov, “In the Mirror of the Divine Face,” p. 187. 116.  “In the Mirror of the Divine Face,” pp. 188–89. 117.  Against this position, Jacobson finds that the differences between the Exagoge and the Enochic literature are more significant than the similarities, claiming that “Ezekiel’s version of the ascension-type vision is a demythologization of the Enoch-type” (“Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel’s Exagoge,” Illinois Classical Studies 6 [1981], 272–93, see esp. 275). 118.  J. Heath, “Homer or Moses? A Hellenistic Perspective on Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel Tragicus,” JJS 58 (2007), 1–18, see esp. 8. 119.  Heath, “Homer or Moses?,” 8–9.

­148

Parables of Enoch

An additional challenge is to determine the message which Ezekiel intended to relay. First, the vision and the interpretation seem not to match one another. The dream emphasizes divine and royal roles, whereas the interpretation focuses on prophecy and also mentions judgment and leadership.120 Second, God vacating the throne is certainly unique,121 if indeed the φώς is God, but it is not clear what Ezekiel intends Moses’ subsequent assumption of the heavenly throne to mean. Perhaps we are to understand that Moses is heavenly122 or divine,123 or that Moses somehow functions in the place of God.124 Possibly Moses is the exclusive channel through which one approaches God.125 At the least, Moses is exalted beyond his position in the scriptural narrative, to the heavenly realms where only very few are permitted to travel, much less to sit on the throne. Finally, some elements of Moses’ character which may be identified as flaws are retained by Ezekiel. Barclay suggests that in this way, Moses is presented as “a tragic hero.”126 Like Ion, as well as Romulus and Remus, he is abandoned as a child, but later becomes great. Like Oedipus, he is a murderer who flees but later saves his people.127 In this way, Ezekiel seems to form Moses into a Greek hero.128 5. Philo Philo’s fullest description of Moses is found in his De vita Mosis, the first book of which is organized chronologically as Philo tells the story of Moses’ life; the second is arranged topically according to Moses’ roles. For Philo, Moses is philosopher-king, high priest, lawgiver, and prophet, “and in each function he won the highest place” (Mos. 2.3).129 Philo shapes Moses as a perfect man and a model for emulation according to contemporary Greek ideals, which Philo himself espouses.130 In the first place, Philo begins his presentation with a discussion of Moses’ ancestry, birth, and upbringing as would be appropriate in any Greco-Roman biography.131 Philo assigns Moses to the ancient Chaldean race (1.5) and lauds Moses’ parents as “the best of their contemporaries” (1.7). Moses’ education is more fully developed by Philo than by any other Hellenistic Jewish author. Teachers came from throughout Egypt and all the surrounding countries to instruct him, and 120.  Heath, “Homer or Moses?,” 3; Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” pp. 27–28. 121.  Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, p. 131; Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” p. 25. 122.  Orlov, “In the Mirror of the Divine Face,” pp. 192–95. 123.  Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” p. 25. 124.  Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, p. 133. 125.  Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” p. 27. 126.  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 137. 127.  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 137; Jacobson, “Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian,” GRBS 22 (1981), 167–78, see esp. 175. 128.  Barclay, “Manipulating Moses,” p. 35. 129.  All translations of Philo’s writings are from the Loeb Classical Library. 130.  Barclay, “Manipulating Moses,” p. 37. 131.  L. H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), p. 35.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­149

he soon surpassed them in knowledge. He learned Egyptian mathematics and music, Assyrian letters, and Chaldean science. From the Greeks he received “the rest of the regular school course” (1.23). Philo defies the bounds of chronological reason to give Moses the best education, and the kind that Philo himself likely had, a Greek education.132 Additionally, Philo molds Moses into an ascetic according to the Stoic tradition. As a child he did not content himself with fun and games, but “applied himself to hearing and seeing what was sure to profit the soul” (1.20). As an adolescent he avoided lust and temptation, and learned to calm his passions (1.25-26). Moses also bears resemblance to Philo’s Therapeutae; according to Philo, Moses “made a special practice of frugal contentment, and had an unparalleled scorn for a life of luxury” (1.29). In order to present Moses in the best possible light, Philo, like authors before and after him, reshapes portions of the LXX. For example, Philo rearranges the chronology of the events in Egypt during Moses’ youth.133 According to the scriptural account, the Hebrews are enslaved in Egypt prior to the Pharaoh’s decision to kill all the newborn boys and Moses’ birth. Philo recognizes two problems here. First, it is illogical for a ruler to kill his own male slaves, and second, this order of events means that Moses sits idly in the palace while his Hebrew kin suffer as slaves. To alleviate this, Philo rearranges the events so that the Pharaoh decides to enslave the Hebrews only after Moses has grown up, which allows Moses to go out and visit his kin shortly after the beginning of their enslavement. Philo continues his reshaping of events so as to present Moses’ killing of the Egyptian, mentioned above as being one of the more problematic events in Moses’ life, in a positive light. According to Philo, the Hebrew slaves were treated so badly that they were not even allowed to take breaks to sleep and thus began to die from bodily exhaustion (1.38-39), and their taskmasters were especially cruel (1.37, 43). Moses, having tried to help the situation with words, kills “the cruelest of all” the taskmasters, and he judged this deed “a righteous action” (1.44). Thus, Philo eliminates the guilt and embarrassment Moses apparently feels for killing the Egyptian in the scriptural account, and he judges Moses’ action as not only justified but laudable. By rearranging the narrative so that Moses is not living a life of luxury while his kin are suffering, Philo is able to emphasize that Moses does not renounce his ancestral ties and customs. Moses is immediately concerned about the enslavement of his people. While such an assessment is not entirely inconsistent with the scriptural account, this particular emphasis betrays Philo’s concern to present Moses as a model Jew who remains true to his Judaism, even when tempted with the trappings of worldly success, as Philo expects his contemporaries to do.134 132.  Barclay, “Manipulating Moses,” p. 38. Barclay adds that Moses’ education is similar to “the ideal curriculum for philosopher-kings as described by Plato.” 133.  Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, p. 38. 134.  Philo disapproved of his own nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, who considered success in the Greco-Roman world to be of greater value than loyalty to Judaism, its laws, and its

1­150 50

Raised from the Dead According to Scripture

Philo conceives of Moses as having an especially close relationship with God, and he presents Moses’ ascent of Sinai as a mystical experience.135 Philo writes, “For he was named god and king of the whole nation, and entered, we are told, into the darkness where God was, that is into the unseen, invisible, incorporeal and archetypal essence of existing things” (1.158). Further, in Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum, Philo describes Moses as worthy to ascend Sinai and approach God because he is “divinely inspired and filled with God … like the monad” (2.29).136 Outside of De vita Mosis, Philo presents Moses as a source for Greek knowledge, as did Aristobulus before him. In Quis rerum divinarum heres sit, Philo argues that what the Greeks claim as their own had already been recorded in the Scriptures,137 by claiming that Heraclitus’ “discovery” that two opposites form one whole was already shown by Moses (213-14).138 In De aeternitate mundi, Philo states that Moses said the world “was created and imperishable” long before Hesiod said the same (18-19). Thus Philo shows that the Greeks “cribbed their best ideas from Moses.”139 6. Josephus Josephus’ portrait of Moses emerges primarily from books two through four of his Antiquities, completed in 93 or 94 ce.140 While it is widely recognized that this work and the image of Moses within it function apologetically,141 an even more explicitly apologetic presentation of Moses is found in Josephus’ Contra Apionem. In this latter work, Josephus names those pagan authors whom he argues have unfairly maligned the name of the Jewish lawgiver; in fact, this work is the reason that much of their writings have been preserved. Thus, it appears that Josephus intends to restore Moses’ reputation through his writings, and the picture we find in both Antiquities and Contra Apionem supports this suspicion. Josephus casts Moses according to the model of a Greco-Roman mythic or political hero. Moses’ character is marked by his laudable ancestry, good birth, and physical beauty. Josephus presents Moses such that he will be admired by not only Jews (or at least Hellenized Jews), but also Greeks and Romans. practices (D. R. Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. A. Kamesar [Cambridge: CUP, 2009], pp. 9–31, see esp. pp. 13–14). 135.  Wayne Meeks, The Prophet-King, p. 111. 136.  Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision,” p. 25. 137.  H. Clifford, “Moses as Philosopher-Sage in Philo,” in Moses in Biblical and ExtraBiblical Traditions (Berlin: Walter DeGruyter, 2007), pp. 151–67, see esp. p. 155. 138.  Philo bases this claim on Gen 15:10 in which, at God’s command, Abram cuts animals in half and places the halves opposite one another. 139.  Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 163. 140.  Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary (vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, ed. Steve Mason [Leiden: Brill, 2000]), p. xvii. 141.  See, for example, Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, p. 61; Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses,” JQR 82.3-4 (1992), 285–328; 83.1-2 (1992), 7–50; 83.3-4 (1993), 301–30; see esp. 1:285.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­151

Regarding Moses’ ancestry, his father Amran is described as “a Hebrew of noble birth” (2.210),142 and Josephus emphasizes that Moses is the “seventh from Abraham” (2.229), which is presumably a position of special honor (as Enoch is the seventh from Adam).143 Later, the voice from the burning bush identifies Moses as “a man of virtue sprung from illustrious ancestors” (2.267).144 According to Josephus, Moses’ birth is surrounded by divine signs. An Egyptian temple scribe predicts “to the king that there would be born to the Israelites at that time one who would abase the sovereignty of the Egyptians and exalt the Israelites” (2.205), an announcement which terrifies the Egyptians. This not only exalts Moses, but also provides a precise cause for the Pharaoh’s decision that every male born to an Israelite should be killed. Additionally, Moses’ own father, who is concerned about the continuation of the Israelite race and his own unborn child, prays to God. In response, God appears to Amram in his sleep to tell him that his own child is the one foretold by the Egyptian temple scribe, and this child will “be remembered … not by Hebrews alone but even by alien nations” (2.216). This is similar to Pseudo-Philo’s retelling in which Moses’ birth is predicted to Amram (9:7-8). Moses’ physical beauty is emphasized many times. When the princess sees Moses in the basket, she is attracted by his “size and beauty” (2.224), unlike in the scriptural account in which she takes pity on the child because he is crying. When Moses is a toddler people seeing him in the streets forget about their business and stop “to gaze at leisure upon him” (2.231), so magnificent is his appearance. Much later in life, Moses proves his physical stamina during his desert journey to Midian.145 Fleeing for his life, Moses avoids open roads and instead travels through the desert, a journey he makes without provisions, “proudly confident of his powers of endurance” (2.256). Additionally, aware of accusations that Moses was a leper, Josephus consistently distances Moses from any mention of the disease. At the burning bush when God reassures Moses with signs, Moses draws his hand out of his bosom and it is not covered with leprosy, as in the Hebrew Scriptures, but rather is “white, of a color resembling chalk” (2.273).146 Josephus’ discussion of the laws concerning leprosy attempts to avoid any suggestion that Jews commonly experience the disease. For example, Moses “banished from the city” those who had leprosy, rather than from the camp as in Lev 13:46, to suggest that “there were no lepers in Jerusalem in Josephus’ own day.”147 Such a strict law would certainly not be promulgated by one who was a leper himself. 142.  All translations of Josephus’ writings are from the Loeb Classical Library. 143.  1En 37:1; 60:8; Jude 14. 144.  G. Hata, “The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987), p. 186. 145.  Hata, “The Story of Moses,” pp. 185–86. 146.  The reference to leprosy here is similarly omitted in the Greek Scriptures. 147.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 1:310.

­152

Parables of Enoch

The concept of Moses as a leader is not foreign to the scriptural account, but Josephus shapes his narrative so as to emphasize Moses’ success not only as a leader but particularly as a general. Josephus introduces military campaigns into his account. He adopts the legend of Moses leading the Egyptians in battle against the Ethiopians, a form of which is also preserved in Artapanus. Here, Moses is a wise strategist; he uses ibises to scare off serpents, thus bringing his army through a region generally rendered impassable and surprising the enemy (2.244-48). Moses’ valiant efforts impress the Ethiopian princess and lead to their marriage,148 but his success inspires envy among the Egyptians. Later in the narrative, Josephus reconfigures Moses’ call at the burning bush as a call to battle.149 He is sent as “commander and leader of the Hebrew hosts” (2.268). During the Exodus, Moses leads the Israelite “army” (στρατός [3.5]) out of Egypt and to their new home. Yet this army was not trained for the vicissitudes of war and included “a rabble of women and children” (3.5), which is likely influenced by the description in Ex 12:37-38, but is also reminiscent of the disordered troops in Xenophon’s Anabasis.150 Josephus exaggerates the Israelites’ rebellion in the wilderness so as to give Moses greater opportunity to excel in leadership.151 During the desert wanderings, Moses proves himself “the best of generals, the sagest of counselors, and the most conscientious of guardians” (Apion 2.158). Additionally, Josephus minimizes the role of Aaron in order to give greater glory to Moses. In Ex 4:30, Aaron speaks to and performs signs before the elders of the Israelites, but according to Josephus, Moses carries out these tasks (2.280). While in Ex 5:1 both Aaron and Moses present themselves before the Pharaoh, in Josephus’ text, Moses goes alone (2.281). In Ex 7:10, Aaron performs the sign in which a staff becomes a snake, but according to Josephus, Moses performs this wonder (2.284, 287).152 Josephus lauds Moses as a lawgiver, a well-recognized role in the GrecoRoman world and one which Greeks and Romans as early as Hecataeus of Abdera attributed to Moses. In order to make Moses more like other famous lawgivers, Josephus presents him as giving not only laws, but also a constitution (πολιτεὶα [Ant 4.194, 196, 302]).153 Josephus enhances Moses’ role as lawgiver by naming him “the most ancient” (Apion 2.154)154 and by noting the longevity of the Mosaic legislation (Apion 2.226-27). As part of his attempt to present Moses in the best possible light, Josephus omits many potentially embarrassing episodes. Like others before him, Josephus 148.  It is possible that the legend of Moses’ campaign against the Ethiopians originates in an attempt to explain the existence of Moses’ Ethiopian wife. The creation of the legend certainly predated Josephus, given the similar material found in Artapanus. 149.  Hata, “The Story of Moses,” p. 186. 150.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 2:21. 151.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 1:317, 2:24. 152.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 1:311-12. 153.  Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 3:321. 154.  Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, p. 8.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­153

apparently finds Moses’ killing of the Egyptian problematic, but unlike others, Josephus addresses the problem by eliminating the story altogether. In place of it, Josephus recounts the tale of Moses fighting against the Ethiopians. The Egyptians repay Moses’ generalship on their behalf with envy and hatred, and Moses’ flight from Egypt is explained by the Egyptians’ hatred of Moses and their suggestions to the king that Moses be put to death before he had a chance to “revolutionize Egypt” (Ant 2.254). Additionally, Josephus omits all references to Moses’ speech impediment (Ex 4:10; 6:12).155 So as not to detract from his picture of Moses as selfcontrolled, Josephus omits the making of the golden calf and Moses responding by breaking the tablets.156 Perhaps for the same reason, in Josephus’ text there is no mention of Moses striking, rather than speaking to, the rock (Ant 4.85).

Conclusions The Diasporic texts are strikingly different from the texts from the Land in the way that they present the figure of Moses. Perhaps the most explicit difference is that the former present Moses according to Egyptian and Greco-Roman roles. Artapanus presents Moses as the founder of Egyptian culture, and Aristobulus, Philo, and Josephus claim that Moses is the source of Greek philosophy. Both Ezekiel and Josephus form Moses into a Greek hero. Josephus further presents Moses as a military leader, while Philo shapes him into a philosopher-king. Even when Hellenistic authors present Moses within categories from the Hebrew Bible, these categories are redefined according to Hellenistic standards. For example, when Josephus presents Moses as a lawgiver, he is the most ancient lawgiver who supplies not only laws but also a constitution (πολιτεὶα). Additionally, note that the Hellenistic authors utilize forms which are foreign to the Scriptures but common in their cultural milieus. Demetrius follows the ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις (“difficulties and solutions”) form; Ezekiel writes in iambic trimeter; Philo utilizes elements of the encomium; and Josephus places his writing in the tradition of apologetic historiography. Yet, this distinction between the Diasporic authors and those from the Land should not be overstressed, nor should these authors be considered a monolithic group. For example, Demetrius’s writings bear the most resemblance to the texts from the Land; the difficulties in the scriptural text for which he finds solutions are those which would trouble a non-Hellenistic Jewish audience. In the bulk of Ezekiel’s account, he follows the scriptural narrative far more closely than does Philo or Josephus. Second, just because the Hellenistic authors have adopted forms and roles from their cultural contexts does not mean that they have lost connection with and commitment to the Jewish Scriptures. In the case of each of the six authors 155.  156. 

Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 2:11. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait,” 2:30.

­154

Parables of Enoch

surveyed, it is possible to determine that he is reliant on a Greek version of the Scriptures. It is each author’s concern with preserving the viability of Jewish tradition and the figure of Moses which leads him to solve the problems he finds in the text. The new elements in Moses’ story are motivated not only by authorial creativity but also by difficult scriptural passages. Thus, S. Hafeman goes too far when he says that Moses “is portrayed in the apologetic literature in ways one could hardly have anticipated on the basis of the biblical tradition alone.”157 Rather, the portrayal of Moses in these texts grows out of a response to the scriptural tradition which seeks to safeguard it in a new cultural environment. Nonetheless, there is a difference between the Diasporic texts and those from the Land. How are we to account for this difference? In the first place, the authors of these texts were not only Jews, but also Hellenes. They lived in Jewish communities which necessarily integrated Jewish faith and Hellenistic culture, however conscious or unconscious this process may have been. Additionally, these authors are writing for a Greek and Roman audience. Scholarly debates continue concerning the particular audience – internal or external – for which many of the works under consideration were intended.158 However, in this context, a Jewish audience is a Hellenistic audience and brings to the text many expectations and concerns common to Hellenistic culture. Yet, the post-scriptural presentation of Moses in these Jewish writers is the result of more than the permeation of Hellenistic culture into Jewish life. The world of the Diaspora was marked by ethnic competition for antiquity and superiority. To compete in this world, Hellenistic Jews presented their ethnic group as the most ancient, their lawgiver as the first and most enduring, and their founder as the inventor of everything necessary for life. In this competition, Moses became a “battle ground”159 in multiple senses. First, while Moses’ authority was assumed in Palestine, it had to be argued for in the Diasporic world,160 and this was done by presenting Moses in roles which were known and admired by Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Second, Jewish arguments for antiquity and superiority were centered on Moses because he was the right type of figure. Other cultures also had founders and lawgivers, and thus Jewish authors placed Moses, their lawgiver, in competition with his counterparts. Third, non-Jews knew about Moses. Some knew him as a lawgiver and founding figure. Many knew him in connection with an Exodus story.161 Some of these pictures of Moses were derogatory in Jewish eyes, and 157.  “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” p. 103. 158.  For example, determining the audience of Philo’s De vita Mosis involves considering the relationship between this work and the “Exposition of the Law,” as well as examining how the internal evidence of this work compares with that of works whose audiences are easier to determine. See Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses, pp. 11–16; Schürer, History, 3.1:854-55; J. R. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. A. Kamesar (Cambridge: CUP, 2009), pp. 32–64, see esp. pp. 34, 47, 50–51. 159.  Hafeman, “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” p. 103. 160.  This is the sense in which we understand Hafeman to use the term. 161.  Hecataeus of Abdera, Strabo of Amaseis, and Pompeius Trogus spoke well of Moses as a lawgiver, while Tacitus and Juvenal claimed that his laws were opposed to those of other peoples.

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­155

thus Jews were compelled to argue against these images of their lawgiver and in favor of a more honorable image. The texts under consideration participate to varying degrees in this competitive environment and in the apologetic task. While it would certainly be overstating the case to claim that all of the Hellenistic material under consideration has an explicitly apologetic function, each of the writers to some extent tries to improve Moses’ image. And, since all of these works are in Greek, rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, there is the possibility that these texts could be read by non-Jews, a possibility of which the writers were surely aware, and of which some were likely hopeful. Of these writers, Demetrius seems to be the least apologetic in intent. If it is the case that his concerns with monogamy and endogamy serve to present Moses in terms amiable to his Hellenistic milieu, this is a subtle form of argument. Nevertheless, Demetrius approaches the scriptural text with the methods of chronography and ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις (“difficulties and solutions”), and so his attempt to improve the image of Moses is certainly familiar to Hellenistic sensibilities. Ezekiel’s predominant reliance on the scriptural narrative may at first mask the way that he has drawn Moses in parallel to such Greek figures as Romulus and Oedipus. This, together with the use of tragic drama, presents Moses as a Greek character. While this work is not explicitly apologetic, Ezekiel does move Moses into the Greek world. Aristobulus makes the bold claim that the Mosaic Law is the source of Greek philosophy. This is a strong claim for national priority and thus superiority. Artapanus’s writing is more explicitly apologetic. Here we have not subtle attempts to improve Moses’ image, but rather a far-reaching argument that Moses is the founder of Egyptian culture, an ideal Egyptian himself, and at least as great as other heroes and gods. Philo, who is himself thoroughly Hellenistic and thoroughly Jewish, presents Moses as the quintessential Greek. Regardless of how many non-Jews read this work, Philo’s Jewish audience would certainly receive the internal apologetic message that the best Jews were also the best Greeks. From Josephus’ own admission in his Contra Apionem, we know that he aims to repair the image of Moses which has been maligned by Manetho, Chaeremon, Apion, and Lysimachus. From his presentation of Moses in Antiquities, it appears that this goal was only somewhat less explicit there. Josephus presents Moses as a Greco-Roman hero and military commander so as to argue against those who have claimed him as a leprous fraud who forbade hospitality and worship of the gods.162 It is clear that Josephus, who writes in the tradition of apologetic historiography, recognizes his writing as a competitive act. Manetho, Lysimachus, Chaeremon, and Apion wrote of Moses in connection with exodus stories which presented the Jews as hostile, unsocial, and leprous (J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism [Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1972], pp. 25–56, 82–87, 113–24). 162.  Hata, “The Story of Moses,” p. 181.

­156

Parables of Enoch

From this, it appears that “exaltation” is not the best description of what the Diasporic authors do to Moses, at least apart from Ezekiel. Ezekiel’s throne vision does exalt Moses; it literally carries him heavenward. Ezekiel deals with Moses in much the same way that Enoch is dealt with in other literature, as has been noted above. Yet, in general it is more accurate to say that the Diasporic Jewish writers enhance the image of Moses according to different models and with different motives than the writers in the Land. With the possible exception of Demetrius, the Diasporic authors transform Moses into an Egyptian or Greek figure to make him viable in their Hellenistic context.

Comparison After surveying the texts regarding Moses from the Second Temple period, it is useful for the purposes of this volume to compare the claims made about him with the claims made about Enoch. It is immediately evident that there are similarities in the ways in which the various writers depicted these two towering figures. 1. Some similarities a. Coverage of history Among the parallels is first the fact that Jewish authors present both Moses and Enoch as possessing the ability to see past, present, and future, and indeed both record events from these segments of history. In Jubilees, the claim is made for both characters in the same work. According to Jub 1:26-29 Moses is to record all history from creation to the new creation, while Enoch, according to 4:16-25, makes a record of human actions until the time of the judgment. Moreover, both men had access to esoteric knowledge imparted to them by revelation: Enoch tours the universe, seeing all sorts of unusual phenomena (especially 1En 12-36), while Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities says the Lord showed Moses, among other phenomena, the place from which the clouds, rivers, and holy land draw their water, the place from which manna came, and the paths of paradise (19:10). b. Contributions to culture Both Moses and Enoch serve as culture heroes, as subjects of euhemeristic elaboration. While Moses crafted the fundamental features of Egyptian civilization (Artapanus) and provided the foundation for Greek philosophy (Aristobulus), Enoch introduced the science of astronomy in various cultures (Jub, Ps-Eup). While Moses had close contacts with Egypt, Enoch’s connections, via his parallels with Enmeduranki, are primarily with Mesopotamian culture, c. Enthronement Both biblical luminaries enjoy the rare privilege of enthronement in the heavens. Moses seems to occupy a position on the celestial throne in the dream recounted by Ezekiel but uncertainties surround its meaning. Enoch achieved

Moses and Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Texts

­157

that status as eschatological son of man, though he was not aware until the end that he was that Son of Man (see 1En 51:3; 55:4; 69:26). d. Births foreknown Both Moses and Enoch were known before their births (TMos 1:14; Ps-Philo 9:7-8, 10; 1En 48:6; 62:7). They are not said to be pre-existent, but both arrived on the earth with a long history in the divine mind. Nevertheless, the ways in which the various writers presented the two men differ appreciably. 2. Some differences a. Relation to scripture The developments of the two characters in Second Temple literature differ in that the Moses traditions are more constrained by the Scriptures than the Enoch material which is almost entirely extra-biblical (using “biblical” in the sense of the Hebrew Bible). Moses is connected inextricably with Israel, Egypt and the Exodus from it, and the wilderness, especially the revelations and experiences at Sinai. This is the case even for Artapanus who is perhaps the least constrained by the scriptural tradition among the writers surveyed above. Thus Moses is associated with the covenant and its Law; he is the mediator of that covenant, one who intercedes for his people (Qumran Scrolls, TMos, Ps-Philo). The Testament of Moses and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities in particular emphasize this unique relationship between Moses and God. Enoch could be described in terms reminiscent of the seventh antediluvian king Enmeduranki and could become the source for astronomical knowledge and information about the past and future. b. Role at the end The Parables of Enoch presents Enoch as the eschatological Judge (45:3 [there are textual issues]; 46:3-6; 49:4; 55:4; 62:1-12; 69:27-29) and confidant of the righteous (e.g., 48:7; 51:2; 53:6; 62:8; 71:17). Moses does not carry out this eschatological function despite his close connections with the Torah. He reveals the Law, criticizes those who disobeyed it, and despairs upon looking into the future when disobedience will grow, but he does not execute the function of the judge at the end time. c. Teachings Enoch is associated with the laws of nature and of human and angelic behavior before and after the Flood, but Moses is the one who received the Torah. As a result, Enoch is a man of science, and Moses is a man of Torah, though he did contribute to forms of government, philosophy, religion, and the like. d. Range of influence It is fair to say that Enoch is a more universal character than Moses. By living before the Flood, he had the advantage of greater antiquity and contact with all

­158

Parables of Enoch

humanity; he continues to deal with the entire human race since his removal and will do so at the end (e.g., Jub 4:25). He has close ties with the righteous ones who are not defined by nationality. Moses, on the other hand, is an Israelite, gives the Law to them, and usually has his attention confined to them. e. Earthly end The scriptural given that Enoch did not perish as all others did in the prediluvian era plays a prominent role in the Second Temple literature. The Books of Enoch give him important tasks in his life after his removal. Moses died and was buried by God (although LXX Deut 34:6 says “they” buried him). Moses will rise with others at the end (Ps-Philo), but he did suffer death, however vast his sepulcher in the Testament of Moses and however spectacular his death according to Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities. It would be a benefit to know more about the people who lurk behind the texts that deal with the two men. There were writers who admired both (Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, Jub) but others focused on one or the other (the Enoch literature, TMoses) – in some cases rather pointedly ignoring Moses (Apocalypse of Weeks). Neither man had very close connections with the Land of Israel, so that it is difficult to situate their admirers in a particular place in the Land.

­

Chapter 7 and the

The Book of Enoch Galilean Archaeology and Landscape Mordechai Aviam

The purpose of this chapter is to suggest that the Parables of Enoch was composed in Lower Galilee, and most likely in Migdal. Such a hypothesis has never been suggested. It looms large now before specialists because of the discovery of a pre-70 synagogue in Migdal and something even more sensational. The archaeologists discovered in situ a large stone that is replete with images that suggest an appreciation of apocalypticism as in the Parables of Enoch. The following chapter will focus on a few passages in 1 Enoch. In particular, the geographical references in 1 Enoch 6:6, 13:7, and 13:9 indicate a Galilean provenience. The few botanical references in 1 Enoch 10:19, 24:4, 31:2, and 32:4 also suggest Galilee. The one historical reference in 1 Enoch 56:5 connects the geographical references with chapter 46:8.

Geography The focal background of the vision of Enoch is placed on Mount Hermon. Hermon is the second highest peak in the entire Levant; it is 6300 feet above sea level. It was known already in biblical times as a sacred mountain, the home of Baal Hermon (Judg 3:3). On the top of the mountain, the remains of several temples have been surveyed, and pottery dating as early as the third century bce has been observed. There is almost no doubt that there were many cult sites around the mountain as reflected by many statues and figurines originating in this area. The second geographical feature is “the water of Dan and the land of Dan.” Tel Dan and the springs of Dan are well known and located to the west of the mountain. The site was acknowledged as a sacred site, since in the biblical story the area was assigned to the tribe of Dan (Judg 18:30-31). But it seems according to the biblical source that the site was holy even before its conquest by the tribe of Dan, as its former name was Laish (in Hebrew, “a lion”). The city became a center of the Israelite cult from the reign of Jeroboam I at the beginning of the ninth century bce as mentioned in 1Kgs 12:29-33. During the excavations at Tel Dan, archaeologists found a cult center. They recovered near the Bema, the “high place” of the cult center, which was

­160

Parables of Enoch

probably built by Jeroboam, many cult objects. Among these were two Iron Age cultic jars, decorated with snakes and a base for an altar. All evidence suggests that these belong to the early cult center. It was during the days of Ahab that the cult center grew larger and a very large Bema was built around the earlier one. From this stage, archaeologists discovered many cult objects as well as one of a large altar’s horns.1 The Israelite cult centers (as well as probably the earlier ones which have not yet been discovered) are located on the northern edge of the Tell, facing the slopes of the Mount Hermon. The most important find for our discussion is the bilingual inscription which was found at the cult center of the Hellenistic level. The inscription is in Greek and Aramaic; it states: “To the God of Dan, Zoilos made his vow.” It is dated to the third and second centuries bce.2 Who is the Great God of Dan in the Hellenistic period? Was it Zeus, according to the newly arrived Greek tradition? Was it Baal or Baal Shamin, according to the local ancient Canaanite traditions? Or, did it mirror the Aramaic and Hebrew traditions whereby YHWH was believed to reside there during the Iron Age? Each of these attributions is possible, since all were present at one time on and around the mountain. After the Iron Age, the surrounding area of Dan at the foothill of Hermon continued to be sacred for hundreds of years. When the holy site of Dan was losing its religious importance during the Hellenistic and the Roman period, another site grew up at the foot of the mountain; it is at the cave spring of “Paneas.” In the Hellenistic period, only the “place of Pan” was visited by believers who celebrated there with feasts and sacrifices. The remains of sacrificial fireplaces were discovered in the natural rock in front of the cave of Pan. From the late first century bce, a series of temples were erected at the site.3 About two kilometers south of the spring, Herod the Great built the Augusteum. It is located at a place recently identified during excavations at Khirbet Omrit. There, archaeologists found the remains of at least three temples that date from the mid-first century bce to the first century ce.4 At both sites, this holiness continued during the following centuries; today there are holy tombs for Druze and Muslims. A similar holiness exists on the Hermon mountain where dozens of Roman-period temples were surveyed and excavated as well as later Druze and Muslim sacred sites. Another link to that region is the site mentioned in 1 Enoch 13:9, “Lesya’el” or “Abelsya’el” (Ms B) which can be easily identified with the site of Abel-Bet Maacha, west of Dan. It is also at the foot of Hermon.

1. A. Biran, “Dan,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Carta, 1993), pp. 327–33.. 2.  A. Biran and V. Tzaferis, “A Bilingual Dedicatory Inscription from Tel Dan,” Qadmoniot 40 (1978), 114–15. 3.  Z. U. Maoz,“The Sanctuary of Pan at Banias,” Qadmoniot 115 (1998), 18–25. 4.  A. Overman and D. Schowolter, eds., The Roman Temple Complex at Khorvat Omrit: an Interim Report (BAR International Series 2205; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011).

The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology

­161

In summation, the biblical, historical, and archaeological data in the Books of Enoch point clearly to an early and strong tradition concerning the holiness of Mount Hermon and its immediate surroundings. It seems to me that the appearance of Hermon and Dan as focal points in the story of Enoch is directly connected to this strong tradition of holiness; it is thus conceivable that the Enoch books could have been composed in the area of Galilee.

Agriculture and Botany Next, I would like to call attention to botanical and agricultural references from this section of 1 Enoch. The first example is found in 1 Enoch 10:19; it mentions the vines that will make a lot of wine, and that every quantity of olives will yield ten quantities of olive oil. Galilee, during the Hellenistic period, was known for its wine production as reflected in the Zenon papyri from the fourth century bce. After the Hasmonean annexation of Galilee around 100 bce, the massive production of olive oil in Galilee becomes legendary; it is described in Josephus’ stories about John of Gishchala. The Talmudic sources record the legendary quantities of oil produced in Galilee.5 The second example is found in 1 Enoch 31:2; it refers to the fragrances of Galilee and mentions the almond tree. In 32:4 the carob tree is mentioned as well. In 24:4, the cluster of dates is mentioned. These are not unique to Galilee; but, together with the vines and olives already mentioned, the references in 1 Enoch are very similar to Josephus’ description of the Gennesareth Valley: The country also that lies over against this lake hath the same name of Gennesareth; its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men’s expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year. (War 3. 516-521)

Adding the northern landscapes of Hermon and Dan previously discussed, we have enough components in the Books of Enoch to identify the geographical background of Enoch scenery as Galilean. 5.  On the production of olive oil in Galilee, see M. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee (Rochester: University Press, 2004), pp. 51–58. On the production of wine and oil in Upper Galilee, see pp. 170–80.

­162

Parables of Enoch

Historical Insight from Archaeology We now come to a central question for this collection of studies: When was Galilee Jewish enough to produce such a Jewish eschatological work, and, where were the places or settlements in which the Parables of Enoch could have been created? Most scholars agree today that after the Israelite period, the destruction of Galilee was widespread. The main dispute is devoted to whether there were Jewish remnants somewhere in Galilee in the Hellenistic period. My opinion was, and still is, that the Jewish remnants mentioned in the story of Simon Maccabeus and his campaign to rescue the Jews from Galilee really reflects a concentration of Jewish sites in the mountains of Nazareth and around Zippori.6 Leibner,7 however, supports Rappaport’s view that there were no Jewish settlements in Lower Galilee until its annexation in the Hasmonaean Kingdom. The excavations at Yodefat, Mount Mizpe HaYamim, Khirbet Esh-Shuahra, Qeren Naftali, and even Qedesh do point to a change in the sites arrangement and population in the second half of the second century bce. At Qedesh, however, the evidence points to the decline of the Phoenician-Seleucid administrative center, with no evidence for a Jewish reoccupation.8 In contrast, the neighboring Seleucid fortress at Qeren Naftali shows a crucial architectural change. As the second stage of construction in the second century bce, Jews built a ritual bath (miqve) in one of its rooms.9 Not far away from Qeren Naftali, to the west, a small site from the Persian and Hellenistic period by the name of Khirbet Esh-Shuhara is located; it was examined and excavated.10 The site was destroyed by fire at the end of the second century bce. In the ash layer some Hasmonaean coins have been found as well as an arrowhead, leading us to conclude that they belonged to a Hasmonaean garrison or other minor presence which had occupied the site after its destruction. The most important evidence for life in Galilee before the first century bce comes from Yodefat, Gamla, and the temple Mount Mizpe HaYamim. At Yodefat, some rooms in private dwellings were uncovered. On the burnt floors, the debris and realia were dated to the end of the second century bce. A solid defending wall was built above it, surrounding the entire summit of the hill; the wall dates to the early Hasmonaean time.11 A similar situation was identified 6.  Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, pp. 41–50. 7.  U. Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee (TSAJ 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 319–29. 8. S. C. Herbert and A. Berlin, “A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan / University of Minnesota Excavation at Kedesh,” BASOR 329 (2003), 52–58. 9.  Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, pp. 58–88. 10.  M. Aviam and A. Amitai, “Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara,” in Eretz Zafon, ed. Z. Gal (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002), pp. 119–34. 11.  A detailed study, although in Hebrew, can be found in M. Aviam, Yodefat – A Case-Study for the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee During the Second Temple Period (PhD. Dissertation; Ramat Gan: University of Bar Ilan, 2005).

The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology

­163

at Gamla where pottery and coins, as well as a figurine of “Horus the Infant,” were recovered; each dates to the Hellenistic period (third–second centuries bce). In later strata, archaeologists discovered an early first-century bce Jewish settlement which includes a ritual bath (miqve).12 At Mount Mizpe HaYamim, the remains of a Persian-Hellenistic temple were discovered including a group of figurines of Phoenician origin. The place was abandoned and probably desecrated at the second half of the second century bce.13 During the last ten years, these discoveries have been used as evidence of the Hasmonaean conquest of Galilee and the ethnic and religious change of its population. Most scholars agree today that the Jewish population of Galilee in the Hasmonaean period was mainly comprised of Judeans who immigrated to Galilee and probably converted local people as well. These Jews included veterans of the Hasmonaean armies and, according to some scholars, even Jewish remnants from earlier periods. Some years ago, I suggested that the revolt of the Galileans against Herod in 38 bce was a result of the traditional support of the Hasmonaean dynasty, as it was seen by the population as the benefactors of the Galilean community, probably subsidizing the settlement and its agricultural infrastructures in its first steps.14 From this background, it is clear that at least from the end of the first century bce, the landscape of Galilee was dotted with Jewish settlements, most of which continued to exist into the next periods. In 1En 56:5, the Parthians are mentioned. It is widely agreed that this reference reflects the Parthian invasion in the year 40 bce.15 This short and succinct campaign was an attempt to confront the Romans in the Land of Israel by supporting Antigonus II against Hyrcanus II. The latter was supported by the Romans. The archaeological evidence for this campaign is very sparse. The excavators of Ein Gedi pointed to the Parthian invasion as being responsible for the destruction of Level II with no specific finds to prove it. No Parthian coins have been found in the Land of Israel up to today. At the beginning of the Parthians’ intervention in the West, it was Casius, Crasus’ general, who made his way to Judea, conquered Tarichaea (the Greek name for the small Galilean city of Migdal, later known as Magdala16) 12.  M. Aviam, “Yodfat,” in The New Encyclopedia for Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Supplementary vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), pp. 2076–78. 13. D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II (IAA Reports 44; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2010). 14.  R. Frankel, “Mizpe HaYamim,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Carta, 1993), pp. 1061–63. 15. Aviam, Jews, Pagans and Christians, p. 66; L. Arcori, “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Pathian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 478–86; H. Eshel, “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Act of Matthias Antigonus in 40 BCE,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 487–91. Most importantly, see Charlesworth’s two chapters in this collection. 16.  A detailed explanation about the identification of the site with large historical background can be found in Leibner, Archaeological Survey, pp. 214–37.

­164

Parables of Enoch

and killed a person by the name of Peitholaos, who was the commander of Aristobolus’ revolt (Ant 14:120).17 From Josephus’ narrative, it is not very clear whether Peitholaos was in Tarichaeae, but if this is the case it shows that, as the capital of Eastern Galilee, the city took a position in the Civil War. Some years after, Josephus mentions the Galileans who revolted against their leaders and drowned them in the sea (Ant 14:450). These two paragraphs show the diversity of opinions in Galilee during this period of dispute between Palestine’s Jews. We have summarized the key evidence to demonstrate that Galilee is represented in the Books of Enoch, including the Parables of Enoch. We will now try to evaluate whether Galilee is the place where this section of the Books of Enoch was created, and given its final structure. Is there fresh archaeological evidence by which we might suggest a more precise location and time?

Archaeology of Migdal-Tarichaeae Most scholars agree that the Parables of Enoch was composed sometime from the late Hasmonaean era18 to the Herodian period,19 obtaining this date because of the mention of the Parthians. But there is another hint for the identification of time; this hint, as far as I know, has never been used for attempting to date the Parables of Enoch. In two places in the book, first in the plural in 46:8 and again in the singular in 53:6, the Ethiopic term abyate mstgubua is found. This term, which means “the house of congregation” (Beit haEda in Hebrew), is the correct term for a synagogue.20 The earliest synagogue in Judea and Galilee suggested up until now, not without dispute, is the one identified by Ehud Netzer near the Hasmonaean palaces at Jericho.21 Another synagogue, which was lately identified in its earliest phase as Hasmonaean, was excavated at Modiin.22 It is widely recognized today that during the Herodian period, beginning in the second half of the first century bce, the institute of the synagogue existed in almost every Jewish city, town, and village in Jewish regions.

17.  On Peitholaos, see also Charlesworth’s chapters in this book. 18.  J. H. Charlesworth, “Can we discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 450–69. See the revised and expanded version of this work in the present book. 19.  D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 450–69. 20.  I would like to thank Dr. Ran HaCohen from Tel Aviv University for his support by checking for me these sentences, translating and explaining. According to him, the only way to understand these two words are by their physical meaning and not social. The house is a building. 21. E. Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2004), pp. 159–95. 22.  A. Onn and S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Khirbet Um el-Umdan – a Jewish Village with a Synagogue from the Second Temple Period at Modiin,” Qadmoniot 130 (2005), 107–16.

The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology

165­

Recently, a synagogue was uncovered at Migdal-Magdala or Tarichaeae.23 Coins found in situ prove that the synagogue was used from the first century bce until about 67 ce. As the site has not been fully published and as the excavations around it and in it continue, there is no precise date for its establishment. Its location on the northern edge of the city and Hasmonaean coins reported by the excavators can hint for a late first-century bce or early first-century ce date. Its plan is similar to the synagogues of Gamla,24 Qiryat Sefer,25 Masada,26 and the Herodium.27 It has some segments of mosaic floor with a design similar to some of the Masada palaces of the Herodian period, as well as typical frescoes. A sensational find was discovered on the synagogue’s floor. It informs our search for the provenience and date of the Parables of Enoch. Almost in the center of the floor, a large (60 x 50 cm and 40 cm high), decorated stone stood on four small legs. The façade of the stone, facing to the south, is decorated with a seven-branched candelabrum (Menorah), standing on a square object, flanked by two amphorae, all placed between two pillars and under an arch. See the following sketches.

A drawing of the stone found in the Migdal Synagogue. The two long sides are carrying a similar design of arched colonnades and at the end of each side there is a hanging object. 23.  The information was published on many websites, notably: http://bibleillustration. blogspot.com. 24.  Syon and Yavor, Gamla II, pp. 41–58. 25.  Y. Magen, Y. Tzionit, and O. Sirkis, “Khirbet Badd ’Isa—Qiryat Sefer,” in The Land of Benjamin (Judea and Samaria Publications 3; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004), pp. 179–241. 26.  E. Netzer in Masada III. The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991), pp. 402–13. 27.  G. Foerster, “The Synagogues of Masada and Herodium,” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L. Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), pp. 24–29.

­166

Parables of Enoch

The back side is decorated with two arches and two wheels under each arch. At the bottom of each arch is a group of six small images that look like triangles.

The face of the Migdal stone is completely covered with different images and elements. In the center there is a large rosette in a circle which is made of petals similar to those of the rosette itself. On both side of the rosette there are elements which look like palm trees. The rest of the surface is covered with 12 images divided into groups of five and seven. As there is no parallel to such a stone and such decoration, and as the Menorah is a well-known object, I suggested identifying all other objects on this unique stone as symbolical.28 I think that the four sides give three perspectives of the Temple in Jerusalem. The front side gives a view into the inner hall (Heichal) in which stood the Menorah, the Gold Altar, and the Show Bread table. I believe that the square object, which looks like a podium for the Menorah, represents, as a matter of fact, the altar itself; it is standing in front of the Menorah. A similar description was found engraved on the plaster of a large mansion in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, dated to the first half of the first century ce.29 The two amphorae represent symbolic and mystic Bnei Hayizhar (the two olive branches, Hebrew rhcyh ynb) which are mentioned in Zech 4:10-14. All these elements appear under an arch and between the pillars as symbolizing the architectural façade of the Temple. The two long sides represent a building within a building, hinting at the Holy of Holies in the Temple. The hanging object at the end of each side is the incense vessel used inside the Temple and mentioned together with the Show Bread table. 28.  Aviam, “The Temple of Jerusalem in the Galilee,” Cathedra (in Hebrew; forthcoming). For more, see my forthcoming volume, The Temple of Jerusalem in Galilee (in Hebrew). 29.  L. Habas, “An Incised Depiction of the Temple Menorah and Other Cult Objects of the Second Temple Period,” in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, ed. H. Geva (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003), vol. 2, pp. 329–42.

The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology

­167

The back side represents, in my view, a clear hint of the divine presence inside the Holy of Holies. The two wheels certainly represent the divine chariot, and the six triangles below each of them may represent flames. These two elements appear in the famous descriptions of the divine chariot in the books of Daniel and Zachariah as well as in 1 Enoch 114:18: “and I saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun … And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire” (italics mine). Thus, we seem to have found the provenience for the Parables of Enoch; and certainly, as Enoch specialists concur, the author knew the earlier Enoch compositions. The two “tree-like” objects on both sides of the surface of the stone represent the racks (Magrefa, Hebrew hprgm) which were used in sacrifices in the Temple. The six couples of objects represent the Show Bread on the Show Bread table.

Reconstruction of the top of the stone found in the Migdal Synagogue.

At the four corners of the surface there are remains of broken legs. Thus, I propose that the stone was the base for the table on which the Torah was read, and that this base represents the Temple in Jerusalem, thus proving the strong connection between Galilean Jews and the Temple. As a very unique object, with no parallels whatsoever, it sheds a very important light, maybe for the first time as an archaeological object, on Jewish mysticism in a Jewish, Galilean society and inside a synagogue.

­168

Parables of Enoch

Therefore, with all the above-mentioned geographical, agricultural, botanical, historical, and archaeological components, I would like to suggest that the final editing and writing of 1 Enoch, and especially the composition of the Parables of Enoch, was created in an urban, Galilean center, during the late Hasmonaean and early Herodian period. There are only two candidates: Sepphoris, which was the local administrative capital of Galilee, and Migdal-Tarichaea (as Tiberias had not yet been built). Of the two, the proximity of Tarichaea to Hermon, and even the ability to see its white snowy peaks from the hills surrounding the city, has convinced me to choose this city as a possible location for the scribes and the editors of the Parables of Enoch. The new excavations at Migdal-Tarichaea by the Franciscan archaeologists as well as the archaeologists supported by the Israel Antiquities Authority yielded very important information about the development of the urban center. It was probably built by Hasmonaeans (Hyrcanus I, Aristobolus I, or Alexander Jannaeus), the new center replacing the former nearby local town of Genasereth, identified today at Khirbet Abu Shusha.30 During April 2011, the first archaeological evidence for pre-Hasmonaean layers was identified at the site and will be studied in the near future. It seems as if Migdal was built as a local (east Galilee and Kinneret Lake) administrative and royal center; therefore, it was designed as a small Hellenistic city. In Migdal’s center was a Hellenistic-type bathhouse and probably a town square or an agora. But there is no doubt that the most important discovery which should inform our understanding of Migdal as “a city” with royal investment is the impressive stone pier, 80 meters long and 3 meters wide with three mooring-stones and a guarding tower; all are dated to the Hasmonaean era.31 This is evidence for a large and important lake harbor, which probably reflects not only the will to invest in the new Jewish territory, but also initiating and supporting robust economic activity in the region. My suggestion for the provenience of the author (and editor) of some sections in 1 Enoch, and notably the Parables of Enoch, is Migdal (Tarichaeae). I do not think it mere coincidence that one of the suggestions for identifying a place in 1 Enoch 13:9 is “Sanser” or “Senser” (Ms B); and this name sounds like Genosar and especially Genneseret (both are on the Sea of Galilee and north of Migdal).

Summary Let us now try to weave all the above-mentioned elements into an appealing fabric on the Parables of Enoch and Galilee. The use of Mount Hermon and the Land and Water of Dan is, as a matter of fact, an attempt to use the most important sacred places in the northern Jewish region of ancient Palestine. I hope I have 30.  For a wider view of the site, see Leibner, Archeological Survey, pp. 214–37. I do accept today Leibner’s comment that although Tarichaea is not a polis, it is a well-planned urban center. 31.  S. De Luca, “La città ellenistico-romana di Magdala / Taricheae. Gli scavi del Magdala Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione preliminare e prospettive di indagine,” Liber Annuus 49 (2009), 343–562.

The Book of Enoch and the Galilean Archaeology

­169

succeeded in showing that the mountainous area was a center for important cults, and that the perception of its holiness remained for centuries. It was the place of the “Great God,” whoever he was. If the latest parts of the Parables of Enoch and the final editing of the Books of Enoch took place in Galilee, it is very clear that the Holy Mountain and its foothills will be the geographical, physical, and spiritual background. Nevertheless, it is not necessary that the location of the author should be close to the mountain or at Dan. During the Hasmonaean period, this northern part of the Land of Israel was under the control of the Hasmonaeans, as reflected by the “Baraita of the Boundaries” and the questionable story about the conversion of the Ituraeans by King Aristobolus I. But shortly afterwards, during the time of King Herod, who ruled this area beginning in 37 bce, it was not considered “Jewish Land” as reflected by the description of the erection of the Augusteum by Herod. Josephus notes: “He erected to him [Augustus] … a very beautiful temple … in the territory of Zenodorus near the place called Paneion …” (Ant 4:363). Shortly before that description, Josephus reports that “he [Herod] was forced to depart from the customs and to alter many of their regulations for in his ambitious spending he founded cities and erected temples not in the Jewish territory, for the Jews would not have put up with this, since we are forbidden such things …” (Ant 15:328-329). The sites in which specifically Jewish artifacts (such as stone vessels) were found, dating to the Second Temple period or shortly after that, are at the southern edge of the Huleh Lake, and those were probably small villages (dq# Ndy(). The geographical references in the Books of Enoch all point to Galilee; the botanical references hint at Galilee as well. The precise location may be Migdal; it is an east Galilee urban center in which archaeological evidence for mystical, eschatological, and apocalyptic symbolism is found. This fact is mirrored in the decorated stone from the synagogue in Migdal. If this is the case, the editor of 1 Enoch, sitting in Migdal, could have been a member of the Jewish elite, a supporter of Hyrcanus, who sees, remembers, or experienced some of the Parthian invasion and felt safe again when the Romans took the city and released it from the control of Antigonus’s people.32

Conclusion I am convinced that in an urban center like Migdal-Tarichaeae there was a society and administration which could support scribes and intellectuals like the one who wrote or edited 1 Enoch and especially the Parables of Enoch. It seems important and plausible to me to connect the decorated stone from the Migdal synagogue and its symbolism to the mystic and apocalyptic sphere which is represented in 1 Enoch 14:19 and 71:7-12 (the Parables of Enoch).

32. 

See Charlesworth’s similar speculations in this volume.

­170

­

III The Parables of Enoch and New Testament Theology

­

­

Chapter 8 Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch? τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; (Jn 12:34) James H. Charlesworth

Introduction The following chapter assumes the many Forschungsberichten (“research reports”) focused on the term and title “the Son of Man;” but the reviews are usually linked to an old consensus.1 The present work expresses a view that was significantly shaped in 1977 in Tübingen when virtually all specialists on the Books of Enoch (1En) gathered during a SNTS (Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas) Congress to discuss the Parables of Enoch. Most scholars present then imagined the work to be Jewish, and almost all judged it to be pre-Christian.2 If the Parables of Enoch (Eth. maṣhaf zamesale) is Jewish and prior to or contemporary with Jesus, how and in what ways, if at all, did this composition help shape the world that produced Jesus and the Palestinian Jesus Movement? Before the most recent publications, most scholars would have been astounded to imagine that the Parables of Enoch represented the thoughts of a Galilean group of brilliant Jews who were contemporaneous with Jesus from Nazareth. This composition, the Parables of Enoch, is different from the others “books” within the Books of Enoch. How and in what ways is the group behind it related to the groups represented by the earlier compositions in the Books of Enoch? It seems apparent that we need to contemplate another distinct Jewish group within the world of Second Temple Judaism.3 1.  The bibliographical notes selected are focused on the “breaking news” regarding the paradigm shift in comprehending the date and provenience of the Parables of Enoch. It is imperative that the reader study carefully the marvelous assessment of contemporary work on the Parables of Enoch by Darrell Bock in the present book: “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht.” Also see the informative contributions in Who is This Son of Man?: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, ed. L. W. Hurtado and P. L. Owen (London, New York: T & T Clark Int., 2011). The “paradigm shift” in interpreting the Parables of Enoch may be found in G. Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007). 2.  See the report in J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTSMS 54; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1985), p. 106. Many in Ethiopia today assume that Enoch composed the entire corpus. 1Ethiopian Enoch (= the Books of Enoch) is included within the Ethiopian “Old Testament.” 3.  See D. Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” VT 33 (1983), 14–29; and VanderKam in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 82.

­174

Parables of Enoch

For over 50 years, most New Testament specialists concurred that the concept of an eschatological Son of Man was either unique to Jesus or a belief created by the Post-Easter Evangelists. They rightly rejected the Patristic and Reformation interpretation that “the Son of Man” categorized Jesus’ humility as “the Son of God.”4 The challenges of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish apocryphal books have drawn many New Testament specialists from a myopic concentration on the Greek New Testament to the world of Early Judaism in which, as we now know, significant new developments were taking shape, especially within the groups behind the Books of Enoch.

Developing Consensus Now, many leading Enoch experts and New Testament scholars reject the conclusion that the eschatological Son of Man was created by Jesus’ followers. They are concluding that those behind the Parables of Enoch are Jews who were interpreting the Son of Man in Daniel in creative ways about 100 years after the composition of Daniel. These Jews seem to be the ones who alone developed the concept of the Son of Man who will come in the near future to serve as the cosmic and eschatological Judge.5 Sometimes experts in Second Temple Judaism, gifted in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, tend to avoid detailed work on the Parables of Enoch, because it is the only book within the Books of Enoch that is extant only in Ge’ez (classical Ethiopic), the language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.6 Three main arguments convinced many experts that the Parables and their concept of the Son of Man must postdate 68 ce. The first argument is that the Parables of Enoch were not found at Qumran among the Aramaic fragments of Enoch; therefore, they must be much later than 68 ce.7 The second is that the Parables of Enoch were not cited by Christian scholars before the fourth century ce.8 The third is that a Parthian invasion alluded to in the Parables of Enoch should be associated with the Parthian invasion of Palestine in the second century ce.9 Subsequently, decades ago scholars surmised that the Parables of Enoch were most likely composed in the late first century ce and perhaps even as late as the third century ce.

4.  The interpretation can be found in Ignatius of Antioch (Eph 20:2). See D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History of Evaluation (Cambridge: CUP, 1999) and G. Boccaccini in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 12. 5.  See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 119–20. 6.  Many in Ethiopia today assume that Enoch composed the entire corpus. 1Ethiopian Enoch (= the Books of Enoch) is included within the Ethiopian “Old Testament.” 7.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 91–96. M. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS (1978–79), 345–59. 8.  Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 91–92. 9.  J. C. Hindley, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch: An Historical Approach,” NTS 14 (1967–68), 553.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­175

Let us now examine each of these three assumptions. One should not expect the Parables of Enoch at Qumran since they are the latest work in the Books of Enoch and because the Qumranites hailed the Righteous Teacher and not Enoch as the one to whom God gave the full revelation. Recall Pesher Habakkuk: “God did not allow Habakkuk [and by implication other prophets] to know all the mysteries.” God allowed only the Righteous Teacher to know “all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets” (1QpHab 7). Thus, the claim that Enoch is the one to whom God declared the full revelation and elevated as the “Son of Man” (1En 70–71) would be anathema at Qumran.10 We should not expect the Parables of Enoch at Qumran. It is conceivable that the Parables of Enoch could have once been in the caves. We have less than 10 to 20 percent of the amount of writing once placed in the 11 caves. Other caves collapsed and once contained scrolls. Finally, there are hundreds of fragments still unidentified; we cannot be certain that a portion of the Parables of Enoch is not preserved in one or more of them. Likewise, the early Christians believed that Jesus, and not Enoch, is the Son of Man (cf. Jn 9:34-35); thus, the Parables of Enoch would not be welcome among early Christians since the document implies in chapter 60 and then concludes in chapter 71 that Enoch is the Son of Man. As S. Chialà states, by the end of the first century ce, within Judaism and within earliest Christianity, “all ‘Son of Man’ language is attentively avoided, and this should weigh as a critical factor in dating the Book of Parables.”11 If one prefers to conclude that chapters 70 and 71 were an addition by a Jew,12 it would probably be sometime before the middle or late first century ce. Hence, the absence of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran and within the earliest Christian literature is by no means determinative for dating the Parables of Enoch. In the Gospel of John, a saying attributed to Jesus seems to be an anti-Enoch polemic.13 Enoch, the Son of Man, had been taken to heaven and returns to earth, according to Parables of Enoch. His power and influence among those behind the Parables of Enoch is because Enoch is still alive, he never died (Gen 5), and is present on earth to comfort and nourish all who recognize him as “that Son of Man.” In the Gospel of John, Jesus apparently speaks against the claim of those who thought Enoch ascended into heaven and descended again to bring 10.  One may claim that 1En 70 and 71 were added in the first century ce but after 68; even so, the elevation of Enoch in 37–69 would most likely be abhorrent to Qumranites. They did not revere Enoch; they claimed the Righteous Teacher was the Chosen One. 11.  S. Chialà in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 177. 12.  See Knibb in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 63. Knibb is convinced that 1En 37–69 is clearly distinct from 70–71. I see a foreshadowing of the elevation of Enoch in the Books of Enoch and in 1En 36–69. Already in Gen 5, Enoch is highly elevated: Enoch walked with God and thus God took him to be with him in heaven. 13.  Charlesworth, “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology and Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu, Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný, ed. J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 223–39.

­176

Parables of Enoch

knowledge, even secrets, to the elect on earth as the Son of Man. Surely, those in the Johannine Community or School knew that Enoch and Elijah, according to Scripture, “ascended” into heaven. What the author of John, and perhaps Jesus, wished to stress is that only the Son of Man, Jesus himself, has descended to bring God’s will and message of salvation. Thus, Jesus and the Fourth Evangelist can challenge the Enoch portrayed in the Parables of Enoch without undermining the economy of salvation revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. With these insights, one may perceive a polemic against the claim in the Parables of Enoch that Enoch is the revealer, the one who ascended into heaven and then descended as “the Son of Man.” Note this passage attributed to Jesus by the Fourth Evangelist (italics mine): No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. (Jn 3:13-15 [NRSV])14

The link between John 3 and the Enoch traditions found only in the Parables of Enoch is forged more strongly when one perceives that Enoch had claimed “the Lord of the Spirits” had given him “the lot of eternal life” (1En 37:4). According to Jesus in John, this is unacceptable. According to John, Jesus was from above; and only he is the divine figure who brings the promise of “eternal life.” The full meaning and exegesis of Jn 3:13-15 is hidden until one imagines a polemic against the claims associated with Enoch in the concluding chapters of the Parables of Enoch. How much of this is pure creation by the Fourth Evangelist? How much may derive ultimately from Jesus? In answering these questions, one is led to speculate that the Parables of Enoch antedate the Gospel of John, and the Fourth Evangelist may have known them.

A Paradigm Shift We may now turn to a major question. Why are so many scholars now concluding that the Parables of Enoch antedate or are roughly contemporaneous with Jesus from Nazareth? Here are the reasons in the order of importance. First, Herod and Callirrhoe. According to Hesiod, Callirrhoe (or also in Gk. and Lat. Callirhoe) was a daughter of Oceanus and mother of Geryones and Echidna by Chrysaor.15 Her name, which means “beautifully (or nicely) 14.  For a book dedicated to the portrayal of the serpent in biblical narratives, see Charlesworth, The Good & Evil Serpent (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven, London: YUP, 2010). 15.  Hesiod, Theog. 351, 981; cf. Apollod. ii. and iii; also see, Ovid, Metamorphoses 9. 396 ff., and Pausanias, Description of Greece 8. 24. 9.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­177

flowing,” was given to the famous hot springs on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea, about three miles north of Zareth-Shahar (“the splendor of the dawn”), known from Josh 13:19. It is slightly south of Qumran, which is on the western shores, and about 3.5 hours’ ride by chariot from Jericho. Herod’s last illness is described by Josephus (Ant 17.168-94; War 1.656-65). We should not assume Josephus’ descriptions of an illness should be equated with medical knowledge today; yet, during Herod’s last years it is clear that he suffered excruciating pain from many illnesses (these may include orthopnoea, tachypnoea, and oedema of the feet and genitalia).16 Well known is his attempt to be relieved from pain by the warm and healing baths of Callirrhoe which are at the northeast end of the Dead Sea (= “Lake Asphaltitis”). Herod may have gone to these famous springs for numerous reasons. First, according to Greek mythology behind such springs were tales of purification (Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 88–91[second century ce]). Second, they were reputed to heal and bring comfort, especially from the pains caused by the horrific skin diseases that plagued Herod near the end of his life. Herod did not recover from his illnesses; at approximately 69 years old, he died in Jericho and was reportedly buried in the Herodium with much pomp and celebration. The last days and death of Herod the Great – whose father was an Idumean and mother an Arab – was celebrated by many Jews who hated him. His tomb, which was discovered recently by Ehud Netzer on the northern side of the Herodium, was most likely demolished by Jewish rebels (Zealots and Sikari). These rebels despised the Herodians whom they judged to be Roman quislings. The excavations at the Herodium indicate that Jews scattered Herod’s bones, most likely at the beginning of the First Revolt against Rome (66–70).17 Josephus knew about Herod’s dying days, and most likely uses typoi to cast dispersion on him,18 and intimated that he and other Jews deemed Herod’s painful death was due to God’s justice: “Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins” (Ant 5.168). This judgment is in harmony with Josephus’ belief that God providentially ruled over human affairs (Ant 17.5.353). Observe Josephus’ report about Herod’s demise in War 1.656 (italics mine): After this, the distemper seized upon his whole body, and greatly disordered all its parts with various symptoms; for there was a gentle fever upon him, and an intolerable itching over all the surface of his body, and continual pains in his colon, and dropsical tumors about his feet and an inflammation of the abdomen, – and a 16.  N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Kokkinos, “Herod’s Horrid Death,” BAR 43 (2002), 28–62; A. T. Sandison, “The Last Illness of Herod the Great, King of Judaea,” Med. Hist. 11 (1967), 381–87; A. Schalit, König Herodus: Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1969). 17.  I am deeply indebted to Ehud Netzer for many trips to the Herodium, before and after his monumental discovery. 18.  On Herod suffering from “worms,” see the typos examined by T. Africa, “Worms and the Death of Kings,” Classical Antiquity 1 (1982), 1–17.

­178

Parables of Enoch

putrefication of his privy member, that produced worms. Besides which he had a difficulty of breathing upon him, and could not breathe but when he sat upright, and had a convulsion of all his members; insomuch that the diviners said those diseases were a punishment upon him for what he had done to the rabbis. (657) Yet did he struggle with his numerous disorders, and still had a desire to live, and hoped for recovery, and considered of several methods of cure. Accordingly, he went over Jordan, and made use of those hot baths at Callirrhoe, which run into the lake Asphaltitis, but are themselves sweet enough to be drank. And here the physicians thought proper to bathe his whole body in warm oil, by letting it down into a large vessel full of oil; whereupon his eyes failed him, and he came and went as if he were dying, (658) and as a tumult was then made by his servants, at their voice he revived again. Yet did he after this despair of recovery, and gave orders that each soldier should have fifty drachmae apiece, and that his commanders and friends should have great sums of money given them.19

The reference to these waters, imagined as the prison of the fallen angels (see 1En 67 following), the sickness of kings, and the debauchery of the body all fit the life and death of Herod. Are these episodes couched in an apocalyptic vision attributed to Enoch? Greenfeld, Stone, and others answer: “Yes.”20 Surely, if Josephus and Eusebius (HE 1.8.10) knew about Herod’s painful death and opined that these tortures were due to a just God, other Jews would have known the events and probably held similar opinions; such would be especially obvious for those closer to Herod’s time and who knew or experienced his cruelty.21 Thus, most likely, the author and editors of the Parables of Enoch describe a vision that refers to none other than Herod (italics mine): 7 

This valley … shall continue to burn punitively underneath that ground … they shall be filled with rivers of water by which those angels who perverted those who dwell upon the earth shall be punished. 8 Those waters shall become in those days a poisonous drug of the body and a punishment of the spirit unto the kings, rulers, and exalted ones, and those who dwell on the earth; lust shall fill their souls so that their bodies shall be punished, for they have denied the Lord of the Spirits; they shall see their own punishment every day but cannot believe in his name. 9 In proportion to the great degree of the burning of their bodies will be the transmutation of their spirits forever and ever and ever, for there is none that can speak a nonsensical word before the Lord of the Spirits. 10  So the judgment shall come upon them, because they believe in the debauchery of their bodies and deny the spirit of the Lord. (1En 67:7-9; Isaac in OTP 1)

19. All these translations of Josephus are according to the accessible and popular translation by W. Whiston. 20.  J. C. Greenfeld and M. E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977), 51–66; esp. p. 60. 21.  See the similar arguments by D. D. Hannah, “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 469–77. Also, see Suter in the same volume, pp. 423–24.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­179

In the eyes of those behind the Books of Enoch, Herod was certainly one who exalted himself, a “king” who ruled over the Jews, and one who suffered from the burns in the waters of Callirhoe because of the debauchery of his body and – most importantly – his denial of the Lord in chasing after Roman support and honor. Moreover, the reference to the inability to “speak a nonsensical word” also fits Herod who has been judged to have suffered from feelings of being inferior (perhaps a Napoleonic complex since he was small and unattractive),22 acute grief, depression, narcissism, paranoia, delusion, and schizophrenia.23 Second, the reference to a Parthian invasion. Scholars concur that the Parables of Enoch in 56 refers to an invasion of Palestine by Parthians. The only question is which Parthian invasion. After many decades of discussion focused on the Books of Enoch, and in light of amazing archaeological discoveries of a Parthian invasion that occurred just before the Roman Senate elevated the son of Antipater, Herod, as the “King of the Jews,” to quell the eastern nation the Romans dreaded, the consensus has shifted.24 Today most experts in Second Temple Judaism concur that the Parables of Enoch refers to the invasion of Palestine by Parthians in 40 bce.25 One should not expect Josephus or the author of the Parables of Enoch to report the event in precisely the same way.26 Note how this account is reflected in an apocalypse attributed to the antediluvian Enoch: 5

In those days, the angels will assemble and thrust themselves to the east at the Parthians and Medes. They will shake up the kings [so that] a spirit of unrest shall come upon them, and stir them up from their thrones; and they will break forth from their beds like lions and like hungry hyenas among their own flocks. 6 And they will go up and trample upon the land of my elect ones, and the land of my elect ones will be before them like a threshing floor or a highway. 7 But the city of my righteous

22.  Herod’s sons and brother-in-law were tall and handsome. Even though Herod was strong and powerful, they were very talented athletically. 23.  See A. Kasher and E. Witztum, King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor (Jerusalem: KeterBooks, 2007 [in Hebrew]), esp. pp. 397–402. Also, see p. 379 for a judgment on Herod’s mental problems and life. 24.  For a dissenting voice, see T. Erho, “Historical-Allusional Dating and the Similitudes of Enoch,” JBL 130 (2011), 493–95. But, see the informed response by D. Bock in this volume. On the one hand, we should not assume that the author of the Parables of Enoch was intimately informed of all aspects of the Parthian invasion. On the other hand, the author is writing an apocalypse and thus must avoid precise information and hide his pseudepigraphical composition by using metaphors and highly developed symbolism. 25.  See Charlesworth, “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology: Some Caveats and Perspectives,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner et al. (Cambridge: CUP, 1987), pp. 225–64; and P. Sacchi, “Qumran e la datazione del Libro delle Parabole di Enoc,” Henoch 25 (2003), 149–66. 26.  T. Rajak imagines that Josephus wrote his War in Aramaic for Parthian readers. Josephus does seem to align himself strikingly with Parthian Jews. Rajak, “The Parthians in Josephus,” in Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, ed. J. Wiesehöfer (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998), pp. 309–23. L. Arcari astutely shows that the author of the Parables of Enoch and Josephus refer to the Parthian invasion of 40 bce, but do so from “two different social and historical backgrounds” (p. 484). See Arcari in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 478–86.

­180

Parables of Enoch

ones will become an obstacle to their horses.27 And they shall begin to fight among themselves; and [by] their own right hands they shall prevail against themselves. (1En 56:5-7; E. Isaac in OTP 1)

The reference to the “Parthians” and to Palestine, “the land of my elect one,” is clear.28 In 40 bce, a Parthian army did invade Palestine with their famous horses and cavalry. While the Parthian army entered Jerusalem (perhaps with 500 cavalry), they were rebuffed by Herod and Phasael (War 1.250-555). Only in 40 bce did the Parthians in fact take Palestine, as Chrys C. Caragounis clarifies.29 So far, let me summarize the progress on dating the Parables of Enoch. They should be dated within a few decades after the Parthian invasion of 40 and perhaps the death of Herod in 4 bce.30 There is a growing consensus that the Parables of Enoch are to be dated to the time of the Herodian Dynasty.31 Third, the loss of farming land.32 Especially informative for dating the Parables of Enoch to Galilee during the time of the Herodian Dynasty is the

27.  D. W. Suter rightly points out that this verse seems to indicate a pre-70 ce date, since one would expect the destruction of Jerusalem to fit in with the condemnation of kings and the mighty. See Suter in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 422–23. 28.  On Jews in Parthia, see J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia: The Parthian Period (Leiden: Brill, 1969). 29.  Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), p. 90. 30.  For similar arguments, see J. C. Greenfield and M. E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977), 51–65; Stone, “Enoch’s Date in Limbo: Some Considerations on David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables,” in Boccaccini, ed., Enoch, pp. 444–49; G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 144ff.; J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992), 448; Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988 [2nd edn.]), pp. 177–78; G. W. E. Nicke1sburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (London: SCM, 2005 [2nd edn.]); Nicke1sburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6 (1992), 137–50; Nicke1sburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 7. 31.  See Collins, Semeia 14 (1979), p. 39. Collins rightly rejects the arguments of J. T. Milik (1971, 1976) who attributed the Parables of Enoch to a Christian of the second or third century ce. Collins judges that “there can be little doubt that they [the Parables of Enoch] are Jewish and early.” For Collins, the Parables of Enoch are to be dated during the Herodian period because of the reference to the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 bce (56:5-7) and “Herod’s attempt to heal himself in the waters of Callirhoe (67:7-9).” He emphasizes that there is “no reference to any event later than Herod,” and hence the Parables of Enoch “should be dated some time about the turn of the era.” Independently, we come to the same conclusion; and so have most Enoch specialists during the past three decades. Laurence in 1821, Hoffmann in 1833, and Sjöberg in 1946 also perceived a reference to the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 bce. Suter (1979 and 2007) sees a vague memory of the event; Stone (2007) also tends to affirm the consensus. For further discussion, see Nickelsburg and Vanderkam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 209–10, and their contributions to Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (see Bock). 32.  See the chapter in this volume by Charlesworth, “The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch.”

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­181

economic situation mirrored in the text.33 From the time of the accession of Herod the Great as king de facto in 37 bce, when he killed his opponents and trapped them in the Arbel caves, to the outbreak of the First Great Revolt in 66 ce, the majority of the arable land shifted from small and ordinary farms to large and wealthy farms. Almost all those who owned the latter were not Jews but Herodians or Romans. Far too many Jews became tenant farmers on the land promised to them as descendants of Abraham. The Jews behind the Parables of Enoch sought for judgments of those who had stolen the land and become rich, taking all the dry land for cultivation.34 Let us examine the relevant passages. The author or compiler of the Parables of Enoch focuses on one dominant message; it is the coming judgment on kings and landlords. Note these pertinent excerpts that reflect the social and economic condition behind the Parables of Enoch (italics mine): Kings, potentates, dwellers upon the earth: You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits in the throne of glory and judges Azaz’el and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits! (55:4) He placed the Elect One on the throne of glory; and he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. (61:8)

The curse and coming judgment is directed against the non-Jews who stole the arable land from Jews, forcing many Jews to become tenant farmers. Note the eschatological hope of the Jewish community behind the Parables of Enoch (italics mine): “kings and rulers shall perish” (38:5) “In those days, the kings of the earth and the mighty landowners [lit. “the strong ones by whom the land is possessed”] shall be humiliated on account of the deeds of their hands.” (48:8) “ In those days, the governors and the kings who possess the land shall plead that he may give them a little breathing spell from the angels of his punishment …” (63:1)

33.  This dimension of the Parables of Enoch has been missed. The reference to those who steal the land from Jews is overlooked; e.g., see Hannah: “The principal concern of the Parables is to assure the faithful that despite appearances God will one day intervene, and at the resurrection and final judgement their faithfulness would be rewarded, while ‘the king and the mighty’ will be dispatched to Sheol” (Hannah, “The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch,” in Who is This Son of Man?, p. 136). In Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (pp. 363–79), P. Piovanelli rightly claims that the Parables of Enoch “represent an excellent test case for any socio-rhetorical analysis of late Second Temple apocalyptic discourse” (p. 363). He then focuses on the kings (cited 15 times), the mighty (13 times), the exalted (6 times), and those who possess the land or earth (6 times) in the Parables of Enoch. Piovanelli perceives, as I do, that the author and his community is a Jewish group “fallen under the domination of a new and merciless dynasty” (p. 375). 34.  R. H. Charles imagined that the kings and mighty denoted the Hasmonean princes and the Sadducees. He thus dated the Parables between 94 bce and 64 bce (Charles, APOT 2.171).

­182

Parables of Enoch

In chapter 54, those who are to be judged and condemned are “kings and potentates” because of “their oppressive deeds.” The reference to the king makes best sense if we assume King Herod. Before Jesus, Herod is the only one named “king” who comes forth as likely; King Aristobulus (104–103) and King Alexander Jannaeus (103–76) are too early. When the kings and owners of the land are being punished in the eschatological judgment day, they will confess how they robbed Jewish farmers (italics mine): We had put our hopes upon the scepters of our kingdoms. 8[Now] on the day of our hardship and our tribulation he is not saving us; and we have no chance to become believers. For our Lord is faithful in all his works, his judgments, and his righteousness; and his judgments have no respect of persons. 9[So] we will vanish away from before his face on account of our deeds; and all our sins are consumed by righteousness. 10  Furthermore, at that time, you shall say, “Our souls are satiated with exploitation money which could not save us from being cast into the oppressive Sheol.” 11 After that, their faces shall be filled with shame before that Son of Man; and from before his face they shall be driven out. And the sword shall abide in their midst, before his face. 12 Thus says the Lord of the Spirits, “This is the ordinance and the judgment, before the Lord of the Spirits, [prepared] for the governors, kings, high officials, and landlords.” (63:7-12)

This one passage should suffice to make our point: the Parables of Enoch were composed during a time of shock for Jews: They were losing their land to kings and landowners who were heathen. Here is another indication of that anguish (italics mine): Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the governors, the high officials [or “exalted ones”], and the landlords [“those who seize the land”] and said, “Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows – if you are able to recognize the Elect One!” 2 The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in; and all the oppressors shall be eliminated from before his face. 3 On the day of judgment, all the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords shall see and recognize him – how he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and that no nonsensical talk shall be uttered in his presence. 4 Then pain shall come upon them as on a woman in travail with birth pangs – when she is giving birth [the child] enters the mouth of the womb and she suffers from childbearing. (62:1-4)

The ancient curse on kings and rulers is reshaped; it now concludes with the curse on the “landlords.” That alteration of the typos to include “landlords” indicates that the Jews who composed the Parables of Enoch are farmers or closely connected to farmers who have lost their land to “landlords.” The latter are faithless Jews or, more likely, non-Jews, because they did not believe or acknowledge “the Lord of the Spirits” (God), do not worship, and profane God’s name (60:5-6). They are “those who seize the land.” Disenfranchised Jews, mirrored in Parables of Enoch, can live with a present pain because of Enoch’s shared vision of the time when their oppressors

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

183

“shall be eliminated” and suffer pain like a prurient woman in travail with birth pangs. The land grabbers will suffer the most horrible pain imaginable. How does the apocalyptic Jew transfer the oppressed Jews to another world or time? He describes a scene in which the faithful and elect are allowed to be present and realize joy: “It shall become quite a scene for my righteous and elect ones. They shall rejoice over the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords because the wrath of the Lord of the Spirits shall rest upon them and his sword [shall obtain] from them a sacrifice” (62:12 [italics mine]). Thanks to archaeological research and insightful studies focused on early Jewish texts, we now see more precisely the social and economic situation Herod the Great forced on Palestine in order to rule with an iron fist, removing all who had social and economic power to resist him, and to finance his lavish gifts outside Palestine (viz., to Augustus, support of the Olympic games, and building sumptuous monuments in foreign lands, notably in Rhodes). Most devastating to the Galilean farmers were the exorbitant taxations and confiscations of farms to fund Herod’s massive, and impressive, building projects, including Caesarea Maritima, the Herodium, Masada, Jericho, Sebaste, Hyrcanium, the Temple, and the Antonia Fortress (see Ant 16–18). Notably, he constructed no cities or monuments in Galilee; east of Galilee on the Golan Heights he built Horvat Omrit to honor Caesar Augustus. Thus, Herod financially drained Galilee to build up Samaria (Sebaste), Caesarea Maritima, and most impressively Jerusalem and its environs. 35 During the Herodian Dynasty about 70 percent of the arable land was stolen from Jews by the Herodians and their quislings through over-taxation, exploitation, and confiscation.35 While Augustus probably relieved Herod of paying taxes to Rome, Herod probably collected the tributum agri from Jewish farmers directly.36 Note the accusation attributed to the Jewish ambassadors to the Emperor (italics mine): … the Jewish ambassadors … betook themselves to accuse Herod of his iniquities … he had taken to himself that uncontrollable authority which tyrants exercise over their subjects, and had made use of that authority for the destruction of the Jews, and … that whereas there were a great many who perished by that destruction he brought upon them, so many indeed as no other history relates, they that survived were far more miserable than those that suffered under him, not only by the anxiety they were in from his looks and disposition towards them, but from the danger their estates were in of being taken away by him … that whereas, when he took the kingdom, it was in an extraordinary flourishing condition, he had filled the nation with the utmost degree of poverty; and when upon unjust pretenses, he had slain any of the nobility, he took away their estates: and when he permitted any of them to live, he condemned them to the forfeiture of what they possessed. (308) And, besides the annual impositions which he laid upon every one of them, they were to make

35.  See M. I. Rostovzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957). 36.  Josephus, Ant 17.307-08 (τῶν δούλων, οἳ ἐπ’ ἐκπράξει τῶν φόρων ἐξίοιεν [307]).

­184

Parables of Enoch

liberal presents to himself, to his domestics and friends, and to such of his slaves as were vouchsafed the favor of being his tax gatherers, because there was no way of obtaining a freedom from unjust violence, without giving either gold or silver for it. (Ant 17.303-08 [Whiston])

The tax-farmer was hated;37 taxation on farms and produce was so severe in Palestine that an official request for the remission of these taxes was placed before the Emperor in 17 ce (Tacitus, Ann 2. 42). All these phenomena disclose the economic conditions that are mirrored in the horrific judgment envisioned for the landowners who robbed Jews of fertile land. The opulence of the landowners is strikingly obvious when one stands at Ramat haNadiv with its palace and elaborate baths, and looks down on miles of fertile land (even now full of vineyards and farms). That elevated memorial of the Herodian Dynasty helps placard the social and economic setting of the Parables of Enoch. They were composed during the Herodian Dynasty.

The Provenience of the Parables of Enoch The Parables of Enoch is most likely a Galilean composition. This point has not been as deeply disputed as the date of the composition; hence, we may summarize the argument which has already been broached – by now the attentive reader may have surmised that the Parables of Enoch were not only composed during the time of the Herods but also in Galilee. Three main reasons lead us to situate the Parables of Enoch within Galilee. First, the tradition in the earlier corpus, clearly known to the compiler of the Parables of Enoch, highlights an apt description of Dan: “And I went and sat down upon the waters of Dan – in Dan which is on the southwest of Hermon” (13:7). Mount Hermon is the mountain on which the Watchers descend: “And they [the fallen angels] were all together two hundred; and they descended into ’Ardos, which is the summit of Hermon” (6:6).38 Living in Upper Galilee, I recall many times see the mystical summit of Mount Hermon which rises 9280 feet above sea level. Once, I marveled at the sight. The earth was visible with the long expanse of fields. Above them rose the fog and grey clouds. Higher still were the snow-capped peaks of Hermon, glistening in the bright sunlight. Higher still I observed the blue sky. I easily imagined that Hermon was part of the heavens and above the earth.3637 37.  Nineteen despicable professions are listed in Poll. Onom. 6.128. Among 19 unworthy occupations are six possible tax-collectors; in 9.32, about 35 castigate a tax-farmer (only ten praise him). Τελώνης denotes not only one who collects taxes; it is also a person who has purchased the permission to collect taxes and all dues. An impassable bridge separated tax-collectors and the Pharisees. 38.  Note the insights shared by Nickelsburg in “Sacred Geography in 1 Enoch 6–16,” 1 Enoch 1, pp. 238–47. 36.  37. 

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

185

These fallen angels are not only in earlier sections of the Books of Enoch; they reappear in the Parables of Enoch: The damned will “see my Elect One, how he sits in the throne of glory and judges Azaz’el and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits!” (55:4) Then I saw there an army of the angels of punishment marching, holding nets of iron and bronze. 2 And I asked the angel of peace, who was walking with me, saying to him, “To whom are they going, these who are holding [the nets]?” 3 And he said to me, “[They are going] to their elect and beloved ones in order that they may be cast into the crevices of the abyss of the valley. 4  Then the valley shall be filled with their elect and beloved ones; and the epoch of their lives, the era of their glory, and the age of their leading [others] astray shall come to an end and shall not henceforth be reckoned. (56:1-4)

Second, Babylonian astronomy has influenced the Parables of Enoch; note this section: And I saw other lightnings and the stars of heaven. And I saw how he called them each by their [respective] names, and they obeyed him. 2 And I saw the impartial scales for the purpose of balancing their lights at their widest areas. And their natures are as follows: Their revolutions produce lightning; and in number their revolutions are [as many as] the angels; they keep their faith each one according to their names. (43:1-2)

Thus, Babylonian science influenced not only the Astronomical Books of Enoch (1En 72–82) but also the Parables of Enoch (1En 37–71). Any provenience should account for this influence. In Upper Galilee, the connections with the East are well known, especially in Gamla. Third, and most importantly, the Jews behind the Parables of Enoch yearn for the damnation of those who have stolen their land and made them tenant farmers. These heathens who do not honor God’s name have taken all the dry land and left swamps to the Jews. Swamps remind us of the Huleh Valley and the area from Dan to Capernaum. In Galilee, we find the economic crises and sociological disenfranchisement reflected in the Parables of Enoch. Anthropological and sociological reflections lead us to emphasize that few things were so catastrophic for Galilean Jews than the loss of land. The land is where grandparents and parents (and maybe children) were buried; and it is the Land promised by God to Jews, Abraham’s descendants. When a plot of land on which one has buried loved ones has been taken by those deemed infidels, and not generations later, is usually when a writer expresses his and his community’s anguish. And after 67 ce, virtually all is lost in Galilee with Jotapata, Gamla, Migdal, and other villages razed or burned (as is so evident from recent archaeological discoveries). The mounting evidence for the origin of the Parables of Enoch is more impressive than the search for the original language, date, and provenience of almost any other so-called pseudepigraphon. The reasons to date the

­186

Parables of Enoch

composition of the Parables of Enoch long after Jesus have lost their persuasiveness.

The Provenience of the Parables of Enoch: The Case for Migdal 38

A consensus has been developing among the leading Enoch specialists; they suggest or conclude that we should look to Galilee and before 70 ce for a sophisticated Jewish community that produced in a Semitic language the masterpiece we label the Parables of Enoch.39 No one has suggested where this might be located, even though a vast amount of archeological work has been devoted to sites like Nazareth, Yotafa, Khirbet Kana, Capernaum, Bethsaida, Gamla, Tiberias, and Migdal.40 It is clear that the place should be a wealthy Jewish village or city that had a clear view of Mount Hermon (or was near one), was perhaps pro-Hasmonean and anti-Herodian, and had been influenced by Babylonian traditions. All these requirements demand focusing on Lower Galilee and the Jewish cities and villages that appeared with the migrations of Jews from Judea after the Hasmonean conquest of the area.41 Now, in the present volume, Motti Aviam speculates that the Parables of Enoch were composed at Migdal. This hypothesis has not yet been evaluated by scholars. In my opinion, Migdal should now be included among the hypotheses for the provenience of the Parables of Enoch for the following reasons: 1) The Parables of Enoch were most likely composed somewhere in Galilee before the Roman destruction of 67 ce; this position is now a consensus among Enoch specialists.42 We should imagine they were composed in a wealthy village or city with strong ties to Jerusalem and perhaps where Babylonian influences are known or to be expected. Migdal is an ideal choice for each of these; moreover, it seems to have been a stronghold for the Hasmoneans. It seems also to be a location for anti-Herodian sentiment. There is also evidence that those at Migdal experienced the Parthian threat of 40 bce. Let me explain my observations and reflections. In 53 bce, the Roman army and its general Crassus, who had stripped the Jerusalem Temple of all its gold (Ant 14.109), were defeated by the 38.  39.  Note the insights shared by Nickelsburg in “Sacred Geography in 1 Enoch 6–16,” 1 Enoch 1, pp. 238–47. 39.  I am influenced by Nickelsburg’s conclusion that the Parables of Enoch were composed in Aramaic. See his 1 Enoch 2, pp. 30–34. 40.  For over a decade with M. Aviam, I have scoured Upper and Lower Galilee looking for a village or city in which one might imagine Jews present who could have composed the Parables of Enoch. Because of the size and date of the “city” and its links with Babylon, I have often speculated that Gamla is our best choice. Now, I am pondering what we might know about Migdal (where I helped Stefano De Luca dig intermittently for over a decade … but only as a volunteer). 41.  See U. Leibner, Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee (TSAJ 127; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009).

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­187

Parthians near Carrhae in Mesopotamia.43 Following this event, many Jews in Palestine backed either the Romans or the Parthians. The Jewish military leader supporting the Parthians was Peitholaus (or Pitholaus; Πειθόλαος), hypostrategos of Jerusalem (War 1.162, 172, 180; Ant 14.93). This war period is reflected in Jewish sources, notably in the Eschatological Work A ? (4Q468g) and in the Parables of Enoch 56.44 That Peitholaus is mentioned in the Eschatological Work A ? indicates that he was a well-known figure to elite Palestinian Jews. According to Josephus (War 1.180-82; Ant 14.119-22), the Romans, under Cassius (53–51 bce), in their war against the Parthians, captured Taricheae (= Migdal) and enslaved 30,000 Jews. Following Antipater’s advice, Cassius killed Peitholaus who supported the Hasmonean Aristobulus II.45 Peitholaus was apparently in Migdal (= Taricheae) and was killed in, or nearby, that city. In War 1.182, Josephus promises to write further on this event; but nothing is known about such a work (and he may never have composed it).46 The sides of combat enlisted many nations and tribes. On one side of the conflict were the Romans (Cassius), the Nabataeans, Idumeans,47 Antipater (with the early “Herodians”), the Arabs with the king of Arabia, and the Hasmoneans under Hyrcanus II (63–40). On the opposite side were the Parthians, Peitholaus, Ituraeans, Galileans, and the Hasmoneans led by the descendants of Aristobulus II (67–63).48 During this period, the Parthians, Mattathias Antigonus (40–37), Hyrcanus II, and Herod vied for supremacy until 37 bce when Herod succeeded to become “King of the Jews” de facto, taking Sepphoris without fighting in a snowstorm (War 1.303), but finally in the Arbel caves killing all who did not support him enthusiastically. Herod’s conflict with the Hasmoneans and the Parthians thus culminated just west of Migdal. About 40 bce, many Jews living in and near Migdal would have known about Peitholaus and his connection with the Parthians. Numerous Jews in Judea and Galilee would frequently have discussed the Parthians. Many Galileans would have bristled as they reflected on Antigonus’s offer of 500 43.  Helpful is the Forschungsbericht presented in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, esp. pp. 208–11. 44.  While the Romans fought the Parthians from 53 bce to 217 ce, the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 bce is most likely mirrored in the Parables of Enoch, as most specialists on the Books of Enoch now conclude. See Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 209–10. Using eschatological language and prophetic hope, the author seems to allude to the Parthian invasion of 40. 45.  See Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 113. 46.  L. L. Grabbe suggests that Peitholaus’s crime was that he sought to continue Aristobulus’s revolt. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Herod (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), vol. 2, p. 343. 47.  H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus II: The Jewish War (Loeb; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, and London: Heinemann, 1976). See the note on p. 85. 48.  See esp. E. A. Myers, The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources (SNTSMS 147; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 2010), pp. 162–64.

­188

Parables of Enoch

women to the Parthians (War 1.257; Ant 14.331, 343). The 500 included Jewish women. Most likely some of them lived in Migdal or nearby. It is clear that almost all “the country-folk” from Galilee who had been in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost around 40 were now back in Galilee. And decades later in Jerusalem at Pentecost among the multitudes were some who spoke the Parthian language (Acts 2). The war continued from 40 to 37 bce. In 38, chasing pro-Parthian forces, Herod moved southward from Samosata, the capital of King Antiochus of Commagene, to Jerusalem. Strengthened with a legion given him by Antony and 800 mountaineers, Herod’s army moved southward past Mount Hermon, probably passing beside Migdal (War 1.328-30; ctr. Ant 14.452).49 Shortly before, many Galileans revolted and drowned Herod’s collaborators in the Sea of Galilee (War 1.326, Ant 14.450). Migdal seems to be the center of the proParthian and anti-Herodian mass of Jews. Clearly, as Schalit perceived,50 the Parthian crisis of 40 bce was often centered in Galilee and near Migdal. The Galileans frequently revolted with such developments (War 1. 253-58). The civil wars, the Parthians, and Herod’s activities in eastern Galilee shaped the Jewish consciousness; it imbedded the memory of Galileans. A historian should conclude that these horrific events would most likely leave an imprint on any contemporary Galilean composition like the Parables of Enoch. Well known is Josephus’ account of how Herod killed the Jews who resisted him and hid in the Arbel caves. This event comes into clearer perspective when we recall the mikvaot found in the Arbel caves. While Jews who were not priests certainly used mikvaot, did some of these mikvaot serve Hasmonean priests or other wealthy Jews who opposed Herod before 37 bce? We shall never be able to answer that question, since while the mikvaot have been known for many years, if only recently highlighted,51 they were found clean and cannot be dated archaeologically. In the second half of the first century bce, many Judean Jews were aligned with the Romans and many Galilean Jews with the Parthians. In eastern Galilee, especially in and near Migdal, as we know from Josephus, Jews tended to align with the Parthians against the Romans.52

49.  See the reflections by Morton Smith in The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, and J. Sturdy (Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1999), vol. 3, pp. 222–23. 50.  See the map in Schalit, The Herodian Period, ed. M. Avi-Yonah, et al. (Jerusalem, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975), p. 67. 51.  A. Schalit in The Herodian Period, pp. 62–70. 52.  See the discoveries and comments by Yinon Shivtiel in Haaretz on 27 April 2012 (with an image of one mikveh). Shivtiel gives the impression that the mikvaot had not been known and were excavated with datable strata; he also incorrectly suggests that mikvaot indicate priests. As Aviam shows in his chapter in this book, one of the earliest mikveh is at Qeren Naftali and it is not in a temple but in a fort. Archaeologists have focused too much on post-70 phenomena in the Arbel, in my judgment. Some of these mikvaot may date from about 40 bce.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­189

Most likely the Parthian invasion of 40 bce shapes the eschatological vision in 1 Enoch 56. Jews in Migdal knew about the Parthian army; many would have remembered its eastern flank marching to Jerusalem near Migdal. They knew that the Parthians invaded Palestine not from the south and the route through Petra, but moved southward from Syria (defined to include all the land south of Cilicia to Egypt; Strabo, Geog. 16.2.1). Pacorus followed the route along the sea coast (κατὰ τὴν παράλιον), and Barzapharnes advanced on passages that may have led through Migdal and certainly inland (διὰ τῆς μεσογείου) (War 1.249). This historical excursus shows the social upheavals and the powerful political complex created by the successes of the Hasmoneans (who ruled from 153 to 37 bce) and brings into focus one fact: in and near Migdal, Jews would have been keenly conscious of the Parthian invasion of 40 bce. Presently, the archaeological evidence of a Parthian invasion is only in Judea, especially on the western littoral of the Dead Sea.53 Most likely, the lack of evidence of an invasion in Galilee is because the Galileans were pro-Parthian; thus, we should not expect to find destruction levels. In Galilee, Jewish culture would have been imbued with thoughts of the Parthians, since the disturbances were exasperated in Galilee (War 1.180; Ant 119-21).54 Thus, since 1 Enoch 56 mentions the Parthians trampling the land of God’s chosen ones, one provenience for the composition of the Parables of Enoch would be Migdal or nearby.55 2) While the remains of many synagogues are found throughout Galilee, most postdate the first century ce. The only pre-70 synagogue discovered by archaeologists in Galilee is at Migdal (Gamla is in the Golan to the east of Galilee). The Migdal synagogue fits the need for a religious center or community in which a work like the Parables of Enoch could evolve and be written. The large room to the west and contiguous with the Migdal synagogue is conceivably an ideal place for a scriptorium. If so, did some Jewish compositions originate in this room or in some nearby location? 3) One can see Mount Hermon as a dominating and majestic mountain (often with snow) from the region of Migdal. Looking northeast across the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) at the snow-capped Hermon easily evokes mystical reflections. Here those who attributed revelations to Enoch would remember that the Watchers descended to earth, landing on Mount Hermon. 4) Migdal was not a small fishing village like Capernaum. It was a more cosmopolitan Jewish “city” with plastered harbored walls, springs, warehouses, at least one large mikveh, a public toilet, and a large forum. I have been present when pieces of ornate glass from Sidon and elsewhere were recovered from the dirt.

53.  See the critical judgments of Schalit in “Syria Invaded by the Parthians: Alliance Between Antigonus and the Invaders and His March on Jerusalem,” in The Herodian Period, pp. 59–62. 54.  M. Mazar, T. Dothan, I Dunayevsky, En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of Excavations 1961–1962 (‘Atiqot English Series 5; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1966). 55.  See E. Gabba in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3, p. 99.

­190

Parables of Enoch

5) The stone found in the Migdal synagogue represents prominent images from the Jerusalem Temple: the menorah, the façade of the Temple, and large jars (conceivably for the water ceremony). Most importantly, the Jew who added images on the back side may well have attempted to depict two chariot wheels.56 This element suggests the presence of Jewish apocalypticism and an imagined chariot in heaven. If so, the only Jewish apocalypse composed during the time this stone was carved is the Parables of Enoch; thus, it is first in line for discerning the influence on the artist.57 Sociologists and historians usually seek contemporaneous images for the source of inspiration on a work. Do “chariots” appear in one of Enoch’s visions in the Parables of Enoch? Note this passage in the Parables of Enoch: And it happened afterward that I had another vision of a whole array of chariots loaded with people; and they were advancing upon the air from the east and from the west until midday. 2 And the sound of their chariots [was clamorous]; and when this commotion took place, the holy ones in heaven took notice of it and the pillars of the earth were shaken from their foundations [lit. “from their seats”]; and the sound [of the noise] could be heard from the extreme end of the sky unto the extreme end of the earth in one hour [or one day]. (1En 57:1-2; E. Isaac)

Enoch’s chariot vision is a cosmic event. Chariots are prominent in the vision; this link helps to solidify the speculation that the Parables of Enoch could have been composed in Migdal and imagined on the synagogue stone. 6) Most likely, many Jewish farmers flocked to Migdal where there was prosperity and dreams – and most importantly livelihood – in the massive industry for pickling fish and shipping it to Jerusalem and abroad. Did most of them flee to Migdal for work because of the loss of farming land to Herodians and Romans? Obviously, many Galilean Jews were reduced to tenant farmers (an economic and social class well known from Jesus’ parables). I was present when the Migdal synagogue appeared from mud with its mosaic, benches, and painted plastered walls and pillars. Israeli archaeologists, agnostics, and educated Christians shared their conviction that Jesus certainly taught in this synagogue. It was merely a one-hour boat ride from his headquarters at Capernaum. They added that if any place has been found where Jesus sat and taught in the synagogue (as the Evangelists report) and where he met Mary of Migdal, it was in this small but elegantly constructed edifice. If so, that might help us explore how and in what ways Jesus was influenced by the unique traditions preserved in the Parables of Enoch. 7) A major highway, perhaps the via maris, has been unearthed on the western sections of Migdal. Thus it was easy for many to move swiftly in most directions and for foreign influences to be brought into Migdal. All the material culture found at Migdal makes it an ideal setting to speculate that the 56.  See the brilliant reflections by Motti Aviam in this volume. 57.  I am indebted to M. Aviam for this interpretation. See his paper presented in the Temple Symposium in Boca Raton, Florida (in press).

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­191

Parables of Enoch were composed there. No other site in Galilee presents such an attractive provenience for the development, drafting, and composing of the Parables of Enoch. Intelligent people who only hide behind data or facts are neither historians nor insightful. Historians are celebrated for their ability to absorb primary data (including texts as well as archaeological research) and imaginatively reconstruct the ancient world that left such artifacts. Now informed that Jews who composed the Books of Enoch probably completed their final editing and composing in Galilee, we should imagine in which villages or cities they may have settled or frequented. If it is relatively certain that they were near a city like Migdal and since the Evangelists report that Jesus taught in the synagogues of Galilee, we should imagine him in Migdal studying and preaching in the Migdal synagogue that has recently been unearthed. How many times did Jesus discuss issues with those Jews who developed the Son of Man concept to its highest level in Early Judaism? Where did he meet them?

Son of Man in Parables of Enoch 1 Enoch 37–71 is now transparently linked with the Book of the Watchers (1–36). It appears that an editor has sought to make this transition.58 The work continues with an introduction (ch. 37) and three parables (as clarified in 37:5).59 Each parable begins with an introductory speech by Enoch. The first parable is found in chapters 38 to 44, the second in chapters 45 to 57, and the third in chapters 58 to 69. Chapters 70–71 seem to contain the conclusion and anticipated elevation of Enoch.60 The narrative, widely perceived as a pastiche of traditions, is an otherworldly ascension of Enoch. The compiler of the Parables of Enoch narratively introduces numerous celestial figures.61 They appear in this order: The Elect One (45, 49, 51, 55, 61) Son of Man (46, 48, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71) The Antecedent of Time (47, 55, 60, 71) The Messiah (52) The Righteous and Elect One (53) Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel (54:6, 71:8)

The archangels, well known in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish literature, are presented twice within the Parables of Enoch and in the order given. Five eschatological messianic figures are presented impressionistically. Obviously, 58.  Also for consideration is the much earlier chariot image in Ezek 1. 59.  See Vanderkam in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 84. 60.  See Nickelsburg and Knibb in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man. 61.  Many scholars imagine chs. 70 and 71 to be a shocking contrast to the preceding chapters. See esp. Knibb in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 62–63.

­192

Parables of Enoch

since the Messiah per se is mentioned in only one chapter in the Parables of Enoch, he is not the focus of the author(s)’ attention. The drama of salvation is focused on the impending eschatological condemnation of kings and landowners. No clear distinction should be made between the Elect One (45, 49, 51, 55, 61), the Son of Man (46, 48, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71), and the Messiah (52). Each term or (more likely) title draws attention to a powerful eschatological figure who will sit on a throne and judge the kings and landowners (the only economic profession selected for mentioning). One is given the impression that the eschatological enthroned cosmic figure who will serve as “Judge” in the eschaton is the same person even though he appears with various names in the visions:62 “the Elect One” (xeruy), “the (or that) Son of Man” (walda be’si or walda sab’ and even walda ‘egwāla ’emmacheyāw), the Messiah or Anointed One (masich), and “the Righteous One” (tsādeq). The perception that these three terms are probably titles and refer to one person is a major development in research on the Parables of Enoch. Prominence is given to the Son of Man; he appears in 46:3, 4; 48:2; 60:10; 62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:29 (bis); 70:1; and 71:4, 17. He is the prominent eschatological judge and he is given the most focus and development. In 60:10 Enoch is implied to be the son of man (“And he said to me, ‘You [Enoch], son of man, according [to the degree] to which it will be permitted, you will know the hidden things’”). The proleptic announcement is fulfilled in chapter 71 in which Enoch is hailed as the Son of Man. The consensus among specialists on Enoch and the Son of Man have tended to agree on some of the following points, but not on others:63 Originally, the concept of “the Son of Man” did not denote Enoch. The expressions in the Parables of Enoch represent a long and complicated literary evolution. At one stage in the long development of the Son of Man concept, the term became a title and was identified with Enoch. Scholars cannot agree on how this interpretation shapes the presentation earlier in the Parables of Enoch. Scholars disagree on the composition history of the Parables of Enoch. Are chapters 70 and 71 originally part of 36–71? Scholars debate how to translate, interpret, and relate the various terms for “that son of man” (and variations) in the Parables of Enoch. 62.  Quotations of 1En are according to E. Isaac (and I am indebted to him for some insights into Ethiopic). It is the translation found in the popular OTP and Isaac is an Ethiopian who feels the language in ways impossible for the great Englishman, R. H. Charles. Often I change his translation, using his own notes for more literal renderings. That is fundamental for any comparison with the Greek of Jesus’ sayings. 63.  See A. Orlov in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 129; VanderKam in Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), p. 139, and Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.138. The first scholars in contemporary research to push for the identification of the “titles” are Black (pp. 148–68) and VanderKam (pp. 169–70) in The Messiah.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

193­

Eight chapters in the Parables of Enoch mention the Son of Man. The first chapter to envision the Son of Man is chapter 46. At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time [“the Antecedent of Time”]. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one – from among the angels – who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings [or “that Son of Man”],64 “Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time?” 3  And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. 4  This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones. He will loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. 5 He will depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship. (46:1-5)

The Son of Man is lauded for many future actions, perceived as certain or already accomplished. They clearly have a messianic ring that may be heard echoing in the Psalms of Solomon. The Son of Man is a celestial being who is “like” a human being. The reflections are clearly exegetical expansions of Daniel 7: [As] I was watching thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days (Nymwy qyt(w) sat on his throne; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of his head was like pure wool His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire … Ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgment, And the books were opened … [As] I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man (#n) rbk) Coming with the clouds of heaven. He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought him near before him. (Dan 7:9-13; my translation)65

64.  I am influenced by the splendid work of H. S. Kvanvig in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 198–215. 65.  Eth. zatawalda ʾemsabeʾ. B and C read zeku walda sabeʾ, “that Son of Man [or ‘human beings’].”

­194

Parables of Enoch

In 1En 46, the Son of Man accomplishes, proleptically, an amazing series of tasks: He will open all the hidden storerooms. He will be victorious in eternal uprightness. He will remove kings and mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones. He will loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He will depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms.

As mentioned earlier, this passage seems best to fit the judgment destined for the despot Herod and his quislings. He was a “king” (in title from Rome) with a kingdom, and had comfortable seats and thrones in many places. He was very strong (especially in his youth) and deemed a sinner and pompous interloper by the author of the Parables of Enoch. He failed to acknowledge the source of his kingship, obviously giving more honor and loyalty to the Emperor than to the Creator. While he imagined himself “victorious,” only the Son of Man is victorious and will be victorious for eternity. The messianic overtones of Son of Man in 1En 46 are hard to miss if one focuses on the rhetoric of the narrative in the Parables of Enoch.66 P. L. Owen astutely states: It strains credulity, in light of the Danielic allusions within 46.1-4, to think that the messianic figure who appears would be repeatedly described as a “son of man” throughout the Similitudes [= Parables of Enoch] (46.2, 3, 4; 48.2; 62.5; 62.7, 9, 14; 63.11; 69.27; 69.29; 70.1; 71.14; 71.17), with no awareness or intentional development of the terminology used in the very biblical text from which the original description of the “son of man” was drawn.67

Owen also cites me for pointing out: “If the Gospels preserve echoes of Jesus’ own words, and at times accurately preserve them, then ‘the Son of Man’ is most likely an expression known to some Galilean Jews prior to Jesus’ ministry in Galilee.”68 In his The Jewish Gospels, D. Boyarin rightly points out that the Parables of Enoch “provides us with the most explicit evidence that the Son of 66.  The rich symbolism and complex language is not preserved in the NRSV. 67.  M. Casey insists that the emphatic Aramaic form of “the son of man” is an ordinary way of referring to “a man” in pre-70 Aramaic. The evidence for this claim can be brought into focus; but one must avoid the “all fallacy.” That is, that many passages denote “the son of man” as a circumlocution for the first- or third-person pronoun or “human” does not mean that in apocalyptic texts with messianic overtones we are to assume the meaning of the marketplace. See M. Casey, “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd,” JSNT 25 (2002), 3–32, and The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem (London: T & T Clark, 2007). 68.  Note in particular H. S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 179–215; Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 216–27; and K. Koch, “Questions Regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Messiah Son of Man, pp. 228–37.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­195

Man as a divine-human Redeemer arose by Jesus’ time from reading the Book of Daniel.”69 The present exploratory research underscores this conclusion. One should not find it hard to comprehend how generic terms, like son of man, could obtain the power of a title; that clearly happened with “man” and “son” as we know from many Jewish texts, notably 4 Ezra.70 Yet, we must ponder. How and when does an “expression” become a technical term, and then a title? How can we be certain that no Jew who read the Parables of Enoch or heard the ideas discussed among those within the Enoch group never imagined that the Son of Man was a title, like the Messiah? The second chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1Enoch 48. ‍ urthermore, in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not F become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink [of the water] and become filled with wisdom. [Then] their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. 2‍At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the Before Time [or “the beginning of days”]; 3  even before the creation of the sun and the moon [“the wonderful thing”], before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4‍He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6  For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of [the Lord of the Spirits]71 prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity. 7 And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression and hated all its ways of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life. 8  In those days, the kings of the earth and the mighty landowners [“the strong ones by whom the land is possessed”] shall be humiliated on account of the deeds of their hands. Therefore, on the day of their misery and weariness, they will not be able to save themselves. 9 I shall deliver them into the hands of my elect ones like grass in the fire and like lead in the water, so they shall burn before the face of the holy ones and sink before their sight, and no place will be found for them. (48:1-9)

The Son of Man is identified with the Chosen One, indicating that we are seeing visions of a celestial and eschatological being with numerous names. Both are primordial. The kings and mighty landowners will be judged by him. They will not be saved. 69.  Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 450–68; the quotation is on p. 465. 70.  D. Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of Christ (New York: The New Press, 2012), p. 76. 71.  For similar reflections, see W. Horbury, “The Messianic Associations of ‘the Son of Man,’” JTS N.S. 36 (1985), 34–55.

­196

Parables of Enoch

The third chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 60: “And he said to me, ‘You, son of man, according [to the degree] to which it will be permitted, you will know the hidden things’” (60:10). The son of man, Enoch, is to be given secret knowledge. He will receive these secrets and be designated the Son of Man. The fourth chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 62. In this chapter the Son of Man is mentioned four times. Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the governors, the high officials [or “exalted ones”], and the landlords [“those who seize the land”],72 and said, “Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows – if you are able to recognize the Elect One!” 2 The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in; and all the oppressors shall be eliminated from before his face. 3 On the day of judgment, all the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords shall see and recognize him – how he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and that no nonsensical talk shall be uttered in his presence. 4 Then pain shall come upon them as on a woman in travail with birth pangs – when she is giving birth [the child] enters the mouth of the womb and she suffers from childbearing. 5  One half portion of them shall glance at the other half; they shall be terrified and dejected; and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory. 6 [These] kings, governors, and all the landlords shall [try to] bless, glorify, extol him who rules over everything, him who has been concealed. 7 For the Son of Man73 was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones. 8 The congregation of the holy ones shall be planted, and all the elect ones shall stand before him. 9 On that day, all the kings, the governors, the high officials, and those who rule the land shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and raise their hopes in that Son of Man; they shall beg and plead for mercy at his feet. 10  But the Lord of the Spirits himself will cause them to be frantic, so that they shall rush and depart from his presence. Their faces shall be filled with shame, and their countenances shall be crowned with darkness. 11 So he will deliver them to the angels for punishments in order that vengeance shall be executed on them – oppressors of his children and his elect ones. 12  It shall become quite a scene for my righteous and elect ones. They shall rejoice over [the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords] because the wrath of the Lord of the Spirits shall rest upon them and his sword [shall obtain] from them a sacrifice. (62:1-12)

The Son of Man sits on the throne of glory and judges the kings and those who seize the land from “the holy and elect ones.” The Son of Man “rules over everything.” Since time began, he “has been concealed.” The Most High One “preserved him” until the judgment day; then “he revealed him to the holy 72.  Lit. “he concealed [him] in his [own], presence.” 73.  During transmission and copying, Ethiopian scribes shifted the meaning from the context of stolen land to “those who possess the earth.” B and C have yaḥadrwā lameder; this could mean “who dwell on the land.”

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­197

and the elect ones.” Since Jews composed the Parables of Enoch, they are the ones who will receive the revelation of the Son of Man and rejoice at the condemnation of kings and those who seized the land. The chapter continues to explain the eschatological vision of the revelation of the Son of Man: The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever. 15 The righteous and elect ones shall rise from the earth and shall cease being of downcast face. They shall wear the garments of glory. 16  These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits. Neither shall your garments wear out, nor your glory come to an end before the Lord of the Spirits. (62:14-16)

The Son of Man shall bring to the righteous and elect one, the Galilean Jews, the eschatological banquet. They shall eat, rest, and rise “with that Son of Man.” They shall be the ones who “wear the garments of glory” that represent life and glory that will not end. If the passage is composed after the death of Herod the Great, the import is that his glory and life ended; his garments wore out. The fifth chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 63. Notice how the kings and those who seized the land from Galilean Jews bewail their horrific condemnation: We had put our hopes upon the scepters of our kingdoms. 8[Now] on the day of our hardship and our tribulation he is not saving us; and we have no chance to become believers. For our Lord is faithful in all his works, his judgments, and his righteousness; and his judgments have no respect of persons. 9 [So] we will vanish away from before his face on account of our deeds; and all our sins are consumed by righteousness. 10 Furthermore, at that time, you shall say, “Our souls are satiated with exploitation money which could not save us from being cast into the oppressive Sheol.” 11 After that, their faces shall be filled with shame before that Son of Man; and from before his face they shall be driven out. And the sword shall abide in their midst, before his face. 12  Thus says the Lord of the Spirits, “This is the ordinance and the judgment, before the Lord of the Spirits, [prepared] for the governors, kings, high officials, and landlords.” (63:7-12)

Chapter 63 brings into focus the anguish of the kings and land grabbers at the time of judgment. They will admit their evil deeds that include “exploitation money.” That seems to mean over taxation. The sixth chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 69. 27 

[Then] there came to them a great joy. And they blessed, glorified, and extolled [the Lord] on account of the fact that the name of that [Son of] Man was revealed to them.74 He shall never pass away or perish from before the face of the earth. 28 But

74.  Here the Ethiopic expression walda ʿegwula- ʾemma-ḥeyyāw (sic) is used instead of walda sabʾe. Both ʿegwula- ʾemma ḥeyyāw and sabʾe designate “man,” “a human being,”

­198

Parables of Enoch

those who have led the world astray shall be bound with chains; and their ruinous congregation shall be imprisoned; all their deeds shall vanish from before the face of the earth. 29 Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits. (69:27-29)

The disenfranchised Jews shall experience joy. They shall bless, glorify, and extol the Lord because of the Son of Man who is enthroned. He destroys “all evil” and incorruptibility. Those who led the world astray will be bound in chains. This seems to refer to the Herodians, especially Herod, who bound Jews in chains. The seventh chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 70. One can imagine that originally the Parables of Enoch may have ended with chapter 69. The last verse, 69:4 states: “Here ends the third parable of Enoch.” Then we are given a vision of the Antecedent of Days and the declaration that Enoch is the Son of Man. It is conceivable that chapters 70 and 71 were added by a Jew sometime in the first century ce.75 The concept of “interpolation” is misleading. The Parables of Enoch is not followed by further writings in a book; it circulated as a separate scroll, ending conceivably at 69 – but there is no manuscript evidence that the Parables of Enoch ever existed without chapters 70 and 71. The book always ends with chapter 71. One may talk about adding to the end of a scroll; and this is a frequent phenomenon in the evolution of scrolls and books. This assumption of an addition of chapters 70 and 71 is unattractive to many specialists (notably M. Casey, H. Kvanvig, and J. VanderKam).76 There is no manuscript evidence to indicate that chapters 70 and 71 were ever missing. Enoch’s elevation as Son of Man has been anticipated from the very first Enoch work and he is “the son of man” in chapter 60. One can well imagine “a living person,” “a mortal being.” Ethiothic sabʾe has a collective (“people”), more abstract (“humanity”), and more universalistic (“humankind”) connotation. The former expression emphasizes the individualistic aspect of man, and thus literally means “offspring of the mother of the living.” Ethiopic ʿegwula-maḥeyyāw also means “man” but has come to be regarded by Ethiopic grammarians as of different etymology: “the offspring of the one whom the Living One has brought forth from the earth” or “offspring of the Living One and the earth,” or simply “the Son of God,” i.e., man as God’s offspring. I am indebted to Isaac for most of this information. 75.  B and C add a passage (omitted by A): “And he sat on the throne of his glory; and the presidency [lit. “head”] of the [final] judgment was given unto the Son of Man.” 76.  The scholars who tend to favor an addition are the following (selected): G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 42–45; Knibb, “Structure and Composition,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 62–63; J. J. Collins, “The Heavenly Representative: The ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. Collins and Nickelsburg (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 111–33; Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 216–27; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001); S. Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 153–78, citing 162; and Hannah in Who is This Son of Man?, pp. 152–58.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­199

that the Jews who were devoted to Enoch simply expanded on the elevation of him in Genesis 5. The seventh antediluvian hero walked perfectly with God (as Adam had done before the Fall) and did not die but is with God. He is active and admired in heaven and is destined to guide and save the righteous on earth. It is no shock, then, to read that Enoch is God’s chosen one to bring peace to earth. The author is a gifted (if repetitive) writer; the announcement that Enoch is the Son of Man was foreshadowed throughout the Parables of Enoch: And it happened after this that his living name was raised up before that Son of Man and to the Lord from among those who dwell upon the earth; 2  it was lifted up in a wind chariot and it disappeared from among them. 3 From that day on, I was not counted among them. But he placed me between two winds [or spirits], between the northeast and the west, where the angels took a cord to measure for me the place for the elect and righteous ones. 4 And there I saw the first [human] ancestors and the righteous ones of old, dwelling in that place. (70:1-4)

As the Son of Man “was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits” (1En 48:2,), so now someone will have “his living name” raised up. This is anticipatory writing. Who is the one who will be elevated? Who or what is being lifted up in a chariot? The answer is provided in the final chapter. The final chapter to envision the Son of Man is 1En 71. Then an angel came to me [Enoch] and greeted me and said to me, “You, son of man [or Son of Man],77 who art born in righteousness and upon whom righteousness has dwelt, the righteousness of the Antecedent of Time will not forsake you.” 15 He added and said to me, “He shall proclaim peace to you in his name which exists for ever [or “in the name of the world that is to become”]. For from here proceeds peace since the creation of the world, and so it shall be unto you forever and ever and ever. 16 Everyone that will come to exist and walk shall [follow] your path, since righteousness never forsakes you. Together with you shall be their dwelling places; and together with you shall be their portion. They shall not be separated from you forever and ever and ever.” 17 So there shall be length of days with that Son of Man, and peace to the righteous ones; his path is upright for the righteous, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits forever and ever. (7:14-17)

The author or compiler ends by emphasizing the peace that was promised from the beginning. It is for the righteous ones. Righteousness will never end; it defines the Son of Man and his period, the end of time. His path is “upright for the righteous.” Because of the Son of Man all shall be together. 77.  M. Casey, The Solution to the “Son of Man” Problem (LNTS 343; London: T & T Clark, 2007), pp. 99–100. H. S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 179–215. Kvanvig in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 179–215. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 169–91; see esp. pp. 182–84.

­200

Parables of Enoch

In chapter 71, Enoch is revealed as the Son of Man. This should not be assessed as a shock and discontinuous with the previous chapters. Even if we today might find it shocking,78 revelation should be allowed to have that effect. Rhetoric often demands a conclusion that is not logically expected. If anyone added chapters 70 and 71 shortly after the completion of 37– 69, Enoch devotees would have found the thought pleasing, expected, and certainly not shocking. The elevation has been foreshadowed throughout the Enoch corpus (a logical exegetical expansion of Enoch’s uniqueness in Gen 5) and is anticipated by chapter 60: “And he said to me, ‘You, son of man, according [to the degree] to which it will be permitted, you will know the hidden things’” (60:10). To argue that Enoch now sees himself is to leave the narrative. An angel greets Enoch and declares that he is the son of man (Son of Man). What does Enoch see in the last vision? He sees “the sons of the holy angels” (71:1), “two rivers of fire” (71:2), “a structure built of crystals” (71:5), and “countless angels” (71:8). To remove 70 and 71 from 37–69 so as to remove tensions between third-person discourse and first- or second-person discourse misses the same supposed clash in 71:15: “He [the Son of Man] shall proclaim peace to you [Enoch].” Moving from debated issues, it is clear that the ones who give us the Parables of Enoch are most interested in the concept of the Son of Man. The readings of the manuscripts often differ, disclosing a fluid text tradition, and it is not wise to over-interpret texts that may have been intentionally complex and seemingly disoriented. Scholars admit that the visions resist ordering, and relationships are not adequately explained. The author’s or compiler’s preoccupation with “Son of Man” hides his minor reference to “the Messiah,” which appears only in 52: “And he said to me, ‘All these things which you have seen happen by the authority of his Messiah so that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth’” (52:4). The reference is ambiguous; the Messiah does not conquer or inaugurate a new age; he merely gives orders (not explained) and is to be praised on earth. He is noticeably subordinate to God; observe the use of the delimiting adjectival pronoun: “his Messiah” (as in the PssSol and 4Q521). Perhaps the author had in mind God’s Anointed One – that is, the one anointed for the final day, most likely the Son of Man. The status and functions of the latter, the Son of Man, are certainly the interest of our author or compiler. The 78.  In Ethiopic, this expression, “son of man,” is not grammatically distinguished from “the Son of Man;” unlike Aramaic and Greek, Ethiopic (as Syriac) has no definite or indefinite article. Here the text has beʾesi, “man,” or “a masculine person.” As noted already, numerous expressions in Ethiopic are used to refer to “a son of man” or “the Son of Man,” and even “that Son of Man.” One wonders if the original text was changed through transmission. Note that Enoch is announced to be “the Son of Man” in chap. 71. There are vast differences among the Ethiopic manuscripts as well as the sometimes significant differences between the Qumran Aramaic fragments and the Ethiopic “text” (according to which manuscript). Thus, any translator of the medieval Ethiopic manuscripts, especially when there is no Aramaic or Greek subtext to compare, should be alert to possible alterations over centuries. One should not be focused only on the late medieval manuscripts but perceptive of what might have been in a putative original or Untertext.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­201

Messiah may be the Son of Man, since the author or compiler imagines that each person has similar functions, cosmic significance, and will be praised on earth. The verbal images of “that Son of Man” (zeku walda sabeʾ) are presented as visions.79 They are not theological or exegetical studies based on Daniel or other biblical texts. They are not to be systemized or even abstracted to be analyzed. They obtain meaning within the flow of the narrative and its rhetoric. The Son of Man appears from emotional impressions, not academic reflections. The visions leave one clear impression: we are introduced to one of the most exalted and cosmic figures expected in the latter days – the Son of Man. Worthy of note are the reflections by D. D. Hannah: The eschatological heavenly mediator of the Parables of Enoch, alternatively termed the Elect One (or Chosen One), the Righteous One, the Messiah and the (or that) son of man, is quite probably the most exalted heavenly mediator to be encountered in the Judaism of the Second Temple period apart, that is, from Jesus the Messiah of early Christianity. The Parables’ figure functions as the eschatological judge, sits on the very throne of God and receives homage which approaches, but is not to be equated with, worship.80

The thrust of one function dominates: The Son of Man is coming as the irresistible eschatological Judge. While #n) rb appears in Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic, and Middle Aramaic,81 it seems to become a title only late and in the Parables of Enoch. In Middle Aramaic “the Son of Man” is focused not on a collective Israel (as may have been the case in Daniel) but upon an individual.82 Perhaps too much discussion has been directed to prove that the Son of Man is not a title in Judaism before Jesus from Nazareth and too little towards devising a method by which to distinguish a term from “a title,” and upon why such a distinction is appropriate and meaningful in antiquity. In Ezekiel and Daniel, “the son of man” is an open-ended image. In the Parables of Enoch, those words emerge again but this time they introduce a recognizable character; and he has binding judgments at the eschaton. The 79.  Note Hannah: “Given that throughout the Parables Enoch has seen in visions the Elect son of man and there has been no indication that he was viewing himself, this identification is unexpected – to say the least.” See Hannah in Who is This Son of Man?, p. 154. A conclusion may be unexpected and still part of a narrative. Surprise endings are sometimes evidence of rhetorical skills (the rhetoric of surprise). 80.  Perhaps zeku was added in transmission to bring out the determinative or was intended to distinguish “Son of Man” from Ezekiel’s terms or to advance hermeneutically the one like a Son of Man in Daniel. 81.  Hannah, “The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch,” in Who is This Son of Man?, p. 130. 82.  See J. A. Fitzmyer, “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” in The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), vol. 2, pp. 143–60.

­202

Parables of Enoch

development from Ezekiel to Daniel and from Daniel is recognized by most scholars. It is this development that we find in the traditions attributed to Jesus. Yet, while the Parables of Enoch represent impressive development and ample exegetical refinement of traditions since we first heard of “son of man” in Ezekiel83 and Daniel, we are not presented with a theology of the “Son of Man.” The concept “Son of Man” is attractively ambiguous, allowing the creating God to be free to present this person without preconceived notions. Subsequently, the ambiguity allows those within the Enoch group to ponder that Son of Man without being limited to his being, function, or the time of his appearance. They focus on only one main detail: they want the Son of Man to judge, convict, and condemn those who have oppressed, over-taxed, and stolen their land and livelihood. The Son of Man will come. Those within the Enoch cycle are convinced they know that event with certainty. And he is fundamentally the cosmic eschatological Judge. This apocalyptic theology allows meaningful life and hope for Jews living in a desperate time and place – a land promised to Jews but in which Jews are robbed of land, over-taxed, and treated as subjects by nonJewish “kings” and “landlords” who do not honor God’s name or the Torah. The exegetical development of the Son of Man and its messianic overtones is unique to the Parables of Enoch; it is paralleled only by sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.84

Son of Man in the Gospels Within Second Temple Judaism, a theological pinnacle was reached with the Son of Man term, concept, and eventually title. In the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man is a construct that designates a heavenly figure who at the End of Time will serve as cosmic Judge. This is a massive exegetical and midrashic development beyond the similar expressions in Ezekiel and Daniel. The Parables of Enoch represents a unique dimension in Early Judaism. As K. Koch states, the document is curious.85 The author does not refer to 83.  See Charlesworth, “Il figlio dell’uomo, il primo giudaismo, Gesù e la cristologia delle origini,” in Il Messia: Tra Memoria e Attesa, ed. G. Boccaccini (Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005), pp. 87–110. 84.  See D. O’Hare, “Have You Seen, Son of Man?”: A Study of the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010). O’Hare points out the different text traditions sometimes found behind the Septuagint and that Ezekiel’s imagery, including the Son of Man image, was represented in the Hellenistic period. Thus, when we read Ezekiel’s “Son of Man” we should seek to understand not only the original meaning but also how it was understood centuries later. 85.  4Ez 13 does present “something like the figure of a man” (13:3). This section of Ezra is also a development of the images and concepts in Dan (esp. chs. 2 and 7). The author may also be influenced by the Parables of Enoch, since the “man” is concealed until the end of time when he will protect those with faith, and reprove and destroy the ungodly nations. But rather than depicting the “man” as the Son of Man, he is declared to be “the Son” of the Most High.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­203

Abraham, Israel, Moses, or Torah. The focus is shifted to “that Son of Man.” The term (or more likely title) is not to be expected as one studies the flow of thought in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings; it has a prototype perhaps in Ezekiel and probably in Daniel 7. The eschatological figure is clearly a heavenly person, but scholars cannot agree if the expression “that Son of Man” only describes an individual or has become a title.86 Clearly, the Son of Man is a title in the Gospels.87 Was it a title within Judaism only in the Palestinian Jesus Movement (PJM)? Does the title derive from Jesus who must have used the expression or term? How do we find methods to answer these questions, as we seek to explain not only the indebtedness of the PJM to Judaism but also its dynamic creativity? There is no doubt that the vastly different interpretations about the meaning of the Son of Man and concerning the origins of it as a title are due primarily to imprecise methodology but also to the paucity, editorial alterations of our sources, and the transmission of the Parables of Enoch from Aramaic to Greek and finally Ethiopic. Unfortunately, the newly published Qumran Aramaic texts have not provided any key to unlocking the answers.88 New Testament experts concur today that the Son of Man is a title in all Gospels; it is no longer merely a term. The “Son of Man” is reserved by all New Testament authors only for Jesus. Almost always “the Son of Man” is found only in the oldest layer of the Jesus tradition – and that includes the Gospel of John. The term is not a creation of an Evangelist. Why does the title “the Son of Man” appear only in the Gospels? It is not found in compositions where one might except to see it, that is in Paul’s epistles, Hebrews (cf. Heb 2:6-9), and Revelation. The title is reserved for Jesus and him alone; but like all Jesus traditions, it comes to us in the Gospels only through redaction (Redaktionsgeschichte) of diverse and complex traditions. Probably, all such traditions were both oral and literary; behind Mark and John, scholars discern tracts or written sources. A tradition, Q, may be a written source behind Matthew and Luke. Numerous scholars now rightly doubt that the Son of Man traditions in the Jesus tradition can be neatly categorized into three groups (as so many experts assumed 50 years ago): the presence of the Son of Man, the suffering of the Son of Man, and the coming of the Son of Man. The latter has strong ties with the Parables of Enoch; it is there that we can discern potential influences. The suffering Son of Man sayings attributed to Jesus have no parallel in the Enoch corpus (Wisdom not finding a home is not suffering); these traditions increase in frequency as the Gospel narrative approaches the Passion Narrative. Thus, 86.  K. Koch in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 228–37. Koch also considers “the Son of Man” a title (p. 228). 87.  Boccaccini refers to “the Son of Man” as a title. See Boccaccini in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 12. 88.  See A. L. Lukaszewski’s review of recent research in Who is This Son of Man?: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, ed. L. W. Hurtado and P. L Owen (London, New York: T & T Clark, 2011).

­204

Parables of Enoch

they either represent Jesus’ own suffering (categorized as a miracle worker, ostracizing by the learned scribes, and the obtuseness of his chosen Twelve) or the kerygma of the early members in the Palestinian Jesus Movement as they explained the culmination of Jesus’ life and the necessity of the crucifixion. It is difficult to discern just what Son of Man sayings can be taken with precision back to Jesus from Nazareth. It is not obvious how to discern editorial alterations and clarifications. The pre-Qumranic preoccupation with Jesus’ consciousness has been replaced with an examination of his self-understanding.89 If Jesus intermittently imagined himself to be the proleptic Son of Man who would serve as eschatological Judge, then his self-awareness was most likely shaped by images, concepts, and associations found only in the Parables of Enoch. The same judgment seems appropriate if Jesus imagined he was the herald of the eschatological Judge, the Son of Man. Many experts rightly stress that the Son of Man passages in the New Testament are found only in sayings attributed to Jesus and often referring to himself.90 Note the comment by F. Borsch in The Son of Man in Myth and History: “An important and often noted characteristic of the Son of Man sayings is the rule that only Jesus speaks about the Son of Man.”91 They then often conclude that Jesus’ use of “the Son of Man” best explains the exclusivity of the term or title with the historical Jesus. Now, more and more specialists are pondering how and in what ways is Jesus’ preoccupation with “the Son of Man” influenced by traditions related to and now found only in the Parables of Enoch? The argument that the Gospels have influenced the Parables of Enoch needs to be reversed and improved with more precision and understanding of the Jewish world that antedated 70 ce. There may never be a methodology to obtain precision in discerning answers – and one should not be so naïve as to assume scholars will seek to agree – yet there should be no doubt that reasons are amassing to contemplate (not conclude) that for Jesus the Son of Man concept was a means to proclaim an apocalyptic theology that re-created a meaningful life and provided hope in a desperate time and place. Jesus certainly shared the same type of Judaism with the Enoch groups and at the same time and same place. Thus, these conclusions stimulate us to float a hypothesis to explore how and in what ways, if at all, Jesus was influenced, whether significantly or not, by those who were crafting traditions around the ancient concept of the Son of Man and Messiah. 89.  However, see 4Q246 2.1: “The Son of God will be proclaimed and the Son of the Most High will be named.” The Aramaic: Nwyl( rbw rm)ty l) yd hrb hnwrqy. 90.  See Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism. 91.  D. R. A. Hare rightly points out that Jesus never was asked to explain the meaning of the Son of Man. He also argues that the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels “is used by the speaker, Jesus, as a way of referring to himself” (p. 242). I am open to the possibility that sometimes Jesus is referring to another who will come as the Son of Man. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 242.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­205

The Son of Man and Jesus’ Theology: A Hypothesis Jesus was an itinerant teacher who is reputed to have moved about Galilee, centering his activity on the northwestern shores of the Sea of Galilee. Sometimes he may have uttered sayings in Aramaic ()#n()) rb) and occasionally, less frequently, in Greek (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). Gifted Jews who revered Enoch and eventually saluted him as the Son of Man were active in Galilee at the same time as Jesus was an itinerate Teacher or “Rabbi.” Thus, a historian is obliged to imagine that Jesus met and conversed with some of them. Why? There are four main reasons. First, Jesus and those behind the Parables of Enoch were not only influenced by Jewish apocalyptic eschatology; they contributed to it. Thus, they were sectarian in the sense that they were not primarily influenced by the Jerusalem-based type of Judaism that elevated Moses, David, and Solomon and stressed ritual above eschatology. Second, Jesus and the Enoch devotees imagined that Wisdom could not find a home on earth. Perhaps a saying in Enoch helped shape Jesus’ Son of Man imagery. Striking, and not to be missed, is the similarity between a memorable passage in the Parables of Enoch and one of Jesus’ lamentations. Emphasizing that “one should not withhold the beginning of wisdom from those of latter days” (37:3), Enoch, with God’s approval, shares the revealed wisdom with those who dwell on earth (italics mine): 1

Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell; but a place was found [for her] in the heavens. 2  Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling place. [So] Wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels. (1En 42:1-2)

Why should anyone wish to resist the possibility that Jesus may have known this passage or tradition? It antedates him and was composed in Galilee. He linked the homelessness on earth with the Son of Man concept; and that linkage makes some connection with the Enoch traditions conceivable. Recall a logion attributed to Jesus: As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Lk 9:57-58 [NRSV]) A scribe then approached and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Mt 8:19-20 [NRSV])

It would be foolish to claim that these passages have in no way been influenced by the Son of Man traditions in the Parables of Enoch. It would also be unwise to suggest that Jesus is quoting the Parables of Enoch. The traditions are

­206

Parables of Enoch

strikingly similar; in each the wise envoy from God can find no dwelling place on earth. As a search continues to discern any influence from the Enoch group on Jesus, one should admit that the thought may be similar but the expressions and metaphors are different. Indirect, even direct, influences must be contemplated within the obvious: Jesus was a creative genius. He did not merely repeat what he had read or heard. Third, both Jesus and those behind the Parables of Enoch developed the Danielic Son of Man imagery so that it clearly symbolizes an individual. This individual is a heavenly figure that will appear on earth in the future. Fourth, and most importantly, the Son of Man was envisioned as the eschatological Judge; this identification is unique to the Enoch and Jesus traditions. Knowing the contextuality of the Parables of Enoch, many sociologists and historians will demand that we admit some influences from the Enoch traditions on Jesus’ thought. That the Son of Man is to be the Judge is a shocking idea in biblical theology. The biblical message is that God is the Judge. Note these selections (all from NSRV or OTP): He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth. (1Chr 16:14) God is a righteous Judge; and a God who has indignation every day. (Ps 7:11) The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is Judge. (Ps 50:6) … but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another. (Ps 75:7) Indeed, God is the Judge; fear him! Cease from your sins, and forget your iniquities, never to commit them again; so God will lead you forth and deliver you from all tribulation. (4Ez 16:67) “… the Most High …is a righteous Judge” (4Ez 14:32)  “ Behold, God is the Judge, fear him!” (4Ez 16:67) “For the Most High … will surely judge those who are in his world, and will truly inquire into everything with regard to all their works which were sins.” (2Bar 83:12)92 Every day when the Holy One, blessed be he, sits on the throne of judgment and judges all the world, with the books of the living and the books of the dead open before him, all the celestials stand before him in fear, dread, terror, and trembling. When the Holy One, blessed be he, sits in judgment on the throne of judgment, his garment is white like snow, the hair of his head is as pure wool, his whole robe shines like a dazzling light and he is covered all over with righteousness as with a coat of mail. (3En 28:7) “the Creator, just Judge” (SibOr 3:704)

92.  F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (The New Testament Library; Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1967), p. 18.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­207

Throughout the Hebrew tradition, the emphasis on God as the Judge is so clear that a name is created: Dani-el, “my Judge [is] God.”93 Using ancient poetic traditions, the author of Daniel seems to portray God (not the Son of Man) as the eschatological Judge (Dan 7:10, 22, 26).94 In stark contrast to this biblical tradition, the Jews who bequeathed us the Parables of Enoch stressed that the Son of Man is the eschatological Judge. God was not dethroned. God remains the sole Creator. But, now Jews perceived that God delegated his eschatological work to intermediaries. In contrast to the earlier biblical books, the authors of so-called Pseudepigrapha stress God’s transcendence. God is thoroughly majestic and transcendent (2Mac 3:39; 3Mac 2:15; SibOr 3.1, 11, 81, 807; 5:298, 352; MartIs 1:6b; 1En 71:5-11; 2En 20:5). Knowledge of him is no longer direct; it is obtained now through the sacred books, the descent of angels (TAb 2:15), the gift of vision (1En 1:2), or the journey of a seer through the various heavens (Parables of Enoch, 2En, AscenIs). Thus, the author of Genesis 18 imagines God visiting Abraham as a messenger, but the author of the Testament of Abraham recasts the narrative in light of his recognition of God’s transcendence. God does not descend to visit Abraham; he sends his angel Michael to speak with the patriarch (TAb 1). Following this tendency towards a theology of a transcendent God in Second Temple Judaism, the author or compiler of the Parables of Enoch contends that God delegated his judgeship to the Son of Man. Recall 1En 62: 3 

On the day of judgment, all the kings … and the landlords shall see and recognize him – how he sits on the throne of his glory … 4 Then pain … shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory. 6 [These] kings…and all the landlords shall [try to] bless, glorify, extol him who rules over everything, him who has been concealed. 7 For the Son of Man95 was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One … revealed him to the holy and the elect ones. … 9 On that day, all the kings, the governors… and those who rule the land shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and raise their hopes in that Son of Man; they shall beg and plead for mercy at his feet. 10 But the Lord of the Spirits himself will cause them to be frantic…Their faces shall be filled with shame, and their countenances shall be crowned with darkness. 11 So he will deliver them to the angels for punishments … 12  It shall become quite a scene for my righteous and elect ones. They shall rejoice over [the kings…and the landlords] because the wrath of the Lord of the Spirits shall rest upon them and his sword [shall obtain] from them a sacrifice. (1En 62:3-12)

93.  This list must now suffice. It is representative and makes the point that God is Judge in most Jewish texts. 94.  See also the following passages in which God is perceived as Judge: Job 34:23; Eccl 3:17, 11:9; 12:4; Rom 14:10; 2Cor 5:10; Heb 9:27. 95.  G. J. Botterweck and V. Hamp include this section of Daniel under “God Judges All Nations.” See their contribution in TDOT 3.191.

­208

Parables of Enoch

The Righteous One and the Elect One are perceived to be like the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. Each functions as the cosmic eschatological Judge: When the congregation of the righteous shall appear, sinners shall be judged for their sins, … 2 and when the Righteous One shall appear … the sinners … those who denied … the Lord of the Spirits it would have been better for them not to have been born. … the Righteous One … shall judge the sinners. (38:1-3; cf. 1En 92:2-5) The Elect One stands before the Lord of the Spirits … He shall judge the secret things. And no one will be able to utter vain words in his presence. For he is the Elect One before the Lord of the Spirits according to his good pleasure. (49:2-4) “Kings, potentates, dwellers upon the earth: You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits on the throne of glory and judges Azaz’el and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits!” (55:4) He placed the Elect One on the throne of glory; and he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. (61:8) Thus the Lord commanded the kings … and the landlords (“those who seize the land”) and said, “Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows – if you are able to recognize the Elect One!” 2 The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in; and all the oppressors shall be eliminated from before his face. 3 On the day of judgment, all the kings … and the landlords shall see and recognize him – how he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and that no nonsensical talk shall be uttered in his presence. (62:1-3)96

None of the hundreds of Jewish documents that date from 200 bce to 200 97 ce shares this concept. Only in the Parables of Enoch is the Son of Man (the Righteous One, and the Elect One)98 portrayed as the eschatological and cosmic Judge.99 According to the Evangelists, Jesus also believed that the Son of Man would be the eschatological and cosmic Judge: “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Mt 16:27-28 [NRSV]) 96.  Here the Ethiopic expression walda ʿegwula- ʾemma-ḥeyyāw (sic) is used instead of walda sabʾe. 97.  Is the Elect one identified as the Lord of the Spirits? Our author is not attempting to systemize his thoughts. They are more like the emotional utterances of the Sibyl. 98.  See ApocEzek Frg. 1 1 for the king who is judge (in a parable). OTP 1.493-94. 99.  See J. VanderKam and M. Black in The Messiah (reviewed in Bock’s chapter).

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­209

“Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (Jn 5:25-28 [NRSV])

Moreover, in both the Parables of Enoch and in the Jesus traditions, the Son of Man is enthroned and provides eternal life for the elect. The Parables of Enoch begins with Enoch claiming that “the Lord of the Spirits” gave to him “the lot of eternal life” (37:4). Enoch thence descends to give eternal life to the elect and righteous, receiving visions of the enthroned Son of Man. Finally, the Parables of Enoch concludes with the revelation that Enoch is the Son of Man. This full image and narrative found only in the Parables of Enoch seem reflected in a saying attributed to Jesus (italics mine): Then Peter said in reply, “Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.” (Mt 19:27-29 [NRSV])

Deeply indebted to Jewish apocalypticism, as is clear from recent research,100 Jesus is reputed to have shared a vision of a future day with cosmic reverberations when the Son of Man appears from heaven: 29

Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Mt 24:29-31 [NRSV])

How are we to explain such shared images and visions? They are not to be dismissed as generic; there are particulars shared between the Enoch traditions and the Jesus traditions. One may explain them as added by Jesus’ followers, some of whom were influenced by the compositions attributed to Enoch. One may appeal to oral traditions that were shaping the ethos in which the Enoch 100. 

Melchizedek (11QMel) and Meṭaṭron (3En 16) are also portrayed as a cosmic judge.

2­210 10

Parables of Enoch

group and Jesus were obtaining similar explanations for the present unbearable crises and the hoped for future. Scholars may never find methods to adjudicate all the options; yet one perspective has now been clarified: the Enoch group behind the Parables of Enoch and the Palestinian Jesus Movement shared some unique terms, concepts, and expectations. How do we explain that those behind the Parables of Enoch and Jesus (according to the New Testament) shifted the concept of cosmic Judge from God to the Son of Man? Did they do so without any dialogue, interchange, or discussion? What valid historiography would support such social and ideological independence? Both in the Parables of Enoch and in the Jesus traditions, the Son of Man is associated with Noah.101 The compiler of the Parables of Enoch probably quotes from the lost Book of Noah.102 Stressing that Noah had Enoch as a grandfather (65:2, 5, 9; 67:4; 68:1), the compiler of the Parables of Enoch recasts probably from a Noah tradition or the lost sections of the Book of Noah, a conversation between Michael and Noah:   Then Michael said unto me [i.e., Noah (see 60:8 “my grandfather … the seventh from Adam)], “What have you seen that has so disturbed you? This day of mercy has lasted until today; and he has been merciful and long-suffering toward those that dwell upon the earth. 6 And when this day arrives – and the power, the punishment, and the judgment, which the Lord of the Spirits has prepared for those who do not worship the righteous judgment, for those who deny the righteous judgment, and for those who take his name in vain – this day will become a day of covenant for the elect and inquisition for the sinners.” (1En 60:5-6)

Jesus also connects the ideology of the Son of Man with Noah: 37 For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. 42 Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (Mt 24:37-42 [NRSV])

How can we be certain that the Noah traditions preserved within the Parables of Enoch have not influenced Jesus? Was the influence from the Book of Noah, traditions about Noah, or directly or indirectly from the Parables of Enoch?

101.  Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus: How to Ask Questions and Remain Inquisitive,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010), vol. 1, pp. 91–128. 102.  VanderKam’s research seems to correct the translation of 1En 4:24: “Because of him [Enoch], God did not bring the waters of the flood on Eden.”

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

­211

What methodology is most appropriate for the present exploration? On the one hand, proximity in time and place does not sociologically demand similarity. Humans have shown a remarkable ability to share time and place and absolutely nothing else. On the other hand, shared time and place suggest something more may be shared. When you add the same zeal for a purified Torah, an apocalyptic eschatology, and a shared vision of an imminent future age, the historian, as well as the sociologist, asks how do we explain the similar images, language, and concepts shared by those behind the Parables of Enoch and by Jesus from Nazareth? It is conceivable that Jesus developed Daniel’s concept of the Son of Man independently from those within the Enoch cycle; but the shared time, place, and emphasis on the Son of Man as cosmic Judge is unique to Jesus and those behind the Parables of Enoch. The historian must acknowledge this fact and seek to explain it. The most obvious and appealing explanation is that Jesus was influenced by those behind the Parables of Enoch. Is it conceivable that there is some mutual influence? That is, Jesus’ powerful and popular teachings may have influenced the shaping of the final literary form of the Parables of Enoch. Both Jesus’ teachings and the Parables of Enoch share the same time and the same social setting in Lower Galilee; we need to be open to the possibility of dialogue and mutual influence through a fluid oral tradition. Perhaps the Jews behind the Parables of Enoch heard about Jesus’ teachings and were not impressed by his synthesis. They might have rejected the reports that he excluded Gentiles (as in Mt 10:5) and the importance he and many placed on his miracles. They might have been disenchanted by Jesus’ high self-esteem and apparent claim to be God’s Son, as well as his penchant for referring to God as “Father.” They also may have misunderstood some of his teachings about the centrality of the Kingdom of God. They might then have added En 70 and 71 to make it clear that Enoch alone is designated “that Son of Man.”103 That would exclude Jesus. While such a scenario is conceivable, I consider it too speculative and imaginative. While historians should imagine such possibilities, we should recognize that we have insufficient data for such reconstructions. If 1En 70 and 71 were added after Jesus’ life, then he would not have been disturbed that someone was identified as the Son of Man. The Evangelists were correct to imagine Jesus was fond of the concept of the Son of Man. It was not yet a title with a full agenda, and it was not related to military or political functions, as was the Messiah in many texts and social contexts. Jesus warned about those who lived by the sword; he knew the dangers of resisting Rome or others with simple weapons brandished by those who were not professionally trained.

103.  See Charlesworth’s introductions, texts, and translations of the Qumran Noah fragments in the forthcoming Princeton Dead Sea Scrolls Project.

­212

Parables of Enoch

If the Parables of Enoch took final form just after Jesus’ ministry, then some influence from his teachings is conceivable. I prefer to conclude that the Parables of Enoch had taken definite literary form before 26 ce, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry; hence, Jesus could not have influenced that text. The historian should, however, imagine that many of Jesus’ teachings were not appealing to the Enoch groups. There is no reason to resist the obvious: Jesus was probably influenced by those who were emphasizing the Son of Man imagery and developing the imagery found in Ezekiel and Daniel. Those who wish to see Jesus being influenced only by God have a point; Jesus was obsessed with God; but to deny Jesus’ humanity and the influences on him by other humans is to sink into the heresy of Doceticism. The Evangelists do not portray Jesus as a scholar who was focused on reading and studying scrolls within a scriptorium or synagogue. He is depicted as a public speaker who conversed with others, especially religious Jews. Sometimes they are identified as Sadducees, Pharisees, or scribes; frequently his interlocutors are not identified. Perhaps some of the latter were Jews who knew or advocated the ideas in the Parables of Enoch. We do not know what these Jews called themselves or where they may appear, anonymously, in the Gospels. The portrait is clear: Jesus passionately discussed God and God’s Kingdom and concepts like the Son of Man with other Jews. His interests were God, God’s Rule (the Kingdom of God), the Son of Man as God’s eschatological Judge, the importance of the present time that is pregnant with apocalyptic expectations, and an unreserved dedication to obeying God’s will and leaving all to follow him.104 Jesus may never have read any writing by those who composed the Books of Enoch, but his thought is so similar to the Parables of Enoch that luminaries, like J. T. Milik, assumed that Jesus’ teachings and traditions directly influenced that composition. Most likely, the historical situation is virtually the reverse. Jesus seems to know the Enoch Son of Man traditions that were circulating in Galilee during his time. Was Jesus positively influenced by these oral Enoch traditions, choosing them to help express his eschatological message? If so, he was selective in what he chose to include, mixing his thought with concepts and perspectives not found or advocated by the Enoch group. For example, Jesus revered Moses and David, and he worshipped in the Temple, following the rules for ritual purity.105

104.  Hannah argues that “One can easily imagine an ‘Enochic’ Jew, that is, a Jew who valued the Enochic corpus and whose hope was set on its Elect son man, disturbed by the all too similar assertions being made for the crucified Messiah of early Jewish Christians, responding with an identification of his own.” Hannah, in Who is This Son of Man? p. 156. 105.  See Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus (An Essential Guide; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008).

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

213

While the Evangelists may have created and refined the title “the Son of Man,” Jesus most likely knew the construct as a fluid concept that was shaping Jewish oral traditions, especially in Galilee. And as many experts on the Books of Enoch have learned, the Enoch obsession with the Son of Man was most likely influencing the Galilean culture in which Jesus lived and taught. On the one hand, it is possible that Jesus’ earliest followers have significantly altered the passages where the Son of Man appears in the New Testament. Under the intoxicating influence of the beliefs in Jesus’ resurrection by God, did they create the concept that Jesus would return as the Son of Man? If so, that aspect of the Son of Man title is a post-Easter creation. On the other hand, it is possible that Jesus imagined, perhaps only intermittently, that he would be designated by God as the Son of Man who would be declared to be the cosmic Judge. If there is any historicity to Mark’s version of Jesus’ trial before the high priest, and if then Jesus proclaimed he would be vindicated as the Son of Man, then the title belongs to Jesus and a link with the Parables of Enoch becomes virtually undeniable. Recall Mk 14:61-62 (NRSV): Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus said: “I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”106

The connection between “the Messiah” and “the Son of Man” is difficult to explain if one ignores the Parables of Enoch. Did Jesus imagine those behind the Parables of Enoch when he prepared and delivered the Parable of the Tenant Farmers? Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard.” (Mk 12:1-2 [NRSV])

This economic situation reflects what had been happening in Galilee from 40 bce to Jesus’ time. A foreigner, a Gentile who goes to “another country,” obtains and constructs a fence, a pit, a watchtower for a vineyard. He leases it to tenants, obviously Galilean Jews. He sends a slave to obtain his share of the yearly profits; and as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, a slave or servant is metaphorically a prophet (1QpHab 7). This parable would have spoken to all Jews who had lost land and were now tenant farmers. Some of them are also mirrored in the Parables of Enoch. If those behind the Parables of Enoch were now tenant farmers, they would have appreciated this parable and the judgment that follows on those who stole portions of the Promised Land from them. 106.  Charlesworth, “The Temple, Purity, and the Background to Jesus’ Death,” Revista Catalana de Teologia 38.2 (2008), 395–442.

­214

Parables of Enoch

Did Jesus intend this parable for many Jews, especially those behind the Parables of Enoch? No scholar can answer this challenging question. We can only now ask new questions and ponder the historical setting of Jesus’ parables with more insight and appreciation. We New Testament scholars need to better comprehend and reconstruct the world of Jesus and the sayings that derive ultimately, even if with editing, from him. Now to be added to the groups around Jesus are those we can imagine behind the Books of Enoch. In light of an intensive study of early Jewish thought, found notably in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha, many scholars now perceive that Jesus never claimed that he was the Messiah nor accepted that designation, but he seems to have a clear messianic perception of himself. Thus, Jesus seems to have harbored the conception that he was fulfilling the function of a messianic figure. While Jesus never stated publically before the masses that he was the Messiah or messias designatus, some of his actions and maybe occasional intimate moments with his chosen disciples may have germinated that affirmation which becomes clear after his death and resurrection – and Jesus is the Messiah, according to each of the four Evangelists. If God alone knows the identity of the Messiah (PssSol), and that eschatological figure is mysteriously hidden in a place known only to God (4Ezra), then Jesus would immediately prove he could not be the Messiah if he declared that proposition or accepted it from anyone.107 Only God may reveal who is the Messiah. That insight brings us back to the Parables of Enoch. According to this work, some Jews during the time of Jesus perceived a relation between the Son of Man and the Messiah. According to the Evangelists, Jesus also made a connection between two apocalyptic figures denoted by the Son of Man and the Messiah. Does that not suggest we should be open to the possibility that Jesus and the authors of the Parables of Enoch may have shared some concepts and hopes? If so, should we ponder that intermittently Jesus debated with Enoch devotees as he debated with Pharisees? As should now be obvious, I would answer: “Yes.” Only four hypotheses explain the historical and social relation between the Enoch traditions and the Jesus traditions. First, there is no relation; the thoughts are too dissimilar to warrant any relation. That is the blind leading the blind. Second, there is the possibility that Jesus read and studied the Parables of Enoch. That is positive historicism. It crashes on the rocks of reality; only direct quotation with explicit citation grounds such speculation. Third, one can surmise that the only relation is because of a tertium quid. That is, each is influenced by something else. It could be a shared ethos and Jewish culture. Fourth, the Enoch-focused Jews and Jesus show sufficient similarities to warrant the hypothesis that there is some influence. If Jesus (or his followers) influenced them, we have no means to ascertain that fact, and chronology is against that hypothesis (pace Milik). Certainly, Jesus debated with many 107. 

From the NRSV but with my arrangement.

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

215

contemporary Jews; conceivably some of them were those who turned to Enoch for inspiration, insight, and hope. We know that at least some Jews asked: “Who is this Son of Man?” (τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου). That question indicates that “the Son of Man” was neither some hidden secret knowledge nor a common circumlocution for “human.” We may now perceive that Jews developed the Son of Man concept prior to the Gospels. It is no longer evident, as many specialists concluded, that the Son of Man Christology appeared only after Easter and only in the minds of Jesus’ followers. Son of Man theology seems present in Jesus’ own mind. We are now on firmer ground to conclude, with A. J. B. Higgins, that the Son of Man theology is derived from Jesus’ own teachings.108 One stunning aspect of the Son of Man Christology is lacking in the earlier Jewish concept of the Son of Man. Jesus, who frequently seems to refer to himself as the Son of Man, suffered and died in public humiliation. As Kvanvig points out: “The crisis, challenge, and foundation of Christian theology would accordingly be to unify this Son of Man theology with the violent fate of Jesus.”109 In summary, a new perspective appears with the paradigm shift; that is, a third-century Christian composition is now placarded to be a Jewish, Galilean, and Aramaic composition whose devotees are contemporaneous with Jesus. In the Gospels, Jesus uses the expression “Son of Man” to denote the eschatological Judge and the connections with the Messiah are regnant. This tradition clearly echoes another tradition, since Jesus never defines or is asked to define the expression “Son of Man.” The only source of the echo is found in the Parables of Enoch. Historians, sociologists, and biblical scholars need now to explore all the possibilities for explaining these facts and perceptions.

Conclusion My hypothesis articulated and shared for discussion is as follows. Conceivably, Jesus never read any portions of the massive collection of Jewish documents known collectively today as the Books of Enoch. Yet, he seems to be influenced by many traditions; many of them are codified in Bible and Mishnah.110 Others are known to us only in one written work, the Parables of Enoch. Most likely, 108.  In the judgment of many New Testament experts, Mt 16:16-20 is not historical; it is a redactional and theologically motivated alteration of Mark’s account. Yet, Mt 16 may be a development of an ancient and reliable historical fact that Jesus privately among his disciples allowed them to contemplate that God was gently disclosing that he was that Son of Man and the Messiah. The Messianic Secret in Mark thus may be grounded in more reliable history that most of us now admit. See M. J. Wilkins, “Peter’s Declaration concerning Jesus’ Identity in Caesarea Philippi,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb (WUNT 247; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), pp. 293–371. 109.  A. J. B. Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 39; Cambridge: CUP, 1980), p. 126. 110.  Kvanvig in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 215.

­216

Parables of Enoch

Jesus knew and discussed similarities and dissimilarities with the ancient Einsteins that we may perceive behind the Parables of Enoch. Within the vast library of biblical and quasi-biblical works, only in the Enoch and in the Jesus traditions are references to the Messiah and Son of Man brought together. Does that fact alone not demand some explanation? In addition, how do we explain that in each corpus those terms appear to represent one person? Moreover, in the Parables of Enoch and in the Jesus traditions, the Son of Man is announced to be the cosmic eschatological Judge. One trajectory leads us to Enoch; the other one points us to Jesus. The symbolic language used is strikingly similar. How are we to explain the shared images, terms, and language? Is a key provided by the shared perception that the Son of Man is heralded as the cosmic, eschatological Judge? Did Jesus obtain that insight from those within the Enoch cycle or was that something achieved later by his gifted followers? Sociological and archaeological analysis shifts the pendulum towards a confrontation between the Enoch group and Jesus, before 30 and within the creative Jewish world of a vibrantly reinvigorated Galilee. While Enoch was allegedly given secret knowledge, he was instructed to announce it to all on the earth. Those in the Enoch group are too often misidentified as secretive Gnostics; but they had a mission. Recall how the Parables of Enoch opens (italics mine): Book two: The vision which Enoch saw the second time – the vision of wisdom which Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel, son of Kenan, son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, saw: 2  This is the beginning of the words of wisdom which I commenced to propound, saying to those who dwell on the earth, “Listen, you first ones, and look, you last ones, the words of the Holy One, which I teach before the Lord of the Spirits. 3It is good to declare these words to those of former times, but one should not withhold the beginning of wisdom from those of latter days. 4  Until now such wisdom, which I have received as I recited [it] in accordance with the will of the Lord of the Spirits, had not been bestowed upon me before the face of the Lord of the Spirits. From him, the lot of eternal life has been given to me. 5 Three things were imparted to me”; and I began to recount them to those who dwell upon the earth. (37:1-5; Isaac in OTP 1.30-31)

The impression is given that Enoch announces to all on the earth. He teaches. He proclaims. Some of those behind the Parables of Enoch related the Son of Man with the Messiah. Jesus is also presented as one who, sometimes and somehow, perceived a relation between the Son of Man and Messiah. In these traditions, the Son of Man is emphatically dominant. No other Jews of that time made a similar connection, let alone developed the concept of the Son of Man. We have now over 960 Qumran Scrolls (not all yet announced); none of them contain the Son of Man concept found in Parables of Enoch.111 111.  See the reflections in Hillel and Jesus, ed. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997).

Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?

217

To deny any relation between Jesus and those within the Enoch cycle, living at the same time and same place, proclaiming similar insights with similar words, is to be myopic. I can understand such a position by some fundamentalists (such as those docetic Christians behind the Acts of John) not wanting Jesus to touch down on earth or be influenced by humans; but such an option is unthinkable for a learned person, and even more so for a scholar. It is unwise to follow the previous generation that saw creativity in the Gospels deriving from the post-Easter excitement of Jesus’ followers. Bultmann saw Jesus as the presupposition of New Testament theology.112 I perceive early Jewish thought as the presuppositions of Jesus’ mind in which New Testament theology is already significantly developing. Finally, the lack of precision of the Son of Man sayings in the Jesus traditions is obvious. It is also clear that no one asked him to define the term or title. It was apparently well known. Jesus may have imagined the title could refer to himself; but he was far more interested in pointing beyond titles to the God who was now, in his ministry, inaugurating a new rule or kingdom.113 In conclusion, what was judged by many biblical scholars to be a thirdcentury Christian composition is now perceived to be a creative masterpiece of Second Temple Judaism. Should we imagine Jesus completely oblivious to it and all those propagating it? How could that be imagined? Jesus was an itinerant teacher and speaking to crowds near those who composed the Books of Enoch. How could Jesus not have known the traditions in the Parables of Enoch if they were composed about Jesus’ time and in Galilee? The historian should seek to answer a question that reflects a paradigm shift. Did Jesus know the traditions in the Parables of Enoch? How many Jews near Migdal asked: “Who is this Son of Man?” (τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Jn 12:34).

112.  See D. Shepherd, “Re-solving the Son of Man ‘Problem’ in Aramaic,” in Who is This Son of Man?, pp. 50–60. 113.  Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1955), vol. 1, p. 3 (his italics): “The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.”

­218

Chapter 9 Matthew and the Parables of Enoch Grant Macaskill The possibility of a connection between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch has long been recognized, with Mt 19:28 and 25:31-46, and the image of the Son of Man seated on the throne of his glory, being at the heart of the discussion.1 The debate has continued between those who see Matthew as drawing on the Parables of Enoch,2 those who see the dependency as being in the other direction,3 and those who see the similarity as too limited to argue for dependency.4 In the background, of course, is the question of how the Matthean texts might relate to a developing (Christian) Son of Man theology and how this theology, itself, might relate to hypothetical “apocalyptic” Son of Man expectations in earlier Jewish circles.5 In the context of the present volume, contextualized by the contributions of other authors and their articles, the issues can be addressed in a slightly different way, in order to explore with greater subtlety the question of Matthew’s relationship to the Parables 1.  Often it is suggested that the Parables of Enoch may also have influenced Mt 16:27, but the comparison is too general to be maintained with any confidence. Consequently, I will omit this text from the following discussion. 2.  Classically R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912 [2nd edn.]), pp. xcv–ciii. J. Thiesohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditiongeschichtlichen Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 149–201. Recently J. R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha (JSJSup 105; Brill: Leiden, 2005), p. 136, notes the intrinsic likelihood that this is indeed the direction of dependence: a Jewish Christian work like Matthew would very likely have drawn on a first-century Jewish apocalyptic text, but it is far less likely that a later Jewish text would have “structured itself around ideas in a Christian gospel.” Davila also notes the evidence for the Parables of Enoch being influential upon 3 Enoch, which is “exceedingly difficult to explain unless the Parables of Enoch is a Jewish work” (135). The lateness of 3 Enoch means that this does little to establish a date for the composition of the Parables of Enoch, but it is an important piece of evidence to set alongside the other arguments. 3.  The classic argument for the late date, and thus the likelihood of dependency upon the New Testament, is that of J. T. Milik (with the collaboration of M. Black), The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), pp. 89–107; see esp. pp. 91–92. Milik had earlier argued this in “Problèmes de la Littérature hénochique à la Lumière des Fragments araméens de Qumrân,” HTR 64 (1971), 333 and 375–78. 4.  For example, A. I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), pp. 242–43. 5.  See D. B. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: a History and Evaluation (Cambridge: CUP, 1999); M. Casey, The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (London: T&T Clark, 2007).

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

219

of Enoch. For the sake of argument, we can allow as defensible the idea that Matthew may have known of the Parables of Enoch, though perhaps in a slightly earlier redaction than that now attested in the Ethiopic manuscripts.6 To what extent, however, does the First Gospel appear to be influenced by the book, especially in Mt 25:31-46, and to what extent (and to what end) is any imagery or language drawn from the Parables of Enoch assimilated into other textual influences, particularly those from the Hebrew Bible? To frame the question in this way takes us beyond the simplistic question of dependency into the more complex problem of Matthew’s creative presentation of Jesus. In order to explore this question, we will need to consider whether and to what extent Mt 25:31-46 is to be regarded as a Matthean composition (Mt 19:28 is not unimportant, and we shall return to it at various points, but it is more limited in scope and offers less material by which we can attempt a comparison). If the passage is distinctively Matthean then we might expect to see here the influence of the themes and textual interests that characterize the First Gospel. Given that the description of judgment in Mt 25:31-46 centers on the verdict of “the king,” we must consider, in particular, the prominence of the Messianic7 theme in Matthew and the key textual influences and sources by means of which it is developed, noting also the connection of this imagery with that of sheep or shepherds. Once this has been done, we can examine the question of possible parallels with the Parables of Enoch to establish whether this book can be seen as a major influence on the passage, or whether it provides only limited (or, perhaps, highly specific) imagery or terminology. Finally, we may ask what implications this might have for the meaning of the passage.

Matthew 25:31-46 as Matthean Redaction The broad consensus among scholars is that this pericope, the mashal of the sheep and the goats being sent to their destiny by the Son of Man, is a Matthean composition. It is, of course, found only in this Gospel and contains a number of stylistic features that are generally seen as Matthean; in fact, W. D. Davies and D. Allison in their commentary provide an impressive list of 21 such features. Even granting that some of these might not be quite as distinctively Matthean as is often suggested, the cumulative force of the list is quite convincing.8 That said, there are also a number of linguistic features and elements that are found only here in this Gospel and some of these are so striking that we might have expected them to be developed elsewhere by Matthew if they were his own creations. Notable in this regard are the expressions, “the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world” (34), “one of the least of these my 6.  In particular, the material found in 1En 70–71 may be a later addition. 7.  By this term I mean the portrayal of Jesus as a royal Davidic figure, recognizing that a range of eschatological expectations and beliefs are devolved onto this motif. 8.  W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, The Gospel According to St Matthew, Volume III: 19–28 (International Critical Commentary; paperback reprint; London: T&T Clark, 2004), p. 417, n. 5.

2­220 20

Parables of Enoch

brothers” (40), “the devil and his angels,” and “eternal punishment” (46). 9 Interestingly, Davies and Allison also note that “nowhere else does Matthew enumerate corporal works of mercy or associate the parousia of the Son of Man with the title ‘king’.”10 This latter observation may prove significant for our reflection and we will return to it. In the present context, however, the key point of note is that there is good evidence to support the conclusion that while the final form of this passage is a distinctly Matthean redaction, it appears to be based on non-Matthean tradition. We may consider later whether any of the potential textual influences on Matthew, including the Parables, are able to account for this. At this stage, however our conclusions require us to consider how the well-acknowledged themes and textual influences on Matthean redaction may have influenced this particular account, and particularly its depiction of “the king” and his sheep.

Matthew’s Messianism: Texts and Influences Matthew cites and alludes to a diverse range of biblical texts,11 sometimes sharing these with other Synoptic Gospels, sometimes doing so more uniquely, as most obviously in the case of the infancy narratives. In the midst of the diversity of texts, a particular gravity of influence can be attached to Isaiah and, arguably, Zechariah. The influence of the former is well established and has been widely studied. While Isaiah’s influence is not confined to Matthew, the First Gospel distinctively develops this, particularly giving prominence to the Davidic or Messianic elements within the prophetic book,12 and to the equating of Jesus, as Messiah, with the figure of the Servant, notably in Mt 12:18-21. Here the quotation of Isa 42:1-4 constitutes the longest quotation in the Gospel, a point that is surely significant in itself. This, of course, takes us into the longstanding debate concerning whether Isaiah’s “Servant Songs” depict, or were understood by Jews of the Second Temple period and by the authors of the New Testament to depict, an actual figure. This debate is not unimportant to the study of Mt 12:18-21, since we need to consider what kind of connection Matthew saw between the description in Isa 42:1-4 and the person of Jesus: is this an expected savior, the Servant, now revealed to be Jesus or a list of characteristics of the paradigmatic or ideal servant? Does this citation hold the contextual elements of Matthew’s narrative together, as a description of “he who is coming” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος; Mt 11:3), or is it rather more random or ad hoc in character? As well as providing a compelling case that the quotation from Isa 42:1-4 in Matthew 12 is deeply imbedded into the wider context of Matthew’s Gospel and 9.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. III, p. 417, n. 6. 10.  Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. III, pp. 417–18. 11.  See R. Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel (SNTSMS 123; Cambridge: CUP, 2002), pp. 17–34. 12.  Note, in particular, the use of Isa 7:14 in Mt 1:23. This quotation is significant in connection with the genealogy of Mt 1:1-14, which presents Jesus in explicitly Davidic terms.

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

­221

theologically significant within the Gospel as a whole, thus answering the second of the four questions, Beaton provides a helpful approach to this debate, escaping the polarities that can mark the discussion: Evidence is scant in support of a Servant of the Lord figure during this period; however, there may be another way of describing the use of “servant”. It is conceivable that it was employed in a titular sense, but accompanied with an ascriptive force. If so, then its use with “messiah” could have taken on a quintessential or idealized sense in which it ascribed qualities or characteristics to the messiah.13

This suggestion allows us to see Matthew, and his contemporaries, as connecting the image of the Servant in Isa 42:1-4 with that of the Messiah, so that his Servant-hood is a key dimension of the latter’s identity. This takes us beyond the need to prove widespread expectation of a Servant figure, since the qualities of this individual would be the ideal properties of the Davidic Messiah, a connection warranted by the terminological and conceptual links between Isa 42:1-4 and Isa 11:1-5. Matthew’s rendering of Isa 42:1-4 is unique: This was to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah: Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick. until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope. (NRSV) 17

ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἰδοὺ ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα, ὁ ἀγαπητός μου εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου· θήσω τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, καὶ κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ. 19 οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει, οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ. 20 κάλαμον συντετριμμένον οὐ κατεάξει καὶ λίνον τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει, ἕως ἂν ἐκβάλῃ εἰς νῖκος τὴν κρίσιν. καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν. 18

There are three distinctive emphases in Matthew’s rendering of this quotation, with two of them stressed through the repetition of key terms. The first theme is “justice” (κρίσις), which occurs twice in positions of emphasis, in a future 13. 

Beaton, Isaiah’s Christ in Matthew’s Gospel, p. 43.

2­222 22

Parables of Enoch

(18) and subjunctive (20) construction, pointing towards the anticipated eschatological achievements of the Servant. The second theme is the Gentile orientation of this justice: “justice” is proclaimed “to the Gentiles”14 in verse 18 and once it has been established, “the Gentiles” (ἔθνη) place their hope in the Servant’s word. Of particular note is the fact that while Matthew’s text broadly corresponds more closely to proto-Masoretic text-types, the mention of the Gentiles in verse 20 constitutes a deliberate choice of the reading represented by the Septuagint text. Clearly, then, it is important for Matthew to stress that the Servant’s role has a Gentile orientation. In fact, this is a key (though often neglected) element of Matthew’s narrative, and chapters 11 and 12 are particularly significant in its development, with Jesus portrayed as surpassing Jonah and Solomon in bringing salvation to those outside the pale of Israel (12:41-42).15 The third theme is more subtle and diffuse in the quotation: the justice that the Servant establishes will be particularly for the weak and downtrodden. This point emerges particularly in the first half of verse 20, with the tenderness that is shown to the bruised reed and smouldering wick. These are images of weaknesses, even of near death, and the Servant is concerned to support and not crush such as these. There is a strong link with the Davidic figure in Isa 11:4, who will “decide with equity for the meek.” These explicit themes are highly relevant for our reflection on the scene in Mt 25:31-46, with its depiction of “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) being gathered before the king and both judged and blessed in relation to their treatment of the weak and downtrodden. The influence of Zechariah on Matthew is less obvious, with fewer explicit citations than is the case with Isaiah. There is greater debate over the potential allusions made to the prophet, but it has received some significant attention in scholarly literature in recent years.16Again, it is the Messianic and Davidic associations that are particularly developed. The explicit quotation of Zech 9:9 in Mt 21:5, in connection with the triumphal entry, is a clear example of this, one shared with the other Synoptics (cf. Mt 21:9). Also shared with the other Synoptics is the broad background in Zechariah 10 to the notion of

14.  The use of ἀπαγγελεῖ is a departure both from the LXX (ἐξοίσει) and MT (NywOciy)). 15.  This is an element particularly recognized by narrative critics, who typically see chapters 11–12 as the crucial turning point of the narrative, with a heightening of hostility towards Jesus on the part of the Pharisees and a growing emphasis on his Gentile orientation. The theme can also be traced throughout the Gospel, however, particularly when approached in narrative critical terms. For further details and bibliography, see G. Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 119–25 (on the genealogy in Mt 1:1-17), and pp. 133–59 (on Mt 11–12). 16.  See C. McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew (BZNW 156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Her study is comprehensive and subtle, though inevitably some of the allusions that she detects are more convincing than others. A rather more skeptical analysis is provided by Paul Foster, “The Use of Zechariah in Matthew’s Gospel,” in C. Tuckett, ed., The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (Aldershot, Burlington: Ashgate, 2003), pp. 65–86, which is rather more cautious, being wary of identifying allusions without strong warrant.

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

223­

the Messiah as a Shepherd.17 While generally conservative in his treatment of sources, Matthew has shifted the reference to the people being “like sheep without a shepherd” from the context of the feeding – and, emphasized more strongly by Mark, the teaching – of the 5000 (Mk 6:34) to one of healing (Mt 9:36). Against C. McAfee Moss,18 I would suggest that each Gospel, Mark and Matthew, in its own way develops an intertextual reading of Zech 10:2, which provides a close textual parallel to the expression as it occurs in the Synoptics. This reading involves Ezekiel 34, where the sheep, which have suffered not from lack of a shepherd but from abusive shepherds, are in need of both healing (34:4,16; cf. Matthew’s location) and feeding (34:13-14; cf. Mark’s location). The fact that each Gospel develops by means of context a distinct theme related to shepherding as it is represented in Ezekiel 34 supports the fact that this text was consistently brought together with Zechariah 10. This is significant for our reading of Mt 25:31-46, for Ezekiel 34 also provides the image of God judging between sheep and goats (Ezek 34:17) and establishing David as one shepherd over them (Ezek 34:23). This latter Messianic figure takes up God’s own role as shepherd of his people (cf. Ezek 34:11-16, 31). Zech 14:21 has been widely adduced as a background to the Temple action of the historical Jesus and Matthew’s additional emphasis that Jesus drove out “all” who traded in the Temple (ἐξέβαλεν πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ). This addition may represent a deliberate redactional move to make clearer the background in Zechariah19 and thus, arguably, the Messianic associations of the action.20 Interestingly, Matthew follows the account with a description of Jesus healing the lame and blind, a reference that recalls Mt 11:5 (cf. 15:30-31), where the combination of terms is used by Matthew to point to Jesus’ significance as “the coming one.” Contextualized by the reference to the Servant in Mt 12:17-20 and possibly alluding to other texts such as Isaiah 61, this verse points to the healing work of the Messiah.21 The link back to 11:5 in Mt 21:14 signifies this, but also calls to mind the healing function of the Messianic shepherd in Ezekiel 34. In fact, approached in this way, the contrast between the bad shepherds and the good in Ezekiel 34 17.  The image of Israel as sheep either lacking or being abused by their shepherds is, of course, found in a number of places in Scripture (Num 27:17; 1Kgs 22:17; 2Chr 18:16; Ezek 34; Zech 10:2). Thus, Zechariah provides only a “broad” background. As noted below, however, Matthew’s relocation of the “sheep without a shepherd” saying may reflect a deliberate shift towards the form of the idea found in Zech 10:2. 18.  The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 41–60. 19.  See McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition in Matthew, pp. 89–102. This turns on the significance of the reference to traders or Canaanites (‫‏‬yni(A:nAk;) in 14:21, a notoriously problematic term. The word is altered to “trader” in the Targum Zechariah, probably because of the way in which “Canaanites” can be read as a reference to traders (Prov 31:24; Isa 23:8; Hos 12:8). 20.  For the significance of Zechariah generally to the Messianic dimension of the Temple action and subsequent death of Jesus, see N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), pp. 490–93, 598–600. 21.  See L. Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2.170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

­224

Parables of Enoch

is broadly communicated by the scene in Mt 21:12-15.22 The quotation of Zech 13:7 in Mt 26:31 (again paralleled in Mark) takes up this depiction of Jesus as the Messianic shepherd. Zechariah also arguably provides some of the uniquely Matthean elements in the eschatological discourse of Matthew 24. Interestingly, it is particularly elements that relate to the appearance of the Son of Man that are often seen as being drawn from Zechariah. The “sign of the Son of Man” that appears in heaven and causes “all the tribes” (ὁ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ) of the earth” to “mourn” (Mt 24:30) may be derived from Zech 12:10 (cf. the use of that text in Rev 1:7). In addition to the language of mourning used in Zech 12:10, specifically, the term “tribe” (φυλή) occurs five times in verses 10-12 and “all the tribes” (ὁ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ) occurs in 12:14. Matthew also shares with Mk 12:27 a likely allusion to Zech 2:6, with the image of the elect being gathered from the four winds.23 Matthew, however, adds a reference to the blowing of a trumpet, which may represent an allusion to Zech 9:14 (which also likens the appearance of the Lord to “lightning”; cf. Mt 24:27). He also qualifies both the “elect” and the “angels” with the possessive “his.” This may possibly represent a taking over of “with him” (μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ) of Zech 14:5 and the reference to the holy ones appearing with God.24 Subtle, but significant, is the fact that this shift from “the angels” and “the elect” (Mk 12:27) to “his angels” and “his elect” (Mt 24:30) represents an identification of the Son of Man with God himself, a point that we will return to below. The study of Matthew’s textual influences and themes allows us to properly contextualize the possible reception of the Parables of Enoch in Matthew’s account in 25:31-46. Already, we have detected key backgrounds outside of the Parables of Enoch to the Messianic thrust of the passage, to the image of the sheep and goats and the corresponding notion of the shepherd, to the elements of social justice, and to the global nature of the judgment as including (and leading to the salvation of) Gentiles. All of this, moreover, stands achieved before we have closely considered the passage itself and the traces therein of the influence of Daniel 7. None of this is intended to rule out the influence of the Parables of Enoch, but it does establish a cautionary context for all that follows: if there is any allusion, then it is potentially limited or, alternatively, highly specific.

22.  The link between “the Servant” and “the Branch” in Zech 3:8 and 6:12-13 also warrants mention in this context, allowing Matthew, or the traditions on which he drew, to bring together the references to the Servant in Isaiah with the rebuilding of the Temple, but specifically as a Messianic function. 23.  “The only place in the Old Testament where the Lord is said to gather from the four winds occurs in the Septuagint translation of Zechariah 2:6.” McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition in Matthew, p. 134. 24.  McAfee Moss, Zechariah Tradition in Matthew, pp. 136–49.

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

­225

Matthew 25:31-46 and the Parables of Enoch The primary link between Mt 25:31-46 and the Parables of Enoch is found in the image of “the Son of Man” seated on “the throne of his glory,” an image also found in Mt 19:28. The latter phrase is highly unusual. It may parallel the “glorious throne” of Jer 14:21 and 17:12 (which is God’s throne), with “glorious” (δόξης) understood adjectivally in apposition to throne, and “his” (αὐτοῦ) understood to govern both words (i.e., “his glorious throne”). Wisdom 9:10 may provide a closer parallel, since it also carries a possessive pronoun, though in this case it is second-person (ἀπὸ θρόνου δόξης σου πέμψον αὐτήν). Again, the throne in view is God’s own throne. The Parables of Enoch (1En 62, esp. vv. 3 and 5), however, uniquely provides the striking combination of the phrase “the throne of his glory” (1En 62:3) with the element of the Son of Man seated on that throne. And one group of them will look at the other; and they will be terrified and will cast down their faces, and pain will seize them when they see that Son of Man seated on the throne of [his] glory.25

Clearly this draws upon Dan 7:9-14, a text that also forms part of the scriptural background to Matthew 25. Dan 7:9, however, speaks of “thrones” and allows for the possibility that despite being given “authority, glory and sovereign power,” the throne upon which the “one like a son of man” sits as king (Dan 7:14) is distinct from that of God and that his reign is, therefore, of a different order. This option is removed in the Parables of Enoch, especially when the reference to the Son of Man seated on that throne in 1 Enoch 62:5 is contextualized within the book, for the phrase “the throne of (his) glory” occurs at several points in the book as the throne of “the Chosen” and “the Elect One,” and is clearly stipulated to be the throne of the Lord of Spirits. In 51:3, “the Chosen One” is predicted by God to sit on “my throne;” in 55:4 the Chosen One sits on “the throne of glory and judges Azaz’el and all his company;” in 61:8 God places “the Chosen One on the throne of glory; and he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds.” This context is important: the occurrence of the thirdperson suffix with throne in 62:5 is not an accident of transmission, generated as the text passed through various stages and ultimately into Ethiopic, but is rather the culmination of a strategy that unfolds throughout the book to identify the throne of the Son of Man with that of God himself. Moreover, the use of the third-person suffix with “glory” effectively equates the glory of the Lord of Spirits with that of the Son of Man and does so specifically through their co-regency on the throne. “The throne of his glory,” as a phrase, indicates a 25.  Translation from G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), p. 80. The possessive “his” is dropped from “throne” in this translation, but is well represented and is reflected in other translations, such as that of E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1.43.

­226

Parables of Enoch

quality of the Son of Man; the connection between this and the worship that he receives (62:6, 9; cf., 46:5, 48:5) is vital to note. But not only do these texts form the backdrop to 1 Enoch 62:5, specifying that the throne of his glory is none other than the throne of God, but they also throw into even sharper relief the extent of the parallelism between 1 Enoch 62:5 and Mt 25:31, since only here is there the full range of elements: “Son of Man” and “throne of glory” and the possessive “his.” A further element should be considered here before we arrive at any conclusions as to why Matthew (or the Jesus tradition he drew on) should utilize such an allusion. As we have seen, it is only after several references to the Elect or Chosen One being seated on the throne of glory that we encounter the title Son of Man being used in connection with the image. Clearly these titles denote the same figure,26 although there have been predictable debates in the past regarding whether there were separate sources for each.27 In fact, these are the two most common titles for the central figure of the Parables of Enoch, with “Chosen One” occurring 15 (or possibly 16) times and the various forms of Son of Man occurring 16 times. After 62:1, Son of Man is the only title to be used, thereby taking a certain pre-eminence; nevertheless, “Chosen One” is the only title to occur in all three parables. Regarding this figure, it is well established that the Parables of Enoch has been influenced by Isaianic material. 1 Enoch 49:3 and 62:2 both reflect the influence of Isa 11:2-5, which appears to have been fused with exegesis of Psalm 110 to create the judgment scene that recurs throughout the book. The points of contact with Isaiah 11 are highlighted below: In him dwell the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of insight and the spirit of instruction and might … and he will judge the things that are secret. (1En 49:3-4a)28 The Lord of Spirits seated him upon the throne of his glory and the spirit of righteousness was poured upon him. And the word of his mouth will slay all the sinners, and all the unrighteous will perish from his presence. (1En 62:2)29 26.  J. C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in Revelation and Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, ed. J. C. VanderKam (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 432–33, provides three reasons for seeing these titles, as well as “Righteous One” and “Messiah,” as referring to the same individual. 1) Equivalence of terms. An example of this is 1En 48:6, where the “son of man” is “chosen.” 2) Similarity of descriptions. The functions and descriptions of the son of man and the chosen one are the same. 3) Reversal of descriptions. Some phrases that one would expect to be used of the chosen one are used of the son of man and vice versa. 27.  See, for example, Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 64–65, and G. Beer, “Das Buch Henoch,” in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, ed. E. Kautzsch (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900 [reprinted in 1992 by Olms]), vol. 2, p. 227. The source theories of Charles and Beer were discussed and rejected by Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn, pp. 24–33. Also important as discussions of the relationship between the Chosen One and Son of Man traditions are: Thiesohn, Der auserwählte Richter, esp. pp. 47–52, 203; J. Coppens, Le Fils d’Homme vétéro – et intertestamentaire (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), pp. 125–34. 28.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, p. 63. 29.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, p. 80.

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

227­

The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. His delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins. (Isa 11:2-5; bold added)

In addition to Psalm 110 and Isa 11:2–5, there is general agreement that the Ebed-Jahweh figure of Deutero-Isaiah has been influential on the depiction of the Son of Man or Chosen One, though scholars differ on the extent to which this is the case. In particular, the presentation of the Son of Man as “light of the Gentiles” in 1 Enoch 48:4 is seen as being derived from Isa 42:6 and 49:4, and it is possible that the title “Chosen One” itself is drawn from Isa 42:1. Interestingly, just as Isaiah is marked by an alternation between the singular figure of the Servant and the plural servants,30 and by the use of the descriptive “chosen” both of the Servant and of God’s people collectively,31 so the Parables of Enoch speaks of both the “Chosen One” and the “chosen ones,”32 the latter term denoting the saved community, also described as “the righteous.”33 Without allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by discussions of the Son of Man as a corporate figure, the overlap in terminology certainly allows for some notion of solidarity existing between the Son of Man and his people.34 With all of this in place, we may now return to Mt 25:31-46. While there are some general similarities between this account and the judgment scenes of the Parables of Enoch, with the Son of Man judging all humanity and dividing them (1En 62:5), and the promise of a prepared place of punishment (1En 54:2, 56:8, 63:10), the only clear point of dependency is in the use of the combination of “the Son of Man” and “seated on the throne of his glory.” Other details in Matthew’s account, as we have noted, can be better explained through the 30.  The latter, e.g., in 54:17, 56:6, 63:17, 65:8-15, 66:14. 31.  Cf., 41:8-9 and 44:1-2 with 42:1; note particularly the combination in Isa 43:10: “you are my witnesses and my servant whom I have chosen.” 32.  For example, in 1En 45:3 where both singular and plural occur. 33.  For example, 1En 45:6 where the term occurs in connection to the “chosen ones” named in the previous verses. 34.  J. J. Collins, “The Heavenly Representative: The Son of Man in 1 Enoch,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, ed. G. W. E Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins (SBLSCS 12; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 112–16.

­228

Parables of Enoch

influence of other texts and, in fact, some of the distinctive elements of the judgment scenes in the Parables of Enoch, particularly the focus on the kings and mighty, are entirely lacking in the Gospel. Where the interest in social justice in the Parables of Enoch is focused on the treatment of the righteous poor by the world’s powerful, Matthew’s account has no such emphasis: the concern for care simply divides all humanity in terms of whether they have shown it to “the least of these my brothers.” In fact, as Davies and Allison note, a much closer parallel to the scene in Mt 25:31-46 is found in the Midrash to Psalm 118: Open to me the gates of righteousness (Ps 118:19). When a man is asked in the world-tocome: “What was thy work?” and he answers: “I fed the hungry,” it will be said to him: “This is the gate of the Lord (Ps 118:20). Enter into it, O thou that didst feed the hungry.” When a man answers: “I gave drink to the thirsty,” it will be said to him: “This is the gate of the Lord. Enter into it, O thou that didst give drink to the thirsty.” When a man answers: “I clothed the naked,” it will be said to him “This is the gate of the Lord. Enter into it, O thou that didst clothe the naked.” This will be said also to him that brought up the fatherless, and to them that gave alms or performed deeds of loving-kindness. And David said: I have done all these things. Therefore let the gates be opened for me.35

The point, then, is that there is a very specific point of connection between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch, the same one attested at Mt 19:28, namely that the Son of Man will be seated on the very throne of God as he fulfills his role as eschatological judge. The use of 1 Enoch 62:5 at this point achieves two ends: first, it brings together the “reigning” motif of Dan 7:14 and the “judging” motif of Isa 11:2-5 and 42:1-4 into a singular image; and, second, it specifies that the throne upon which this king and judge will sit is the very throne of God himself. A comparison with Mt 19:28 is especially revealing at this point, for the Twelve are described as being seated on “twelve thrones” judging the tribes of Israel. The multiple thrones of Dan 7:9 may be in view here, but Matthew is concerned to stress that the Son of Man will be seated on God’s own throne. This is a significant Christological move for Matthew to make: other texts that speak of the heavenly role of the Son of Man leave open the possibility of a distinction between his reign or throne and that of God (e.g., Mt 22:44 and 26:64),36 but this identification ensures that the divinity of the Son of Man is recognized. In fact, it is significant that the text utilized by Matthew at this point is the sole example recognized by Bauckham of a (probably) Jewish 35.  W. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven, CT, London: Yale University Press, 1959), vol. 2, p. 243. See Davies and Allison, 3.418. The similarity of both the Matthean and the Midrashic text with the list in 2En 9, which is nevertheless sufficiently different in detail not to be regarded as dependent on Mt 25:31-46, may support the possibility that there was an ancient Jewish tradition of such corporal acts. It is worth noting that the passage in 2 Enoch is well attested in all recensions of the text and belongs to the core of the work; there is no reason to regard it as a secondary addition. 36.  See the discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.420-21.

Matthew and the Parables of Enoch

229

text of this era in which a figure other than God is seated on the throne.37 The exclusivity of the divine throne is a key element of the uniqueness of the divine identity.38 Whatever significance this may have for the author of the Parables of Enoch, Bauckham identifies across the New Testament a concern to locate Jesus within the divine identity, notably by placing him on the throne. This is not simply a matter of functional representation or of the partial ontological divinity of a divine mediator, but rather the identification of “who Jesus is” with “who God is.” Obviously the utilization of 1 Enoch 62:5 in Mt 25:31 is not an isolated Christological proof, but it does represent a significant element within the First Evangelist’s strategy for locating Jesus within the divine identity, one linked to his other Christological themes. Moreover, 1 Enoch 62:5 is a natural text for Matthew to choose at this point since it is part of a group of texts in the Parables that associate the divine throne with Isaiah’s Servant, the Chosen One who is specified to be the Messiah (Anointed One) in 1 Enoch 48:10 (a text clearly influenced by Ps 2:2) and 52:4. Given Matthew’s interest in the figure of the Servant and the significance he ascribes to Isa 42:1-4, particularly its themes of justice, the choice of text is easily explained. One final question may now be asked, though with greater caution. Is it possible that Matthew has also used this text because of the solidarity between the Son of Man, as the Chosen One, and the chosen ones who are his people? As noted above, such a solidarity can be detected in the Parables of Enoch and may be connected to a similar phenomenon in Deutero-Isaiah. Of course, there have also long been discussions about whether the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and in the Synoptic tradition should be understood as a singular or corporate figure. The issue is pertinent here because of the wording of Mt 25:40, 45: And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:40) Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” (Mt 25:45)

The question is interesting and may be worthy of further research. There seems to be little in Mt 25:31-46, beyond the basic notion of solidarity, to support it, however. Matthew’s phrase “the least of these my brothers,” is the crucial statement of relationship and there is nothing to indicate that it has been derived from the Parables of Enoch.

37.  R. J. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), p. 20. 38.  See Bauckham, God Crucified, especially (but not exclusively) pp. 6–12 The study is now reprinted in Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2008). In addition, this volume contains a number of relevant articles, some expanded versions of earlier ones. In particular, see “The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus,” pp. 152–81.

­230

Parables of Enoch

Conclusions All of the above discussion turns on the assumption, acknowledged to be such, that Matthew knew the Parables of Enoch, though possibly in an earlier redaction than that preserved in the medieval Ethiopic manuscripts.39 The closeness of the parallel would seem to rule out the possibility of simple coincidence, meaning that the only alternative is that the author of the Parables of Enoch drew upon Matthew. In the context of this present volume that alternative may be regarded as quite problematic. What our study has demonstrated is that if Matthew has indeed drawn upon the Parables of Enoch, he has done so in a very specific way and, significantly, because the imagery and language of the Parables of Enoch are seen as natural developments of the Messianic imagery of Isaiah, which is a major influence on the First Evangelist. Beyond the central image of the Son of Man on the throne of his glory, the Parables of Enoch provides none of the distinctive elements of the judgment account in Matthew and, indeed, the Gospel lacks many of the most striking features from the pseudepigraphon. Where there is overlap (in, for example, the knowledge of the Son of Man that is required for the task of judgment), this can be explained by recourse to the common Isaianic texts. As a distinctively Matthean redaction of probably traditional material, what is striking about the account, and particularly the use of the phrase from 1 Enoch 62:5, is the concern to locate the Son of Man upon the throne of God, meaning that the multiple thrones of Dan 7:9 can be understood in Mt 19:28 as the thrones of the disciples, preserving the divine identity of the Son of Man through the equating of his reign with God’s. As significant as all of this is for our understanding of Mt 25:31-46 and, more generally, of Matthew’s Christology, a further suggestive conclusion may be noted. Matthew’s use of 1 Enoch 62:5 can be explained in terms of the shared interest of the two books in the symbolism and language of Isaiah, but both books project that symbolism, particularly that concerning the Servant, onto a singular figure. The fact that both Matthew and the Parables of Enoch develop this in Messianic terms is significant, especially given that the scarcity of the actual term “Messiah” in the Parables of Enoch seems to tell against a Christian authorship. What this means is that we may need to take a rather unfashionable position on the question of whether there was a developed preChristian Messianism in Second Temple Judaism and whether the Servant of Deutero-Isaiah was, in fact, equated with this figure.

39.  This latter point does not impinge upon our argument, since the most likely redactional alteration would be in 1En 70–71.

­

Chapter 10 The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels Leslie Walck

Introduction After having been neglected in New Testament studies for several decades of the twentieth century, the Parables of Enoch has enjoyed a resurgence of interest.1 The neglect was due in part to the issue of dating the Parables of Enoch. But at the end of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, a wide consensus has emerged suggesting that the Parables of Enoch is dateable to some years before or around the turn of the era, probably at the end of or soon after the reign of King Herod the Great.2 This renewed interest 1.  The portions of this paper relating to the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of Matthew are based on my dissertation, The Son of Man in Matthew and the “Similitudes of Enoch” (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1999), and its revision, The Parables of Enoch and Matthew (London: T&T Clark, 2011). This chapter reworks and adds material to what was prepared as “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels” for the Enoch Seminar held in Camaldoli, Italy, June 7–9, 2005. The proceeds of that seminar were then published in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), see esp. pp. 299–337. See also G.W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Son of Man in Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (HTS 56; Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006 [expanded edn.]), pp. 281–314. I thank James H. Charlesworth and Darrell Bock for the opportunity and encouragement to contribute this chapter. 2. The dating of Parables of Enoch, while tentative, is important. If the Parables of Enoch postdates the Gospels, then it could not have had an influence on the Gospels. But if it can be shown to predate them, then its possible influence is worthy of study. Most likely, in my view, the Parables of Enoch can be dated to the end of or shortly after the reign of Herod the Great, toward the end of the first century bce or early first century ce. Herod, a vassal king of the Romans, and their generals fit the characterization in the Parables of Enoch of the kings and mighty ones. The Parthians’ hand in Herod’s accession, and Herod’s visit late in life to healing springs, probably Callirhoe, also fit the allusions in the Parables of Enoch. Further, the bloodshed, for which the righteous and elect desire vindication (1En 47), fits the conflict of the times. A discussion of the wide variety of dates for the Parables of Enoch can be found in my dissertation, pp. 19–39, including a review of the views of a number of scholars: R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), pp. liv–lv, 67. See also Bock’s Forschungsbericht in this volume and the summary of the positions in C. L. Mearns, “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1978–79), 360; J. C. Greenfield, and M. E. Stone, “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977), 51–65; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic

­232

Parables of Enoch

in the Parables of Enoch reinvigorates many questions including the question of the influence of the Parables of Enoch not only on the New Testament but also on the Synoptic Gospels in particular. In this essay, I will investigate one of the major clues for this influence, the presence of the term “Son of Man” in both the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics, and also present other evidence for the influence of the Parables of Enoch on the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. In the Parables of Enoch, the term “Son of Man” is one of several used of the eschatological, judicial figure who is central to the three visions.3 The figure, referred to as the Son of Man, the Chosen One, the Righteous One, and the Anointed One, is unknown to the kings and the powerful, but is the hope of the elect and righteous. Most interesting is the role the Son of Man plays as Judge at the eschatological judgment. In the Gospels, the term “Son of Man” occurs only on the lips of Jesus and is non-revelatory to the narrative audience.4 The Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels can be divided among Bultmann’s three categories of earthly, suffering, and future sayings.5 The future sayings, which are the sayings with eschatological content, are the sayings most likely to reveal similarities to, Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 142–43; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 89–107; D. W. Suter, “The Measure of Redemption: The Similitudes of Enoch, Nonviolence, and National Integrity,” SBL 1983 Papers, 167–76; J.  C. Hindley, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 14 (1968), 551–65; M. A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1978–79), 344–59. 3.  J. C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37– 71,” in The Messiah, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1992), pp. 174–75. 4. These characteristics have been noted by all the commentators, including J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX) (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 208; G. Vermes, “The Use of bar-nash / bar-nasha in Jewish Aramaic,” Appendix E in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), pp. 310–30; J. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988 [2nd edn]), pp. 95–103; and Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.137-50. For the origins of the term, see J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 280–94, who discusses the various theories of the origins of the term, including Iranian, Babylonian, and Canaanite influences. Collins sees the Baal cycle of Canaanite mythology as the most likely source for the origins of the concept of the Son of Man in Daniel 7. See also C. Colpe, “Ho huios tou anthropou,” TDNT 8:401-02; A. Yarbro Collins, “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man’,” HTR 80:4 (1987), 391–92, 394; Yarbro Collins, “The Apocalyptic Son of Man Sayings,” in The Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger Pearson (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991), pp. 221–24. 5. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Groebel (London: SCM, 1952), p. 30; he is followed by P. Vielhauer, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), pp. 57–58; N. Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1974), pp. 60–77; H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. D. M. Barton (London: SCM, 1965); A. J. B. Higgins, The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 39; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1980), p. 2; B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels and in the Light of Recent Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), p. vii.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

233­

and the possible influence of, the concept of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. The Gospels also contain some other scattered statements that may have been influenced by the Parables of Enoch. R. H. Charles in his seminal work on 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch of 1912 noticed interesting similarities between 1 Enoch and the New Testament; these need to be revisited. Since then New Testament theology has developed new and interesting ways and perspectives for studying ancient documents.6

The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch An entrance into the material of the Parables of Enoch can be gained by examining the figure of the Son of Man. The Son of Man appears in the second and third parables and the epilogue. Characteristics as well as the dynamics of relationships will be noted. 1 Enoch 46:1-5 This scene unfolds in heaven with the “Lord of Spirits,” and “another, whose face had the appearance of a man,” walda sab’.7 The seer asks the accompanying, interpreting angel8 about “that Son of Man” and is told that

6.  For example, R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Some have seen a clear dependence of Matthew upon the Parables of Enoch for the concept of the figure who is called the Son of Man. For example, see Bock’s Forschungsbericht, as well as D. R. Catchpole, “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew XXV.31-46,” BJRL 61 (1979), 355–97; and J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 149–201. Others, however, have argued against such a dependence, such as M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979); and D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991). 7. As is well known, three terms for the Son of Man are used in the Parables of Enoch, walda sab’, walda be’si, and walda ’egwala ’emma-heyaw. See also Colpe, “Ho huios tou anthropou,” TDNT 8:400-77, esp. pp. 423–26, for its appearances in 1 Enoch. The terms occur in the following locations: walda sab’ occurs only in the Second Parable, at 1En 46:2, 3, 4, and 48:2; walda be’si occurs in the Third Parable and the concluding chapters, at 1En 62:5, 69:29 (twice), and 71:14; walda ’egwala ’emma-heyaw occurs most frequently (eight times), also in the Third Parable and the concluding chapters, at 1En 62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 70:1; 71:17. The three terms appear to be synonymous, for the components of each term seem to be used in synonymous ways in the translation into Ethiopic of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Together with “the Righteous One,” “the Anointed,” and “the Elect One,” they refer to the messianic figure, who is the final Judge. 8.  M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSOT 11; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 77, notes that the function of the interpreting angels is that as they “move around the universe, confidently explaining its mysteries,” they convey to the reader an awareness “that the world and its future are firmly under divine control,” and that derivatively, Enoch’s word is also trustworthy.

­234

Parables of Enoch

the Son of Man is righteous,9 that he will reveal secret treasures,10 and that he has been chosen by the Lord of Spirits. The Son of Man has a standing of top priority eternally before the Lord of Spirits, and will confront the kings and mighty ones, casting them down from their thrones and their places of power,11 for they do not acknowledge or honor him. The scene is a concise, but precise, allusion to Dan 7:9, 13, and in it the reader is transported to the heavenly scene where God and God’s judicial partner are ready to pass judgment on the enemies of the community. God and the human-like figure are described in ways to emphasize the purity, innocence, venerability, fairness, absolute power, and authority of those in charge of the judicial process, while at the same time affirming the eventual positive outcome of the judgment for the faithful community. Despite indications in the real world to the contrary, the message is that God is in charge and will save and restore the righteous and faithful. The scene depicted in 1 Enoch 46 brings out several attributes of the Son of Man: a) heavenly status (although without the motion of coming as is noted in Dan 7:13); b) the status and quality of righteousness; c) a revelatory function; d) the status of being chosen for a special purpose by the Lord of Spirits; e) opposition to the kings and the mighty. The Son of Man is described opposing the current ruling elite and has the power to overthrow them. Implicit in this power is the verdict that the kings and the mighty are 9. He is righteous and righteousness dwells with the Son of Man, insuring just judgments (1En 46:3). In Scripture, righteousness is imagined in a variety of metaphors. Righteousness can kiss, look down on, and go before someone (Ps 89:10, 11, 13); righteousness sometimes is an article of clothing worn by a priest (Ps  132:9), a belt (Isa 11:5), a breastplate (Isa 59:17), or a robe (Isa 61:10; Job 29:14); the image of a ruler also is used of righteousness (Isa 60:17), as well as the image of a plant springing up (Isa 61:11). While righteousness does not seem to have been objectified or personified to the extent that Wisdom was, these passages are examples of metaphorical images used of righteousness in a way similar to what is done here with the image of righteousness dwelling with the Son of Man. 10. Davidson, Angels at Qumran, p. 93, notes that angelic control of the meteorological and cosmological secrets implies an “orderliness and integration of the cosmos.” See also Michael E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God; Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. LeMarke, and P. D. Miller, Jr. (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), pp. 414–52, who notices that meteorological and cosmological secrets form part of traditional materials that appear in several different apocalypses. 11. Several themes in this passage have similarities with the taunt against the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. In Isa 14:9, the prophet says that even Sheol will raise the kings from their thrones to taunt the king of Babylon, while the seer in 1En  46:4 envisions the kings and the powerful being roused from their resting places and the strong from their thrones by the Son of Man. The uncomfortable vision of maggots and worms covering their beds is common to both (Isa 14:11; 1En 46:6), while the Babylonian king’s aspiration to rule above the stars (Isa 14:13) is similar to the kings’ claim to rule the stars (1En 46:7). The king of Babylon is foreseen to be laid low (Isa 14:5, 1-12) and similarly the kings of the Parables of Enoch are cast down from their thrones and kingdoms (1En 46:5). These similarities indicate that the taunt against the king of Babylon in Isaiah  14 may have provided some of the ideas for the author of the Parables of Enoch in envisioning the Son of Man overthrowing the kings and the mighty ones in 1En 46.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­235

corrupt, and that the Son of Man is acting with divine authority in overturning them.12 1 Enoch 48:2-7 This is a poem proclaiming that the Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits even before the sun and the constellations were made. He will be a staff of support for the righteous, the light of the nations (Isa 42, 49), the hope of the grieving, and mortals will worship him, praising the Lord of Spirits. Because of the Son of Man’s pre-existence (also alluded to in 1En  62:7),13 hidden since before creation, the Lord of Spirits chooses to reveal him to the holy and the righteous, for they have rejected evil and so are saved and restored by the Son of Man. The poem is very encouraging, comforting and uplifting for the implied audience, as it highlights the Son of Man’s eternity and his redemptive, restorative power.14 This poem, then, reveals that the Son of Man has the role and function of the chosen servant. This figure is developed in 1 Enoch 48 in the following ways: a) b)

named from eternity and therefore pre-existing; named before the Lord of Spirits;

12.  Colpe, “Ho huios tou anthropou,” TDNT 8:425-26. 13. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956), pp. 370–73; Casey, “The Use of Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similtudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976), 12–13, 28, and Son of Man, pp. 99–112; Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), pp. 114–15; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament (Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp.17–18; E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn in Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Skrifter Utgivna av kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet in Lund 41; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1946), pp. 83–101; and Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, pp. 128–39, also discuss the issue and favor the ontologically pre-existent understanding. Messel, Der Menschensohn in den Bilderreden Henochs, pp. 52–55, however, takes the position that verse 3 is an interpolation, and that verse 6 is so corrupt that all that can be gleaned from it is that the Son of Man was hidden from the beginning. He suggests that the “beginning” is not the beginning of time (i.e., pre-mundane existence), but the beginning of Israel’s memory. Further, the naming of the Son of Man refers not to his pre-mundane appointment but to the angels in the kingly court refreshing the memory of the supreme king as to the Son of Man’s availability. Thus Messel, in a dubious way, defines pre-existence out of the passage altogether. T. W. Manson, “The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels,” in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. M. Black (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1962), p.136, points out that the Hebrew and Jewish mind had no qualms about believing in the pre-mundane existence of Israel either. He cites Ber.R. 1. 2b, where six things were thought to have preceded creation: some were actually created, e.g., the Torah and the Throne of Glory, while others were only planned, e.g., the Patriarchs and the nation of Israel, which then existed only in the mind of God. See also VanderKam, “Righteous One,” pp. 179–82. Morna D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and its use in St. Mark’s Gospel (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967), p. 43, notes that “apocalyptic [literature] by its very nature held together what was at once present and future, that which was already in existence, but yet still had to take place.” 14. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, pp. 119–21, has shown there are extensive similarities on two levels between 1 Enoch 48 and Isaiah 49.

236 c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

Parables of Enoch a support for the righteous; the light to the Gentiles; source of hope; worthy of worship and celebrated with great joy; hidden; revealed to his followers; and his followers are called “righteous / elect / holy.”

1 Enoch 62–63 This unit deals with the theme of the judgment of the kings and the mighty ones and their reaction to their condemnation. The ones who were used to commanding others, trusting in their own power, will respectfully stand in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and the Son of Man. They will recognize and acknowledge the Chosen One / Son of Man on the throne of his glory.15 Their pain is compared to that of a woman giving birth, as they bow down in worship, hoping for and petitioning the Son of Man for mercy. Nonetheless, it will be too late, for no mercy is forthcoming. The angels of punishment, then, will take them, ashamed and dismayed, to be punished for all their wrongdoing against the righteous and elect. The kings and mighty ones plead for mercy, acknowledging their guilt and their misplaced trust, but must accept the appropriateness of the judgment against them and their ultimate fate. In the middle of the vision (1En 62:13-16), however, the blessedness of the righteous and elect in the everlasting presence of the Son of Man is portrayed. They will enjoy safety, protection, sumptuous feasting, and garments of life that will not wear out. All this is made possible because of the reversal of fortunes that will be effected. Several more features are revealed about this Son of Man in this passage: a) b)

that he is seated upon the throne of his glory; that he is finally revealed to, recognized and acknowledged by the kings and the mighty; c) that he has power to inflict pain, terror and shame, so that darkness fills the faces of the kings and the mighty; d) that the righteous will enjoy salvation, which entails dwelling and feasting with that Son of Man and receiving glorious, non-fading garments; e) that a request is made to him by the kings and the mighty ones; f) that the judged will plead for mercy; g) that no mercy will be forthcoming; h) that his judgment is fair, which is acknowledged even by the condemned kings and the mighty ones.

15.  G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), p.72, notes the importance of recognition in the judgment scene. Since the Son of Man was not known to them before, Nickelsburg argues, they must have recognized him in the righteous and elect who have been aligned with him.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

237

The function of a passage like this is to bring comfort and hope to the narrative audience. It illustrates graphically and vividly to the righteous and elect that their oppression will end, and that they will enjoy salvation in the presence of the Son of Man. Their oppressors, however, will be shamed in everlasting, non-reversible condemnation. 1 Enoch 69:26-29 These four verses form the conclusion of the Third Parable, and they gather together many key characteristics of the concept of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. The name of the Son of Man has been revealed and has brought great joy (1En 69:26). He is described as sitting upon the throne of his glory (1En 69:27, 29), and is given total authority for judgment over the wicked, becoming the cause of their destruction (1En  69:27-28). “The throne of his glory” is quite a rare phrase, appearing only in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of Matthew. It is the throne of the Head of Days (1En 47:3; 60:2), but in several places, the Chosen One or the Son of Man is placed upon the “throne of his glory” for the kings and mighty ones to acknowledge and to be judged (1En 55:4; 61:8; 62:2, 3, 5; 69:27, 29). These characteristics are significant to the implied readers, because they reassure them of their eventual vindication and the punishment of their current oppressors. Three new characteristics of the Son of Man are added from this passage: a) b) c)

that the word of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” before the Lord of Spirits is strong and incontrovertible, that the Chosen One / Son of Man is the means for the destruction of evil, and that this Judge has worldwide jurisdiction.

1 Enoch 70–71 These chapters conclude the Parables of Enoch and draw the reader back to the narrative frame of Enoch’s translation. The vehicle for his ascent to heaven is the chariots of the spirit, and he is presented to the Lord of Spirits.16 A brief 16. I argue in my dissertation, in the section on “the textual problem of 1 En. 70:1,” pp. 212–16, and in “the significance of the Son of Man,” p. 219, that the term “son of man” in that verse is used in a general sense and refers to the human being, Enoch, rather than to the heavenly figure of the visions, adding rich irony to the identification of the seer with the heavenly subject of the visions. This reading depends on three factors. 1) The phrase, “to the presence of,” “baxabehu” (“to the presence of the Son of Man”) in 1En 70:1 can be argued to be a scribal insertion. It is missing in Abb 55 (according to Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 1906], p. xxiv). Abb 55 can be characterized as quite reliable prior to chapter 83, although after that it is unreliable. 2) Grammatical oddities can be resolved by following Abb 55. An extra preposition, “to,” “la-” (“to the Son of Man”) is redundant if “to the presence of,” “ba-xabehu,” is original (some mss. do omit “la-”), and the conjunction “and,” “wa-,” is missing between “Son of Man” and “to the presence of the Lord of Spirits” (some mss. do include it). 3) Understanding this occurrence of “son of man” as a general reference to the human being, Enoch, is the lectio difficilior. The previous passage refers to the heavenly Son of Man. Scribal emendation would likely “correct” the current instance to indicate that “Son of Man” here also

238

Parables of Enoch

allusion is made to cords for measuring the righteous (cf. 1En 61:1-7) and to the holding place for the spirits of the ancient righteous ones (1En 22:9). In chapter 71, the ascent of Enoch is reviewed, with a vision of the fiery, crystal palace and myriads of angels. The Head of Days, together with the archangels and the whole angelic host, approaches the seer, who reacts with terror and praise. Then in the final, climactic scene, the seer, the human being Enoch, is informed that he is the Son of Man of the visions, the instrument who accomplishes righteousness and peace for the implied audience. Three new features are added in the epilogue to the portrayal of the Son of Man: a) b) c)

angels are in the presence of the Son of Man; those angelic attendants have bright garments; and everlasting blessedness is in store for the righteous.

Other features in the pattern of relationships Complementing the portrait of the “Chosen One” (= “the Son of Man”) are other features describing those who interact with the cosmic figure. The vindicated will be radiant in heavenly brightness and glory, shining like the sun (1En 38:4; 39:7; 51:5; 58:3-6). The kings and mighty ones, however, are condemned and consigned to a fiery fate, in a deep burning valley that had been prepared for Azazel and his host (1En 54:1, 5; 63:10; cf. also 67:7, 12-13, in the Noachic section). Fetters were also prepared to bind them. Resurrection, for the purpose of facing judgment, is also foreseen. While mercy will not be forthcoming for the kings and mighty ones (1En 62:9-12; 63:11-12), repentance leading to divine mercy is a possibility for the holy and chosen ones (1En 50:1-5). The earth will give back those who have died and the righteous and holy will then be chosen out from among them to enjoy a satisfying life with the Chosen One (1En 51:1-5). The elect will be gathered by the angels from wherever they had been lost, in the desert, at sea or slain by wild beasts. But they will return and find security in the Chosen One, for “none can be destroyed” (1En  61:1-5). Resurrection is envisioned for those aligned with the Chosen One / Son of Man, for they will be gathered to enter into a life of satisfaction and joy, which contrasts markedly with their current oppressed status. At the same time, a clear dichotomy exists between the righteous and the oppressors. Before the judgment the righteous are downcast and oppressed while the kings and the mighty enjoy wealth, power, and prestige. After judgment, however, their fortunes are reversed. Judgment is executed against the kings refers to the heavenly being. Therefore the reading of Abb 55 which understands a son of man, i.e., a human being, being lifted up, is the more difficult reading. Casey, “The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” pp. 25–27, argues along these same lines. Black, I Enoch, pp. 67, 250, presented the same conclusion and translated the text this way. In a recent article, D. C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP 18 (1998), 27–38, makes the same conclusion, drawing into the evidence some new manuscript support.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

239

and mighty ones because of their denial of the Lord of Spirits (1En 46:7) and because of their treatment of the righteous, who are aligned with the Judge (1En 46:8; 47:2). They will lose their power and status (1En 38:4-5; 45:6) and be given over to the righteous and elect, so that no trace of them will survive (1En 48:9-10). They will be filled with shame, handed over to the angels of punishment (1En 62:9-12; 63:11), consigned to eternal destruction, imprisoned (1En 69:27-28), in fetters (1En 53:4-5), in a deep, burning valley (1En 54). On the other hand, the vindicated will be blessed, to enjoy everlasting life with the Son of Man, and to take over the earth and live on it in peace, free from the oppression of the kings and mighty ones (1En  45:5-6; 48:7-10). Glory and honor and life shall return to them (1En 50:1-2; 62:13-16), and they are promised fortunes, power and prestige in effect, a reversal of fortunes, signifying the judicial power of the Son of Man.17

Parables of Enoch and the Gospels Again, the figure of the Son of Man is a fruitful entrance point into the relationship between the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels. The concept of the Son of Man in the Gospels continues to be baffling. No longer can it be assumed that there existed a unified, comprehensive concept of an eschatological, judicial figure known as “the Son of Man,”18 which can be reconstructed from Daniel, the Parables of Enoch, the Wisdom of Solomon, 4  Ezra, and 2  Baruch. But to ignore any influence of that earlier literature on the content of the term is to go to the other extreme.19 Perhaps it is wiser to recognize the development of several overlapping concepts of the Son of Man,20 which may have influenced Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Investigating the relationship between the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels entails noting similarities in concepts, wording and characteristics associated with the Son of Man in those texts. The Son of Man sayings can be separated into earthly, suffering and future sayings, and they will be examined in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Comparisons will also be made with the Parables of Enoch along with noting other significant similarities between the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics. 17.  J. C. VanderKam, Enoch, A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), p. 134. 18.  For example, Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1952), vol. 1, pp. 29–33, and Tödt, Son of Man, p. 22. See also J. M. Robinson, “The Son of Man in the Sayings Gospel Q,” in Jesus According to the Earliest Witnesses (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press; 2007), pp. 97–117, originally published in Tradition und Translation: Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene– Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Christoph Elsas, et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), pp. 247–65. Reprinted in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays (Leuven: Peeters, 2005). 19.  For example, Hare, Son of Man Tradition, p. 4. 20. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.137-50.

240

Parables of Enoch

Parables of Enoch and Mark: earthly sayings Mark has 14 Son of Man sayings, and reports two sayings that refer to the Son of Man’s earthly presence. These two sayings claim and establish the present authority of Jesus and his disciples over against the Jewish authorities.21 Both sayings are taken over by Matthew and Luke, and are used as a form of selfreference. 1. Mk 2:10 / Mt 9:6 / Lk 5:2422 (the story of the healing of the paralytic) refers first to Jesus and then to the Son of Man as having authority on earth to forgive sins. This authority to forgive sins is a divine authority and raises the charge of blasphemy against Jesus. It is problematic for his antagonists. In response, Jesus utters the Son of Man statement about having authority to forgive sins, and then he heals the man, eliciting astonishment from the onlookers. Since the term “Son of Man” elicits no comment from the other characters in the story, it functions as a self-referent. In the Parables of Enoch, the Chosen One / Son of Man is portrayed as having divine authority. That authority is conveyed in the heavenly context for the visions, of being characterized by righteousness and wisdom (1En 39:6; 46:3; 49:3; 51:3 ) of being named before the Lord of Spirits (1En 48:2-8), as being seated on the “throne of his glory” (1En 51:3; 55:4; 62–63; 69:26-29), and in the incontestable nature of his judicial role (1En  46; 62–63; 69:2629), which is recognized even by the kings and mighty ones (1En  62–63). The authority of the Chosen One / Son of Man is judicial and is exercised in his judging against the kings and mighty ones. In this judicial authority, the possibility of forgiveness for the kings and mighty must be assumed, but it is not exercised. For the chosen and holy ones, however, repentance does lead to mercy on the part of the Lord of Spirits (1 En 50:1-5), although the unrepentant will not be shown mercy. Thus, the point of similarity between the Markan saying and the concept of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch is divine, judicial authority. There is, however, a significant contrast. In the Markan saying, the Son of Man’s authority is actually being exercised on earth in a specific, contemporaneous situation through the pronouncement of forgiveness. In the Parables of Enoch, on the other hand, the Chosen One / Son of Man’s authority is associated with his heavenly status in an eschatological setting. From this heavenly setting, this divine authority is exercised against the earthly kings and mighty ones through the pronouncement of condemnation. This divine authority is like a two-sided coin; either to forgive or to condemn. As can be seen, in both the Markan saying and in the Parables of Enoch, this two-sided authority has been attributed to the Son of Man. It has been exercised in favor of the paralytic in Mark, but against the kings and mighty ones in the Parables of Enoch. Direct verbal dependence cannot be claimed in this instance, but the Markan saying does reflect a theological dynamic similar to that of the Parables of Enoch. 21.  P. Perkins, “Mark,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible VIII (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p. 550. 22. The ordering of the phrases in Mt and Lk is slightly different.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

241

2. Mk 2:28 / Mt 12:8 / Lk 6:5 also refers to the Son of Man’s earthly authority, this time as “lord of the Sabbath.” The term “lord” (kurios) implies authority and again it is an authority over a divine matter, the observance of the Sabbath. Again, exercising divine authority on earth is similar to the authority “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in an eschatological setting wields in the Parables of Enoch. While this is not enough to suggest direct, verbal influence from the Parables of Enoch on the saying, it does reflect a similar theological understanding of the divinely appointed authority of the Son of Man. In regard to these two earthly sayings, then, direct verbal influence cannot be claimed. Since, however, both earthly sayings arouse opposition in the Synoptics, we can say that those sayings reflect an unusual claim. That claim, that the earthly Son of Man in the Synoptics has divinely appointed authority, does reflect a point of similarity with the Parables of Enoch’s view of the Son of Man, and is consonant with the Parables of Enoch’s theological perspective. It is likely then, that the Parables of Enoch did exert some generalized influence on the author of Mark in shaping Mark’s and thus the Synoptic Gospel’s portrayal of the Son of Man. Parables of Enoch and Mark: suffering sayings While suffering Son of Man sayings have not been preserved in Q,23 they do appear in Mark and the Gospels dependent on Mark. Scholars have identified three Passion predictions: Mk 8:31 / Mt 16:21 / Lk 9:22,24 Mk 9:31 / Mt 17:22-23 / Lk 9:44, and Mk 10:33-34 / Mt 20:18-19 / Lk 18:31-33.

These Passion predictions refer to suffering, rejection, mockery, scourging, betrayal, being killed and rising on the third day, or after three days. Persons associated with bringing about this suffering are the elders, chief priests, scribes, and Gentiles. In general terms, these sayings reveal that the authorities will be responsible for the suffering and death of the Son of Man. The authorities, thus, are in opposition to God’s chosen servant. The opposition of the authorities to God’s will is also seen in the Parables of Enoch. 23.  C. M. Tuckett, “The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Leuven, Paris, Sterling, VA: University Press, 2001), p. 391. 24. Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 188–93, discusses the necessity (dei) of his suffering. Mt 16:21 does not include the term “Son of Man,” where Mk 8:31 and Lk 9:22 do. The absence of “Son of Man” in Matthew may be due simply to Matthew’s identification of Jesus with the Son of Man, or it may reflect a pattern in Matthew of Jesus using the term in confrontational situations and the personal pronoun in intimate settings with his disciples. See J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1975), p. 115, and Matthew As Story (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988 [2nd edn.]), pp. 95–103. In the second and third predictions, all three Gospels employ the term “Son of Man,” where it functions as a self-referent.

242

Parables of Enoch

Other suffering sayings in Mark’s Gospel25 also appear after the first Passion prediction. Jesus admonishes his disciples after the Transfiguration not to speak of the event until after the Son of Man was raised from the dead (Mk 9:9; Mt 17:9). In relation to the coming of Elijah (Mk 9:12; Mt 17:12), reference is made to written predictions of the suffering Son of Man (omitted by Luke). In Mk 10:45 / Mt 20:28, Jesus asserts that the suffering of the Son of Man is a redemptive ransom for many.26 In Mk 14:21 / Mt 26:24 / Lk 22:22 Jesus refers to the fate of the Son of Man as having been written beforehand (or in Luke, determined beforehand; cf. Ps 41:9), while expressing woe to the betrayer. In the Garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:41 / Mt 26:45) Jesus announces the hour of betrayal for the Son of Man. These suffering Son of Man sayings are evidently a development of the early Church.27 While scholars generally argue for the originality of either the “earthly” sayings or the “future” sayings, the “suffering” sayings are generally agreed to be derivative, for they can readily be seen to be a development out of the identification of Jesus with the Son of Man, an identification that already exists in Q, the Synoptics, and John. The Son of Man and Suffering, however, was a development after the formation of Q, where the suffering and passion of Christ are not recorded, but before the composition of Mark’s Gospel, where the suffering Son of Man is present.28 The suffering sayings can be seen as a paradox challenging the conventional views of power,29 arising out of Dan 7:13, in which the “one like a son of man” identifies with the righteous of Israel in their suffering.30 Alternatively, the suffering Son of Man sayings may arise out of the development of the “conflation of servant and Son of Man materials in the Parables of Enoch.”31 The author of the Parables of Enoch, however, did not incorporate suffering into the Son of Man concept, even though other Isaianic servant characteristics are brought in, resulting in the fact that that Parables of Enoch does not portray a suffering Son of Man. Nonetheless, the suffering sayings are grounded in a concept that is common to both the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics: identification of the savior figure with the oppressed and action on their behalf. The suffering sayings show that the Son of Man, through redemptive 25.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 194–221, discusses the suffering and rising sayings. 26.  Boring, “Matthew,” NIB (1995), 8.399; F. Büchsel, “lutron,” TDNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmanns, 1967), 4.341-49. 27.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 193–94, argues for these sayings having developed out of controversies with so-called official Judaism and having to defend Jesus’ Passion and death as having been foretold in mutually accepted Scripture. 28.  For example, Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.361, and Perkins, “Mark,” NIB 8.550. 29.  Perkins, “Mark,” NIB 8.550. 30.  Perkins, “Mark,” NIB 8.631, 703, where she also refers to J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), pp. 174–75. Marcus’ research brings out the parallels between Mark’s Passion narrative and the suffering of the righteous in the Psalms and can be seen as prophecies of Jesus’ suffering. 31.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” AB 6.144.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­243

suffering, does identify with, and act on behalf of, those who suffer under the power of evil, just as the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch identifies with, and acts on behalf of, the righteous and elect who suffer at the hands of the oppressive kings and mighty ones. This again indicates a similar theological background operating in the Son of Man concept in both the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics. But since the Parables of Enoch does not portray a suffering Son of Man, it is difficult to posit direct, verbal influence on the Synoptics. Although divine action on behalf of the oppressed is a theme that runs through the prophets, that divine action through the Son of Man is limited to the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels. Therefore it is possible to posit the Parables of Enoch’s theological influence on Mark in regard to the theological undergirding of the suffering Son of Man sayings. Parables of Enoch and Mark: future sayings Three statements regarding the future Son of Man are first reported in Mark and incorporated by Matthew and Luke. 1. In Mk 8:38–9:1 / Mt 16:27-28 / Lk 9:26-27,32 Jesus warns that whoever is ashamed of him, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father and the holy angels. Then he assures some of his listeners that they will see the coming Kingdom of God. Luke is fairly similar to Mark, with Luke omitting the mention of the adulterous and sinful generation. Luke adds that the Son of Man will come in his own glory, as well as that of his Father, but omits the qualification of great power at the end of the verse. Matthew has reworked these verses significantly (see more below).33 The concept of reciprocal shame has been dropped by Matthew, who nevertheless emphasizes the judicial role of the Son of Man. Matthew also terms the coming kingdom as the Son of Man’s rather than God’s. Four details bear noting in the Markan saying in Mk 8:38. (a) One is that the Son of Man in the future will be ashamed of those who in the present are ashamed of Jesus and his teaching. Following and confessing Jesus in the present will be confirmed in the future by the Son of Man who will affirm allegiance with eternal redemption. But denying that fellowship with Jesus’ ministry on earth will result in being rejected by the future Son of Man. The role of the Son of Man here is a judicial role, judging between those who have 32.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 40–46. Tödt characterizes this saying as standing farthest away from the sphere of Jewish apocalyptic thought, as compared to Mk 13:26f, which conforms to it more closely, and Mk 14:62, which is midway between. 33.  J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 119–20; Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1975), pp.186–88; F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and Commentary (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1981), p. 360; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994 [2nd edn.]), p. 340; Casey, Son of Man, p. 164; W. D. Davies, and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991 and 1997), 2.674-75.

­244

Parables of Enoch

been faithful and those who have denied Christ. The reciprocal shame referred to in this saying, then, is consonant with the judicial role of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. (b) A second detail is that the Son of Man is seen as coming in the future for the last judgment. That the Son of Man is coming in the future is specified because the saying is uttered from the perspective of the time in which Jesus was speaking. The Parables of Enoch does not include the notion of a coming Chosen One / Son of Man because the perspective of that work is that of future final judgment, at which “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” is already present waiting to be revealed. In Dan 7:13, the figure “like a son of man” is described as arriving, moving into the scene, but not in the Parables of Enoch. In them, “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” is already present. (c) A third detail is the glory of the Father with which the future Son of Man will come. It is not his own glory, but that of the Father, a bestowed glory, extended to him by the Father. This is very similar to the notion in the Parables of Enoch that the Chosen One / Son of Man receives the glorious status of the Lord of Spirits by being seated on God’s throne of glory and by receiving the authority to pass judgment on the kings and mighty ones. (d) Finally, the Son of Man in this Markan saying is accompanied by angels. Angelic presence indicates the lordship, power, and authority of the Son of Man. This also is very similar to the image found in the Parables of Enoch, where myriads of angels are present doing the will of God, gathering in the righteous and elect as well as carrying out judgments against the condemned. This detail indicates that Mark portrays the Son of Man in a judicial setting, to carry out the Judge’s role in the final judgment.34 As can be seen, then, three out of four details of this verse support the conclusion that in this saying, the influence of the Parables of Enoch can be detected. 2. Mk 13:26-27 / Mt 24:30-31 / Lk 21:27 is part of “the Synoptic Apocalyptic Chapter.” These verses describe the Son of Man as coming on the clouds with great power and glory, which is followed by a great ingathering of the elect, carried out by the angels. Lk 21:27 is almost identical with Mk 13:26, except that Luke envisions a single cloud rather than multiple clouds, as in Mark. Luke, however, omits the ingathering of Mk  13:27 and encourages positive anticipation of that redemptive day (Lk 21:28, for which see further below). Again Matthew has edited these two verses significantly, indicating the mourning of the tribes, the trumpet sound, and adding “his” to the angels and the elect (see further below). The Parables of Enoch also envisions a judging Son of Man with great power and glory, although the motion of coming is unnecessary in the Parables of Enoch as pointed out above. The righteous and elect will rejoice at the judgment of the Son of Man (1En 62:13-16), while the condemned, like the mourning tribes in Mt 24:30, will be dismayed, with faces downcast and filled with shame (1En 46:6; 48:8; 62:4, 5, 10; and 63:11). 34. 

Contra my previous view on Mark.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­245

The image of the gathering of the elect from the four winds is shared by Mark and Matthew, and shows great similarity with the image portrayed in the Parables of Enoch, where in 1 Enoch 61:1-5 angels with measuring cords fly off towards the North to “reveal all that is hidden in the depths of the earth, those who have been destroyed by the desert, and those who have been devoured by the fish of the sea and by wild beasts.” Those who are found will return to rely on the name of the Lord of Spirits and on the day of the Chosen One, never again to be destroyed. The exact terminology is not repeated by Mark or Matthew, but the concept of being gathered from the whole world is the same. 1 Enoch 62:13-16 also portrays the salvation of the righteous and chosen ones, who will live in peace and plenty with that Son of Man.35 This Markan saying, it can be seen, has very close similarities with the portrayal of the Parables of Enoch, and probably consciously so by Mark’s author. 3. In Mk 14:62 / Mt 26:60 / Lk 22:69 in response to a question from the high priest regarding his divine sonship, Jesus answers in the affirmative, and announces the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds (quoting Dan 7:13 and Ps 110:1).36 Matthew adds “from now on,” a small but significant change (for which see below), and Luke adds “of God” to “power,” explaining more clearly the meaning of being seated at the right hand of power. The scene here reveals the presence of authorities questioning Jesus. His response refers to the Son of Man, seated in an eschatological scene of glory and power. Jesus, in effect, justifies himself by pointing to the future eschatological judgment upon earthly authorities by the Son of Man. The Markan narrative through Jesus’ response reflects the judgment scenes in the Parables of Enoch where the Chosen One / Son of Man will pass judgment on the kings and mighty, who are oppressors of the righteous and elect (1En 45:3; 46:4-8; 48:8-10; 62–63; 69:26-29). This saying also then reveals some significant influence of the Parables of Enoch upon Mark. Ironically, where the kings and mighty ones in the Parables of Enoch are condemned by the Chosen One / Son of Man, in the Gospels the Son of Man is being condemned by those in authority who will send him to his death. This, however, coheres with the suffering servant motif that is combined with the Son of Man in the Gospels. Through suffering and death, the Son of Man accomplishes God’s will of redemption. The sayings in Mark do not betray a direct, verbal influence, but they do reveal that on the level of patterns of relationships, Mark seems to have been aware of the Parables of Enoch’s portrayal of the Son of Man. Parables of Enoch and Mark: a warning sentence An interesting possibility for the influence of the Parables of Enoch on the Synoptic Gospels may be the sentence, “It would have been better for them if they had not been born” (1En  38:2; cf. Mk  14:21 / Mt  26:2, 24). At the 35.  36. 

See Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 33–36. See Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 36–40.

­246

Parables of Enoch

beginning of the First Parable of the Parables of Enoch, the author foresees the future judgment and punishment of the oppressors, “those who have denied the Lord of Spirits.” Three qualities of this sentence can be highlighted. (a) One is that the punishment will be so severe that those punished will wish they had never even been born, never seen the light of day, never had the opportunity to perpetrate the evil deeds, for which they will be punished. (b) A second quality is that those punished in this way have denied the supreme Lord of Spirits. They have done this by opposing the righteous ways of God and by oppressing the righteous ones who depend on the Lord of Spirits and who live according to the Lord of Spirits’ precepts. (c) A third quality is that the viceroy of the Lord of Spirits is the Righteous One, who is synonymous with the Chosen One, the Anointed One, and the Son of Man. This figure is portrayed in 1 Enoch 62–63 as the supreme Judge. Their opposition to God and God’s viceroy – “the Righteous One,” “Chosen One,” “Anointed One,” “Son of Man” – and their denial of God’s precepts will generate their horrific punishment. These three qualities, the severity of punishment, the opposition to God and the presence of the Son of Man as Judge are very notable. This triple dynamic is present in Jesus’ words of warning against his betrayer: “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”37 The betrayer by his act is denying the purpose of Jesus’ mission. The betrayer is choosing to act in opposition to the divine will. This will result in the betrayer being punished in a horrific, though unnamed, way. The punishment will be so severe that it would have been better for him never to have been born. Further, in this conversation the term “Son of Man” is also present as referring to the one who is betrayed. Thus, this sentence by Mark and Matthew about it being better never to have been born is uttered in the context of the presumed severity of punishment, opposition to God, and the presence of the Son of Man, the eschatological Judge. These are the same qualities as noted in 1 Enoch 38:2. The sentence at first appears to be of a proverbial nature. It would be expected to be quite a common saying. But only two similar concepts are to be found in the Hebrew Bible. One is Job 3:3, where Job bemoans the day of his birth. In effect, Job is saying that his suffering is so severe that it would have been better never to have been born. Although his conversation partners try to get Job to admit he is being punished for some secret or not-so-secret sin, Job insists that his suffering is innocent, that he is not guilty of any sin for which he should be punished. Jeremiah also bemoans the day of his birth (Jer 20:14-18; 15:10). Jeremiah bemoans that day because of his suffering and because of the difficulty of his prophetic vocation. While both Job and Jeremiah intimate that they wish they had never been born, the concept is expressed as bemoaning the day of their birth. The two ways of expressing the concept are not the same, although the effect would be the same. Further, the wish not to be alive is due to extreme suffering, 37.  RSV; Mk 14:21 and Mt 26:24 repeat the wording, while Lk 22:22 omits the sentence completely.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­247

not severe punishment. Finally neither in Job or Jeremiah is the divine Judge present, except as a silent listener, ready to pass judgment on the oppressors of righteous people. Thus, while at first glance, the concept in Job and Jeremiah appears to be similar to that in 1 Enoch 38:2 and Mk 14:21 / Mt 26:24, the similarities really are not very close. These two passages, then, are not close enough in meaning or in context to serve as the source for Mark’s use of this sentence. The idea of it being better never to have been born does take on a proverbial sense after the time of the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels. Two passages from the second century ce can serve as examples. 4 Ezra  4:12, 7:[63], 46 (approx 100 ce) express this idea, but the import and context are not the same as in the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics. In 4 Ezra 4:12, the author complains to God that it would be better never to have been born than to live in ungodliness and suffer meaninglessly. This is part of the author’s questioning God on why God allows evil. In 4 Ezra 7:[63], the author claims that it would be better for the dust of the earth never to have been born, so that a questioning mind would never have been made from it. The author of 4 Ezra bemoans the creation of Adam, which led to sinfulness (the cor malignum). For the author, the creation of Adam would have only been worthwhile if Adam also had been restrained from sinning. The suffering that was the aftermath of sinning is the reason the author wished Adam had never been made. As can be noted, the triple dynamic found in the Parables of Enoch and Mk  14:21 is not present in these passages from 4 Ezra. For 4 Ezra, it is suffering, not punishment, that diminishes human life. In none of these passages is the divine Judge present. And in none of these passages is God’s will being opposed; questions are merely being asked. The Apocalypse of Sedrach (150–500 ce) is somewhat closer to the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics. In the Apocalypse of Sedrach 4:2, Sedrach also is questioning God on why God has allowed evil to exist and uses the idea that due to the severity of God’s punishment, it would be better for humankind not to have been born. Here it is punishment that spurs the sentence, but no divine Judge is present, and it is not a question of having opposed God. The author is questioning God on theodicy. Perusing Job, Jeremiah, 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Sedrach shows that the precise context and meaning of this sentence in 1 Enoch 38:2 is not present beforehand, in neither the Hebrew Bible nor later in the second century ce. But the concept is found with a remarkably similar context and meaning in Mk 14:21 and Mt 26:24. The triple dynamic of the severity of punishment, the opposition to God, and the presence of the Judge, the Son of Man, strongly suggest that Mark was influenced by the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Matthew: earthly sayings The Gospel of Matthew includes 30 Son of Man sayings. Seven of them can be categorized as earthly sayings, ten as suffering sayings and 13 as future sayings. Most of these sayings are taken over from Mark or Q, and some of

­248

Parables of Enoch

them have been redacted or altered in significant ways, but Matthew also includes nine sayings that are unique. From Matthew’s editorial activity, Matthew’s perspective on the Son of Man can be observed. The earthly sayings will be examined first. 1. Mt 8:20 / Lk 9:58, from Q, refers to the earthly presence of the Son of Man. While the foxes and birds have protective places of refuge and rest, “the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”38 Describing the itinerant nature of Jesus’ activity in this context, this statement is a response to a would-be follower. The term Son of Man here functions in the first place as a self-referent.39 But, in light of the use of the term in the rest of the Gospel and Matthew’s evident identification of Jesus with the Son of Man, for Matthew and Mathew’s readers it is also “paradoxical irony” highlighting the contrast between Jesus’ earthly ministry and his future role as the eschatological Judge.40 Nickelsburg further points to a possible reflection of the contrast between the beasts and the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:3, 13, as well as to the uses of Ps 8:4-8 as bringing out “an ironic contrast between present lowliness and future glory.”41 This may be similar to the contrast between the hiddeness and the glorious status of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. An important contextual detail is that this saying is a response to a would-be follower. This puts Jesus, the homeless human being, into the role of “acting as the one who with full authority summons [others] to follow him.” The use of the term “Son of Man” here, then, refers to his sovereignty and full authority as God’s servant, the Son of Man.42 While direct, verbal influence cannot be seen here, Matthew’s and Luke’s use of this saying is consonant with the concept of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. 2. Mt  11:19 / Lk  7:34, also from Q, refers to the Son of Man who was celebrating life through table-fellowship rather than fasting as John the Baptist’s disciples did. The Son of Man is criticized for being a “glutton and a drunkard.”43 A feasting motif also occurs in Isa 25:6, where God will make a feast of rich foods and well-aged wine, and where God will destroy the shroud cast over all people so that death will be swallowed up. It also appears in Rev  19:9, which refers to the marriage feast of the Lamb, who is the Son of Man (Rev  5:6, 9, 12), and where only the redeemed will be present. In the Parables of Enoch no accusation of being a “glutton and a drunkard” is leveled against the Son of Man, due to the narrative setting of the Parables of Enoch: it is located in “the Chosen One” and “Son of Man’s” judgment 38.  Tuckett, “The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus,” p. 386, believes this saying is also from the redactional stage of Q. 39.  Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, p. 853; Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 297. 40.  Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.229. 41.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.143; “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 297. 42.  Tödt, Son of Man, p. 123. 43.  Tuckett, “The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus,” p. 386, believes this saying is from the redactional stage of Q, rather than the first stage. Also see Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 114–18, and Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 296.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­249

and condemnation of the oppressors, the kings and the mighty ones, rather than in the period of their oppressive activity prior to the final judgment. Their misdeeds are described as trusting in their own power and wealth rather than recognizing the authority of their Judge, “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man.” However, the blessedness of the reversal of fortunes to be brought about by “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” is described in terms of eternal feasting in the presence of the Son of Man (1En 62:13-15). The relationship depicted here is also worth noting. In Mt 11:19 / Lk 7:34, the Son of Man is described as eating and drinking as a friend of “tax-collectors and sinners.” These were groups of people who were looked down on by the religious authorities as well as by upstanding citizens. Eating and drinking with such people, as Jesus commonly did, was considered by the upstanding and observant religious leaders and leading citizens of the time to be a “serious defilement.” Thus, for the earthly Son of Man to enter into table-fellowship with them indicated that he was acting according to a “supreme authority … and sovereignty superior to the restraints of the Law.”44 This relationship with unsavory members of society is reminiscent of that of the lowly righteous and elect with the Chosen One / Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. The righteous and elect are looked down upon and oppressed by the kings and the mighty ones, who are the authorities in that world-view. But, on the day of their salvation they will be restored and redeemed by the Chosen One / Son of Man. Feasting in the presence of the Son of Man, uplifted faces and garments of glory that will not wear out, are characteristics of the reversal of fortunes to be brought about by the supreme authority and sovereignty of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man.” Thus this quality of feasting with the Son of Man and the relationship it entails are shared by Matthew, Luke, and the Parables of Enoch. While direct, verbal influence cannot be claimed, nonetheless, these characteristics are in keeping with the patterns of relationship surrounding the Son of Man in both the Parables of Enoch and this saying found in Matthew and Luke. 3. Mt 12:32 / Lk 12:10, also from Q, is a saying that overlaps the earthly and the future categories. Forgiveness for speaking against the Son of Man lies in the future, with the future tense being used. But the offense occurs during the earthly presence of the Son of Man. Speaking against the Holy Spirit, however, will not be forgiven.45 Thus both the “earthly” and the “future” aspects are present. Here, “Son of Man” functions both as a self-referent and a reference 44.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 115–16. 45.  See also Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.286, n. 266, for his understanding of the Tradition History of this saying. He refers to “The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mk 3:28-29 / Matthew12:31-32 / Lk 12:10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” NovT 17 (1976), 258–79; The Continuing Voice of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox, 1991), pp. 219–21. He argues that the unforgivable sin logion was originally a pronouncement concerning divine forgiveness towards human beings who are referred to in the Aramaic phrase bar-nasha. Early Christian prophetic activity reworked it to refer to sins against the Son of Man as being forgivable and those against the Holy Spirit as being unforgivable.

­250

Parables of Enoch

to the eschatological Judge. This saying carries the powerful proclamation that even reviling the earthly, human Jesus can, through repentance, be forgiven in the future by the “exalted, apocalyptic Son of Man.”46 This bears a fairly close resemblance to the possibility in the Parables of Enoch that repentance leads to divine mercy from the Lord of Spirits for the holy and chosen ones (1En 50:23). This saying illustrates the power and authority of the end-time Judge, similar to that of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. Again, direct, verbal influence cannot be argued, but the theological roles and relationships bear a clear similarity.47 4. A final earthly Son of Man saying has been created by Matthew in Mt 16:13. This verse, leading up to Peter’s confession, reports Jesus’ first question regarding who the people think he is, and the term “Son of Man” is used where the parallel passages simply have the personal pronoun “me” (Mk 8:27 / Lk 9:18). In Mt 16:21, however, a continuation of the same episode and the first Passion prediction, the personal pronoun “him” is used instead of “Son of Man” (Mk 8:31 / Lk 9:22, “it is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer many things”). The insertion of the term in verse 13 and its replacement in verse 21 indicates, in the first place, that for Matthew, Jesus is identified with the Son of Man.48 Further, Tödt sees Matthew’s editorial activity as moving the term Son of Man up from verse 21 into verse 13, with the effect that it sets the whole episode under the sovereignty and authority of the apocalyptic Son of Man.49 John Meier sees the use of the term in Mt 16:13 and its absence in Mt 16:21 as very significant in terms of Matthew’s development of Christology.50 Narratively, in Peter’s confession (Mt 16:16), Matthew has brought together two titles, “Messiah” and “Son of the living God,” in close proximity with the concept of the Son of Man (Mt 16:13). The Son of Man, then, has a powerful transcendence hidden in deprivation and service, and embodies the mystery of the dying and rising Servant, as well as being the Judge who will come in glory.51 Meier then connects this revelation to Peter with the revelation of the hidden Son of Man by the Most High to the elect and righteous ones in 1En 62:7, 46:1, and 48:1-7. Further, as Nickelsburg has argued, Caesarea Philippi had an ancient reputation for being a place where revelations took place, and both Peter’s confession and the Enochic revelations are associated 46.  Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.287; see also Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 118–20; Nicklesburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 296. 47.  Contra my previous position. 48.  J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1975), p. 115, and Matthew As Story (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988 [2nd edn.]), pp. 95–103, where he argues that “Son of man” is a public title used in the context of opposition, and the personal pronoun is used with regard to insiders such as Peter, whose “evaluative point of view … is in accord with the evaluative point of view of God.” Cf. Davies, and Allison, Matthew, 2.51, who agree with Kingsbury’s emphasis on the “Son of man” as a public title. 49.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp.149–51. 50.  J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 109–20. 51.  Meier, The Vision of Matthew, p. 110.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­251

with Caesarea Philippi as well.52 Here then we observe several characteristics in common with the Parables of Enoch: transcendence, hiddenness, the judicial role, future glory, revelation by God, as well as the narrative location near Caesarea Philippi. This is an intriguing set of similarities on the level of theological dynamics and the pattern of relationships. In summary, these Matthean earthly sayings appear not to be verbally dependent upon the Parables of Enoch, but the patterns of relationship and the theological dynamics are consistent with those of the Parables of Enoch. Matthew’s editorial activity in the first three earthly sayings does not seem to reflect any particular shaping of his concept towards that of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. However, his deliberate insertion of the term Son of Man into the beginning of the confession of Peter and the first Passion prediction does solemnly set the episode under the dignity and sovereignty of the Son of Man. This is fascinatingly similar to the connotations of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Matthew: suffering sayings Eight out of ten of Matthew’s suffering Son of Man sayings have been dealt with under Mark’s suffering sayings, since Matthew took them over with little significant change. There are two sayings, however, which must be commented on here. 1. One saying is significantly altered from its Lukan counterpart. From Q, Mt 12:40 / Lk 11:30 compares Jonah as a sign to those in Nineveh with the Son of Man as sign to the generation being addressed.53 Jonah’s journey to Nineveh was for the purpose of proclaiming God’s judgment. It had the result that the Ninevites repented. Similarly, the Son of Man’s presence reveals God’s judgment on the present generation. The words are a call to repentance before the judgment takes place. Matthew’s treatment of this passage is quite different from Luke’s (for which see below). In Luke, the saying is an earthly saying, for the Son of Man is parallel to Jonah as a prophet of judgment. But Matthew changes the “sign” by adding the reference to Jonah’s encounter with the whale (Mt  12:40). The parallel highlighted by Matthew is that both Jonah and the Son of Man spend three days and nights respectively in the belly of the whale or in the heart of the earth. The sign then becomes Jonah’s suffering and return to life foreshadowing the suffering and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of Man. And this sign, fulfilled in Jesus’ death and resurrection, becomes the summons to repent and believe before the great, final judgment. Matthew has effectively changed this saying into a suffering saying. Again, the use of the term Son of 52.  Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981), 575–600. 53.  Cf. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6.143, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, pp. 295–96; Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 52–54; pp. 211–14 treats the Lukan form of this saying as a coming saying, and the Matthean form as suffering saying.

­252

Parables of Enoch

Man reminds Matthew’s readers of the sovereignty and authority with which Jesus teaches. This allusion to the sovereignty and authority of the earthly Son of Man, Jesus, coheres well with the concept of the sovereignty and authority of the apocalyptic Judge, “the Chosen One,” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. 2. Further, Matthew has added a reference to the Son of Man’s suffering in the reminder about the nearness of the Passover (Mt 26:2). No reference to the Son of Man is included in the parallel passages of Mk 14:1-2 and Lk 22:1-2. As argued above in relation to Mt  16:13, here, too, Matthew has deliberately and significantly inserted the title Son of Man at the beginning of the whole Passion narrative.54 In effect, he is asserting that the suffering that Jesus is about to endure must be seen in the light of the dignity of the apocalyptic Chosen One / Son of Man. In the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man is not simply an idealistic human teacher, but is to be understood as the end-time Judge who will return in power and glory, with authority and divine sovereignty. Thus, Matthew has put the whole Passion narrative under the dignity of that title with its transcendent and judicial connotations. For the informed reader of the Gospel, Matthew is definitely making an allusion to the Parables of Enoch. Matthew’s suffering Son of Man sayings, then, show some strong similarities between Matthew’s concept of the Son of Man and that found in Parables of Enoch. Several points can be observed. Jesus’ suffering is at the hands of the elders, chief priests, scribes, and Gentiles, who are members of the ruling elite. In the Parables of Enoch, the oppressors are also the ruling elite. Further, whereas the Parables of Enoch does not portray a suffering Son of Man, the figure does identify with the oppressed righteous and elect. In a similar way, the suffering Son of Man in the Gospels identifies with the oppressed by joining them in their suffering and by dying on their behalf. Thus, the suffering sayings reflect three similarities between the Matthew and the Parables of Enoch: identification with the oppressed, the ruling elite being the oppressors, and the divine intention to act on behalf of the oppressed. While the reality is that the ruling elite have power to cause suffering, Matthew in these suffering sayings seeks to put Jesus’ suffering into an apocalyptic context and give it enduring meaning. He does so by working off the patterns of relationship of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” found in the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Matthew: future sayings Several future sayings are from Q or Mark and are dealt with in the section on Luke’s use of future sayings below or Mark’s above. Here we deal with passages in which Matthew’s editorial activity can be discerned. 1. In Mt 16:27-28 (Mk 8:38–9:1 / Lk 9:26-27), Jesus foresees the Son of Man coming with his angels in the glory of his Father for the final judgment. In Mark and Luke, he warns that whoever is ashamed of him, of them the Son 54.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 150–51.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­253

of Man will also be ashamed. Then he assures some of his listeners that they will see the coming Kingdom of God. Matthew has reworked these verses significantly as compared to Mark and Luke. The idea of being ashamed has been dropped,55 and a clear reference to the coming judgment has been added, warning that the Son of Man will repay everyone for what they have done. In Matthew, the Son of Man is not a witness, but the Judge imposing repayment. Another significant feature of Matthew’s rendition is to attribute the entourage of angels to the Son of Man, calling them “his angels.” This suggests that they are under his authority, in contrast to Mark and Luke who simply envision the angels as participants in the heavenly scene, contributing to the glory of the Father. Further, in the Matthean version, the coming Kingdom is ruled by the Son of Man, not described simply as the “kingdom of God,” but as “his kingdom,” thus further elevating the role and status of the Son of Man. Matthew, then, has developed the tradition he received in three ways. Placing the angels under the authority of the Son of Man is a development not only from Mark, but also from Dan 7:13, 4 Ezra 13, and the Parables of Enoch. Second, exercising judgment through exacting repayment according to what they have done is not explicit in Daniel 7, 4 Ezra 13 or the Parables of Enoch, but in the Parables of Enoch a huge step has been made toward connecting the judgment of the kings and mighty ones to repayment for their behavior. Their condemnation is based on their denial of the Lord of Spirits (1En 46:6-7, 63:7) and their oppression of the righteous and elect (1En 46:8). While the idea of repayment for sins may not be explicit in the Parables of Enoch, it is implicit. Matthew has taken it a step further, then, by making implicit authority explicit, thus shaping his conception of the Son of Man in the direction of the Parables of Enoch. Third, Matthew envisions the coming kingdom as being under the authority of the Son of Man, and thus affirming the Son of Man’s status as Judge. Matthew’s treatment of the passage, then, reveals those redactional developments that shape the conception of the Son of Man in the direction of the Parables of Enoch, indicating Matthew’s familiarity with the concepts expressed in the Parables of Enoch. 2. Mt 19:28 / Lk 22:28-30, from Q, refers to sitting in judgment. In the Lukan version, the disciples who have endured Jesus’ trials will be sitting at table, eating and drinking in his kingdom, and sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. In Lk 22:30, Jesus refers to himself with the first-person pronoun, not as the “Son of Man.” For Q, this is apparently the climactic “last word,” indicating that not only Jesus but also those who have followed him will act as judges over Israel,56 which can be seen as a concern and perspective of the early Church.57 Luke includes this image among the last words of Jesus 55.  But cf. Mt  10:33 / Lk  12:9, where Jesus’ being denied on earth is reciprocated by a heavenly denial, although the term “Son of Man” is not used. 56.  Tuckett, “The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus,” p. 380. 57.  Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper and

­254

Parables of Enoch

at the Last Supper on the night of his arrest. For Luke, this image bears some similarity to the image of feasting and dwelling under the benevolent rule of the Son of Man in 1En 62:15. Matthew’s version has a different setting. It is part of the conversation with the disciples following the encounter with the rich young ruler. No mention is made of eating and drinking, but in response to the disciples’ query about their rewards for having given up so much to follow him, Jesus promises that at the renewal of all things (palingensia),58 when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, they too will be sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel, as “the most important persons among the Jewish people” at the eschaton.59 Not only does Matthew use the term “Son of Man,” but he also depicts him sitting on “the throne of his glory” along with the image of his followers sitting on their thrones and sharing in judgment. The Matthean treatment of this passage in Mt  19:28 reveals very close similarities to the Parables of Enoch. A very strong similarity, perhaps even a direct quotation,60 is the description of the Son of Man’s throne as the “throne of his glory.” Found also at Mt 25:31, the image of a “throne of his glory”61 has been shown by Theisohn not to have been developed out of Christian sources.62 Rather, this image, while rare, is present in pre-Christian literature.63 This same Semitic construct form is preserved in Ethiopic: “the throne of his glory” (manbara sebhatihu; 1En 62:5; 69:27, 29).64 In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days is on the throne, but, even though plural thrones are envisioned (Dan 7:9), neither the “one like a son of man” nor members of the court are Row, 1968 [rev. edn.]), p. 163; Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 63–64; Beare, Matthew, p. 400; Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.391. 58.  For palingensia, see Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, p.165; Tödt, Son of Man, p. 91; Gundry, Matthew, p. 392; E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. D. E. Green (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975), pp. 389–90; H. Geist, Menschensohn und Gemeinde: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zur Menschensohnprädikation im Matthäusevangelium (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986), p. 239; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.57-58; J. D. M. Derrett, “Palingensia (Matthew 19.28),” JSNT 20 (1984), 51–58; D. C. Sim, “The Meaning of palingensia in Matthew 19:28,” JSNT 50 (1993), 3–12. 59.  Harrington, Matthew, p. 281. F..W. Burnett, “Palingensia in Matt. 19:28: A Window on the Matthean Commuity?”, JSNT 17 (1983), 63–64, notes that this scene of the disciples on thrones seems to be in tension with the request for pre-eminent positions in Mt 20:20-28, especially with Jesus’ claim that he cannot grant a seat at his right hand to anyone. Burnett believes that Mt 19:28 was included to reduce tensions over hierarchy among the disciples in his own community, to equalize the status of all 12, and to emphasize the future, eschatological nature of their function. 60.  See my dissertation, pp. 285–87. Also, see the published version. 61.  A throne is mentioned five times in Matthew: at 5:34 and 23:22, it is God’s throne; at 19:28 and 25:31, the Son of Man is depicted as sitting upon a throne; at 19:28, the disciples are on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 62.  Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, pp. 153–58. 63.  For the “glorious throne,” see, for example, 1Sam  2:8; Isa  22:23; Jer  14:21, 17:12; Sir 47:11; WisSol 9:10; and TAb 8:5, 12:4. See D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), p. 78, n. 20, and Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.54. 64.  “The Elect One” is also depicted on a throne in 1En 45:3, 51:3, 55:4, 61:8. See Table 2 in my dissertation, p. 199.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­255

explicitly described as sitting on thrones. In the Parables of Enoch, only the Lord of Spirits and “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” are seated on thrones.65 The righteous and elect, however, do not pass judgment, although they enjoy the benefits of vindication. The author of the Parables of Enoch has made it explicit that “the Chosen One” who is “the Son of Man” is seated on the “throne of his glory,” and this depiction and concept has been followed by Matthew. Matthew’s inclusion of the personal possessive pronoun, “his” qualifying “glory,” is a further indication that Matthew has the Parables of Enoch in mind, not Daniel 7. This precise image of the Son of Man seated on the “throne of his glory” is rare, and since it appears in both documents in association with the same figure, the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Mt 19:28 is quite likely. 3. Again in Mt 24:30-31 / Mk 13:26-27 / Lk 21:27, Matthew has edited the verses quite significantly compared to Mark and Luke.66 Matthew expands the vision of the future Son of Man to include the sign of the Son of Man in heaven67 and the mourning on the part of earth’s tribes (cf. Zech  12:1014) because of the judgment the Son of Man will enact.68 Accompanying the sending out of the angels is a trumpet call as the elect are gathered from the four winds. Further, Matthew adds a possessive pronoun to both the “angels”

65.  Outside of the Parables of Enoch, the image of being seated on thrones participating in judgment is similar to 1En 108:12, where those envisioned as being given thrones are not only leaders, but also all the restored righteous, placed on thrones one by one. 66.  Most would say that Matthew has followed his Markan source, but altered it in significant ways, e.g., D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 336, Tödt, Son of Man, p. 80, and R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 52–54. France, Matthew – Evangelist and Teacher, pp. 41–49, claims to be less certain about the Two-Source hypothesis, although the Griesbach Theory is also untenable. He believes that a more complex process must be understood, allowing for the introduction of oral material in the composition of the Gospel. 67.  T. F. Glasson, “The Ensign of the Son of Man (Matt. XXIV, 30),” JTS 15 (1964), 299– 300; Harrington, Matthew, p. 338. Colpe, “Ho huios tou anthropou,” TDNT 8.437, argues that the sign was a banner; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3.359-60, outline the various views, and then argue for the cross. Beare, Matthew, p. 471, notes that patristic interpretation favored an appearance of the cross and that in iconography Jesus often is envisioned as arising from the dead brandishing a cross. Others see the sign as the Son of Man: Tödt, Son of Man, p. 80; Meier, Matthew, p. 287; Gundry, Matthew, p. 488; Beare, Matthew, p. 471; Hare, Son of Man Tradition, p. 173; Lambrecht, Out of the Treasure, p. 258; Boring, Matthew, NIB 8.444. 68.  J. Lambrecht, S.J., Out of the Treasure: The Parables in the Gospel of Matthew (Louvain: Peeters Press / Eerdmans, 1991), p. 259, notes that Matthew’s universality is apparent in the reference to all the tribes being judged. This universality also appears in the description of the Last Judgment in Mt 25:31-46, as all people are to appear before the throne. See also Meier, Matthew, p. 287, and Boring, Matthew, NIB 8.444. Tödt, Son of Man, p. 81, also sees that the judgment is for everyone in the omission of the use of the concept of the “pierced one” from Zech 12:10. Jesus’ enemies who pierced him are not the only ones who will be judged, but everyone. The absence of the allusion to the “pierced one” also emphasizes the Son of Man’s authority to judge, according to Tödt.

­256

Parables of Enoch

and the “elect,” indicating that the Son of Man has authority over them.69 The sign, the mourning, the addition of “his,” and the trumpet call are all Matthean expansions. Along with the details mentioned above in Mark’s future sayings, Matthew, emphasizing judgment and subsuming the angels under the authority of the Son of Man, can be seen as bringing the Matthean depiction of the Son of Man even closer to that of the Parables of Enoch. 4. In Mt 26:60 / Mk 14:62 / Lk 22:69 in response to a question from the high priest regarding his divine Sonship, Jesus responds in the affirmative, and announces the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds. The Matthean addition, “from now on,” claims that the Son of Man is being revealed, not only to the followers of Jesus, but now also to the opponents as well. This is very similar to the dynamic in the Parables of Enoch (1En 62–63), where the kings and mighty ones, who are the opponents of the righteous and elect and the Son of Man, have their Judge, “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man,” revealed to them. The day of the revelation of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is the day of judgment, when the righteous and elect from that time on will enjoy peace, rest, and prosperity under the rule of the Son of Man, and when the kings and mighty ones from that time on will experience condemnation, punishment, shame, and guilt. The whole tenor of the vision in the Parables of Enoch is to announce how things will be different from the day of the Son of Man on into the future, and Matthew has captured that sense in two words, ap’ arti, “from now on,” which reflects the dynamic of the revelation of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the continuing effect of that revelation into the future. Two future Son of Man passages are unique to Matthew, namely 13:37-43, the Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds, and 25:31-46, the description of the Last Judgment. 5. The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds (Mt  13:37-43) is a Matthean creation,70 in which the term “Son of Man” appears twice, and it reveals many features that can be traced back to the Parables of Enoch. The angels are the agents of the Son of Man in 13:37-43. They are called “his angels” and are at the Son of Man’s disposal, for he sends them out to collect all causes of sin, which will be disposed of in fiery furnaces with weeping and gnashing of teeth, while the righteous will be radiant. The conception of the Son of Man surrounded by angels, who are also agents of judgment, betrays a strong similarity with the Parables of Enoch. The angels being in the presence of the Head of Days and surrounding the throne is expressed most explicitly in 1 Enoch 40:1, in which a vision of the Lord of Spirits and the four archangels is introduced, and in the vision of the final ascent in 1  Enoch  71, where myriads of angels populate the scene. 69.  In Mk 13:27, “his” is also present in some witnesses after “angels,” but it is probably not original. After “elect” in this same verse, “his” is questionable, even though Nestle-Aland27 includes it in the text, but in brackets. It may have been added in both locations due to the influence of this verse, Mt 24:31. 70.  See my dissertation, pp. 265–71, for a fuller discussion.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­257

The angels acting as agents of judgment appear in 1 Enoch 56:1-5, in which angels with scourges are foreseen to gather the wicked and cast them into the abyss of the valley where they will suffer with the kings and the mighty ones (cf. 1En 62:11-12). The angels in 1 Enoch 61:1-9 gather the righteous and elect, even from their deaths in the sea, the desert, and the wilderness, and restore them to the presence of the Elect One and the Lord of Spirits, where they praise God forever, are clothed in radiant garments, and feast in joy and peace (1En 62:13-16). Included in the Parables of Enoch are the themes of the radiance of the righteous, the fiery fate of the condemned, and the angels being involved in carrying out the punishment. This set of features is common only to Mt 13:40-43 and to the Parables of Enoch, and does not occur elsewhere.71 While precise quotations may not be evident, nonetheless the pattern of relationships is clearly the same and it points to the fact that a precise and concise allusion is being made to Parables of Enoch in the Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds. Another striking feature of the Parables of Enoch is that a blatant dichotomy exists between the righteous and the wicked. Their fates in the final judgment are clear and opposed to each other. This is evident in 1 Enoch 63 where the kings and the mighty ones put themselves at the mercy of the Lord of Spirits, but no mercy is forthcoming. Similarly in Mt 13:42-43, the wicked are thrown into the furnace to perish and the righteous are promised that they will shine like the sun. The Son of Man in Mt 13:36-43, as he does in the Parables of Enoch, executes a merciless judgment. 6. The Last Judgment in Mt 25:31-46 also reveals many themes that fill out Matthew’s conception of the Son of Man. Glory, his angels, the throne of this glory, separating the righteous from the accursed, no hope of forgiveness and mercy, the treatment of the righteous as the criterion for condemnation, the fiery fate, the devil and his angels for whom that fiery fate was prepared, but which the accursed will suffer, are all themes that highlight the omnipotent, judicial role as the Son of Man.72 Many close similarities exist between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch regarding the Son of Man. Both depict the Son of Man sitting on the “throne of his glory,” with the authority to judge (1En 69:27, 29; the “throne of his glory” may be a direct quotation, as noted above). In both, the condemned will be terrified (1En 62; 55:4) and will be consigned to eternal punishment (1En  62:11), as the Son of Man exercises an all-inclusive judgment. This judgment results in an everlasting separation to eternal reward or eternal condemnation, with no possibility of crossover from one group to the other (1En  62:9-11;  69:27). A further feature is the surprise of the judged and their ignorance of the Judge and his decisions, whether they are righteous or condemned. In Mt  25:31-46 both groups ask where they had ever seen the Judge, which suggests that the judgment is also the revealing of the Judge. 71.  Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, p. 197. 72.  See my dissertation, pp. 300–38, for a fuller discussion.

­258

Parables of Enoch

In the Parables of Enoch the kings and mighty ones are surprised to see the one on the throne, and they plead for mercy, although none is available. The righteous and elect, however, are not noted as being surprised, since the Son of Man, and presumably the criterion for judgment, has already been revealed to them. The criterion for judgment in both Matthew and the Parables of Enoch is the treatment of the ones with whom the Judge identifies. Finally, a close similarity is the fiery fate in each work and for whom it was prepared: in the Parables of Enoch, Azazel and his rebellious angels (1En 54:5; 55:4; 67:4-7), in Matthew, the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41). All of these future sayings as redacted by Matthew show that Matthew has shaped his portrayal of the Son of Man in the direction of the Parables of Enoch. This is especially true of the last two passages. Both Mt 13:37-43 and 25:31-46 reveal many characteristics of the Son of Man that are shared with the Parables of Enoch. They contain the bulk of the traits attributed to the Son of Man. Of all the passages in Matthew containing “Son of Man,” these two also exhibit the most traits shared with the Parables of Enoch, which suggests that Matthew’s concept of the Son of Man has been significantly influenced by the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Luke: earthly sayings Luke has 25 Son of Man sayings, some from Q and Mark, as well as some unique sayings. Examining these will help to reveal Luke’s relationship to the Parables of Enoch. Two other instances of phraseology may also reveal whether Luke had access to the Parables of Enoch or not. The first sayings to be examined are Luke’s earthly sayings, some of which have already been discussed under Mark’s or Matthew’s section on the earthly sayings. 1. Lk 6:22 / Mt 5:11, the final beatitude in both Luke and Matthew, refers to the blessedness of those who are persecuted on account of Jesus (Mt) or on account of the Son of Man (Lk).73 Hatred, exclusion, revulsion, and defamation all may besiege followers of Jesus as the Son of Man. Matthew’s removal of the term “Son of Man” here may be due to his concern to elevate Jesus’ status as the Son of Man, and to distance negative effects from him and his followers. Lk  6:23, however, shows the eschatological context in which this persecution is to be understood. Those loyal to the Son of Man can look forward with joy to the expected reward in heaven, where according to other sayings in the Gospel (e.g., Lk 9:26; 12:8-10) the apocalyptic Son of Man will vindicate the righteous and condemn the oppressors. The negative effects of hatred, exclusion, revulsion, and defamation are comparable to 73.  Tuckett, “The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus,” in The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, ed. A. Lindemann (Leuven, Paris, Sterling, VA: University Press, 2001), p. 373, n. 12. Tuckett believes that the term “Son of Man” was original in this saying, as preserved in Luke’s Gospel, and that Matthew’s Gospel introduced a change to “on my account.” Cf. Tödt, Son of Man, pp.123–24; I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 251–57; Fitzmyer, Luke I–ix, pp. 634–35.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­259

the oppression experienced by the righteous and elect in the Parables of Enoch. The righteous in the Parables of Enoch have been persecuted by the kings and mighty ones (1En 46:8), their blood has been shed (1En 47:2, 4), for they have rejected the ways of the mighty and powerful (1En 48:7), and so have experienced the shame of downcast faces (1En 62:15) due to exclusion and hatred by the kings and the mighty ones. They can also expect the rewards of salvation, living in peace and plenty, in the presence of “the Chosen One,” “the Son of Man” (1En 58:2-6; 62:13-16). Thus oppression and persecution are common to both the blessed of the beatitude and to the righteous and elect of the Parables of Enoch, as well as the expected restoration and reversal of fortunes. This beatitude may not betray evidence of direct, verbal influence from the Parables of Enoch, but it nonetheless alludes to the eschatological consequences of allegiance to the Son of Man as depicted in the Parables of Enoch, and thus the Parables of Enoch may have been in Luke’s mind (or the minds of the compilers of Q, if the Lukan version was taken from Q). 2. Lk 11:30 / Mt 12:40, from Q, compares Jonah as a sign to the Ninevites with the Son of Man as a sign to the generation being addressed. Jonah’s journey to Nineveh was for the purpose of proclaiming God’s judgment. It had the result that the Ninevites repented. Similarly the Son of Man’s presence reveals God’s judgment on the present generation. The words are a call to repentance before the judgment takes place (see above for Matthew’s treatment of this verse in the suffering sayings section). The Son of Man as a warning sign is also conceived of as being a future event, for both the Queen of the South and the Ninevites arising in judgment are in the future. But Jesus’ contemporaries are being addressed, and so the earthly presence of the Son of Man is also in focus. In Lk 11:31-32, Jesus asserts that something greater than Solomon or Jonah is here and this also locates the saying in the earthly presence of Jesus. From the context of these verses, it is the Son of Man who is that “something” greater than Solomon or Jonah. Thus both a future aspect and a present aspect are contained in this saying as well. It overlaps the “future” category and the “present” category of Son of Man sayings. Thus, it can be seen that Luke’s version emphasizes the coming judgment, and that the Son of Man is cast in the role both of prophet of judgment for the present and the Judge of the unrepentant in the future. In Lk 11:29-32, repentance and forgiveness are possible, since that is the hope of the proclamation. The Parables of Enoch includes repentance for the holy and chosen (1En 50:1-5), but not for the unrepentant. When, however, repentance does occur in the oppressors’ plea for mercy, it is too late, for the Son of Man’s judgment has already taken place and is incontrovertible (1En 63). Thus, although this saying was not influenced in a direct verbal way by the Parables of Enoch, on the level of a theological dynamic, both Lk 11:30 and the Parables of Enoch envision the presence of the Son of Man as a revelation of judgment on behalf of an omnipotent God against unrepentant earth dwellers. This is an interesting similarity on the level of patterns of relationships surrounding the figure of the Son of Man.

­260

Parables of Enoch

3. Luke reports one further Son of Man saying that refers to present, earthly activity and authority. Lk 19:10 shows Jesus’ assertion that the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.74 Using the self-referent to describe Jesus’ purpose, the saying is appended to Luke’s story of Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus, and is given in response to the crowd’s criticism of Zacchaeus’ being a sinner. The “lost” in Luke’s Gospel are those outside the bounds of the mainstream society, as illustrated by the parables of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and the lost son in Lk 15. Thus, this saying in Lk 19:10 characterizes Jesus’ ministry to those outside the mainstream. It expresses the Son of Man’s salvific purpose.75 When the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is compared to this Lukan saying, two points of conceptual similarity can be noted: the authority of the Son of Man, and seeking and saving the lost. In the Parables of Enoch, the authority of the Son of Man is evident, and as a part of the judgment the angels gather the scattered righteous ones (1En 61:5) to restore them to their rightful place. These scattered ones were oppressed by those in power. They were not a part of the society controlled by the kings and mighty ones, and so they may be comparable to the “lost” in Luke’s Gospel. Thus, seeking and saving the lost is similar to gathering the scattered righteous ones in the Parables of Enoch. While verbal similarities between Lk  19:10 and the Parables of Enoch are absent, on the level of the theological dynamics and the pattern of relationships, the concept is similar. Here it can be seen that the Son of Man in both has the purpose of saving the righteous on the margins of society. These Lukan earthly sayings do not seem to have direct, verbal dependence on the Parables of Enoch, but the theological construct of the Lukan Son of Man in these saying is consistent with that portrayed in the Parables of Enoch. If other evidence can be found for dependence, then these sayings too reflect the perspectives of the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Luke: suffering sayings 1. Luke preserves a Son of Man suffering saying in Lk  22:28 that has no counterpart elsewhere. Luke has shortened and streamlined the episode in the Garden, omitting the announcement of the betrayal of the Son of Man, but including a question to Judas about betrayal with a kiss (Lk 22:48), using the term “Son of Man.”76 This question picks up the reference to the Son of Man earlier in the evening at Lk 22:22, in which Jesus points out that through the 74.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 133–34; Marshall, Luke, pp. 698–99; Fitzmyer, Luke X–xxiv, p. 1226; R. A. Culpepper, “Luke,” NIB 9.359. 75.  The saying conveys a similar purpose as is found in Mk 10:45 / Mt 20:28, where seeking and saving the lost is expressed in terms of giving his life as a ransom for many. While the purpose expressed is the same, the imagery used to express that purpose is different. The ransom imagery places the Markan / Matthean saying in the category of the suffering of the Son of Man, while Luke’s seeking and saving imagery places it in the category of earthly sayings. 76.  This question is not present in Mk 14:45, while in Mt 26:50, Jesus’ question is to his “friend,” Judas, asking why he is there.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­261

betrayer’s hand the Son of Man will endure what has been determined for him. “Son of Man” here may function as a self-referent,77 although to the informed reader it may also be a reminder of Jesus’ apocalyptic role as the end-time Judge. Although Jesus is about to be betrayed, justice and salvation will be accomplished through the Son of Man, whose role is for the present hidden, but will be revealed in the end. The use of the term “Son of Man” in Lk 22:22, 48, may rely on those theological understandings from the Parables of Enoch. 2. Another reminder of the prediction of suffering, Lk 24:7, is embedded in Luke’s story of the resurrection appearance. The two men / angels in dazzling clothing remind the women that Jesus taught that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day rise. Here, the use of the term and the reference to suffering are dependent on the earlier narrative. Here, at the end of the Gospel, the use of the term by the interpreting angels expresses the vindication of the lowly, suffering, human Jesus, and dramatically emphasizes his elevation to the status of the allpowerful Son of Man. The suffering of the Son of Man issuing in resurrection transports him to the glorious sovereignty and everlasting authority that is inherent in “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man’s” position in the Parables of Enoch. Parables of Enoch and Luke: future sayings 1. In Lk 12:8-9 / Mt 10:32-33, found in Q, the Son of Man is envisioned in a future courtroom scene as acknowledging or denying those who acknowledge or deny Jesus on this earth (cf. Mt  12:32 / Lk  12:10 above in Matthew’s earthly sayings). Matthew has used the first-person pronoun instead of the term “Son of Man,” because for Matthew the identification of Jesus with the Son of Man is so complete.78 As Nickelsburg notes, here he is portrayed as the “future judicial figure in the heavenly court” and “the heavenly vindicator of the wronged righteous,” as formulated in the Parables of Enoch.79 One of the outstanding aspects of this saying is the use of the complementary verbs: to acknowledge and to deny. Those who acknowledge or deny the earthly Son of Man will be acknowledged or denied by the end-time, judicial Son of Man. Acknowledgment and denial are also powerful and distinguishing qualities in the Parables of Enoch. Sinners deny the Lord of Spirits (1En 41:2; 45:1-2) and the kings and mighty do not acknowledge the source of their power, that is the Son of Man (1En 46:5), but deny the Lord of Spirits and the Anointed One (1En 48:10). Then in the enthronement scene, the Lord of Spirits commands the kings and mighty ones to recognize the Chosen One on the throne if they can (1En 62:1-8). Finally, in their petitioning the Lord of Spirits and the Chosen One / Son of Man for mercy, they are in effect acknowledging their authority

90.

77.  Marshall, Luke, p. 836. 78.  Boring, “Matthew,” NIB 8.261; Culpepper, “Luke,” NIB 9.253. 79.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, pp. 294–95; contra Tödt, Son of Man, p.

­262

Parables of Enoch

(1En 62:9-11; 63:2-20). In contrast, all the heavenly host bless, glorify, and exalt the Lord of Spirits, acknowledging and declaring their allegiance to God (1En 61:10-11). The dynamic is the same, both in Luke and Matthew and in the Parables of Enoch. Acknowledgement or denial is the criterion for the Chosen One / Son of Man’s judgment. This betrays a significant coherence in Luke and Matthew to the depiction in the Parables of Enoch. It may even betray influence of the Parables of Enoch in the time Q was being formulated. 2. In the admonition to readiness, Lk 12:40 / Mt 24:44, also considered by Tödt to be authentic, the Son of Man is compared to a thief coming at an unexpected hour. The quality of unexpectedness in this saying may be compared to the unexpected judgment by the Son of Man, which produces the surprise on the faces of the kings and mighty ones when they recognize their Judge in the Parables of Enoch (1En 62:5). Thus, the unexpectedness of the judgment is a similarity. 3. Preserved in Q are some comments about the future Son of Man as compared to natural and biblical events. Luke has incorporated these sayings into a passage on the Day of the Son of Man (Lk 17:22-37),80 while Matthew has included them in the Synoptic Apocalypse (Mt 24:26-28, 37-41). The day of the Son of Man, or the parousia of the Son of Man, is compared to lightning flashes, vultures gathering around a carcass, the Flood of Noah’s time, or the destruction of Sodom from which Lot escaped. The point of these comparisons is that even though unexpected, the world would not fail to recognize that sudden day. Tödt argues that these sayings reflect the concern of the early Church, believing that the day would come, but without being concerned for describing it, or differentiating successive stages. Their belief was that it would come, it would come suddenly, it would be recognized, and therefore the world must heed the warning to be prepared.81 Further, Tödt argues that Luke has the intention of projecting the earthly Son of Man in terms of the apocalyptic Lord, who is seated at the right hand of God and is lord over all the difficulties of life.82 Several interesting similarities with the Parables of Enoch become apparent. (a) One is that these sayings emphasize the Son of Man’s recognizability, even by those who are not expecting that day of the Son of Man to arrive. This brings to mind the command by the Lord of Spirits to the kings and mighty ones to recognize the Chosen One on the throne of his glory (1En 62:1). The surprise on their faces indicates they were not expecting what they saw. (b) A second similarity is that Noah is mentioned (Lk 17:26) as someone who was prepared when the rest of humanity was surprised by the coming of the Flood. This illustrates the surprise of the world at large at the coming of the Son of Man. Noah also figures in the Noachic interpolations in the Third Parable (1En 65:1–69:25), as one who was prepared by God for the coming Flood, 80.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 104–08, describes these verses as a “well-planned accumulation of Son of Man sayings” that indicated Luke had a particular understanding of the Son of Man title. 81.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 48–52. 82.  Tödt, Son of Man, p. 105.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­263

which would be punishment for the iniquities of the unsuspecting inhabitants of the world and of the fallen angels. (c) Third, as Lk 17:30 refers to the day when the Son of Man is “revealed,” so the Parables of Enoch speaks of the Son of Man being “revealed” to the holy and righteous and chosen ones (1En 48:7; 62:7).83 These three similarities – recognizability, Noah, and the revealing of the Son of Man – are shared by both Lk 17:17-37 and the Parables of Enoch. This indicates that probably Luke was aware of the Parables of Enoch and the characteristics of the Son of Man it employs. There are two “future” Son of Man sayings, which are unique to Luke. 4. Lk 18:8b forms the conclusion of the parable of the persistent widow, but more importantly forms the conclusion to the discourse on the Day of the Son of Man (Lk 17:20-37).84 Jesus wonders whether the Son of Man will find faith when he comes. The faith in focus is powerful as a mustard seed, prayerful, persistent, and demands justice. The only explicit quality of the Son of Man in this passage is his future coming. But in association with the unjust judge, a connotation regarding the Son of Man is that he will act justly, vindicating the righteous. This coheres well with the depiction of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. 5. A second Lukan “future” Son of Man saying that appears in Luke alone is Lk 21:36, which is the conclusion to the Day of the Son of Man discourse, and is an admonition to stay alert, to pray for strength to endure, in order to stand before the Son of Man at the final vindication. Here the Son of Man has a position of power and authority before whom members of Jesus’ audience will stand. This indicates that Luke conceives of the Son of Man here as the Judge and the Deliverer.85 Both of these sayings, Lk  18:8b and Lk  21:36, conclude significant and major topics in Luke’s narrative. Lk  18:8b concludes the discourse on the Day of the Son of Man, and Lk 21:36 concludes the “Synoptic Apocalypse.” Deliberately and significantly Luke has placed these sayings in these positions of importance to draw each discourse to a close under the powerful image of the end-time Judge, the authority and sovereign of all, the Son of Man. It seems likely he is doing so deliberately, conscious of the image of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch.86 Parables of Enoch and Luke, The Chosen One Outside of the Son of Man sayings, an instance of the Parables of Enoch influencing Luke is his use of the title “Chosen One,” which appears in two locations.87 The first passage where the title appears is in the story of the Transfiguration, Lk 9:28-36 / Mk 9:2-8 / Mt 17:1-8. In contrast to Mark and 83.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 294. 84.  Fitzmyer, Luke (X–XXIV), p.1175; Culpepper, “Luke,” NIB 9.338. 85.  Tödt, Son of Man, pp. 98, 109. Fitzmyer, Luke (X–XXIV), p. 1350. 86.  Contra my previous position. 87.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” in Resurrection, p. 304.

­264

Parables of Enoch

Matthew, the Lukan voice from the cloud announces, “This is my Son, My Chosen, listen to him” (Lk 9:35).88 In this story it is also worth noting some of the details in the context. It takes place on a mountain, and the scene of glory is depicted through the use of clouds and dazzling white clothing. Heavenly visitors, Moses and Elijah, are also present. The second passage is in the crucifixion scene, when the rulers scoff at Jesus, taunting him, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ [the Anointed One] of God, his chosen one” (christos tou theou, ho elektos). This, of course, is an ironic taunt, because for the author and the informed reader, Jesus truly is the Christ, the anointed one, the chosen one of God. Mark and Matthew record longer taunts, but neither include the term ho elektos to deride Jesus. Mark uses “Christ [anointed one], the King of Israel” (Mk 15:32), while Matthew uses the title, “Son of God” (Mt 27:42-43). Here the context includes the skull-shaped hill (Golgotha), the taunting rulers, soldiers, and even one of the criminals crucified there as well. The extreme pain and agony of being crucified is also in focus. In the scope of each Gospel, the glorious scene of the Transfiguration functions as a prefiguring of the eventual outcome of the way of suffering upon which Jesus is embarking. This suffering, which involves crucifixion and resurrection, is God’s way of carrying out judgment against sin and accomplishing the gift of salvation. Traditionally, the Church has read Isaiah’s servant songs in terms of prophecy for Jesus’ ministry and Passion. In Isa 42:1 the servant is called the chosen one in whom God delights, who will bring forth justice. In Isa 44:12, the servant is again called “the chosen,” but is identified with Israel, who will bring about restoration, while in Isa 49:1-7, the voice of the servant is heard describing his lifelong call, “from birth,” and the challenge to be “a light of the nations.” Traditionally the Isaianic servant songs have been seen to be a sufficient source for the NT descriptions of Jesus, and they are seen as Luke’s source for intentionally using the title “Chosen One” in both the Transfiguration story and the taunting of the rulers at the crucifixion. But perhaps a more satisfying source is to be found in the Parables of Enoch. In the Parables of Enoch, the Anointed One, the Righteous One, the Chosen One, and the Son of Man are all interchangeable titles or referents for the end-time Judge.89 Furthermore, the servant songs found in Isaiah 42, 49, are important sources for the author of the Parables of Enoch. In the Parables of Enoch, this Chosen One is promised as God’s representative who will judge on behalf of God’s people, enthroned on “the throne of [his] glory” (1En 45:3; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:1-2, 3). This figure exercises great authority in a setting of great glory. Judgment is executed on behalf of the righteous and elect, and the oppressors, the kings, and the mighty ones are consigned to their punishment. Further, in the vision of the six melting metallic mountains, two titles are used, the Anointed One (1En  52:4), and the Chosen One (1En  52:6). The 88.  The word eklelegmenos is unique to Luke among the Synoptics (some manuscripts have eklektos), because in Mk 9:7 and Mt 17:5, the word “beloved” (ho agapetos) is used. 89.  VanderKam, “Righteous One.”

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­265

vision depicts “the Anointed One” and “the Chosen One’s” great authority to condemn the oppressors and to restore the chosen, righteous ones. Glory and incontrovertible authority to judge the kings and mighty ones and to restore the righteous and elect are significant qualifiers of this figure. The Parables of Enoch and Luke in these two passages share the contextual details of the mountain, the scene of glory, the rulers, and the mistreatment perpetrated by the rulers on righteous ones. Further, in the Parables of Enoch, the Chosen One’s role is to carry out judgment; similarly in Luke, the glory to which the Transfiguration points and the everlasting outcome of the crucifixion is the accomplishment of salvation, or the carrying out of God’s righteous will. The use of the same two titles is also arresting: Anointed One and Chosen One are used together both in the vision of the six melting metallic mountains and in the taunt of the rulers at the crucifixion. These combinations of characteristics strongly suggest that Luke’s use of the title “Chosen One” in Lk 9:35 and 23:35 is indeed intentional and influenced by the Parables of Enoch rather than by Isaiah. Parables of Enoch and Luke: redemption draws near The sentence, “Your redemption (apolutrosis) is drawing near” (Lk 21:28), in Luke’s version of the Synoptic Apocalypse, may also indicate influence from a similar sentence in the Parables of Enoch, “the day on which they [i.e., the righteous and holy] will be saved is drawing near” (1En 51:2). The Enochic sentence is found in a passage where the seer is reiterating the future reversal of power for the oppressed but righteous ones of earth and the promise of the future enthronement of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” who will judge on their behalf. The sentiment is repeated as part of the scene in which “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” is seated on the throne and the kings and mighty ones are condemned. By way of contrast, the passage reassures the righteous and chosen that they will be saved, will feast and dwell with that Son of Man, cease to be downcast, and put on glorious garments representing their restored life in the presence of the Lord of Spirits (1En 62:13-16). This eschatological expectation of salvation is painted in hopeful, joyful, glorious, and everlasting terms. In a similar way, with the inclusion of the sentence, “Your redemption (apolutrosis) is drawing near” (Lk 21:28), Luke’s apocalypse brings hope and joyful expectation into those days of distress. The word apolutrosis appears in the Gospel only here, although it is used frequently in Pauline writings.90 Luke uses cognate words in the opening chapters and in the closing chapter of the Gospel. Zechariah at John’s birth praises God prior to Jesus’ birth for visiting and redeeming (making ransom, epoiesen lutron) God’s people (Lk  1:68). Anna then proclaims Jesus’ birth as fulfillment of messianic hopes to those who were “looking for the redemption (lutrosin) of Jerusalem” (Lk 2:38). In 90.  Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, p. 1350; Marshall, Luke, p. 777; Culpepper, “Luke,” NIB 9.408; Büchsel, “lutron,” TDNT 4.352.

­266

Parables of Enoch

the closing chapter, in the hours soon after the resurrection, Luke’s travelers to Emmaus say to the still unrecognized Jesus walking with them that they had hoped that Jesus would have been the one to redeem (lutrousthai) Israel (Lk 24:21). Between the uses of the cognate words in the opening and closing of the Gospel, comes Luke’s exhortation in Lk 21:28 to look up for redemption was drawing near. It is a more positive and hopeful perspective with which to endure those terrible days of distress. Luke’s apocalyptic discourse ends with the admonition to be on guard, not weighed down with worry or drunkenness, for the day will be apparent to all. Therefore prayer (a typical Lukan theme) for strength to escape those events and to stand before the Son of Man is exhorted. Matthew ends dramatically with the description of the final judgment before the Son of Man (see above Mt  25:31-46). Luke’s conclusion then is less developed, but is still as powerful since it includes praying to have the strength to stand before the Son of Man. Here to “stand before” indicates a judicial relationship, as Marshall suggests.91 Luke’s usage here, in my opinion, coheres well with the Parables of Enoch and was probably influenced by the theological views of the power and authority of the Chosen One / Son of Man portrayed there.

Conclusions This study of the features of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels reveals that many similarities can be noted, some of which strongly suggest that the Parables of Enoch was known to the Evangelists and its theology incorporated into the Synoptics. Now that most specialists on the Books of Enoch date the Parables of Enoch near the end of Herod the Great’s reign, it becomes obvious that the masterpiece is available in the period when the Gospels were written.92 Five items are most convincing for the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Mark, Matthew, and Luke. (a) From Matthew’s Gospel the inclusion of the phrase “the throne of his glory” (Mt 19:28; 25:31) is possibly a direct quote from the Parables of Enoch. Since this is a rare phrase, and since it appears in both documents in association with the same figure, it makes the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Matthew quite likely. (b) Again from Matthew’s Gospel, a large number of precise similarities with the Parables of Enoch appear in two passages in particular, the Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds (Mt 13:36-43) and the description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46). Unique to Matthew, these two passages betray such a thorough understanding 91.  Marshall, Luke, p. 783. This view is contra Tödt, Son of Man, p. 98, who regards Luke’s Son of Man as primarily an intercessor and advocate rather than judge. This is also different from my previous published views. 92.  See Charlesworth’s two chapters in this collection. Also see Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 415–68, “Section Six: the Dating,” as well as the section on the dating of the Parables of Enoch in my revised dissertation, The Parables of Enoch and Matthew.

The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels

­267

and familiarity with the concepts and theology of the Parables of Enoch that its influence on Matthew can be clearly seen. (c) From Luke’s Gospel, the use of the title “Chosen One” (Lk 9:35; 23:35) is quite startling. Along with “Son of Man,” it is one of the two more frequently used, synonymous titles for the end-time Judge in the Parables of Enoch, and seems to be incorporated quite consciously and deliberately by Luke into these two crucial scenes in his Gospel, the Transfiguration and the Crucifixion, even though in Luke’s source the term “beloved” (Mk 9:7) was used and was retained by Matthew (17:5). Luke’s use of this title makes the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Luke quite likely. (d) Again in Luke’s Gospel, the sentence “Your redemption (apolutrosis) is drawing near” (Lk 21:28) appears in the Synoptic Apocalypse. Strikingly, the concept of the day of salvation drawing near is also found in 1En 51:2 and 62:13-16, in passages that promise the nearness of vindication by the enthroned Chosen One for the oppressed righteous and elect. (e) And finally from Mark’s Gospel, the sentence about Jesus’ betrayer, that it would have been better for him if he had not been born (Mk 14:21), is matched by a very similar sentence at the beginning of the First Parable about those who have denied the Lord of Spirits (1En 38:2). A triple dynamic of the severity of foreseen punishment, opposition to God’s will, and the judicial image of “the Chosen One” and “the Son of Man” is at work both in the Parables of Enoch and Mark (who is followed by Matthew here). This strongly suggests that Mark also knew of and used the Parables of Enoch.93 These five items show the very strong possibility and probability that the Synoptic writers knew of, and used, the Parables of Enoch for its concepts and theology of the end-time Judge. Once these items are noted, then other evidence for the influence of the Parables of Enoch on Mark, Matthew, and Luke can be detected. The Synoptic earthly sayings reveal some influence on the level of patterns of relationships. The two earthly sayings treated in Mark do not show direct verbal influence, but do reflect a level of generalized influence on Mark’s and thus the Synoptic Gospel’s portrayal of the Son of Man. Likewise, the Matthean earthly sayings appear not to be verbally dependent upon the Parables of Enoch, but the patterns of relationship and the theological dynamics are consistent with those of the Parables of Enoch. Further, Matthew’s deliberate insertion of the term Son of Man into the beginning of the confession of Peter, and again at the beginning of the first Passion prediction, does solemnly set these episodes under the dignity and sovereignty of the Son of Man, in a way very consistent with the Parables of Enoch and betraying the strong likelihood of being influenced by the Parables of Enoch. The Lukan earthly sayings we investigated do not reveal direct, verbal influence by the Parables of Enoch, but since it is very likely that Luke also knew the Parables of Enoch and consciously used it, the instances of similarity with the Parables of Enoch probably reflect an intentional conforming to the patterns of relationship found 93. 

Contrast the arguments in J. D. G. Dunn’s chapter [JHC].

­268

Parables of Enoch

in the Parables of Enoch. All three Synoptic Gospels, then, through the earthly sayings reveal, not verbal, direct influence, but some level of influence from the Parables of Enoch in the way relationships with the Chosen One / Son of Man are developed. In these sayings Matthew displays a deeper awareness of the Parables of Enoch. The suffering sayings in the Synoptics show some similarities in the pattern of relationships to those in the Parables of Enoch, but they are not precise enough to suggest direct, literary influence, especially since the Parables of Enoch does not envision a suffering Son of Man. Markan sayings suggest there was influence in terms of the theological undergirding of the suffering Son of Man sayings. Lukan sayings take on added significance when read against the backdrop of the Parables of Enoch and this can be seen especially in the resurrection story where the interpreting angels vindicate the teachings of the lowly, suffering, human Jesus, and dramatically emphasize his elevation to the status of the all-powerful Son of Man. Matthew’s suffering sayings reveal the strongest conceptual similarities with the Parables of Enoch, as Matthew interprets the suffering of Jesus in an apocalyptic context to give it enduring meaning. The “future” sayings in Mark and in Luke underline the sovereignty and authority of the Son of Man due to their grounding in the theology of the Parables of Enoch’s “Chosen One” and “Son of Man.” Luke even inserts Son of Man sayings in two significant locations, as conclusions to the discourse on the Day of the Son of Man (Lk 18:8b) and the Synoptic Apocalypse (Lk 21:36). In Matthew, however, frequent and specific similarities with the Parables of Enoch strongly suggest significant influence from the Parables of Enoch on the Matthean concept of the Son of Man. These strong similarities are found in the “future” Son of Man sayings unique to Matthew: the Interpretation of the Parable of Weeds (Mt 13:37-43) and the description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46). Strong similarities can also be found in Matthew’s reworking of “future” sayings from Q or Mark (Lk 22:28-30 / Mt 19:28, sitting on the throne of his glory; Mk 8:38–9:1 / Mt 16:27-28, coming with the angels, to exact repayment; Mk  13:26-27 / Mt  24:30-31, coming on the clouds; and Mk 14:62 / Mt 26:60, the response to the trial question from the high priest). Thus it can be concluded that Matthew’s redaction of his source materials reveals his particular conception of the Son of Man, and it strongly suggests that he was shaping that concept in the direction of the Parables of Enoch’s “Chosen One” and “Son of Man.” Thus all three Synoptic Gospels do reveal connections to the Parables of Enoch, especially in the way they reflect the patterns of relationship. But each of them also reveal quite strong evidence of dependence on particular concepts and even on possible quotations. Therefore, if the Synoptic Gospel writers were aware of and used the Parables of Enoch, was Jesus? Can this be shown through a study of the Son of Man sayings in Q?

Chapter 11 The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man Francis J. Moloney There is increasing interest in the Johannine Son of Man. A number of monographs,1 major sections in studies of the Son of Man in the New Testament,2 and a steady flow of scholarly articles3 have generated a Johannine Son of Man 1.  See F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (BibSciRel 14; Rome: LAS, 1976). A revised edition containing a review of the response to my original study, and an assessment of some subsequent scholarship from 1976 to 1978, appeared with the same publishers, in 1978. A second edition, containing a review of Johannine Son of Man scholarship from 1978 to 2005, appeared in 2007. The 1978–2005 review first appeared as “The Johannine Son of Man Revisited,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. G. Van Belle, et al. (BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), pp. 177–202. All page references to this survey will be to the easily available The Johannine Son of Man (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007 [2nd edn.]), pp. 257–82. See further, C. Panackel, ΙΔΟΥ Ο ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ (Jn 19,5b): An Exegetico-Theological Study of the Text in the Light of the Use of the Term ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ. Designating Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Greg 251; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1988); R. Rhea, The Johannine Son of Man (ATANT 76; Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1991); D. Burkett, The Son of Man in the Gospel of John (JSNTSS 56; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); M. M. Pazdan, The Son of Man. A Metaphor for Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991); M. Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes (TANZ 35; Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag, 2000); B. E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2.249; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 2.  See, for example, the important studies of Jan-A. Buhner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium: Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung (WUNT 2.2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), pp. 374–99, 422–29; B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels (London: SPCK, 1983), pp. 145–57; D. R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 79–111; J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 337–73; W. Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues (BBET 23; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992 [2nd edn.]), pp. 82–92, 107–21; J. Mateos and F. Camacho, El Hijo del Hombre: Hacia la plenitud humana (En los origines del Cristianismo 9; Cordoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1997), pp. 159–86, 203–09; R. E. Brown, Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. F. J. Moloney (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2003), pp. 252–59. 3.  See, for example, the following studies in Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle, ed. R. Pesch, R. Schnackenburg, and O. Kaiser (Freiburg: Herder, 1975): S. Smalley, “Johannes 1,51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium,” pp. 300–13; E. Ruckstuhl, “Abstieg und Erhöhung des johanneischen Menschensohns,” pp. 314–41; C. K. Barrett, “Das Fleisch des

­270

Parables of Enoch

discussion. The discussion is now enriched by the proposal that the Parables of Enoch (= 1 Enoch 37–71) may have influenced the use of “the Son of Man” in the New Testament.4 The following study opens with a reflection upon the different results that flow from different approaches to the text. On the basis of that reflection, I will assess the 13 Johannine Son of Man sayings, with particular attention devoted to Jn 1:51; 3:13, 6:62 (possible ascent and descent passages) and 5:27 (the Son of Man as Judge). However, the complexity of all 13 Son of Man sayings (1:51; 3:13-14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34; 13:31-32) must be kept in mind at all times. Possible links with the Enochic Son of Man will be considered in this assessment.

Diachrony and Synchrony In all sound criticism, the unavoidable diachronic question must be raised: what is the origin of the Johannine use of “the Son of Man”? There is broad general consensus that several of the Johannine sayings (3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34) Menschensohnes (John 6:53),” pp. 342–54; J. Riedl, “Wenn ihr den Menschensohn erhöht habt (Joh 8,28),” pp. 355–70; Schnackenburg, “Die Ecce-homo-Szene und der Menschensohn,” pp. 371–86. See further, P. Borgen, “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel,” in L’Évangile de Jean, Sources, Rédaction, Théologie, ed. M. de Jonge (BETL 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977), pp. 243–58; J. Coppens, “Le Fils de l’homme dans l’Évangile johannique,” ETL 52 (1976), 21–81; J. P. Brown, “The Son of Man: ‘This Fellow’,” Bib 58 (1977), 361–87; M. Pamment, “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel,” JTS 36 (1985), 56–66; J. Painter, “The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, et al. (3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven: University Press – Peters, 1992), 3:1868–87; W. Loader, “The Central Structure of Johannine Christology,” NTS 30 (1984), 188–216; W. Roth, “Jesus as the Son of Man: The Scriptural Identity of a Johannine Image,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders, ed. D. W. Groh and R. Jewett (Lanham: University of America Press, 1985), pp. 11–26; C. Ham, “The Title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John,” Stone Campbell Journal 1 (1998), 67–84; F. Fernández Ramos, “El hijo del hombre en el cuarto evangelio,” Studium Legionense 40 (1999), 45–92; W. Wink, “‘The Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John,” in Jesus in the Johannine Tradition, ed. R. T. Fortna and T. Thatcher (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 117–23; J. Ashton, “The Johannine Son of Man: A New Proposal,” NTS 37 (2011), 508–29. 4.  My main source of access to the current debate has been an early version of the outstanding Forshungsbericht from D. L. Bock that now appears in this volume, and G. Boccaccini, “The Enoch Seminar at Camaldoli: Re-entering the Parables of Enoch in the Study of Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 3–16. On the social setting, and the debate over the dating of the Parables of Enoch, see the essays in Boccaccini, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 363–512. Correspondence with J. Charlesworth has also enriched my awareness of the debate. My access to 1 Enoch is via the translation of E. Isaac in the OTP 1:13-89, M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A new edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, with the assistance of E. Ullendorf (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), and G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004). Citations from 1 Enoch in what follows are from the Nickelsburg–VanderKam translation. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 6, confidently assert: “At the very least, the description of the Chosen One/son of man (if not the entire book) is presumed in the Gospel traditions about Jesus, the Son of Man.”

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­271

parallel the Synoptic Passion predictions (see Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34, and parallels). But there is more to the Johannine Son of Man than the cross, and the majority of scholars, especially in the light of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in 1:51, 3:13, and 6:62, find background to this figure in “heavenly man” speculation or early Gnostic thought, but not in the Parables of Enoch. Jan-A. Bühner and J. Ashton do make use of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. Ashton is aware of the possibility that they may be “Christian” (especially 1En 71:14).5 With the help of 1 Enoch and other Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic material, they suggest the Johannine Son of Man reflects a tradition of a Son of Man who is from above, and who ascends and descends.6 This position is linked with a presupposition that “[a]mong the many puzzles presented by the Fourth Gospel one of the most intriguing is the paradoxical contrast between the titles ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man.’ ‘Son of God,’ originally at any rate, indicates a human being, the Messiah; whereas ‘Son of Man’ points to a figure whose true home is in heaven.”7 In the Synoptic tradition the suffering of the Son of Man is a development that took place in the early Church, part of its apologetic for the death of Jesus. It was not part of original Son of Man language and its use. Behind this position lies a widespread (although nuanced) acceptance of Bultmann’s claim, based upon a reading of Dan 7 and other Jewish apocalyptic material, that the Synoptic use of “the Son of Man” had its origins in an original Jewish notion of a heavenly and apocalyptic figure. This end-time figure (originally other than Jesus) was identified with Jesus in early Christian tradition, and eventually applied to his human experience, and to his suffering.8 Eventually, Bühner, 5.  See, for example, Ashton, Understanding, pp. 358–60. 6.  See Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 361–62 (Bühner devotes no attention to the dating of the Parables of Enoch, but simply uses them without discussion in his construction of the Jewish apocalyptic background of [among many elements in the Fourth Gospel] the Johannine Son of Man). Ashton, Understanding, pp. 348–56, makes the case for a heavenly ascending and descending Son of Man on the basis of his exegesis of Jn 3:13 (see below). Like Bühner (who influences his work), Ashton also sees Jewish apocalyptic as the essential background to the Johannine Son of Man. He makes reference to 1 Enoch (see p. 354, n. 56), but is cautious about the use of this source and 4 Ezra 13 because “both writings are roughly contemporary with the Fourth Gospel” (p. 346, n. 28). Reynolds, Son of Man, p. 42, takes a similar position, and then proceeds to make copious use of the Parables of Enoch in his interpretation of the Johannine Son of Man. For the apocalyptic Son of Man, see Buhner, Der Gesandte, pp. 374–79, 422–29; Ashton, Understanding, pp. 368–73; and Reynolds, Son of Man. These significant studies make an important contribution to the diachronic question, but in my opinion fail when tested against the synchronic use of Johannine Son of Man sayings, both within their contexts and across the narrative as a whole. See, for example, Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 385–99, who only considers 5:27 (to make the connection with the Danielic Son of Man as a heavenly figure), 1:51, and 3:13 (for the ascent and descent motif). Similarly (influenced by Bühner), Ashton, pp. 336–73, only devotes detailed attention to 1:51, 3:13, and 5:27. It should be noted that only the problematic 1 Enoch 71 is used for this ascent–descent motif. The only place where ascent and descent is clearly stated in the Parables of Enoch is in 1 Enoch 42:1-2 where “wisdom” ascends and descends. In 1 Enoch 71:1 the spirit of Enoch is “taken away” and “ascended into heaven.” 7.  Ashton, Understanding, p. 337. See also Reynolds, Son of Man, p. 223. 8.  See especially R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel

­272

Parables of Enoch

Ashton, Reynolds9 and others have transferred a sophisticated rereading of Bultmann’s understanding of Jesus and the Son of Man, as recorded in the Synoptics, into the Johannine use of the expression.10 However, a minority position, which I adopt, also starts from Dan 7, but claims that already in that context, the “one like a son of man” in 7:13 is to be identified with the holy ones of the Most High of vv. 21-25.11 Their preparedness to experience suffering and even death at the hands of the enemies of Israel (and thus enemies of God [see Dan 7:3-8, 21-25]) will lead to final vindication (vv. 14, 27). A possible reinterpretation of Daniel 7 probably took place in Second Temple Judaism. Indeed, in the light of the Parables of Enoch (especially 1En 46) and 4 Ezra 13, it was probably a minority reinterpretation.12 Here we must (2 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1952–55), 1:28-32; F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (FRLANT 83; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1966), pp. 13–53; H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. Dorothea M. Barton (London: SCM Press, 1965); N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 164–202. For a concise summary of this debate, see F. J. Moloney, The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), pp. 212–13. 9.  See esp. Reynolds’ chapter in the present book. 10.  The majority opinion is that the Johannine Son of Man is some form of “heavenly figure.” This position has now been argued with great consistency and skill by Reynolds, Son of Man. After identifying the apocalyptic characteristics of the Son of Man in Dan 7 and subsequent Jewish and Christian literature that depends upon that passage, he traces these characteristics across all the Johannine Son of Man passages. This excellent work shows that the Johannine Son of Man belongs to the ongoing influence of Dan 7 for the interpretation of Jesus’ work and person. Most recently, Ashton, “Son of Man,” pp. 508–29, speculates that the ascent in Jn 3:13 reflects an authentic memory (associated with the transfiguration) that Jesus ascended into heaven and was there invested with the authority of the Son of Man, and returned to exercise that authority. The exclusion of all other ascensions in 3:13a developed in an anti-synagogue debate with those who argued that Moses had ascended to receive the Law. 11.  See S. Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 158: “On the basis of the author’s own interpretation of the vision in the verses that follow, we can be certain that here the expression bar ‛enosh, the Aramaic equivalent of ben ‛adam, simply means ‘man,’ ‘being in human form,’ and is meant to be a symbol for the ‘people of the holy ones of the most high’.” However, when puzzling over the link between “the Son of Man” and suffering in Mark, he states: “Jesus’ audience does not seem to be aware that the Son of Man must suffer, and that this is part of his function. There is in fact no mention of this either in the book of Daniel or in the Parables” (p. 163). But what was going on as Daniel was written and widely used? What is the situation of “the one like a son of man” in 7:13 and “the holy ones of the most high” in 7:27? Is the text not to be interpreted within its context? As is well known, J. J. Collins interprets “the one like a son of man” as the archangel Michael (see the documented summary in his “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 216–17). In 1 Enoch 37–71, the archangel Michael and the Son of Man are clearly distinguished (see, for example, 40:9; 54:6; 60:4-5). 12.  For the case that neither 1 Enoch 37–71 nor 4 Ezra 13 are Christian, see Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), pp. 85–96, 119–23. Each of these Second Temple apocalypses are interpretations of Daniel (see pp. 101–11, 123–26), but they are witnesses to different interpretative traditions. See also J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992), 448–66. This could also be said for the Christian tradition, based upon Jesus’ use of “the Son of Man” as (among others) I am suggesting.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­273

be aware of what might have happened with biblical and post-biblical traditions in the Second Temple period. Modern and contemporary scholarship – despite the many warnings we hear from all sides about the vagaries of popular religious culture and the importance of orality in transmission – continues to read the influence of one tradition on another as if the process was done in a library, or worse: with the cut and paste possibilities of a computer. If 1 Enoch 37–71 is evidence of pre-Christian apocalyptic speculation, various uses of the Danielic “one like a son of man” must surely have been “in the air,” and influenced subsequent thought. But does this mean that there was only a single interpretation and a direct line from that tradition to another? Is it possible that not everyone regarded the Son of Man as an apocalyptic heavenly Judge?13 Jesus of Nazareth used the expression from Dan 7:13 in a way that differed from his apocalyptically interested contemporaries. The historical Jesus used an Aramaic expression that appeared in the Greek of the Gospels as “the Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) to explain – perhaps to himself as well as to his listeners – his unswerving commitment to a lifestyle and a message that necessarily led to his rejection by both Jewish and Roman authorities. Personalizing the Danielic “one like a son of man” as “the son of the man,” he believed that, like “the one like a son of man” / “the holy ones of the most high,” his openness to God, cost what it may, would lead to his vindication. With this understanding, the Son of Man tradition in the Gospels did not begin with a heavenly apocalyptic figure received from Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic and then develop in early Christian tradition to accommodate a present and a suffering Son of Man as early apologetic for Jesus’ life and death. However significant the apocalyptic Son of Man is in 1 Enoch 37– 71 and 4 Ezra 38, in earliest Christianity (another form of Second Temple Judaism) it developed in the other direction. It began with the suffering Son of Man (Jesus’ use of Dan 7:13-14) and was eventually shaped in a Christian preaching influenced by the Jewish apocalyptic tradition – into a heavenly, eschatological figure.14 For the Christians, the suffering Son of Man was also 13.  See the fine survey of the variety of uses of “Son of Man” in Dan 7 and subsequent documents that depend upon Daniel (1 En 37–71, 4Ezra 13, 2Bar, 4Q246, Mk, Mt, Lk, Acts, and Rev) in Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 27–85. 14.  This understanding was first articulated by C. F. D. Moule in his remarkable study, “From Defendant to Judge – and Deliverer: An Inquiry into the Use and Limitations of the Theme of Vindication in the New Testament,” first published in the predecessor of NTS: Bulletin of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas III (1952), 40–53, and republished as “Appendix I” in The Phenomenon of the New Testament (SBT 2.1; London: SCM Press, 1967). See further, Moule, “Neglected Features in the Problem of ‘the Son of Man’,” in Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg, ed. J. Gnilka (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 413–28; idem, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, CUP, 1977), pp. 11–22; M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background to the Term “the Son of Man” and Its Use in Mark’s Gospel (London: SPCK, 1967), pp. 174–98; idem, “Is the Son of Man Problem Really Insoluble?” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (Cambridge: CUP, 1979), pp. 155–68; Moloney, “The End of the Son of Man?” DRev 98 (1980), 280–90; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), pp. 291–97 (polemically).

­274

Parables of Enoch

the Son of Man on earth who would eventually come as Judge (see Mk 2:10, 28; 8:38; 13:24-27; 14:62). In the Jewish apocalypses, as exemplified by 1 Enoch 37–71 and 4 Ezra 13:1-58, the Son of Man was a mysterious hidden, pre-existent heavenly figure (see 1En 48:7; 62:7), who would come at the end of time as Judge (passim).15 The early Christians joined their contemporaries in an increasingly apocalyptic use of “the Son of Man,” but that is not the way it was used by Jesus. The Johannine Son of Man sayings have their origins – either dependent or independent of the Synoptic tradition – in the association made by Jesus between the Danielic “one like a son of man” and his suffering and death as “the son of the man.”16 As C. Moule provocatively claimed, “I conclude that ‘the Son of Man,’ so far from being a title evolved from current apocalyptic thought by the early Church and put onto the lips of Jesus, is among the most important symbols used by Jesus himself to describe his vocation and that of those whom he summoned to be with him.”17 The Son of Man in Mark, Matthew, and Luke became increasingly associated with an apocalyptic agenda that is also reflected in the Parables of Enoch and may well be influenced by the that stunning composition.18

15.  Daniel 7 continues to influence these Jewish apocalypses, as it continues to influence the developing Christian tradition. It is beyond this paper to take this issue further, but see Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 33–74; M. Casey, Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), pp. 99–141; Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” pp. 153–78. Contrary to Reynolds, Son of Man, I am arguing that the Synoptic tradition is witness to a Jesus-based tradition and that the Fourth Gospel reinterprets that tradition, following the same trajectory, excluding any trace of an apocalyptic Son of Man. Despite its lateness, the Fourth Gospel retains the link with Jesus’ crucifixion more powerfully than the Synoptics, as it is not lured into apocalyptic speculations. Ham, “Son of Man,” argues that the 13 Johannine Son of Man sayings fit into the general pattern of the imagery found in Dan 7:13-14 and 1 Enoch 37–71. 16.  The dependence of the Johannine use of “the Son of Man” upon the Synoptic tradition has been argued by several scholars. See, for example, A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1964); R. Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday, ed. R. J. Banks (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1974), pp. 186–204; Schnackenburg, “Der Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium,” NTS 11 (1964–65), 123–37; idem, The Gospel According to St John, trans. Kevin Smyth, et al. (3 vols.; HTCNT 4.13; London: Crossroad, New York: Burns & Oates, 1968–82), 1:529-42; F. H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London: SCM Press, 1967), pp. 257–313. None of these scholars adopt the above association between Jesus and the Danielic Son of Man as a suffering figure. 17.  Moule, The Origin of Christology, p. 22. 18.  The increasingly apocalyptic use of “the Son of Man” as the Synoptic tradition developed (Mk–Lk–Mt) is clearly shown by Chialà, “The Son of Man,” pp. 163–68. Nevertheless, the majority of scholarship claims that it developed in the other direction – from apocalyptic to suffering. See, for example, L. K. Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” pp. 311–21, on the suffering Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic tradition. Also, see Walck’s chapter in this book. He describes the Markan suffering Son of Man sayings: “These sayings are evidently a development of the early church” (p. 318). This is not reflected in the texts themselves.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­275

For most scholars, the Son of Man in the Gospels was received from Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic as a heavenly figure. For some, myself included, the Son of Man tradition in the Gospels began with Jesus’ own understanding of himself as a suffering figure whose unconditional trust in God would lead to vindication. Where one starts determines where one finishes! Among many, for example H. S. Kvanvig, “The crisis, challenge and foundation of Christian theology would accordingly be to unify this Son of Man theology with the violent fate of Jesus.”19 On the contrary: the Christian theological use of “the Son of Man” began with Jesus’ use of the expression to make sense of his oncoming suffering. What John has done is reinterpret that suffering as exaltation and glorification. The apocalyptic Son of Man is not found in the Gospel of John,20 however much the language surrounding that figure was “in the air” and may be found associated with the “johannization” of the expression. All of the future tenses in Johannine Son of Man sayings (see 1:51; 6:27, 8:28) point to Jesus’ revealing mission (1:51), especially on the cross (6:27, 8:28, when read in association with 3:14; 6:53, 8:28; 12:23, 32-34). The expression “the Son of Man” refers only to the period of Jesus’ life and death. The two sayings which associate the Son of Man with “glory” and “glorification” are tied to the cross by the use of “the hour has come” (Ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα; 12:23), “now” (νῦν; 13:31), and the surrounding context (see 12:24 on the grain of wheat falling into the ground and dying, and 13:32 on glorification “immediately” [εὐθὺς]). Contrary to widespread interpretation of my earlier work on the Johannine Son of Man, most recently by Benjamin Reynolds (and in the present collection), I do not claim that the expression in the Fourth Gospel “refers to his humanity.”21 I argued that John uses the expression “the Son of Man” to speak of the revelation of the divine (i.e., God) in the events of the life of Jesus, especially the cross. “The Johannine Son of Man is the human Jesus, the incarnate Logos; he has come to reveal God with a unique and ultimate authority and in the acceptance or refusal of this revelation the world judges itself.”22 19.  H. S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 215. In this, I resonate with the sentiments of E. Käsemann, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (London: SCM Press, 1969), pp. 82–107. Note especially his famous statement: “Apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology – since we cannot really class the preaching of Jesus as theology” (p. 102). See also pp. 103–04, 106–07. 20.  Contrast the chapter by Reynolds in this volume. 21.  Reynolds, Son of Man, p. 220. See his assessment of my work on pp. 3–5, 220–22. 22.  Moloney, Son of Man, p. 220. For John, “the Son of Man” is the locus revelationis of God, not just a description of the human Jesus. It is not “who he is” but “what God does in and through him.” Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 45–46, traces the “characteristic” of heavenly, pre-existent revealer in 1 Enoch’s Son of Man (46:3; 48:2-3, 6; 51:3; 62:7), and argues that the Johannine Son of Man repeats that “characteristic” (passim). The revelation of God is not only found in Jewish apocalyptic literature – it is an all-pervasive biblical theme. See N. Brox, “Revelation,” in Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 2:770-75. For the New Testament, see T.

­276

Parables of Enoch

Some contemporary scholarship looks beyond the diachronic questions and asks how any single expression or pericope serves the whole literary utterance (synchrony). This is a complex matter, as scholarly objectivity is more difficult. Interpreters, after a close analysis of the data, may decide that the roots of the Johannine use of “the Son of Man” are to be found in Jewish apocalyptic thought, the historical Jesus, the descending and ascending Gnostic heavenly man, the Philonic perfect man, an eschatological, divine, or some other form of “man” speculation that can be discovered in the ancient world. This background is then used to determine the meaning of the Johannine use of the expression.23 In this approach, background determines meaning.24 A theory concerning the historical development of the Johannine text should be adopted. For example, in his first contribution to reflection upon the Johannine Son of Man, B. Lindars espoused a two-edition history for the development of the Gospel, and located the Johannine Son of Man sayings within either the first or the second edition. He developed his understanding of the Johannine Son of Man Christology only on the basis of those sayings that belonged to the first edition.25 Similarly, J. Painter has argued that the Son of Man passages in the Gospel of John were inserted into the Gospel at a later stage in the development of the Gospel, in a period of conflict between the Johannine community and the post-war synagogue. This polemic was one of the elements that generated a fragmentary use of an earlier Son of Man tradition.26 In these approaches, the original Sitz im Leben der Johanneischen Kirche (the life-setting of the Johannine Church) plays an important role in determining meaning.27 Holtz, “ἀποκαλύπτω,” EDNT 1:130-32; P.-G. Müller, “φανερόω,” EDNT 3:413-414. See p. 414: “John is concerned precisely with concrete appearance and its value for knowledge in emphasizing God’s salvific activity in the signs and words of the earthly and resurrected Jesus … Indeed, Jesus is God’s revealer in the larger sense, as the prologue (1:5, 16-18) already emphasizes.” Use of the expression “the Son of Man” is part of this broader Johannine theme. 23.  For a survey of these positions, see Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 222–24. For a succinct presentation of the figure of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71, see J. C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Jewish Christianity, ed. Charlesworth (The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 169–91, and the briefer surveys by A. A. Orlov, “Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 127–29; J. A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 82–88. Copious reference to further discussion is found there. 24.  This approach is the feature of Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 374–99, 422–29; Ashton, Understanding, pp. 337–73; idem, “Son of Man,” pp. 510–24; Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1869–87; and Reynolds, Son of Man. 25.  B. Lindars, “The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 43–60. 26.  See Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1869–87. 27.  This approach is also found in Ashton, Understanding. See, for example, his excursus on the structure of John 3 on pp. 374–77 and his reconstruction of John 7 on pp. 330–36. He never develops an overall theory of how and when these traditions developed, were gathered, edited or transposed by an Evangelist or an editor. But his approach to the text allows him to posit layers of tradition, and assess them accordingly. The same approach is a feature of his recent “Son of Man,”

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­277

I have no doubt that the Johannine text, as we have it now, was the product of a long history. I also agree that it is possible, and necessary, for the interpreter to devote attention to the tensions in the narrative that are best explained by the variety of religious and literary currents that played their part in generating the text. Nevertheless, the best interpreter of the Johannine text is the Johannine text. We must be clear about what we are doing as we approach a text. The archeological work required to unearth the background to a text, and the further critical work required to peel back the layers of tradition that have been placed side by side to form a complete narrative utterance, are essential elements of biblical scholarship. But equally “essential” is the interpretation of the text as we now have it.28 Not all will agree with this hermeneutical stance, and I respect that. Yet, it appears to me that that such a finely crafted text as the Gospel of John, although not without its literary tensions, the product of some 70 years of storytelling somewhere in the early Church, was presented as a finished story of Jesus so that it might be understood in terms of itself.29 Finally, one must recognize the interplay that goes on between the text and the reader, and also between the reader and the text.30 It is only after acquiring familiarity with a text that one comes to establish what can be regarded as core arguments of a text, arguments that belong to the weave and warp of the narrative. John struggled to maintain an almost impossible balancing act. He told a dangerous story about the revelation of God, made visible in the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, sent from heaven, whose oneness with God was so intimate that what God was, the Logos also was (see 1:1-2). But he also wished to insist upon the truth that the Logos became fully human (1:14).31 The subsequent history of the reception of the but an overall theory explaining how the Gospel of John resulted from the gathering and editing of these earlier traditions is still lacking. Reynolds, Son of Man, rightly assesses all the Son of Man sayings in their present form and context (see p. 2). 28.  In this, I agree with J. Blank, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg: Lambertus Verlag, 1964), p. 26: “Denn der Text selbst hat darüber noch etwas zu sagen, was in den ‘Traditionen’ noch nicht enthalten ist … Die eigentliche Textauslegung beginnt doch erst, wenn die traditionsgeschichtlichen Bausteine beisammen sint.” See also Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, p. 79. 29.  See Brown, Introduction, p. 111, and the oft-attacked, but still valid, remarks of C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1953), that whoever may have been responsible for the text as we have it “was not necessarily irresponsible or unintelligent” (p. 290). Dodd and Brown preceded the present interest in literary-critical readings. Anyone who has stood before Michelangelo’s “David,” listened to J. S. Bach, or experienced the performance of Shakespeare in the theatre, is aware that it is simply false to claim: “But as is true in any product of human art or ingenuity, John’s Gospel is better understood if one’s understanding also relates to the making of it” (Ashton, “Son of Man,” p. 529). 30.  This process, of course, is complex, and allows for a multiplicity of possible interpretations. See, among several, P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University Press, 1976). 31.  For more detail, see Moloney, The Gospel of John (SP 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), pp. 33–48.

­278

Parables of Enoch

Gospel of John tells how dangerous it was to tell the story of Jesus in this fashion. In antiquity it quickly became the favorite Gospel of the Gnostic sects.32 Modern scholarship reflects the result of this “balancing act.” The author has been understood as either a Christian attempting to “baptize” Gnosticism, or as a Christian who is slipping off into naïve Docetism.33 Ashton rejects a number of scholarly attempts to argue that, in John, the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου affirms Jesus’ humanity. He summarily dismisses my work with the note: “Moloney’s error is to take the christology of the incarnate logos as a kind of axiom from which everything else derives.”34 But why is this exegetical stance so wrong? Ashton’s answer to that question would be interesting, and no doubt he has one. But it does not appear in his book; it is simply assumed as he adopts the historical-critical paradigm. The Prologue (1:1-18) sets the agenda for the Gospel of John.35 It is the first page of the book, and the reader next plunges into a narrative that must stand or fall by the truth of what has been claimed for Jesus Christ in 1:1-18.36 Ashton is no doubt correct to claim that the Logos should not be used as an axiom “from which everything else derives” (stress mine). But it is one of several fundamental axioms that must be used for an understanding of the Johannine Christology.37 32.  On this reception, see R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), pp. 47–68. See also Moloney, “Raymond Brown’s New Introduction to the Gospel of John: A Presentation and Some Questions,” CBQ 65 (2003), 18–20. 33.  Referring, of course, to the well-known debate between Bultmann (“Die Bedeutung der neuerschossenen mandäischen und manichäischen Quellen für das Verständnis des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW 24 [1925], 100–46) and Käsemann (The Testament of Jesus. A Study of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. G. Krodel [London: SCM Press, 1965]). 34.  Ashton, Understanding, p. 340, n. 11. As well as my insistence on the use of “the Son of Man” to focus upon Jesus’ humanity as the locus for the revelation of God in history, he rejects the claims of Dodd, Interpretation, p. 244, and Pamment, “The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel,” pp. 56-66. Pamment does not argue for a focus on Jesus’ humanity as a locus of revelation. She claims that the Johannine use of “the Son of Man” is not titular, but “as representing not what everyone is, but what man could and should be” (p. 58). See also W. Wink, “‘The Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John,” pp. 117–23, and Mateos-Camacho, El Hijo del Hombre, pp. 159–86, 203–05, who make a similar claim. See also Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 145–57; Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, pp. 79–111; Rhea, Johannine Son of Man, esp. pp. 69–71, and Ham, “The Title ‘Son of Man’,” pp. 67–84. These scholars are closer to my interpretation of the use of the expression to indicate the revelation of God in the human event of Jesus, rather than a presentation of a “perfect man.” Rhea, however, argues that the title links the Johannine Christology with “the messianic expectation of the Mosaic-Prophet-Messiah, yet clearly distinguished from it” (Johannine Son of Man, p. 48; see the whole of pp. 21–48). 35.  See especially C. K. Barrett, “The Prologue of St John’s Gospel,” in New Testament Essays (London: SPCK, 1972), pp. 27–48; M. Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (NTAbh N.F. 20; Münster: Aschendorff, 1988). 36.  As C. K. Barrett comments on Jn 1:1 (The Gospel According to St John [London: SPCK, 1978 (2nd edn.)], p. 156): “John intends that the whole of his Gospel be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is blasphemous.” This claim can be made for Jn 1:1-18. 37.  The formative role of Jn 1:1-18 for the Johannine Christological narrative is largely ignored in the generally more synchronic reading of Reynolds, Son of Man. The need to ignore 1:1-18 is explicitly argued by Ashton, “Son of Man,” pp. 523–24.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­279

The Johannine Son of Man Sayings There are 13 Johannine Son of Man sayings (1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23, 34 [bis]; 13:31) and a reading of the Gospel that respects the overall theological tendency of the Gospel demands that all 13 be read synchronically. The meaning of the expression in any one of them should be guided by the meaning of the other 12. Three elements in the Johannine use of the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) influence majority scholarly opinion: its association with the verbs “to ascend” (ἀναβαίνω), “to descend” (καταβαίνω in 1:51; 3:13; 6:62), “to lift up” (ὑψόω in 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34) and “to glorify” (δοξάζω in 12:23; 13:31-32). The Johannine Son of Man is glorified (12:23; 13:31-32) by his ascent into heaven (1:51; 3:13, 14; 8:28; 12:32). The heavenly figure returns to where he was before (6:62; see 3:13). Thus, the determining feature of the Johannine Son of Man is his glorification and ascent into and his descent from heaven. What he is able to do as a result of his descent to earth depends upon the heavenly origins of the Son of Man.38 This majority view depends upon an apocalyptic use of “the Son of Man,” and one could look readily at the Parables of Enoch for its inspiration. In the context of current discussions, the Enochic use of “the Son of Man” lends solid support to this view. The advocates of the Johannine Son of Man as a “heavenly figure” focus upon four texts: 1:51, 3:13, 6:62, and 5:27. A brief analysis of these sayings shows that they can be understood without the support of speculation over a heavenly figure. John 1:51 This passage has long been regarded as an intrusion into a series of initial confessions of faith, climaxing in the words of Nathanael to Jesus in 1:49. The problem is resolved by claiming that vv. 50-51 do not belong to this context, and that originally Nathanael’s confession led directly into 2:1-11.39 38.  See, for example, Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 385–99, 422–29; Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1877–80; Loader, Christology, pp. 82–92, 107–21; Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” pp. 331–32; Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes. Sasse rightly claims that there is a coherent Son of Man Christology in the Fourth Gospel, but insists, on the basis of the ascent–descent schema, that “Der Menschensohn selbst ist ein himmlisches Wesen” (p. 239 and passim). As such, Jesus, the Son of Man, is a unique giver of life. See my review of this study in JTS 53 (2002), 210–15. Burkett, Son of Man, pp.38–75, sees the ascent–descent schema as the unanswered question in the Johannine Son of Man debate. He resolves it by claiming that it comes from Prov 30:1-4. Brown, Introduction, p. 259, links the Son of Man with Jewish Wisdom speculation (and possibly later Gnostic speculation, the Philonic and Poimandres portrayals [n. 90]). He summarizes the portrait as “preexistence with God, coming from heaven into this world, communication of revelation or divine knowledge, offer of spiritual food, producing division or self-judgment when some people accept and others refuse.” 39.  See, for example, M.-É. Boismard, Du Baptême à Cana (Jean 1,19-2,11) (Paris: Cerf, 1956), p. 105; R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB 29-29a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966–70), 1:88; Schnackenburg, John, 1:320; R. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs. A

­280

Parables of Enoch

More convincing, however, has been the synchronic reading of 1:19–2:11 as a Christian rereading, on the basis of Ex 19:7-19 and the midrashic commentary on Exodus 19 in the Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael, of the celebration of the Sinaitic gift of the “glory” (δόξα) of the Law at Pentecost. The four “days” of preparation (Jn 1:19-51) lead to the gift of the δόξα at Cana (2:11; see LXX Ex 19:11 [bis], 15, 16: τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ).40 This reading respects both the possible Jewish world behind the text that produced 1:19–2:11 (diachrony), and the present literary unity of the text as we have it, once the traditions have been placed side by side (synchrony). Once the overall context of revelation is established, via the link with the background of the Jewish celebration of Pentecost and the gift of the “glory” (δόξα) at Sinai, 1:51 is a promise of the revelation of the heavenly. Following a Jewish tradition that shifted the ascent and the descent of the angels in Gen 28:12 from the ladder to Jacob,41 the opening of the heavens promises the revelation of God, and the ascent and descent of the angels upon (ἐπὶ,) the Son of Man indicates that this revelation will be seen (see v. 50: ὄψῃ; v. 51: ὄψεσθε). The Son of Man is firmly upon earth, and the angels ascend and descend upon him, communicating the revelation of the heavenly.42 It is not legitimate to claim that in 1:51 the Son of Man ascends and descends; the angels do.43

Reconstruction of the Narrative Source underlying the Fourth Gospel (SNTSMS 11; Cambridge: CUP, 1970), pp. 179–89. Most recently, see Painter, “Enigmatic,” p. 1873. 40.  See J. Potin, La fête juive de la Pentecôte (2 vols.; LD 65; Paris: Cerf, 1971), 1:46-70 (for the midrashic and other targumic texts, see 2:7-32). 41.  Very influential for this suggestion is the work of H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in Its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala: Almqvist, 1929), pp. 33–42. See Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 26–28. More recently, see B. Schwank, “Jakobstraum (Gen 28,12) und christologische Erfüllung (Joh 1,51),” Erbe und Auftrag 81 (2005), 386–97. 42.  See also Wink, “‘The Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John,” pp. 118–19. Notice my insistence on “the revelation of the heavenly.” The Son of Man is the locus revelationis among human beings. Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 391–92, and Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1873–77, reject this suggestion. Before Painter can do this, he makes some crucial diachronic decisions. In the first place, he disassociates 1:51 from its context, claiming that it is a fragment of a Son of Man Christology that never becomes a coherent whole within the Fourth Gospel. Second, he rejects the widely accepted link between the ascent and the descent of the angels upon the Son of Man with the parallel experience of Jacob in Gen 28:12, as interpreted in Jewish tradition. For Painter, 1:51 speaks of an enthroned heavenly Son of Man toward whom the angels move (see also Bühner, Der Gesandte, p. 392). Painter argues that, against the synagogue, this fragment from a Son of Man Christology affirms the heavenly origin of Jesus (see p. 1877). Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, pp. 82–85, also questions Odeberg’s use of Jewish midrashic interpretations, and asks what is meant by the ἐπί, in this passage. However, he concludes: “[T]his passage speaks of something that happens in connection with the earthly life of Jesus” (p. 84). Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1873– 75, points to the lack of “fulfillment” for the promise of 1:51 in the earthly sphere. Although overstated (i.e., the Gospel is a midrash on 1:51), Smalley, “Johannes 1,51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium,” in Jesus, 300–13, correctly points to the life, teaching, death, and resurrection as the fulfillment of 1:51. 43.  For the apocalyptic “characteristics” of 1:51, see Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 89–103.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­281

John 3:13-14 The only place in the Gospel of John where ascent and descent (ἀναβαίνω and καταβαίνω) are associated with the Son of Man is in 3:13. I have argued what follows in more detail elsewhere, but allow me to summarize my conclusions here.44 One must look further into the story of the Gospel and the ancient world that produced this text for an explanation of the use of the ascent and descent theme in v. 13. A Jewish myth of the ascent of the great revealers, especially Moses, but claimed for other important figures in Israel’s relationship with God (e.g., Enoch, Abraham, Isaiah), provides the background for v. 13a.45 Aggressive statements from Jesus and the narrator across the Gospel, affirming that no one (οὐδείς) has access to the heavenly (see 1:18; 3:13; 6:46 [οὐκ ὅτι τὀν πατέρα ἑώπακέν τις]; 14:6) present the Johannine Jesus over against a Jewish tradition that claimed a human being could ascend into heaven and learn the secrets of God. The link between ascent and descent into and from heaven is a topos found across the ancient world, clearly present in Deut 30:11-12 and Prov 30:4, possibly also forming an intertext for Sir 1:3, 8, Prov 25:2-3, and WisSol 9:16-18.46 “The main purpose of the topos is to reaffirm the great gulf that separates humans from the divine realm and the prerogatives of deity, such as immortality, superhuman knowledge, wisdom, and power.”47 For the author of the Fourth Gospel, Jesus of Nazareth is the unique revealer of God. No other figure in human history can claim to have ascended and descended to plumb the mysteries of the heavenly (e.g., the descriptions in 1En 39:3-5; 42:1-2; 71), but the Son of Man.48 Jn 3:13 is not primarily about pre-existence or post-existence, ascent and descent. One does not have to worry about its relationship with the reference 44.  Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man, pp. 270–73. 45.  See Borgen, “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel,” pp. 243–58; Bühner, Der Gesandte, pp. 374–85. See also Ashton, Understanding, pp. 349–54. Ashton concludes on pp. 353–54: “The belligerent assertion that no one has ascended to heaven except Jesus finds a satisfactory Sitz-im-Leben, then, in a polemic against counter claims of unique privilege made on behalf of Moses by more ‘orthodox’ or conservative groups within the synagogue.” He refers to 9:28: “You are his disciples, we are disciples of Moses.” 46.  See the extensive collection of this material from Mesopotamia, and various renditions of the Old Babylonian myths, in R. C. van Leeuwen, “The Background to Proverbs 30:4a,” in Wisdom, You are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, ed. M. L. Barré (CBQMS 29; Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), pp. 102–21. As has been mentioned, for Burkett, Son of Man, the Johannine Son of Man, and its association with the ascent–descent myth, has its roots in Prov 30:1-4 (see above, n. 12). Burkett also suggests that this background might explain the historical Jesus’ use of “the Son of Man” (pp. 177–78). 47.  See van Leeuwen, “The Background,” p. 121. 48.  The other side of the polemic, insisting that this did happen, is widely attested in Second Temple Jewish literature. Among others (e.g., MartIs 2:9; 3:7-10; 2Bar 2:1-18; 3 Bar; Life of Adam and Eve 25–28), 1 Enoch 71 may well be in view here. For M. A. Knibb, “The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 50–51, this widespread notion of an “otherworldly journey” has its biblical roots in Ezek and Zech 1–8.

­282

Parables of Enoch

to Jesus’ ascent to the Father in 20:17, because there is none.49 The words of Jesus depend upon a widespread literary topos to insist upon his uniqueness as the revelation of the heavenly. The first-person singular (“I”) is replaced by the expression “the Son of Man,” as in all Gospel traditions.50 A promise, also using the expression “the Son of Man,” was made to the first disciples in 1:51: if they were to believe, they would see the revelation of the heavenly in the Son of Man. That promise has now been further articulated in a statement of the same truth in 3:13, utilizing a traditional topos to indicate the uniqueness of the Son of Man. Only Jesus, the Son of Man, can claim to have plumbed the mysteries of the heavenly and to have made them known. Of course, this claim can only make sense because in the beginning he was turned in loving union with God (1:1-18. See 6:62). The reader is aware of Jesus’ “superhuman knowledge, wisdom, and power.”51 In the light of current Enoch research, we can now possibly extend the source of this awareness of “superhuman knowledge, wisdom and power” (see, for example, 1En 42:1-2; 62:7). But the Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch is excluded in the statement that follows immediately: “For just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also must the Son of Man also be lifted up, so that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:14-15). This statement, following hard on the heels of verse 13, insists that Jesus, the Son of Man, must be physically lifted up on a cross and there be exalted. Anyone who believes that this moment of crucifixion / exaltation is the revelation of God will have eternal life. Together, verses 13-14 makes two closely related affirmations: Jesus is the unique revealer of the heavenly (v. 13; see 1:51), and that life-giving revelation takes place, enigmatically, on the cross (v. 14).52 Only a human being can be crucified, and the use of “the Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) in both v. 13 and v. 14 insists that the human Jesus, who came from heaven as the incarnate Logos (see 1:1-18), is the unique revelation of God among women and men, and this revelation can be seen in the crucified one: “They shall gaze upon him [revelation] whom they have pierced [crucifixion]” (19:37).53 If the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch 49.  For this link, see Ashton, Understanding, p. 356, with reference to Bultmann, Barrett, Schnackenburg, and Brown. In rejecting any association with ascension in 3:13, I accept the reading of P66 75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and others, that do not contain the words ὁ ὥν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ in v. 13c. For the textual evidence and the discussion, see Moloney, Son of Man, p. 59. 50.  On Jesus as the “speaker” in Jn 3:11-21, see the discussion in Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 42–46. 51.  See van Leeuwen, “The Background,” p. 121. On the basis of my hermeneutic, there is no point insisting that one cannot use the teaching of 1:1-18 to explain Jesus’ use of the Son of Man because it was formed later in the tradition (see, for example, Ashton, Understanding, p. 353, n. 51; Painter, “Enigmatic,” p. 1879, n. 46). The reader reads 1:1-18 first, and then arrives at 1:51, and subsequently 3:13-14. 52.  See Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 147–50, 150–51; Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, pp. 88–90. Against Reynolds, Son of Man, p. 104, who remarks of vv. 13-14: “Each of them introduces a separate Son of Man theme.” 53.  See also 8:28: “When you have lifted up (ὑψώσητε) the Son of Man [crucifixion], then

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­283

was “in the air,” as the Fourth Gospel developed its Son of Man Christology, Jn 3:13-14 can be read as a Johannine polemic against the claims made for Enoch as the Son of Man.54 John 6:62 Jn 6:62 raises the question of the ascent of the Son of Man: “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before.” The Second Temple Jewish background to the half-uttered rhetorical question is the same as 3:13: the necessary ascent into heaven of a revealer who otherwise would have no knowledge of the heavenly. An understanding of the complex grammatical structure of 6:62 goes part of the way to its clarification. The suppression of the apodosis, as here, and not the apodosis, amounts to an aposiopesis. A. T. Robertson writes: “Aposiopesis stands to itself since it is a conscious suppression of part of a sentence under the influence of strong emotion like anger, fear or pity.” 55 The point of Jesus’ terse and perhaps emotional half-question, however, is contained in his request if the disciples would believe if he were to ascend. He asks them if they would like “the Son of Man” to ascend “to where he was before” (ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον). For the Fourth Evangelist, there is no reason for Jesus to ascend, as other revealers are acclaimed as having done. He comes from above. He has been there before, and it is this that gives authority to his words as spirit and life (v. 63). Again, as with 3:13, the information provided in the prologue (1:1-18) lies behind the question that Jesus poses to the disciples. The question of 6:62 is not about the ascension of the Son of Man, but the rejection of the need for it. Again, as with 3:13, there may be some hostility between the Christology of the Fourth Gospel, and the use of “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. The earthly Son of Man has no need to ascend into heaven; he has been there before; he comes from there (see 1:1-18). Ascent ideas like those found in the Parables of Enoch may well have played their part in these concise Johannine expressions. However, in terms of you will know that I am he (γνώσεστε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι: revelation).” Notice my insistence upon the use of “the Son of Man” as the locus revelationis. 54.  For the “characteristics” of Jn 3:13-14 that come from the apocalyptic Son of Man, see Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 104–30. But here, as elsewhere, do these common “characteristics” make the Johannine Son of Man an apocalyptic figure? Charlesworth has argued also that Jn 3:13, which mentions the Son of Man, may be a polemic against the claim that Enoch is the Son of Man. See Charlesworth, “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology and Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu, Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný, ed. J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 223–39. 55.  A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923 [4th edn.]), p. 1203. See also BDF, p. 255, par. 482: “Aposiopesis in the strict sense, i.e. a breaking off of speech due to strong emotion or to modesty is unknown in the NT. On the other hand, aposiopesis takes the form of the omission of the apodosis to a conditional subordinated clause (protasis).” Both Robertson and BDF give Jn 6:62 as an example.

­284

Parables of Enoch

the narrative Christology developed by John, they do not point to a Johannine Son of Man as a heavenly figure who has come to earth, and who will return to heaven again. Indeed, in both 3:13 and 6:62 Jesus rejects the notion of his need to ascend and descend like Moses, Enoch, Abraham, and Isaiah. Informed of Jesus’ origins in 1:1-18, the reading process from 1:51 to 3:13, read side by side with 3:14 and its reference to the crucifixion, suggests that in 3:13 Jesus reaffirms that the Son of Man is the unique revelation of the heavenly among women and men.56 In 6:62 he refuses to conform to the expected model of a heavenly revealer. He will not “ascend” into heaven as he was there before all time (1:1-2). Any “ascent” behavior would respond to the disciples’ all-toohuman expectation, as judging “according to the flesh” (κατὰ τὴν σάρκα; see 6:63; 8:15) or judging “by appearances” (κατ᾿ ὄψιν; see 7:24). John 5:27 The only time the Son of Man is explicitly recognized as Judge in the Fourth Gospel is within the context of a significant presentation of realized eschatology: “The hour is coming and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (Jn 5:25-26). It is widely accepted that Jn 5:24-25 is one of the most explicit statements of the Johannine belief that judgment happens now as a result of the acceptance or refusal of the revelation of God that takes place in and through Jesus. It is within that context that the Johannine Jesus announces: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is Son of Man.” This is no future apocalyptic appearance of the Son of Man, but the presence of the revelation of God in and through Jesus that brings about judgment now.57 The influence of Dan 7:13-14 is obvious here, as has been claimed by all who have assessed the use of the anarthrous use of “Son of Man” in 5:27.58 Again the presence “in the air” of the significant role of “the Son of Man” as Judge in the Parables of Enoch (esp. in 46:1-8 and 69:27-29), itself a reinterpretation of Dan 7:13-14, may have played its part in shaping these words of the Johannine Jesus. But, as is to be expected, the Johannine use of this judgment language must be interpreted in terms of both the context of Jn 56.  I again draw attention to my insistence that the Johannine Son of Man is not simply the human Jesus (pace Ashton and Reynolds). It draws the readers’ attention to “the unique revelation of the heavenly among women and men.” 57.  See Blank, Krisis, pp. 109–82. See p. 160: “Wenn das göttliche Lebensangebot im nu/n der Gegenwart erfolgt, dann ist aber auch die κρίσις nicht etwas, das erst am Ende akut würde, sondern ihre Möglichkeit ist gleichfalls in der Gegenwart gegeben.” See further, p. 161: “Richtig ist, dass der Menschensohnbegriff bei Johannes durchweg die Inkarnation einschlieisst [pace Ashton] und nicht nur eine Hoheitsaussage ist.” 58.  For a detailed comparison of the two texts, and the scholarly discussion, see Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 77–86, and Ashton, Understanding, pp. 357–63. For the apocalyptic “characteristics” of 5:27, see Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 131–46.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­285

5:19-30 and the theme of judgment in the Gospel as a whole. “The Son of Man is where revelation and judgment take place (see 1:51) among the men who will lift up the unique revealer on a cross (3:13-14). The Son of Man is the one who, consequently, will exercise all judgment (5:27). It is as Son of Man that Jesus appears upon the scene, a man among men.”59 The “lifting up” of the Son of Man The claim that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure is supported when the Johannine use of the verb “to lift up” (3:14: ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ; 8:28: ὅταν ὑψώσητε; 12:32: κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς) is taken as a reference to ascension.60 This interpretation would add three more “ascent” passages to the Johannine Son of Man. Ascension is certainly behind the meaning of the expression in Phil 2:8, where, as a result of the “empting” (κένωσις), Jesus is exalted by God. But the broader context of the Johannine understanding of the death of Jesus,61 and the immediate context of the “lifting up” sayings 59.  Moloney, Son of Man, p. 86. See pp. 77–86 (NB: “the Son of Man is where revelation and judgment take place”). Obviously, it could be claimed that the Johannine link between the human Jesus and the human figure of Enoch with the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14 are related. But the documents are very different, and 71:14 comes as such a surprise that many suggest that it is an interpolation. A direct link is hard to argue. I am no Enoch scholar, and do not know Ethiopic, but I am struck by 1 Enoch 60:10 where Michael addresses Enoch (or Noah?; but see v. 1) as follows: “Here, Son of Man, you wish to know what is hidden” (60:10). One does not have to wait until 71:14 for the identification of the Son of Man as a human being. I am aware that the Ethiopic (walda sab) in 60:10 is different from the walda bĕsi in 71:14, but J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992), 455–57, links 60:10 with 46:3 and 71:14, concluding: “The Son of Man is the pre-eminent Righteous One in heaven, the supernatural double not of the individual Enoch but of all righteous human beings. In so far as Enoch is pre-eminent among righteous human beings he has a unique affinity with the heavenly Son of Man” (p. 457; see also idem, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” pp. 221–22). Kvanvig (“Son of Man,” pp. 197–98) rejects this suggestion. But 60:10 at least looks like the tradition of Ezekiel’s use of “Son of Man” to address the lowly figure of the prophet (see Collins, “The Son of Man,” p. 456). For the accepted position on chaps. 70–71, see Knibb, “The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, p. 63: “Here it should simply be noted that the contrast with the view of chapters 37–69, where a clear distinction is made between Enoch and the Son of Man, and the fact that chaps. 70–71 come as something of a surprise after the end of the third parable in 69:29 point strongly to the view that chapters 70–71 are a secondary addition to the Book of Parables” (italics mine). For a view in defense of the identity between Enoch and the Son of Man, see Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 197–215. On the oneness between Enoch and the Son of Man as an explanation for the Johannine use of the title “to unify Jesus’ terrestrial and heavenly origins, because it contains both elements,” see p. 214, with reference to Painter, “Enigmatic.” See the rejection of this identification, an alternative reading and interpretation of 71:14, and the insistence that 1 Enoch 71 is a secondary addition, in J. J. Collins, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” pp. 221–27. 60.  See, among many, Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1877–80, 1883–84; Sasse, Der Menschensohn, pp. 79–156; Brown, Introduction, pp. 255–56. 61.  On this, see Moloney, “Telling God’s Story: The Fourth Gospel,” in The Forgotten God. Perspectives in Biblical Theology, ed. A. A. Das and F. Matera (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), pp. 107–22.

­286

Parables of Enoch

themselves, indicate that John uses it differently. We must allow John to be John. The Johannine use of this verb is one of several examples of words with “double-meanings” in this Gospel.62 In this case, the word can mean a physical “lifting up” on a stake, as Moses did with the serpent in the wilderness (3:14). But it can also mean “exaltation.” For John, Jesus’ crucifixion is his exaltation. It is there that he makes God known, reveals the glory (δόξα) of God, brings to perfection the task given him by the Father (4:34; 7:4; 13:1; 17:4; 19:28-30), and is himself glorified (13:31-32).63 Proleptically preparing the reader for his unique interpretation of the death of Jesus, John uses “to lift up” (ὑψόω) to mean a physical lifting up which is, at the same time, Jesus’ moment of exaltation. Unlike Phil 2:9, where the “exaltation” (ὕψωσις) is the result (διὸ και,) of Jesus’ death on the cross (v. 8c), for John, Jesus’ exaltation (ὕψωσις) takes place on the cross. In 3:14 Jesus insists that just as (καθώς) Moses lifted up the serpent, so also (οὕτως) the Son of Man must be lifted up.64 There is no suggestion, either in Num 21:19 or in Jn 3:14, that the serpent detached itself from the stake and ascended into heaven. Interestingly, Gnostic reflection does have the snake ascend, but this is a fantastic speculation upon the Johannine text.65 The close parallel drawn in the text between the “lifting up” of the serpent on a spear, and the “lifting up” of the Son of Man, must be respected. A further “lifting up” text in the Johannine narrative appears in 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.” In a “footnote” to this passage, the Evangelist explains what he means by the use of “lifting up from the earth”: “He said this to show by what death he was to die” (ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν) (v. 33). If the best interpreter of the Johannine text is the Johannine text itself, credence must be given to these “footnotes” added to the text by the author.66 Jesus’ being lifted up is explained as the means by which he was to die: crucifixion (see also 18:32).67 This leaves only 8:28: “when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he” (ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε 62.  On the significance of these “double meanings,” see among many, R.A. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Foundations and Facets: New Testament, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983), pp. 152–65. 63.  See Moloney, John, pp. 481–515; T. Söding, “Kreuzerhöhung. Zur Deutung des Todes Jesu nach Johannes,” ZTK 103 (2006), 2–25. 64.  See Charlesworth’s extensive study of Jn 3:14 in The Good and Evil Serpent:  How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010). He argues that lifting up demands asking what is lifted up; serpent symbolism helps clarify the intent of the Fourth Evangelist. 65.  See Hippolytus, Ref. V.12,1-17,13, esp. V.12,6-12;16,4-6. These texts can be found in Werner Foerster and Robert McL. Wilson, eds., Gnosis. A Selection of Gnostic Texts (2 vols.; Oxford: OUP, 1972), 1:284-92. 66.  I am borrowing the expression “footnote” from M. C. Tenney, “The Footnotes of John’s Gospel,” in BS 117 (1960), 350–64. See also the excellent survey of these “footnotes” by G. Van Belle, “Les paranthèses Johanniques. Un premier bilan,” in The Four Gospels 1992, 3:1901-33. 67.  See also Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 145–47.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­287

ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι). This passage occurs within the context of Jesus’ bitter conflict with “the Jews” at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1–10:21). Jesus tells “the Jews” that they are to “lift up” the Son of Man. Does this mean they will crucify him, or send him upwards in his ascent into heaven? It could be argued that Jesus is ironically informing them that they will be responsible for his ascension,68 but in the light of 3:14 and 12:32-33, and the context of anger and the desire of “the Jews” to eliminate Jesus (see 7:32, 45; 8:20, 59), Jesus is informing “the Jews” that his being “lifted up” in crucifixion will be a climactic revelation of God (τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι; see also 13:19). The Johannine use of ὑψόω should not be associated with ascension. It is a crucial part of the Gospel’s theological understanding of the death of Jesus as a physical “lifting up” that is also his “exaltation.”69 Thus 1:51, 3:14, 8:28, and 12:32 should be removed from any discussion of the ascent–descent of the Son of Man. The following sayings do not call for a “heavenly” interpretation: 5:27 (the Son of Man as Judge), 6:27 (the Son of Man who will give a food that will not perish), 6:53 (the gift of the Son of Man, his flesh and blood), 9:35 (belief in the Son of Man), and 12:34 (the query from the crowd concerning the death of the Son of Man). Benjamin Reynolds has shown that apocalyptic “characteristics” are present in all these sayings, but underestimates the strength of the “Johannization” of those traditions. The Johannine cross is “exaltation” and “glorification” (see 1:51; 3:13-14; 6:27, 53; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31-32), but only a human being can be crucified. One never finds in the Fourth Gospel (contrast Mk 15:39; Mt 27:54) any link between the Son of God and the crucifixion.70 This is a role reserved for the exalted and glorified human figure of the Son of Man. The “glorification” of the Son of Man Two Son of Man sayings are associated with glorification. On hearing of the arrival of the Greeks in 12:22, Jesus solemnly announces: “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Jn 12:23). As Judas leaves the upper room to betray Jesus, it was night (13:30). “When he had gone out [v. 31a: Ὅτε οὖν ἐξῆλθεν], Jesus 68.  As is argued, for example, by Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1883–84. I regard such readings as something of a desperate measure to defend the indefensible. They do not allow John to be John. The tight link between the agents of the “lifting up” and the cross in 8:28 is poorly handled by Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 171–72. Were “the Jews” responsible for the ascension? 69.  This was conclusively argued many years ago by W. Thüsing, Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium ( NTAbh 21.1-2; Münster: Aschendorff, 1970 [2nd edn.]). I have yet to see Thüsing’s case systematically dismantled by those who argue that the “lifting up” means the ascension. But see now Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 117–27, who challenges Thüsing’s thesis. 70.  It is interesting to notice that already in Lk 23:47 (“Truly, this man was innocent”) there is a movement away from an association of the Son of God with the cross. Reynolds, Son of Man, p. 221, following Bauckham, states that in John (with reference to 13:32) God is crucified. I find this affirmation exegetically indefensible, however attractive this idea may be theologically.

­288

Parables of Enoch

announces: ‘Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him’” (νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ; Jn 13:31bc). There is a similarity between these sayings. Do they refer to the final glorification of the Son, in his return to the place where he was before the world was made (cf. 17:1, 5)? The immediate contexts, and the broader context of the Gospel story itself, suggest that the glorification referred to in 12:23 and 13:31 points forward to Jesus’ “lifting up” (ὕψωσις) on the cross. Comments from the narrator are crucial signposts in a narrative. In 2:22, after Jesus offers the sign of his death and resurrection as proof of his authority in the Temple (2:17-21), the narrator comments: “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this” (v. 22). The death and resurrection of Jesus generate right memory and belief among the disciples. In 7:39 the narrator explains the gift of rivers of living water (7:37-38),71 adding: “Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη; 7:39). There is to be a time in the future when Jesus will be glorified and the Spirit will be given. The theme of Jesus as king, important to the Johannine Passion narrative (see esp. 18:28-29, 16a; 19:16b-37), appears in the narrative in Jn 12:12-19, especially in the quotation of Zech 9:9 (12:15), but Jesus will exercise his kingship on the cross, and not in glorious acclamation. This is the point of Jesus’ initiative in finding an ass and mounting it for his entry into Jerusalem.72 The narrator again comments: “His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified (ὅτε ἐδοξάσθη), they remembered that this had been written of him, and had been done to him (καὶ ταῦτα ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ).” The gift of the Spirit, linked with the glorification of Jesus in 7:39, looks back to the right remembering and believing of the disciples in 2:22 after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and forward to the same experience, after Jesus is glorified, in 12:16. The gift of the Spirit at Jesus’ glorification will enable ignorant disciples to remember Jesus’ words and understand the Scriptures. There is a link between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the glorification. Most scholars look to 20:22 as the fulfillment of 7:59. But an earlier gift of the Spirit is found in 19:30. On the cross, Jesus has been declared a king (19:1722), a symbol of his intimate possession that will not be torn apart has been offered (vv. 23-25a), and he has instituted a new family in the beloved disciple and his mother (vv. 25b-27). Jesus knows that everything is now finished (v. 28a: πάντα τετέλεσται), the Scriptures have been fulfilled (v. 28b: τελειωθῇ|/). After receiving the vinegar (v. 29), he declares, “it is finished” (τετέλεσται; Jn 19:30a). The steady use of the related verbs τελειόω and τελέω make it clear that Jesus has brought to a perfect end the task the Father gave him (see 4:34: 71.  Much scholarly discussion surrounds 7:37-38. The exegete must resolve serious textual problems associated with the punctuation of the passage, the “Scripture” referred to, as well as the interpretation. For a summary of the discussion, and my own view (the water flows from Jesus, not from the believer), see Moloney, John, pp. 255–57. 72.  For more detail in support of this interpretation, see Moloney, John, pp. 350–51, 358–59.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­289

τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον; 13:1: εἰς τέλος; 17:4: τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας).73 His final action is described in v. 30b (καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα). Despite the widespread interpretation of these words as a euphemism for death (e.g., “gave up his spirit” [RSV]), that is not what the Greek says. The passage can also be translated: “he gave down (παρέδωκεν) the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα).”74 For the Fourth Gospel, the gift of the Spirit does not take place at Pentecost, but at the cross, at “the hour” of Jesus (see v. 27: ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνης τῆς ὥρας).75 The death of Jesus is the moment of glorification anticipated by his words in 12:23, announcing the hour of the glorification of the Son of Man. It will be the time and the place where sheep not of this fold will be gathered to the good shepherd (10:16), the scattered children of God will be gathered (11:52), the grain of wheat will fall and die, so that it might bear much fruit (12:24). On the cross the Son of Man will be lifted up (3:14; 8:28), to gather everyone to himself (12:32). As “the Jews” complain, “The world has gone after him” (v. 19), Greeks come to Jesus, is present in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover (v. 20; see 11:55; 12:1, 12). He turns toward his death and declares that “the hour has come” (ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα) for the Son of Man to be glorified (v. 23). The first words of 13:31, the continuation of v. 30 that dramatically reports Judas’ departure into the night, are generally overlooked: “When he had gone out” (v. 31a). This temporal link between the departure of the betrayer and Jesus’ words in v. 31 is a first hint that the glorification of the Son of Man (v. 31b) is to be associated with his death. Reading 13:31-32 as part of the conclusion to the literary unit of 13:1-38, and not as the opening words of the first discourse (i.e., 13:31–14:31), heightens this association.76 There can be no gainsaying the truth that the death of Jesus has been anticipated by his washing the feet of the disciples (13:5-15), the gift of the morsel, even to Judas (vv. 21-30). These gestures, with their accompanying teaching, demonstrate Jesus’ love for his own “until the end” (εἰς τέλος; Jn 13:1), and ask that they follow his example (v. 15), loving one another as he has loved them (vv. 34-35). In the midst of prophecies of betrayal and denials (vv. 2, 10-11, 18, 21-30, 36-38) Jesus explains to his ignorant and failing disciples: “I tell you this 73.  This is another example of John’s tendency to use different verbs to say the same thing, for the sake of stylistic variety (e.g., ἀποστέλλω-πέμπω; ἀγαπάω-φιλέω). For an important recent discussion of this issue, see F. T. Gignac, “The Use of Verbal Variety in the Fourth Gospel,” in Transcending Boundaries: Contemporary Readings of the New Testament. Essays in Honor of Francis J. Moloney, ed. R. M. Chennattu and M. L. Coloe (BibSciRel 187; Rome; LAS, 2005), pp. 191–200. 74.  On this, see the important study of R. Kysar, “‘He Gave up the Spirit’: A Reader’s Reflection on John 19:30b,” in Transcending Boundaries, pp. 161–72. 75.  On this “fulfillment” at the cross, see Francis J. Moloney, “The Gospel of John as Scripture,” CBQ 67 (2005), 454–68. 76.  Most scholars disassociate vv. 31-38 from 13:1-30, and read 13:31–14:31 as the first (and probably oldest) section of the final discourse. But vv. 31-38 are not discourse. See Culpepper, “The Johannine hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13:1-38,” Sem 53 (1991), 133–52; Moloney, “A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1-38,” CBQ 53 (1991), 237–56; Jean-Noël Aletti, “Jn 13 – Les problèmes de composition et leur importance,” Bib 87 (2006), 263–72.

­290

Parables of Enoch

now before it takes place so that when it takes place you may believe that I am he (ἵνα πιστεύσητε ὅταν γένηται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι).” Jesus both shows and tells the consummate perfection of his love for them before the event of the cross. He does this so that when the hour of the cross comes, they may recognize the revelation of God (ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι) in the crucified one (see also 3:13-14; 8:28). In 12:22-23 the arrival of the Greeks led to Jesus announcing that the hour of his glorification on the cross had come. In a parallel fashion, as Judas departs to betray him (v. 31a), Jesus announces that “now” the Son of Man is glorified. The glorification of Jesus on the cross is at hand, and he will make God known.77 The glorification of Jesus (2:22; 7:39; 12:22), the Son of Man (12:23; 13:31), focuses upon the consummate human experience of Jesus of Nazareth, his death by crucifixion.78 I suspect that a reader would be surprised to find – as the story draws to its close – a prayer of Jesus that asked: “Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son of Man so that the Son of Man might glorify you. Glorify the Son of Man in your own presence with the glory that the Son of Man had before the world was made” (see 17:1, 5).79. The Son of Man glorifies God, and is himself glorified in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth (2:22; 3:14; 7:39; 8:28; 12:16, 23, 32-34; 13:31-32).80

Conclusion Does my understanding of the Johannine Son of Man mean that the Parables of Enoch does not come into play? This is hardly the case. As B. Reynolds has shown, apocalyptic “characteristics” can be found across the Johannine Son of Man sayings. For example, the Enochic Son of Man comes as Judge (see 1En 46:4-6; 62:3-13; 69:27-29 [see Dan 7:13-14]), just as the Father “has given him authority to exercise all judgment, because he is Son of Man” (Jn 77.  On the cross Jesus is glorified (v. 31b), and God is made known, that is, “glorified in him” (v. 31c). This action depends totally upon God, and it will take place “at once” (εὐθύς) (v. 32). For this interpretation of 13:1-38, see Moloney, John, pp. 370–91. 78.  As Hare, The Son of Man Tradition, p. 110, rightly claims: “The glorification of the Son of man is related to a historical event.” See, most recently, N. Chibici-Revneanu, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Verständnis der do,xa im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2.231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), for an exhaustive study that links the Johannine use of δόξα with the death of Jesus. For a contrary position, see Painter, “Enigmatic,” pp. 1883–84. For Loader, Christology, pp. 107–21, it is both the cross and the return to glory by means of the ascension. 79.  This would have to be acceptable if the description of John’s Son of Man Christology in Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 224–25, is accurate. As in all four Gospels, “the Son of Man” replaces “I” in Jesus’ speech, I have done so in v. 4, inserting “the Son of Man” where the Greek original identifies the “I” of Jesus with “the Son” of v. 1. If, for John, “the Son” equates to “the Son of Man,” this would be a legitimate reading of 17:1, 5. 80.  For a denial of this position, claiming that the glorification of the Son of Man includes Jesus’ Passion and death, but is not complete until the glorious Son of Man returns to earth, see Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 190–213. I cannot find this in Johannine Son of Man texts, but it is Johannine (see 14:1-3, 18-21, 28-31; 17:1-5, 24-26).

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­291

5:27). The Enochic Son of Man brings “salvation” to the righteous (see 1En 48:4; 62:12-13; 71:17 [see Dan 7:22, 25-27]), just as “Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so much the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn 3:14-15; see 6:53-54; 8:28; 9:35-38; 12:31-33). The Enochic Son of Man is an object of worship (1En 48:5; 62:6, 9 [see Dan 7:27]) just as the man born blind, on being informed that the Son of Man is the one whom he sees and hears, exclaims, “Lord, I believe, and he worshipped him (προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ)” (Jn 9:35-38). The Enochic Son of Man is, among other things, the Messiah (1En 62:1-16), just as the crowds identify the Messiah with the Son of Man as they ask: “We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” (Jn 12:34).81 In my reading of the complex of 13 Johannine Son of Man sayings, there is a repetition of the Enochic theme of the Son of Man’s role as revealer (see 1En 46:3). The explanation of the Danielic “one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14) in terms of the vindicated Holy Ones of the Most High (7:17-27) is not far from the Parables of Enoch 46–47, obviously dependent upon Daniel 7. However, the son of man in 1En 46:2-6 is not only the revealer (46:3), but also the eschatological Judge of “the kings and the mighty” (46:4-5). It is not the one like a son of man / Holy Ones of the Most High, therefore, who are vindicated in the Parables of Enoch, but “the righteous are vindicated by the Lord of the Spirits / the Head of Days” (47:3-4). If the Parables of Enoch is pre-Christian, with its unique reinterpretation of the Danielic Son of Man, a dynamic rereading of “the Son of Man” was “in the air” and is continued in early Christian documents, including the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, it may have been one of the reasons for the ongoing persistence of the strange Greek translation of a Semitic expression placed on the lips of Jesus at the end of the “first Christian century.”82 However, because of the growth of the Johannine tradition from the Jesus tradition, and the different development of the Parables of Enoch 37–71 as part of the widespread interest in apocalyptic by Second Temple Judaism, we should not speak of “dependence.”83 Much is shared, but one does not depend upon the other. I have suggested above that, in 3:13-14 and 6:62, John may be attempting to contradict apocalyptic traditions about ascending and descending revealers. These ideas are “in the air” and they are found in John, but they do not produce an apocalyptic Son of Man. I have approached the Johannine Son of Man in light of the rebirth of interest in and the new consensus regarding the origin of the Parables of 81.  For a summary presentation of the “characteristics” of the Enochic Son of Man, see Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 45-49. For their presence in the Johannine sayings, see pp. 215–16. 82.  As Borsch, Son of Man, p. 265, comments as he opens his consideration of the Johannine Son of Man: “[W]e also think that the Son of Man traditions and themes were rapidly falling into disuse and, outside of their living milieu, were no longer well understood” (italics original). 83.  See also, although on somewhat different grounds, Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” pp. 333–36.

­292

Parables of Enoch

Enoch after more than 30 years of teaching, writing, and reflection upon the Gospel of John. Important work has been carried out on the Johannine Son of Man in those years, but it remains clear where I differ from the majority of scholars who insist that the Johannine use of “the Son of Man” points to a heavenly figure and, most recently, an apocalyptic figure. On the one hand, I cannot accept that either υψόω (3:14; 8:28; 12:32-33) or δοξάζω (when used in association with ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [12:23; 13:31]) refer to both the crucifixion and the return to heaven in glory by means of ascension or exaltation. On the other hand, I have become increasingly impressed by the narrative unity of the Johannine text and the subsequent need to interpret John in the light of John before asking diachronic questions. The more I read the Fourth Gospel, the clearer it appears to me that its author could not use the name “Jesus” to speak of the pre-existent Logos (1:12). Not until the Logos becomes flesh (v. 14) can John introduce the name “Jesus Christ” (v. 17). Similarly, he uses the term “the Son,” and not “Jesus,” to speak of the one who returns to the glory that was his before the world was made (17:1, 5). The same must be said for the other expression used to speak of the function of the human event of “Jesus,” especially the cross: “the Son of Man.” My earlier work created the impression that the Johannine Son (of God) and Son of Man Christologies were to be radically separated.84 This position misunderstands the unity of the Johannine Christology that should not be broken into separate compartments. Jesus Christ is the Son of Man, and he is also the incarnate Logos, the pre-existent, present and post-existent Son (of God).85 Of course the Son of Man came from heaven because the Logos became flesh and his name was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is “the Son of Man.” Whatever influence the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch may have had upon the Johannine use of the expression, in the end they are different in form and content. The Parables of Enoch is a major Second Temple Jewish apocalypse, and the Gospel of John is a Christian story focused on Jesus, the pre-existent Logos, the revelation of God in and through Jesus Christ, Son and Son of Man, who glorified God and is glorified by means of the cross (see 11:4). The Jewish apocalyptic thought present in the Fourth Gospel has been thoroughly “johannized.”86 Only a human being can be crucified, and John does not hesitate to tell of the “lifting up” of the Son of Man. He never speaks of the crucifixion of the Son. Yet, on the other hand, John never speaks of the “sending” of the Son of Man. John does not use “the Son of Man” to focus his 84.  See Moloney, Son of Man, pp. 208–20. Pazdan, The Son of Man, p. 80, claimed that I maintain “an absolute distinction between the two titles.” This impression needs the correction indicated by this essay. 85.  On this, see Pazdan, The Son of Man, pp. 76–86; Reynolds, Son of Man, pp. 130, 222–23. 86.  Reynolds’ fine work (Son of Man) devotes attention to the uniqueness of the Johannine use of the apocalyptic Son of Man. However, in my opinion the Johannine rereading of apocalyptic (Enochic?) traditions thoroughly realizes them, rendering the Johannine Son of Man a “present” figure. The weight given to the diachronic and synchronic determines our differing interpretations. For a similar critique of Reynolds’ work, see the review of the book by Jeffrey Staley in CBQ 72 (2010), 160–61.

The Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man

­293

readers’ attention upon the humanity of Jesus, but upon the revelation of God that takes place in and through the human event of Jesus Christ.87 The Johannine use of the expression “the Son of Man” came into the Fourth Gospel from the primitive tradition’s adoption of Jesus’ own use of the expression (see Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34 and parallels).88 Its focus upon the human event of Jesus Christ, especially the cross, opens the door to the tendency, in both the Greek and the Latin Patristic traditions, to use the expression “Son of Man” to stress Jesus’ humanity, and the “Son of God” to stress his divinity.89 This is not the Johannine understanding of the two expressions, but the Fathers correctly caught the link between the Johannine use of “the Son of Man” for the presentation of the revelation of God in the human event of Jesus Christ, especially in his being “lifted up” on a cross (see 3:14; 8:28; 12:32; 19:5?).

87.  Whatever one thinks of much of his analysis (e.g., the use of the Gnostic myth and the disappearance of the Was into the Dass), Bultmann’s focus upon Johannine Christology as “revelation” that demands the response of faith remains true. See Bultmann, Theology, 2:49-92. He rightly claims: “Now it becomes clear that the Revealer is nothing but a definite historical man, Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 69). Bultmann wrongly claimed that John christianized the language of the Gnostic myth for this Christology (see p. 66). It is now clear that part of the process was the johannization of the language of Jewish apocalyptic, as Reynolds’ word indicates. 88.  See Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 155–57. 89.  This distinction is already found in the Apostolic Fathers. See Ignatius, Ephesians 20.2; Letter of Barnabas 12.10 (see Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers [2 vols.; LCL; London: William Heinemann, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]), 1:195 (Ignatius); 1:387 (Barnabas). For Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man,” p. 189, n. 2, this is regarded as a “distinct break.” Perhaps it would be better to speak of “continuity / discontinuity.” See Pamment, “Son of Man,” p. 56, n. 9.

­

Chapter 12 The Enochic Son of Man and the Apocalyptic Background of the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel Benjamin E. Reynolds It can no longer be denied that the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) reflects a pre-70 Jewish milieu.1 Although this is the case, we still cannot be as bold as R. H. Charles to claim, “The influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books taken together.”2 While Charles represents the opposite end of the spectrum from J. T. Milik, the consensus now is that the Parables of Enoch should be understood as a Jewish document composed in the Herodian period. This viewpoint requires rethinking the relationship between the Parables of Enoch and the New Testament documents. One of the places where valuable exploration can be made is in a comparison between “that Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch and “the Son of Man” in the Gospels.3 Scholars have drawn attention to the noticeable parallels between the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels, especially in the Gospel of Matthew and the reference to the Son of Man’s “throne of glory.”4 But what should be thought about John, the Fourth Gospel? Ever since the rise of critical scholarship, there has been a scholarly “parting of the ways” between John and the Synoptic Gospels, and the Gospel of John has largely been addressed in isolation.5 Whereas the Synoptic Son of Man sayings have been 1.  See D. L. Bock’s Forschungsbericht and J. H. Charlesworth’s chapters in this collection. 2.  R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1893), p. 41; idem, 1912 [2nd edn.], p. xcv. 3.  The capitalization hints at my understanding of the titular uses of “the Son of Man” in the Gospels and “that Son of Man,” in the Parables of Enoch. However, not all scholars think that “that Son of Man” is a title in the Parables of Enoch. See below. [Reynolds wishes to emphasize that in rendering Ethiopic, translators are more interpreters than they are when working on Aramaic and Greek. That happens because Ethiopic has no means of clarifying the definite article or capitalization. In this book, the contributors tend to conclude that the “Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch has in some passages become a title. JHC.] 4.  J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditiongeschichtlichem Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 153–54; L. W. Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, pp. 299–337. 5.  Unfortunately, the obvious differences between the Son of Man in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have too often hidden similarities that are shared among the Gospels. For example, all

The Enochic Son of Man

­295

placed in three categories of earthly sayings, suffering sayings, and coming or apocalyptic sayings,6 the Johannine Son of Man cannot be successfully fitted into these categories.7 The “coming” or “apocalyptic” Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels reveal a clear influence from Daniel 7 and refer to the Son of Man coming at a climactic, end-time moment, on the clouds, with the angels, and with great glory. Subsequently, the elect are gathered from the four corners of the earth, implying the completion of judgment (Mk 13:26-27; 14:62 and parallels). The Gospel of Matthew makes explicit the Son of Man’s role in the judgment of the righteous and the wicked (Mt 19:28-30; 25:31-46). The Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John, on the other hand, do not reflect such obvious influence from Daniel 7, and they do not speak of the coming of the Son of Man with or without the clouds, the angels, or other typical apocalyptic imagery. Since these descriptors are the primary pieces of evidence for including sayings in the Synoptic coming / apocalyptic category, there are legitimate questions concerning whether or not the Johannine Son of Man can be said to have an “apocalyptic” background. Numerous backgrounds have been suggested for the Johannine Son of Man. The most common suggestions are: (a) that the Johannine Son of Man is a reinterpretation of the Synoptic tradition;8 (b) that there is an Old Testament background separate from or combined with Daniel 7 (e.g., Ps 8; Prov 31; Ezek; WisSol, etc.);9 (c) that the background is found in the Gnostic Redeemer myth10 or in a Primal Man myth;11 (d) that the Johannine Son of Man is a reflection of Heavenly Man speculations;12 and (e) that Daniel 7 and / or other four Gospels consistently present the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as one used by Jesus alone (cf. Lk 24:7; Jn 12:34) and as a reference to Jesus. See further, B. E. Reynolds, “The Johannine Son of Man and the Historical Jesus: Shall Ever the Twain Meet? John 9:35 as a Test Case,” JSHJ 9 (2011), 230–42; see esp. pp. 232–33. 6.  Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (2 vols.; New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955), vol. 1, p. 30. 7.  Walck, “Son of Man,” p. 335. See the attempts by S. S. Smalley, “The Johannine Son of Man Sayings,” NTS 15 (1969), 278–301; C. Ham, “The Title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John,” Stone-Campbell Journal 1 (1998), 67–84. 8.  M. Casey, The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (LNTS 343; London: T&T Clark, 2007), p. 312. This position may or may not include an apocalyptic understanding of the Synoptic Gospels. 9.  E. A. Abbot, “The Son of Man” or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus (Diatessarica 8; Cambridge: CUP, 1910); R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-existence in the New Testament (SNTSMS 21; Cambridge: CUP, 1973); R. Rhea, The Johannine Son of Man (ATANT 76; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990); D. Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (JSNTSup 56; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); M. Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes (TANZ 35; Tübingen, Basel: A. Francke Verlag, 2000). 10.  Bultmann, Theology, vol. 2, p. 37. 11.  Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (NTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1967). 12.  C. H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1953); A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1964); C. Colpe, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,” TDNT 8.400-81.

­296

Parables of Enoch

apocalyptic texts such as the Parables of Enoch have had some influence on the Johannine portrait of the Son of Man.13 Although these various origins of the expression have been suggested, the argument of this paper is that the background of the Johannine Son of Man primarily evidences an apocalyptic background. More specifically, because the Johannine Son of Man is portrayed with similar functions and characteristics as first-century interpretations of the Danielic son of man, the Johannine figure can also be understood to be an interpretation of the “one like a son of man” and can likewise be called an “apocalyptic Son of Man.”14 Considering space and the emphasis of this volume, this essay will limit the scope of this argument to a comparison of the son of man figures in the Parables of Enoch and John’s Gospel. The relevance and need for a comparison between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John has become all the more necessary since the scholarly consensus on the date of the Parables of Enoch has shifted and now most Second Temple specialists date the Parables of Enoch earlier than most New Testament specialists date the Gospel of John.15 The focus of this essay will be on similarities between the son of man figures in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John. First, a description will be given of the Enochic Son of Man’s functions and characteristics. Second, the Johannine Son of Man’s functions and characteristics will be described, especially those bearing similarities with those of the Son of Man 13.  S. Schulz, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957); R. Maddox, “The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology, ed. R. Banks (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 186–204; F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14; Rome: LAS, 1978 [2nd edn.]); J. Painter, “The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man,” in Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Seg broeck, et al. (3 vols.; BETL 100; Louvain: Peeters, 1992), pp. 1869–87; B. E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2.249; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Most recently J. H. Ellens, “What is the Son of Man in John: The Son of Man Logia in John and in the Synoptic Gospels in the Light of Second Temple Judaism Traditions” (Ph.D. Diss., The University of Michigan, 2009), published as Jesus as Son of Man in John (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010). For other views, see P. Borgen, “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel (Jn 3, 13-14 and context),” in L’Évangile de Jean, ed. M. de Jonge (Gembloux, Belgium: Duculot, 1977), pp. 243–58; W. Roth, “Jesus as the Son of man: The Scriptural Identity of a Johannine Image,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders, ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), pp. 11–26; and J.-A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. Die kulturund religionsgeschichtlichen Grundlangen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung (WUNT 2.2; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1977). 14.  The phrase “apocalyptic Son of Man” is commonly used to refer to the son of man figure in Daniel 7 and / or the interpretations of the Danielic figure in Jewish apocalypses such as the Parables of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. See Maddox, “Function,” p. 197, n. 3; and D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge: CUP, 1999), pp. 22–33. 15.  This is especially the case with regard to the final redaction and not the initial writing of the Gospel of John.

The Enochic Son of Man

­297

in the Parables of Enoch. Third, the essay will summarize the similarities and differences between the Johannine Son of Man and the figure in the Parables of Enoch and will conclude with a discussion concerning the possible relationship between the Gospel of John and the Parables of Enoch.

The Enochic Son of Man In the Parables of Enoch, the figure who is seated on the Lord of Spirits’ throne in ch. 46 (also 51:3; 55:4; 62:2, 3, 5) is called the “Chosen One” (39:6; 40:5; 45:3; etc.), “that Son of Man” (46:2, 3, 4; 48:2; etc.), “Anointed One” (48:10; 52:4), and “Righteous One” (38.2; 51:3). The two most common designations, which function as titles,16 are “Chosen One” and “that Son of Man.”17 It is clear that all four of these designations refer to the same figure and not four separate figures. J. C. VanderKam has persuasively argued that this can be seen in the way in which there is an overlap of functions between the designations (cf. 45:3; 49:4; 62:5; 69:27). 18 “Chosen One” most likely derives from the Servant Songs in Isaiah where it is a common description of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah (42:1; cf. 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2; 45:4; 49:7).19 The “Son of Man” language has its origin in Daniel 7, as is apparent from other terms and concepts from Daniel 7: Ancient / Head of Days with hair white as wool (1En 46:1; Dan 7:9); thousand thousands and myriad myriads standing before the Head of Days (1En 40:1; Dan 7:10); a throne (1En 45:3; Dan 7:9); books opened (1En 47:3; Dan 7:10); the overthrow of kings (1En 48:8-10; Dan 7:17-18); and judgment (1En 46:5; Dan 7:10-12). But how does this figure who is called “Chosen One,” “that Son of Man,” “Anointed One,” and “Righteous One” function in the Parables of Enoch? And what are this figure’s characteristics?

16.  See J. J. Collins, “The Heavenly Representative: The Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (SBLSCS 12; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 111–33; see p. 112. Cf. M. Casey, “The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976), 11–29, at p. 18. 17.  There are three separate phrases translated into English as “that Son of Man.” The common understanding is that the three Ge’ez phrases refer to the same figure. However, see H. S. Kvanvig’s recent questioning of this line of thinking (“The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp.179–215; see esp. 193–97). 18.  J. C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), pp. 169–91. 19.  See M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 195– 97. Both the Isaianic servant and the Enochic figure are called “my Chosen One” or “my chosen” (Isa 42:1; 45:4; 1En 45:3, 4; 55:4), “righteous one” (Isa 53:11; 1En 53:6), and “a light to the nations” (Isa 49:6; 1En 48:4).

­298

Parables of Enoch

Functions of the Enochic Son of Man Judgment The most obvious function of “the Son of Man” figure in the Parables of Enoch is his role as Judge. Although the “one like a son of man” in Daniel is not explicitly said to judge, judgment permeates the depictions of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. This is especially noticeable in the statement: “the whole judgment was given to the son of man and he will make sinners vanish and perish from the face of the earth” (69:27).20 “That son of man” is described as righteous in his judgment (50:4; cf. 62:3), and his execution of judgment is connected with his presence on the throne of glory (55:4; 61:8-9; 62:2; 69:27, 29). The punishment that ensues from the son of man’s judgment indicates the end-time nature of his judgment. For example, after he is seated on the throne of glory (ch. 62), the kings of the earth become terrified once they recognize the Son of Man and that he sits on the throne of glory and will judge (62:3-5). Following the Enochic Son of Man’s pronouncement of judgment, the kings of the earth are led by the angels to their punishment (62:9-12). The prevalence of judgment in the depictions of “that Son of Man” highlights the importance the figure’s role as Judge. Revelation of hidden things Second, the Enochic Son of Man reveals hidden things (46:3) and all the secrets of wisdom (51:3), which have been given to him by the Lord of Spirits (51:3). What these hidden things entail is not entirely clear. Considering the things that Enoch and the Watchers reveal, the implication is that they include what “that son of man” has seen in heaven.21 The Son of Man’s revealing of hidden things is dependent on his being chosen by the Lord of Spirits (46:3), the Lord of Spirits giving the secrets of wisdom to him, and his enthronement on the throne of glory (51:3). Salvation Third, the Enochic Son of Man also plays some sort of role in salvation. There is no explicit salvific action that the Son of Man carries out. However, the salvation of the righteous and the chosen takes place on the day that the Son of Man judges the kings of the earth (62:13), and their salvation includes their dwelling and eating with the Son of Man forever (62:14). Thus, there is an apparent connection between “that Son of Man” and the salvation of the righteous, but the emphasis of the Parables of Enoch is on the Son of Man’s act of judgment carried out on the kings of the earth. However, the salvation of the 20.  All citations are from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004). 21.  See M. E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, ed. F. M. Cross, et al. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 414–54. Cf. Ellens, “What is the Son of Man in John,” p. 223.

The Enochic Son of Man

­299

righteous occurs at the same time that the kings are judged. The implication is that the Enochic Son of Man’s judgment of the wicked kings is simultaneously vindication for the righteous and chosen who will dwell with him forever.22 Characteristics of the Enochic Son of Man Messianic Having discussed the functions of the Enochic Son of Man – acting as Judge, revealing hidden things, and playing some part in the salvation of the righteous – we will now address the characteristics of this figure. The first characteristic to be noted is that the Son of Man is portrayed as being messianic. He is explicitly called “Anointed One” in 48:10 and 52:4 and is depicted with royal and messianic imagery. The influence of Isaiah 11 which speaks of the root of Jesse, the Davidic heir (2Sam 2:7; 4Q174), is noticeable in 49:3 and 62:2. The former text is essentially a citation of Isa 11:4: “And in him will dwell the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of insight, and the spirit of instruction and might, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness.”23 In addition, the enthronement imagery carries royal connotations and reflects Ps 110.24 The righteous eating with “that Son of Man” may also echo messianic banquet traditions (1En 62:14; cf. Isa 25:6-8; 2Bar 29:8). And finally, the designation “Righteous One” may itself be suggestive of the messianic nature of the Enochic Son of Man.25 The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is clearly presented as the Messiah even if the designation “Anointed One” is only used of the figure twice.26 The messianic sense is obvious from the use of texts such as Isaiah 11 and Psalm 110 to describe the Son of Man.

22.  “That Son of Man” (or “that son of man”) may be the antecedent of the pronoun in 48:7, in which case he is also the one who has “preserved the portion of the righteous,” “is the vindicator of their lives,” and in whose “name they are saved.” See C. A. Gieschen, “The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 238–49, esp. p. 240. 23.  J. J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992), 448–66; W. Horbury, Messianism Among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T:&T Clark, 2003), p. 139. 24.  M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 185–86; Black, “Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins,” in The Messiah, pp. 145–68. 25.  Jer 23:5; PssSol 17:32, 36-37; Acts 7:52. See G. S. Oegema, “‘The Coming of the Righteous One’ in Acts and 1 Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, pp. 250–59. 26.  Cf. K. Koch, “Questions Regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 228–37.

­300

Parables of Enoch

Heavenly and pre-existent Not only is the Enochic Son of Man the Messiah, but the figure is found in heaven and appears to have existed before the creation of the world. The Son of Man is “named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits … even before the sun and the constellations were created, before the stars of heaven were made” (48:2-3); he was “hidden” in the presence of the Lord of Spirits “before the world was created” (48:6); and he was hidden and preserved in the presence of the Lord of Spirits “from the beginning” (62:7). The use of the terms “naming” and especially “hiding” and “preserving” in these sayings seem to indicate that the Son of Man is pre-existent in heaven.27 Some scholars have argued that these texts actually refer to a pre-creation election of the Son of Man and not to a pre-creation existence of the figure.28 In their view, “naming” indicates election and does not require existence. VanderKam admits that “preserving” may mean more than “hiding,” implying some sort of existence, but he contends that “from the beginning” (62:7) only refers to the beginning of the hiding of “that Son of Man” and not to the beginning of the world.29 On the other hand, the hiding of the Enochic Son of Man “from the beginning” (62:7) appears to be parallel to the hiding of “that Son of Man” in the presence of the Lord of Spirits “before the world was created” (48:6). The implication seems to be that the naming and hiding indicate the pre-existence of the Son of Man and not merely his election and consequent protection during his earthly life.30 In addition, these texts also reveal that “that Son of Man” is present in heaven. The naming, hiding, and preserving all take place in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and the Lord of Spirits is clearly in heaven (39:3, 7; 70:1; 71:1). Similar to God Another characteristic of the Enochic Son of Man is that the figure is described in terms similar to those used of YHWH.31 In Micah 1:4, the mountains melt like wax at the coming of the Lord (Ps 97:5; Nah 1:5), and in the Parables of Enoch, it is the coming of the Enochic figure at which the mountains melt (1En 52:6).32 The judgment of the kings of the earth is accomplished by the Lord (Isa 24:21-23), but the Son of Man carries out judgment in the Parables 27.  E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungl; Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet 1.41; Lund: Gleerup, 1946), p. 90; Casey, “Use of the Term,” p. 13. Theisohn, Richter, pp. 128–39, and more recently Kvanvig, “Son of Man,” p. 202, see a connection between the pre-existence of the son of man and of Wisdom in Proverbs 8. 28.  T. W. Manson, “The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels,” BJRL 32 (1950), 171–93; VanderKam, “Righteous One,” pp. 179–82; also Ellens, “What is the Son of Man in John,” pp. 226–27. 29.  VanderKam, “Righteous One,” p. 181. 30.  Casey, “Use of the Term,” p. 13; Collins, “Son of Man,” p. 455; Walck, “Son of Man,” pp. 304–05. 31.  See Burkett (Debate, p. 100) for the following examples. 32.  Black, Book of Enoch, p. 216.

The Enochic Son of Man

­301

of Enoch (49:4; 55:4; 61:8-9; 69:27). The Day of Judgment is typically known as “the Day of the Lord” (Joel 1:15; Obad 15; Zech 14:1-21). In the Parables of Enoch, the Day of Judgment is described as “the day of the Chosen One” (61:5). In Ps 114:6, the mountains skip like rams at the coming of YHWH. In the Parables of Enoch, it is the enthronement of the Enochic figure and his revelation of the secrets of wisdom that leads to the mountains leaping like rams and hills skipping like lambs (51:4). C. A. Gieschen has recently argued that both the Lord of Spirits and “that Son of Man” possess the Divine Name. He states: “1 Enoch strengthens the identification of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man within the mystery of the one YHWH by teaching that they share the one Divine Name.”33 In addition, “that Son of Man” sits upon the Lord of Spirits’ throne of glory (62:2).34 All of these descriptions of YHWH are applied to the Enochic Son of Man, suggesting, at the very least, a close association between the two, if not some sort of identification. Glorified and worshipped The fourth and fifth characteristics of the Enochic Son of Man are closely related. Following the naming of “that Son of Man” in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, “all who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship before him, and they will glorify and bless and sing hymns to the name of the Lord of Spirits” (48:5).35 The figure’s relationship with glory is additionally highlighted by the enthronement of the Son of Man on the “throne of glory” (61:8; 62:5), which is elsewhere referred to as the “throne of his glory” (62:2, 3; 69:27, 29). Closely related to the glorification of the Enochic Son of Man is the depiction of the Son of Man as worthy of worship.36 In a passage similar to the one cited above, we see that once the kings of the earth recognize “that Son of Man” for who he is, they fall on their faces before him, and “they will worship and set their hope on that son of man, and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him” (62:9). Human The possibility exists that the human figure Enoch is understood to be “that Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch. If so, the Son of Man is also characterized as being a human being. Viewing Enoch as “that Son of Man” depends on how 1En 70:1 and 71:14 are understood. 1En 70:1 states: “[Enoch’s] name was raised into the presence of that son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits from among those who dwell on the earth.” In 71:14, Enoch is greeted by Michael the archangel and told: “You are that son of man who was born for 33.  Gieschen, “Name of the Son of Man,” p. 242. 34.  See D. Hannah, “The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch,” ZNW 94 (2003), 68–96. 35.  The name of the Lord of Spirits most likely refers to the name with which “that Son of Man” has been named (48:3). See Gieschen, “Name of the Son of Man,” pp. 240, 242. 36.  Walck, “Son of Man,” pp. 304–05.

­302

Parables of Enoch

righteousness and righteousness dwells on you.” Thus, 70:1 seems to indicate that Enoch and “that Son of Man” are separate figures, while 71:14 apparently portrays Michael identifying Enoch as “that Son of Man.” There are essentially three ways of addressing the relationship between 70:1 and 71:14:37 1) Chapters 70–71 were not original to the Parables of Enoch and thus there is no connection between Enoch and “that Son of Man.”38 2) Enoch is only declared to be a human being or “a son of man” by Michael in 71:14 (cf. Ezek 2:1; Dan 8:17).39 3) In 70:1 Enoch is called “that Son of Man” and not raised to “that Son of Man,” indicating that Enoch may be identified with “that Son of Man” throughout the Parables of Enoch.40 Because of recent Ethiopic manuscript discoveries, the third option may be the more plausible option of the above three.41 However, the identification of Enoch with “that Son of Man” was most likely not how the Son of Man was interpreted once the Parables of Enoch was transmitted by Christian copyists, but in the early Jewish stages of transmission, there is a greater likelihood that this understanding was possible. If chapters 70 and 71 were part of the Parables of Enoch at some point prior to the text’s transmission by Christians, it may be plausibly argued that there was a time when “that Son of Man” was understood to be a human figure, namely Enoch.42 Summary The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch is a figure rooted in the Old Testament images of Daniel 7 and the Servant Songs of Isaiah, as well as messianic passages from Isaiah and Psalm 110. “That Son of Man” is the Messiah or Anointed One, is pre-existent in heaven, shares similarities with YHWH, is glorified and is worthy of worship, and was at some point most likely identified with the human figure Enoch. The Enochic Son of Man functions as Judge, revealer of hidden things, and ostensibly as savior of the righteous.43 Now that we have had a brief overview of the Enochic Son of Man, it is time to turn our attention to “the Son of Man” in John. Are there similarities between the two figures? Can the Johannine Son of Man be called “apocalyptic”? What relationship might exist between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John? 37.  Also, see L. T. Stuckenbruck’s chapter in this book. 38.  M. A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995), 165–84. 39.  Collins, “Son of Man,” pp. 456–57. 40.  VanderKam, “Righteous One,” pp. 182–84. 41.  D. C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP 18 (1998), 27–38. 42.  See Kvanvig, “Son of Man,” pp. 197–210. 43.  The last point implies that “that Son of Man” is also a righteous figure and the leader of the righteous. Walck (“Son of Man,” pp. 309, 311), provides two sets of tabulated characteristics that are both broader and more specific.

The Enochic Son of Man

­303

The Johannine Son of Man The Johannine Son of Man is most well-known for the themes of ascending and descending (1:51; 3:13; 6:62), lifting up (3:14; 8:28: 12:34), and glorification (12:23; 13:31-32). This language connected with “the Son of Man” in John is different from what is found in the Synoptic Son of Man sayings, and so these themes stand out as distinctive Johannine features. At the same time, it is possible to discern some similarities with the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. For example, R. H. Charles saw a connection between Jn 5:27 and 1 Enoch 69:27.44 Despite claims that John’s Gospel lacks an apocalyptic sense,45 we will see in the following section that like the Enochic Son of Man, the Johannine Son of Man can be described as apocalyptic. What that may mean for possible relationships between the Parables of Enoch and John’s Gospel is a separate question that will be addressed in the final section of this paper. Functions of the Johannine Son of Man Salvation Whereas the Enochic Son of Man has an implicit salvific role with the righteous in the Parables of Enoch (62:13-14; 48:7), the Son of Man in the Gospel of John is more clearly involved in salvation. Jesus says in Jn 6:27, “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” It is the Son of Man who provides this food that brings eternal life, and further in chapter 6, we find that the food that the Son of Man will give is himself (6:35). Jesus even says that no one can have life unless they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man (6:53). These passages draw attention to the dependence of salvation or eternal life on the Johannine Son of Man. Again, we see the Son of Man’s role in salvation in 3:14-15. Jesus states that it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness.46 The Son of Man’s lifting up will occur so that everyone who believes might have eternal life in the Son of Man.47 Further, it can be argued that it is the Son of Man who will raise those in the grave to a resurrection of life or a resurrection of judgment in

44.  Charles, Enoch, pp. 140–41. 45.  Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990), p. 92; Burkett, Debate, pp. 68–81. 46.  Jn 3:14 is the exegetical focus of Charlesworth’s The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010). 47.  ἐν αὐτῶ (also 20:31) and not εἰς αὐτόν (as in 3:16, 36; etc.). See J. Blank, Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964), p. 85; R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (2 vols.; AB 29, 29A 2; New York: Doubleday, 1966–70), p. 133.

­304

Parables of Enoch

5:27-29.48 Thus, both the Johannine Son of Man and the Enochic Son of Man take part in salvation, even if the Johannine figure is more explicitly involved in salvation. Judgment The Son of Man in John is depicted as the Judge both at the future, end-time judgment and in the present. In Jn 5:27, Jesus the Son has the authority to execute judgment because he is “the Son of Man.”49 His future eschatological judgment can be seen in Jn 5:28-29 where the dead will come out of the grave either to a resurrection of eternal life or to a resurrection of judgment after they have heard the voice of the Son of Man (cf. 6:40).50 The Johannine Son of Man’s role in present judgment is noticeable in Jesus’ statement as Son of Man: “For judgment I have come into this world” (9:39). Some scholars have argued that Jesus does not judge in John because of his statements in 3:17 and 8:15: “for God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world but to save it” and “I judge no one.”51 However, in 3:18, Jesus says that everyone not believing has already been judged. Jesus the Son of Man may have come for salvation, but his coming forces a decision of belief or unbelief. Judgment, which he has the authority to execute because he is the Son of Man, results from his coming, just as light coming into the world reveals darkness (3:17-21; cf. 1:3-5; 15:22).52 It is already worth noting that the Enochic figure has almost the opposite focus in the Parables of Enoch: salvation results for the righteous at the completion of the Enochic Son of Man’s judgment of the wicked. Revelation of heavenly things Jesus in the Gospel of John is known as the revealer, the one who brings revelation from God (1:18; 14:6-8). As the Son of Man, he reveals heavenly things, and he grounds his ability and authority to reveal heavenly things in his origin from heaven (3:12-13). Just as the Enochic Son of Man is given the secrets of wisdom by the Lord of Spirits, so Jesus as the Son of Man receives information from the Father. Jesus says, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I Am and that I do nothing on my own, but just as the Father teaches me, these things I speak” (8:28; cf. 5:19-23).

48.  J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie. Bände 1–3 (WUNT 1.96, 110, 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1998, 2000), vol. 3, pp. 382, 386. 49.  There is debate concerning whether or not the anarthrous phrase υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου refers to “the Son of Man.” The context of John’s Gospel infers that it is Jesus as the Son of Man who has the authority to judge and not Jesus as a human being. For a more complete discussion, see Reynolds, Apocalyptic Son of Man, pp. 132–37. Contra Burkett, Son of the Man, pp. 41–45. 50.  Blank, Krisis, p. 178. 51.  Ellens (“What is the Son of Man in John,” p. 99) states that “the Son of Man is the judge who refuses to judge or prosecute because he does not need to do so.” 52.  Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, p. 85.

The Enochic Son of Man

­305

Characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man The above three functions of salvation, judgment, and revelation are three functions shared by the Enochic Son of Man and the Johannine Son of Man. The following section highlights similar characteristics shared by the two figures. Messianic Both the Enochic Son of Man and the Son of Man in John are called the Messiah. In the context of the Son of Man saying in 1:51, the disciples Andrew and Philip separately speak of Jesus as the Messiah. Andrew uses the word Μεσσίας (1:41), and Philip refers to the “one whom Moses and the prophets wrote” (1:45). Nathanael also makes messianic claims for Jesus, calling him “the king of Israel” (1:49). The reference to the fig tree in 1:48 may also have messianic implications via Zech 3:10.53 J. Harold Ellens does not see the messianic connection in 1:51. He says that we should “let the logion say only as much as it actually says.”54 At the same time, we cannot neglect the fact that Jn 1:35-51 is full of messianic expectation and that the logion is the final statement of this section. Not only is Jesus the Son of Man, he is also Messiah. The connection between “the Son of Man” and “Messiah” is also noticeable in 12:34 where the crowd does not appear to distinguish between the two titles. The majority of scholars see some sort of synonymy between the two designations. This view is illustrated by R. Leivestad’s statement: “It is clearly presupposed that a “Son of man” different from the Messiah is quite unheard of.”55 Heavenly and pre-existent Not only is the Johannine Son of Man the Messiah, he is also a heavenly figure and a pre-existent figure. The pre-existent nature of the Johannine Jesus is more than obvious, especially in such verses as 1:1, 14, and 18. However, Jesus’ pre-existence can also be observed in those passages that speak of the Son of Man’s ascent and / or descent. In 3:13, Jesus says: “No one ascends to heaven except the one who descends from heaven, the Son of Man.” Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Son of Man ascended to heaven, it cannot be denied that the Son of Man is the one who has descended from heaven. Francis Moloney has stated that we should not make too much of the “movement” of the Son of Man,56 but in my opinion, descent from heaven 53.  C. Koester, “Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael (John 1:44-51),” JSNT 39 (1990), 23–34. 54.  Ellens, “What is the Son of Man in John,” p. 53. 55.  R. Leivestad, “Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 18 (1972), 243–67; see p. 251. Cf. Burkett, Son of the Man, p. 168; R. Bauckham, “Messianism According to the Gospel of John,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. J. Lierman (WUNT 2.219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), pp. 34–68. 56.  F. J. Moloney, “Editor’s Note,” in R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2006), p. 257, n. 87.

­306

Parables of Enoch

demands previous existence in heaven. In the case of the Son of Man in Jn 3:13, the Son of Man’s descent from heaven implies his heavenly and preexistent nature. In Jesus’ statement in 6:62, the Son of Man will one day be seen ascending to where he was before. Considering that he descended from heaven (3:13), the phrase “where he was before” must refer to the Son of Man’s prior existence in heaven. The hypothetical aspect of this statement is not the Son of Man’s ascent, but rather whether the unbelieving disciples will see this ascent.57 Further hints of the Son of Man’s heavenly pre-existence can be seen in the descriptions of Jesus’ going away as a return to the Father (13:31-33; cf. 14:2-3). Similar to God Like the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch, the Johannine Son of Man shares similarities with God. First, both God and the Son of Man are described with the adjective “living” in the context of Jesus’ Son of Man statement in 6:53, in which he states: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves.” In 6:51, Jesus the Son of Man refers to himself as “the living bread” (ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν), and only a few verses later, he calls God “the living Father” (ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ; 6:57). Along with being described as “living,” God and the Son of Man are both said to be glorified. “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him immediately” (13:31-32). From this statement it can be clearly seen that the respective glorifications of the Son of Man and God are intertwined.58 Third, in 8:24, 28, the similarities between the Son of Man and God touch on shared identity. Here, Jesus tells the Jewish leaders, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am …” The use of “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) is most likely the absolute use of the phrase and thus a reference to the divine name (see LXX Ex 3:14; Isa 43:10).59 The use of the expression in Jn 8:28 implies that God and Jesus the Son of Man share the same name. Finally, the Son of Man shares the functions of judging and giving life with God. In the context of the expression “the Son of Man” in 5:27, we see that Jesus judges and gives life. Although these are typical actions of God (5:2122), God the Father has given Jesus the authority to do these actions (5:24-27; cf. 9:39). 57.  Painter, “Enigmatic,” p. 1883. Contra Moloney, “The Johannine Son of Man Revisited,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar, ed. G. Van Belle, et al. (BETL 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 177–202; see esp. p. 195. 58.  H. Dieckmann, “Der Sohn des Menschen im Johannesevangelium,” Scholastik 2 (1927), 229–47; see esp. p. 241. 59.  C. H. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 2.113; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 266–75. See also Jn 4:26; 8:58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.

The Enochic Son of Man

­307

Glorified As mentioned above, the Johannine Son of Man is glorified. The Son of Man’s glorification is first mentioned in 12:23 when Jesus says, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” But it is not until Judas’ departure into the night in 13:30 that Jesus says, “Now is the Son of Man glorified” (13:31). The verses following 12:23 speak of a kernel of wheat dying, the one hating his soul in this world keeping it to eternal life, and the importance of following Jesus if one is to serve him (12:24-26). These verses imply the connection between the Son of Man’s glorification and Jesus’ death on the cross. The relationship between the glorification of the Son of Man and Judas’ departure also points to this correlation between glorification and crucifixion (13:3031). The Johannine Son of Man’s glory therefore includes the degradation and shame of the cross. However, the crucifixion is not all that is meant by the Son of Man’s glorification; the resurrection appears to be part of his glorification as well. For instance, the disciples’ memories are triggered after he is raised (2:22) and after Jesus is glorified (12:16). This correlation of Jesus’ glorification and his resurrection implies the inclusion of the resurrection in the Son of Man’s glorification.60 Like the Enochic Son of Man, the Son of Man in John is glorified. In John, the difference is that this glory first includes the suffering and degradation of the cross before the Son of Man is glorified in heaven.61 Worshipped Another characteristic of the Johannine Son of Man that is shared with the figure in the Parables of Enoch is that both are considered worthy of worship. After the man born blind is thrown out of the synagogue because he claims that Jesus is from God (9:33-34), Jesus finds the man and asks him if he believes in the Son of Man (9:35). Once the man realizes that Jesus is the Son of Man, the man says “I believe” and falls down and worships Jesus (9:38). The Greek word translated as “worship” (προσκυνέω) is used nine times in Jn 4:24-28 to refer to proper worship of God (cf. 12:20). Based on the usage of the word in John, this is not simply an act of respect, but implies that this is worship that would normally be given to God. Human figure Finally, although it is almost too obvious to mention, the Son of Man in John’s Gospel is a human being, Jesus, the son of Joseph (1:14; 6:42). The Son of Man has flesh and blood (6:53), and Jesus is commonly called a “human” (ἄνθρωπος) by his opponents (9:16, 24; cf. 6:42).

60.  Blank, Krisis, p. 267; P. Ensor, “The Glorification of the Son of Man: An Analysis of John 13:31-32,” TynBul 58.2 (2007), 229–52. 61.  Jesus’ going away to the Father may further suggest the inclusion of his return to the Father as part of his glorification (13:32-33; 17:1-5).

­308

Parables of Enoch

Summary The Johannine Son of Man is portrayed as a figure who ascends and descends, is lifted up, glorified, believed in, gives life, and judges. The Son of Man functions as the giver of salvation, Judge, and revealer of heavenly things. As noted above, the figure is characterized as the Messiah, as heavenly and preexistent, as similar to God, as glorified and worshipped, and as a human being.

The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in the Gospel of John Similarities between the Enochic and Johannine figures From the above discussion, it should be apparent that the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Johannine Son of Man have a number of similar functions and characteristics. Although emphases between the two texts are different, both figures take part in judgment, salvation, and the revelation of hidden things, and both are depicted as the Messiah, as being heavenly and pre-existent, as sharing similarities with God, as glorified, as worthy of worship, and as a human figure. The above similarities do not represent the only functions and characteristics of these figures, but merely speak to those where overlap is apparent. Some further similarities worth mentioning are the two figures’ connection to a double resurrection of the wicked and the righteous (Jn 5:28-29; 1En 51:15), and the recognition or acknowledgement of the Son of Man (Jn 8:28; 1En 62:3-5). The Johannine Son of Man shares the divine name “I Am” with God (8:28, 58), and it appears that the Enochic figure may as also share God’s name (48:5; 69:26; cf. 48:7). Differences between the Enochic and Johannine figures While the Johannine Son of Man and the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch share similarities, there are important differences in the way they function and in the details of their characteristics. The Enochic Son of Man is clearly portrayed as the Judge of the wicked and is loosely related to the salvation of the righteous (62:9-14). The Johannine Son of Man is more closely connected to the salvation of the righteous because he is the one who gives the food that provides eternal life (6:27). However, the Johannine figure is not as unashamedly portrayed as Judge. Instead, his judgment is the result of his bringing of salvation. He came to save, but judgment results as the negative response to that salvation (3:17-21; 15:22-24; cf. 5:27; 9:39). Further, although eating and / or feasting are connected to the depictions of both figures (Jn 6:27; 1En 62:14), the Johannine Son of Man is said to be the food which the righteous eat (6:53; 6:27 with 6:33, 35).62 62.  22:22).

This is not necessarily Johannine; it is Christian (Mk 14:21-25; Mt 26:24-29; cf. Lk

The Enochic Son of Man

­309

Both the Johannine and Enochic figures appear to be pre-existent in heaven, but the Enochic Son of Man never seems to leave heaven. The Johannine Son of Man, in contrast, descends from heaven to earth and will ascend to where he was before (3:13; 6:62). And while both figures are glorified, the glorification that they receive is different. The Enochic Son of Man receives glory following his being seated on the Lord of Spirits’ throne, the “throne of glory” (62:2-6). The Johannine Son of Man’s glory is not said to include a glorious enthronement (cf. 12:41),63 but rather it encompasses Jesus’ death on the cross, as well as his resurrection and return to his Father in heaven. The suffering of the Son of Man is an extremely important aspect of Jesus as “the Son of Man” in the Synoptic Gospels, especially Luke. John also maintains that the Son of Man experiences suffering, although it is expressed with the language of “lifting up” and “glorification” (cf. Isa 52:13). Any hint of suffering is lacking in the portrait of “that Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch.64 Further differences can be detected in the way in which each figure embodies the Messiah. The Enochic figure is the Messiah who will appear at the end of time to judge while being seated on “his throne of glory.” The Johannine Son of Man is the Messiah who brings salvation and judgment in the present, and in contrast with the crowd’s expectation, he does not “remain forever” (12:34). The relationship of each figure to the end-time judgment highlights important differences. The Enochic Son of Man is revealed at the final endtime judgment (62:1-8; 69:27-29). Following the judgment, the wicked are punished (62:9-12; 63:11-12), and the righteous dwell with the Son of Man forever (62:14). The Johannine Son of Man is on earth judging in the present by bringing salvation into the world. Those who do not believe are already judged (3:18), and those who do believe have already crossed over into life (5:24). There will be a future consummation of judgment and salvation (5:2829; cf. 6:39, 40, 44), but the actuality of judgment is being carried out by the Son of Man in the present (3:19-21; 9:39; cf. 15:22). And at the risk of again seeming too obvious, the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John name two different human beings as the Son of Man.65 The apocalyptic background of the Johannine Son of Man The similarities between the figures are best described as general concepts or patterns, while the differences occur at a detailed level within these concepts.66 The differences between the Johannine Son of Man and the Enochic figure seem to be examples of varied interpretations within a general understanding of 63.  However, see W. Thüsing, Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium ( NTAbh 21; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1979 [3rd edn.]), pp. 3–37. 64.  Walck, “Son of Man,” p. 335. 65.  The naming of son of man figures is not entirely common in interpretations of Daniel 7 (see 4Ezra 13; 2Bar 29-30; cf. TAb A 13). 66.  Cf. Walck, “Son of Man,” p. 336.

­310

Parables of Enoch

who the Danielic “one like a son of man” is and what that figure does. Fluidity in interpretation of the detailed functions and characteristics can be further seen in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Synoptic Gospels, and Revelation. This is not to perpetuate the idea of a “Son of Man Concept” that was assumed particularly in older German scholarship.67 Instead, the number of commonalities suggests that there appears to be at least a general understanding of the Danielic son of man in Second Temple Judaism, even though the details of these interpretations vary.68 That these two figures share similar functions and characteristics, although there are slight differences between them, indicates that the Johannine Son of Man can be described as an “apocalyptic” figure. The Enochic figure is obviously apocalyptic since the figure is an interpretation of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 and appears in an apocalypse. The Gospel of John is not necessarily an apocalypse,69 but the significant overlap of functions and characteristics between the two figures (both of which derive from the Danielic figure)70 suggests the high plausibility of describing the Johannine figure as “apocalyptic.”71 Further evidence for this conclusion can be seen in the apocalyptic introduction of the Johannine Son of Man following the opening of heaven in 1:51 (cf. Ezek 1:1; Rev 4:1-2; 19:11; TLevi 2:6).72

Is John a Response to the Parables of Enoch? If these parallels exist between the two figures in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John, what does this mean for the relationship between the two texts? Is the Gospel of John’s portrayal of the Son of Man a response to the Parables of Enoch or is there a parallel understanding of the Danielic figure? Developing a perspective introduced by Charlesworth, Ellens has recently argued that the Gospel of John is a direct response to the Parables of Enoch. He contends that the author of John was aware of the Parables of Enoch, but reacted negatively to the portrayal of the Enochic Son of Man. Ellens 67.  Bultmann, New Testament Theology, vol. 1, pp. 28, 31; H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. D. M. Barton (London: SCM Press, 1965), pp. 22–31. 68.  J. J. Collins, “Son of Man,” pp. 448–66; T. B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41 (1995), 183–98. Contra Burkett, Debate, pp. 113–14; Casey, Solution, pp. 82–115. 69.  J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: OUP, 2007 [2nd edn.]), p. 328– 29, refers to John as an “apocalypse – in reverse, upside down, inside out.” See also C. Rowland and C. R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament (CRINT 12; Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 123–36. 70.  Jn 5:27-29 shares three characteristics with Dan 7–12: 1) verbal semblance between Jn 5:27 and Dan 7:13-14; 2) shared judgment theme (Jn 5; Dan 7); and 3) double resurrection of the righteous and the wicked (Jn 5:28-29; Dan 12:2). 71.  This can be further substantiated by an examination of the figures in 2Bar and 4Ezra. See Reynolds, Apocalyptic Son of Man, pp. 49–61. 72.  Reynolds, Apocalyptic Son of Man, pp. 92–95

The Enochic Son of Man

­311

concludes: “John’s gospel is a broadside attack against any possibility that the Son of Man as represented in 1 Enoch 37–71 could ever be the true Son of Man.”73 There are some noticeable parallels between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John that may suggest some sort of literary dependence. First, there is a possible verbal parallel between Jn 5:27 and 1 Enoch 69:27. This is the closest evidence of any verbal parallel between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John (italics mine): 1En 69:27: And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole judgment was given to the son of man, and he will make sinners vanish and perish from the face of the earth. Jn 5:27: And he gave him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man.

Although there is some overlap in the language of “giving,” “judgment,” and “Son of Man,” there are discernible differences in the Parables of Enoch’s reference to the “whole judgment” and in John’s to the “authority to execute judgment.” Rather than positing some sort of dependence, these differences and similarities may be more easily explained as a common derivation from Dan 7:13-14. In Daniel 7, the Ancient of Days gives the “one like a son of man” authority. The concept of judgment is most likely an implication from the larger context of Daniel 7 (vv. 10-12, 22, 26), and the Parables of Enoch’s use of “whole” may possibly be understood as originating from the word “all” in the Danielic phrase “all peoples, nations, languages should serve him” (7:14).74 However, “whole” could just be an Enochic addition or interpretation. Thus, while there is possible verbal semblance present between Jn 5:27 and 1En 69:27, literary dependence does not provide the best explanation for the similarities between the texts. A second potential piece of evidence for the Johannine Son of Man being a response to the Enochic figure is Jesus’ statement in Jn 3:13: “No one has ascended to heaven, except the Son of Man the one who descended.”75 On the one hand, this declaration is commonly recognized as a polemic against

73.  Ellens, “What is the Son of Man in John,” pp. 221–33, 248–51; see p. 250. Ellens is developing a concept suggested by Charlesworth in “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology and Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu, Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný, ed. J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec (London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 223–39. 74.  OG Dan 7:14 reads: καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῶ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῶ λατρεύουσα (A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart, Septuaginta [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006 (2nd edn.)]). 75.  This verse is the one that prompted Charlesworth’s “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” He argued that the Fourth Evangelist may have composed a polemic against the claim that Enoch ascended into heaven and that he is the Son of Man.

­312

Parables of Enoch

heavenly ascent.76 Jesus’ claim that no one has ascended to heaven could be understood as a specific response to Enoch’s ascent(s) in the Parables of Enoch (1En 39:3; 70:1).77 On the other hand, there are numerous examples throughout the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature of figures who ascended to heaven (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Levi, etc.).78 These multiple ascent traditions make it difficult to claim that Jesus’ polemic against ascent to heaven in Jn 3:13 applies only to Enoch. In contrast, 3:13 would seem to have a more wide-ranging application.79 In addition, Jesus makes another polemical statement similar to that in 3:13 when he says that no one has ever seen God (1:17-18; 6:46).80 This proclamation could be argued to be a claim against Moses (Ex 33:18-23), Elijah (1Kgs 19:9-13), and even Isaiah (Isa 6:1; cf. Jn 12:41). Considering that Jesus makes more than one polemical statement (3:13; 6:46) and that the Gospel of John actually names Moses (1:17; 3:14; 5:45-46; 6:32; 9:28)81 and Abraham (8:33-58) in contexts that draw attention to Jesus’ superiority, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus’ declaration in 3:13 is directed specifically against Enoch. However, it may be plausible to include Enoch in the polemic against ascent to heaven, but even this does not require that the author of John’s Gospel had a knowledge of the Parables of Enoch (Gen 5:24; 1En 14:8).82 Regarding a possible literary dependence between the Gospel of John and the Parables of Enoch, I think we can only confidently say that the Johannine Son of Man and the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch are analogous presentations of the Danielic son of man. There does not appear to be enough evidence to suggest a literary dependence.83 We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that John is a response to the Parables of Enoch, but it seems more plausible that we are dealing with a parallel process of interpretation.

76.  Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, pp. 54–55; Ashton, Understanding, p. 253. 77.  Ellens (“What is the Son of Man in John,” p. 222) states: “It [3:13] throws down the gauntlet between Enochic Judaism, on the one hand, and the Jesus Movement, on the other. The author is intending to stake out a bold position for the Jesus Movement as the authentic Judaism.” 78.  Abraham (TAb A 10–15); Moses (Ex 19:3, 20; 24:9; Philo, Moses 1.158); Elijah (2Kgs 2; 1Mac 2:58; Sir 48:9); Isaiah (MartIs 7–11); Levi (TLevi 2–5). On Moses, see W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 122–25. Meeks sees the polemic in 3:13 as a response to the Moses ascent traditions (pp. 297–301). 79.  [One could add to the discussion that in early Jewish texts, only Enoch is claimed to be the Son of Man. In Jn 3:13, the Fourth Evangelist adds “Son of Man.” JHC.] 80.  Moloney, Johannine Son of Man, p. 57. 81.  See T. Thatcher, “Remembering Jesus: John’s Negative Christology,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 165–89; see esp. pp. 177–83. Thatcher points to John’s “More than Moses” Christology. 82.  See Charlesworth, “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?” in Testimony and Interpretation, pp. 223–39. 83.  Walck, “Son of Man,” p. 336.

The Enochic Son of Man

­313

Conclusion In his book The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John, D. Burkett states that “the chief support for the existence of a pre-Christian ‘Son of Man’, the Similitudes of 1 Enoch, can no longer be considered pre-Christian.”84 His contention is primarily dependent upon J. T. Milik’s late dating of the Parables of Enoch. Some of Burkett’s other reasons include the lack of the Parables of Enoch at Qumran and the lack of citations of the Parables of Enoch in early Jewish and Christian writings. For these reasons, Burkett concludes that the Son of Man in John’s Gospel is not an apocalyptic Son of Man. 85 However, as the work of recent scholarship has shown, the Parables of Enoch are most likely Jewish, pre-Christian, and date from the end of the first-century bce to the beginning of the first-century ce.86 As such, the appeal to Milik and the lack of material at Qumran can no longer defend the view that the Johannine Son of Man is not an apocalyptic figure. In fact, the preChristian origin of the Parables of Enoch and the common reference to the Danielic son of man requires a comparison between the Enochic Son of Man and the Son of Man in each of the Gospels. This chapter has highlighted the resemblance of the son of man figures in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of John. Both figures function in judgment, salvation, and in the revelation of heavenly things. Further, both figures are described as messianic, heavenly and pre-existent, similar to God, glorified, worshipped, and human. There are obvious distinctions in the portrayals of the two figures, such as in the figures’ roles in judgment and salvation, the timing of that judgment and salvation, and in the naming of the Son of Man as either Enoch or Jesus, but the general categories of similarity between the Enochic Son of Man and the Johannine Son of Man still exist. These similarities do not indicate literary dependence between the Parables of Enoch and John’s Gospel in either direction. Instead, both interpretations reflect a broad understanding of the “one like a son of man” in the first century ce. With the current consensus on the earlier dating of the Parables of Enoch and the similarities that the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch shares with the Johannine Son of Man, the evidence concerning the background of the Johannine Son of Man indicates an apocalyptic background. In other words, the Son of Man in John can be understood to fit within the trajectory of interpretation of Daniel 7 in Jewish apocalyptic literature and early Christian literature (1En, 4Ezra, 2Bar, the Synoptic Gospels, and Rev). Thus, the Johannine Son of Man can be called an “apocalyptic” Son of Man. The implications of this conclusion for the Gospel of John are that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly and pre-existent figure who is the Messiah 84.  Burkett, Son of the Man, p. 39. 85.  Ibid., p. 45. 86.  See P. Sacchi, “The 2005 Camaldoli Seminar on the Parables of Enoch: Summary and Prospects for Future Research,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 499–512. Also, see Bock’s and Charlesworth’s chapters in the present book.

­314

Parables of Enoch

and has come to earth to bring salvation to believers and judgment to those who do not believe. Through his crucifixion, resurrection, and return to the Father, he will be lifted up, glorified, and worshipped.

­

Chapter 13 The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man in the Early Enoch Tradition Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Introduction To many scholars the announcement to Enoch near the conclusion of the Parables of Enoch (1En 37–71) that “You are the Son of Man” (’anta we’etu walda be’si; 1En 71:14) comes as a surprise.1 For this reason, it is thought that this climactic episode is in special need of an explanation. Indeed, some accounting for Enoch’s emerging identity is needed whether one thinks this text should be emended,2 whether one regards the final chapter (or the final two chapters) of the Parables of Enoch as an addition by another hand or source to the original work,3 or whether one attempts to read it as integral to 1.  Other possible translations of the phrase have been proposed: “You are a son of man …” or, along the same lines, “You are a man …” These translations, which simply treat Enoch as a human being in the so-called “Ezekielian” sense, would seem to pick up the manner in which the interpreting angel addresses Enoch in 1En 60:10 (“he said to me, ‘son of humanity’ [walda sab’]…”). For support of this translation as one adopted in the Ethiopian church tradition, which putatively would have functioned to keep Enoch separate from Christological claims based on “the Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch, see D. C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables”, JSP 18 (1998), 27–38 (see esp. pp. 33–36). A usage parallel to that of 60:10 is problematic since the reference to walda be’si in 71:14 alongside the “Head of Days” is, through the shared allusion to Dan 7:9-14, reminiscent of the Parables at 1En 46:2-4 and 48:2, so that not too much should be argued on the basis of the difference in terminology. See M. A. Knibb, “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1: Some Methodological Issues,” in his Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions (SVTP, 22; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009), pp. 161–75 (see esp. pp. 173–74). 2.  So the well-known suggestion by R. H. Charles in The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), p. 145; “Book of Enoch”, in Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), vol. 1, p. 237. 3.  Cf., e.g., J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998 [2nd edn.]), pp. 177–93 (esp. p.188); “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables, ed. G. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 216–27 (see esp. pp. 221–27). S. Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 5.6; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984), p. 575, regards the Parables of Enoch as a document that grew in several stages, respectively: the second century bce (Maccabean period), the second half of the first century bce (soon after the Parthian and Medes’ invasion of Palestine), and the first century ce (during which chs. 70–71 were added). Most recently, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, in 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN:

­316

Parables of Enoch

an author’s presentation of the Parables of Enoch as a whole.4 There seems, at first blush, to be little within the narrative that leads readers to expect such an outcome. Could anyone have already thought before arriving at 1 Enoch 71:14 that Enoch has ultimately been looking at himself in the heavens or that he is being made to look at a heavenly “double” with whom he is going to “mysteriously merge”? If so, then clues within the Parables and even within 1 Enoch as a whole for such anticipation have largely escaped interpreters of the Ethiopic text during the last 200 years.5 As a title, “the / that Son of Man” does not occur in 1 Enoch outside the Parables of Enoch. It could be argued, therefore, that beyond looking at the Parables, we should not expect to find anything of relevance within the other early Enoch books (1En 1–36 and 72–108) that might explain both its occurrence and its association with the figure of Enoch himself. Thus there are many who regard the identification of Enoch and the Son of Man figure as intrinsically problematic. Attempts have been made either (a) to soften these words by downgrading the designation “Son of Man” from having a titular force in 1 Enoch 70–71 or by emending the text,6 (b) to suggest that the presentation of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch reflects the influence of received biblical tradition (with differing emphasis, Pss 45,7 110,8 Isa 52:13–53:12,9 and

Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 18–19 and pp. 315–32, distinguishes between chs. 70 and 71, regarding the former as the original conclusion to the Parables and the latter as an addition which, with its identification of Enoch with the Son of Man, would not have been anticipated by “the ‘author(s)’ and transmitters of the Parables.” Correspondingly, in ch. 70 Enoch and the Son of Man are to be treated as separate figures (see further the discussion of 70:1-2 below); in ch. 71 they are identified as one and the same. 4.  J. C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Elect One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37– 71,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 169–91 (esp. pp. 177–85); H. S. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (bibl. in n. 2), pp. 179–215 (see esp. pp. 197–210). 5.  As is well known, the text of the Book of Parables is not preserved among any materials dateable to the Second Temple period (e.g., among the Dead Sea documents). Instead, the work itself is only extant in Classical Ge‘ez, manuscripts of which were not introduced to the West until James Bruce brought three to England in 1773, while the first English translation, prepared by Richard Laurence, did not appear until 1821 under the title The Book of Enoch, the prophet: an apocryphal production, supposed for ages to have been lost, but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia, now first translated from an Ethiopic ms. in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: J. Collingwood for J. H. Parker), with subsequent reprintings in 1833, 1838, 1842, and 1883. 6.  As famously done by Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, p. 145 (italics mine), who emends “you [i.e., Enoch] are the Son of Man” to “he is the Son of Man.” 7.  As recently argued by P. Bertoletto, “The Enochic Son of Man, Psalm 45, and the Book of the Watchers,” JSP 19 (2010), 195–216. 8.  So J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richer: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschen sohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 92–105. 9.  See the discussion in Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 258–71 (“Excursus: Chapters 62–63 as a Traditional Interpretation of Isaiah 52:13–53:13”).

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­317

Dan 7)10 or, without offering an explanation per se, (c) to have the text reflect a tradition that anticipates developments in the exaltation of the figure of “Enoch” preserved in literature such as 2 (or Slavonic) Enoch 22 (in which Enoch is transformed into an angel)11 or 3 Enoch 3–15 (so 4:2, in which Metatron, the angelic “Prince of the Divine Presence,” identifies himself as Enoch; cf. also bḤag. 15a and Targum of Pseudo Jonathan Gen. 5:24: “He [Enoch] ascended to heaven, and God called him by the name Metatron, the great scribe”).12 Before considering traditions from 1 Enoch outside the Parables of Enoch, we may briefly elaborate on these three possibilities. (a) What might be called a “soft-touch” explanation has usually involved a downgrading of the expression “son of man” in 71:14 (in which the Eth. text reads walda be’si). In this view, the designation need mean no more than “human being” or even “mortal” as, for example, in Ezekiel (where it occurs 80 times as a designation for the prophet).13 Along these lines, one might note a similar usage in 1 Enoch 60:10 in which an angel answers Enoch’s query about the monsters Leviathan and Behemoth by saying, “Son of man (walda sab’), you here wish to know what is secret.” The appropriateness of this designation within the Parables of Enoch cannot, however, be taken for granted. Although the passage that follows does have angels disclosing secret things to Enoch about the cosmos, the query remains unanswered until 60:24 (perhaps due to a secondary insertion of further material). In addition, there is a question of whether 60:10 belongs to a Noah-related interpolation, so that its status in relation to the suspected ending of the Parables of Enoch in chapter 71 is unclear.14 The text at once suggests that Enoch is only human (60:10), while the response by the angel to his question (60:24) leaves clear that he is not simply a human being. Here, then, Enoch as a “son of man” is in itself nothing extraordinary. 10.  For example, H. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Son of Man, pp. 179–215. 11.  Cf. 2En 22:8-10 [Recension J] – (8) “And the Lord said to Michael, ‘Go, and extract Enoch from [his] earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into the clothes of my glory.’ ... (10) And I looked at myself, and I had become like one of his glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.” Recension A similarly reads, (8) “The Lord said to Michael, ‘Take Enoch, and extract [him] from the earthly clothing. And anoint him with the delightful oil, and put [him] into the clothes of glory.’ ... (10) And I gazed at all of myself, and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.” Text cited from the English translation of H. Andersen, “2 Enoch,” OTP 1.102-221 (see esp. pp. 136–39). 12.  A. A. Orlov, “Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antediluvian Hero in the Book of the Similitudes: A Departure from the Traditional Pattern?” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 110–36, and idem, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (TSAJ, 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 13.  Ezek 2:1-2, 6, 8; 3:1, 3-4, 10, 17, 25; 4:1, 16; 5:1; 6:2; 7:2; 8:5-6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 11:2, 4, 15; 12:2-3, 9, 18, 22, 27; 13:2, 17; 14:13; 15:2; 16:2; 17:2; 19:10; 20:3-4, 27, 46; 21:2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 19, 28; 22:2, 18, 24; 23:2, 36; 24:2, 16, 25; 25:2; 26:2; 27:2; 28:2, 12, 21; 29:2, 18; 30:2, 21; 31;2, 5; 32:2, 18; 33:2, 7, 10, 12, 24, 30; 34:2; 35:2; 36:1, 17; 37:3, 9, 11, 16; 38:2, 14; 39:1, 17; 40:4; 43:7, 10, 18; 44:5; 47:6. 14.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 221–23. That is, if we have to do with a Noachic interpolation, to what degree is it already part of the Parables before ch. 71 was composed (whether or not the latter was originally integral to the book)?

­318

Parables of Enoch

The notion of Enoch as “son of man” in 60:10 (walda sab’, as, e.g., in 46:1-4, 48:2, and in contrast to walda be’si in 71:14) underlines his status as one from whom, under usual circumstances, the knowledge of such a secret should be barred. It would be hard, however, to imagine that precisely this emphasis is at work in relation to Enoch in chapter 71. In chapter 71 the announcement to Enoch that he is the “Son of Man” is followed up by several verses (namely, the rest of 71:14 and the final verses of the book in 71:15-17) that, echoing the language of 46:1-4, reinforce the significance of the Son of Man for God’s design and purpose for the cosmos, as well as for the place of the righteous within it. The unpreparedness of 71:14 might also be supported by a majority reading for 70:1 in which the text states, “Afterwards it happened that his immortal name was exalted before that Son of Man and the Lord of Spirits above all those who live on the earth” (in which we have a reference to Enoch’s exaltation while it is clear that he remains distinct from the Son of Man). However, there is the increasingly defensible reading for 70:1 which bears the text: “Afterwards it happened that the living name of the Son of Man (Eth. semu ḥeyāw la-we’etu walda egwela ’em-ḥeyaw ’em’ella yaḥādderu diba yabs) was exalted in the presence of the Lord of Spirits above all those who live on dry land” (so 2 Eth. II mss. and, significantly now, not only EMML 6974 and Eth. I mss. Abb 55, EMML 2080 [a correction], EMML 1768, EMML 2436, EMML 7584 – as reported by Daniel Olson15 – but also Eth. I mss. Remnant Trust, Gunde Gundi 151 and Parma 1296).16 To the extent that this reading of the Ethiopic can be preferred,17 from the beginning of chapter 70, readers of these texts will already be gaining the impression that Enoch is being identified with the heavenly “Son of Man” so prominent in the foregoing narrative. The final vision, in which “Son of Man” is only mentioned in 70:1, 14 and 17, may be said to introduce a new, more onedimensional use of the title, here in relation to Enoch himself. As such, this title does not focus on Enoch as a human being in the conventional sense, but as someone being singled out or set apart for a special purpose. (b) It is possible, indeed, that received biblical traditions have played a role in the coming together of the four main names ascribed to the exalted figure in the Parables of Enoch: “the Righteous One” (1En 53:6), “the Elect One” (40:5; 45:3, 4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1), “the Anointed One” (48:10; 52), and “the Son of Man” (46:2-4; 48:2; 62:5, 7, 15.  D. C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables” (bibl. in n. 1), supplemented in “‘Enoch and the Son of Man’ Revisited: Further Reflections on the Text and Translation of 1 Enoch 70:1-2,” JSP 18 (2009), 233–40. 16.  For a preliminary report on some of the new evidence emerging for the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch, see L. T. Stuckenbruck and T. M. Erho, “The Book of Enoch and the Ethiopian Manuscript Tradition: New Data,” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel, ed. A. M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L. H. Schiffman (JSJSup, 148; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 257–67. 17.  Knibb, in “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70.1: Some Methodological Issues” (bibl. in n. 1), though correct to draw attention to some difficulties, strains to unnecessary lengths to downplay this reading, which is now further strengthened by its occurrence in additional Eth. I manuscripts.

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­319

9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29; 70:1; 71:14, 17). As demonstrated by a number of scholars,18 the most obvious formative texts in the background are respectively Isa 53:11 (in which “righteous one” describes the Servant of the Lord), Ps 2:2 (which mentions rulers and kings of the earth conspiring “against the Lord and his anointed one”), Isa 41:8-9, 42:1, and 43:10 (again, in which the expression is applied to the Servant of the Lord), and Dan 7 (the “one like a son of man” in v. 13). However, though some scholars have argued that, given Enoch’s naming as the “Son of Man” in chapter 71, all these titles may be retrospectively applied to Enoch himself, we should note that it is only as the “Son of Man” that he himself is addressed. It is not, therefore, clear to me that these traditions alone account for Enoch’s status in chapter 71. (c) To say that what happens to Enoch already anticipates a motif that occurs in later Enochic and related literature may hold in general, but is of limited value in explaining chapter 71. The limitation of the later evidence is discernible in two ways. First, the status Enoch gains in 2 Enoch 22, on the one hand, and the so-called 3 Enoch, on the other, does not go quite as far as the announcement and claim that he is the Son of Man. By comparison, 1 Enoch 71 presents Enoch as an even more exalted being than does 2 Enoch 22, according to which he acquires a status comparable to that of other prominent angelic beings (2En 22:11-12). In 3 Enoch, there is little doubt that Enoch is exalted to as high a status as he enjoys in the Parables of Enoch, especially through his identification with Metatron, “the Prince of the Divine Presence.” This development, however, comes at a later stage in the trajectory of Enoch’s exalted status, and includes aspects that note the potential dangers that go with Metatron-Enoch having such prominence. Such worry is completely absent in 1 Enoch 71. In other words, this later tradition does not, for us, explain what is going on in 1 Enoch 71 in earlier Enochic terms. Finally, as suggested by James VanderKam, the notion of Enoch seeing “himself” (as “a heavenly double or counterpart”) in his visions of heaven might be explained by the occurrence of such a tradition attested for patriarchs such as Jacob in Bereshit Rabbah 68:12, Prayer of Joseph A 7–8, and Ladder of Jacob 2:7-19.19 What happens in 1 Enoch 71 may indeed reflect or relate to such a concept. However, one may still ask how much can this explain the specific reasons why Enoch is pronounced as the Son of Man to begin with? (d) In what follows, I would like to explore briefly a further possibility that has been given some attention, though to my mind insufficiently so. In the Parables of Enoch, for all the singularity of what happens in chapter 71 and possibly also in chapter 70, there is a considerable reworking of traditions 18.  On this, see generally Nickelsburg, in 1 Enoch 2, p. 58. 19.  For a discussion that links these texts together within an apocalyptic-mystical worldview, see A. A. Orlov, “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob”, in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, ed. C. A. Evans (Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 9; London: T&T Clark, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 59–76, and idem, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (TSAJ 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

­320

Parables of Enoch

found elsewhere in earlier Enochic tradition. Most attention has been given to the probability that the writer of much of the Parables of Enoch has adapted ideas and motifs from the Book of the Watchers.20 Indeed, if we look there for anything antecedent to chapters 70–71, the possible significance of Enoch’s throne vision and commissioning in 1 Enoch chapters 14 and 15 comes into view. First, in both visions, Enoch the seer is lifted heavenward by “winds” (14:8; cf. 70:1, 3). Second, once he has ascended, he sees an edifice built of crystals and fire surrounding the divine throne (14:15; 71:5-6) and beholds “myriads” of angelic beings (14:22; 71:8). Third, both texts also refer to the relationship between the divine enthroned figure and the angelic classes. In the Book of the Watchers, however, no angels are able to enter into the presence of God (14:21), and Enoch “the righteous man and scribe of righteousness” (15:1) is bidden twice to approach God (14:24; 15:1) in order to receive the divine announcement of the Watchers’ punishment (15:2b– 16:3). By contrast, in the Parables of Enoch, the four archangels and a class of ministering angelic beings called “the most holy of the holy ones who draw near to him” and “the holy angels who are above the heavens” are said to move freely “into and out of that house” (71:8-9). Enoch is thus not so much singled out by being especially present to God as he is given a designation “Son of Man.” This designation is not given to anyone else. Fourth, both visions refer explicitly to the divine throne, though they do not offer any detailed description of it (14:19; 71:7). Fifth, interestingly, in both visions the Enochic seer falls to his face. In the Book of the Watchers, the seer is prostrate in one long occasion that covers much of the vision (14:14-25). In the Parables of Enoch, he is prostrate on two occasions in a manner that distinguishes between two stages of the vision (71:2 and 11). In the latter, Enoch’s second prostration, perhaps inspired by the second reference to Enoch’s only prostration in chapter 14, becomes the occasion for the seer’s transformation. The text states: “I fell on my face; my whole body melted, and my spirit was transformed” (71:11). This transformation, which does not take place in the Book of the Watchers, sets the stage for the announcement to Enoch about his identity.21 Given these correspondences between the throne-room visions of 1 Enoch 14 and 71, one might wonder whether there is anything in the Book of the Watchers at chapter 14 which could be taken as a link between Enoch and a “son of man”-like figure. The possibility of influence from 1 Enoch 14, however, is complicated by the alternative possibility of influence by Daniel 7, whether on the text in the Book of the Watchers, on the conclusion to the Book of the Watchers, or both. D. Olson thinks, for example, that, “Already in 20.  On the influence of the Book of the Watchers on the Parables of Enoch, along with a listing of particular elements, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2, pp. 56–58 (list on p. 57). 21.  We then should imagine that in the shorter text of 70:1, Enoch’s identification as the Son of Man is already anticipated, so that 70:1-2 functions as a narrative bridge between two priorexisting traditions: the foregoing chapters involving the visions of “the Son of Man,” “the Elect One,” “the Righteous One,” and “the Anointed One,” on the one hand, and 70:3–71:17 in which Enoch is identified with this figure, on the other hand.

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­321

the ‘Book of Watchers’ a connection between Enoch and the Danielic ‘son of man’ is implied (cf. 1En 14:8,18-23 and Dan 7:9–10,13).”22 R. Stokes, more recently, has argued more radically for the possibility that the vision in 1 Enoch 14 actually depends on Daniel 7.23 Such a view is unlikely, especially since the designation of Enoch as a “righteous man” in 1 Enoch 15:1 relates not to his heavenly exaltation (as is more the case with the “son of man”-like figure in Dan. 7), but rather to the appropriateness of his character as one being commissioned to communicate to the Watchers on God’s behalf.24 Moreover, the summons of Enoch to draw near to the enthroned figure (14:24-25) shows no hint of having the “son of man”-like figure from Dan 7:13 in view. It is probable instead that Daniel 7 is a later text inspired by visions of the sort that are preserved for us in 1 Enoch 14 and the Book of Giants (4Q530).25 While this leaves the possibility of Daniel 7 being one of the influential traditions on the much later text of 1 Enoch 71, this too is complicated by the close correlations in language between the latter and the introduction of the Son of Man and Head of Days, with an emphasis on the Son of Man as one “who has righteousness and in whom righteousness dwells” in 1 Enoch 46:1-3. While chapter 46 might explain the constellation of nomenclature and association of the Son of Man with righteousness in chapter 71, it does not help us in explaining why it is that the figure Enoch should be identified as the Son of Man. For all the inter-connections between chapters 71, 14, and 46, on the one hand, and between chapter 71 and Daniel 7, on the other, it would be misguided to suppose that what happens to Enoch in chapter 71 can be ultimately explained on the basis of any one of these literary sources or traditions. We have made reference already to the divine address of Enoch in 1 Enoch 15:1 as a “righteous man” (whether or not this is an exception will be discussed below). In looking elsewhere, we may consider other early Enochic passages in exploring the background to Enoch’s identity in chapter 71. If so, where else might clues be found? Here, we turn to a number of passages that describe Enoch as a privileged “scribe” who not only mediates revelation but also functions as a Judge.

22.  D. C. Olson, Enoch: A New Translation (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2004), p. 134. 23.  R. E. Stokes, “The Throne Vision of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of their Literary Relationship,” DSD 15 (2008), 340–58. 24.  That is, it is not clear why an intermediate figure, if present in a pre-existing tradition taken over by 1En 14, would downgrade it rather than the other way around. 25.  See my “The Throne-Theophany of the Book of Giants: Some New Light on the Background of Daniel 7,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After, ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans (JSPSS 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 211–20. Stokes (bibl. in n. 22 above) does not take the designation of Enoch as a “man” in 1En 15:1 into account as part of the vision.

­322

Parables of Enoch

Enoch as Scribe in the Early Enoch Tradition The role of Enoch as a “scribe” occurs at several crucial passages in the early Enoch tradition (1En 12:3-4; 15:1; 92:1).26 Here we are not so much exploring the background for this scribal function of Enoch27 as looking for building blocks within 1 Enoch and related material (e.g., the Book of Giants) toward the scenario that unfolds in chapter 71 within the 1 Enoch and related Enochic material (e.g., the Book of Giants). Thus we need now to review briefly the portrait of Enoch through this lens in terms of what it does and does not contribute to the way Enoch is portrayed in the Parables of Enoch. In the Book of the Watchers, Enoch is first introduced as a scribe at the beginning of chapter 12 (vv. 3-4). Enoch is formally addressed by an angelic intermediary as “scribe of righteousness” and, as such, is commissioned to announce divine judgment against “the Watchers of heaven” (12:4). Behind the translation lies the Ethiopic ṣeḥafē ṣedq, with its equivalent expression in the Greek being ο γραμματευς της δικαισυνης; the original expression, not preserved among the Dead Sea Aramaic fragments, would probably have been )+#wq rps. The expression could either refer to the truth which Enoch records (the second noun being the object) or to the kind of scribe Enoch is, that is, the righteous or true scribe (the second noun describing and qualifying the first). If Enoch is being singled out as the “true scribe,” this is done by way of emphasis that excludes others from functioning in this capacity. In this exclusive way, “scribe” bears the weight of being a title as well as a function. Possibly significant for our purposes, the same title of “scribe of righteousness” occurs again in 15:1; that is, it occurs at precisely the point Enoch is told to announce to the fallen angels that their punishment is irreversible. Here Enoch’s scribal identity has less immediately to do with the function of writing or recording than it involves the activity as a prosecutor who formalizes (and therefore helps to put into effect) the charges brought against the rebellious angels. Coupled with the title is the further address of Enoch as “righteous man, the scribe of righteousness” (so Eth.; to all this, Gk. Pan. adds “the true man, man of truth, the scribe”). Enoch’s special role includes the address to him that he is a pious human being, though it is not clear here that the designation “man” carries a titular sense of the “scribe” in the phrase that follows. In the Book of Giants, a work closely related to many themes found in 1 Enoch 6–16, Enoch emerges again as a “scribe”, though here the title assigned to him is )+#wq rps. It could be argued that this expression, in one passage 26.  The scribal function of Enoch and its significance within 1En and related traditions (Sir, Dan, 4Ezra, 2Bar) is cursorily discussed in Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, pp. 65–67. In addition, the scribal function of Enoch is highlighted in Jubilees and the Book of Giants. For a review of the texts, see L. T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007), pp. 219–20 (see note on 1En 92:1). 27.  Cf. H. Drawnel, “Between Akkadian ṭupšarrūtu and Aramaic rps. Some Notes on the Social Context of the Early Enochic Literature,” RevQ 24 (2010), 373–403.

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­323

(4Q530 2 ii+6-7 i+8-12.14; cf. also 4Q203 8.4) is a play on words with the verb ‫“( פשר‬to interpret”), so that one might translate it in a way that includes the antediluvian’s function as an interpreter: he is a “scribe of interpretation” who will “interpret” the meaning of the giants’ dreams that herald their inevitable destruction. Most scholars, however, have rendered the expression as “scribe of distinction” or “distinguished scribe,” here – as in the Book of the Watchers – underscoring Enoch’s singularity as a “scribe.”28 Whatever the precise meaning of the designation, it is important to note that, as in the Book of the Watchers, Enoch’s function as a “scribe” is a reflection of his role as one who announces divine judgment (this time, against the giant offspring of the rebellious angels). Enoch is not formally introduced or referred to as a “scribe” in the Astronomical Book, which was written near to or slightly earlier than the time of the composition of the Book of the Watchers in its present form. In the account, however, considerable emphasis is placed on Enoch as a recorder of what he has seen and read about celestial bodies in the heavenly tablets shown to him by the angel Uriel (cf. 1En 74:2; 81:1-2, 6; 82:1). Closely related to Enoch as recorder is the portrait of Enoch in the Epistle of Enoch. The opening designates the work as “that which was written by Enoch the scribe” (92:1; so the Eth. majority witnesses). The Aramaic can be reconstructed in a way that is consistent with this reading, though the text also mentions that Enoch “gave [the work] to Meth[uselah]” (4Q212 1 ii 22). The continuing description of Enoch is only partially preserved in the Aramaic text: he is the “[w]isest one of humanity and one cho[sen from] the children of[ the earth].” The Ethiopic tradition calls him “praised by all men,” and, perhaps under the influence of other Enochic texts (1En 90:14, 17, 22; see also 89:61, 76), Enoch is declared to be “judge of all the earth” (more on this below).29 Closely connected to Enoch’s function as scribe is the claim that he is one who knows the “heavenly tablets” (1En 81:1-2; 93:2; 103:2b) and that, therefore, the writings being attributed to him are derived from these.30 The emphasis on Enoch as a chosen scribe is picked up in Jubilees 4; this text summarizes the activity of the antediluvian by stating that he was “the first who learned writing and 28.  See J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 260–61. 29.  On the beginning of the Epistle of Enoch, see Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, pp. 217– 22. The combined description in the Eth. tradition of Enoch as “praised by all men” and “judge of all the earth” brings together two motifs that are applied to the heavenly agent Son of Man (also as “the Elect One”) in the Parables. For several possible instances of worship directed at the Son of Man, see 1En 48:5-6 and 62:5-9, while his function as a Judge (sometimes under the designation “the Elect One”) is underscored in 49:4, 55:4, and 69:27-29 (cf. 46:4-6, 52:9, 61:8-9, 63:11-12). 30.  See Stuckenbruck, “The Epistle of Enoch: Genre and Authorial Presentation,” DSD 17 (2010), 387–417 (see esp. pp. 397–99). It is important, though, to note that nowhere in 1 Enoch is a claim actually made that the content as given in the Enochic books themselves are directly copied from the heavenly tablets. The tablets are presented only to Enoch. It is in the figure of Enoch the sage and seer where the intermediary authority lies; it is not in the books attributed to him (which are subject to copying and translation; on the awareness of this problem, see 1En 104:10-11 [both Gk and Eth.]).

­324

Parables of Enoch

knowledge and wisdom from among humanity who were born on the earth” (Jub 4:17; cf. also 4:18-19, 21, 23). Furthermore, in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 19.24-25), Abraham reads from “the [book] of the words of Enoch” before the princes of Egypt who, during their visit with him, were expecting instruction in “goodness, wisdom, and truth.” The cosmological and eschatological significance of Enoch’s scribal activity singles him out as special among human beings.31 The unique role is bound up with the view that his knowledge, indeed writing ability, derives from instruction he has received from the angels. In relation to Enoch this is a widespread motif. See especially: Book of Giants at 4Q531 14.6 – “he did [n]ot dwell among humanity and did not learn from them;” Jubilees 4:21 – Enoch is with the angels “six jubilees of years” during which they instructed him; 4Q227/PsJubc 2.1,4 – “[E]noch, after which we taught him ... and he wrote everything;” 1 Enoch 106:7 – “for his dwelling is with the angels;” Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 2.20-21) – Enoch “is beloved ... and they [the angels] tell him everything;” and Pseudo-Eupolemos (in Eusebius, PraepEvan 9.17.1-9) – Methuselah, Enoch’s son, is said to have “learned all things through the help of the angels.”

What does all this emphasis on Enoch as the quintessential “scribe” and the activity that goes with it have to do with how he is presented in the Parables of Enoch? At first, this would seem to constitute a problem. After all, Enoch is not designated as a scribe in 1 Enoch chapters 37–71. Indeed, while some traditions distinguish sharply between good and bad writing (cf. 1En 104:9-13 and even Jub 8:1-4), the Parables of Enoch (1En 69:8-10) conveys a categorically negative point of view, especially as it relates to writing on the part of “the children of men … with pen and ink.” Such activity is instead attributed to a fallen angel by the name of Pēnēmu’e.32 To be sure, Enoch himself is never said in the Parables of Enoch to “write.” Though the existence of the Parables of Enoch implies the antediluvian’s activity of writing down or recording,33 in the 31.  Without specific reference to Enoch as scribe, though no doubt assuming this function, the text of 1En 19:3, with reference to the mythic geography of chs. 17–29, claims for Enoch that “No one has seen as I have seen.” For an analytical overview of Enoch’s visions in this part of the Book of the Watchers, see K. C. Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen” (SJSJ, 81; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003). 32.  See 1En 69:8-10: (8) “Penemue is the name of the fourth [fallen angel]. This one showed the children of men the bitter and the sweet, showed them too all the secrets of their wisdom, (9) and instructed men in the art of writing with ink and paper; and it is through this that many have gone astray down through the ages until this very day. (10) For men were not born for such a practice as confirming their faith with pen and ink” (translation is from Olson, Enoch: A New Translation, p. 129). 33.  That is, Enoch is still regarded as the recipient of written material in the form of “books” (1En 37:1; 39:2; 68:1).

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­325

text itself he “sees” (1En 37:1; 39:4-7; 40:1-2; 41:1-5; 43:1-2; 44:1; 46:1; 47:3; 48:1; 52:1-3; 53:1, 3; 54:1; 56:1; 57:1; 59:1-2; 60:1-2; 61:1; 64:1; 70:4; 71:1-2, 5-6, 8), “hears” (40:3, 5-7; 64:2; cf. 57:2) or “speaks” (58:1; cf. 37:5). While, then, Enoch’s visions may be attributed to books already inscribed, it is possible that Enoch’s participation in the inscribing of revelation may imply that he is more than one who merely belongs to “the children of men” (1En 69:8). The anxiety about the practice of writing in the Parables of Enoch, which is distinctive within the early Enoch traditions, should not lead us to downplay the significance of inner-Enochic, even scribal, antecedents on the presentation of Enoch in chapter 71. We can plausibly assume that the author(s) of the last section of the Parables of Enoch, in receiving Enochic traditions, would have known about the presentation of Enoch as “scribe” and also regarded him as extraordinary in this capacity. While this nomenclature or title is not taken up, the functions, and, indeed, designations, that accompanied the term have been taken over and adapted. Here I would like to argue that both the Book of the Watchers at 1 Enoch 15:1-2 (discussed above) and an additional passage, taken from the Animal Vision, provided the essential building blocks that made the explicit claim about Enoch in chapter 71 conceivable. We have already seen that in 15:12, Enoch is called both the “scribe of righteousness” (cf. also 12:4) and “true / righteous man,” and that here he is commissioned to a role as formal pronouncer of judgment on the fallen angels. In the Animal Vision (chaps. 89 and 90), however, we find a further development. As is well known, in the symbolic narrative that focuses on the story of Israel all the way from Adam until the author’s or editor’s present, respectively, during or just following the Maccabean War,34 70 shepherds are introduced as those who were charged not to allow the disobedient of Israel to be punished or destroyed excessively (89:59-60). While these 70 shepherds may adapt a tradition of 70 patron angels of Gentile nations and are set apart by God for a specific purpose,35 they are disobedient. Analogous to the rebellious angels whose fall is described earlier in the narrative (1En 86–88), they will be subjected to fiery judgment (90:21-25). In any case, after instructing these angels, “the Lord of the Sheep” (the consistent designation for God in the Animal Vision) brings onto the scene an anonymous figure called “another one,” through whose activity the perpetrators of evil in the narrative will be held to account. This figure is commissioned with the following task:

34.  The document reached its present form between the time of Judas Maccabeus’ initial victories against the Seleucids in 165 and before his death in 160 bce. See, despite their differences regarding the time of original composition and editorial activity on the text (1En 90:11, 13-15), Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, pp. 396–98, and P. A. Tiller, Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBLEJL 4, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 69–79. 35.  On the tradition as it emerged during the Second Temple period, see my “Angels of the Nations,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Evans and Porter (Downers Grove, IL, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 29–31.

­326

Parables of Enoch

(89:61) Be alert and watch everything that the shepherds do to these sheep, because they will destroy far more of them than I have commanded. (62) Record each excess and the destruction carried out by the shepherds; observe how many they destroy according to my command and how many they destroy according to notions out of their own heads. Make a record against each individual shepherd with regard to the destruction he causes. (63) Then read out loud before me, by number, how many they destroy and how many are handed over to them for destruction, in order that this might become a witness against them for me, and that I may know all the deeds of the shepherds, and that I might see how their activities measure up – whether or not they are adhering to the commands I have given them. (64) ... Record only every (act of) destruction caused by the individual shepherds, each in his time, and then bring all of it up here to me. (translation my own)

Following his commissioning, the scribe is mentioned several times further (89:70-71; 89:76-77; and 90:14-20). In 89:70-71 and 76-77, he is referred to as “that one who was writing” (zeku za-yeṣaḥḥef), that is, as one who was faithfully carrying out the task of recording every instance of the shepherds’ disobedience. The scribe’s activity, however, does not yet translate into divine activity that holds the forces conspiring to suppress Israel to account (89:71, 77). However, when the writer comes to the first scene of judgment (90:1420), this anonymous figure reappears as “that man (zeku be’si) ... who had been recording the names of the shepherds and bringing them up before the Lord of the sheep” (90:14). The text, a few verses later, then states that this same man-like figure “opened the book of destruction caused by the last twelve shepherds, and in the presence of the Lord of the sheep ... showed that they had caused far more destruction than their predecessors” (90:17). This time – this is now a period that lies in the future of the Enochic writer – the manscribe’s records result in the definitive punishment of the shepherds. When the heavenly court is set up for judgment, most manuscripts report that “the Lord of the Sheep” sat on “a throne,” which “was erected in the pleasant land,” and then “received all of the sealed books” (90:22). For this text there is a variant worth noting that conveys an especially exalted view of the scribe: Tana 9 reads instead, “And I looked until a throne was erected in a pleasant land, and he [i.e., the man-scribe of v. 17] sat on it for the Lord of the Sheep.” Finally, in 90:22 the man-scribe, who in Tana 9 sits in judgment, is told: “Seize those seventy shepherds” so that they are bound and formally declared guilty. Then, at verse 23, the Enochic narrator states of himself, “And behold I saw all of them bound, and they all stood before him [i.e., the Lord of the sheep].” Now the Animal Vision does not tell readers just who the scribe is, except that he is angelic, that is, one of the seven angels initially mentioned in 87:2 (three of these had brought Enoch up to heaven in order for him to witness from there the wrongs of the fallen angels and their wicked offspring). I would like to suggest that the judgment scene which features “that man” (an angelomorphic / angelic figure), who is associated with the divine throne (so at least in Tana 9) and functions as a scribe, may have inspired early readers to identify this scribe as a prototype for Enoch himself. Moreover, as noted

The Building Blocks for Enoch as the Son of Man

­327

above in relation to the Book of the Watchers (1En 12–16), it is in his role as a scribe that Enoch has carried out God’s command to pronounce judgment against the fallen angels. If so, then the association of the scribe-man of the Animal Vision with “a scribe of righteousness” (12:3; 15:1-2) means that Enoch (the putative visionary in the text) has been looking at a character who acts as his counterpart. Once the scribe-man has completed his task, Enoch re-enters as a participant in the final eschatological event of judgment as the three angelic figures, in the visionary’s words, “sat me down in the midst of those sheep” (90:31). Though such a reading does not necessarily emerge from the Animal Vision itself, it is conceivable as an interpretation based on the integrative reading of the Book of the Watchers alongside the Animal Vision. Furthermore, such an interpretation could have been sufficiently early to inform the narrative shift in the Parables of Enoch from chapters 37–69 to 70–71. The parallels between the man-scribe and Enoch in the Animal Vision provided a framework through which to look for associations between Enoch and God’s agent of judgment in the Parables of Enoch. Thus, while the commissioning of Enoch in chapter 71 would have been difficult to reach on the basis of the Daniel 7 tradition alone, the additional description of God’s human-like vice-regent in judgment as scribe in the Animal Vision may have made an equation possible with the heavenly “Son of Man” and “the Elect One.” In his capacity as the primary agent, the Son of Man executes judgment on the kings and oppressors (1En 46:1-18; cf. 62:6-7 and 63:11; so “the Elect One” in 55:4; 61:8) while as “the Elect One” he wields judgment in an enthroned position (45:3; 55:4; 62:1-5; so the Son of Man in 69:27-29). The new twist or, better, focus with regard to “the Son of Man” in chapter 71 (even beyond the language in 46:1-4) is his association with the reward of the righteous, which is a growing theme in the early Enochic texts (see esp. the Epistle of Enoch and 105:1-2)36 and already anticipated for God’s vice-regent in the Parables of Enoch (45:6; 51:1-5).

Conclusion I have attempted to show that an argument can be made for the presence of an inner-dynamic within the early Enochic traditions that made the antediluvian’s identification with the “Son of Man” conceivable. Further work needs to be done to examine how such a position of Enoch negotiated the narrative tension between two functions of the seer, namely, of his being (1) an observer and (2) an active participant in the visions disclosed to him. The lines between observer and participant are not firmly drawn in apocalyptic texts.37 Though 36.  See Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, pp. 193–211 and pp. 600–05. 37.  The significance of this point alone is illustrated by the contribution by J. H. Charlesworth in the present volume (see his section on “Son of Man and the Gospels”). At the same time, it has not yet had an impact on New Testament scholarly attempts to address “the Son of Man problem.” A large number of specialists in Synoptic Gospel studies have argued that the

­328

Parables of Enoch

not yet the case in the Book of the Watchers (which insists that heavenly things belong in heaven and earthly things belong on earth), already in the Animal Vision there emerge hints of a blurring of boundaries, at least for the one who is paradigmatically righteous. Does this blurring, we may ask, already underlie the cryptic text of the Greek tradition in Gen 5:24: “And Enoch pleased God, and he was not found because God changed (μετεθηκεν) him”?

“son of man” sayings of Jesus fall into two groups that are frequently assigned to different layers of tradition: (1) those in which Jesus is referring to himself (as a substitute for the first person); and (2) those in which Jesus is referring to a heavenly figure who will function as God’s agent at the time of eschatological judgment. For a history of this discussion, see D. R. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTSMS 107; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1999), esp. pp. 82–120. However, if the identification of Enoch with the Son of Man can be said to have occurred before or during the course of the early part of the first century ce (and in the context of a document written in the first person), then the idea that a visionary like Jesus could refer to himself as an eschatological “Son of Man” in the third person is no longer a remote possibility.

­

Chapter 14 The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity Lee Martin McDonald

Introduction The Parables of Enoch has long been recognized as the latest book within the Books of Enoch. Many scholars have recognized parallels in some of the New Testament writings and that they may have influenced Jesus’ own self-understanding of his role as “Messiah,” “the Son of Man.” Scholars have long been aware of the parallels in word and thought between the Parables of Enoch and surviving writings of early Christianity, but it is not clear that these parallels necessarily reflect a clear dependence. Dependence becomes more certain, of course, when we see specific citations of the Enochic writings. Some word and thought parallels with the Parables of Enoch may only reflect common oral traditions circulating among Jews and Christians in antiquity. It is not clear when the Parables of Enoch were included within the Books of Enoch, though it is likely that the Parables of Enoch were incorporated in the earlier collection not later than the end of the first century bce, as I will suggest below.1 Many of the specific citations of the Enochic writings are from the Book of the Watchers (1En 1–36) and some are simply nonspecific comments about the whole and do not focus on any specific part of that collection. Outside of the New Testament writings, only a handful of parallels with the Parables of Enoch are obvious in early Christianity. In the following study, I will begin my focus on the wider Enochic corpus of writings now identified as 1 Enoch and then focus specifically on the Parables of Enoch. References to Enoch and the Enochic writings are quite common in the early centuries of Christianity, but they taper off considerably in the third and fourth centuries. The only copies that exist of the full document that include the Parables of Enoch are late, coming from Ethiopia, and, as we noted above, most of the references are to the Book of the Watchers and the judgments that will come to these fallen angels as a result of their sin. Long ago, R. H. Charles reminded us that 1 Enoch had an influence on the development of early Christian doctrine, especially in regard to the nature of the messianic kingdom, the future life, the Messiah, Sheol, demonology, and the resurrection from the dead.2 1.  See Charlesworth’s chapters in this book. 2.  R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (hereafter, APOT) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 2:184-85.

­330

Parables of Enoch

Despite the majority of the churches eventually rejecting the sacred status of 1 Enoch after the fourth century, it continued to be used after that by some Christian communities for centuries, and continued to be a part of the Manichean and Ethiopian Christian Scriptures. The listing of 1 Enoch in apocryphal (thereby rejected) literature continued well into the sixth century (Pseudo-Athanasius, Synopsis) and even in the mid-ninth century, the Stichometry of Nicephorus shows the continuing popularity of 1 Enoch long after its official rejection. This rejection appears to have begun with Origen or in his generation. Subsequently there are fewer references to 1 Enoch and it increasingly is found in rejected categories in various catalogues of the Church’s sacred writings. This shows that Enochic literature continued to have an influence on subsequent generations of Christians. Why would it show up in categories if it had long been rejected and no one was using it? 1 Enoch’s continuing presence in Ethiopian Bibles shows that it continued to have a presence in churches long after Church councils made decisions rejecting it. Although some scholars previously believed that the Parables of Enoch was likely a Christian composition, few make that claim today – primarily because “the Chosen One” or “Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch is Enoch himself (71:13-17). The previous chapters in this volume have already established the Jewish origin of the Parables of Enoch and an Enochic strand of Judaism in the first century bce and ce. I will argue below that Jesus was familiar with the Parables of Enoch – or at the least that Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ role as “the Son of Man” was informed by the Parables of Enoch.3 I will begin with some introductory comments about the Jewish context of the Parables of Enoch and then focus on their use in the New Testament and early Christianity.

Background of 1 Enoch Many legends have been attached to the biblical patriarch Enoch not only in biblical literature, but also in Jewish apocryphal and early Christian literature. The legend of Enoch is found first in the biblical books and subsequently in the Jewish and Christian traditions. The biblical tradition, of course, begins with Gen 5:18-24, 1Chron 1:3. One of the earliest non-biblical or Second Temple references to the story of Enoch is found in Jesus ben Sira (Sir) 44:16; 49:14, where he is included in the list of great persons of God (similar to Heb 11). We also see several parallels both in word and in thought in Jubilees 5:5 (1En 10:11; 7:5, 4; 10:9); 7:22 (1En 7:2-5); and 8:3 (1En 8:3).4 There are also parallels in the earlier form of the Testament of Levi 2–7 without the Christian additions to it in description of the ascent to heaven (compare 1En 14). Subsequently, in those non-Christian portions of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (= nine references: T Sim 3.  [See the chapters by Macaskill and Walck in the present volume. JHC.] 4.  These references are cited by R. H. Charles, APOT 2:18-19.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­331

5:4; TLevi 10:5; TDan 5:6; TNaph 4:1; TBenj 9:1 and TLevi 14:1, 16:1; TJud 18:1; TZeb 3:4 [this reference mentions Moses instead of Enoch, but Enoch is likely intended]).5 In the New Testament, Enoch is listed in Jesus’ genealogy (Lk 3:37), in the “hall of faith” (Heb 11:5), and as one who prophesied (Jude 14 referring, of course, to 1En 1:9). There are some word or thought parallels in 1Pet 3:19-20 (1En 19:1; cf. 15:4, 6, 7; cf. also 2Pet 2:1-4) and in Jude 6 (1En 10:4-6; 12–14; 12:4; 14:5); Rev 5:11 (1En 14:22), 15:3 (1En 9:4; 25:5; 27:3), and 19:16 (1En 9:4). The largest tradition attributed to Enoch is a collection of five book or writings now identified as the Books of Enoch or 1 Enoch. The latter is comprised of five separate works that together comprise its 108 chapters.6 1 Enoch is the longest of “the books” (actually a library of books) now identified as “Pseudepigrapha” and arguably the most influential book that was not admitted into Jewish and most Christian biblical canons. The books comprising 1 Enoch were not written by the same hand or at the same time and the complete corpus of 1 Enoch survives only in the Ethiopic Ge’ez language. There are surviving fragments of this document in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, a factor that shows the trans-local receptivity of 1 Enoch in early Christianity. For many years now scholars have noticed the many parallels between the books in 1 Enoch and New Testament and other early Christian writings. The earliest parts of this collection bare the Astronomical Book (1En 72–82, c. third century bce) and Watchers (1En 1–36, mid to late third century bce), followed by the Epistle of Enoch (1En 91–108, second century bce), the Book of Dreams (1En 83–90, c. second century bce), and finally the Parables (or Similitudes) of Enoch (first century bce / ce).7 The last of these collections, the Parables of Enoch, was earlier thought by J. T. Milik to be a Christian document written as late as 270 ce,8 but now most scholars conclude that it was written just prior to or during the lifetime of Jesus.9 There are other books attributed to Enoch that have survived antiquity,10 but our focus here 5.  Also see references to “watchers” or “angels” in TReu 5:6-7 and TNaph 3:5, which likely depend on 1En. 6.  See Charlesworth’s Preface in this collection. 7.  These dates are those supplied by J. C. VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. VanderKam and W. Adler (CRINT 4; Assen: van Gorcum, and Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), pp. 33–101; see esp. pp. 33–34. The dates are similar to those of other current Enoch scholars. 8.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford, New York: OUP, 1976), pp. 91–98. 9.  See Charlesworth’s chapter on the origin of the Parables of Enoch and Bock’s Forschungsbericht. 10.  These other Enochic books include: 2 Enoch (or the Slavonic Apocalypse of Enoch), which describes how the patriarch ascends to God through the seven heavens, perhaps written in the late first century ce or early second century ce; and 3 Enoch (or the Hebrew Apocalypse of

­332

Parables of Enoch

will be on the earlier writings in the Enochic tradition, namely those that comprise 1 Enoch or the Books of Enoch, and more specifically the Parables of Enoch. Matters of date, provenience, parallels, and interpretation have all been sufficiently addressed in previous chapters in this volume, so I will focus more specifically on the influence of 1 Enoch, especially the Parables of Enoch, in early Christianity. It is widely known that 1 Enoch was often treated as inspired sacred literature (Scripture) in early Christianity as we first see in the New Testament (Jude 14) and it is frequently cited as Scripture in the first four centuries. In fact, as we noted above, as late as the ninth century it is still listed as rejected or apocryphal literature because obviously some Christians were still using it in their churches. How were the writings that comprise 1 Enoch viewed in early Christianity and how were they used in the churches? I will focus on these and a few other questions in the rest of this paper. In a perceptive study that queries when and how ancient texts are related to antecedent texts, J. H. Charlesworth asks: “How do we know assuredly that one text is dependent on another which antedates it? When do parallels of thought or expression indicate, and at what level of probability, that a text has been directly, or indirectly, influenced by another?”11 Charlesworth’s question goes to the heart of this present study, namely, did Jesus and other early Christians know and make use of writings that we now call non-canonical12 Jewish religious texts and were such texts recognized as authoritative sacred Scripture? Further, and logically, how can we know? What evidence supports our responses to these questions? Scholars have long debated these matters without coming to agreement, but the contours of this inquiry are certainly clearer now than before and, as a result of recent critical examinations, we are able to advance the discussion and at least make a few preliminary observations. The attention given to the Parables of Enoch is important because of the important parallels between them and the teachings of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, especially with regard to the identity and function of the Son of Man in eschatological judgment. The canonical Gospels and a few references in the letters of Paul are our earliest sources for determining the identity and mission of the historical Jesus and also for identifying his preferences in sacred texts. The Enoch), dating from the fifth to sixth century ce and describing the journey of Rabbi Ishmael into heaven and his meeting with Enoch whom God has elevated above the angels and transformed into the angel Metatron, God’s vice-regent or viceroy. 11.  J. H. Charlesworth, “Towards a Taxonomy of Discerning Influence(s) Between Two Texts,” in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtsag, ed. D. Sänger and M. Konradt (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 57; Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Fribourg Academic Press, 2006), pp. 41–54; see esp. p. 41. 12.  I am fully aware that such designations as “non-canonical,” “apocryphal,” and “pseudepigraphal,” even “biblical” and “non-biblical” designations, are anachronistic and have often prejudiced careful examinations of the ancient material, but I use them here strictly for the sake of clarity in identifying the ancient documents that we have in mind. I will occasionally use the words “so-called” to draw attention to this important point.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­333

canonical Gospels often offer a conflated portrait of an eschatological Son of Man who draws on several Old Testament messianic traditions, as well as what we now call apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts to establish his identity and mission. In the latter case, did Jesus know and read the Parables of Enoch and did he make use of them in clarifying his identity and message? Based on the evidence supplied below, I will suggest that he was aware of the Parables of Enoch and that his understanding of the role of the eschatological Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch in particular factored in his understanding of his own identity and mission.13 While there are some interesting parallels between the Parables of Enoch and the teaching of Jesus, I am also mindful of S. Sandmel’s earlier criticism of the “parallelomania” present among biblical scholars who present parallels between ancient texts and overemphasize their significance.14 G. Boccaccini explains Sandmel’s concern as “that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.” He adds that the parallels to which Sandmel referred often “only tell us that the bricks used by the author of the Parables of Enoch belong to the common heritage shared by different Judaisms in late antiquity.”15 Charlesworth adds that Sandmel’s criticism must be understood in its context, namely that “he was lamenting a tendency after the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls” that “too many scholars were seeing parallels and assuming dependence without examining issues and criteria.”16 While there is a continuing tendency among some scholars to locate parallels where they may not exist and draw conclusions that may not be warranted, we need not therefore ignore the parallels that may exist between ancient texts and their antecedents. J. Davila also offers an important reminder to those examining the so-called pseudepigraphal texts, namely that those who were primarily responsible for preserving and copying the pseudepigraphal texts in antiquity were Christians, especially after the Jewish rejection of those texts. Further, he points out that the Christians did not copy them without making occasional changes in them that reflected Christian theological concerns.17 He rightly argues that the early Christian copiers often made intentional changes in these sacred texts in order to clarify or make more relevant a religious text’s message for their own communities of faith.18 Charlesworth, aware of this concern, raises appropriate 13.  Also see Charlesworth’s “Did Jesus Know the Traditions in the Parables of Enoch?” in this collection. 14.  Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962), 1–13. 15.  Gabriele Boccaccini, “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Jewish Literature,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 263–89; see esp. p. 265. 16.  Charlesworth, “Towards a Taxonomy,” pp. 42–43. 17.  J. R. Davila, “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background to the New Testament,” ExpT 117.2 (Nov. 2005), 53–57. 18.  This practice is true in many ancient religious manuscripts, including the biblical manuscripts. See, for example, the additions to Jn 3:13 (“who is in heaven”) that enhance the omnipresence of Jesus, and the well-known Johannine Comma (1Jn 5:7-8) that was intended by

­334

Parables of Enoch

questions about the reliability of the only complete text of the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) in existence, namely the Ethiopic version.19 Davila is no doubt correct in claiming that Christian copiers of Jewish Pseudepigrapha “did not necessarily copy the works unchanged” and he cites examples where the Christians “freely adapted” such works as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (see especially TLevi), Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, Testament of Solomon, and some Sibylline Oracles. He cautions that while these and other ancient religious texts are regularly welcomed as completely Jewish documents, some elements in them may in fact be Christian.20 Davila also observes that Christians themselves may have produced Pseudepigrapha without the obvious Christian features, that is, without the typical references to significant features of early Christian beliefs about Jesus (e.g., death and resurrection). He further reminds us that only Christians transmitted the Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts and did so because those texts at that time meant something only to the Christians. Davila adds that some of those texts may in fact be Christian works. He cites here such examples as the Testament of Job, Joseph and Aseneth, the Testament of Abraham, the Story of Zosimus (or History of the Rechabites), the Life of Adam and Eve, and the Lives of the Prophets.21 While scholars may disagree on some of these matters, Davila’s cautions are still relevant for those who tend to make lists of passages with parallels and cite them without regard to their context or the history of transmission.

Methodology The methodology utilized in our study is both simple and complex. On the one hand, it is simple in the sense that the canonical Gospels are our primary source for understanding the historical Jesus and they contain the earliest sources that we have of who Jesus was, what he taught, and his fate. On the other hand, the methodology is complex because Jesus himself did not write any of our sources and those that we have exhibit signs of development that addressed issues that were of special concern to later communities of faith for whom the Gospels were written. More specifically, the four Gospels were written some 30 to 60 years (at least) after the death of Jesus. The early churches, as we would expect, also made use of materials that were relevant to them and no doubt made changes in those materials to make them more relevant to their communities of faith. We are aware that religious texts experienced an ancient scribe to support the doctrine of the Trinity. 19.  Charlesworth, “Summary and Conclusions: The Books of Enoch or 1 Enoch Matters: New Paradigms for Understanding Pre-70 Judaism,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection, ed. Boccaccini (Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 436–54; see esp. pp. 452–53. 20.  Davila, “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background,” pp. 53–57. 21.  Davila, “The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background,” pp. 53–57.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­335

several changes that suited the needs of later generations of Christians.22 In cases where changes were made to the texts, it is generally the case that these changes were made to bring the stories more into harmony with current beliefs rather than inventing material that did not have widespread recognition in the churches. In the case of the Evangelists themselves, I am not convinced that they were as given to invention as to selection from the larger amounts of tradition circulating about Jesus in their generations (Jn 20:30). Their selectivity nevertheless reflects the social circumstances of their readers and what in the Jesus stories was deemed relevant to their present circumstances. For example, why would the Evangelists preserve traditions about Jesus’ teaching on divorce unless they were relevant to their churches 30–60 years after the death of Jesus? While such issues related to divorce may have been important in themselves, they were neither central to Jesus’ message about the coming Kingdom of God nor his mission. Although the question of the reliability of the Evangelists remains for some scholars, it is likely that the Evangelists were selective in what they preserved in their stories about Jesus and that selectivity was rooted in what was relevant to their specific communities of faith. While the canonical Gospels are our oldest and primary sources on the life and teaching of Jesus, we need to be aware that changes were made, selections were made, and sometimes changes were also made to the stories circulating among the churches of the first and subsequent centuries. Some of these changes no doubt took place in the early transmission (copying) and translating stages of the various books. Biblical scholars are well aware of the several intentional additions to these biblical traditions (e.g., Jn 3:13; Jn 7:53–8:11; 1Jn 5:7-8). The task of selecting Jesus traditions for the Gospels was not necessarily easy and decisions had to be made about which ones to include (Jn 20:30-31). Were all of the traditions about Jesus that were available to the Evangelists available also to biblical scholars today, and if the latter were asked to produce contemporary Gospels or reliable portraits of Jesus, it is hardly likely that they would construct the same picture that we find in the Gospels. Most likely, modern pictures of Jesus would reflect the interests and concerns of our generation! Despite the subjectivity and selectivity of the Evangelists, do we have a reliable tradition from which to draw authentic information about the historical Jesus and especially the sources that informed his teaching? To what extent are the Gospels historically reliable?23 22.  For example, it appears that the copier of Mk 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus (c. 375–400 ce) added the words, “the Son of God” after the opening “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” The copier of Codex Vaticanus (c. 350 ce) did not include this phrase. I assume here that Vaticanus is slightly earlier than Sinaiticus. 23.  I am indebted here to R. Bauckham’s recent contribution to this subject, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), and his earlier edited volume, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). In both volumes he and his colleagues challenge earlier form

­336

Parables of Enoch

Are the religious texts that Jesus cited in the Gospels reflective of his practice or do they come from the Evangelists who expanded and used them to tell their story about Jesus? More specifically, if Jesus cited or made use of the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71), as seems obvious in Matthew, why is this dependence not equally clear in all the Gospels? The closest citations of or allusions to the Parables of Enoch are in Matthew’s Gospel,24 but was this a part of Matthew’s selectivity or were the some 21 points of similarity with the Parables of Enoch reflective of Jesus’ familiarity with the Parables of Enoch?25 Was Matthew’s apparent use of the Parables of Enoch to tell his story of Jesus’ identity as Son of Man reflective of Jesus or was this Matthew’s contribution to his story of Jesus? More specifically, does Matthew’s reliance on the Parables of Enoch go back to Jesus himself? As we will see below, while some of the parallels in Matthew are less obvious in Mark, Luke, and John,26 there are nonetheless several Gospel parallels with the Enochic tradition that suggest that they came from Jesus himself. One of the fallacies of the older form-critical approach to the Gospels was its assumption that the followers of Jesus had less interest in preserving a reliable story of the one they confessed as Lord than they were in addressing the current needs of the churches. One of the arguments against that perspective has to do with the Scriptures that Jesus cited or quoted in his ministry. There is agreement in all of the Gospels that the Scriptures Jesus favored most were the Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. This is consistent, as one would expect from the followers of Jesus, with the scriptural citations in the rest of the New Testament as well as with the texts most frequently cited both at Qumran and in early Christianity.27 Jesus was a first-century Jew living in the Land of Israel and he cited the most familiar and popular texts of his day to tell his story. The parallels suggest that the sacred books favored by Jesus were also widely valued among other Jews of his generation as we see in the contemporary literature. The citations of texts that we see in the Gospels likely reflect Jesus’ own perspective on Scripture, including his familiarity with and use of the so-called non-canonical

critical and redactional critical assessments of the Gospels that tended to be skeptical of the reliability of the stories that the Evangelists left behind. 24.  See Macaskill’s chapter in this volume. 25.  A likely example of Matthew’s creativity is his reference to the earthquakes at the death and resurrection of Jesus (only found in Matthew; cf. Mt 27:51; 28:2). Is Matthew using symbols or metaphors to advance his understanding of the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus? More specifically, in Mt 24:7, Jesus speaks of earthquakes in diverse places in the last days (or the end of the age; cf. also Rev 6:12; 8:5; 11:13, 19; 16:18; cf. Isa 29:6), and subsequently we see earthquakes at the death and resurrection of Jesus (27:51 and 28:2). Surely this is not coincidental. Is this Matthew’s way of making use of a symbol or metaphor not employed by the other Evangelists to clarify the meaning of his story of Jesus for the early Church? 26.  See the chapters in this collection by Walck on Mk, and Moloney and Reynolds on John. 27.  I have addressed this matter in The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), pp. 190–206.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­337

texts, especially the Parables of Enoch.28 Why would he not be familiar with the religious texts that also informed his fellow Jews in Jesus’ generation? Many of the similarities between Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels and non-canonical texts include thoughts and often word parallels with the non-canonical texts discovered at Qumran and with similar religious texts circulating among the early churches. The many parallels between noncanonical literature throughout the rest of the New Testament and in the early churches in the second and third centuries support the suggestion that this literature and the oral traditions influenced by that literature also influenced the teaching of Jesus and his followers.29 These parallels reflect the diversity of sacred literature that informed the faith of early Christianity for several centuries. Some of this diversity can be seen in the ancient biblical manuscripts as well as in the early Church writings.30 It is worth noting that biblical scholars seldom challenge the authenticity of Jesus’ citations of the books in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament collections, even without the usual citation formulae (e.g., “it is written,” “as it is written,” or “as the Scripture says,” cf. Acts 1:20 citing Ps 69:25, or Rom 11:8 citing Deut 29:4), perhaps because they recognize the popularity of those texts among various Jewish sects in the time of Jesus and assume Jesus’ familiarity with them. Or perhaps, because of anachronistic thinking about the biblical canons of antiquity, scholars tend to examine more carefully, and expect more criteria for accepting the use of or allusions to, the so-called non-biblical texts.31 New Testament writers regularly cite or allude to Old Testament literature without such scriptural designations and clearly in an authoritative manner. This thinking, of course, cuts both ways and those who make such arguments ignore that many Old Testament Scriptures are cited or referred to in the same manner as are the apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts. They are often cited with those introductions. For example, in Mk 14:62 Jesus is clearly citing Dan 7:13-14, and in Rom 11:34-35 Paul is clearly citing Isa 40:13 and Job 41:11, all without the traditional formulae. Likewise, in Heb 1:5-13 the author cites several Old Testament texts without any of the usual scriptural citation formulae (Ps 2:7; Deut 32:43; Pss 104:4 [LXX]; 45:6, 7; 102:25-27; and 110:1). There are similar citations of the Wisdom of Solomon 7:22 and 7:25-26 in Heb 1:2 and 3. Since Jesus’ citation of Scripture does not always 28.  [This is a fresh idea from McDonald. I applaud it. JHC.] 29.  I have discussed these parallels in a forthcoming chapter in “The Scriptures of Jesus,” in Princeton-Prague Symposium on Jesus, ed. Charlesworth, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, in press). 30.  McDonald, “The Scripture of Jesus”, pp. 200–13. I have also addressed these matters in Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), pp. 65–84 and 153–72. 31.  We see this in R. Beckwith, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” in ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), pp. 2577–79; see esp. p. 2579. In his discussion of the Old Testament canon Beckwith states that the New Testament writers “regularly quote it [OT] as having divine authority, with such phrases as ‘it is written,’ ‘Scripture says,’ and ‘God says,’ but no other writings are quoted in this way.”

­338

Parables of Enoch

make use of the common scriptural designations (“it is written”), why do some scholars insist on such introductions before regarding the cited text as sacred Scripture? In other words, why do they show less concern when the biblical references are not introduced with the same familiar designations? I suspect that this is a result of an anachronistic view of the biblical canon that seeks to impose a later understanding of the biblical canon on a situation that was not present in the first century ce. No one doubts that New Testament authors are citing Old Testament texts even when they do not use traditional scriptural introductions, but in the case of citations or allusions to non-canonical texts, there seems to be a different standard applied. I should add that since there is no evidence that any biblical canon was fixed or closed before, during, or shortly after the time of Jesus, we should not be surprised to see occasional references to, or parallels with, what we now call “non-canonical texts” in the New Testament or in early Christian literature. I will now turn to the parallels between the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels and the Enochic tradition, giving special attention to the Parables of Enoch. This will be followed by a brief assessment and summary of such parallels in early Christianity.

The Parables of Enoch and the Canonical Gospels The Significance of the Parables of Enoch for early Christianity Because of their apparent significance for understanding Jesus’ self-identity as the Son of Man, the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) is important for understanding the story of Jesus and how the early churches also perceived him. “Son of Man” was his most frequent self-designation in the Gospels and, of the 85 times this designation occurs in the New Testament, all but four occur on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels.32 It makes little sense, of course, to suggest that the early Church invented and attributed this title to Jesus, but then subsequently largely abandoned use of it. It was rarely used elsewhere in the New Testament or in the early Church. It is therefore highly likely that this was Jesus’ own self-designation since nothing outside of the Gospels accounts for it in other early Christian literature.33 Recent biblical scholars generally agree that the Parables of Enoch, as well as the other compositions in the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch), significantly impacted early Christianity and, as we will see below, were even acknowledged as Scripture by several leading voices in the early churches until the middle of the third century ce. Long ago, R. H. Charles claimed: “1 Enoch has had more influence on the New Testament than has any other apocryphal 32.  The exceptions are in Acts 7:56, Rev 1:13 and 14:14. In the cases in Rev, it refers to one “like the Son of Man.” Hebrews 2:6, 8-9 may also be an exception. 33.  [Also, see Vermes’ brilliant chapter in this collection. JHC.]

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­339

or pseudepigraphic work.”34 In an earlier study he concluded even more emphatically that the influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament writings “has been greater than all of the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books put together.”35 He contends that 1 Enoch influenced the Christian doctrine of the nature of the messianic kingdom and future life, the role and identity of the Messiah, beliefs about Sheol, resurrection, and even demonology.36 A substantial number of scholars now appear to agree with Charles’ early assessment of this literature for understanding early Judaism and early Christianity, especially in terms of its influence in early Christianity. One of the challenges to a careful examination of the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) has to do with establishing its social context and date of composition. Decades ago, J. T. Milik argued that the absence of the Parables of Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their similarity in places to the later Christian Sibylline Oracles, argued for a compositional date around 270 ce, and therefore they could not have had any influence on Jesus or the early churches.37 Milik’s assessment carried the day and it resulted in a generation of scholars largely ignoring the importance of the Parables of Enoch for understanding Jesus and early Christianity. This marginalization of the Parables of Enoch continued until recently, but as a result of the careful contributions of such scholars as G. W. E. Nickelsburg, J. C. VanderKam, G. Boccaccini, J. H. Charlesworth, J. J. Collins, and others, a reassessment of their value for understanding early Christianity has emerged. These and other scholars initiated a new interest in the Enochic corpus and began working together in 2001 to reconsider the meaning and significance of this collection and its influence on early Judaism and early Christianity. Their many papers have been published in several volumes as well as in the Henoch journal.38 While these publications often display differences of opinion on 34.  Charles, APOT 2:180. 35.  The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text, and edited with the introduction notes and indexes of the first edition wholly recast, enlarged and rewritten; together with a reprint from the editor’s text of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), p. xxvii; see also p. xcv. 36.  Charles, APOT 2:184-85. 37.  J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 91–98. 38.  Under the editorship of Boccaccini, the papers have been published in The Origins of Enochic Judaism (Turin: Zamorani, 2002); Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Collection (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005); Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Parables of Enoch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); and Boccaccini and J. J. Collins, eds., The Early Enoch Literature (SJSJ 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007). For a useful and comprehensive introduction to and interpretation of the 1 Enoch books, see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36, 81–108 (Hermenei; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), pp. 1–125; and his more recent Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005 [2nd edn.]). See also Charlesworth, “Towards a Taxonomy,” pp. 41–54. Relevant to our current discussion are Nickelsburg’s “First Book of Enoch,” ABD 2:508-16, and his “Son of Man,” ABD 6:137-50; but also the very helpful survey of issues in VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The

­340

Parables of Enoch

a variety of subjects in the Enochic corpus, including whether there was an influential sect of Enochic Judaism in the time of Jesus, they all see the importance of this literature for understanding early Christianity. If, however, the Parables of Enoch were written after the time of Jesus, as Milik posited, they would, of course, have had no influence either on Jesus’ understanding of his role as the eschatological Son of Man who comes at the end of the age to judge all unrighteousness – or on the emergence of early Christianity. The growing consensus, if we may speak of one at this time, is that the Parables of Enoch was likely written during or toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great (c. 40–4 bce), but not much later than the early decades of the first century ce. In support of the earlier date (40–4 bce), scholars point to the apparent reference to the possible Parthian and Median invasion of the Land of Israel in 40 bce (1En 56:5-7) and to the time of Herod the Great (see 1En 38:4; 48:8; 62:9; and 63:9, 12) when judgment comes to those “who possess the dry ground” as opposed to those who must live in the swamps because their cultivatable land was confiscated from them. This likely refers to the time during Herod’s reign when wealthy landowners took the “dry ground” from the poor and it was heavily taxed by Herod to finance his building projects. For a description of these times, see Josephus, Antiquities 17:304-14.39 There is very little evidence of Christian use of the Parables of Enoch in the patristic period, but there are some verbal and thought parallels that will be noted below. Although the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch contains the Parables of Enoch, there is considerable uncertainty on when the Parables of Enoch was included in the Enochic corpus. The revised Schürer suggests that the inclusion of the Parables of Enoch in the Enochic collection likely took place soon after their completion since “there is no evidence of any Jewish work more recent than the late first to early second century A.D.”40 E. Isaac also draws this same conclusion (OTP 1:7). 1 Enoch is a collection of Jewish writings with nothing specifically Christian in them and they were most likely produced in the Land of Israel in the Aramaic tongue, but subsequently translated into Greek. They were also translated into the ancient Ethiopic language called Ge’ez (possibly from a Greek translation), the only language or text in which all of the books of Enoch Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, pp. 33–101. Also relevant to this study is the introduction provided by E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:5-12. I will be referring to these works and others throughout this paper. 39.  See Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date,” Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 459–65 (revised and expanded in the present collection). Nickelsburg, “First Book of Enoch,” ABD 2:512-13, also suggests that 67:8-13 points to Herod the Great, which, if so, also points to a late first-century bce composition. For a helpful discussion of the use of 1 Enoch in early Christianity, see also VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 23–28, who correctly answers R. Beckwith’s strange conclusion in The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985) that Jude does not cite 1 Enoch as Scripture. 40.  Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 3.1:260.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­341

are present and where that collection continues as Scripture in the Ethiopic version of the Bible.41 VanderKam documents early Christian use of 1 Enoch in the first three centuries and observes that after the time of Origen, and perhaps beginning with him, the collection becomes marginalized and begins to be both ignored and criticized. 42 As we will see below, this does not mean that all Christians rejected 1 Enoch because of its growing marginalization among the “orthodox” churches. Biblical scholars regularly draw attention to the similarities between the role of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in the Gospels, especially in Jesus’ role as eschatological Judge.43 If the Parables of Enoch were produced before the time of Jesus, then they provide a good test case for determining whether Jesus himself recognized and used them in his teachings and likewise whether they influenced the development of early Christianity. I will begin by listing some of the more obvious similarities or parallels between the Parables of Enoch and the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels and provide some comment on their use and significance. The Parables of Enoch and the teaching of Jesus44 (1) 1 Enoch 38:2: “… and when the Righteous One shall appear before the face of the righteous, those elect ones, their deeds are hung upon the Lord of the Spirits, he shall reveal light to the righteous and the elect who dwell upon the earth, where will the dwelling of the sinners be, and where the resting place of those who denied the name of the Lord of the Spirits? It would have been far better for them not to have been born.” – Mt 26:24: “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” (2) 1 Enoch 46:3-5: “This is the Son of Man to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits [God] has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and

41.  See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and Mishnah, pp. 254–56; and his introduction of this literature in “First Book of Enoch,” in ABD 2:515-16. 42.  VanderKam, “I Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch,” pp. 33–101; see esp. pp. 80–81. His discussion throughout this lengthy article is most helpful in showing the relevance and importance of this work in early Christianity. 43.  Some of these parallels and “echoes” are noted in the recent G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007). Although they are discussed through the commentary, the parallels, citations, and echoes of 1 Enoch in the New Testament are listed on p. 1233. They list more of these parallels with 1 Enoch than for any other non-canonical book. 44.  The biblical texts cited are from the NRSV and generally from the Enoch translation by E. Isaac in OTP 1.13-89. A more recent translation by Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004) is also quite useful. In many cases, their translation updates the earlier one by Isaac.

­342

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Parables of Enoch the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms.” – Mt 13:41-42: “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evil doers and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” – Mt 16:27: “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and there he will repay everyone for what has been done.” Note: the Son of Man comes from heaven at the end of the age and judges evil in the world. See also the role of Judge for those who have “denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah” in 1En 48:10. See also his authority as Lord of the Sabbath, Mk 2:28 / Mt 12:8 / Lk 6:5. 1 Enoch 51:3-5: “In those days, [the Elect One] shall sit on my throne, and from the conscience of his mouth shall come out all secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him … And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen.” Note: see also 1En 61:2-5; Mt 25:31. 1 Enoch 52:4: “All these substances [metals] will be removed and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of the Spirits.” Note: the pre-existence of the Son of Man that was kept in secret is now being revealed (see also 48:2, 7, 10; cf. Jn 1:1-3, 14-18, and Rev 5:1-4). 1 Enoch 61:2-5: “And I asked the angel, saying unto him, ‘Why have those [angels] hoisted these ropes and gone off?’ And he said unto me, ‘They have gone in order to make measurements.’ The angel who was going with me also said unto me, ‘These [angels] are the ones who shall bring the measuring ropes of the righteous ones as well as their binding cords in order that they might lean on the name of the Lord of the Spirits forever and ever.’” 1 Enoch 61:8: “He placed the Elect One on the throne of glory; and he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. And he shall lift up his countenance in order to judge the secret ways of theirs, by the word of the name of the Lord of the Spirits, and their conduct, by the method of the righteous judgments of the Lord of the Spirits, then they shall all speak with one voice, blessing, glorifying, extolling, sanctifying the name of the Lord of the Spirits.” Note: here we see described the role of eschatological Judge. See also Lk 19:10 where the words are different, but the two passages have the same theological content. See also Mt. 16:27. See also Mt 19:28 and Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26; cf. also the role of Christ as Judge in 2Cor 5:10; and Mk 13:26-27; 14:62; cf. Mt 24:26-27, 37-39 / Lk 17:22-37. 1 Enoch 62:2-5: “The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in; and all the oppressors shall be eliminated from before his face. On the day of judgment, all the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords shall see and recognize him – how he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and that no nonsensical talk shall be uttered in his presence. Then pain shall come upon them as a woman in travail with birth pangs – when she is giving birth … and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­343

sitting on the throne of his glory.” – Mt 25:31: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.” Note: compare also Lk 19:10. Besides the Son of Man’s role as the Judge of evil, the judged experience judgment as in birth pangs; see Mk 13:8; Mt 19:28; 24:8. Also see Rev 3:21 where the Son of Man sits on the throne with the Father. See also Phil 2:9-11. (8) 1 Enoch 62:14-15: “The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever” [see Rev 3:20]. “The righteous and elect ones shall rise from the earth and shall cease being of downcast face. They shall wear the garments of glory” [cf. Rev 6:11]. “These garments of yours shall become the garments of life from the Lord of the Spirits” [see Mk 8:38–9:1: “coming with angels”]. Note: see also 1En 65:9-11 on the judgment of those who oppress the righteous. (9) 1 Enoch 65:9-10: “Because their [evil persons’] oppression has been carried out [on the earth], their judgment will be limitless before me. On account of the abstract things which they have investigated and experienced, the earth shall perish [together with] those who dwell upon her.” Note: judgment comes upon those who persecuted the righteous. See also 1En 66:1-2 where angels in charge of the Flood are agents of God to perform judgment on those who dwell on the earth. (10) 1 Enoch 69:27-29: “Then there came to them a great joy. And they blessed, glorified, and exalted the Lord on account of the fact that the name of that Son of Man was revealed to them. He shall never pass away or perish from before the face of the earth … for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; and he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits.” – Mt 19:28: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’” – Mt 26:64: “Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’” Note: in Mt 19:28, exaltation of the Son of Man is revealed and he exercises judgment. See also Mt 13:37-43 and 25:31. See also 1En 46; 48:2-4; 62–63; 70–71.

Summary list of “Son of Man” references in the Parables of Enoch and parallels in the Gospels 1. Heavenly status of Son of Man: 1En 46; 48:2-4; 70–71 (Mt 13:36-43; 16:27). 2. Judicial role of Son of Man: 1En 46:1-6; 48:10; 52:4 (40:5); 61:8; 62–63; 69:27-29 (Mt 13:36-43; 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; cf. also Mk 13:26-27). 3. Authority of Son of Man: 1En 46; 48; 62–63; 69:26-29 (Mk 2:28; 14:62 / Mt 12:8; 28:19-20/Lk 6:5). 4. Son of Man seated on the throne of his Glory: 1En 61:8; 62:2-5; 69:27-29 (Son on throne in Ps 110:1; and Mt 13:37-43; 19:28; 25:31). 5. Son of Man coming with Angels: 1En 51; 61:2-5, 8; 62:14-15 (Mk 8:38–9:13, 27-28; Lk 9:26-27; Mt 16:27; cf. Dan 7:13-14).

­344

Parables of Enoch

6. Son of Man gives life as ransom for many: possible roots – Isaiah 53 (Mk 10:45). 7. Son of Man as vindicator and rewarder of the persecuted righteous: 1 En 62–63 (Mk 8:38; Mt 24:26-27, 37-39; Lk 17:22-37; Mk 14:62 / Mt 26:64; cf. Dan 7:13-14 and Lk 19:10). 8. Son of Man as revealer of Secrets: 1En 62:7 (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21; Mk 9:9; 14:62).

Assessment of the New Testament parallels The Parables of Enoch reflects the expanding notion of role of the Son of Man in the first century bce / ce. In a perceptive evaluation of Enochic literature, Boccaccini observes the confluence of several earlier paradigms or motifs that intersect or overlap in the Parables of Enoch, namely the paradigms of Wisdom, Covenant, Enochic traditions, Messiah, and apocalyptic motifs. He finds the latter two especially converging in the Parables of Enoch, but also notes that the wisdom motif runs through the Parables of Enoch and this convergence has significant parallels in the New Testament and especially in the teachings of Jesus in particular.45 He traces in these paradigms the importance and development of wisdom and messianic understandings in several other traditions (Sirach, Daniel, Psalms of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Parables of Enoch). Four of the books that comprise 1 Enoch were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, but as noted above, the Parables of Enoch was not among them. Whether one should make much of this absence is a matter of debate among scholars. Charlesworth, Stone, and VanderKam posit that it is insignificant, since the content of the Parables of Enoch would not have been of much interest to the residents of Qumran who honored the Righteous Teacher rather than Enoch.46 Charlesworth also makes little of the absence of the Parables of Enoch since it was one of the newer books in the Enochic tradition. Perhaps copies of this book were carted off (because of its newness) by the Romans who destroyed Qumran; perhaps in modern times they were taken from the caves by local Arab residents; or perhaps the leather scrolls simply decayed. Charlesworth argues as well that the Righteous Teacher was the hero for this Community and so they would have been hesitant to accept a book where another figure has the key exalted role. Interestingly, when speaking about the absence of Esther at Qumran, F. M. Cross, reminds us that “an additional worm [at Qumran], and Chronicles, too, would have been missing”!47 Since it is possible that only 10 to 20 percent of the writings originally stored at 45.  Boccaccini, “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 263–89; see esp. pp. 266–70. 46.  See Boccaccini’s discussion of this in “The Book of Parables of Enoch within the Enoch Tradition,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 81–98. For Stone, see Bock’s Forschungsbericht; for Charlesworth, see his chapters in this collection. 47.  F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 225.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­345

Qumran have been discovered or examined,48 it may not be significant that the Parables of Enoch was not found there. Scholars and dealers in ancient manuscripts already know that several Dead Sea Scroll fragments have not yet been published, and other ancient manuscripts may still be awaiting discovery or disclosure. This is, of course, an argument from silence, though it may not be a negligible one.49 Current Enochic scholars generally agree that: (1) the books that comprise 1 Enoch were not composed at Qumran but were transported there from elsewhere; (2) the books date from roughly the late fourth or early third century bce to perhaps as late as the second or third decade of the first century ce; (3) the books were brought to Qumran but in time fell out of favor there possibly in the late first century bce; (4) the latest composition in the collection of the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) is the Parables of Enoch; (5) we should not necessarily expect to find the Parables of Enoch at Qumran because Enoch is declared to be “that Son of Man” who brings in the age to come (1En 71:14), but at Qumran the Righteous Teacher was the most important heroic figure whom God allowed to know all the secrets of the prophets (1QpHab 7); and finally, (6) it is highly unlikely that the earliest Christians invented the Parables of Enoch since Enoch, not Jesus, is identified in them as the Son of Man.50 For our purposes, the role of the eschatological Judge is central to Enoch’s understanding of the Son of Man and this role has important parallels in the Gospels, as we have shown above. This element of Jesus’ role in the final judgment is also important elsewhere in the New Testament, especially in the book of Revelation (Rev 14:14; 19:11-16) and in Paul (2Cor 5:10). In both the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels the apocalyptic Son of Man figure comes at the end of the age to judge the nations. If the earlier date of the Parables of Enoch is correct (40–4 bce) and its provenience in Galilee (even Migdal)51 is also correct, then the Parables of Enoch may well have been circulating in oral traditions and possibly in the written texts in the Galilee area in the time of Jesus and possibly even before. The Enoch tradition was significant enough that copies of some of the books of Enoch were brought to Qumran. It is obvious that the Enoch tradition was popular enough in the first century bce to be welcomed among the diverse religious texts both at Qumran and among a number of Christian communities after the birth of the Church, including a specific citation in the New Testament (Jude 14). If the Parables of Enoch originated in Galilee in the last decades of the first century bce or at the latest during the first decades of the first

48.  These percentages are suggested by Charlesworth, “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch,” pp. 450–68; see esp. p. 456. 49.  [For 40 years, I have been searching for a full Qumran Scroll that has broken into two parts. Strugnell confided in me that it is probably an Aramaic version of 1 Enoch. I almost found the scroll in Damascus. The path has become warm again. JHC.] 50.  Several scholars have argued these positions at length earlier in this volume. 51.  See the chapters by Aviam and Charlesworth in this collection.

­346

Parables of Enoch

century ce, as Charlesworth suggests,52 it should not be surprising if Jesus had come in contact with the Parables of Enoch tradition during or even before his ministry began. As we have seen in the examples above, sometimes the words of the Parables of Enoch have close parallel expressions in the Gospels. There is currently no unequivocal evidence that Jesus had contact with the Essenes or residents of Qumran and consequently it is likely that this literature was present not only at Qumran but elsewhere in the Land of Israel in the time of Jesus. Enochic scholars generally agree that the writings that comprise 1 Enoch (without the Parables of Enoch) were taken to Qumran from elsewhere in the Land of Israel, and that this literature also likely influenced other Jewish communities in the time of Jesus. Adela Yarbro Collins claims that the Son of Man in Mk 14:62 reflects Dan 7:13, on which the Parables of Enoch depends, and that the Markan text likely goes back to Jesus himself, but she does not rule out that the Parables of Enoch may have influenced Mark’s understanding of the role of the Son of Man. She correctly indicates that there are no direct citations of the Parables of Enoch in Mark.53 In Mk 13:26-27, Jesus says that certain ones “will see” the Son of Man coming in the clouds (Dan 7:13) and he will “send out the angels” to gather his “elect” or “chosen.” The words in quotes from the Markan passage are not in Dan 7:13, but they are variously in 1En 51, 61:2-5, and 62:14-15. Here the Parables of Enoch’s description, on which Mark apparently depends, is an expansion of the Son of Man tradition in Daniel. If Mark accurately reflects Jesus’ understanding of this messianic Son of Man role, then it is likely that Jesus was familiar with the Parables of Enoch or that their tradition (oral) was circulating in Galilee or the Land of Israel in the time of Jesus. Initially, of course, the term “Son of Man” seems only to refer to a human being (Ps 8:4), but later it developed into a special title for someone chosen by God for a particular function. For example, Ezekiel is singled out by God and entrusted with an important message and vision to disclose important events that are impending, especially the judgment of God against Israel, but also hope and blessings for the righteous. Throughout the book, Ezekiel is addressed as “Son of Man,” or, as it is sometimes translated, “O Mortal” (e.g., see Ezek 2:1-3, 6-8; 3:1-10; 5:1-4 and passim through chapter 47). This designation is expanded in Dan 7:13 in which one “like a son of man” is given “dominion and glory and kingship.” In the Parables of Enoch, a further expansion of this designation takes place especially with the addition of the role of eschatological Judge. 52.  Charlesworth suggests that the Parables of Enoch likely represents a community that has lost its “dry ground” (earth) to land owners (1En 62), and therefore probably lived in the swamps of the Land of Israel. He concludes that the most likely place for them to dwell is in the Hulah Valley in Galilee between Banias and Capernaum. See his “Toward a Taxonomy,” sec. 6.2 (see also the revised and expanded version in the present collection). 53.  See A. Yarbro Collins, “The Apocalyptic Son of Man Sayings,” in The Future of Early Christianity, ed. B. A. Pearson (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 220–28; see esp. p. 228.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­347

Jesus’ self-designation as Son of Man in the Gospels is an authentic tradition that comes from Jesus since, as we have noted above, with just four exceptions out of 85 instances, these designations are only on the lips of Jesus. Other New Testament writers do not refer to him by that title except in the four instances noted above. Since this designation is not the typical designation for Jesus in the rest of the New Testament, nor is Jesus usually referred to as Son of Man in early Church literature, it is likely that the designation goes back to Jesus himself. The early Christians generally refer to Jesus as “the Son of God,” “Christ,” “Lord,” or “Savior,” and not “Son of Man.” References such as Mk 8:31, where a crowd is repeating what Jesus has already said about himself, or Jn 12:34, are hardly exceptions of significant note. Reference to Jesus as the Son of Man largely died out in the Church by the end of the first century.54 The early Christians would hardly place a title on the lips of Jesus that they largely rejected if it were not authentic to Jesus. The Books of Enoch (1 Enoch), especially the Parables of Enoch, reflect the apocalyptic atmosphere in which the Palestinian Jesus Movement took shape and “Early Christianity” was born. As such, the Parables of Enoch is quite significant for understanding not only Jesus and his early followers, but also the various Jewish theological perspectives in the first century ce. Along with the similarities between 1En 69:26-29 and Mk 14:62, L. Walck investigates the Evangelists’ dependence on the Parables of Enoch and acknowledges that while most of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels do not depend on the Parables of Enoch, in some cases it appears that Matthew either depends on the Parables of Enoch or on an oral tradition stemming from them.55 He cites especially the future Son of Man sayings in the Parables of Enoch that have parallels in Mt 13:37-43 and 25:31-46, but more specifically mentions Matthew’s reference to the “throne of his glory” (Mt 19:28 and 25:31; cf. 1En 62:5 and 69:27, 29). Other parallels with Mark have been detected, such as the Son of Man having divine authority given to him (see 1En 48:2-8; cf. Mt 28:19) and the exercising of his judicial role (1En 46; 62–63; 69:26-29). This notion of authority is reflected in Mark’s reference to Jesus as “Lord even of the Sabbath” (Mk 2:28 / Mt 12:8 / Lk 6:5).56 Walck mentions some nine shared characteristics of Matthew and the Parables of Enoch, but especially the heavenly status of the Son of Man (1En 46; 48:2-4; 62–63; 70–71; cf. Mt 54.  For a helpful summary of the use of the term and its eventual demise or rejection largely by the end of the first century ce, see S. Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 153–78. She also mentions that there is a reference in the Palestinian Talmud that refers to the term and quotes the following: “R. Abbahu said: ‘If a man says to you: “I am God,” he is lying; [if he says]: “I am the Son of Man,” he will later repent of it [if he says]: “I am going up to heaven,” he says it but does not do it’ (y.Ta‘an 65b, 68-70).” He adds that this passage suggests that there were still some who made use of this term, but they are not identified here or elsewhere (ibid., p. 177, n. 20). 55.  L. W. Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 299–337. Also, see Walck’s chapter in this collection and his published dissertation (cited in Jurgens’ bibliography). 56.  Ibid., pp. 314–16.

­348

Parables of Enoch

13:36-43; 16:24-24); the judicial role (1En 46, 62–63; 69:26-29; cf. Mt 13:3643; 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31); and again, the reference to the Son of Man “seated on the throne of his glory” (1En 62:5; 69:27, 29; cf. Mt 19:28; 25:31). He concludes that there are some 21 points of contact between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch.57 H. Kvanvig draws attention to the fact that Matthew’s reference to the Son of Man sitting on the “throne of his glory” (Mt 25:31; 19:28) is identical to 1En 61:8 and 62:2 (see also 1En 45:3-6; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2, 3, 5; 69:2729), a description that is not in Dan 7:13. He shows that in the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man is installed in glory (1En 48:2) and revealed for the chosen ones (1En 48:7; 62:8).58 S. Chialà reminds us that in the entire Hebrew Bible, “the Ancient of Days” or “Beginning of Days” (God) is always the person who judges and that the delegating of this responsibility to the Son of Man is only found in the Parables of Enoch and in the Gospels.59 In Matthew (19:28; 25:31) and in the Parables of Enoch, the Son of Man comes to judge, something not found in Dan 7:13-14. In the book of the Parables of Enoch, the Lord of the Spirits (God) placed “the Elect One” who is “the Chosen One” on the throne of glory and “he shall judge all the works of the holy ones in heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds” (1En 61:8). We could add here that while Paul does not make use the term “Son of Man” anywhere to refer to Jesus, perhaps because it would not have been an intelligible designation to Gentile audiences, we nevertheless see the same idea in Jesus’ role as the exalted Lord and Judge in 2Cor 5:10. This is not unlike the universal recognition of Jesus as Lord in Phil 2:9-11. Boccaccini also notes that while Paul never uses the term “Son of Man,” his view of the Messiah as “Lord” (kyrios) is a convenient translation of the Enochic term “Son of Man” for a Hellenistic audience. Boccaccini cites specifically 1Thes 4:16 as evidence that the Lord (Jesus) will descend from heaven. He goes on to point out that the combination of Messiah with God’s Wisdom is also found in Eph 1:8-9, 20-21; 3:8-11; and 1Cor 1:30. This parallel, according to Boccaccini, resembles a similar tradition in 1En 48:7.60 Adela Yarbro Collins adds as a possibility that Mark’s messianic secret may depend on 1En 62:7 in which the Son of Man is hidden except to the chosen ones or the righteous (see Mk 8:27-30). The secret is given away in Mk 9:9 as a signal to the disciples, but later also in 14:62.61 Mark and Luke add to the Son of Man’s role the right to forgive sins (Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24), but Mark goes even further to say that he came to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45). He adds to this the eschatological coming of the Son of Man (Mk 8:38; 57.  Ibid., pp. 330–32. 58.  H. Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 179–215; see esp. pp. 211–14. 59.  S. Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution,” pp. 163–70. 60.  Ibid., pp. 278–80. 61.  Yarbro Collins, “The Secret Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of Mark: A Response to Leslie Walck,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 340–42.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­349

13:26-27; 14:62). The language in these texts is quite similar not only to Dan 7:13, but also to 1 Enoch 61:8.62 Boccaccini reminds us that while Jesus as the Son of Man is not presented in the Gospels as the embodiment of divine Wisdom, as in the case of the Parables of Enoch, he is nonetheless presented as the messenger and teacher of wisdom (Lk 7:35; cf. Mt 11:19). He is the greatest revealer, even wiser than Solomon (Lk 11:31; Mt 12:42).63 He also observes that Jesus, like Enoch in the Parables of Enoch, has a mission to accomplish before the end of times, namely to reveal the secrets of the kingdom (Mt 13:11; Lk 8:10; cf. Mk 4:11), a secret that was hidden from the wise, but revealed to the simple (“infants,” Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21). S. Chialà notes that while the expression “Son of Man” is less common in the Gospel of John (13 times) than in the Synoptic Gospels (69 times), in John, four instances refer to the Son of Man being lifted up or glorified (Jn 3:1314; 8:28; 12:31; 13:31), a reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Two refer to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man (6:37, 53). Three refer to the Jesus’ unique relationship to heaven and his heavenly origins (1:51; 3:13; 6:62); one reference is to Jesus’ role as Judge (5:26-27); and the last three speak of Jesus identifying himself as the Son of Man (9:35; 12:34-36).64 The references in 5:26-27 and 9:35 suggest that others in the time of Jesus knew the identity of the Son of Man and his specific role as Judge and Messiah which have parallels in Ezek 37:25-27 and 1 Enoch 48:6. Some similarities or parallels may be rooted in other written traditions, such as Matthew’s and Mark’s references to the gathering of the elect (Mt 25:32; Mk 13:27), which are similar to 1En 61:1-3. Mark, Luke, and Matthew claim that the future Son of Man will come in his glory with angels at the end of the age (Mk 8:38–9:1 / Lk 9:26-27 / Mt 16:27-28) and in 1 Enoch 61 the angels play a similar role. For Matthew, the coming kingdom will be under the authority of the Son of Man (see also Mt 28:19-20), thereby making the Son of Man “Judge” in the coming age.65 Further, while the verbal similarities between Lk 19:10 and the Parables of Enoch (1En 61:5) are not as obvious, the theological content in this passage in Luke is similar to the Parables of Enoch in that the Son of Man seeks and saves the righteous who have been marginalized, scattered, and persecuted in society. Another feature that draws our attention is that Dan 7:9 speaks of thrones (plural), namely one for the deity (“Ancient of One” or “Ancient of Days”) and presumably a throne for one “like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” (7:13) who is given “dominion and glory and kingship” (7:14; cf. Mt 19:28; 25:31). The only passage in the Hebrew Bible that contains a 62.  Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution,” p. 332, cites a number of other parallels between the Gospels and the Parables of Enoch. 63.  Boccaccini, “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch,” p. 277. 64.  Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution,” p. 169. 65.  I owe these observations to Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” pp. 324–25.

­350

Parables of Enoch

similar motif is Psalm 110, a text that includes elements of enthronement, judgment, and polarization between the enthroned one (“my lord”) and his enemies. There, however, it is God and not “the Son of Man” who exercises judgment. In both the Gospels and the Parables of Enoch judgment is given to the Son of Man. There are also similarities here with 11Q13.9-11 (cf. also lines 13–21), in that God is called the Judge (“God will judge the peoples”), but God appoints Melchizedek to carry out the judgment (“But Melchizedek will carry out the vengeance of God’s judgments,” line 13). Kvanvig compares this with 1En 48:10, where judgment comes to those who had denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah; 1En 52:4, where God takes vengeance on his enemies and four angels are involved; 1En 40:5, where the Elect One shares in the blessing that is given to God; and 1En 46:4-6, in which the Son of Man removes kings of the earth from their thrones, deposing them all, and shares in the areas of glory, dominion, and judgment.66 In Lk 21:27, according to Kvanvig, the combination of the coming of the Son of Man in a cloud with power and great glory focuses on the exaltation of the Son of Man.67 Matthew also presents Jesus as a ruling and triumphant Son of Man who will come to earth (10:23; 16:27-28; 24:30). He notes that in Matthew the story of Jesus seems to conflate or combine the descriptions in Ps 110:1, Isa 42, 49, 52–53, and Dan 7:13 in his interpretation of the role of the Son of Man. Matthew says that when the Son of Man comes with all the angels, then he will sit on the throne of his glory (Mt 25:31; see also 19:28). Mark (13:26-27), however, does not speak of the Son of Man “sitting on the throne of his glory.” Nickelsburg has observed that the judicial role of the eschatological Son of Man and its Q parallels (Mt 10:32-33 / Lk 12:8-9) “reflect the Parables of Enoch’ interpretation of the Son of Man in Daniel 7, where one like a son of man is enthroned after the judgment.” He concludes that the connection between 1En 62–63 and Mk 8:38 is “especially close since both portray the Son of Man as the heavenly vindicator of the persecuted righteous.” Finally, he adds that “another indication of the influence of Enochic Son of Man traditions appears in the Q saying in Mt 24:26-27, 37-39 / Lk 17:22-37 where the days of the Son of Man are likened to the days of Noah.”68 Absolute identification between Jesus and the eschatological Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch is difficult to establish in Mark before Jesus appears before the Sanhedrin following his arrest (Mk 14:62 / Mt 26:64). Jesus’ response to Caiaphas, the high priest, in Mark and Matthew, closely resembles Dan 7:13-14, but Kvanvig also claims that these parallels suggest an important relationship between the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels.69

66.  Kvanvig, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” pp. 179–215; see esp. pp. 190–91. 67.  Ibid., p. 212. 68.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, pp. 83–84. 69.  “Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” pp. 212–13.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­351

The most significant difference between the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels and in earlier descriptions of that individual in the Parables of Enoch is that in the Gospels the Son of Man suffers. This suggests that there was a conflation of the Son of Man traditions in the Parables of Enoch with the suffering servant in Isaiah 42, 49, and 52–53. A suffering Son of Man or Messiah figure is almost unheard of in any pre-Christian text unless one includes Isa 52:12–53:13.70 The popularity of this text in early Christianity, however, supports the conclusion that this did in fact happen. There are examples of the righteous suffering and God judging their enemies in Wisdom of Solomon 2 and 5, but this is not the same as a righteous person suffering for other righteous individuals. There a righteous person suffers for accusing the unrighteous of their sins, but he does not suffer for other righteous persons. Just before the transfiguration, Mark says that Jesus took his disciples aside to tell them that the “Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes” (Mk 8:31; cf. Lk 9:21 and Mt 16:21, though Matthew does not use the term “Son of Man” here). The suffering servant in Isaiah and the suffering Son of Man are brought together in the Gospels. In Luke, the resurrected Jesus explains his suffering to his hearers who did not expect or anticipate the rejection and suffering of the Son of Man. After his resurrection, Jesus the Son of Man and Messiah comes to his disciples to explain from the Scriptures that the Messiah “is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day” (24:44). This teaching, which is central to the Christian faith, does not appear anywhere in the Enochic tradition, but is unique to the early Christian faith and seems to have found a scriptural support by combining the suffering servant of Isa 52:13–53:12 with the ruling and eschatological Son of Man who is the Judge in the Parables of Enoch.71 The Son of Man sayings on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels are not uniform or cut from the same piece of cloth, as Nickelsburg demonstrates. This diversity suggests a conflation of several earlier traditions in the early Christian community, one of which is in the Parables of Enoch.72 Again, the above listed parallels suggest the possibility that Jesus may have known the Enoch tradition and it may have informed his teaching and preaching at several points that we have shown above. Whether in written or oral form, Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels suggests familiarity with several 70.  In his “The Messiah Son of Joseph: ‘Gabriel’s Revelation’ and the Birth of a New Messianic Model,” BAR 34 (September / October, 2008), 78, I. Knohl examines the newly discovered inscription preserved on a large three-foot tall stone now known as Gabriel’s Revelation, which dates from the late first century bce or possibly the early first century ce, and concludes that it presents the possibility of a suffering Messiah tradition known among some Jews in the time of Jesus or before. The full ramifications of this have yet to be explored, but this possibility is worthy of note, and more investigation of this inscription is required before firm conclusions can be drawn. The difficulty of establishing the complete text of this inscription makes conclusions about it tenuous at present, but Knohl raises the possibility here of a suffering Messiah tradition in the Land of Israel before and during the time of Jesus. 71.  For further discussion on this, see Chialà, “The Son of Man: The Evolution,” p. 163. 72.  Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6:137-50; see esp. pp. 149–50.

­352

Parables of Enoch

Son of Man traditions present in the Enochic writings. This is not the same as saying that he accepted them as sacred Scripture or that he added them to some sacred collection such as a biblical canon, but the parallels are suggestive that he was favorably receptive to these traditions and may have viewed them in the same way that he viewed other Scriptures of his day.

1 Enoch in Early Christianity We have demonstrated that several New Testament writings knew the Parables of Enoch; subsequently early Christian works also made use of and referred to them. Scholars have long recognized that those who produced the first four parts of 1 Enoch did not produce the Parables of Enoch nor were the Parables of Enoch copied initially with the other Enochic writings.73 While it is clear from the discoveries at Qumran that the first four parts of the Enochic collection circulated together, the Parables of Enoch (37–71) was likely inserted later, after the Book of the Watchers (1En 1–36), probably by the end of the first century or early second century ce, and probably because of the significant similarities in the content and form of the two documents.74 It is likely that the Parables of Enoch was added to the other Enoch books sometime in the late first or early second century ce. The first clear evidence of this is in the second century references to the Parables of Enoch that are identified in the collection attributed to Enoch. This is the first time that we see a reference to the Parables of Enoch in Christian communities, that is, when specific texts or emphases within the specific texts in the Parables of Enoch are cited. For example, Boccaccini observes an allusion in the presentation of the Son of Man as the embodiment of wisdom (1En 48:7; cf. 1Cor 1:25-27, 30). The combination of the power and wisdom of God in the Parables of Enoch is also reflected in Eph 1:8-9, 20-21, and to some extent in Heb 1:1-4. This same notion is carried on in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 61:3.75 There are several other parallels with 1 Enoch in the early centuries of the Church. In the rest of this section, I will list them along with use of the Parables of Enoch or parallels, noting the thoughts and perspectives in them within early Christianity.

73.  Charles, The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text, and Edited with the Introduction, Notes, and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged and Rewritten (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), pp. 65–66; and VanderKam, “The Book of Parables of Enoch within the Enoch Tradition,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 81–99; see esp. pp. 81–82. 74.  Ibid., pp. 98–99. If these documents were separate until this time, then this also might explain their absence at Qumran, but the timing of when these materials were added is not entirely clear, even though the timing given above is quite possible. 75.  Boccaccini, “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Jewish Literature,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, pp. 263–89; see esp. pp. 278–83.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­353

Despite rejection by later churches and councils, the Parables of Enoch and the rest of the Enochic tradition continued in Church use well into the Middle Ages, including in the Ethiopian and Manichean scriptures. 1 Enoch is listed in several lists of apocryphal literature continued well into the mid-ninth century ce, and by that time, of course, the Parables of Enoch had long been included in the Enochic corpus. 1 Enoch is listed in the apocryphal sections of the sixth-century Pseudo-Athanasius Synopsis and in the mid-ninth century Stichometry of Nicephorus. The general rejection of 1 Enoch after its initial widespread reception in early Christianity is surprising. It appears that the rejection begins with Origen. After this, its recognition as Scripture ceases in the majority of churches. VanderKam shows that Origen initially accepted the Enochic writings probably as Scripture and certainly as authoritative texts, but subsequently he reversed himself after moving to Caesarea, perhaps as a reflection of the current Jewish opinion of the Enoch tradition in the Land of Israel.76 Centuries later, when the book began to appear in rejected lists or catalogues, 1 Enoch nonetheless continued to have an influence on some Christians. 1 Enoch’s continuing presence in Ethiopian bibles no doubt reflects how such literature continued in churches long after council decisions were against it. The shelf life of 1 Enoch in early Christianity continued much longer than the activities of ancient Church councils would suggest. At the end of the first century ce, the Son of Man tradition appears to have had something of a resurgence of interest in the Christian community, at least in the community that received or produced the Apocalypse of John. Charlesworth has noted several similarities in word and thought shared by the Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John, some of which were noted earlier by R. H. Charles. After evaluating these parallels, Charlesworth suggests that at least one parallel reflects the Apocalypse’s likely dependence on the Parables of Enoch. Besides these,77 Charlesworth examines several other texts and concludes that while “there is no clear evidence that the author of the Apocalypse of John was dependent on the Parables of Enoch it would be foolish to claim that he did not know the work.”78 After evaluating the 76.  VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enoch Motifs,” pp. 54–60. 77.  See Charlesworth, “The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John,” sec. 9.2. These possible parallels with 1 Enoch include: Rev. 4:1 (1 En 14:15); 6:11 (*47:3-4); 8:8 (18:13); 9:1 (86:1); 9:20 (99:7); 14:10 (*48:9); 14:14 (*46:1); 17:14 (9:4); 20:8 (*56:5-8); 20:13 (*51:1); 22:2 (*62:3, 5). Charlesworth considered those with a * in front were more likely dependent on 1 Enoch, and they are, of course, from the Parables of Enoch. See R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), pp. lxxxiii, 1, 192, n. 1, and p. 204. 78.  Charlesworth, “The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John,” sec. 9.2. He finds that the most significant parallels are in Rev 3:10 (1En 37:5), 3:20 (1En 62:14); 4:6 (1En 40:2); 6:15-16 (1En 62:3, 5), and concludes that these at least are more probable examples of dependence, but one of these is a “highly probable” instance. This “probable” instance is Rev 6:15-16: “Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful hid in caves … calling … ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the

­354

Parables of Enoch

evidence for this dependence, he reminds us that the author of Jude clearly cited 1 Enoch with the reasonable implication that it should not be surprising if other Christian writers did as well.79 Later elements of the early Church accepted other portions of the Enochic tradition as Scripture, as we have observed above. Some of these other parallels are also worth careful consideration.80 Following a summary of the evidence for the use of the Parables of Enoch in the New Testament, I will concentrate on the Parables of Enoch in early Christianity.81

Lamb …’” 1En 62:3, 5 reads: “And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, and the exalted and those who hold the earth … and they shall be terrified … and pain shall seize them, when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory.” 79.  Ibid. 80.  Some of these other Enochic parallels include the following: (1) 1En 15:6-7: “Indeed, formerly you were spiritual, [having] eternal life, and immortal in all the generations of the world. That is why [formerly] I did not make wives for you, for the dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven.” – Mk 12:25: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” [The similarity here is in the thought that angels do not marry and neither do those who go from this life to the next.] (2) 1En 22:9-10: “… the spirits of the dead might be separated. And in the manner in which the souls of the righteous are separated [by] this spring of water with light upon it, in like manner, the sinners are set apart when they die and are buried.” – Lk 16:26: “Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.” [The similarity is more in the notion of separation in the afterlife.] (3) 1En 94:8: “Woe unto you, O rich people! For you have put your trust in your wealth. You shall ooze out of your riches, for you do not remember the Most High.” – Lk 6.24: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” (4) 1En 97:8-10: “Woe unto you who gain silver and gold by unjust means; you will then say, ‘We have grown rich and accumulated goods, we have acquired everything that we have desired. So now let us do whatever we like; for we have gathered silver, we have filled our treasuries [with money] like water. And many are the laborers in our houses.’ Your lies flow like water. For your wealth shall not endure but it shall take off from you quickly, for you have acquired it all unjustly, and you shall be given over to a great curse.” – Lk 12.19-21: “And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘you fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.” [The parallel here is in the notion of putting confidence in worldly goods and losing all of one’s wealth.] See also 1En 5:7 (Mt 5:5); 16:1 (Mt 13:39); 22:9 (Lk 16:26); 94:8 (Lk 6:24); 97:8-10 (Lk 12:19); 103:4 (Mt 26:13). There are also several similarities between Mt 11:25-28 and 11QPs 154 (see 11Q5 18.3-6). 81.  In terms of the broader Enochic tradition, Davila has also observed several parallels between 2En and the Matthew. See his discussion posted on his University of St. Andrews website at: http://www.st.andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/abstracts/2enoch2/. Some of these parallels are also listed in Beale and Carson, Commentary, pp. 1233–34. However, because the date and provenience of 2En are even less certain than for 1En, this will not be considered here. For introduction information on 2En, see F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in OTP 1:91-97; and also his “Second Book of Enoch,” ABD 2:516-22.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­355

Summary of the New Testament Parallels to 1 Enoch Many of the above listed examples are, of course, not clear enough to be called direct citations or quotations from the Parables of Enoch. We cannot insist that these examples reflect with any certainty a first-hand level of dependence either by Jesus or the Evangelists on the Enochic writings. While scholars often disagree on whether the Evangelists were reflecting the words of Jesus in these parallels or the perspectives of their own communities of faith, I would argue that they do reflect Jesus’ perspective and his awareness and use of the Parables of Enoch in presenting his own identity as the apocalyptic Son of Man. Again, it makes little sense for the early Church to place these words on the lips of Jesus and then not to emphasize them in the subsequent development of the early Christian movement. On the other hand, the limited references or parallels to the Parables of Enoch in the later Christian writings reflect perhaps limited appreciation of them in some early Christian communities, but the evidence is not overwhelming. In some of the instances listed above, we may likely see a reflection of shared ideas that were common among many Jews in the time of Jesus. This awareness is not unlike the popularity of many biblical notions and phrases that have become a part of the lingua franca of society. Many people who never (or seldom) read the Bible are familiar with biblical phrases such as “dividing the child” (Solomon), “a Judas,” and “a prodigal son,” and other such expressions. Users of such expressions often do not know their biblical roots, but the expressions or ideas in them have become familiar parlance for generations. Some of the parallels may be explained this way, but not all of them. Many ancient texts were obviously familiar to Jewish and early Christian communities in the first century ce and also functioned as authoritative religious texts for a season, but later when they ceased to have that function they were subsequently ignored or rejected by the majority of the churches.82 What appears most likely is that the religious texts that informed Jesus and the early churches cannot be limited to the books that were finally received into the Hebrew Bible biblical canon. Did Jesus or the early Christians adopt a fixed collection of Scriptures? Only if we define his received collection of sacred texts in the way that they were defined by classics (pinax / pinakes) at Alexandria, Jesus and the early churches clearly welcomed and cited many sacred religious texts, but there is no evidence that they adopted a fixed collection of Scriptures.83 Neither Jesus nor the writers of the New Testament 82.  This “decanonizing” feature is discussed in my Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), pp. 24–25, 141–42, 224, n. 3. 83.  How does one know a text is cited as Scripture, or at least with authority? The evidence is seen in how the text is cited, namely whether it is introduced with gegraptai or the equivalents, but the real test is whether the text is cited in an authoritative manner in a religious context. If so, that is likely evidence of its recognition as Scripture (generally). It is not unusual for a text to be

­356

Parables of Enoch

cited all of the books of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, and there is no evidence that they were informed by all of them. On the other hand, there are several similarities in language and thought with some of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings and these suggest that the early Christians were also informed by a broader collection of sacred texts than what was eventually included in the Christian Bibles. On the other hand, the Jewish writings that most informed Jesus and early Christianity were not so much the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings, but rather what we now call the Old Testament writings, especially Deuteronomy, the Psalms, and Isaiah. Without question, many of the books that were finally included in the Hebrew Bible were highly treasured as Scripture by a number of Jews in the time of Jesus and before, especially the Pharisees, and also by Jesus himself and his followers. The evidence for Jesus’ acceptance of them is seen in two ways, namely the texts that are reflected in his teachings and the texts that later informed his followers who produced the New Testament writings and other early Christian literature. We also see this reflection in the Apostolic Fathers. The Scriptures of Jesus were like those of many other Jews of his day, but this does not suggest any fixed biblical canon at that time, unless we conclude that something of an open and flexible biblical canon existed at that time. The notion and acceptance of divinely inspired Scripture was prevalent in the time of Jesus, but which books were acknowledged as Scripture at that time is not clear. M. Holmes, although talking specifically about the New Testament Scriptures, is correct in his reference to the imprecise collections of Jewish and Christian Scriptures in the time of Jesus and for several centuries. He correctly observes from his years of examining the ancient biblical manuscripts and the early Church Fathers that the boundaries of the biblical canon were still fluid in the time of Jesus and for a considerable time thereafter.84 It took much longer for broad agreement on such matters to take place in both Judaism and early Christianity. We are likely on firm ground, however, by saying that many Jewish religious texts, besides those that were finally included in the Bible, informed the faith of Jesus and his early followers. We will now look more specifically at the importance of the Parables of Enoch in early Christianity.

cited as Scripture without the usual scriptural designations (“as it is written,” “as the Scripture says,” etc.), even in the New Testament. Citing a text as a religious authority, however, is different from citing it as canon, that is, as a fixed collection of sacred Scriptures. In some cases a text may be cited just because it is believed to be true, but it is a fine line to distinguish between what is inspired and what is true. In fact, in the first five centuries there is very little distinction made between inspiration and what is true. 84.  M. W. Holmes, “The Biblical Canon,” The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. S. A. Harvey and D. G. Hunter (New York, Oxford: OUP, 2008), pp. 406–26; see esp. pp. 419–20. He does not say how long the boundaries were fluid, but Holmes is aware of the variety of notions on the scope of the New Testament canon well into the fourth century.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­357

Citations of the Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity The challenge of identifying the use of the Parables of Enoch Along with the several parallels between the Parables of Enoch and New Testament writings, especially the Gospels, some of the early churches were also influenced by this literature in the first few centuries. It is often difficult to distinguish between the Parables of Enoch and the other Enochic writings in the various early Christian references to this corpus. If they were included in the Enochic corpus by the end of the first century or early second, as some scholars have argued, then it is likely that the Parables of Enoch had some influence on the Christian community as well, but the more frequent references are to the Book of the Watchers (1En 1–36) and the judgments that will come to the angels as a result of their sin. When references are made to Enoch or the writings attributed to him, it is not always clear which portion of the Enoch literature is in view. There are no specific references that mention or identify the Parables of Enoch. Some initial observations In 1897, H. J. Lawlor showed that the text that lies behind the Ethiopic text of Enoch is often at odds with the earlier forms of it. He distinguishes the text behind the Ethiopic text, the Gizeh Greek text, and the Greek fragments preserved by Georgius Syncellus (c. 800 ce). His aim was to show that there are many differences between the current text used and those from the first two centuries ce. Scholars continue to cite Lawlor’s work today.85 There are relatively very few specific citations of the Enochic writings that have survived antiquity, especially after the third century, except for those that reject or condemn them. The relative absence of references to the Parables of Enoch in the early churches also makes it difficult to say how much they may have influenced early Christianity.86 Aside from their clearer influence on the Gospels with regard to the identity and mission of the Son of Man, most of the references to the Parables of Enoch are rather vague. Here is a listing of the citations to 1 Enoch in early Christian literature with the Parables of Enoch: Enoch in Patristic literature 1. 2.

Epistle of Barnabus (c. 70–100 or 130–150, and possible as late as 140, Alexandria) 4:3 cites Enoch (use of gegraptai); 16:4-6 (= a summary of 1En 106:19-107, esp. 91:13; cf. also 1En 89:56-74). Apocalypse of Peter (c. 100–110, possibly Egypt) 2–8 (1En 108:7-9; 106:2, 10; 61:9-11; 53:3).

85.  H. J. Lawlor, “Early Citations from the Book of Enoch,” Journal of Philology 25 (1897), 164–225; see esp. pp. 165–68. 86.  [See Charlesworth’s suggestion, in his chapters, that the authors of Jude and the Odes of Solomon seem to know the Parables of Enoch. JHC.]

­358

Parables of Enoch

Odes of Solomon (c. 100–125, northern Israel or Syria). The Odist seems to have had some familiarity with several Jewish non-canonical writings, as well as some early Christian apocryphal writings. As in the case of canonical writings, except for Jude 14, the Odist never directly cites or quotes by name any apocryphal or pseudepigraphal literature, but the many parallels suggest that the Odist was familiar not only with the canonical Psalms and several Old Testament books, but also with 1 Enoch as well as the Psalms of Solomon (cf. PssSol 14 and OdesSol 11:12, 16, 18 and 38:17; see also PssSol 15 and OdesSol 37:2 and 41:16; PssSol 18:12-14; cf. OdesSol 16:13). In the case of 1 Enoch, it is possible that 1 Enoch 48:1-10 influenced the description in Ode 30 of a living spring (of wisdom) and an exhortation for all who are thirsty to come and drink. Also, compare 1 Enoch 48:2-10 with OdesSol 36:1-3.87 It is also likely that the Odes influenced the subsequent author of the Ascension of Isaiah.88 4. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165, Neapolis near Samaria, Ephesus, Rome), 1 Apologia 2:5 (cf. 1En 7; 8:9; 15:8, 9).89 5. Tatian (c. 110–72, Rome and Antioch), Oratio adv. Graecos 18.20 (cf. 1En 8:3; 6:6; 15:8, 9) likely also used the Book of the Watchers (with parallels in 1En 6–16 calling demons “angels”). 6. Athenagoras (c. 170–180, Athens), Legatio pro Christianis 24, 25 (cf. 1En 6, 7, 13:5; 15:3, 8, 10; 60:15-21). 7. Minucius Felix (second or third century, North Africa), Octavius 26 (1En 8; 15:8-12; 16:1; 19:1). 8. Irenaeus (c. 130–200, Bishop of Lyons), Adv. Haer. 1.2.1 (1 En 10:13-14); 1.8.17 (1En 7:1; 8:1); 4.16.2 (1En 12:4-6; 13; 14:3-7; 15; 16); 4:36.4 (1En 10:2); 4.58.4 (1En 7:1); 5.28.2 (1En 15:3; 99:7; 19:1); 5.5.1, plus 1.15.6 (1En 8:1; cf. 10:8); Adv. Haer. 4.36.4 draws on 1 Enoch and the portrayal of angelic rebellion. Adv. Haer. 4.16.2 (cf. 1En 12.13, 6ff., 10). See also 4.36.4, where Irenaeus understood Gen 5:21-24 and 6:1-4 in light of 1 Enoch. 9. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), Eclogae prophetarum 2.1, 53; 3.456 (1En 19:3); 3.474 (1En 8:2-3); Strom 3.9 (1En 8; 16:3). 10. Tertullian (c. 160–225, Carthage), Apol. 22 (cf. 1En 15:8, 9); De cultu feminarum 1.3.1 (1En 8:1, 3); 2.10 (1En 8:1); De Idolatria 4, 15 (1En 19:1; 99:6-7); 9 (1En 6; 14:5), 15; De Virg. Veland. 7 (1En 6; 14:5; see also De Anima 50). 11. Hippolytus (c. 170–236, Rome), De Christo et Antochristo 43–47; Or. adv. Graecos (cf. 1En 22:3; 21:1). 12. Zosimus of Panopolis (d. 418, Bishop of Rome from 417), quoted in Syncellus (c 800 ce), Chronography 1, 1, 42 (cf. 1En 6–8). 1 Enoch is mentioned several times in the surviving fragments of this Western work. 3.

87.  See Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon,” OTP 2:732-33, for a description of these parallels. 88.  Ibid. Charlesworth draws attention to four comparisons, namely, compare AscenIs 4:6 with OdesSol 38:10, which focuses on the Deceiver imitating the Beloved; compare also AscenIs 7:10 with Ode 34:4 in its cosmological perspective; compare AscenIs 9:12-18 with OdesSol 22:1 on the identification of the “Beloved” and references to crowns and garments; and finally compare AscenIs 11:2-5 with OdesSol 19:8 ff. on the lack of needing a midwife and the Ascension of Isaiah claiming that in the birth of Jesus, Mary had no pain. 89.  I owe this observation to George Nickelsburg, “Enoch,” ABD 2:516.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­359

13. Gospel of Nicodemus 25 (= Acts of Pilate, c. fourth century, though possibly rooted in second century traditions). 14. History of Joseph the Carpenter (fourth–fifth century, Egypt), 30–32.90 15. Julius Africanus (c. 237–40, Nicopolis, Edessa, Alexandria), Chronographia (1En 7:1; 8:1, 2, 3; 10:1 ff.) 16. Origen (c. 185–254, Alexandria and Caesarea), Contra Celsum 5.52, 54-55; De Principiis 1.3.3; 4.4.8; 4:35 (cf. 1En 21:1; see also In Numeros homilia 28.2; and In Johannem 6.42). Origen initially accepted 1 Enoch as Scripture, but later rejected the Enochic writings. The rejection implies that 1 Enoch was regularly read in some churches. Earlier Origen calls the Enochic writings “Scripture” (De Princ. 1.3; 4.35). After the death of Origen, orthodox writers seldom refer to 1 Enoch for more than two centuries, Lactantius and Eusebius being the primary exceptions. It is not precisely clear when the Enochic writings were specifically excluded by name. Generally speaking, however, after Origen there are few positive citations of the Enochic literature in subsequent Church literature, although the volume continued in the Ethiopian biblical canon. 17. Sixty Books. 1 Enoch is listed in the second place of some 25 apocryphal (rejected) writings in the Catalogue of Sixty Canonical Books (seventh century ce) and it stands first in the apocryphal writings listed in the Stichometry of Nicephorus (c. mid-ninth century ce). The listing of this book as late as the seventh and ninth centuries, even in a rejected or apocryphal listing, shows that the Enochic writings were still welcome in some Christian communities at that late date. Why else would they be listed as rejected books if no one were still using them? We should note that the survival of the Parables of Enoch only in the Ethiopian Ge’ez language and only partially or fragmentarily in Greek after the fourth century ce suggests that the document largely ceased functioning in the Greek-speaking Christian communities as a sacred or canonical text earlier than elsewhere. That Enoch is still listed in these late listings of sacred and apocryphal books shows its continuing history in the ancient churches. 18. Acta SS. Perpet. et Felic. 7, 8, 12 (cf. 1En 22:9; 14:8-17; see possibly also 24:3-4). 19. Commodian (c. 250, Africa and Palestine), Instructiones 1.3 (1En 6:1, 2; 14:5; 1:9; 13:2; 10:4 ff.; 12; 7:2; 8:1; 19:1; 15:6; 19:1). His works were deemed apocryphal in the Decretum Gelasianum (c. 492–96). 20. Cyprian (c. 250, d. 258), De Hab. Virg. 14 (cf. 1En 8:1 ff.). 21. Pseudo-Cyprian (mid to late third century, Carthage), Ad Novatianum (1En 1:9), which uses the scriptural designation “sicut scriptum est,” suggesting that 1 Enoch is on par with canonical Scriptures. 22. Clementine homilies (fourth century) 8:12 (cf. 1En 6:1–19:1). 23. Lactantius (c. 320), Inst. 2.14; 3.15 (cf. 1En 14:5-7; 69:4; 7:1; 54:6; 15:8-11; 16:1; 19:1); 4.27; 5.18 (1En 19:1); 7:7 (1En 22); 7:16 (1En 80:2); 7:19 (1En 90:19; 91:12; cf. 54 and 63); 7:24 (1En 10:17 ff.); 7:26 (1En 48:9). 24. Anatolius (bishop of Laodicea, c. 310, and teacher of Lactantius, died c. 282), referred to by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:32.19) (cf. 1En 72:6-8, 31, 32); in his Disputations 2.17 he rejects the book of Enoch. 90.  I owe this observation to J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 111–17.

­360

Parables of Enoch

Negative comments about the Enochic writings 25. Epiphanius (315–403, Bishop of Salamis), Haeres. 1.4 (cf. 1En 7:1; 86:1). 26. Cassian (c. 360–435, Egypt, Constantinople, Marseilles), Collatio 8.20-21 (cf. 1En 8:1). 27. Augustine (354–430, Hippo, North Africa), De Civitate Dei 15.23 (cf. 18.38). Here Augustine clearly rejects 1 Enoch as Scripture. Interestingly, he was confronted by an obvious question at that time, namely, how can one reject a book (1 Enoch) that is cited as an inspired or prophetic book by a biblical or canonical author such as we see in the Jude 14 citation of 1En 1:9? He argued, contrary to Tertullian’s position, that the book was not necessarily to be believed just because a biblical writer cited it (Jude). He further argued that authority was granted only to the portion cited by Jude and not to the whole of Enoch (see also Jerome’s, De Viris Illust. 4; Comm. Ep. ad Tit. 1.12). After this, the book was lost in the Western Church except in the fragments preserved by George Syncellus’ Chronography (c. 800 ce; fragments 6–9:4; 8:4–10:14; 15:8–16:1). 28. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–67, the “Athanasius of the West,” appointed bishop in 353), Commentarius in Psalmum 132:3-6, shows awareness of 1En 6:6, but Hilary, after referring to them, apologizes for mentioning the book since what he commented on is “not contained in the Book of the Law.” 29. Chrysostom (347–407, Bishop of Constantinople), Homil. in Gen. 6:1 (possible). 30. Jerome (c. 342–420, Bethlehem), De virus illustribus 4; Comment. in Ps. 132:3; and Constit. Apost. 6.16. Jerome clearly rejected the canonicity of Enoch, saying “Legimus in quodam libro apocrypho” (Brev. in Psalm. 133.3), and he specifically rejected 1En 6:4, 5, in his Commentarius in Epistolam ad Titum 1.12. 31. Priscillian (c. 380, Spain), Tractatus 3.56-57. This is a possible exception to the negative reception that 1 Enoch had in the West. Priscillian was influenced by Gnostic teachings made available to him by an Egyptian named Marcus and made allusions or references to Enochic literature, but it is not certain if he actually had access to that literature. While accused of citing non-canonical writings, he defended himself in De Fide et de Apocryphis, claiming that he is simply following the example of previous “inspired” writers (presumably biblical writers and earlier Church Fathers), which is his strongest argument, namely that non-canonical writings are cited by the New Testament writers, as in the case of Jude citing 1En 1:9 and Matthew’s possible allusion to Tobit citing “out of Egypt have I called my son.” It is not certain, however, that he was aware of 1 Enoch since he listed some apocryphal texts (“Adam, Sed (Seth), Noe, Abraham, Isac, Iacob”) but did not mention 1 Enoch!91 Lawlor concludes that 1 Enoch was read almost exclusively by Greekspeaking Christians, but also by “a few learned men who were acquainted with the Greek tongue.”92 It is not certain that a complete translation of 1 Enoch was available in Latin, the language of the West in Priscillian’s day, and perhaps only fragments of it that survive in Latin reflect translations of a few selected 91.  92. 

So argues Lawlor, “Early Citations,” pp. 222–23. Ibid., pp. 224–25.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­361

texts in it rather than the whole of 1 Enoch. However, here we are on uncertain ground, arguing largely from silence.

Summary of parallels with Parables of Enoch in early Christianity Apocalypse of Peter (c. 100–110, possibly Egypt) 2–8 (cf. 1En 61:9-11; 53:3). Odes of Solomon 30:1-7 (c. 100–125) (cf. 1En 48:1, 7). OdeSol 30 may have been influenced by 1En 48:1-10, or at least by a common oral tradition behind both texts. The parallel here is a reference to the living spring and exhortation for all who are thirsty (for wisdom or righteousness) to come and drink which also has a similar presence in the New Testament (Jn 4:13-15; Rev 21:6; 22:17). Compare also Ode 36:1-3 with 1En 48:2-10. 3. Athenagoras (c. 170–180, Athens), Legatio pro Christianis 24, 25 (cf. 1En 60:15-21). 4. Origen (185–254, Alexandria and Caesarea), Contra Celsum 5.52-54 (possible reference to 1En 67:5-11). 5. Lactantius (c. 320, Nicomedia, Constantinople), Inst. 2.14; 3.15 (cf. 1En 69:4); 7:1 (1En 54:6); 7:26 (1En 48:9). 6. The Book of Adam and Eve (c. 100 bce–100 ce initially and the final edition c. fifth–sixth century) 1.8 (1En 61:9-12); 2.22 (1En 39:4, 6, 7).93 These references, of course, show that the book of Enoch, including the Parables of Enoch, was known and cited or alluded to in Egypt as late as the fifth century ce.

1. 2.

These parallels are mostly from the second century ce, one from the early third century and one each from the fourth and fifth centuries. The citations, allusions, or word parallels are few and reflect widespread circulation in early Christianity (Alexandria, Constantinople, Caesarea, Athens, Egypt, northern Israel). 1 Enoch follows the Book of Job in the Old Testament of the Abyssinian Church. Parallels in Gnostic and apocryphal literature There are some parallels between 1 Enoch and some Gnostic and apocryphal literature. Only one of these references has some similarity with the Parables of Enoch (Book of Adam and Eve). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Pistis Sophia (third century ce) (cf. 1En 32:3, 6; 7:1; 8:3). Acts of Thomas (c. early to mid-third century, Syriac, likely Edessa) 32 (1En 6:6; 86:3; 7:2, 4). Acts of the “Disputation of Archelaus with Manes” (early fourth century) 32 (1En 86:1, 3; 7:1; 15:3; 18:11-12). Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea 3.3 (cf. 1En 100:10, 12); see also Apocalypse of Paul 4 ff. (with parallels to 1En 100:10, 12). Apocalypse of Moses (c. fifth century) (cf. 1En 9:1; 20:1ff.) The Book of Adam and Eve (c. fifth–sixth century?) 1.8 (cf. 1En 61:9-12); 1.11, 14 (1En 22:9); 2.2, 8 (1En 26:1; 90:26); 2.19 (1En 6:6; cf. 8:1); 2.22 (1En 39:4, 6, 7); 3.4 (1En 6–10; see also 14:5; 90:26).

93.  Ibid., pp. 205–06.

­362

Parables of Enoch

Rejection of Enochic literature Despite official or widespread rejection of the Enochic writings, they nevertheless continued to be used well into the Middle Ages, including in the present in Ethiopian churches. 1 Enoch was also important among the Manicheans. The listing of 1 Enoch among rejected apocryphal literature is present in the Apostolic Constitutions 6.16 (c. 350–375, Syria), PseudoAthanasius Synopsis (sixth century), the Christian catalogue identified as the “Sixty Books” list (c. perhaps sixth century ce), and the Stichometry of Nicephorus (ninth century). This formal rejection shows that Enochic literature continued to have some influence on subsequent generations of Christians. Despite this, 1 Enoch’s continuing presence even currently in Ethiopian bibles no doubt reflects how 1 Enoch literature continued to influence churches long after Church councils spoke against it.94 The shelf life of 1 Enoch in early Christianity apparently continued longer than some ancient Church councils might suggest. Its influence on the theology of early Christianity, as noted above, is also worth remembering, especially with regard to the New Testament. The writings that comprise 1 Enoch were viewed initially as Scripture, but even after large numbers of churches rejected them, they continued to inform the faith of some Christians.

Conclusion Returning to an earlier question, namely whether Jesus and the early Christians knew and made use of what we now call ancient apocryphal (or deuterocanonical) and pseudepigraphal religious texts, the simple answer is that most likely they did. Specific parallels, however, are not always clear and they may in fact be a shared oral tradition circulating in the Land of Israel in the time of Jesus and his followers. Nevertheless, my initial response is that Jesus and his followers probably knew and used several non-canonical writings that eventually were excluded from the biblical canon. As I have argued elsewhere, there were no fixed biblical canons in the time of Jesus.95 Since several collections of Jewish religious texts were circulating among various sects of Jews in the Land of Israel in the time of Jesus, it would be surprising if Jesus and his followers failed to use some of them to further their own message about Jesus and the Kingdom of God. There is scarcely anything in the apocryphal or pseudepigraphal texts that is contrary to early Christian preaching or teaching. In addition, the popularity of some of these texts among Jews and Christians favors their knowledge and use by Jesus and his earliest followers. Because of the significant number of verbal parallels in several of the instances that we have observed, we can safely conclude that the Enochic 94.  Schürer makes this point in History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1:263-64. 95.  See McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pp. 190–94.

The Parables of Enoch in Early Christianity

­363

traditions, including the Parables of Enoch, informed the faith of the Jews and Christians in the first century ce. Likewise, some Christians included them in their early collections of sacred Scriptures. Because the most significant parallels with the Parables of Enoch have to do with the identity and role of the Son of Man, and because this title was not generally used in the early Church as a designation for Jesus, we are on fairly solid ground to say that the use of this term in the Gospels is an authentic selfdesignation by Jesus. Again, why would the early Church invent a term, place it on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels, and then ignore or abandon it thereafter? The bigger question is what did Jesus mean by this designation? Did Jesus have in mind the eschatological Judge portrayed in the Parables of Enoch, namely one who comes at the end of the age, ruling with power and dominion and sitting “on the throne of his glory” and judging humanity? The early Church seems to think so, since several of these notions are found elsewhere in the rest of the New Testament even when the specific designation is not present. There appears to be no consistent use of the non-canonical religious texts in early Christian literature, but that does not rule out that some contemporary Jews and many early followers of Jesus knew and were informed by these writings and the oral traditions that gave rise to them. The Parables of Enoch influenced to some extent Jesus’ and the early Church’s notion of the role of the eschatological Son of Man who comes at the end of the age to bring judgment on those who persecuted the righteous and did evil in the presence of God (“seated on the throne of his glory”; and points made by Adele Yarbro Collins noted above). As we have seen, some of the Gospel texts seem to reflect a conflation of several texts, especially Daniel 7, Isaiah 52–53, Psalm 110, and the Parables of Enoch. Despite Davila’s important reminder about copiers and translators of ancient texts having a long history of changing the texts they copied, some of the parallels are close enough to suggest familiarity and use. Exact word parallels are seldom present but they are not necessary to show familiarity, and we have shown that several word and thought similarities often do exist. This points to some Christian awareness of this literature, or the traditions that gave rise to it. The Evangelists and subsequent Christians made use of and modified their sources to advance their particular interests in telling their stories about Jesus and the Christian faith. Because we have no writings from Jesus, we cannot prove that he knew and cited any non-canonical texts as sacred Scripture, but it appears obvious that some of the theological notions current in his time and reflective of his teaching in the canonical Gospels derive from the so-called non-canonical and apocryphal religious texts, including the Parables of Enoch.

­

Conclusion James H. Charlesworth and Darrell L. Bock

Introduction We present these chapters on the Parables of Enoch (1En 37–71) because of a new consensus on this exciting composition (demonstrated in Bock’s chapter), and because too many New Testament scholars are oblivious of such major paradigm shifts in the study of Second Temple Judaism, the matrix of Jesus and almost all New Testament traditions. It is patently obvious that a major disconnect presently exists between New Testament scholars’ understanding of the Parables of Enoch and how Jewish and Christian scholars, who specialize in early Judaism, now understand the date and provenience of this masterpiece. We think the preceding chapters update research on the Books of Enoch, which is a library of early Jewish apocalyptic compositions that date from about 300 bce to almost 70 ce. Also, central is the need to re-examine how the Parables of Enoch helps contextualize the Palestinian Jesus Movement and provides a source for concepts and beliefs in the New Testament. In the present conclusion, we summarize what these studies suggest about the origins and significance of the Parables of Enoch as well as how the document helps us comprehend more deeply Jesus’ ministry and the origin and theology of the Gospels. We will summarize the chapters in their order.

Survey of the Preceding Chapters The chapter by Geza Vermes updates his classic work on the Son of Man which appeared initially in 1967.1 Vermes deals with issues his conclusion raised and continues to argue that the expression is an exclusive self-reference. Vermes’ position contrasts with the conclusion advocated by Barnabas Lindars2 and Maurice Casey;3 they contended “the Son of Man” was a generic reference. Vermes continues to insist that the term is a specific self-reference when used by Jesus. Vermes also deals with issues tied to the use of Galilean Aramaic as reflected in the Palestinian Targumim and Rabbinics. 1.  The article appeared as Appendix E in the volume by Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: OUP, 1967 [2nd edn.]), pp. 310–28. 2.  B. Lindars, “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1975–76), 52–72. 3.  M. Casey, “The Son of Man Problem,” ZNW 67 (1976), 147–54.

Conclusion

­365

This defense is important, because when Vermes turns to the critique of Paul Owen and David Shepherd,4 he contends that they do not sufficiently appreciate the differences between himself and the other two, Lindars and Casey. Linguistically, he notes examples of the elision of aleph that negates their critique, and insists that one can use later Galilean Aramaic to adjudicate issues of wording, even though he notes that the use of such evidence is “second best.” This linguistic debate is likely to continue, but the case for a specific reference is underscored. In light of Vermes’ insights, we hold it to be important that when Jesus uses the term “the Son Man,” he uses it exclusively of himself and with reference to the unique nature of his ministry. Conceivably, if Jesus intermittently envisions another “Son of Man,” he could be seeing his “Double” (following the brilliant insights of VanderKam and Stuckenbruck). The chapter by James Dunn takes the common position that Mark’s Gospel gives no evidence of the use of the Son of Man traditions developed in the Books of Enoch. Mark’s Gospel shows the influence of Daniel 7 and traditions originating in Jesus’ own teaching. Dunn also suggests that the titular use is a reflection of the “early church.” In his view, no further influences exist for the concept we see in Mark. Our overall collection raises one focused question. Should scholars limit their understanding of what Jesus taught to what is found only in Mark? In light of contemporary research on Mark, it is apparent that the second Evangelist is not as sensitive overall to issues tied to Judaism as our other Evangelists, especially Matthew and John. So might the absence of Enoch themes in Mark reflect more about Mark’s own theology and the audience to which Mark writes than being an accurate reflection of what Jesus taught and knew? The influences of The Parables of Enoch are much more evident in Matthew, as the subsequent studies by Grant Macaskill and Leslie Walck show; hence, the origin and meaning of the “Son of Man” in the Jesus traditions remains a question that deserves focus and more development. Such focused and informed research looms large, especially if the origins of the Parables of Enoch are tied to Galilee in a time contemporary to Jesus, as demonstrated by James H. Charlesworth and Mordechai Aviam. Moreover, are we certain that no traces of the Parables of Enoch appear in Mark and Luke, as Macaskill and Walck contend? The case for reassessing the date and provenience of the Parables of Enoch opens with the chapter by James Charlesworth; in this study he not only restates but updates his publications on the Books of Enoch that began to appear in 1976.5 These studies discuss, notably, the origin and date of the Parables of 4.  P. Owen and D. Shepherd, “Speaking Up for Qumran, Dalman, and the Son of Man: Was Bar ’Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus,” JSNT 81 (2001), 81–122. Their argument parallels to a degree the work by J. Fitzmyer in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 85–113. 5.  J. H. Charlesworth, “1977 (Tübingen; Eberhard-Karls Universität): The Books of Enoch,” and “1978 (Paris; Châtenay-Malabry): 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch and Luke and the Dating of the

­366

Parables of Enoch

Enoch. His fresh study advances a theory that the origins of this section of the Books of Enoch lie in Galilee, which we now know archaeologically became very Jewish beginning with the Hasmonean conquests at the end of the second century bce. In particular, Charlesworth shows that the Parthian invasion of 40 bce, during which the Parthian army succeeded in reaching the citadel within Jerusalem’s walls, and the loss of Jewish farming lands to Roman quislings beginning in 37 bce, indicates that the Parables of Enoch is a Jewish work that should be dated to the Herodian period and located in Galilee, the breadbasket of the Land of Israel. As a whole, the case our studies make for a new paradigm of this Jewish apocalyptic gem begins fundamentally with Charlesworth’s chapter. The Forschungsbericht by Darrell Bock maps out the diverse views about the origin of the Parables of Enoch. While many New Testament scholars tend to minimize the influence of the Books of Enoch on the documents collected into the New Testament, claiming an origin too late to be relevant, most Second Temple scholars see an earlier origin for the Parables of Enoch and have defended that dating in some detail in numerous publications (and especially in the present book). The disconnect between New Testament scholarly assessments and the growing consensus among Second Temple scholars is the key point of Bock’s review of publications. Bock’s study is a Neutestamentler’s appeal for his colleagues to take notice of the early Jewish and Galilean date of the Parables of Enoch. He urges New Testament specialists to become more aware of what Second Temple scholars are discovering concerning the Books of Enoch. Bock has become convinced that a fresh assessment of the origin of the Parables of Enoch will prove fruitful for the study of the Palestinian Jesus Movement and the traditions in the Gospels. Paul Owen’s chapter examines the Aramaic and Greek concepts of “the Son of Man.” His study traces the development of the messianic idea from Daniel 7 to the Parables of Enoch. In particular, he points out how the depiction of the Son of Man as one serving in Daniel is not a category that normally belongs to a corporate body like the saints or Israel. He sees an allusion to a singular figure here as a part of the interpretation of Daniel because of such images (see Dan 7:14 and its use of service and worship with 7:27 and the reference to the kingdom). The author of the Parables of Enoch develops this individual role with some detail in several key texts, notably chapters 46, 48, 62, 69, and 70–71. Owen then works through the standard three-fold division of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels: apocalyptic, ministry, and suffering sayings. In presenting the Son of Man, the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels share an individual and messianic reference, point to a final judgment role for this figure, allude to Isaiah’s suffering figure (1En 42:6 and 49:6 with Mk 10:45), Parables of Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament (SNTS MS 54; Cambridge, New York: CUP, 1985), pp. 102–10. And Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976).

Conclusion

­367

point to an agent of salvation, share the titles of “Elect One” and “Messiah,” and speak of the throne of the Son of Man. Perhaps the main questions raised by Owen’s chapter are whether the allusion to Isaiah’s servant is so strong and whether the portrayal of the Son of Man as an individual is so clear in Daniel. The chapter by James VanderKam and Dulcinea Boesenberg is a comparative piece, discerning how Moses as portrayed in Second Temple texts may be a foil to Enoch. One of the interesting features in the Books of Enoch is the diminished role given to Moses. The absence of Moses in both the Apocalypse of Weeks (1En 93; 91:11-17) and the Animal Apocalypse (1En 85–95) is surprising. Obviously, the array of Second Temple texts in which Moses is prominent illustrates his importance to many Jews. This prominence of Moses in many Jewish texts makes his denouement in the Enochic materials startling. A heavenly person or biblical sage shaping one Jewish group can be less prominent for another group. Hence, the Parables of Enoch is conceivably absent at Qumran, because that Community celebrates the Teacher of Righteousness as luminary. VanderKam and Boesenberg’s chapter also shows how Moses receives one portrait in texts composed in Palestine and another portrayal in Diasporic Jewish texts. Jews in the Hellenistic period portrayed Enoch and Moses with insight into the past, present, and future of God’s work. The Jews imagined both as cultural heroes, enthroned, and known before their births. There are also major differences in how Jews portray Moses and Enoch. First, Moses’ portrait is rooted in biblical elements, but Enoch’s depiction is grounded in extra-biblical features. This distinction is not surprising as there is more information in the Hebrew Bible about Moses than any other biblical figure. Second, Moses lacks a connection to judgment, but Enoch becomes the eschatological Judge. Third, Moses is conceived as a man of Torah, but Enoch is a man of science dealing with issues of nature and the angels. Fourth, Moses’ influence is restricted to Israel and the Torah given at Sinai, but Enoch is a figure tied to a broad sphere of humanity, since he lived before the Flood. Fifth, the Torah mentions Moses’ death, but earlier reports that Enoch does not die. Nothing in these differences allows us to pinpoint the provenience of these writers and admirers. This comparison is enlightening, interesting, and advances our understanding of how early Jews portrayed and selected ideal figures. The study enriches our perception of the varieties of early Jewish thought in Hellenistic times. Obviously, the search for the origin of the Parables of Enoch is enriched. There seems to be some social tension between the Jewish groups who idolized Moses and those who chose Enoch as spokesman and luminary. One might speculate that since Jews in Jerusalem’s cult revered Moses as the defining biblical figure, Jews in Galilee would prefer and elevate Enoch. Such possibilities could be enriched by sociological studies of groups, sects, liminality, charismatic figures, and the sociology of knowledge and language. The differences between Judean Jews and Galilean Jews, however, should not

­368

Parables of Enoch

be exaggerated, since after 100 bce many of the villages in Lower Galilee were established by Jews who migrated northward from Judea. Moreover, the images in the Migdal synagogue stone link the Jewish culture in Lower Galilee with the Jerusalem Temple. Etched on the stone are images of the Temple’s Minorah, the massive water jars for the “Water Festival,” and apparently the Temple façade (in a fashion reminiscent of the Bar Kokhba coins).6 Motti Aviam’s chapter advances the case for a turn of the era Galilean origin of the Parables of Enoch by pointing to evidence tied to issues related to the Parthian invasion. Here more than the standard appeal to 56:5-8 is present. Aviam announces specific archaeological finds in the pre-70 Migdal synagogue, illustrates them by images and drawings, and suggests that we now have evidence of an apocalyptic expectation in a Galilean synagogue context. The images of circles on the stone appear to be chariot wheels, depicting a vision by Enoch that is also discussed in Charlesworth’s chapters.7 It is now conceivable that the apocalyptic fervor represented by the Parables of Enoch would be at home in Lower Galilee and within Migdal. The second Charlesworth chapter focuses on whether Jesus knew Enochic traditions. He presents a full case for an allusion to the Parthian struggle and pushes for a Galilean provenience for this material, even suggesting that the region of Migdal is conceivably a setting for the composition of the Parables of Enoch. He also pursues a solid survey of usage of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in the Gospels. The shared contributions of these documents to apocalyptic eschatology, how Wisdom could find no home on earth, and the development of the Danielic Son of man imagery along individual and judgment lines, point to overlapping concerns and connections. The judgment motif is particularly revealing because normally God alone is portrayed as Judge. Charlesworth shows that the Parables of Enoch is certainly a “masterpiece of Second Temple Judaism,” and is not a work by a Christian in the third century ce. If the Galilean, even Migdalian, origin of the Parables is convincing, it becomes more than likely that Jesus knew about these ideas that were in the Galilean air. Charlesworth’s hypothesis forms the basis of a potentially new paradigm for perceiving this early period of the Palestinian Jesus Movement. The Evangelists portray Jesus in many ways analogous to Enoch. Like Enoch, Jesus is presented as having insight into the past, present, and future work of God. Like Enoch, Jesus becomes a cultural hero, is enthroned, and is known before his birth. Grant Macaskill’s chapter details the Matthean portrait of the Son of Man and traces the potential influence of Enochic imagery on this theme. In his detailed survey, Macaskill shows that it is unlikely that the author of the Parables of 6.  This paragraph was added by Charlesworth. 7.  Charlesworth drove to Galilee and re-examined the Migdal synagogue stone. The lines within the two circles resemble the spokes in a chariot wheel. Since the wheels are in horizontal line, they seem to represent the chariot known to Enoch. They are apparently hanging from above as if one is looking into heaven.

Conclusion

­369

Enoch knew and depended on Matthew. The overlap in themes shows that the Parables of Enoch preceded Matthew. Thus, we have a literary confirmation of what philology, historiography, and archeology have illustrated: the early existence of the Parables of Enoch. Matthew knows the use of ideas like those in 1 Enoch 62:5 An additional feature is how the overlap of Son of Man traditions in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew also attaches to the Servant expectation from the book of Isaiah, an idea Owen’s chapter also raises. This fusion of images and concepts, normally held distinct in Hebrew Scripture and Second Temple texts, requires more reflection. The shared emphasis on the Son of Man may point to some relation between the first-century Enoch groups and Matthew. Leslie Walck’s study takes us through the Synoptic Gospels after examining the portrait of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch. He assumes the standard three-fold division of Son of Man traditions in Mark, Matthew, and Luke: earthly sayings (ministry sayings), suffering sayings, and future sayings (apocalyptic sayings). He also looks at some themes as well, such as “the Chosen One” and the impending redemption in Luke. Walck concludes that the Parables of Enoch was known to each intra-canonical Evangelist. Walck clarifies that Matthew’s allusions to the “throne of his glory” (Mt 19:28; 25:31) and the “Parables of the Weeds and Last Judgment” (13:3643; 25:31-46) reveal the most explicit connections between Matthew and the Parables of Enoch. Beyond Matthew’s usage, there is Luke’s use of the term “Chosen One” (Lk 9:35; 23:35), especially since the title is distinct from the Marcan parallel. Luke’s reference to redemption drawing near in 21:28 is close to the idea of salvation drawing near in 1 Enoch 51:2 and 62:13-16. Even in Mark there is a potential allusion in the discussion of Jesus’ betrayer and the remark that it would be better for him not to have been born (14:21), an idea much like the one found in 1 Enoch 38:2. So allusions to the Parables of Enoch may well be present in all the Synoptics. There is not so much evidence of influence in the earthly or suffering sayings. Matthew shows strong connections in some of the future sayings. Walck ends his chapter with a question about whether Q might point to evidence of Jesus’ use of such themes. It is a question he merely asks and leaves open for future study. Two chapters devoted to John’s Gospel follow, one by Frank Moloney and the other by Ben Reynolds. Moloney has long defended the thesis that the Son of Man in John is not a heavenly or apocalyptic figure. The “Son of Man” is a focused term applied to God’s act in incarnating Jesus, the human event of Jesus Christ and especially in the cross. The Son of Man is lifted up, but is not sent, as the title is not applied to the pre-existent Logos. Nonetheless, themes from the Parables of Enoch appear. The Son of Man in John is a revealer, as in 1 Enoch 46:3, and is a Judge, as in 1 Enoch 46:56. Themes of judging, possessing authority, bringing salvation, and being worshipped also apply. So, like the Synoptics, John shows influences from the Parables of Enoch.

­370

Parables of Enoch

Reynolds takes a more apocalyptic approach than Moloney to John’s Son of Man. He also notes the influence of concepts from the Parables of Enoch throughout John, seeing the same themes just noted by Moloney. Reynolds adds notes about double resurrection, acknowledgement of the Son of Man, and “I am” references to the list (Jn 5:28-29; 1En 51:1-5; Jn 8:28; 1En 62:3-5; Jn 8:28, 58; 1En 48:5; 69:26; cf. 48:7). So whether one views the backdrop of John’s use of the Son of Man as involving apocalyptic eschatology or not, interestingly both Moloney and Reynolds perceive an impact of the Parables of Enoch on John. Reynolds also notes important differences between the portrayal of the Son of Man in John and in the Parables of Enoch. In John, “the Son of Man” has a stronger tie to salvation of the righteous than in Enoch. In John, the Son of Man leaves heaven and is defined on earth as “from above;” but in Enoch he never leaves heaven. In John, the Son of Man has glory on earth and at the cross, but Enoch’s figure receives glory as a result of enthronement. In John, the Son of Man brings salvation immediately on earth, but Enoch’s figure brings salvation at the judgment. The same is true with judgment. In John, there is a present dimension to judgment that is lacking in the Parables of Enoch. What we see is a parallel process of interpretation, not necessarily a reaction to the Parables of Enoch by John. In conclusion, John reflects the fact that ideas and concepts like those we see in the Parables of Enoch were in the air. Loren Stuckenbruck shows that an argument can be made for the presence of an inner-dynamic within the early Enochic traditions that made the antediluvian’s identification with the “Son of Man” conceivable. The unpreparedness of 71:14 might be supported by a majority reading for 70:1 in which one textual tradition has the following: “Afterwards it happened that his immortal name was exalted before that Son of Man and the Lord of Spirits above all those who live on the earth.” This reference to Enoch’s exaltation is clear, but he remains distinct from “that Son of Man.” Stuckenbruck emphasizes that another manuscript reading for 1 Enoch 70:1 should come into focus as we seek to discern if 70:14 is abrupt: “Afterwards it happened that the living name of the Son of Man [Eth. semu ḥeyāw la-we’etu walda egwela ’em-ḥeyaw ’m-’ella yaḥādderu diba yabs] was exalted in the presence of the Lord of Spirits above all those who live on dry land.” If this reading of the Ethiopic is preferred, from the beginning of chapter 70, readers of the Parables of Enoch would have gained the impression that Enoch is to be identified with the heavenly “Son of Man.” The conclusion would evolve nicely: the “Son of Man” relates to Enoch himself. This title does not focus on Enoch as a human being; he is someone being singled out or set apart for a special purpose. The final chapter by Lee McDonald studies the impact of Son of Man ideas on the New Testament and in the early Church. McDonald’s survey of the New Testament parallels with the Parables of Enoch is in harmony with the results of the preceding chapters. He observes evidence of ideas from the Parables

Conclusion

­371

of Enoch at eight points in the Synoptics, including Mark.8 He then lists 24 references to 1 Enoch as a whole, extending into the fourth century ce. Six documents mirror something specifically from the Parables of Enoch. These early Christian compositions include the Apocalypse of Peter, the Odes of Solomon, the works of Athenagorus, Origen, and Lactantius, as well as the Book of Adam and Eve in its initial form. This list excludes a further six works in Gnostic texts that also allude to content deriving from the Parables of Enoch. McDonald sees it as most likely that the early Church, including Jesus, was aware of ideas developed uniquely in the Parables of Enoch.

Conclusion These chapters represent a burgeoning consensus that the ideas in the Parables of Enoch influenced the Palestinian Jesus Movement. Some of the chapters also present a specific hypothesis that this material had its origin in Galilee somewhere around the turn of the era after 37 bce and before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. These chapters clarify a paradigm shift. The Parables of Enoch is not a thirdcentury Christian composition that is influenced by the canonical Gospels. It is certainly Jewish, with a celebration of Enoch as “that Son of Man.” It is also most likely either contemporaneous with Jesus or slightly earlier. Most importantly, evidence is mounting to indicate that the provenience of the Parables of Enoch lies in Galilee. Such insights, a virtual consensus among those who attend the biennial sessions of the Enoch Seminar and those who joined this colloquium, develop from a better perception of the Judaism Jesus and his followers knew. For example, within the vast library of biblical and quasi-biblical works, only in the Enoch and in the Jesus traditions are references to the Messiah and Son of Man brought together. That fact alone demands some explanation. Moreover, some of those behind the Parables of Enoch related the Son of Man with the Messiah. Jesus is also presented as one who, sometimes and somehow, perceived a relation between the Son of Man and the Messiah. In contrast to the emphasis within the Bible that God alone is Judge, it is striking to note that only in the Parables of Enoch and within Jesus’ teachings do we find a focus on the Son of Man as the eschatological Judge. 8.  McDonald notes: (1) Heavenly status of the Son of Man (hereafter SoM): 1En 46, 48:2-4; 70–71 (Mt 13:36-43; 16:27); (2) Judicial role of SoM: 1En 46:1-6; 48:10; 52:4 (40:5); 61:8; 62– 63; 69:27-29 (Mt 13:36-43; 16:27; 19:28; 24:30; 25:31; cf. also Mk 13:26-27); (3) Authority of SoM: 1En 46; 48; 62–63; 69:26-29 (Mk 2:28; 14:62 / Mt 12:8; 28:19-20 / Lk 6:5); (4) SoM seated on the throne of his Glory: 1En 61:8; 62:2-5; 69:27-29 (Son on throne in Ps 110:1; and Mt 13:3743; 19:28; 25:31); (5) SoM coming with Angels: 1En 51; 61:2-5, 8; 62:14-15 (Mk 8:38-9:13:2728; Lk 9:26-27; Mt 16:27; cf. Dan 7:13-14); (6) SoM gives life as ransom for many: possible roots = Isa 53 (Mk 10:45); (7) SoM as vindicator or rewarder of the persecuted righteous: 1En 62–63 (Mk 8:38; Mt 24:26-27, 37-39; Lk 17:22-37; Mk 14:62 / Mt 26:64; cf. Dan 7:13-14 and Lk 19:10); and (8) SoM as revealer of Secrets: 1En 62:7; (Mt 11:25; Lk 10:21; Mk 9:9; 14:62).

­372

Parables of Enoch

The development of concepts is thus too similar to dismiss as independent exegetical moves. The previous generation of New Testament scholars tended to see creativity in the Evangelists. These authors were shaped by post-Easter excitement. Now, archaeologists, philologists, specialists on the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as New Testament specialists, are coming to a consensus: it is possible that the Parables of Enoch helped to shape Jesus’ mind and influenced aspects of the Evangelists’ theologies. The present collection calls specialists to explore how and in what ways this influence should be explained. In conclusion, the Parables of Enoch was formerly judged by many biblical scholars to be a third-century Christian composition. It is now perceived to be a creative masterpiece of Second Temple Judaism. We should not imagine Jesus completely oblivious of it and all those propagating it. Jesus was an itinerant teacher who spoke to crowds in locations where Jews lived who composed, and edited, the Books of Enoch. How could Jesus not have known the Parables of Enoch, if it was composed about Jesus’ time and in areas of Galilee that he frequented? The unique emphasis in the Parables of Enoch and in Jesus’ teachings appears to point to some influence of the former on Jesus. Such research helps us grasp the context of the historical Jesus and his astounding wisdom and creativity.

­

Select Bibliography on “the Son of Man” and the Parables of Enoch The Fruits of 500 Years of Research Devoted to Early Jewish Texts James H. Charlesworth

About 1970, scholars showed a resurgence of interest in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha; these early Jewish documents were viewed in a fresh light that was provided by the new vistas and data supplied by the Qumran Scrolls. This resurgence was sparked by A. M. Denis’ interest in the Pseudepigrapha, demonstrated in his monumental Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament.  This explosion of interest in Jewish apocryphal documents was announced in J. H. Charlesworth’s “The Renaissance of Pseudepigrapha Studies: The SBL Pseudepigrapha Project,” JSJ 2 (1971): 107–14. In 1976, and then in a revised and expanded form in 1981, Charlesworth issued  The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. In 1984, M. E. Stone edited the informative  Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. In that same year, A. Diez Macho published Introducciòn general a los apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento. In 1983 and 1985, the first complete edition of the Pseudepigrapha appeared, thanks to the industrious dedication of an international team; the work was edited by Charlesworth and entitled The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.). In 2000, Denis published the rich and erudite two-volumed Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique (Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament). In 2002, H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema issued a new series: Studien zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. In 2005, Nickelsburg published a revised and expanded version of his valuable Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (1981, 2005). A detailed introduction into the world of Early Judaism is available in the three-volume The Cambridge History of Judaism (1984–99). An informative and succinct introduction to early Judaism and early Jewish texts is provided by Craig A. Evans in his Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (2005). R. Bauckham and J. Davila are presently preparing two volumes of additional works to be considered as an expanded concept of “Pseudepigrapha.” All the works I have cited for selection serve not only as valuable introductions but also placard the new perspective of early Judaism that is heralded in all institutions of advanced learning. Revised nomenclature Today, scholars are increasingly recognizing that “Orthodox Judaism” and “Normative Judaism” are misleading terms for pre-70 Jewish phenomena.

­374

Select Bibliography

Such terms are certainly anachronistic and tend to represent, on the one hand, Christian theology, and on the other hand, constructs of Judaism that seem representative of Judaism after 200 ce. In the perspective of many scholars, terms such as “Common Judaism” beg the question and tend to marginalize Samaritans and Qumranties, as well as other influential groups, notably the Enoch groups behind the Books of Enoch. Far more attractive is the concept of “Shared Judaism;” that is, we should focus on what is shared by the many Jewish groups. That term also provides a perspective for better respect for all who share the norms, morality, theology, and dreams shared by Jews (including Jesus and his followers) before the horrors of 70 ce. “Early Judaism” (not late Judaism) is the best term for Jewish phenomena and its literature that were composed from 300 bce to 200 ce. “Second Temple Judaism” is an attractive term for religious phenomena that predate 70 when the Temple was destroyed, but “Early Judaism” is the most representative term for the period from 300 bce to 200 ce. Early Judaism thus includes documents such as 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, 3 Baruch, and  4 Baruch. These are important works in the Pseudepigrapha, and they all date from 70 to 200 ce, the earliest date for the Mishnah. Moreover, since almost all the works in the New Testament were composed by Jews, Early Judaism is also an attractive term, if defined precisely and inclusively, to provide for the inclusion of Jewish works that have too often been overlooked because they are categorized within the Christian canon. “Hellenistic Judaism” has been used in ways that often confuses readers. Some scholars have employed this term both to describe a chronological period and incorrectly to distinguish geographical areas. Hellenistic Judaism should be used only as a chronological term, since archaeological work inside Palestine and outside it discloses a relationship between Judaism within and without Palestine. All Jews living during the Hellenistic period belonged to “Hellenistic Judaism.” In contrast, “Diasporic Judaism” clearly refers to the forms of Judaism found outside the “Holy Land.” There are no clear geographical barriers; ancient Palestinian Judaism was influenced by contiguous cultures, as Martin Hengel argued in Judentum und Hellenismus (1969). The term “Sectarian Judaism” needs redefining. Since Paul was born a Pharisee in Tarsus, and since scholars have discerned evidence of Essenes and Samaritans outside Palestine, it is obvious that “Sectarian Judaism” sometimes defined Jewish life in Diasporic Judaism as well as in Palestinian Judaism. When applied to the latter, one needs to be very circumspect and precise. Such precision is a major feature which distinguishes Charles (1913) from Charlesworth (1983–85). The former took the liberty of attributing some Pseudepigrapha to certain Jewish sects; for example, the Psalms of Solomon were placarded as Pharisaic. The latter collection did not align any Jewish documents in the Pseudepigrapha with a sect, instead, stressing, inter alia, that we do not have in the Pseudepigrapha any clearly pre-70 Pharisaic documents. When describing sectarian phenomena among the Qumran Scrolls, it is imperative to distinguish between Qumran sectarianism and non-Qumran sectarianism. Far too often

Select Bibliography

­375

“sectarian” denotes not only such works as the Rule of the Community (which clearly represents Qumran sectarianism) but also the Books of Enoch (which is a collection of works that represent non-Qumran sectarianism). “Palestinian Jesus Movement” is the most appropriate term to describe a pre-70 Jewish movement that begins in Palestine and is centered on one Jew, named Jesus, from Nazareth. One should avoid terms that are misleading and anachronistic. Thus, in describing pre-70 ce Jewish phenomena we should be cognizant of how terms like “synagogal Judaism” will change, and we must avoid misleading concepts such as “Christian” and “church.” Why is it necessary to find new terms or to use others with precise definition? We need to be clear and representative of the variegated nature of early Jewish life and thought. As C. S. Lewis stated in the Preface of Mere Christianity, “It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said.”   The importance of the OTP Two reasons for the worldwide recognition of the importance of the Pseudepigrapha need to be emphasized. First, it is now certain, thanks to the recovery of pre-70 Semitic manuscripts of some Pseudepigrapha that over 65 documents, or sections in them, can be attributed to the extremely fecund period that separates the “Old” from the “New” Testaments. Second, international experts now agree that the central thought of the documents in the OTAP – apocalyptic theology – is central both to Early Judaism and to nascent “Christianity.” The new perception of the Pseudepigrapha is linked to the growing appreciation of the significance of apocalyptic thought by historians and also by systematic theologians. Bibliographies Bibliographical guides to publications on the OTP are available. In 1999, A. Lehnardt published Bibliographie zu den jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit, edited by Lichtenberger and Oegema (JSHRZ NF 6), and in 2001, L. DiTommaso issued the massive A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999  (JSP SS 39). DiTommaso promises to keep his bibliography current by publishing periodic bibliographical articles in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha.   Summary The years 1970–2012 are foreshadowed by massive publications that peaked in the middle of the seventeenth century. An interest in printing the “entire Bible” was the result of the invention of printing in the 1450s. The printing of the  Polyglot Bible  (a Bible in multiple languages) was then initiated by Cardinal Cisneros (1438–1517). The  Complutensian Polyglot Bible  was published with his support; in six volumes the massive work includes the Hebrew Bible, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Targum Onkelos, and the Greek New Testament.

­376

Select Bibliography

After this first Polyglot Bible, which was published at Alcalá de Henares (Complutum) from 1514 to 1515 (actually issued in 1522), other polyglots appeared (probably speared on by the Protestant claim of sola scriptura). In Antwerp, from 1569 to 1572, a polyglot of the Bible was published, under the patronage of Philip II of Spain. It was issued in eight folio volumes and added a new language to the collection: the Syriac New Testament. In Paris, between 1629 and 1642, G. M. Le Jay’s Paris Polyglot appeared. As the full title revealed,  Biblia: Hebraica, Samaritana, Chaldaica, Graeca, Syriaca, Latina, Arabica, this nine-volume work added the Syriac Old Testament and the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as some Arabic versions of the Bible. In London, between 1665 and 1667, Brian Walton published the last great polyglot that included the Psalms and New Testament in Ethiopic. This sixvolume work, titled Biblia Sacra Polyglotta: Complectentia textus originales, Hebraicum cum Pentateucho Samaritano, Chaldaicum, Graecum, was more complete than Le Jay’s  Polyglot, including several putative apocryphal books (very broadly defined). This  Polyglot contains books that should not be included in the OTAP; for example, 5 Maccabees seems to be a medieval composition and not a work based on an early Jewish document. The two periods may share the same interest in philology, ancient “biblical texts,” and the inclusive perception of what are “biblical books,” but there are two differences. First, the former period was driven by theology and Christology; the present one is based on historiography and archaeology. Second, the first tended to marginalize Jews; the present one provides colloquia in which all are accepted and honored. The present colloquium, represented by the preceding chapters, focuses on the rich tapestry of early Jewish thought in which “the Son of Man” evolved with exegetical overtones and in which Jews followed a Galilean Jew who used a term that had become a title.

Concerning the Select Bibliography Blake A. Jurgens

As the Preface by James H. Charlesworth states, the purpose of this volume is to reflect upon and strengthen the paradigm shift concerning the status quaestionis of the Parables of Enoch. Such a shift, as exhibited by the contributors to this volume, has significant consequences for both the study of apocryphal works and for a deeper appreciation of Early Judaism, archeology, the New Testament, apocalyptic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, messianic figures, and the Palestinian Jesus Movement. Thus, scholars devoted to these fields should become acquainted not only with the new consensus concerning Enochic literature, but also with the new paradigms and perspective recognized by specialists focused on Early Judaism. The following select bibliography has been prepared to focus upon the publications highlighted in this volume, as well as the compositions deemed influential in their development. Authors’ contributions are sorted by name

Select Bibliography

­377

and then by date, allowing the reader to access with ease the most recent publications of each scholar. The goal of this bibliography is not to provide a list of every published reference to the Parables of Enoch; rather, it is to provide an accessible resource, for students and scholars, addressing the broad scope of research concerning the rich and often complex history surrounding the Parables of Enoch. In understanding this history, one begins to gain a better understanding of first-century Jews, including both their interactions with contemporary politicians and priests, and with the life and message of Jesus from Nazareth. Adler, W. “Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 17. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 271–76. ———. “A Dead End in the Enoch Trajectory: A Response to Andrei Orlov,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 137–42. Agourides, S. “The Son of Man in Enoch,” Deltion Biblikon Meleton 2 (1973): 130–47. Alexander, P. S. “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JJS 23 (1978): 60–71. ———. “From Son of Adam to Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch,” in M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren, eds., Biblical Figures outside the Bible. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998; pp. 87–122. Allison, D. C. “The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation,” JBL 119 (2000): 766–68. Appel, H. Die Komposition des äthiopischen Henochbuches. Beiträge zur Förderung christlichen Theologie 10.3. Gütersloh: Drud von C. Bertelsmann, 1906. Arcari, L. “A Symbolic Transfiguration of a Historical Event: The Parthian Invasion in Josephus and the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 478–86. Argall, R. A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Ashton, J. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: OUP, 1991 (2nd edn., OUP, 1993); pp. 358–60, 401–04. Auftrecht, W. E. “The Son of Man Problem as an Illustration of the Techne of New Testament Studies,” in B. H. McLean, ed., Origins and Method: Toward a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity. JSNTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993; pp. 282–94. Aviam, M. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee. Rochester: University Press, 2004.

­378

Select Bibliography

Aviam M. and A. Amitai, “Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara,” in Z. Gal, ed., Eretz Zafon. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authorities, 2002; pp. 119–34. Bampfylde, G. “The Similitudes of Enoch: Histoical Allusions,” JSJ 15 (1984): 9–31. Barker, M. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005. Beckwith, R. T. “The Earliest Enoch Literature and Its Calendar: Marks of Their Origin, Date, and Motivation,” RevQ 10 (1979–81): 365–403. Bertoletto, P. “The Enochic Son of Man, Psalm 45, and the Book of the Watchers,” JSP 19 (2010): 195–216. Bietenhard, H. “Der Menschensohn’ – ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: Sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien. I Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil.” ANRW II.25.1. W. Hasse, ed., Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982; pp. 265–350. Black, M. “The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch,” JTS 3 (1952): 1–10. ———. An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts; with an appendix on The Son of Man. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967 (2nd edn.). ———. “The Throne-Theophany Prophetic Commission and the ‘Son of Man’: A Study in Tradition-History,” in R. Hamerton-Kelly, et al., eds., Jews, Greeks and Christians; Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. SJLA 21. Leiden: Brill, 1976; pp. 57–73. ———.“The Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 37–71) and the Son of Man,” ExpT 88 (1976–77): 5–8. ———. “The Composition, Character and Date of the Second Vision of Enoch (The Book of Parables),” in K. Aland and M. Brecht, eds., Text, Wort, Glaube: Studien zur Überlieferung, Interpretation und Autorisierung Biblischer Texte. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980; 19–30. ———.“Aramaic bar nasha and the ‘Son of Man’,” ExpT 95 (1984): 200–06. ———. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985. ———. “The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992; pp. 145–68. ———. An Aramaic approach to the Gospels and Acts, C.A. Evans and G. Vermes, eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. Boccaccini, G. “E se l’essenismo fosse il movimento enochiano? Una nuova ipotesi circa I rapport tra Qumran e gli esseni,” RSB 7/2 (1997): 49– 67. ———. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “Finding a Place for the Parables of Enoch within Second Temple Jewish Literature,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the

Select Bibliography

­379

Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 263–89. ———. ed., Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007. Boccaccini, G. and R. A. Argall, eds., The Origins of Enochic Judaism: Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar, University of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy, June 19–23, 2001, Torino, Italy: Zamorani, 2002. Boccaccini, G. and J. J. Collins, eds., The Early Enoch Literature. SJSJ 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Borgen, P. “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for the Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel,” in Marinus de Jonge, ed., L’Évangile de Jean, Sources, Rédaction, Théologie. BETL 44. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977; pp. 243–58. Borsch, F. H. The Son of Man in Myth and History. The New Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1967. Brown, J. P. “The Son of Man: ‘This Fellow’,” Bib 58 (1977): 361–87. Burkett, D. The Son of Man Debate: A History of Evaluation. Cambridge: CUP, 1999. Caquot, A. “Remarques sur les chapitres 70 et 71 du livre éthiopien d’Hénoch,” in L. Monloubou, ed., Apocalypses et théologie de l’espérance. LD 95. Paris: Cerf, 1977; pp. 111–12. Caquot, A. and P. Geoltrain, “Notes sur le Texte éthiopien des ‘Paraboles d’Henoch,’” Sem 13 (1963): 39–54. Caragounis, C. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. WUNT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Casey, M. “The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976): 11–29. ———. Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7. London: SPCK, 1979. ———. “General, Generic, and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus,” JSNT 29 (1987): 21–56. ———. “Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem,” NTS 41 (1995): 164–82. ———. “Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd,” JSNT 25 (2002): 3–32. ———. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. LNTS 343. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Catchpole, D. R. “The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven. A ReAppraisal of Matthew xxv.31-46,” BJRL 61 (1979): 355–97. Charles, R. H. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, Edited from TwentyThree MSS, together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions. Anecdota Oxoniensia 11. Oxford, 1906; pp. 3–75, 175–77.

­380

Select Bibliography

———. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912. Charlesworth, J. H. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. ———. “The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1979): 315–23. ———. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research With A Supplement. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7S. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. ———. “The Dawning of a New Epoch in Research on Christian Origins: The New English Pseudepigrapha,” in P. Borgen, E. S. Frericks, R. Horsley, and J. Neusner, eds., New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism [For Howard C. Kee at Sixty-five]. New York, London: University Press of America, 1987; pp. 53–63. ———. “Enoch: Ancient Sources,” in D. H. Ludlow, ed. Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1992; vol. 1, pp. 459–60. ———. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch (1 En 37–71),” Henoch 20 (1998): 93–98. ———. “A Rare Consensus Among Enoch Specialists: The Date of the Earliest Enoch Books,” in G. Boccaccini, ed., The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Henoch 24. Turin: Silvio Zamorani editore, 2002; pp. 225–34. ———. “Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?,” in  J. Mrázek and J. Roskovec, eds., Testimony and Interpretation: Early Christology and Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu, Studies in Honor of Petr Pokorný. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004; pp. 223–39. ———. “Il Figlio dell’uomo, il primo giudaismo, Gesù, e la cristologia primitive,” in G. Boccaccini, ed., Il messia tra memoria e attesa. Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005; pp. 87–110. ———. “Can We Discern the Composition Date of the Parables of Enoch?,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 450–68. ———. “The Naming of the Son of Man, the Light, the Son of God: How the Parables of Enoch May Have Influenced the Odes of Solomon,” in P. Allen, M. Franzmann, and R. Strelan, eds., “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke. Early Christian Studies 12. Strathfield, NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2007; pp. 31–43. ———. “The Parables of Enoch and the Apocalypse of John,” in G. S. Oegema and J. H. Charlesworth, eds., The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4. New York: T&T Clark, 2008; pp. 193–242. ———. ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, and London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85. ———. ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.

Select Bibliography

­381

Charlesworth, J. H. and G. S. Oegema, eds., The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Soceitas. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4. New York and London: T & T Clark, 2008. Chesnutt, R. D. “Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2069 and the Compositional History of 1 Enoch,” JBL 129 (2010): 485–505. Chialà, S. Libro delle parabole di Enoc. Testo e commento. Studi biblici 117. Brescia: Paideia, 1997. ———. “The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 153–78. Chilton, B. D. “The Son of Man: Human and Heavenly,” in F. Van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992; 1:203-18. ———. “(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus,” in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Words of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1999; pp. 259–68. Collins, J. J. “Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch: Reflections on the Articles by P.D. Hanson and G.W.E. Nickelsburg,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1978, 2 vols. SBLSP 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 315–22. ———. “The Heavenly Representative: The ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes of Enoch,” in J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, eds., Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, SBLSCS 12. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980; pp. 111–33. ———. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992): 448–66. ———. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. ———. The Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998 (2nd edn.). ———. “The Danielic Son of Man: Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, Fourth Ezra,” in A. Rapaport and G. Greenberg, eds., Hebrews, Biblical Tests: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman. JSOTSup 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001; pp. 340–54. ———. “Enoch and the Son of Man: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 216–27. Colpe, C. “Ho huios tou anthropou,” in TDNT, G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds.; trans. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972; vol. 8, pp. 401–02. Coppens, J. “Le Fils de l’homme dans l’Évangile johannique,” ETL 52 (1976): 21–81. ———. Le Fils d’Homme. BETL 55. Leuven: Petters, 1981.

­382

Select Bibliography

Cross, F. M., From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Davies, P. G. “The Mystic Enoch: New Light on Early Christology,” Studies in Religion 13 (1984): 335–44. Davila, J. R. “Of Methodology, Monotheism, and Metatron: Introductory Reflections on Divine Mediators and the Origins of the Worship of Jesus,” in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis, eds., The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999; pp. 3–18. Decock, P. B. “Holy One, Sons of God, and the Transcendent Future of the Righteous,” in P. G. R. de Villiers, ed., Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1983; pp. 70–82. Delcor, M. “Le livre des paraboles d’Hénoch éthiopien: le probléme de son origine à la lumière des découvertes récentes,” Estudos biblicos 38 (1979–80): 5–33. Denis, A.-M. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’Ancien Testament. Concordance, corpus des texts, indices. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Dillmann, A. Liber Henoch Aethapice. Leipzig: Vogel, 1851. ———. Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: Vogel, 1858. Dimant, D. “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” VT 33 (1983): 14–29. Donahue, J. R. “Recent Studies of the Origin of ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospels,” CBQ 48 (1986): 484–98. Erho, T. “The Ahistorical Nature of 1 Enoch 56:5-8 and Its Ramification upon the Opinio Communis on the Dating of the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSJ 40 (2009): 23–54. ———. “Internal Dating Methodologies and the Problem Posed by the Similitudes of Enoch,” JSP 20 (2010): 83–103. ———. “Historical-Allusional Dating and the Similitudes of Enoch,” JBL 130 (2011): 493–95. Erho, T. M. and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “The Book of Enoch and the Ethiopian Manuscript Tradition: New Data,” in A. M. Maeir, J. Magness, and L. H.. Schiffman, eds., ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. JSJSup 148. Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2011; pp. 257–67. Eshel, H. “An Allusion in the Parables of Enoch to the Acts of Matthias Antigonus in 40 B.C.E.?” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 487–91. Evans, M. D. “The Title ‘Son of Man’,” Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review 57 (1900): 680–95. Fitzmyer, J. A. “The New Testament Title ‘Son of Man’ Philologically Considered,” in The Semitic Background of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997; pp. 143–60.

Select Bibliography

­383

Flemming, J. and L. Radermacher, Das Buch Henoch: Äthiopischer Text mit Einleitung und Kommentar. TU 22.1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902. Fröhlich, I. “The Parables of Enoch and Qumran Literature,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 343–51. Fuller, R. “The Son of Man: A Re-consideration,” in D. A. Groh and R. Jewett, eds., The Living Text. Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 1985; pp. 207–17. Gieschen, C. A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. AGJU 42. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998. ———. “The Name of the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 238–49. Grabbe, L. L. “The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Jewish Society,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 386–402. Greenfeld, J. C. and M. E. Stone. “The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes,” HTR 70 (1977): 51–66. Grelot, P. “La Légende d’Hénoch dans les Apocryphes et dans la Bible: origine et signification,” Recherches de science religieuse 46 (1958): 5–26, 181–210. Hannah, D. “The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch,” ZNW 94 (2003): 68–96. ———. “The Book of Noah, the Death of Herod the Great, and the Date of the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 469–77. Hanson, P. D. “A Response to John Collins’ ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of 1 Enoch,’” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1978, 2 vols. SBLSP 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 307–09. Hare, D. R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990. Henze, M. “The Parables of Enoch in Second Temple Literature: A Response to Gabriele Boccaccini,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 290–98. Higgins, J. B. The Son of Man in the Teaching of Jesus. SNTSMS 39. Cambridge and New York: CUP, 1980. Himmelfarb, M. “A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Literature,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1978. 2 vols. SBLSP 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 259–69.

­384

Select Bibliography

———. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: OUP, 1993. Hindley, J. C. “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 14 (1968): 551–65. Hooker, M. D. The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and its use in St. Mark’s Gospel. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967. Hurtado, L. W. and P. L. Owen, Who is This Son of Man?: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus. London and New York: T&T Clark Int., 2011. Isaac, E. “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–85; 1.5-89. Jackson, D. R. Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars. JSPSup 49. New York: Continuum International, 2004. Jas, M. “Hénoch et le Fils de l’homme,” La revue réformée 30 (1979): 105–19. Kim, S. “Son of Man” as the Son of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Klausner, J. “The ‘Ethiopic’ Book of Enoch,” trans. W. F. Stinespring, The Messianic Idea in Israel. From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah. NewYork: Macmillan, 1955; pp. 277–301. Knibb, M. A. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS (1978–79): 345–59. ———. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. ———. “Isaianic Traditions in the Book of Enoch,” in J. Barton and D. J. Reimer, eds., After the Exile. Essays in Honour of Rex Mason. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996; pp. 217–29. ———. “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch,” JSJ 22 (2001): 396–415. ———. Ethiopic Book of Enoch in Recent Research. London: Dr. William’s Trust, 2005. ———. “The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 48–64. ———. Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009. Koch, K. “Questions regarding the So-Called Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to Sabino Chialà and Helge Kvanvig,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 228–37. Kokkinos, N. The Herodian Dynasty. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Select Bibliography

­385

Kraft, R. A. “Philo (Josephus, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon) on Enoch,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1978, 2 vols. SBLSP 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 253–57. Kvanvig, H. S. Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man. WMANT 61. Neukirchen-Vlyun: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1988. ———. “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005; pp. 179–215. Laurence, R. The Book of Enoch the Prophet. Oxford: Colinwood, 1838. ———. Libri Enochi prophetae versio aethiopica. London: Kegan Paul, 1838 (rev. in 1883 by Charles Gill [Laurence lived from 1760 to 1838 JHC.]). Leibner, U. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: An Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee. TSAJ 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Lindars, B. “The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology,” in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule. Cambridge: CUP, 1973; pp. 43–60. ———. “Re-enter the Apocalyptic Son of Man,” NTS 22 (1975): 52–72. ———. “Enoch and Christology,” ExpT 92 (1981): 295–99. ———. Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels and in the Light of Recent Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. Luke, K. “The patriarch Enoch,” ITS 23 (1986): 125–53. ———. “Enoch’s Ascension: The Apocalyptic Tradition,” ITS 25 (1988): 236–52. Luz, U. “The Son of Man In Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ,” JSNT 48 (1992): 3–21. Manson, T. W. “The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels,” in M. Black, ed., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962; pp. 123–45. Mearns, C. L. “Dating the Similitudes of Enoch,” NTS 25 (1978): 360–69. ———. “The Parables of Enoch: Origin and Date,” ExpT 89 (1978): 118–19. Meyer, A. Jesu Muttersprache: Das galiläische Aramäisch in seine Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu in der Evangelien überhapt. Freiburg im Breisgau and Leipzig: Mohr, 1896. Milik, J. T. “Problèmes de la Littérature hénochique à la Lumière des Fragments araméens de Qumrân,” HTR 64 (1971). ———. The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. ———. “Enochic Wisdom: An Alternative to the Mosaic Torah?” in J. Magness and S. Gittin, eds., Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998; pp. 123–32.

­386

Select Bibliography

Moloney, F. J. The Johannine Son of Man. BibSciRel 14. Rome: LAS, 1976. ———. “The End of the Son of Man?,” DRev 98 (1980): 280–90. Moule, C. F. D. “Neglected Features in the Problem of ‘the Son of Man’,” in J. Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament und Kirche: Festschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg. Freiburg: Herder, 1974; pp. 413–28. Muilenberg, J. “The Son of Man in Daniel and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch,” JBL 79 (1960): 197–209. Müller, M. “The Expression ‘Son of Man’ as used by Jesus,” Studia Theologica 38 (1984): 47–64. Neusner, J. A History of the Jews in Babylonia: The Parthian Period. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600. ———. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981. ———. “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins: The State of the Question and Some Prospects for Answers,” in K. H. Richards, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1986. SBLSP 25. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986; pp. 341–60. ———. “The Apocalyptic Construction of Reality in 1 Enoch,” in J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth, eds., Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium. JSPSup 9. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991; pp. 51–64. ———. “Son of Man,” ABD 6 (1992): 137–50. ———. “Scripture in 1 Enoch and 1 Enoch as Scripture,” in T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm, eds., Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman. Oslo and Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995; pp. 333–54. ———. 1 Enoch 1. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001. ———. Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. ———. “The Son of Man in Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. HTS 56. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006 (expanded edn.); pp. 281–314. ———. “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 23–47. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2011. Oegema, G. S. “The Coming of the Righteous One” in Acts and 1 Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 250–62.

Select Bibliography

­387

O’Hare, D. “Have You Seen, Son of Man?”: A Study of the Translation and Vorlage of LXX Ezekiel 40–48. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2010. Olsen, D. C. “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP 18 (1998): 27–38. ———. Enoch: A New Translation. North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2004. ———. “An Overlooked Patristic Allusion to the Parables of Enoch?,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 492–98. Orlov, A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. TSAJ 101. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. “Roles and Titles of the Seventh Antidiluvian Hero in the Parables of Enoch: A Departure from the Traditional Pattern?,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 110–16. Owen, P. and D. Shepherd, “Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar ’Enasha a Common Term for ‘Man’ in the Time of Jesus?,” JSNT 81 (2001): 81–122. Painter, J. “The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man,” in F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden, eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, 3 vols. BETL 100. Leuven: University Press – Peters, 1992; 3.1868–87. Pazdan, M. M. The Son of Man. A Metaphor for Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991. Perrin, N. “The Son of Man in Ancient Judaism and Primitive Christianity: A Suggestion,” BR 11 (1966): 17–28. Piovanelli, P. “A Testimony for the Kings and the Mighty Who Possess the Earth: The Thirst for Justice and Peace in the Parables of Enoch,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 363–79. Rajak, T. “The Parthians in Josephus,” in J. Wiesehöfer, ed., Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998; pp. 309–23. Reid, S. B. Enoch and Daniel: A Form Critical and Sociological Study of Historical Apocalypses. Berkeley, CA: BIBAL Press, 1989. Reynolds, B. E. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John. WUNT 2.249. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ———. “The Johannine Son of Man and the Historical Jesus: Shall Ever the Twain Meet? John 9:35 as a Test Case,” JSHJ 9 (2011): 230–42. Rhea, R. The Johannine Son of Man. ATANT 76. Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1991. Sacchi, P. “Qumran e la datazione del Libro delle Parabole di Enoc,” Henoch 25 (2003): 149–66.

­388

Select Bibliography

———. “Le figure messianche superumane del Secondo Tempio e il Figlio dell’-Uomo,” in G. Boccaccini, ed., Il messia tra memoria e attesa. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005. Schodde, G. H. The Book of Enoch: Translated From the Ethiopic, With Introduction and Notes. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1882. Schürer, E. History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Sjöberg, E. Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch. Lund: Gleepup, 1946. ———. “Ben ’adam und bar’enash im Hebräischen und Aramäischen,” Acta Orientalia 21 (1953): 57–65, 91–107. Slater, T. B. “One like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41 (1995): 183–98. Stokes, R. E. “The Throne Vision of Daniel 7, 1 Enoch 14, and the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q530): An Analysis of their Literary Relationship,” DSD 15 (2008): 340–58. Stone, M. E. “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.,” CBQ 40 (1978): 479–92. ———. “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins,” JSJ 19 (1988): 159–70. ———. “Enoch’s Date in Limbo; Some Considerations on David Suter’s Analysis of the Book of Parables,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 444–49. Stuckenbruck, L. “The Parables of Enoch according to George Nickelsburg and Michael Knibb: A Summary and Discussion of Some Remaining Questions,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 65–71. Suter, D. “Apocalyptic Patterns in the Similitudes of Enoch,” in P. J. Achtemeier, ed., SBL Seminar Papers: 1978, 2 vols. SBLSP 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978; pp. 1–13. ———. Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. ———. “Enoch in Sheol: Updating the Dating of the Book of Parables,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 415–43. Theisohn, J. Der auserwählte Richer: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Ort der Menschen sohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch. SUNT 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “Remarks on Transmission and Traditions in the Parables of Enoch: A Response to James VanderKam,” in G. Boccaccini, ed., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005; pp. 100–09.

Select Bibliography

­389

Tödt, H. E. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. D. M. Barton. London: SCM, 1965. Tomasino, A. J. “Daniel and the Similitudes of Enoch,” in Daniel and the Revolutionaries: The Use of the Daniel Tradition by Jewish Resistance Movements of the Late Second Temple Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1995; pp. 201–27. Tuckett, C. “The Son of Man in Q,” in M. C. De Boer, ed., From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993; pp. 196–215. Uhlig, S., Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984. Ullendorf, E. “Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek: The Versions Underlying Ethiopic Translations of Bible and Intertestimental Literature,” in G. Roendsberg, et al., eds., The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon. New York: KTAV, 1980; pp. 249–57. VanderKam, J. C. “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of I Enoch: Reflections on J. T. Milik’s The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4,” MAARAV 3 (1982): 85–97. ———. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984. ———. “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71,” in J. H. Charlesworth, ed. The Messiah: Developments in Early Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992; pp. 169–91. ———. Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. ———. “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in J. C. VanderKam and W. Adler, eds., The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. CRINT 4. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996; pp. 33–101. ———. “The Book of Parables within the Enoch Tradition,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds. Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 81–99. Vermes, G. “The Use of bar-nash / bar-nasha in Jewish Aramaic,” Appendix E in M. Black, ed., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967; pp. 310–30. ———. “The Present State of the ‘Son of Man’ Debate,” JJS 29 (1978): 123– 34. Villiers, P. G. R. de. “Revealing the Secrets: Wisdom and the World in the Similitudes of Enoch,” in Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1983; pp. 50–68. ———. ed., Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1983.

­390

Select Bibliography

Vorster, W. S. “1 Enoch and the Jewish Literary Setting of the New Testament: A Study in Text Types,” Neot 17 (1983): 1–15. Waddell, J. The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Walck, L. “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 299–337. ———. The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and Matthew. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Walker, W. O. “The Son of Man and the Synoptic Problem,” NTS 28 (1982): 374–88. Wright, B. G. “The Structure to the Parables of Enoch: A Response to George Nickelsburg and Michael Knibb,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 72–80. Yarbo Collins, A. “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man’,” HTR 80:4 (1987): 391–407. ———. “The Apocalyptic Son of Man Sayings,” in B. Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991; pp. 220–28. ———. “The Secret Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospel of Mark: A Response to Leslie Walck,” in G. Boccaccini, et al., eds., Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2007; pp. 338–42.

Index

Enoch Literature Parables of Enoch (= 1En 37–71) xiv 37–40 103 37–69 38, 41, 94, 174n10 37 191 37:1 45–6, 80, 97, 151n143, 324n33, 325 37:1-5 216 37:4 176, 209 37:5 191, 325, 353n78 38–44 61, 191 38–69 80, 86 38:1-3 208 38:2 245, 246, 267, 341, 369 38:4 48, 238, 340 38:4-5 239 38:5 48, 59, 111, 181 39:1-2a 80 39:2 324n33 39:3 300, 312 39:3-5 281 39:4-7 325, 361 39:6 240, 297 39:6-7 80 39:7 238 40 68 40:1 256, 297 40:1-2 325 40:2 353n78 40:3 5–7, 325 40:5 80, 297, 318, 343, 350 40:9 272n11 41 xv, 46, 59, 82, 104 41:1 46, 55

41:1-5 325 41:2 111, 261 41:3-8 80 41:8 46 41:8-9 297 42:1-2 205, 270, 282 42:1-2, 71 281 42:6, 78 122, 227, 366 42:7, 4 259 43–44 59, 80 43:1-2 185, 325 43:10, 20 297 44:1 325 44:1-2 297 45–57 61, 191 45 191–92 45:1 111 45:1-2 261 45:3 27, 66, 75, 89, 157, 245, 254n64, 264, 297, 318, 327 45:4 297, 318 45:5 48, 53 45:5-7 111 45:6 239, 327 46–47 291 46 112, 116–17, 122, 191–92, 270, 297, 343, 347, 348, 366, 371n8 46:1 116–17, 250, 297 46:1-4 318, 327 46:1-5 193–94, 233–35 46:1-6 371n8 46:1-8 284 46:1-18 327 46:2-4 194, 233n7, 297, 315n1, 318 46:2-6 291

46:3 80, 83, 117, 240, 275n22, 285n59, 291, 298, 369 46:3-4 192 46:3-5 341 46:3-6 157 46:4 53, 117 46:4-5 291 46:4-6 84, 290, 323n29, 350 46:4-8 245 46:5 226, 261, 297 46:5-6 369 46:6 48, 244 46:6-7 253 46:7 111, 239 46:8 159, 164, 253, 259 47 111, 191–92, 231n2 47:1-4 76 47:2 239 47:3 89, 237, 325 47:3-4 291, 353n77 47:8-10 239, 274 48 117–18, 122, 191–92, 366 48:1 325 48:1-7 250, 361 48:1-9 195 48:1-10 297, 358, 361 48:2 117, 192, 194, 199, 233n7, 315n1, 318, 371n8 48:2-3, 6 275n22 48:2-4 343 48:2-8 347 48:2-10 358, 361 48:3, 6 80, 82–83, 301n35 48:4 78, 122, 227, 291

­392 48:4-5 117 48:5 226, 291, 301, 308, 369 48:5-6 323n29 48:6 81, 157, 226n26, 300, 349 48:7 157, 259, 263, 303, 308, 348, 352, 369 48:8 49–50, 53, 181, 244, 340 48:9 50, 111, 353n77 48:9-10 239 48:10 318, 78, 118n12, 122, 229, 261, 299, 350, 371n8 49 191–92 49:2, 4 318 49:3 226, 240, 299 49:3-4a 226 49:4 78, 84, 156, 301, 323n29 49:6 122, 366 49:7 297 50 80, 191–92 50:1-2 239 50:1-3 264 50:1-5 238, 240, 259 50:2-3 250 50:3 298 50:4 298 51 191–92, 346, 371n8 51:1-5 308, 327, 353n77 51:2 157, 265, 267, 369 52 318 52:1-3 325 51:3 27, 156, 225, 240, 254n64, 275n22, 297, 318 51:3-5 342 51:5 238, 318 52 191–92 52:4 78, 118n12, 200, 229, 264, 299, 342, 350, 371n8 52:6 264, 300 52:6, 9 318 52:7-8 111 52:9 66n16, 75, 323n29

Index 53 191–92; 53:1, 3 325 53:2 50 53:2, 7 111 53:3 27, 361 53:4-5 239 53:6 157, 164, 318 54–55 53 54 59, 239 54:1 325 54:1, 5 238 54:1-2 48 54:2 227 54:4-6 97, 239 54:5 258 54:6 27, 191, 272n11, 359 54:7–55:2 80 54:17 227n30 55 59, 191–92 55:4 27, 48, 84, 89, 157, 181, 185, 237, 240, 254n64, 298, 225, 257, 258, 264, 297, 301, 318, 323n29, 327 56 46–48, 67, 72, 95, 100, 103, 104, 107, 178, 187, 189 56:1 325 56:1-4 185 56:1-5 257 56:5 159 56:5-6 62n7, 80 56:5-7 61, 63, 65, 69–72, 76, 92, 96, 177–78, 180n31, 340 56:5-8 60, 66, 100, 104, 106–09, 353n77, 368 56:5–57:2 93 56:5–57:3a 59 56:6 227n30 56:6-7 47, 63 56:7 74 56:8 74, 227 57 80 57:1-2 93, 108, 189, 190

57:2 325 58–69 61, 63, 191 58:1 325 58:2-6 259 58:3-6 238 59 59 59:1-2 75, 325 60–64 61 60 80, 59, 191–92 60:1-2 325 60:2 89 60:4-5 272n11 60:5-6 182, 210 60:8 45, 151n143, 210 60:10 40, 192, 196, 200, 285n59, 315n1, 317–18 60:15-21 358, 361 60:20 237 60:24 317 61, 40 191–92 61:1-3 208 61:1-5 238, 245, 257 61:1-7 238 61:2-5 342, 346, 371n8 61:5 260, 301, 349 61:5 8, 10, 318 61:6 61 61:8 27, 78, 181, 225, 254n64, 264, 301, 327, 342, 348, 349, 371n8 61:8-9 84, 89, 298, 301, 323n29 61:9-11 357, 361 61:9-12 361 61:10 77 61:10-11 262 62–63 86–87, 110, 236– 37, 240, 245, 256, 343, 347, 348, 371n8 62 40, 68, 118, 191–92, 257, 298, 346n52, 366 62:1 50n39, 118, 123, 226, 262, 318 62:1, 3, 6 50, 62

Index 62:1-2 157 62:1-3 264 62:1-4 182 62:1-5 327 62:1-8 261, 309 62:1-12 196, 207 62:1-16 291 62:2 53, 48, 118, 226, 298, 299, 348 62:2-3 118, 301 62:2-3, 5 237, 297 62:2-5 342, 371n8 62:2-5, 8 371n8 62:2-6 309 62:3 27, 84, 89, 118, 225, 290, 298 62:3, 2 353n77 62:3-5 298, 308, 353n78 62:3-6 48 62:4, 5, 10 244 62:5 27, 40, 77, 85, 118n13, 225, 227– 30, 233n7, 254, 262, 301, 347, 369 62:5, 7, 9, 14 192, 194, 318–19 62:5-9 323n29 62:6, 9 226, 291 62:6-7 327 62:7 80–81, 83, 117, 118, 157, 194, 250, 263, 274, 275n22, 282, 300, 348, 371n8 62:7, 9, 14 233n7 62:8 157 62:8-9 118 62:9 48, 50, 53, 301, 340 62:9-11 257, 261 62:9-12 77, 238, 239, 298, 308, 309 62:11 27, 49, 76, 257 62:11-12 257 62:12 183 62:12-13 291 62:13 298 62:13-14 303 62:13-16 239, 244, 245,

249, 259, 265, 267, 369 62:14 50, 298, 299, 308, 309, 353n78 62:14-15 343, 346, 371n8 62:14-16 197 62:15, 254 259 62:26 117n10 63 50, 191–92, 257, 259 63:1-10, 12 48–49, 181 63:2-10 262 63:7 253 63:7-12 182, 197 63:9, 12 340 63:10, 111 227, 238 63:11 77, 192, 233n7, 244 63:11, 319 327 63:11-12 238, 309, 323n29 63:12 50, 111, 118 63:17 227n30 64:1 325 64:2 325 65–66 61 65–69:25 59, 80, 262 65:2, 5, 9 210 65:6, 8, 10 75 65:8-15 227n30 65:9-10 343 66:1-2 27, 343 66:14 227n30 67 61, 99, 104, 177 67:1 98 67:1-7 97 67:4 210 67:4-7 258 67:4-13 100, 104 67:5-11 93, 361 67:5-13 109 67:7-9, 177, 180n31 67:7, 12-13 238 67:8 70 67:8-9 69 67:8-13 86, 97, 105, 110 67:27 123 68:1 210, 324n33 68:2–69:29 61, 73

­393 69 40, 118–19, 191–92, 366 69:4 198, 359, 361 69:6-7 62 69:7 301 69:8 325 69:8-10 324 69:26 156, 237, 308, 369 69:26-27 233n7, 319 69:26-29 84, 237, 240, 245, 347, 348 69:27 81, 257, 284, 290, 298, 303, 311 69:27, 29 237, 254, 257, 347 69:27-29 123n25, 157, 197–98, 284, 298, 301, 309, 323n29, 327, 343, 371n8 69:29 27, 85, 119, 192, 194, 233n7, 285n59 70–71 37n4, 38, 61, 79– 82, 86, 94, 100, 104, 119–20, 175, 191, 198, 200, 211, 219n6, 230, 237–39, 285n59, 302, 315n1, 314n3, 320, 327, 343, 366, 371n8 70–82 109, 191 70:1 41, 78, 80, 82, 84, 119, 192, 194, 233n7, 300, 301, 302, 312, 318 70:1, 14, 17 318, 319, 369 70:1-2 38n6, 85, 123n25 70:1, 3 320 70:1-4 80, 199 70:2-4 80 70:3-4 98 70:3–71:17 320n21 70:4 325 71 xv, xvi, 34n54, 38, 41, 43, 68–69, 76, 94, 98, 191–92,

­394 257, 281n48, 291, 317n14, 319, 325, 327 71:1 80, 200, 300, 320 71:1-2 5–6, 8, 325 71:2 200, 320 71:3 82 71:4, 19 192 71:5 42, 200 71:5-11 207 71:5-16 80 71:7 320 71:7-12 169 71:8-9 320 71:8, 191 200, 320 71:13-17 330 71:14 40, 42, 78–85, 94, 100, 119, 194, 233n7, 270, 285n59, 301, 302, 315–17, 345, 369 71:14-17 199, 319 71:15-17 318 71:17 119, 157, 194, 233n7

Book of the Watchers (=1En 1–36) xiv, 40,

45, 61, 71, 92, 127, 191, 316, 329, 352, 357 1 59 1:9 45, 359, 360 4:24 210n102 5:7 354n80 6 59 6–7 358 6–8 358 6–9:4 (Greek) 58n1 6–10 361 6–16 322, 358 6:1, 2 359 6:1–19:1 359 6:6 159, 184, 358, 360, 361 7 358 7:1 358–61 7:2 359 7:2, 4 361 7:2-5 330

Index 7:5 4 8 358 8:1 358, 359 8:1-3 358, 359 8:3 330, 358, 361 8:4–10:14 (Greek) 58n1 8:9 358 9 59 9:1 361 9:4 331, 353n77 10 59 10:1 359 10:2 358 10:3 358 10:4-6, 12–14 331 10:9 330 10:11 330 10:13-14 358 10:17 359 10:19 159, 161 12–16 327 12–36 156 12:3 327 12:3-4 325 12:4 322, 331 12:4-6 358 12:13 358 12:14 325 13 358 13:2 359 13:5 358 13:7 159, 184 13:9 159, 160 14–15 76, 78–79, 320 14 81, 330 14:3-17 358 14:4-7 359 14:5 331, 358, 359, 361 14:8-17 359 14:8, 18-23 321 14:14-25 320–21 14:15 320, 353n77 14:18 167, 312 14:19 169, 320 14:21 320 14:22 320, 331 15 358 15:1 320–22

15:1-2 325, 327 15:2b–16:3 320 15:3 8, 10, 358, 361 15:4-7 331 15:6 359 15:8 320 15:8, 9 358 15:8-11 359 15:8-12 358 15:8–16:1(Greek) 58n1 15:16 354n80 16 358 16:1 354n80, 358, 359 16:3 358 17 59 18:11-12 361 18:13 353n77 19 59 19:1 331, 358, 359 19:3 324n31, 358 20:1ff. 361 21:1 358, 359 22 359 22:3 358 22:9 238, 354n80, 359, 361 22:9-10 354n80 24:3-4 359 24:4 159, 161 25:5 331 26:1 361 27:3 331 31:2 159, 161 32:3, 6 361 32:4 159, 161

Book of the Luminaries (=1En 72–82. Also Astronomical Book) xiv, 63, 72, 127, 184, 316 72 xvi 72:6-8, 31, 32 359 74:2 323 76:1 64 80:2 359 81:1-2, 6 323 81:2 323 82:1 323

Index The Dream Visions (=1En 83–90; also Animal Apocalypse=1En 85–90) xiv, 127, 128–29, 139 83–90 71, 366 84:2-3 90 86–88 325 86:1 353n77, 360 86:3 361 87:2 326 89:1 129n18 89:1, 9 129 89:9 129n18 89:13-38 128n16 89:15-38 128 89:16 128 89:16-18 128 89:23-27 128 89:29 128 89:30-31 128 89:36 128–29 89:38 128 89:42-49 (Greek) 58n1 89:56-74 357 89:59-60 325 89:61-64 325–26 89:61, 76 323 89:70-71 326 89:72-73 326 89:76-77 326 90:6-42 xiv 90:11, 13-15 325n34 90:13-15 128n15 90:14, 17, 22 323, 326 90:14-20 326 90:17 326 90:19 359 90:20 70 90:20-27 71 90:21, 22 128 90:21-25 325 90:22 326 90:23 326 90:26 361 90:31 327

­395

The Epistle of Enoch (=1En 91–105) xiv, 92

4:2 317 10:1 147 10:3 147 91–92 xvi 10:3-6 88 91–104 59–60 10:5 147 91:12 359 11:1 147 91:13 357 12:1-3 147 92:1 322 13 209 92:2-5 208 14:1-5 88, 147 93; 91:11-17 (Apocalypse of Weeks) 127–28, 22 317 28:7 206 366 45:1 147 93:2 323 45:3 227n32 93:3a 128 45:6 227n33 93:6 127–28 46 234 94:8 354n80 46:1 325 97:8-10 353n80 46:1-2 147 99:6-7 358 46:1-3 321 99:7 59, 353n77, 358 46:5 234n11 100:10, 12 361 46:7 234n11 103:2b 323 48:7 147 103:4 354n80 48:2-7 235–36 104:9 59

Birth of Noah (=En Coptic Enoch 106–07) xiv, xvii, 54, 59 Fragments xvi

104:9-13 324 105:1-2 327 106:2, 10 357 106:7 324 106:19-107 357

Another Book of Enoch (=1En 108) xiv 108:7-9 357 108:10 xiv 108:12 255n65

2 Enoch xvi, 61, 99, 147, 331n10 9 228n35 20:5 207 22 319 22:8-10 317 22:11-12 319 3 Enoch xvi, 82, 90, 99, 100, 218n2, 319, 331n10 3–15 317

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 5 175 5:18-24 330 5:21-24 358 5:23-24 xiii, 41 5:24 (LXX) 328 6:1-4 358 6:3 137n60 9:5-6 14 10:19 97 15:10 150n138 18 207 25:1-3 (LXX) 141 25:2 141 25:6 141 28:12 280 28, 37 147

Index

­396 Exodus

Leviticus

1 Samuel

1:22 124 2:1 125 2:2 124 2:3-4 124 2:10-15 144n96 2:11 280 2:11-15 143 2:16 140 2:18 141 3:1 141 3:1-15 124 3:14 (LXX) 306 4:10 153 4:16 127 4:22 48 4:30 152 5:1 152 6:12 153 6:16-25 125 6:20 140 7:1 90, 127, 132, 139 7:8-13, 22 130 7:10 152 8:7 130 12:37-38 152 17:8-16 124 18 124 19–24 124 19:3, 20 312n78 19:7-19 80 19:11 [bis], 15, 16 (LXX) 280 20:18-20 132n33 22:28 48 24 147 24:9 312n78 24:16 133n39 28–30 125 31:11 125 31:16-22 125 33 125 33:11 129 33:12-23 124 33:18-23 129, 312 34:29-35 129, 139 35–40 125

8–9 125 8:14-17 125 13:46 151 18 141 18:12 140n75 26 125, 130

2:8 254n63

Numbers

1 Kings

10:29 141n80 12:6-8 125 12:7-8 125 12:8 125 24:3-9, 15-24 130 26:59 140n75 27:17 138n67, 223n17

Deuteronomy 1:5 135n47 1:9-18 124 7:1-4 140n76 18:18-22 125, 138 28–33 130 29:4 337 30:11-12 281 31 134 31:16-18 138 31:24 130 32 134 33:1 133 33:9 96 34 139n71 34:5-12 139 34:6 (LXX) 158 34:10 125 34:10-12 125–26, 133, 138 34:11 133

Joshua 1 135 13:19 177 14:6 133, 135

Judges 3:3 159 18:30-31 159

2 Samuel 2:7 299 23:19 65

9:9-13 312 12:29-33 159 19:16 133 22:17 223n17

2 Kings 2 312n78 21:10, 13 48 18:13–20:11 68

1 Chronicles 1:3 330 5:27-28 140n75 16:14 206

2 Chronicles 104 18:16 223n17 Ezra 3:2 133

Esther 43, 69, 72, 93, 100, 104, 110

Psalms 2 123n25 2:2 229, 319 2:7 337 2:10b-11a 84 2:13 84 7:8b-9a 84 7:11 206 8 120, 295 8:4 20n11, 121, 346 8:4-8 121, 248

Index 8:6 127n10 41:9 242 45 316 45:6, 7 337 69:25 337 75:7 206 82:1 84 82:1-4 55 89:10, 11, 13 234n9 90:1 133 97:5 300 102:25-27 337 104:4 (LXX) 337 105:15 (= 1Chr 16:22) 133 110 226–27, 299, 302, 316, 350, 363, 371n8 110:1 29n37, 66, 87–89, 245, 337, 343 114:6 301 118 228 118:19-20 228 132:9 234n9

Job 3:3 245 29:14 234n9 34:23 207 41:11 337

Proverbs 8:23ff. 66 25:2-3 281 28:15 48 30:4 281 31:24 223n19, 295

Ecclesiastes 3:17 207 10:20 48 11:9 207 12:4 207

Isaiah 2:19 21, 66 6 68, 147

6:1 312 7:14 220n12 8:21 48 11 123n25 11:1ff. 66 11:1-4 118 11:1-5 221 11:2-5 226–27 11:4 222, 299 11:5 234n9 14:5 234n11 14:11 234n11 14:13 234n11 14:19 234n11 22:23 254n63 23:8 223n19 24:17-23 92 24:21-23 300 25:6 248 25:6-8 299 29:6 336n25 36–38 68 40:13 337 41:8-9 318 42 123n25, 350–51 42:1 118, 227, 264, 297n19, 319 42:1-4 220–21, 229 42:6 117, 227 43:10 306, 319 44:1-2 264 45:4 297n19 49 123n25, 235n14, 350–51 49:1ff. 66 49:1-7 264 49:2 81 49:2-4 208 49:4 227 49:6 117 49:7 117 52–53 24n19, 120, 122, 123n25, 350–51, 363 52:12–53:13 351 52:13 80 52:13-15 122 52:13–53:12 316

­397 53 344, 371n8 53:3 357 53:4-12 122 53:11 319 53:11 (LXX) 31 53:10-11 30 53:10-12 30 53:12 122 55:4 208 59:17 234n9 59:20-21; 27:9 20 60:10 117 61:1 133 61:8 208 61:10 234n9 61:11 234n9

Jeremiah 14:21 225, 254n63 15:10 245 17:12 254n63 17:21 225 20:14-18 245 23:5 299n25

Ezekiel 1 68 1:1 310 1:10 29n37 1:26 147 2:1 302 2:1-2, 6, 8 317n13 2:1-3, 6-8 346 3:1, 3-4, 10,17, 25 317n13 3:1-10 346 4:1 317n13 5:1 317n13 5:1-4 346 6:2 317n13 7:2 317n13 8:5-6, 8, 12, 15, 17 317n13 11:2, 4, 15 317n13 12:2-3, 9, 18, 22, 27 317n13 13:2, 17 317n13

­398 14:13 317n13 15:2 317n13 16:2 317n13 17:2 317n13 19:10 317n13 20:3-4, 27, 46 317 21:2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 19, 28 317n13 22:2, 18, 24; 23:2, 36 317n13 24:2, 16, 25 317n13 25:2 317n13 26:2 317n13 27:2 317n13 28:2, 12, 21 317n13 29:2, 18 317n13 30:2, 21 317n13 31:2, 5 317n13 32:2, 18 317n13 33:2, 7, 10, 12, 24, 30 317n13 34 223–24 34:2 317n13 34:11-16, 31 223 34:17 223 34:23 223 35:2 317n13 36:1, 17 317n13 37:3, 9, 11, 16 317n13 37:25-27 349 38:2, 14 317n13 39:1, 17 317n13 40:4 317n13 43:7, 10, 18 317n13 44:5 317n13 47 346 47:6 317n13

Daniel xvi 2 147, 202n85 2:34-35, 45, 28n32 3:28 115n4 7 25, 34, 39, 81–83, 86, 96, 102–03, 116, 118–19, 123n25, 147, 202n85, 203, 224, 272, 273n15, 295,

Index 296n14, 309n65, 317, 319, 327, 363 7:1 28, 114 7:1-12 310n70 7:2 28 7:3 248 7:3-8, 21-25 272 7:7, 19-21, 23-25 24 7:9 88, 90, 116, 225, 255, 297, 349 7:9-10 115, 115n4 7:9-10, 13 321 7:9-13 193, 234, 242 7:9-14 31–32, 34, 82, 225, 230, 315n1 7:10 297 7:10-12 297 7:10, 22, 26 207, 311 7:13 26–29, 33, 115–16, 120–23, 234, 243, 245, 248, 253, 272, 273, 321, 345, 349, 350 7:13-14 22, 24, 26-27, 116, 117, 119–21, 273, 274n15, 284, 290, 291, 310n70, 311, 337, 344, 350, 371n8 7:14 22, 115–16, 225, 228, 311, 349 7:14 (LXX OG) 311n74 7:14, 27 272 7:17 115 7:17-18 297 7:17-27 291 7:18 116 7:21-25 272 7:22 115 7:22, 25-27 291 7:27 116, 118–19, 291 8:17 302 12:1-3 25 12:2 310n70 13:3, 5, 12, 25, 51 28

Hosea 10:8 66 12:8 223n19

Joel 1:15 301

Obadiah 15 301

Nahum 1:5 300

Zechariah 1–8 281n48 2:6 224 3:8 224n22 3:10 305 6:12-13 224n22 9:9 222, 288 9:14 224 10 222 10:2 223 12:10 224 12:10-12 224 12:10-14 255 12:14 224 13:7 224 14:1-21 301 14:5 224 14:21 223

Judith 110 Wisdom of Solomon 239

2 351 4:10-15 86 4:18–5:13 110 5 351 7:22 136, 337 7:25-26 337 9:3 90 9:10 225, 254n63

Index 9:16-18 281 11:1 136

Ben Sira 126–27, 139 1:3, 8 281 24:23 126 44–50 126 44:1 126 44:16 303 44:23-24–45:5 126 45:6-22 126 45:23-26 126 47:11 254n63 48:9 312n78, 359, 361 49:14 330 50:1-21 126 50:27 126

1 Maccabees 43, 93 2:58 312n78

2 Maccabees 139 3:39 207 3 Maccabees 2:15 207

New Testament Matthew 1:1-14 220n12 1:23 220n12 5:5 354n80 5:11 16 8:19-20 205 8:20 3n3, 33n50, 55, 120, 121, 248 9:6, 16 240 9:12 242 9:36 223 10:5 211 10:23 350 10:32-33 111, 261, 350 10:33 253n55

11:3 120, 220 11:5 223, 354n80 11:19 33n50, 120, 248– 49, 349 11:25 349, 371n8 11:25-28 354n80 12 220 12:8 240, 342, 347 12:18 123 12:18-21 220 12:32 33n50, 249, 261 12:31-32 249n45 12:40, 251 259 12:41-42 222 13:11 349 13:18 121 13:24 121 13:36-43 257, 343, 348, 369 13:37 120 13:37-43 256, 268, 343, 347, 371n8 13:39 354n80 13:40-43 67n19, 257 13:41 120n21, 122 13:41-42 342 13:41-43 70n26 15:30-31 223 16–20 215n108 16:13 16, 70, 250 16:15 16n62 16:16 123, 250 16:21 25n21, 241, 250, 350, 371n8 16:27 70n26, 218n1, 342, 343, 344, 348, 371n8 16:27-28 208, 243, 253, 268, 349, 350 17–20 223 17:1-8 263 17:5 264n88, 266 17:9 242 17:9-13 70n26 17:12 242 17:22-23 241 17:23 25n21

­399 19:18 70 19:8 78 19:21 120n21 19:27-29 209 19:28 82, 88, 66, 70n26, 218–30, 253–54, 266, 268, 342, 342, 343, 348, 349, 369, 371n8 20:18-19 241 20:19 25n21 20:20-28 254n59 20:28 16, 242, 260n75 21:12-15 224 21:14 223 22:44 228 24:7 336n25 24:26-27, 37-39 342, 344, 350, 371n8 24:26-28, 37-41 261 24:27 115n4, 224 24:29-31 209 24:30 120n21, 224, 348, 350, 371n8 24:30-31 111, 244, 255, 268 24:31 256n62 24:37-39 111 24:37-42 210 24:37-44 86 24:43-44 111 24:44 262 25 68, 225 25:5 222 25:9 222 25:31 70, 78, 82, 88, 87, 111, 120n21, 123, 226, 229, 254, 266, 342, 343, 348, 349, 369, 371n8 25:31-32 119 25:31-43 256 25:31-46 71, 86, 218–30, 257, 266, 268, 347, 369 25:32 349 25:40, 45 229

­400 26:2 252 26:2, 24 245 26:13 354n80 26:24 242, 247, 341 26:24-29 308n62 26:25 242 26:31 223 26:45 242 26:50 260n76 26:60 245, 256, 268 26:64 27n29, 115n4, 228, 343, 344, 350 26:72 12 27:42-43 264 27:51 336n25 27:54 287 28:2 336n25 28:19 347 28:19-20 349, 371n8 34:4, 16 223 34:13-14 223

Mark 1:1 335n22 2:5 19 2:7 19 2:8 342 2:9 19 2:10 16, 19, 20, 21, 120, 240, 2:10-11 19 2:10, 28 274 2:11 19 2:23-24 21 2:27-28 21 2:28 19, 20, 21, 33, 120, 241, 371n8, 347 3:28-29 249n45 4:11 349 5:41 12 6:34 234 8:27 16, 250 8:27-30 348 8:27-33 24 8:28-29 79 8:29 16n61 8:31 19, 22, 23n14, 24, 121, 240, 250,

Index 270, 293, 347, 351 8:38 19, 25, 29, 54, 120n21, 274, 342, 344, 348, 371n8 8:38–9:1 243, 253, 268, 343, 349 9:2-8 263 9:4 xiii 9:7 264n88, 267 9:9 19, 23, 242, 344, 348, 371n8 9:9-13 79 9:12 19, 23, 25, 121, 242 9:31 8, 19, 23, 33, 122, 241, 270 10:32-34 293 10:33 19, 23 10:33-34 122, 241, 270 10:37 29 10:45 16, 19, 29, 30–33, 122, 242, 260n75, 348, 366, 371n8 11:25 344 12:1-2 213 12:27 224 13:8 342 13:24-27 54 13:26 19, 26 13:26-27 25-26, 244, 255, 268, 274, 295, 342, 346, 349, 371n8 13:27 26, 27, 256n69, 349 14:1-2 252 14:21 19, 23, 33, 242, 245–47, 267, 369 14:21-25 308n62 14:26 120n21 14:41 19, 23, 242 14:45 260n76 14:61-62 213 14:62 xv, 19, 25n21, 26, 27n27, n29; 29, 79, 120n21, 245, 256, 268, 274, 295, 342, 344, 346–48, 350,

371n8 14:70 12 15:32 263 15:39 287 19:28 27 19:28-30 295 25:31-46 295

Luke 1:68 265 2:38 265 3:37 331 5:24 16, 240, 348 6:5 240, 342, 347, 371n8 6:22 16, 258 6:24 354n80 7:34 33n50, 248–49 7:35 349 8:10 349 9:8, 19 79 9:18 16, 250 9:20 16n61 9:21 351 9:22 25n21, 241, 250 9:26, 258 342 9:26-27 243, 253, 344, 349, 371n8 9:28-36 263 9:35 264, 265, 267, 369 9:44 241 9:57-58 205 9:58 33n50, 58, 245, 248 10:21 349, 371n8 11:29-32 259 11:30 251, 259 11:31-32 259 12:8 120n21 12:8-9 77, 111, 261, 350 12:8-10 258 12:9 253n55 12:10 33n50, 249, 261 12:19 354n80 12:22-30 111 12:39-40 111 12:40 120n21, 262 15 260 16:20 10 16:26 353n80

Index 17:6 262 17:17-37 263 17:20-37 363 17:22-27 86 17:22-37 262, 344, 350, 342, 371n8 17:24, 26 120n21 17:30 120n21, 263 18:8 120n21 18:8b 263, 268 18:31-33 241 18:33 25n21 19:10 121–22, 260, 342, 343, 343, 349, 371n8 21:27 244, 255, 350 21:28 244, 265, 266, 267, 369 21:36 120n21, 263, 263, 268 22 31 22:1-2 252 22:22 242, 260, 308n62 22:22, 48 261 22:24-27 30 22:26-27 30 22:27 16, 30n38 22:28 260 22:28-30 253, 268 22:48 260 22:69 27n27, 245, 256 23:35 265, 267, 369 23:47 287n70 24:7 261, 294–95n5 24:21 266 24:44 350

John 1:1-2 277, 284, 292 1:1-3 14–18, 342 1:1, 14, 18 305 1:1-18 278, 282 1:3-5 304 1:5, 16-18 275n22 1:14 277, 292, 307 1:17 292, 312 1:17-18 312 1:18 281, 304

1:19–2:11 280 1:28-32 271n8 1:35-51 305 1:41 305 1:45 305 1:49 305 1:50 280 1:50-51 279 1:51 270, 271, 275, 279– 80, 285, 287, 303, 305, 310, 349 2:1 280 2:1-2 279 2:16 288 2:17-21 288 2:22 288, 290, 307 3:11-21 282n50 3:12-13 304 3:13 270, 271, 282–84, 303, 305–06, 308, 311, 312, 333n18, 335, 349 3:13-14 270, 279, 281– 83, 285, 287, 290, 349 3:13-15 176 3:14 270, 275, 279, 285–87, 292, 293, 303, 312 3:14-15 282, 291, 303 3:16, 36 303n47 3:17 304 3:17-21 304, 308 3:18 304, 309 3:19-21 309 4:13-15 361 4:24-28 307 4:26 306 4:34 286, 287 5:19-23 304 5:19-30 284 5:21-22 306 5:24 309 5:24-25 284 5:24-27 306 5:25-26 284 5:25-28 209 5:26-27 349

­401 5:27 284–87, 291, 303– 04, 306, 308, 311 5:27-29 304, 310n 5:27, 53 270, 279 5:28-29 304, 308, 309, 310n70, 369 5:45-46 312 6:27 287, 303, 308 6:27, 53, 62 270, 275, 279, 287 6:32 312 6:33, 35 308 6:37, 53 349 6:39, 40, 44 309 6:40 304 6:42 307 6:46 281, 312 6:51 306 6:53 275, 287, 291, 303, 306, 307, 308 6:62 270, 271, 283–84, 291, 303, 306, 308, 349 6:63 283–84, 287 7:1–10:21 287 7:4 286 7:24 284 7:32, 45 287 7:37-38 288 7:39 288, 290 7:53–8:11 335 8:15 284, 304 8:20, 59 286–87, 290 8:24, 28 306 8:26 279, 282 8:28 270, 275, 282n53, 285–87, 289, 291, 292, 293, 303, 304, 308, 349 8:28-29, 16a 288 8:28, 58 308, 369 8:58 306n59 9:16, 24 307 9:28 281n45, 312 9:33-34 307 9:34-35 175 9:35 279, 287, 291, 307, 349

Index

­402 9:35-38 291 9:36, 34 270 9:38 307 9:39 304, 308, 309 10:16 289 11:1 10 11:4 292 11:52 289 11:55 289 12:1, 12 289 12:12-19 288 12:15 288 12:16 307 12:16, 23, 32-34 290 12:19 289 12:20 307, 289 12:21 349 12:22 287, 290 12:22-23 290 12:23 270, 275, 279, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 303, 307 12:23, 34 279 12:23, 32-34 275, 279 12:24 33n53, 217, 275, 289, 295 12:24-26 307 12:31 349 12:31-33 291 12:32 285–87, 293 12:32-33 292 12:32-34 270, 279, 287 12:34 173, 287, 291, 303, 305, 347 12:34-36 349 12:41, 309 312 13:1 286, 289 13:1-30 289n76 13:1-38 289, 290n77 13:2, 10-11, 18, 21-30, 3638 289 13:5-15 289 13:21-30 289 13:19 287, 306n59 13:30 287, 289, 307 13:30-31 307 13:31 275, 279, 288, 289, 290, 292, 307, 349

13:31a 289 13:31b 289, 290n77 13:31bc 288 13:31c 290n77 13:31-32 270, 279, 286, 289, 290, 303, 306 13:31-33 306 13:31-38 289n76 13:31–14:31 289 13:32 275, 287n70 13:32-33 307n61 13:34-35 289 14:1-3, 18-21, 28-31 290n80 14:2-3 306 14:6 281 14:6-8 304 15:22 304, 309 15:22-24 308 17:1-5, 24-26 290n80, 307n59 17:1, 5 288, 290n79, 292 17:4 286, 289 17:14 289 18:5-6, 8 306n59 18:32 286 19:16b-37 288 19:17-22 288 19:23-25a 288 19: 25b-27 288 19:27 289 19:28b 288 19:28-30 286 19:29 288 19:30a 288 19:30b 289 19:37 282 20:17 282 20:22 288 20:30 335 20:30-31 335 20:31 303n47

Romans

Acts

Hebrews

1:20 337 2 188 7:52 299n25 7:56 338n32

1:1-2 337 1:1-4 352 1:3, 13 88 2:5-9 121n23

10:6 87 14:10 207 11:8 337 11:26-27 20 11:34-35 337

1 Corinthians 1:25-27 30, 352 1:30 348 15:1-3 102 15:23-28 88

2 Corinthians 5:10 207, 342, 345

Ephesians 1:8-9, 20-21 348, 352 2:5; 5:14 68 3:8-11 348 4:10 87

Philippians 2:1 87 2:6-11 68 2:8 285 2:9 286 2:9-11 87, 343, 348

Colossians 2:15 68

1 Thessalonians 4:16 348

1 Timothy 3:16 68

Index 2:6-9 203, 338n32 3:10 353n78 3:20 343, 353n78 4:6 353n78 5:1-13 337 6:11 343 6:15-16 353n78 8:1 88 9:27 207 10:6 87 10:12-13 88 11 330 11:5 331 12:2 88

1 Peter 1:21 87 3:19-20 331 3:22 87

2 Peter 2:1-4 331

1 John 5:7-8 333n18, 335

Jude 1:14 45 6 331 14 151n143, 331, 332, 345, 358

Revelation 1:7 224 1:13 338n32 3:21 87–88, 343 4–5 87–88, 91 4:1 353n77 4:10 87 5:1-4 342 5:1, 7, 13 87 5:6 90 5:6, 9, 12 248 5:11 331 6:11 353n77

­403

6:12 336n25 6:15-16 66 6:16 87 7:15 87 7:17 90 8:5 336n25 8:8 353n77 9:1 353n77 9:20 353n77 11:4 1–2, 310 11:13, 19 336n25 14:10 353n77 14:14 81, 338n32, 345, 353n77 15:3 331 16:18 336n25 17:14 353n77 19 91 19:11 310 19:11-16 345 19:16 331 19:19 248 20:8 353n77 20:11-15 90 21:5 87 21:6 361 22:1, 3 87 22:1-5 90 22:2 353n77 22:17 361

83:1-2 206

Pseudepigrapha

The Book of Adam and Eve 1.8 361 1.11 14, 361 2.2 8, 361 2.19 361 2.22 361 3.4 361

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 361 Apocalypse of Sedrach 4:2 247 2 Baruch 64, 67, 72, 83, 102, 239, 273n13, 296n14, 310 2:1-18 281n48 29–30 309n65 29:8 299

3 Baruch 281n48 Apocryphon of Ezekiel 1 208n98 Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo) 136–39 9–19 136 9:1, 4-6 137 9:7-8 137, 151, 157 9:10 137, 157 9:12-16 137 9:13 137 9:15-16 137 11 138 11:5 138 12:1 138 12:8-9 138 13:9 138 14:120 164 14:450 164 15–18 138 15:7 138 19:2-5 138 19:3 138 19:7 138 19:9-12 138 19:10 156 19:16 139

Book of Noah xvi, xviin6 Exagoge of Ezekiel (= Ezekiel the Tragedian) 145–47 34–35 146 36–38 146

­404 67–89 27n25 68–69 146 68–82 90 68–89 146 70–72 146 74–76 146 77–80 146 85–86 146 89 146 4 Ezra xvi, 24, 32, 43, 64, 67, 81, 83, 100, 102– 04, 110, 112, 195, 214, 239, 296n14, 310 4:12 247 7:[63], 46 247 13 28, 43, 253, 270, 272, 273n13, 309 13:1-13 103 13:1-58 274 13:2 28 13:3 28, 202n85 13:6-7 28n32 14:32 206 16:67 206 38 273 Jubilees xiv, 72, 130 1 130 1:1–2:1 130 1:9-14 132 1:19-21 130 1:26-29 156 4 323 4:3 158 4:16-25 156 4:17 324 4:18-19, 21, 23 324 4:21 324 5:5 330 6:22 130 7:22 330 8:1-4 324 8:3 330 23 130 47–50 130 47:9 130n22 48:9 130

Index Ladder of Jacob 2:7-19 319 Letter of Aristeas 139 Life of Adam and Eve 25–28 281n48 Martyrdom of Isaiah (= Ascension of Isaiah) 65, 88, 207 1:6b 207 2:9; 3:7-10 281n48 4:6 358n88 7–11 312n78 7:10 358n88 9:12-18 358n88 11:32-33 87

38:4-5 95 42:1-3 123 42:2 123n25 45:5 95 46:4 95 48:1-2 123 48:2-3 123n25 48:8 95 49:1-4 123 51:3 123 54:1-2 95 55:4 95 62:2, 9 95 63:1-10 95 63:3-6 95 63:12 95

Sibyllines (Sibylline Oracles) 65, 72 Odes of Solomon xv–xvi, 2:215-35 61 3.1, 11, 81, 807 207 43, 358 3:704 206 11:12, 16, 18 358 3:810-11, 827 62 17:13 xvin4, 55n46 4:124 104 19:8ff. 358n88 5:93-110 61 30:1-7 361 5:298 352 36 45 5:438 104 36:1-3 358, 361 37:2 358 Testament of Abraham 38:10 358n88 82, 207 38:17 358 8:5 254n63 41:16 358 10–15 312n78 11–12 68 Prayer of Joseph 12:4 254n63 1–3, 7–8 81, 84 7–8 (A) 319 Testament of Adam 90, 104 Psalms of Solomon 82, 1 207 94, 110, 192, 200, 214, 2:15 207 358 13 309n65 1:8 59 2 47 Testament of Benjamin 8:14 59 9:1 331 14 358 15 358 Testament of Dan 17–18 60, 83 5:6 331 17:17 59 17:32, 36-37 299n25 18:12-14 358

Index

­405

Testament of Job 33:3 87n60

New Testament Pseudepigrapha

Rabbinic Literature

Testament Judah 18:1 331

Acta sanctorum Felicite et Perpetue 7, 8, 12 359

Jerusalem Talmud 4

Testament of Levi 2–5 312n78 2:6 310 10:5 331 14:1 331 16:1 331

Acts of the “Disputation of Archelaus with Manes” 32 361

y.Berakot 2c 1,1 90 3b 17 3b, 5b, 5c 5n10 4d 12n41 5c 8

Acts of Thomas 32 361

y.Shebi’it 38d 5n10

Testament of Moses (= Assumption of Moses) 110, 134–36 1:14 135, 157 2:1–10:10 135 3:10-14 135 3:12 135 11–12 136n52 11:5-8 135 11:16 135 11:17 133, 136 11:17-19 135 12: 4-7 136 12:6 136n54 12:7 136

Apocalypse of Paul 4ff. 361

y.Shabbat 3a 5n10, 17

Apocalypse of Peter 72 2–8, 357 361 6:1 87 9:27-41 87

y.Ta’an 65b 347n54

Testament of Naphtali 3:5 331n5 4:1 331 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs xiv, 83, 65 Testament of Ruben 5:6-7 331n5 Testament of Simeon 5:4 331 16:1 331 Testament of Zebulon 3:4 331

Arabic History of Joseph 62 Clementine Homilies 8:12 359 Gospel of Nicodemus (= Acts of Pilate) 25 359 Gospel of Thomas Log. 86 55 History of Joseph the Carpenter 30–32 359

y.Meg 1.11 71b 97 y.Ketubbot 35a 5n10 y.Abod. Zar. 1:9 140n76

Babylonian Talmud b.Erubin 53b 12n41 b.Yoma 4a 133n39 b. RošHaš 21b 127n10

Letter of Barnabas 4:3 357 12.10 293m89 16:4-6 357

b.Ḥag 14b 90 15a 317

Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea 3.3 361

b.Giṭṭin 56a 8 56ab 7n27

Index

­406 b.Sanh 38b 90 98 a-b 63

Palestinian Targum 11 Gn 4:14 5n10, 17 Gn 9:5-6 14

Midrash/Commentary

Targum Zechariah 223n19

Genesis Rabbah 4 11 37:6 97 68:12 319 Leviticus Rabbah 6:3 90 7:2 5n10 38:13 5n10 65:21 90 68:2 81 79:6 5n10, 17 Ekah (Lamentations) Rabbah 1:5 7n27 1:13 [41] 63 Abot de-Rabbi Nathan I. 4 II .6 7n27 Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael 280

18.3 10 19.10, 24 10

1QpHab 213, 345

7 xv, 175,

Dead Sea Scrolls (and Wadi Murabbaʻt) 1Q22 Words of Moses Angelic Liturgy 71 Apocalypse of Enoch 70 Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) 54 2.1 204n89, 273n13 2:5-6 84 2:7 84

Book of the Giants 67, 70–72

(1QApocryphon of Mosesa) 131–32 1:3-4 132 1:5-11 132

1Q28b 5:21-22 26, 84

1Q29 Liturgy of 3 Tongues of Fire (1QApocryphon of Mosesb) 131 1QS

Book of Giants (4Q530) 1.2 131 321

Pesiqta Rabbati 22:6 90

Book of Noah (4Q534 ar) 55

Yalqut Shimʽoni §415 7n27

A Daniel Apocryphon

Targumim

Murabba‘at

55

11.20 121n23

2Q21 Apocryphon of Moses 131 6Q8.8 11 4QEnc

Targum Jonathan 73

Cairo Damascus Document (CD)

4 10 129 4 ii 4-5 129n18

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 73 Gen 5 72 Gen 10:19 97 Gen 5:24 80, 312, 317

5.17-19 130 5.20-6.1 133

4QEne

Targum Neofiti 4 Gen 4:14 5n10, 17 Gen 10:19 97

Copper Scroll 43 Genesis Apocraphon (1QapGen) 4 2.20-21 324

4 i 13-16 129n18

4QAramaic Enoch 62 4QTestimonia 97

Index 4QFlorilegium 97 4Q174 299 4Q203 8.4 322

4Q212 1 ii 22 323

4Q227(PsJubc) 2.1, 4 324

4Q427 7 90

2 ii.4-6 132 2 ii.10-12 132 3 ii + 4, 6 133, 134

4Q383 134n45

4Q375 Apocryphon of Mosesa (formerly Apocryphon of Moses B) 131 4Q376 Apocryphon of Mosesb 131

4Q385 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca (formerly Pseudo-Mosesa) 131

4Q378 (4QApocryphon of Joshuaa) 134

2 ii+6-7 i+8-12.14 322

4Q531 14.6 324

4Q252 5:3 84

4Q387 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cb (formerly Pseudo-Mosesb) 131

4Q266

4Q388a Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc (formerly Pseudo-Mosesc) 131

11 90 11, i, 5 90 11 i, 6 90

4Q390 Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ce (formerly Pseudo-Mosese) 131

20-21-22 ii, 7 (= 11Q17 vii, 4-5) 90

4Q408 Apocryphon of Mosesc 131

6-7

90

4Q521

3 ii:7-9 133

4Q491

11QMelch 66, 209n100 2.4-8 20

11QPs 154 354n80 11Q5 18.3-6 354n80

11Q13 84

4Q405

4Q468g 4Q377 Apocryphal EschatologicalWork A? 187 Pentateuch B (formerly Apocryphon of Moses C) 4Q471b 127, 129, 131, 132–33, 139

4Q530

a

4Q374 Exodus / 4Q389 Apocryphon of Conquest Tradition Jeremiah Cd (formerly (formerly Apocryphon of Pseudo-Mosesd) 131 Moses A) 131, 132 frg. 2 ii:6 130, 132 frg. 2 ii:7-10 132 frg. 2 ii:8 132 frg. 2 ii:9 132

­407

200

9-11, 13–21 350

Q’uran Sura 19 “Maryam” xvii

Greek and Latin Writers Apollodorus (PseudoApollodorus) Bibliotheca 2.5.10 176n15 3.12.2 176n15 3. 88–91 177

Index

­408 Demetrius the Chronographer Fragment 2 (=Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.21.119) 140 Fragment 3 (=Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.29.13) 140

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 40.3.8 142

Hesiod Theogony 351, 981 176n15

Homer Illiad 8.436-442 88

Josephus Antiquities 1.656-65 177 2.205 151 2.210 151 2.216 151 2.224 151 2.226-27 152 2.229 151 2.231 151 2.244-48 152 2.254 153 2.256 151 2.267 151 2.268 152 2.273 151 2.280 152 2.281 152 2.284, 287 152 3.5 152 3.170 136 4.85 153 4.194, 196, 302 152 14 95

14.93 184, 187 14.109 186 14.119-22 187 14.331, 343 188 14.340 108 14.344 47 14.363-64 47 14.452 188 15.65-87; 207-46, 219, 319-22 98 15.328-29 169 15.363 169 15.365, 16.64 52 16-18 183 17.168-72 97 17.171 98 17.289 52 17.303-08 184 17.304-14 51n43, 340 17:307-308 183–84

Nicephorus

Contra Apionem 150 2.154 152 2.158 152

De vita Mosis 148–50 1.5 148 1.7 148 1.20 149 1.23 149 1.25-26 149 1.37, 43 149 1.38-39 149 1.44 149 1.158 150, 312n78 2.3 148

Life

44

War 1.33.5 §§657-58 69 1.162 172, 180, 187 1.180 189 1.180-82 187 1.182 187 1.249 189 1.250-555 178 1. 253-58 188 1.254 108 1.257 188 1.303 187 1.328-30 188 1.656-58 97 1.657 98 2.69 52n43 3.516-21 161 5.168 177 5.567 10 17.5.353 177

Stichometry 61 353, 362 Orphica 32-33 xiii

Ovid Metamorphoses 9. 396 176n15

Pausanias Description of Greece 8. 24. 9 176n15

Philo De aeternitate mundi 18-19 150

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2.29 150 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 213-14 150 Therapeutae 1.29 149

Pliny Natural History 70–72 97

Index Plutarch The Roman Questions 108 141

Julius Pollux of Naucatis Onomasticon (Poll. Onom.) 6.128 184n37 9.32 184n37

Ptolemy Geography 15:6 (Nobbe 16.6) 97

Solinus Polyhistor 97 De mirabilibus mundi 35:4 97

Strabo Geography 16.2.1 189

Syncellus Chronography 1, 1, 42 (= Zosimus of Panopolis) 358 6–9:4 360 8:4–10:14 360 15:8–16:1 360

Tacitus Annals 2.42 184

Virgil Aeneid Book 6 93 Fourth Eclogue 93

Xenophon Anabasis 152

­409

Patristics and Other Early Christian Literature

Epiphanius of Salamis

Julius Africanus

Clement of Alexandria

Chronographia 359 Apostolic Constitutions 6.16, 362 360

Against Heresies 1.4 360

Eclogae prophetarum 2.1, 53 358 3.456 358

Athenagoras

Stromata 140, 145 3.9 358

Legatio pro Christianis 24, 25 358, 361

Eusebius

Augustine De Civitate Dei 15.23 360

Cassian Collatio 8.20-21 360

Disputations 2.17 359 Ecclesiastica historia 1.8.10 177 7 144, 359 7:32.19 359

Praeparatio evangelica 145 8.10.4 (= Aristobulus) Catalogue of Sixty 144, 145 Canonical Books 358–59 8.10.5 (= Aristobulus) 144 John Chrysostom 8.10.6-9 (= Arsitobulus) Homilies on Genesis 144 6:1 360 9.17.1-9 (= PseudoEupolemos) 324 Commodian 9.21.1-19 140 9.29.1 140 Decretum Gelasianum 9.29.1-3 140 359 9.29.3 141 9.27.3-12 (= Artapanus) Instructiones 142–43 1.3 359 13.12.1 (= Aristobulus) 145 Cyprian 13.13.8 (= Aristobulus) Ad Novatianum (Pseudo145 Cyprian) 359 On Modesty and the Dress of Virgins 14 359

Hilary of Poitiers Commentarius in Psalmum 132:3-6 360

Index

­­410 Hippolytus

Tractatus 3.56-57 360

Refutatio omnium haeresium. V.12,1-17,13 286n65 V.12,6-12;16,4-6 286n65

4.27 359 5.18 359 7.1 361 7:7 359 7:16 359 7:19 359 7:24 359 7:26 359, 361

Ignatius

Justin Martyr

Oratio adversus Graecos 18.20 358

Ephesians 20.2 293n89

1 Apologia 2:5 358

Tertullian

Irenaeus

Dialogue with Trypho 61:3 352

De Christo et Antochristo 43–47 358

Adversus Haereses 1.2.1 358 1.15.6 97 4.16.2 358 4.36.4 358

Jerome Breviarium in Psalmos (Pseudo-Jerome) 133.3 360 Commentarioli in Psalmos 132:3 360

Minucius Felix Octavius 26 358

Origen De Principiis 1.3.3 359 4.4.8 359 4:35 359 Commentary on John 96 6:42 359

Commentarius in Epistolam ad Titum 1.12 360

Contra Celsum 5.52, 54-55 359, 361

De viris illustribus 4 360

In Numeros homilia 28.2 359

Lactantius

Priscillian

Divinae institutiones 2.14 359, 361 3.15 359, 361

De Fide et de Apocryphis 360

Pseudo-Athanasius Synopsis

353, 362

Tatian

Apologia 22 358 De Anima 50 358 De cultu feminarum 1.3.1 358 De idolatria 4, 15 358 De virginibus velandis 7 358

Gnostic Literature The Two Books of Yeu 62 Pistis Sophia 361