Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Essays On The Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions PDF
Essays On The Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions PDF
Essays On The Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions PDF
Series Editors
H. J. de Jonge
M. A. Knibb
J.-C. Haelewyck
J. Tromp
VOLUME 22
Essays on the Book of Enoch
and Other Early Jewish
Texts and Traditions
By
Michael A. Knibb
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2009
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
BS1830.E7K55 2008
229’.913—dc22
2008042418
ISSN 0169-8125
ISBN 978 90 04 16725 4
Preface ......................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements ..................................................................... xi
Abbreviations .............................................................................. xv
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
PART ONE
PART TWO
XIII. Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community .... 232
XIV. Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha:
The Levi Traditions ....................................................... 255
XV. Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra .............................. 271
XVI. Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha .............................................................. 289
XVII. Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light
of the Scrolls .................................................................. 307
XVIII. Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead
Sea Scrolls ...................................................................... 327
XIX. The Septuagint and Messianism: Problems and
Issues .............................................................................. 349
XX. Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and
Pseudepigraphal Writings from before the
Common Era ................................................................. 367
XXI. Temple and Cult in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha: Future Perspectives ............................ 388
The twenty-one essays that have been brought together in this collec-
tion date from the period 1976 to 2007 and were originally published
in a wide range of journals, Festschriften, conference proceedings and
thematic collections. They have been copy-edited so that they now follow
a consistent style, but otherwise have been reprinted without change
apart from the correction of one or two misprints. In the Introduction
I have attempted to put each essay in its context, and in the case of
some of the essays I have referred to more recent publications that
seemed to be of particular relevance to the subject. But I have not
done this for all the essays, and on the whole I have thought it best to
leave the essays as they stood.
I would like to express my warm thanks to Henk Jan de Jonge,
Jean-Claude Haelewyck and Johannes Tromp, my fellow editors in the
series Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha, for encouraging
me to publish this collection and for very willingly accepting it into
the series; to Dr Trudi Darby, Deputy Head of Administration (Arts &
Sciences) and Deputy College Secretary, King’s College London, who
very kindly gave up her leisure to copy-edit the essays for me; and to
Loes Schouten, Ivo Romein and Ellen Girmscheid at Brill for much
advice and help.
The essays included in this volume reflect the benefit of conversations
with friends and colleagues over many years. They are too numer-
ous to mention them all by name here, but I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge the debt I owe to Rien de Jonge and to
the late Peter Ackroyd and Adam van der Woude from whom I have
learnt so much.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Christine for all she has done
to make possible the writing of these as of other studies.
(ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg; Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 333; London and New York:
Sheffield Academic Press [T&T Clark, an imprint of Continuum Inter-
national], 2001), 340–54.
X. “The Text-critical Value of the Quotations from 1 Enoch in Ethiopic
writings,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Hon-
our of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne;
Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192, Leuven:
Leuven University Press—Uitgeverij Peeters, 2005), 225–235.
XI. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 253–272.
XII. “Exile in the Damascus Document,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 25 (1983): 99–117.
XIII. Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community. An Inaugural
Lecture in the Department of Biblical Studies delivered on Tuesday
17 January 1989 at King’s College London (London: King’s College,
1989. Copyright Michael A. Knibb).
XIV. “Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi
Traditions,” in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Juda-
ism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His
70th Birthday (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Ed Noort; Leiden,
Boston and Köln: Brill, 1998), 197–213.
XV. “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” Journal for the Study of Juda-
ism 13 (1982): 56–74.
XVI. “Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in
Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition
(ed. Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans; 2 vols.; Leiden, Boston and
Köln: Brill, 1997), 2.633–50.
XVII. “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,”
Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 165–184.
XVIII. “Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” The Dead
Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam;
2 vols.; Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill, 1998, 1999), 2.379–402.
acknowledgements xiii
I would like to record here my gratitude to all the above publishers for
permission to reproduce the essays indicated.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
AOT The Apocryphal Old Testament. Edited by H. F. D. Sparks,
Oxford, 1984
APAT Die Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Trans-
lated and edited by E. Kautzsch. 2 vols. Tübingen, 1900
APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited
by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FB Forschung zur Bibel
HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
JA Journal asiatique
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
xvi abbreviations
The essays reprinted in the first part of this volume are all concerned
with the Book of Enoch, and although, with one exception, they have
been published in this millennium, they reflect a long-standing interest
in the problems connected with the interpretation of this important
pseudepigraph. My particular interest in the book dates back to the
time in 1966 when Professor Edward Ullendorff very generously sug-
gested that I should take over from him the preparation of an edition
of the Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch;1 but I had been attracted to the book
as a topic for research even before this.
The Ethiopic Book of Enoch in Recent Research (I) was originally given in
2004 as the Friends of Dr Williams’s Library Fifty-Eighth Lecture. The
first section was intended as an introduction to 1 Enoch for a largely lay
audience and speaks for itself, the other two sections take up topics that
are of importance in the study of the book. The question of the genre
of 1 Enoch and of the circles from which it stems is treated in much
greater detail in “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran
Wisdom Literature” (V), a paper given at the Colloquium Biblicum
Lovaniense of 2002 whose theme was summed up in the title given
to the volume of proceedings, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Against the background of the idea
that there was a degree of opposition between Ben Sira and the authors
of the early Enochic writings I explored the relevance of the Qumran
wisdom literature, particularly 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, to our
understanding of the Book of Enoch. I argued that, despite all their differ-
ences, there were similarities between 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction
on the one hand and 1 Enoch on the other in their understanding of
wisdom as revealed, and in their cosmology and eschatology, and that
1
It had originally been intended that Edward Ullendorff and Matthew Black
would jointly publish an edition of the Ethiopic, Greek and Aramaic texts of Enoch,
with a translation and exegetical commentary; it was envisaged, so I believe, that the
Ethiopic, the Greek and the Aramaic would be presented in parallel columns. They
were, however, prevented from making progress in this by the delay in the publication
of the Aramaic fragments, and Edward Ullendorff eventually suggested that I should
take over his part of the enterprise, i.e. the edition and translation of the Ethiopic
text; at a later stage it was decided that the exegetical commentary, which was to be
prepared by Matthew Black, should be published separately.
2 introduction
2
Cf., from a very different perspective, the comments of Seth Schwartz, Imperialism
and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001),
74–84, esp. 76: “In its literary expression, at least, it (sc. apocalypticism) is in fact an
elite or subelite phenomenon, for the most part socially coextensive with wisdom litera-
ture.”—For the relationship between the early Enoch literature and on the one hand
Sirach, on the other 4QInstruction and 4QMysteries, cf. now Benjamin G. Wright III,
“1 Enooch and Ben Sira: Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Relationship,” in The Early
Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill,
2007), 159–76; Eibert Tigchelaar, “Wisdom and Counter-Wisdom in 4QInstruction,
Mysteries, and 1 Enoch,” in The Early Enoch Literature, 177–93.
3
Gabriele Boccaccini has recently provided a restatement of his views in a paper
given at the Enoch Seminar held at Camaldoli in 2007, “From a Movement of Dis-
sent to a Distinct Form of Judasim: The Heavenly Tablets in Jubilees as the Foundation
of a Competing Halakha,” which will be published in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The
Evidence of Jubilees (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba; forthcoming in 2009).
In email correspondence he has suggested that ‘Enochic School’ (or ‘Enochic Intellec-
tual Movement’) and ‘Zadokite School’ (or ‘Zadokite Intellectual Movement’) perhaps
better represents what he means by ‘Enochic Judaism’ and ‘Zadokite Judaism’; but
he does not believe that Enochic and Zadokite books were the product of the same
people or of the same school.
4
Cf. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 8–10, on the dangers of treating each
literary work from ancient Judaism in isolation as “the product of an impermeably
discrete social organization.”
introduction 3
5
Papers on the general theme of Christian adoption and transmission of ancient
Jewish writings were also given at the seminar by Robert A. Kraft (“Setting the Stage
and Framing Some Central Questions”) and by Daniel C. Harlow (“The Christian-
ization of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 3 Baruch”); the three papers
were published together in Journal for the Study of Judaism 32/4 (2001): 371–95 (Kraft),
396–415 (Knibb), 416–44 (Harlow).
6
“The Translation of 1 Enoch 70:1: Some Methodological Issues” (IX) and “The
Text-Critical Value of the Quotations from 1 Enoch in Ethiopic Writings” (X).—In all
three essays reference is made to the importance of MaÉafa Milad for the evidence
it provides of the way in which the Book of Enoch was interpreted in Ethiopia in the
fifteenth century; on this work, see now Getatchew Haile, “Milad: MäÉäfa milad,”
Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3 (2007): 964–5.
4 introduction
7
The volume contains pairs of articles on important aspects of research on the
earliest parts of 1 Enoch. For the text of 1 Enoch see, in addition to my own article,
Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “The Early Traditions Related to 1 Enoch from the Dead Sea
Scrolls: An Overview and Assessment,” in The Early Enoch Literature, 41–63.
8
It is a matter of regret to me that when I wrote this study, I was not aware of
the monograph by Kelley Coblentz Bautch on this section of 1 Enoch, which appeared
more or less at the same time as my own essay; see Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study
of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” ( JSJSup
81; Leiden: Brill, 2003).
introduction 5
the Watchers had revealed, through which evil was introduced into
the world (16:3);9 second, that notwithstanding the use of ideas that
were derived from Babylonian and particularly Greek traditions, an
important clue to the interpretation of these chapters is to be found
in the way in which their composition was influenced by the extensive
use of passages from scripture. In this latter connection the allusions
to Job 38 seemed of particular importance: whereas Job has to admit
the limitations of his knowledge, Enoch is presented as gaining access
to knowledge that was denied to Job and to all other humans (cf. 19:3).
Enoch has access to the secrets of the cosmos that are otherwise known
only to God, and we are meant to understand that what he reveals,
not only about the cosmos, but also about the fate of the Watchers
and the judgement, is true.
Two essays are concerned with the Book of Parables. One of these,
“The Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch” (VII), was
originally given as a paper at the Enoch Seminar held in Camaldoli
in 2005 and appeared in the volume Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man:
Revisiting the Book of Parables.10 The second, “The Date of the Parables of
Enoch: A Critical Review” (VIII), dates back to the 70s and was origi-
nally given at a session of the Pseudepigrapha Seminar at the SNTS
conference in Paris in 1978. The former essay represents the working
out of the basic perception that the Book of Parables was intended as
a continuation of the Book of Watchers, on which in some ways it was
consciously modelled, and that it can to a significant extent be under-
stood as a reinterpretation of some of the themes and ideas of the Book
of Watchers in response to the circumstances of a later historical situa-
tion. However, determining what these circumstances were does pose
considerable difficulties, and it was just this problem that had formed
the subject of the latter essay. It was written in response to the views
concerning the dating of the Parables advocated by Milik in The Books of
9
For this point, see also Michael A. Knibb, “The Book of Enoch in the Light of
the Qumran Wisdom Literature,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
in the Biblical Tradition (ed. Florentino García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Leuven
University Press—Peeters, 2003), 193–210 (here 207–9); below 91–110 (here 106–108);
cf. now Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The
Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 46–9.
10
The volume also contains a paper on the same theme by George Nickelsburg
(“Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables,” in Enoch and the Mes-
siah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini: Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 23–47).
6 introduction
11
On Milik’s views, see also my comments in “Christian Adoption and Transmission
of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch” (III).
introduction 7
12
Cf. now also the translation of 70:1 given in George W. E. Nickelsburg and James
C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 92.
13
On this issue, see “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls”
(XVII).
14
An important source for quotations from 1 Enoch, and particularly from the Parables,
is the homiletic work known as MaÉafa Milad; on this work, see above, n. 6.
8 introduction
The essays reprinted in the second part of this volume were origi-
nally published over the course of a thirty-year period—from 1976
to 2007—and cover a variety of topics. One thing that does serve to
link them together, however, is a concern with the way in which many
Early Jewish writings draw on older authoritative texts and traditions
and represent an interpretation of them. This is true, for example,
of the first essay, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental
Period” (XI). My main concern in this study was to explore the way
in which in a number of Early Jewish writings the belief is expressed
that, notwithstanding the return at the end of the sixth century, Israel
had remained in a state of exile that had lasted into the time in which
the authors were writing, and that this state of exile would only be
brought to a proper end in events that were then unfolding, in the
intervention of God and the inauguration of a new era. This belief is
developed in a variety of different ways, and I was concerned first of
all in the study to show how traditions about the length of the exile
in Jer 25:11–12; 29:10–14 and about the years of the punishment of
the house of Israel in Ezek 4:4–8 had been reused and reinterpreted
in later writings—Dan 9; the Vision of the Animals and the Apocalypse
of Weeks; T. Levi 16–17; and the Assumption of Moses on the one hand,
Damascus Document I, 5–11 on the other—to give expression to the idea
that Israel had remained in a state of exile long after the return. But
concern with the idea of the exile is important in other writings as well,
including the Sin-Exile-Return passages in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Jubilees 1 and the Baruch literature, which I discussed in the
latter part of the study.15 Much has been written about all the writings
that I discussed in this essay since it was first published in 1976,16 but
I believe that the main point that I was concerned to make about the
significance of the exile remains valid and important. The one point
that I would express slightly differently is that I would now question
15
For the Assumption of Moses and for the Baruch literature, see also “Temple and
Cult in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Future Perspectives” (XXI).
16
I alluded in footnote 28 to the possible relevance to the theme of exile of the
pseudo-Daniel writing from Qumran, which in 1976 had only been published in
preliminary form. On this text, see now John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, “243–245.
4Qpseudo-Daniela–c ar,” in George Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical
Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996): 95–164; the fragments in question
(4Q243 13 + 4Q244 12 and 4Q243 16) are discussed on pp. 106–9, 133–4, 136,
150–51. See also Knibb, “The Book of Daniel in its Context,” in The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception (ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint; 2 vols.; VTSup 83,1–2;
Leiden: Brill, 2001): 1.16–35 (here 21–22).
introduction 9
whether it is at all possible to speak about the Testaments “in their pre-
Christian stage” in the way that I did. This is not, of course, to deny
that Jewish sources were used in the formation of the present Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs, but rather that it is possible to isolate a Jewish
text by cutting out obviously Christian passages.
The following essay, “Exile in the Damascus Document” (XII), which
was originally published in 1983, also focuses on the exile and on beliefs
about the exile. In a series of articles published in Revue Biblique in the
early 70s Jerome Murphy O’Connor argued that the origins of the
Essenes were to be placed, not in Palestine in the early second century
B.C.E., but in Babylon during the exile, and that the nucleus of the
Essenes was formed by a group of conservative Jews who returned to
Palestine shortly after 165 B.C.E. He also argued that ‘Damascus’ in the
Damascus Document was a symbolic name, not—as often assumed—for
Qumran, but for Babylon. My main concern in my essay was to show the
way in which in a series of passages (I, 3–11a; III, 9–14a; V, 20–VI, 5)
the establishment of the community that lies behind the Damascus
Document is presented as the next event after the exile, but at the same
time to argue that these passages provided little information about the
historical or geographical origins of the community—except, if it is
possible to rely on the chronological indications in column I, by way of
supporting the idea that this community emerged in the early second
century B.C.E. The passages were not to be interpreted historically, as
referring literally to the situation of exile, but rather along the lines of
the theological understanding of exile outlined above, and I suggested
that 1 En. 93:8–10, part of the Apocalypse of Weeks, provided a close
parallel to the pattern present in the Damascus Document. I also argued
that the evidence adduced for Babylonian influence on the Essenes was
not very strong, and that in contrast writings like 1 Enoch and, particu-
larly, Jubilees provided evidence of a reform movement in Palestine at
the end of the third and the beginning of the second century from
which it was plausible to think that the Essenes could have emerged.
This view still seems to me in essentials correct notwithstanding the
criticisms made by Murphy O’Connor in a later article.17 However,
whereas in 1983 I was inclined to accept that ‘Damascus’ was a symbolic
17
Jerome Murphy O’Connor, “The Damascus Document Revisited,” RB 92 (1985):
223–46; see also more recently, Murphy O’Connor, “Damascus,” in Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000): 1.165–6.
10 introduction
name for Qumran, I would now wish to lay greater emphasis on the
view that in the interpretation of Amos 5:27a in the Amos-Numbers
Midrash (VII, 13b–21a)—the key passage for the interpretation of all
the references to Damascus in the Damascus Document—‘Damascus’,
in the light of Zech 9:1, was understood as the place of salvation and
as the place of the revelation and study of Torah.18 I would accept that,
as such, ‘Damascus’ may have been associated with different locations
at different times, whether the city of Damascus itself, or Qumran, or
some other location occupied by the community behind the Damascus
Document.19
In the following essay, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community
(XIII), I attempted to develop further the views presented in the pre-
ceding study. I was concerned partly to respond to comments made by
Murphy O’Connor20 about my interpretation of the passages referring
to exile in the Damascus Document. But my main concern was to explore
the links that undoubtedly exist between Jubilees and the Qumran sec-
tarian writings, particularly the Damascus Document and the Rule of the
Community, in order to substantiate the view that Jubilees, like the Book
of Enoch, belongs in the prehistory of the Essene movement. I argued
that these two writings provided evidence for the existence of a reform
movement in Palestine in the late third and early second century B.C.E.
from which it was plausible to think that the Essene movement later
emerged—and this view still seems to me substantially correct, even
though much more obviously now needs to be said about the question
of origins. Since this study appeared in early 1989, the fragments of
Jubilees from Qumran have been published in full,21 there has been a
new edition and translation of the Ethiopic text of the book,22 and much
has been written about Jubilees and about all aspects of the origins of
the Essene movement and of the Qumran community. However, to try
to take account of this material would stretch this introduction beyond
18
Cf. Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d ed.; StPB
4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 43–9; Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA
16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 31–2.
19
Cf. Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 58–60.
20
See the article mentioned in note 17.
21
James VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Harold Attridge and others,
Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 1–185
and plates I–XII.
22
James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 510 (Text) and 511 (Transla-
tion), Scriptores Aethiopici 87–88; Louvain: E. Peeters, 1989).
introduction 11
its bounds, and for the more recent debate about origins, I can do no
more here than refer to the judicious overview provided by Charlotte
Hempel in her book, The Damascus Texts.23
“Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi
Traditions” (XIV) was originally given as a paper at a symposium
on the theme Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Juda-
ism that was held in Groningen in 1997 in honour of the seventieth
birthday of Adam van der Woude. The aim of the symposium was
to explore through case studies the developments that had taken place
in the previous few years in the different areas of the study of the
Old Testament and Early Judaism, to indicate new perspectives and
to map the directions of future research. As a case study of the new
perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha opened up by the
scrolls, and of the indispensability of studying the former in the light
of the evidence provided by the latter and vice versa, I considered the
interrelationship of the Levi traditions preserved in Jubilees 30–32, the
Testament of Levi, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the work now known as
4QApocryphon of Levi (4Q541, 4Q540). I argued that it seemed likely
that a tradition like that contained in 4Q541 9 i lay behind T. Levi 18;
that the relationship between Jub. 30–32 and the Aramaic Levi Document
was perhaps best explained by the assumption of a common source,
but not necessarily a written source; and that, as others have argued,
there was little doubt that there was a literary relationship between the
Testament of Levi and the Aramaic Levi Document.
In “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra” (XV), which was originally
published in 1982, I argued that 4 Ezra was a product of learned study
intended for a learned audience. I based this argument on the impor-
tance attached to ‘the wise’ as the group for whom Ezra’s revelation
was intended (12:37–38; 14:13, 26, 46); on the fact that 4 Ezra seems
at least in part to have been consciously modelled on the book of Job;
and on the way in which 4 Ezra draws extensively on the Old Testament
and in particular is dependent in places on a wide range of specific
Old Testament passages. I suggested that, as such, 4 Ezra should be
23
Hempel, The Damascus Texts, 54–70.—On the issues discussed in “Exile and the
Damascus Document” (XII) and in Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (XIII),
see also Knibb, “The Place of the Damascus Document,” in Methods of Investigation of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael
O. Wise and others; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York:
The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994), 149–62.
12 introduction
24
Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 431, cf. 20.
25
Cf. the comments made in “The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19” (VI) con-
cerning the importance of the interpretation of the Old Testament in the composition
of 1 Enoch.
introduction 13
essays were published in 1995, 1999 and 2006 respectively, the first in
a thematic issue of the journal Dead Sea Discoveries concerned with the
subject of messianism, the second as my contribution to a collection
of essays intended to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the third as my Presidential Address to the
fifty-third Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense in 2004 on the theme of the
Septuagint and Messianism. These three essays call for little comment
here, except to note that whereas in “Eschatology and Messainism in
the Dead Sea Scrolls” I accepted the view that a messianic interpreta-
tion was reflected in the Septuagint translation of Gen 49:10 (see note
53), I would now question whether this is the case.26
The last two essays are both concerned with the way in which the
temple is presented—whether as an institution from Israel’s past, a con-
temporary reality, or an object of future expectation—in the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha. “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepi-
graphical Writings from before the common Era” (XX) was originally
given at an Oxford seminar on the theme Temple and Worship in Biblical
Israel—as the volume of papers that resulted from the seminar was
entitled. In this study I examined the attitudes towards the temple of a
number of writings from the second and first century B.C.E., including
Sirach, the Book of Watchers, the Vision of the Animals, the Apocalypse of
Weeks, and a group of writings that reflect the impact of the desecra-
tion of the temple by Antiochus IV and of the events that followed
(1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith and 3 Maccabees). The contrasting attitudes
towards the temple of Sirach and of the Enochic writings suggest, as
has been argued, that their authors stood in opposition to one another,
but the degree of opposition should not be overstated.27
“Temple and Cult in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Future
Perspectives” (XXI), which appeared originally in the Festschrift for
Florentino García Martínez, was intended as a sequel to the above
study and was concerned with a number of later writings. The Psalms
of Solomon and the Assumption of Moses, both of which reflect the impact
of the direct involvement of the Romans in Jewish affairs, provide
26
For the issues involved, see John J. Collins, “Messianism and Exegetical Tradition:
The Evidence of the LXX Pentateuch,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. Michael
A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 129–49 (here 135–41); Raija Sollamo,
“Messianism and the ‘Branch of David’; Isaiah 11,1–5 and Genesis 49,8–12,” in The
Septuagint and Messianism (ed. Knibb), 357–70 (here 367–70).
27
See above n. 2.
14 introduction
evidence for the continuation down into the first century C.E. of the
view, which occurs already in Mal 1:6–2:9 and 1 En. 89:73, that the
post-exilic temple and cult were unclean and illegitimate. In 2, 3 and
4 Baruch, all of which vividly reflect the shock and anguish caused by the
fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., expec-
tations of the restoration of the earthly temple somewhat surprisingly
recede into the background, and the focus is rather on participation in
the life of the heavenly realm, on the gathering of the people in the
Jerusalem which is above.
PART ONE
The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch, as it is also known) is one of the
most important writings to have survived from the latter part of the
Second Temple period, important both for the information it provides
concerning the development of Judaism in that period and as a prime
example of an apocalypse. It is a composite work that has acquired
its present form over a period of time, and literary seams and abrupt
transitions are apparent throughout. But an overarching structure is
nonetheless apparent in the form that it acquired in the final stage of
its evolution.1 After an introductory section (chs. 1–5) and a narrative
concerning the fall from heaven of the Watchers, a sub-class of angels
(chs. 6–11), Enoch is carried up to heaven to present a petition to God
on behalf of the Watchers (chs. 12–16). The petition is rejected, but
Enoch, without any further preliminaries, is taken by an angel on a
tour of the heavenly regions and is shown all the secrets of the heav-
ens and of the cosmos. The account of this heavenly journey extends
over several sections of the book (chs. 17–81), but eventually Enoch
is brought back down to earth for one year in order to pass on to his
children all that he has learnt (81:5–10). The final part of the book
thus takes the form of a testament, an account of the last words of
a great figure to his children assembled around him (cf. 82:1; 83:1;
91:1–2). The first part of this consists of an account of two further
apocalyptic visions that Enoch had experienced (chs. 83–90), the second
of an exhortation to persevere in the face of oppression (91–105). The
book ends with an account of the miraculous birth of Noah, who is
presented as a type of the salvation that is to come (chs. 106–107), and
with an exhortation to persevere in the last days in the face of evil in
the certainty that judgment is coming for the wicked and salvation for
the righteous (ch. 108).
1
See further Michael A. Knibb, “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish
Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch,” JSJ 32 (2001): 396–415 (here p. 411).
18 chapter one
The outline that I have just given relates to the book in its most
developed form, a form that is known only from a translation into
classical Ethiopic—hence the name given to the book—that probably
dates back to the fifth or the sixth century. However the book, or at
least the major part of it, was composed in Aramaic, and the oldest
parts of the work date back to the end of the third century B.C.E. or
a little earlier.2 It consists of five sections or booklets, and fragments in
Aramaic of four of these—the Book of Watchers, the Astronomical Book,
the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle—were found amongst the Dead Sea
Scrolls.3 The palaeographical dating of the manuscripts together with
internal and external evidence show that the Book of Watchers and the
Astronomical Book date from the end of the third century, that the Book of
Dreams dates from the Maccabean period, from shortly after 165 B.C.E.,
and that the Epistle very probably dates from the pre-Maccabean period
in the early second century B.C.E.4 The dating of the manuscripts,
particularly 4Q204 (4QEnc), that contained more than one section of
Enoch further shows that at least by the end of the first century B.C.E.,
if not a century earlier, the Book of Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and
the Epistle were copied together as a collection.
Aramaic fragments of a related work, the Enochic Book of Giants,
were also found amongst the scrolls,5 but not fragments of the second
section of the Ethiopic Enoch, the Parables. The latter, which has always
been of interest to New Testament scholars because of the traditions
it contains about the Son of Man, was probably also composed in
Aramaic, but possibly in Hebrew; it cannot be dated precisely, but
2
For further discussion of the issues treated in section I of this lecture, see (in addi-
tion to the article mentioned in note 1) Michael A. Knibb, “Interpreting the Book of
Enoch. Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary,” JSJ 33 (2002): 437–415.
3
For an overview of the Aramaic evidence, see Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic
Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978), 2:6–15; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the
Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 9–11.
See further the edition of the fragments by Józef T. Milik (The Books of Enoch: Aramaic
Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976)); for this influential work, see
further below, 23.
4
For a similar view of the dates of the different sections of 1 Enoch, see James C.
VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testa-
ment; Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 17–18,
25–6, 63, 83–4, 89.
5
For a recent study, see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran
(TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr, 1997).
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 19
probably dates from the end of the first century B.C.E. or from the
end of the first century C.E.6
The fact that the Aramaic fragments of Enoch found at Qumran
belonged to no less than eleven manuscripts7 is in itself evidence of
the authority that the book enjoyed for a time in Jewish circles, at least
amongst the groups that lie behind the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it is not a
sectarian work, and at various stages in the late Second Temple period
the Book of Enoch clearly enjoyed a wider status in Jewish circles. This
is evident from the fact that the influence of the book can be traced
in other writings of the period, for example Jubilees, whose author was
familiar with the greater part of the Enochic corpus,8 and in the fact that
the book spawned other writings associated with the name of Enoch:
the Book of Giants, the Slavonic Book of Enoch,9 and not least the Parables,
which were composed and attached to the existing Enochic corpus
some considerable time after the other sections of the book had been
composed. The status of the Enochic corpus is also evident in the fact
that it was translated into Greek, most probably as part of the wider
movement by which the Old Testament scriptures were translated into
Greek to make them intelligible to Jews living in the diaspora who did
not understand Hebrew or Aramaic.
It is unfortunately the case that we have no knowledge of the precise
circumstances in which the Greek translation was made, nor do we know
whether all the sections of which the book is composed were translated
at the same time. James Barr, on the basis of his study of the Greek
translation of the Book of Watchers and the Epistle in comparison with
the Aramaic original, has suggested that the translation “belonged to
the same general stage and stratum of translation as the septuagint
translation of Daniel”, and this would obviously make sense in view of
6
For the former date, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the
Bible and the Mishnah (2d ed., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 254–6; for the latter, see
Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25
(1978/79): 345–59.
7
4Q201–202, 4Q204–212. For a very helpful edition and translation of all the Dead
Sea Scrolls, see Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998). For the Aramaic fragments of
Enoch, see 1:398–445.
8
See Jub. 4:16–25; for a translation, see The Book of Jubilees (trans. James C.
VanderKam; CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 25–9.
9
For a translation, see Francis I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of ) Enoch,”
in OTP 1: 91–221.
20 chapter one
the apocalyptic form and content of the two writings.10 It would suggest
that the translation of these two sections of the Book of Enoch goes back
to the second century B.C.E. A number of scholars have claimed that
some tiny papyrus fragments that were found in Qumran Cave 7 come
from a manuscript of the Greek version of the Epistle,11 and while in
some cases the identification seems plausible, in others the fragments
are too small for certain identification to be possible. However, although
none of the fragments is of any size, they are potentially important as
providing Jewish evidence of the existence of a Greek translation of
Enoch. In any case, whatever the origin of the Greek translation, and
whether any part of it was known at Qumran, it is plausible to think
that it was at the Greek stage in the transmission of the text that the
Parables and the Astronomical Book were inserted between the Book of
Watchers at the beginning and the Book of Dreams and the Epistle at the
end to produce the book familiar from the Ethiopic version with its
fivefold structure.
In its Greek form the Book of Enoch will have been inherited from
the Jews by the early Christians as part of the broad corpus of scrip-
tural writings, and because it thereafter fell out of favour amongst the
Jews it was to Christians that the survival of this book, as of virtually
all the writings of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha was owed—at
least, that is, until the discovery of fragments of some of these writ-
ings amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. That said, only parts of the Book
of Enoch have survived in Greek.12 For the Book of Watchers we do have
two important witnesses: the Akhmim manuscript, which dates from
the sixth, or perhaps the end of the fifth, century and contains the
text of chapters 1–3213 (chapters 33–36 are missing); and the extracts
included in the Chronography, dating from the early ninth century, of the
10
James Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch,” JSS 23 (1978): 184–98;
24 (1979): 179–92 (p. 191).
11
7Q4, 8, 11–14 (7QpapEn gr). See Émile Puech, “Notes sur les fragments grecs
du manuscrit 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105,” RB 103 (1996): 592–600; Puech, “Sept
fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105 dans la grotte 7 de Qum-
rân,” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23.
12
For a recent survey of the Greek evidence, see Albert-Marie Denis and others
with the collaboration of Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse
judéo-hellénistique. vol. 1: Pseudépigraphes de l’Anicen Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000),
104–21. For an edition of all the Greek evidence known at the time, see Matthew
Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
13
The text is preceded by a duplicate version of 19:3–21:9.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 21
14
The extracts cover 6:1–9:4; 8:4–10:14; 15:8–16:1.
15
The text that survives consists of 97:6–107:3.
16
Cf. Roger W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
today,” Östkirchliche Studien 23 (1974): 318–23.
17
In fact already in Jude 14 Enoch is said to have ‘prophesied’.
18
For the text and a translation of the Ethiopic version, see Knibb, The Ethiopic
Book of Enoch.
19
Joseph Scaliger, Thesaurus Temporum, Eusebii . . . Chronicorum Canonum Omnimodae
Historiae Libri Duo (Leiden, 1606; 2d ed.; Amsterdam, 1658), 404–5.
22 chapter one
quotations from Enoch in Jude and the Fathers, in his Codex Pseudepigra-
phus Veteris Testamenti.20 The first news of the existence of the Ethiopic
version of Enoch reached Europe in the early seventeenth century
through a report sent to the noted French scholar Nicholas Peiresc,21
but it was not until 1773 that the traveller James Bruce returned from
Ethiopia and brought with him three manuscripts of the Ethiopic text.
He donated one of these to the Bodleian Library, and on the basis
of this manuscript Richard Laurence, Regius Professor of Hebrew at
Oxford and subsequently Archbishop of Cashel, published a transla-
tion of the book in 1821.22 He published an edition of the text based
on this manuscript in 1838.23
Once the Ethiopic version was brought to light, the book attracted
increasing attention, and during the course of the nineteenth century
numerous studies of it were published, including, in the early 1850s,
an edition and German translation of the text by the distinguished
Ethiopic scholar August Dillmann.24 Research into the book was further
stimulated by the discovery in Egypt in 1886/7 of the Akhmim manu-
script with the Greek text of the Book of Watchers. In England—and
the outcome was comparable in Germany and elsewhere—this period
of research reached its culmination in the early twentieth century in
the publication by R. H. Charles of an edition of the Ethiopic text
of Enoch, and of the Greek evidence that was then available, together
with a translation and commentary;25 the translation and the substance
of the commentary were republished by Charles in 1913 in the great
two-volume collection that he edited, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament in English.26
20
Johann A. Fabricius, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (2 vols.; Hamburg and
Leipzig, 1713; 2d ed.; Hamburg, 1722), 1:160–223.
21
Cf. Johannes Flemming and Ludwig Radermacher, Das Buch Henoch (GCS 5;
Leipzig, 1901), 2.
22
Richard Laurence, The Book of Enoch the Prophet (Oxford, 1821; 2d ed., 1832
(1833); 3d ed., 1838).
23
Richard Laurence, Libri Enoch Versio Aethiopica (Oxford, 1838).
24
August Dillmmann, Liber Henoch Aethiopice (Leipzig, 1851); Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig,
1853).
25
Robert Henry Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Anecdota Oxonien-
sia, Semitic Series xi; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906); The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon,
1893; 2d ed., 1912).
26
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (ed. Robert Henry
Charles; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913).
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 23
27
See above, note 3.
28
Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch.
29
See the contributions by Loren Stuckenbruck and by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and
Florentino García Martínez in Stephen J. Pfann and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI. Cryptic
Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000).
30
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (above, note 3). See also the translation of 1 Enoch by Nickels-
burg and VanderKam (1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004)).
24 chapter one
II
31
For what follows in section II, see further Knibb, “The Book of Enoch in the
Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea
Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. Florentino García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven:
Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2003), 193–210.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 25
32
Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. 2: Die Theologie der prophe-
tischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Kaiser, 1960; 9th ed., 1987), 316–38; Hans-Peter
Müller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik,” in Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971 (ed.
Pieter A. H. de Boer; VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 268–93.
33
Cf. James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS
16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984), 6–8, 52–75.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 27
was tension, not to say hostility, between the circles behind the Book of
Watchers and those behind Sirach, and Ben Wright, for example, has
suggested that Ben Sira actively took the side of the temple priests in
polemical opposition against those, such as the authors of the Book
of Watchers, who criticized them.34 He, like others, has suggested that
passages such as 34:1–8 or 3:21–4 were directly aimed at the view
represented in 1 Enoch:
Do not pry into things too hard for you
or investigate what is beyond your reach.
Meditate on what the Lord has commanded;
what he has kept hidden need not concern you.
Do not busy yourself with matters that are beyond you;
even what has been shown you is above the grasp of mortals.
Many have been led astray by their theorizing,
and evil imaginings have impaired their judgements (Sir 3:21–4, REB).
It is certainly plausible to think that passages like this were directed
against the circles behind the Book of Watchers, but whether there is
evidence of ‘polemical opposition’ is another matter. It is perhaps bet-
ter to think that Ben Sira manifests a certain restraint both toward the
figure of Enoch, to whom he refers in 44:16; 49:14, and towards the
kind of teaching associated with his name.
The publication over the last decade of the sapiential texts found
in Cave 4 at Qumran has, however, shed new light on the question
of the relationship between Enoch and the wisdom tradition. Two of
these texts, 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, both of which survive
only in fragmentary form, are of particular importance because of
their concerns with the themes of revelation and of eschatology. Much
more of 4QInstruction (4Q415–8) is extant than of 4QMysteries, and
it is possible to form a reasonable view of its overall contents.35 It is
a didactic text and contains much practical advice to the young man
on such topics as managing money, or showing respect to parents, or
34
Benjamin G. Wright, “‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest.’ Ben Sira as Defender
of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. Pancratius
C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222.
35
See John Strugnell and Daniel Harrington, “4QInstruction,” in Strugnell, Har-
rington, and Torleif Elgvin, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD 34; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1999). For general studies of the sapiential texts found at Qumran, see
Daniel J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea
Scrolls; London: Routledge, 1996); John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
28 chapter one
marriage that would not be out of place in Proverbs. But the whole
text is prefaced by a statement that describes first God’s ordering of the
cosmos, and then the judgement of wickedness and the reward of the
faithful. This ‘preface’ provides, as the editors observe, “a theological
framework of cosmology and judgement for the wisdom instructions
that follow.”36 The theme of eschatological judgement and reward
recurs throughout the document.
Interspersed with the practical instruction are passages of a more
theological character in which the ‘understanding one’ to whom the text
is addressed is exhorted to meditate on ‘the mystery that is to come’ or
‘the mystery of existence’, to mention just two of the translations that
have been proposed for the underlying Hebrew phrase (raz nihyeh). From
the contexts in which these exhortations occur it is apparent that ‘the
mystery of existence’ includes knowledge of past, present, and future,
understanding of the present order of the world, and knowledge con-
cerning the future judgement. Elgvin, the author of an important study
of this text, has concluded that the raz nihyeh “is a comprehensive word
for God’s mysterious plan for creation and history, his plan for man and
for redemption of the elect”, and he rightly argues that the background
to the concept is to be found in speculation concerning the figure of
wisdom of the kind present in Prov 8, Job 28, and Sir 24.37 But crucial
in all this is that in several passages it is stated that it is God “who
uncovers the ears of men” to ‘the mystery of existence’, and within
these passages wisdom is revealed, not acquired by experience.
There is more about ‘the mystery of existence’ and about the themes
of cosmology, judgement, and the revelation of mysteries in 4QMys-
teries (4Q299–301).38 Here, however, it is possible to take up only one
point. According to one passage, man was given wisdom in order that
he might understand the difference between good and evil, but despite
this, men failed to understand ‘the mystery of existence’ and failed
to recognize the signs of the judgement that was coming. However,
in another passage the author contrasts the position of mankind in
general who lack understanding with that of the group he represents,
36
Strugnell and Harrington, “4QInstruction,” 8.
37
Torleif Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation,” in
Qumran between the Old and New Testaments (ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thomp-
son; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 113–50 (135–6).
38
See Lawrence Schiffman, “Mysteries,” in Torleif Elgvin and others, Qumran Cave
4.XV. Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 31–123.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 29
those “who pursue knowledge”. For this group, whose ear God has
opened, understanding is still available. In this text, as in 4QInstruction,
wisdom is revealed, it is not the outcome of observation or experience
as in traditional wisdom.
4QInstruction and 4QMysteries are not apocalyptic texts, but they
are directly relevant to the question of the relationship of the Eno-
chic traditions to wisdom. The theme of judgement is the leitmotif of
1 Enoch; it is announced in the prologue in chapter 1 and is taken up
in a variety of ways throughout the book. Enoch himself is above all
the recipient of a special revelation. He knows the mysteries of the
holy ones because he has been shown the mysteries by the Lord and
has read the tablets of heaven (106:19; cf. 103:2; 104:10). He is also
the one who knows ‘the secrets’—concerning the cosmos and the end
of this age—because he is shown them by the angel who accompanies
him on his heavenly journey. In turn he passes these secrets on to Noah
(68:1). The book, in which the accounts of Enoch’s heavenly journeys
and visions predominate, gives literary expression to the understanding
of Enoch’s role as the one who has received a special revelation from
God or the angels. There are of course no accounts of visions or heav-
enly journeys in 4QInstruction or 4QMysteries, and in these writings
the theme of the last judgement plays a subordinate role to provide a
theological underpinning for the wisdom instruction that is their main
concern. But the viewpoint of 4QInstruction and 4QMysteries on the
one hand and that of the Book of Enoch on the other overlap sufficiently
to think that their authors shared a common thought-world and were
not so different from one another as is sometimes suggested. The authors
of the Enochic writings belonged among the scribal classes, and the
scribal character of the writing is evident in the way in which the text
is constantly dependent on, and represents an interpretation of, earlier
scripture. The suggestion recently made by a number of scholars that
the Book of Enoch is to be understood as ‘revealed wisdom’ aptly sums
up the nature of the book.
III
The question of where Enoch fits within the context of late Second
Temple Judaism has been approached from a totally different perspec-
tive by Gabriele Boccaccini who, in a recent study entitled Roots of
Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to Daniel, attempts to
30 chapter one
provide an intellectual map of Judaism from the exile down to the time
of the Maccabees.39 The book is part of a larger project to change
common perceptions of the development of Judaism from the exile
down to the emergence of rabbinic Judaism and builds on his earlier
studies, particularly Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways
between Qumran and Enochic Judaism.40 In Roots of Rabbinic Judaism Boc-
caccini argues that the intellectual history of the period from the sixth
to the second century B.C.E. was profoundly affected by a number of
oppositions, above all the opposition between what he terms Zadokite
Judaism, representative of the viewpoint of the temple establishment,
and Enochic Judaism, representative of the viewpoint of those who
produced the Enochic literature whose origins are to be sought amongst
priests who had lost out. The Enochites were not the only opponents of
the temple establishment, at least initially, and Boccaccini refers also to
opposition from other groups and particularly from sapiential Judaism;
but the opposition from these sources was absorbed or neutralized. In
contrast Zadokite and Enochic Judaism are “two mutually exclusive
forms of Judaism”.41 In the concluding part of his book Boccaccini
argues that the Book of Daniel represents a ‘third way’ between the
two and may with due caution be regarded as the first protorabbinic
text. Daniel, unlike Enoch, is not an “unlawful apocalyptic seer”.42
At the beginning of the book Boccaccini provides a time chart in
which he shows in chronological sequence the writings associated with
each of his three forms of Judaism. Zadokite Judaism is represented by
Ezekiel 40–48, Nehemiah and Ezra, the Priestly layer in the Pentateuch,
and Chronicles; sapiential Judaism by Ahiqar,43 Proverbs, Job, Jonah,
and Ecclesiastes; Enochic Judaism by the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36),
39
Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History from Ezekiel to
Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
40
Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between
Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
41
Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 207.
42
Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 176.
43
The story and wisdom instruction of Ahiqar, which is set in a Mesopotamian
context, was known throughout the ancient Near East, and Ahiqar is mentioned in the
Book of Tobit (1:21–2; 14:10). For a translation of an Aramaic version of the story,
which dates from the fifth century B.C.E., see Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Words of
Ahiqar,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard;
2d ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), 427–30.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 31
44
For this pseudepigraphical writing that has come to be known as the Aramaic
Levi Document, see most recently Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther
Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document (SVTP 19; Leiden: Brill, 2004).
45
Lester L. Grabbe, “Were the Pre-Maccabean High Priests ‘Zadokites’?,” in Reading
from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines (ed. J. Cheryl
Exum and Hugh G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 373; London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003), 205–15.
32 chapter one
46
Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 91.
47
Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 165–201.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 33
Judaism of the period. Again, it is certainly true that the story of the
descent of the angels from heaven plays a dominant role in the Book of
Watchers, and it is taken up in other Enochic writings dependent on it
such as the Animal Apocalypse. The story provided a ready explanation
for the disorder in the world that the contemporaries of the author
in the third and second century B.C.E. experienced. But the fact that
sin was introduced into the world through the activity of the angels
clearly did not for the author of the Book of Watchers absolve humans
from responsibility for their actions. In this connection more attention
deserves to be paid to 1 Enoch 1–5, which provides a context for the
material which follows in the Book of Watchers. Chapter 1 foretells the
coming of God to Mount Sinai in judgement, to bring salvation to
the righteous and to destroy the wicked for their impious deeds and
blasphemous words. The Watchers are mentioned, but not the story of
their descent, and there is no hint that humans are not responsible for
their actions, that the impious could not resist evil. Chapters 2–5 then
draw a sharp contrast between the obedience of the works of creation
to the order imposed on them by God and the complete failure of the
wicked to obey: “But you have not been steadfast, nor observed his
commandments, but you have transgressed and spoken proud and hard
words with your unclean mouth against his majesty” (5:4). It should
be pointed out that precisely the same point concerning the obedience
of creation is made in Sir 16:26–8, where it is immediately followed
in chapter 17 by an implicit contrast with the behaviour of man. This
needs to be recalled when it is suggested that there is a radical opposi-
tion between the viewpoint of Sirach and that of the Book of Watchers.
The introduction to the Book of Watchers concludes by reverting to the
theme of judgement for the wicked and salvation for the righteous,
which was announced in chapter 1. Again there is no hint that humans
are not responsible for their actions, and this needs to be kept in mind
in evaluating suggestions of a supposed radical opposition between a
viewpoint that stressed the idea that humans were responsible for their
own actions and a viewpoint that stressed the idea that humans were
in the grip of an evil they could not resist.
It may also be questioned how far “the myth of the fallen angels is a
mirror of intrapriestly conflicts”.48 1 Enoch 12–16, which continues the
48
Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 99.
34 chapter one
story of the Watchers and states that they had left their proper realm
in heaven to marry mortal women and had defiled themselves with
menstrual blood (cf. 1 En. 15:3–7a; Lev 15:19–24), have in particular
been interpreted by several scholars as criticism of the contemporary
priesthood,49 but insofar as this element is present it hardly seems to me
to be primary. The conclusion of chapters 12–16 refers not to this issue,
but to the fact that the Watchers taught a worthless mystery through
which evil entered the world, and it is for this they are condemned
(16:2–4). The criticism of the priesthood in the Book of Watchers is
covert, and the situation is different from that in the Animal Apocalypse,
where the post-exilic cult, as in Malachi, is clearly regarded as defiled
(cf. 89:73). It should also be observed that myths like that of the fall of
the Watchers had the capacity to be applied to different circumstances
that were perceived in a negative light, whether the horrors of violence
and warfare, or concerns over purity, or the spread of false teaching.
There are hints within 1 Enoch 6–16 that all of these at one time or
another were of concern, although, as I have suggested, the overriding
issue is the spread of false teaching, which in turn is contrasted with
the revelation given by Enoch himself.
This is not the place to pursue in detail the further developments
of Boccaccini’s theory, in particular the sharp opposition he perceives
between Sirach and the viewpoint of the Book of Enoch, and between
Daniel, supposedly representative of the ‘third way’ between Zadokite
and Enochic Judaism, and the Animal Apocalypse. It must suffice here
to say that in both cases the differences of viewpoint that certainly do
exist have been absolutized in a way that, it seems to me, does not
do justice to the evidence. As to Boccaccini’s overall thesis, it must be
doubted whether the entire development of Judaism in the Second
Temple period can so neatly be interpreted in terms of a conflict
between the temple establishment and a group of dissident priests,
between Zadokite Judaism and Enochic Judaism. Reality is likely to
have been a good deal more complex, and indeed the whole trend of
research into the period over the last twenty years has been to stress
the variegated nature of Judaism. We should think rather of a series
49
See, for example, David W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of
Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35.
the ETHIOPIC BOOK OF ENOCH in recent research 35
The Aramaic text of the Astronomical Book began, so far as is known, with
a calendar of the phases of the moon in which the movements of the
moon are synchronized with those of the sun.1 The calendar is attested
by the fragments of two of the four manuscripts of the Astronomical
Book (4Q208, 4Q209 [4QEnastra ar, 4QEnastrb ar]), but whereas the
fragments of 4Q208 belong only to the synchronistic calendar, some of
the fragments of 4Q209 correspond to parts of chapters 76–79 and 82
of the Ethiopic version. The synchronistic calendar does not appear in
the Ethiopic, although it is perhaps summarized in 73:4–8 and 74:3–9,2
but on the other hand, the fragments of 4Q208 and 4Q209 do not
contain any material that might have formed an introduction to the
synchronistic calendar. Józef Milik suggested that the oldest form of
the Astronomical Book might be represented by 4Q208, which dates from
the end of the third or the beginning of the second century B.C.E.,
and might have consisted only of a broad introduction, approximately
equivalent to chapter 72 of the Ethiopic, and of the synchronistic
calendar.3 But, in the light of the evidence of 4Q208, it might fur-
ther be wondered whether the synchronistic calendar originally had
any connection at all with the figure of Enoch and with the Enochic
1
I draw in this article on a number of studies that I have published previously, in
particular: Michael A. Knibb, “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseude-
pigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch,” JSJ 32 (2001): 396–415; “Interpreting the Book of
Enoch: Reflections on a Recently Published Commentary,” JSJ 33 (2002): 437–450.
2
Cf. Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 275; Michael A. Knibb, “Which Parts of 1 Enoch Were Known to
Jubilees? A Note on the Interpretation of Jubilees 4:16–25,” in Reading from Right to Left:
Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and Hugh
G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 373; London: Sheffield, 2003), 254–62, esp. 256.
3
Milik, Books of Enoch, 273.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 37
4
The synchronistic calendar is so different in character from the other material in
the Astronomical Book that this in itself raises the question of the nature of the relation-
ship between the calendar and the rest of the Astronomical Book. In addition the name
of Enoch does not appear in any of the fragments of the calendar, although this could
be simply the result of chance.
5
Cf. Albert-Marie Denis and others with the collaboration of Jean-Claude Haele-
wyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique. Vol. 1: Pseudépigraphes de l’Anicen
Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 83.
6
Milik, Books of Enoch, 261.
7
See Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the
Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 2.218; George W. E.
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108
(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 436.
8
Milik, Books of Enoch, 247, 270.
38 chapter two
9
The following translation is based on a conflation of the evidence of 4Q201 1 iv
1–5 and 4Q202 1 iii 1–5 and largely follows Milik’s translation of 4Q201 1 iv (Books
of Enoch, 158).
10
Milik, Books of Enoch, 160; Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.19, 81–2.
11
Translation from William Adler and Paul Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkel-
los: A Byzantine Chronicle of Universal History from the Creation (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002) 17.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 39
12
Esther Eshel and Hanan Eshel, “New Fragments from Qumran: 4QGenf, 4QIsab,
4Q226, 8QGen, and XQpapEnoch,” DSD 12 (2005): 134–57, here 157. See also the
discussion by Loren Stuckenbruck in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriele Boccaccini
and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54–56, 63.
13
Milik, Books of Enoch, 286–7; Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.176, 177.
14
Milik, Books of Enoch, 291; Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.180. The evidence of
4Q211 (4QEnastrd) has confirmed the view that the final part of the Astronomical Book
is lacking in the Ethiopic version. In this case it cannot entirely be excluded that the
loss of the material was accidental, but it too may at least in part be the result of
editorial intervention.
40 chapter two
15
Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Florentino García Martínez, “4QAstronomical Enocha–b
ar: Introduction,” and “4QAstronomical Enochb ar (Pls. V–VII),” in Stephen J. Pfann
and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000): 95–103, 132–71, here 163–4.
16
My italics (M.A.K.).
17
Milik, Books of Enoch, 284.
18
See, for example, Milik, Books of Enoch, 147 (on 2:2 and 2:3), 149 (on 5:2–3; see
also Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.65), 157 (on 7:5 and 7:6), 196 (on 13:8), 206 (on
89:35), 240 (on 89:4 and 89:5).
19
Milik, Books of Enoch, 239; Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.199.
20
Knibb, “The Case of 1 Enoch,” 411.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 41
21
It is possible that the Book of Parables was composed in Hebrew; see further
below.
22
Milik, Books of Enoch, 178–83.
23
Milik, Books of Enoch, 181–4, here 183. The quotation continues: “The compiler
of this Pentateuch was quite conscious of its analogy with the Mosaic Pentateuch.”
To avoid misunderstanding, it should be made clear that I use the word ‘pentateuch’
in this article simply to refer to a volume consisting of five books or sections, and not
with any suggestion of an analogy with the Mosaic Pentateuch.
42 chapter two
24
Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QEnoch Giantsa ar (Pls. I–II),” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI
(DJD 36): 8–41, esp., 9–10. See also Stuckenbruck in The Early Enoch Literature, 48–51,
63, and Knibb, “The Case of 1 Enoch”, 405–7, 415.
25
James Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch,” JSS 23 (1978): 184–98;
24 (1979): 179–92, here 191.
26
For the suggestion that some tiny papyrus fragments found in Qumran Cave 7
belong to a Greek translation of the Epistle of Enoch, see below.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 43
in Greek (and served as the Vorlage of the Ethiopic), and it may very
well be that the composition of the pentateuch is to be attributed to
the Greek stage. (The composition of such a pentateuch in an Ethio-
pian context, whether during the fifth–sixth century, the period during
which the Ethiopic translation was probably made, or during some
subsequent period of Ethiopian history, seems quite unlikely.) But the
actual date of the creation of the Enochic pentateuch can only be
determined within approximate limits. The latest part of the complete
book, the Book of Parables, has been dated to around the turn of the
era by George Nickelsburg,27 and to the end of the first century C.E.
by the present author;28 in either case this would place the composi-
tion of the Enochic pentateuch in the first century C.E. at the earliest.
The translation of the complete book from Greek into Ethiopic in the
fifth–sixth century provides a firm terminus ad quem. But in practice it
seems to me unlikely that the formation of the Enochic pentateuch,
whether it is to be attributed to Jews or Christians, should be placed
much later than the early decades of the second century C.E. It is
reasonable to assume that it was at the time of the composition of the
complete work that the Astronomical Book was shortened and edited to
produce the text now known from the Ethiopic version.
(6) The translation of the Book of Enoch into Ethiopic was no doubt
undertaken as part of the translation of the scriptures as a whole into
Ethiopic. It is possible that this began in the mid-fourth century soon
after the adoption of Christianity by Ezana as the official religion of
the Axumite kingdom, but the bulk of the translation is probably to
be attributed to the fifth or sixth century.29 It is in any case unlikely
that the Book of Enoch would have been one of the earliest texts to be
translated. The oldest accessible form of this text that we possess dates
back to the fifteenth century, and it is on this text that we are dependent
for a large part of our knowledge of the book.
In summary, the Ethiopic translation of the Book of Enoch cannot
simply be regarded as a translation of a Greek version of the Aramaic
text known from the Dead Sea fragments, nor even as a translation of
27
George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (2d ed.;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), esp. 254–6.
28
Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,”
NTS 25 (1978/79): 345–59.
29
Michel A. Knibb, Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The
Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995; Oxford: Oxford University Press for
the British Academy, 1999), esp. 12–13.
44 chapter two
II
30
For a discussion of the issues involved, see Knibb, “The Case of 1 Enoch,”
396–415.
31
Most of the fragments were published by Milik, Books of Enoch.
32
For details, see Milik, Books of Enoch, 139–297; Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch,
2.8–15. XQpapEnoch, which covers 8:4–9:3 and can be dated approximately to the
Hasmonean or the early Herodian era (50–25 B.C.E.), should now also be included
in this list; see above, note 12.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 45
4Q201 (4QEna ar).33 This manuscript dates from the first half of the
second century B.C.E., but was copied from a much older exemplar.
The fragments belong only to the Book of the Watchers, and Milik believes
that this manuscript, and also 4Q202, contained only this section of
the Book of Enoch.34 This view is, however, disputed by Nickelsburg, as
being based merely on an argument from silence.35
4Q202 (4QEnb ar). This manuscript dates from the middle of the
second century B.C.E., and the fragments belong only to the Book of
the Watchers (see above).36
4Q204 (4QEnc ar). This manuscript dates from the early Herodian
period (the last third of the first century B.C.E.), but was copied from
an old manuscript dating from approximately the last quarter of the
second century.37 The fragments belong to the Book of the Watchers, the
Book of Dream Visions, and the Epistle of Enoch, but, as already noted,
Milik believed that the manuscript also contained as the second ele-
ment the Enochic Book of Giants (the relevant fragments have the siglum
4Q203).38
4Q205 (4QEnd ar). This manuscript dates from the last third of the
first century B.C.E. and seems to have been copied from 4Q204. The
few fragments of the manuscript that have survived belong to the Book
of the Watchers and the Book of Dream Visions, but Milik argued that this
manuscript, like 4Q203–4Q204, contained in addition the Book of Giants
in second place and the Epistle of Enoch at the end.39
4Q206 (4QEne ar). The writing in this manuscript dates from the
Hasmonaean period, probably from the first half of the first century
B.C.E.40 The fragments that survive belong to the Book of the Watchers
and the Book of Dream Visions, but Milik again argued that the manu-
script, like 4Q203–4Q204, contained in addition the Book of Giants in
second place and the Epistle of Enoch at the end. Milik believed that two
33
For the text of a few small fragments of this manuscript (4Q201 2–8) that Milik
did not include in his edition, see Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QEnocha (Pl. I),” in Qumran
Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36): 1–7.
34
Milik, Books of Enoch, 140–1.
35
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 25; but see Knibb, “Interpreting the Book of Enoch,”
442.
36
Milik, Books of Enoch, 164–5.
37
Milik, Books of Enoch, 178, 183.
38
Milik, Books of Enoch, 181–4, esp. 183.
39
Milik, Books of Enoch, 217.
40
Milik, Books of Enoch, 225.
46 chapter two
41
Milik, Books of Enoch, 227, 236–8.
42
Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QEnoch Giantsf ar (Pl. II),” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD
36): 42–48, esp. 42–3; see his re-edition of the fragments, here identified as 4Q206
2–3 (44–8).
43
Émile Puech, “4Q Livre des Géantse ar (Pl. VI),” in Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII.
Textes araméens, Première partie 4Q529–549 (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001): 105–15,
esp. 111–3; Puech identifies the fragments as 4Q206a 1–2.
44
Milik, Books of Enoch, 244.
45
According to Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 25), “similarly . . . it is unlikely that 4QEng,
or at least its archetype, began with 91:1.” But see Knibb, “Interpreting the Book of
Enoch,” 442.
46
For the text, see Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Florentino García Martínez, “4QAs-
tronomical Enocha ar (Pls. III–IV),” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36): 104–131, esp.
106 for the date; Milik, Books of Enoch, 273.
47
For the text, see Tigchelaar and García Martínez, “4QAstronomical Enochb ar
(Pls. V–VII),” in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36): 132–71; Milik, Books of Enoch, 273–84,
287–91, 293–6 (for the date, see 273).
48
Milik, Books of Enoch, 274; the fragments are published at 284–8, 292–3.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 47
Book; the manuscript dates from the second half of the first century
B.C.E. The Ethiopic version of the Astronomical Book ends abruptly with
a description of spring and summer (82:15–20), and after this we expect
a description of autumn and winter; 4Q211 1 i provides just such a
description of winter. But 4Q211 1 ii–iii deal with the movement of
the stars and apparently belongs to the conclusion of the Astronomical
Book.49 It cannot entirely be excluded that the loss of this material in
the Ethiopic was accidental, but it may, at least in part, be the result
of deliberate abbreviation.
The importance of the Aramaic fragments for the interpretation
of the Book of Enoch cannot be overestimated. Quite apart from the
significance of the fragments for the study of the Aramaic language,
Aramaic orthography, and scribal practice, they are in the present
context of fundamental importance for three main reasons. Firstly, it
is the Aramaic fragments alone that provide us with evidence for the
Enochic corpus that is unequivocally Jewish and dates for the most part
from the pre-Christian period. Secondly, the palaeographical dating
and codicological analysis of the fragments casts an important light
on the literary genesis of the Enochic corpus in its earliest phases.
Thirdly, the manuscripts contain some textual variants in addition to
orthographic variants, and these shed light on the development of the
text. But while the Aramaic is extremely important, it remains the
case that the Aramaic evidence that his survived is quite limited. Most
of the fragments are quite small, in no case do we have a complete
column of text, and mostly not even a complete line, but rather a few
words or even only a few letters—as a glance at the photographs of
the fragments makes abundantly clear.
A rather different impression of the extent of the Aramaic was given
by Milik in his edition of the Aramaic fragments:
If we compare the sections represented by our fragments of 4QEn
(including the restored text) with the Ethiopic text, the balance appears
fairly satisfactory. For the first book of Enoch, the Book of the Watch-
ers, we can calculate that exactly 50 per cent of the text is covered by
the Aramaic; for the third, the Astronomical Book, 30 per cent; for the
fourth, the Book of Dreams, 26 per cent; for the fifth, the Epistle of
Enoch, 18 per cent.50
49
Milik, Books of Enoch, 274, 297; the fragments are published at 296–7.
50
Milik, Books of Enoch, 5.
48 chapter two
The key words in this quotation are “including the restored text”, for
without the extensive restorations that Milik has provided, the figures
make no sense. But restorations, however plausible, remain hypotheti-
cal,51 and important as the Aramaic is, we remain dependent on the
Greek translation, insofar as it survives, and the Ethiopic version for
our knowledge of the bulk of the text of the book.
III
The main Greek witnesses of the Book of Enoch are the Akhmim
manuscript, the extracts in the Chronography of Syncellus, the Chester
Beatty-Michigan papyrus, and a fragment in a Vatican codex. In
addition, there are a number of quotations and allusions in early
Christian writings, including the quotation of 1:9 in Jude 14–15, but
these do not add significantly to our knowledge of the Greek text of
Enoch. It has been claimed that some small papyrus fragments (some
from Oxyrhyncus, some from Qurman) also contain bits of the Greek
text, but the identification of some of these as fragments of 1 Enoch is
uncertain. In total the witnesses provide a Greek text of approximately
one third of the book as it is known from the Ethiopic, but the sources
are scattered.52
The Book of the Watchers. This is the only section of the book where
the Greek text survives in two clearly different forms.
51
See the salutary and instructive comments of Barr in his review of Milik’s book
in JTS (N.S.) 29 (1978): 517–30.
52
For a recent survey of all the Greek evidence, see Denis, Introduction, 104–21. For
an edition of all the Greek evidence known at the time, see Matthew Black, Apocalypsis
Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970); but there are mistakes in the edition. See
Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.15–21; “The Case of 1 Enoch,” 401–3.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 49
53
For the text of these passages, see Alden A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga
Chronographica (Biblioteca Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 11–3, 24–6; for a
translation, see Adler and Tuffin, The Chronography of George Synkellos, 16–8, 33–5.
54
Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli Ecloga Chronographica, 26–7; Adler and Tuffin, The
Chronography of George Synkellos, 35–6.
55
Milik, Books of Enoch, 317–20.
56
Milik, Books of Enoch, 19; “Fragments grecs du livre d’Hénoch (P. Oxy. XVII
2069),” Chronique d’Égypte 92 (1971): 321–43, esp. 333–41.
57
Milik, Books of Enoch, 42, 75, 245; “Fragments grecs du livre d’Hénoch,”
323–32.
50 chapter two
58
Campbell Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek (Studies and Documents 8;
London: Christophers, 1937), 9–12; Milik, Books of Enoch, 75–6; Denis, Introduction,
109–11.
59
See Émile Puech, “Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch
103 et 105,” RB 103 (1996): 592–600; “Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch
(1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân,” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23. See
also Knibb, “The Case of 1 Enoch,” 401, and the references there.
60
Cf. Timothy H. Lim, “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Inter-
pretation,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler;
Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 57–73, esp. 69.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 51
IV
The Ethiopic version of the Book of Enoch represents the most devel-
oped—and only complete—form of the book that we possess, but the
Ethiopic witnesses, both manuscripts and quotations in theological and
homiletic writings, are all of comparatively recent date. There are at
61
See Milik, Books of Enoch, 19–20, 57, 76–7, 275, 296–7, 318–20. For a summary
and critique of Milik’s argument, see Knibb, “The Case of 1 Enoch,” 407–8, 409–11;
cf. “The Date of the Parables of Enoch,” 346–7.
62
See Denis, Introduction, 111–2; Siegbert Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,”
in JSHRZ V/6; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), 486.
63
For brief details, see Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.21; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,
14–15.
52 chapter two
64
In recent years lists of manuscripts of 1 Enoch have been provided by Knibb,
Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.23–7; Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” 473–6; Nick-
elsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 16–17.
65
For the dating of Ethiopian manuscripts, see Uhlig, Äthiopische Paläographie (Äthio-
pistische Forschungen 22; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988).
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 53
66
Cf. Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” 488–91.
67
For the history of the Ethiopic version of the Old Testament, see Knibb, Translat-
ing the Bible, 40–6.
54 chapter two
My aim in this study has been to show that the Aramaic text of the Book
of Enoch known from the Dead Sea fragments, the Greek translation,
and the Ethiopic version cannot simply be equated, but represent dif-
ferent stages in the development of a text that underwent an extended
process of evolution. This process of evolution is reflected already in the
68
Milik, Books of Enoch, 85–7.
69
For more details, see Michael A. Knibb, “The Text-Critical Value of the Quota-
tions from 1 Enoch in Ethiopic Writings,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and
Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne;
BETL 192; Leuven: Leuven University Press—Peeters, 2005), 225–35.
the BOOK OF ENOCH or BOOKS OF ENOCH ? 55
70
Cf. Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” 487–8: “Es handelt sich nicht um
eine freie Übertragung bei Gr und Aeth, sondern um eine eng am Wortlaut des zu
erschliessenden Originals orientierte targumähnliche Übersetzung, die eine neue lit-
erarische Fassung darstellt.”
CHAPTER THREE
reading introduced by Christians, but Syr Arab 1 “my son the Messiah”
is probably also the result of Christian alteration of the text.1
But it has also been assumed that extensive Christian passages
were sometimes inserted in Jewish texts that it is possible to identify
and remove and still be left with a Jewish text. Paraleipomena Jeremiou
(4 Baruch) provides an excellent example of such a text in that it has
often been argued that what is otherwise a completely Jewish text
(1:1–9:9) was appropriated by a Christian author by the addition of
9:10–32. This viewpoint has recently been reaffirmed, for example,
by Riaud and by Herzer.2 However, the issue is perhaps not quite so
clear-cut as first appears. Marinus de Jonge has drawn attention to the
fact that we only have this writing in the form in which it has been
transmitted to us by Christian scribes, and that our oldest Greek wit-
nesses are from the tenth/eleventh centuries; that not everything that
is not overtly Christian is Jewish; and that even if no word or phrase
was altered in the course of transmission by Christian scribes, phrases
or words may have taken on a different meaning by functioning in a
different historical context and different framework of ideas. He raises
the question, without attempting a definite answer, whether there ever
existed a Jewish document before the present Christian one.3 If in the
end the balance of evidence would still incline us to the view that Par.
Jer. 1:1–9:9 is a completely Jewish text, it has also to be recognised that
there can be no certainty about this.
Writings such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs raise slightly
different problems as Christian works that make extensive use of Jewish
1
Cf. Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Herme-
neia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 202, 207–8.
2
See Jens Herzer, “Direction in Difficult Times: How God is Understood in the
Paralipomena Jeremiae,” JSP 22 (2000): 9–30; Jean Riaud, “The Figure of Jeremiah in the
Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: His Originality; His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian
Author of the Conclusion (9:10–32),” JSP 22 (2000): 31–44 and the references there
to his earlier publications on the subject. The two papers, together with one by Berndt
Schaller (also included in the same issue of Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha),
were given during three sessions of the Seminar on Early Jewish Writings and the New
Testament at the SNTS Conference held in Strasbourg in 1996. See also Herzer, Die
Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums
(TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 159–76, 189–92, 197–98.
3
Marinus de Jonge, “Remarks in the Margin of the Paper ‘The Figure of Jeremiah
in the Paralipomena Jeremiae’ by Jean Riaud,” JSP 22 (2000): 45–49.
58 chapter three
4
The Ascension of Isaiah would clearly also deserve consideration in this context.
5
See most recently the discussion of all the relevant evidence by Marinus de Jonge,
“The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and related Qumran Fragments,” in For a Later
Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed.
Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow, and Rodney A. Werline; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity,
2000), 63–77.
6
This view has been consistently maintained by Marinus de Jonge; see most
recently the article mentioned in the previous note. See also Knibb, “Perspectives on
the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi Traditions,” in Perspectives in the Study
of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on
the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Ed Noort; VTSup
73; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 197–213, particularly 211–213.
christian adoption and transmission 59
7
The radical difference in approach is underlined by the very titles of their respec-
tive works: see Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae
Prophetarum (2 vols.; TSAJ 49–50; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995, 1996); David Satran,
Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11;
Leiden: Brill, 1995).
8
Michael E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992), 58–61; Marinus de Jonge, “The Christian Origin of the Greek
Life of Adam and Eve,” in Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. Gary A. Ander-
son, Michael E. Stone, and Johannes Tromp; SVTP 15; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 347–63
(here 350–51).
9
See the survey of such views provided in Albert-Marie Denis and others, in con-
sultation with Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistiique.
Vol. 1: Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 25–27. See also
Michael D. Eldridge, Dying Adam with his Multiethnic Family: Understanding the Greek Life
of Adam and Eve (SVTP 16; Leiden: Brill, 2001).
10
See the article mentioned in note 8. Cf. Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp,
The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 67–75.
11
Robert A. Kraft, “The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity,” in
Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part 3:
Judaism before 70 (ed. Jacob Neusner; SJLA 12.iii; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 174–99, par-
ticularly 174–88; “The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,” in Tracing the Threads: Studies
in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (ed. John C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1994), 55–86; see also his article in JSJ 32 (2001), 371–95.
12
Marinus de Jonge, “The so-called Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and
Early Christianity,” in The New Testament and Hellennistic Judaism (ed. Peder Borgen and
Søren Giversen; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1995), 59–71.
60 chapter three
II
13
See e.g. (albeit from different viewpoints) Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen
Prophetenlegenden, Vol. I, 9; de Jonge, “The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam
and Eve,” 347.
14
For the text of 4Q201–202, 204–207, and 212, and for that of 4Q210–211 and
some fragments from 4Q209, see Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments
of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). For some small fragments of 4Q201 that
Milik did not include in his edition (4Q201 2–8), see Loren Stuckenbruck, “201 2–8.
4QEnocha ar,” in Stephen J. Pfann and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and
Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000): 3–7 + pl. I. For the text of
4Q208–209, see Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Florentino García Martínez, “4QAstro-
nomical Enocha–b ar,” in Pfann and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36): 95–171 +
pls. III–VII.
christian adoption and transmission 61
For the first book of Enoch, the Book of Watchers, we can calculate that
exactly 50 per cent of the text is covered by the Aramaic fragments; for
the third, the Astronomical Book, 30 per cent; for the fourth, the Book of
Dreams, 26 per cent; for the fifth, the Epistle of Enoch, 18 per cent.15
But reconstructions, however suggestive, remain hypothetical, and
our first hand knowledge of the Jewish text of 1 Enoch is in practice
limited.
The Greek translation of 1 Enoch provides rather more substantial
evidence for its text. It is a plausible assumption that this translation
was produced by Jews, although I am not aware of any evidence for
this of the kind available for the Greek translation of the Aramaic Levi
Document. For this writing, as Stone and Greenfield have observed, the
rendering of ( חכמהALD, §§ 88b, 89, 93) by νόµος (Test. Levi 13:2b, 3, 4)
provides strong evidence that the translation was Jewish.16 The situation
would be different if we could be certain that the tiny papyrus frag-
ments of 7Q that have been identified with fragments of the Greek
Enoch really did belong to Enoch.17 The degree of plausibility attaching
to the various proposals varies, but the fragments are too small for any
certain identification to be possible,18 and we do not know when, or
where, the translation of 1 Enoch was made, nor indeed whether all the
sections of the book were translated at the same time.19
15
Milik, Books of Enoch, 5.
16
Cf. Michael E. Stone and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Aramaic Levi Document,” in
George Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1996): 3.
17
See G.-Wilhelm Nebe, “7Q4—Möglichkeit und Grenze einer Identifikation,”
RevQ 13 (1988): 629–33; Émile Puech, “Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit
7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105,” RB 103 (1996): 592–600; Puech, “Sept fragments de
la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHén
gr),” RevQ 18 (1997): 313–23; Ernest A. Muro Jr, “The Greek Fragments of Enoch
from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, & 7Q12 = 7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3–4, 7–8),” RevQ
18 (1997): 307–12; Ma Victoria Spottorno, “Can Methodological Limits be Set in the
Debate on the Identification of 7Q5,” DSD 6 (1999): 66–77; Thomas J. Kraus, “7Q5:
Status quaestionis und grundlegende Anmerkungen zur Relativierung der Diskussion um
das Papyrusfragment,” RevQ 19 (1999): 239–58.
18
Cf. Timothy H. Lim, “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism, and Biblical Inter-
pretation,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler;
Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 57–73 (here 69).
19
For the uncertainty as to who was responsible for the translation into Greek of
pseudepigraphic writings composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, see Kraft, “The Multiform
Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity,” 194–95; de Jonge, “The so-called Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament and Early Christianity,” 62. Note, however, the conclusion of
James Barr in his valuable study of the Greek Enoch: “It seems at first sight probable
62 chapter three
that the translation of Enoch into Greek belonged to the same general stage and stratum
of translation as the LXX translation of Daniel. All these opinions, however, can be
considered only preliminary, and might be upset by more thorough consideration of
the evidence, or by the discovery of further Aramaic fragments or indeed of additional
portions of Greek text” (“Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch,” JSS 23 (1978):
184–98; 24 (1979): 179–92 (here 24 (1979): 191)).
20
For information about the Greek version, see Denis, Introduction, 1: 104–21 (here
106–12). For an edition of all the Greek evidence known at the time, see Matthew
Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970); but there are mistakes
in the edition.
21
Note the cross on fol. 1r of the Gizeh Codex. See the reproduction in Adolphe
Lods, L’Évangile & l’Apocalypse de Pierre. Le texte grec du Livre d’Énoch (Mémoires publiés
par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire ix.3; Paris, 1893) pl. II,
p. 1.
22
For information, see Denis, Introduction, 1: 105–6, 111–12.
23
The (relatively few) quotations and allusions that are to be found in the New
Testament and Early Fathers, for which see Denis in Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece,
10–14, do not significantly affect the point being made here.
christian adoption and transmission 63
24
Milik, Books of Enoch, 73.
25
See Michael A. Knibb in consultation with Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book
of Enoch: a New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978).
26
For the translation of the scriptures into Ethiopic, see Michael. A. Knibb, Translating
the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy 1995; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), esp. 1–54.
27
For example by Milik (Books of Enoch, 85–88).
64 chapter three
provide further support for the older type of text, they do not provide
evidence that would carry us back before the fifteenth century.
The question that inevitably suggests itself is whether there are
Christian elements within the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch. There is no
doubt, as we shall see below, that within the Ethiopian tradition at least
the Parables were interpreted in a Christological sense. Further, in the
manuscripts of 1 Enoch there are some Christian readings, and indeed
what is perhaps surprising is that there are not more, particularly within
the Parables. One example occurs in 62:5, where the Ethiopic expression
used for “the son of man” (walda be esi, filius viri) has been changed
in manuscripts with the later type of text to “the son of the woman”
(walda be esit), that is Mary, although it is possible, as VanderKam notes,
that the change in this case was made under the influence of the ref-
erence in the previous verse to a woman in the pangs of childbirth.28
A similar change was made in 69:29b in some manuscripts with the
older type of text.29 A much more difficult question is whether there
are also Christian passages in the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch, notably
105:2a and chapter 108, and more will need to be said about these
passages below.
The textual evidence for 1 Enoch is disparate in origin, character, and
extent, and it raises a problem, namely which text should be used for
purposes of translation and, particularly, for interpretation and com-
ment. The Aramaic would seem the obvious choice, but that survives
only in fragmentary form, and the fragments in any case cover only
a small part of the text. The Greek appears to provide better help in
that it does offer a continuous text of substantial parts of the Book of
the Watchers and the Epistle. But the Greek does not cover the major
part of the book, and the text is not in the best condition. Only the
Ethiopic provides a complete text, but the text that we have may
contain Christian elements, and in any case the evidence for the text
does not go back before the fifteenth century. In practical terms, at
least for the purposes of interpretation and comment, we have little
alternative to using a conflation of all three witnesses, drawing on the
28
Cf. James 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. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 169–91 (here 174, n. 15).
29
British Library Orient. 485, EMML 2080; also British Library 492 (primarily a
representative of the later type of text). Cf. Daniel C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of
Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP 18 (1998): 27–38 (here 35–36).
christian adoption and transmission 65
Aramaic where it really is possible, but otherwise using the best Greek
and/or Ethiopic evidence available. But there is a very real danger of
creating a text that never existed as such in antiquity, and it seems to
me important that we keep in mind the different contexts in which the
original Aramaic text, the Greek translation, and the Ethiopic transla-
tion were produced and transmitted and the different kinds of status
that each type of evidence has.
III
30
For the Book of Giants, see Milik, Books of Enoch, 298–339; Denis, Introduction,
1:96–100; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Texts, Translation,
and Commentary (TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr, 1997). The Book of Giants is represented
at Qumran by 1Q23, 4Q203 (4QEnGiantsa ar), 4Q530 (4QEnGiantsb ar), 4Q531
(4QEnGiantsc ar), and 6Q8, and, probably, by other manuscripts including 1Q24,
2Q26, 4Q206 2–3 (4QEnGiantsf ar = 4QEne 2–3), 4Q532 (4QEnGiantsd ar), and
4Q533 (4QEnGiantse ar, also referred to as 4Q556); cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 309;
Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 41, 185–6. For editions of 4Q203 and 4Q206 2–3,
and for re-editions of 1Q23, 1Q24, 2Q26, and 6Q8, see Stuckenbruck in Pfann and
others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36): 8–94 + pls. I–II. For editions of 4Q530–533
and 4Q203 1, see Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII: Textes Araméens, Première partie
(DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 9–115 + pls. I–VI.
31
Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 4–7, 58, 183–84, 227, 310.
32
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Books of Enoch at Qumran: What We Know
and What We need to Think about,” in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift
für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Berndt Kollmann, Wolfgang Reinbold, and
Annette Steudel; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 99–113 (here 103).
66 chapter three
33
Cf. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 68; Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and
Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 113.
34
Milik, Books of Enoch, 183–84.
35
Milik, Books of Enoch, 217, 227, 236–38.
36
Milik, Books of Enoch, 310.
37
García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 97–98 (and n. 3), 102, 113–14.
38
Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 67 (“Thus, unless further evidence to the contrary
is produced, the extant materials all point in the direction of Milik’s thesis. It is thus
likely that [the Book of Giants] was included in a manuscript which also contained the
Enochic Book of Watchers, Book of Dreams, and the so-called Epistle of Enoch”). He states
the position more cautiously on p. 25.
39
Stuckenbruck in Pfann and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36), 10; cf. already
Devorah Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch,” VT 33 (1983):
14–29 (here, 16, n. 8).
christian adoption and transmission 67
40
Milik, Books of Enoch, 58, 76, 182–84; the quotation is from p. 58.
41
Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,”
NTS 25 (1978/1979): 345–59.
42
Contrast Milik, Books of Enoch, 183.
43
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76–77; the quotation is from p. 77.
44
Milik, Books of Enoch, 57, 76.
68 chapter three
Milik assumes to be from the Book of Giants, and that this shows that
around 400 C.E. Panodorus had to hand a codex in which the Book
of Giants followed on directly from the Book of Watchers. Milik further
thinks it likely that this volume also contained the Book of Dreams and
the Epistle of Enoch.45 Thirdly, he argues that a passage in Syncellus
referring to the angel Kokabiel and to the zodiacal movement of the
sun alludes to the final part of the Astronomical Book, which is missing
in the Ethiopic version but attested in 4QEnastrd, and shows that the
long recension of the Astronomical Book was known to Panodorus.46 Milik
finds this view confirmed by his identification of P. Oxy. 2069, fr. 3,47
with the Astronomical Book in its long recension. In Milik’s view it was
only after the fourth century that the Book of Giants was rejected from
the Christian Enochic corpus, perhaps because of its popularity with
the Manichaeans, and replaced by the Parables. It was probably at the
same time that a resumé of the Astronomical Book was included as the
third part of the Pentateuch.48 The Ethiopic translation will then have
been no earlier than the sixth century.49
George Nickelsburg, both in his Jewish Literature Between the Bible and
the Mishnah and in a Seminar Paper given at the SBL meeting in 1999,
offers a much more succinct account of the formation of the Penta-
teuch known from the Ethiopic translation, an account which he states
takes its starting point from the codicological evidence for the Enochic
corpus at Qumran. He observes that the account of Enoch’s journeys
in chapters 33–36 presents a very brief summary of the contents of
the astronomical chapters (chapters 72–82), and that 33:3–4 even gives
a paraphrase of the superscription of the Astronomical Book (72:1). He
suggests that an earlier form of the Enochic corpus alluded in 33:3–4
to the “Book of Luminaries,” which existed on separate manuscripts
as at Qumran. At a second stage a scribe copied such a manuscript
of chapters 1–36 + 83ff. and interpolated the “Book of Luminaries”
45
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76–77, 318–320 (which includes the text and an English
translation of the passage). For the text, see also Alden A. Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli
Ecloga Chronongrapica (Bibliotheca Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984), 26–27.
46
Milik, Books of Enoch, 20, 77, 274, 296–7, 319 (which includes the text and an
English translation of the passage). For the text, see also Mosshammer, Georgii Syncelli
Ecloga Chronongrapica, 32–33.
47
Milik identifies fr. 3v with 77:7–78:1 and fr. 3r with 78:8 (Books of Enoch, 19, 75,
77, 293); cf. Milik, “Fragments grecs du livre d’Hénoch (P. Oxy. XVII 2069),” Chronique
d’Égypte 46 (1971): 321–43 (here 333, 343).
48
Milik, Books of Enoch, 58, 183.
49
Milik, Books of Enoch, 88.
christian adoption and transmission 69
50
For the appropriateness of this placing, cf. Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch
and the Books of Enoch,” 25.
51
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Liter-
ary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 150–51; “‘Enoch’ as Scientist, Sage, and
Prophet: Content, Function, and Authorship in 1 Enoch,” in Society of Biblical Literature,
Seminar Papers 1999 (SBLSP 38; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 203–30
(here 208–9).
52
Nickelsburg, “The Books of Enoch at Qumran,” 100–4.
70 chapter three
53
So Milik, Books of Enoch, 57, 76; see above, 67–68.
54
See, for example, such passages as T. Levi 4:1, 4; 16:3; 18:6–7; T. Judah 24:1–2;
T. Joseph 19:3–4.
christian adoption and transmission 71
55
Cf. Matthew Black in consultation with James C. VanderKam, The Book of Enoch
or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden:
Brill, 1985), 10–11.
56
Cf. the discussion of this issue by Dimant (“The Biography of Enoch and the
Books of Enoch”).
57
Cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 150–51; Dimant, “The Biography of Enoch and
the Books of Enoch,” 18, 26.
58
Cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 51, 151.
72 chapter three
apparently, Enoch’s final ascent at the end of his life. The fact that the
account of this ascent is given at the end of the Parables, and not at
the end of the book, is perhaps evidence that the Parables were the last
major element to be included in the present Enochic Pentateuch.
There are two further points that should be made here. Firstly, while
there are many differences between the Aramaic, the Greek, and the
Ethiopic texts of the Book of Enoch, for the most part they run paral-
lel to one another and in broad terms represent the same text. But in
the first part of the Astronomical Book, the Aramaic fragments attest a
quite different text from the Ethiopic. Thus whereas there are Aramaic
fragments that correspond in general terms to chapters 76–79 and
82 of the Ethiopic, and we can feel reasonably confident about the
content, if not of the wording, of this material, there are no Aramaic
fragments that correspond to chapters 72–75 of the Ethiopic. At best
the Ethiopic provides in these chapters a confused abridgement of the
so-called ‘synchronistic calendar’ that occurred in the Aramaic and is
preserved in 4QEnastra and b.59 On the other hand, the relationship
of the synchronistic calendar to the traditions associated with Enoch
at Qumran is unclear. We cannot make statements about this part
of the Enochic corpus in its original Jewish form on the basis of the
Ethiopic text.60
Secondly, the possibility that there are Christian elements within the
Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch—beyond, that is, the presence of occasional
Christian glosses—needs to be considered, as has been suggested in
relation to 105:2a and chapter 108. Chapter 105 comes at the end of
Enoch’s admonition to his children, and the Aramaic evidence (4QEnc
5 i 21–25) showed that the material in this chapter, although absent
from the Chester Beatty-Michigan text,61 did form part of the original.
But 105:2a (“For I and my son will join ourselves with them for ever
in the paths of uprightness during their lives”) was apparently not in
59
Cf. Milik, Books of Enoch, 274–75; Black, The Book of Enoch, 10–11.
60
Contrast the use made by Nickelsburg of evidence from the Ethiopic text of
chapters 72–75 in “‘Enoch’ as Scientist, Sage, and Prophet,” 204–5.
61
The suggestion that 7Q4 2 is a fragment of the Greek version of 105:1 (cf. Puech,
“Notes sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105,” 597–98)
is quite uncertain.
christian adoption and transmission 73
IV
There are quotations from 1 Enoch in Jude 14–15 and in a few of the
early Fathers,66 but the book at a fairly early stage passed out of circu-
lation in the church in both the East and the West. Origen noted that
the Book of Enoch is not recognised as “divine” in the church, Jerome
regarded it as belonging among the apocryphal books, Augustine
rejected the book, and the Apostolic Constitutions condemned it, along with
62
Cf. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.243. Milik (Books of Enoch, 208) states cat-
egorically that “the length of the lacuna at line 23 shows that no element of the Christian
interpolation in the first half of the verse was found in the Aramaic original.”
63
Cf. 4Q246 ii 1; Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the
Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 165–84 (here 174–77). Black (The Book of Enoch, 23, 318–19)
suggests that chapter 105 should be treated as part of the oratio recta of Enoch from
the preceding chapter, in which case the reference would be to Enoch and his son;
but this seems unlikely.
64
Milik, Books of Enoch, 106–7.
65
For example, for the thrones (v. 12): Matt 19:28; Rev 4:4; Ascen. Isa. 9:10, 18;
for the shining character of the righteous (vv. 12–15): Ascen. Isa. 8:20–22. But see also
Dan 12:3; 4 Ezra 7:97, and for the anguish of the sinners as they see the fate of the
righteous (v. 15), cf. 4 Ezra 7:83.
66
For the text of these, see Denis in Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece, 10–14.
74 chapter three
67
The relevant texts are quoted and discussed in Robert Henry Charles, The Book
of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 2d ed., 1912), lxxxv, xci–xcii.
68
Cf. Roger W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
today,” Östkirchliche Studien 23 (1974): 318–23.
69
See above, 63.
70
For the text and a German translation, see Kurt Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād (Liber
Nativitatis) und Ma afa Sellāsē (Liber Trinititatis) des Kaisers Zar a Yā qob (CSCO 221–222,
235–236, Scriptores Aethiopici 41–42, 43–44; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO,
1962, 1963).
71
For the text and a translation, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:53–54;
CSCO 222: 47–48.
72
Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:54–58; CSCO 222:48–51.
christian adoption and transmission 75
full of grace”, this is Christ, the son of the living God and the son of
Mary in the flesh.73
One final example of this kind of Christological interpretation of the
Parables may be quoted that is of interest not only in its own right, but
also because it illustrates that not too much from a text-critical point of
view should be expected from the quotations from 1 Enoch in works like
Ma afa Milad. The latter part of the fourth homily in Ma afa Milad
includes a quotation of 1 En. 62:1–16 with comments.74 In 62:2, where
scholars have long thought that the reading of all the manuscripts “And
the Lord of Spirits sat (nabara) on the throne of his glory” ought to be
emended to “And the Lord of Spirits set him ( anbaro; sc. the Chosen
One) on the throne of his glory,” Ma afa Milad reads: “And that (or
‘the’) Chosen One, the Lord of Spirits sat (nabara) on the throne of
his glory (wanabara zeku eruy egzi a manafest diba manbara seb atihu).”75
Here it seems to me that “that Chosen One” is a gloss, and that the
passage is not somehow to be understood as meaning “The Lord of
Spirits set that Chosen One on his glorious throne.”76 Rather the text
in Ma afa Milad is to be understood in the light of the later comment
that follows the quotation of 63:11–12: “Son of man Enoch calls him,
and Lord of Spirits (or ‘a Lord of Spirits’) Enoch calls this Christ, the
son of Mary and the son of God.”77
In conclusion, 4QEnc, and probably 4QEnd and e, attest the existence
at Qumran of a collection of three writings associated with Enoch—the
Book of Watchers, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle—but not certainly of
more than this, and we should probably do well to discount the idea of
an Enochic tetralogy. It is plausible to think that this initial three-part
collection was successively expanded by the inclusion of the Astronomi-
cal Book and then of the Parables. It may well be that this expansion is
to be attributed to Jews, and that it occurred at the Greek stage in the
transmission of the Enoch traditions, but in any case the inclusion of
the Astronomical Book and of the Parables will have significantly altered
73
Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:58; CSCO 222:51.
74
Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:59–60; CSCO 222:52–54.
75
Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:59; CSCO 222:52 (but the translation
given by Wendt is that of Georg Beer in APAT 2.271, not that of the text of Ma afa
Milād ).
76
So Siegbert Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” in JSHRZ V/6; Gütersloh:
Gerd Mohn, 1984), 613, n. 2a: “und jenen Erwählten setze der Herr der Geis-
ter . . .”.
77
Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:61; CSCO 222:54.
76 chapter three
78
Cf. Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, CSCO 221:59; CSCO 222:52.
CHAPTER FOUR
The Book of Enoch is one of the most important texts of Second Temple
Judaism and has been the object of intense study since the publication
by Milik in 1976 of the Aramaic fragments of the text. But while there
have been detailed studies devoted to the text of the book and new
translations in several languages, and while there have been numerous
studies of individual parts of the text or of specific themes within it,
there has been lacking so far, certainly in English, a comprehensive and
detailed exegetical commentary on the entire work. Matthew Black’s
translation and commentary of 1985, of which a review by the present
writer was published in JSJ 17 (1986), 86–92, contains some helpful
and interesting things, but is not without problems and is disappoint-
ing on the exegetical side. In these circumstances the publication by
George Nickelsburg of the first part of his long-awaited commentary
on 1 Enoch is all the more welcome.1 It represents the fruit of some
thirty years’ work, and many of Nickelsburg’s overall views on 1 Enoch
are of course well known, at least in broad outline, from his numerous
preliminary publications on the book.
The volume is intended as a commentary on the compilation of
traditions in 4QEnc, and treatment of the Parables and the Astronomical
Book is reserved for the second volume. After some general comments
on his approach in the commentary and on the contemporary theologi-
cal significance of 1 Enoch, Nickelsburg devotes the first two sections of
his introduction to a short account of the book, and of its individual
parts, and to a survey of the textual evidence. Section 3 is concerned
with literary matters and provides on the one hand a summary of
Nickelsburg’s views on the literary genesis of 1 Enoch that resulted in the
compilation of what he regards as a testament, on the other a survey
1
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters
1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Fortress, Minneapolis, 2001).
78 chapter four
II
4QEnb did contain only the Book of Watchers, it was soon supplemented
to form a testament that consisted of 1–5 [+ 6–11] + 12–33 or 36 +
81:1–82:4 + 91 + at least some parts of 92–105, and that this testa-
ment can be dated to the pre-Maccabean period. It was expanded in
the period either about 175 or about 150 by the addition of the Dream
Visions (or at least of chapters 85–90) and, at some point thereafter,
by the addition of the main body of the Epistle. This document was
in turn further expanded by the addition of the Noah story (chapters
106–107) to produce the collection of traditions contained in 4QEnc,
and, on the evidence of the dates of 4QEnc and 4QEng, the process
that culminated in the formation of this collection was completed
before the turn of the era. Subsequently the book that we know from
the Ethiopic was formed by the addition of a compressed version of
the Aramaic Astronomical Book, the Parables, and chapter 108.
Impressive as the above reconstruction of the literary genesis of
1 Enoch is, it nonetheless does raise some fundamental questions that
cast doubt on its plausibility. Perhaps the most important is that it is
based on inferences drawn from a combination of evidence, the con-
stituent parts of which belong in quite different contexts: the fragments
of the Aramaic manuscripts to which we can assign fairly firm dates in
the late Second Temple period; the Greek version, of which only part
has survived; and particularly the Ethiopic, a daughter version of the
Greek, which probably came into existence in the fifth or sixth century,
but is only known to us in the form the text had acquired by the fif-
teenth century. It is evident that the Ethiopic Book of Enoch represents a
recasting of what existed at the Aramaic stage, and the Ethiopic has to
be used with a considerable degree of caution in drawing conclusions
about the development of the Aramaic corpus.
The Aramaic evidence provides in 4QEna and 4QEnc two fairly
fixed points in the history of the formation of the Enochic corpus.
The fragments of the former cover only chapters 1–12 (or possibly
1–13, if fragment 6 does correspond to 13:8), but it is a reasonable
assumption that this manuscript did contain the whole of the Book of
Watchers, and that therefore this part of 1 Enoch was in existence by
the early second century B.C.E. However, neither this nor any other
manuscript attests a text that included in addition 81:1–82:4; 91; and
parts of 92–105. On the other hand, the fragments of 4QEnc attest
the collection together by the turn of the era of the Book of Watchers,
the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle, but not of the inclusion between the
first two of these of some form of 81:1–4 + 81:5–82:4ab—and nor
interpreting the BOOK OF ENOCH 81
III
Nickelsburg states that his aim in his translation has been to translate
what he considers to be the oldest form of the text at any given point,
and accordingly his translation is based, where more than the Ethiopic
exists, on a text reconstructed from the Greek and Ethiopic, and some-
times from the Aramaic. He is aware of the risk of subjectivity inherent
in this procedure and of the danger of creating a text that never existed
as such. But he believes that his procedure is likely to bring us “closer
to the original than would be possible through a straight translation
of the Ethiopic alone,” and he argues that in a critical commentary
the risk has to be taken because he sees it as his task to interpret “the
earliest recoverable form of the text in any given passage.” Thus he
translates the Greek where it is extant and is the same as, or superior
to, the Ethiopic, but otherwise the Ethiopic; he has avoided replacing
the extant versions with partial Aramaic readings or reconstructions,
but he has introduced some Aramaic readings into his translation.
There is no simple solution to the problem of what text to use as the
basis of an exegetical commentary on a work like 1 Enoch where the
textual evidence is so varied in extent and in age. Nickelsburg’s aim to
interpret the earliest recoverable form of the text seems at first sight
obviously correct, but there are problems of both principle and practice.
interpreting the BOOK OF ENOCH 83
The Aramaic, the Greek, and the Ethiopic are not on the same level.
The original Aramaic text of Enoch—assuming we knew what that
meant—was not the same thing as the original Greek text or the origi-
nal Ethiopic text, even if we may assume the Greek and the Ethiopic
represented broadly the same text. Equally the earliest recoverable form
of the Aramaic Enochic writings is not the same thing as the earliest
recoverable form of the Greek and the Ethiopic, and the introduction
of Aramaic readings into a translation of a combination of the Greek
and the Ethiopic (e.g. in 14:1–2 or in the Apocalypse of Weeks) gives a
misleading impression. In practice the fact that the translation is based
on a combination of evidence, and that not infrequently corrections or
emendations are introduced, means that the reader will need to pay
close attention to what it is that is being translated at any given point.
It may be wondered whether it would not have been more helpful, in
the sections for which more than one textual witness is extant, to have
given translations of the Greek and the Ethiopic in parallel, to have
translated the Aramaic separately where sufficient survives to justify it,
but to treat the Aramaic primarily in the notes.
It should also be said that the translation and the textual notes are
not flawless, and there are omissions and mistakes in both—quite
apart from cases where the judgment made seems questionable, if not
implausible. The following examples are based on soundings made in
different parts of the book.
1:2b. The Greek Ενωχ ανθρωπος δικαοις εστιν ορασις εκ θεου αυτω
ανεωγµενη ην is probably to be translated “Enoch, a righteous man, to
whom a vision was disclosed by God.” It is emended by Nickelsburg,
supposedly on the basis of the Ethiopic, to read Ἑνὼχ ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος
ὅστις ἐκ θεοῦ ὅρασις αὐτου ἀνεῳγµένη and translated “Enoch, a right-
eous man, whose eyes were opened by God.” (It is further assumed that
ην is not part of the verb, but is the relative misplaced from later in the
verse.) Nickelsburg’s translation is no doubt much closer to what was in
the original, but his treatment of the Greek is hardly satisfactory. There
are problems in retroverting Ethiopic into Greek that Nickelsburg does
not address in his commentary, and in this case the Ethiopic does not
provide justification for his reconstructed text. Equally the translation
of ὅρασις as ‘eyes’ would be very odd in such a context, and the word
is much more likely to be simply a mistake.
84 chapter four
1:9 (note a). Nickelsburg suggests that Ethiopic wanāhu (“and behold”)
may be corrupt for zanāhu, which, he thinks, could translate ὅτι ἰδού.
(Akhmim manuscript has ὅτι, Jude ἰδού.) The corruption is, however,
unlikely from a graphical point of view, and the suggested meaning
implausible. The addition of the conjunction wa (“and”) occurs so fre-
quently in Ethiopic Bible manuscripts as hardly to merit comment, and
in fact Tana 9 and two of the quotations of this passage in Ethiopic
writings do not have the conjunction (= Jude).
(Note f ). The text of the Akhmim manuscript is quoted as καὶ περὶ
πάντων ὧν κατελάλησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν λόγων, but the
two clauses are actually in the reverse order in the manuscript.
2:1 (note c). Ethiopic does not only omit “and they appear,” but “and
they appear at their feasts.” Similarly in 14:6 (note a) the text should be
ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται, not ὅτι ἔσται, and in 14:9 (note a) the transliteration of
the Ethiopic requires the addition of barad after ba a bāna (hence ba a bāna
barad) to complete the quotation and give the meaning “hailstones.”
5:1 (note c). The suggested emendation ταῦτα (for αὐτοῦ) should rather
be τούτων, and this tends to diminish the plausibility of the proposal.
Similarly in 14:9 (note b) γλωσσης must be read as γλώσσαις to give
the translation Nickelsburg adopts.
(Note c). Nickelsburg’s translation “Contemplate all these works” is
accompanied by the comment “In the Ethiopic, wayefarreyu [translated
by him “and they flower,” although “and they bear fruit” seems more
likely] may belong to the previous verse or could represent a corrup-
tion of διανοήθητε read as διανθεῖτε.” The latter suggestion is quite
unlikely, and the verb does belong with the previous verse. It is most
naturally taken as a simplified translation of the Greek “and all their
fruit is for honour and glory” or an inner-Ethiopic corruption of a
more literal translation of this.
14:3 (notes a and b). Both Greek and Ethiopic seem to have had the
pair of verbs “created and appointed” (literally “created and gave,”
ἔκτισεν καὶ ἔδωκεν) twice, although Greek omits the second pair by
homoioteleuton. Nickelsburg translates in the first case “destined and
created,” relying on the analogy of the Aramaic in the following clause,
but in the second case “created and destined,” where 4QEnc has the
three verbs חלק ועבד וברא. It may be wondered why, if the Aramaic
interpreting the BOOK OF ENOCH 85
is to be followed at all, the same word order was not adopted in both
cases, and why all three verbs of the Aramaic were not taken over.
14:7 (note c). It is not the case that the Ethiopic “omits [the] first verb”
in the pair κλαίοντες καὶ δεόµενοι/בעין ומתחנין.
14:18 (note c). The description of the throne of God includes a phrase
that is obscure in both Greek and Ethiopic: και ορος χερουβιν/waqāla
kirubēn (Eth = “and the voice [or ‘the sound’] of the cherubim”). Nick-
elsburg proposes “and its <guardians> were cherubim.” He assumes on
the one hand a corruption in the Greek of an original οὖροι, on the
other a corruption of an original uqābe to waqāla through the confu-
sion of the letters b and l. But οὖρος (‘watcher, guardian’) is not listed
either in Hatch and Redpath or in the Concordance of Denis, and its use
here seems unlikely, and uqābe is φυλακή, not φύλαξ. Further, while a
confusion of the letters b and l would be plausible, the loss of the ayin
is much harder to explain. The obscurity unfortunately remains.
96:5a. The Ethiopic, the only witness, reads literally “Woe to you who
devour the finest of the wheat and drink the strength of the root of
the spring and trample upon the humble through your power.” For the
unintelligible second clause Nickelsburg proposes “and drink <wine
from the krater>.” He assumes a retroversion of the Ethiopic to κράτη
ῥίζης πήγης, and he suggests both a misreading in the Aramaic of יין
as עיןand a secondary corruption of a Greek text that contained either
κράτηρ or κρατηρίζω. ‘Strength’ is κράτος, not κράτη, but, more to
the point, the verb κρατηρίζω is listed neither in Hatch and Redpath
nor in the Concordance of Denis, and it must be doubted that this verb
would have been used here. A connection with Ezek. 34:18–19 (so
Uhlig) remains more probable even if a complete explanation has yet
to be offered.
82:4. The translation given by Nickelsburg for this verse raises differ-
ent issues, but it is appropriate to discuss it here. The text of the verse
is unproblematic and, as it stands, it serves as the introduction to the
conclusion, which is curtailed in the Ethiopic, of the Astronomical Book.
However, Nickelsburg translates:
Blessed are all the righteous, <who listen to the words of the wise>,
who walk in the path of righteousness
and do not sin as the sinners,
<For they will be saved.>
interpreting the BOOK OF ENOCH 87
IV
a different view. Here, however, it must suffice in the final part of this
review to comment on one or two broad exegetical issues.
Nickelsburg subscribes to the view that the Astronomical Book is prob-
ably the oldest of the Enochic traditions, and that it has its roots in
the Persian period. This view is based on the dating of 4QEnastra to
the end of the third or to the early second century B.C.E. It is worth
emphasising that 4QEnastra contains only fragments of the synchro-
nistic calendar; this latter has no precise parallel in the Ethiopic Enoch
(the Ethiopic contains at best only a confused summary of the material
in parts of chapters 73–74), it does not mention the name of Enoch,
and it is not cast in the form of a heavenly journey (there are no
verbs of motion or of seeing). Tigchelaar and García Martínez have
rightly observed that “it cannot be ruled out that 4Q208 [4QEnastra]
contained only the synchronistic calendar” [ DJD 36, p. 95]. If this
is so, then the date of the composition of the Aramaic Astronomical
Book—and, even more, the Ethiopic Astronomical Book—becomes much
less certain. Jub. 4:17–18 is aware that Enoch “wrote down in a book
the signs of the sky” and thus attests the existence of an astronomical
book for about 150 B.C.E.; but despite the description provided, it is
not clear what exactly that book contained. On the other hand, we do
know that the synchronistic calendar must have been combined with
the other astronomical materials before the early first century C.E.,
the date of 4QEnastrb.
Nickelsburg’s treatment of the Book of Watchers is characteristic of his
treatment of other sections of 1 Enoch in that he traces the composition
of the Book of Watchers in some detail by means of traditional literary
criticism and assigns fairly precise dates and historical backgrounds to
the different stages he identifies. Thus while he thinks the narrative
concerning Shemihazah and his associates in chapters 6–11 may be
the oldest element in the Book of Watchers, he speculates that chapters
6–11 may not have been present in the first form of his Enochic
testament. He sees the Book of Watchers growing in stages through the
successive addition of material to chapters 12–16, and on p. 170 he
identifies seven stages in the composition of the Book of Watchers, which
he places between the time of the Diadochi and the early second cen-
tury B.C.E., although on p. 7 he states that that “the book [sc. of the
Watchers] as a whole was completed by the middle of the third century
B.C.E.” With regard to chapters 6–11, he not only accepts the widely
recognised distinction between the traditions concerning Shemihazah
and those concerning Asael, but believes, as others have done, that
interpreting the BOOK OF ENOCH 89
1
Randall A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis
of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (SBLEJL 8; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1995), 8.
2
Benjamin G. Wright, “‘Fear the Lord and Honour the Priest.’ Ben Sira as Defender
of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (ed. Pancratius
C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222.
92 chapter five
3
Gabriele Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1991), 77–125 (here 80). VanderKam’s comment, “Ben Sira mani-
fests a certain restraint about Enoch”, perhaps better reflects the relationship between
Sirach and the Book of Enoch ( James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations
(Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia, South Carolina: University
of South Carolina Press, 1995), 107).
4
Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Vol. 2: Die Theologie der prophetischen
Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Kaiser, 1960; 9th ed., 1987), 316–38.
5
Hans-Peter Müller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik,” in Congress Volume,
Uppsala 1971 (ed. Pieter A. H. de Boer; VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 268–93.
6
James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS
16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1995), 6–8, 52–75
(here 70).
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 93
7
Andreas Bedenbender, “Jewish Apocalypticism: A Child of Mantic Wisdom?,”
Henoch 24 (2002): 189–196.
8
Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 251.
9
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters
1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 6 (similar comments appear
throughout the commentary).
94 chapter five
II
10
See now also Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QInstruction and the Possible Influences
of Early Enochic Traditions: An Evaluation,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the
Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. Charlotte Hempel, Armin Lange and Hermann
Lichtenberger; BETL 159; Leuven: Peeters), 245–61.
11
Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 65–67.
12
Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QEnochGiantsa ar,” in Stephen J. Pfann and others, Qumran
Cave 4.XXVI. Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000),
28, 44.
13
Émile Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII. Textes araméens, Première partie 4Q529–549 (DJD
31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 28.
14
Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII (DJD 31), 35.
15
Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 260.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 95
the frequent calls to attention that occur in wisdom literature (e.g. Prov
1:8; 4:1; Sir 6:23), but is addressed to the “men of old” and the “men
of latter days”, not the wisdom teacher’s son. Again the phrase “the
beginning of wisdom” in v. 3 is familiar from the wisdom literature, but
is used here in reference to Enoch’s words, not the attitude expressed
in the phrase “the fear of the Lord” (see e.g. Prov 9:10; Sir 1:14).
Finally Enoch states that no one before him had been given wisdom
comparable to that which he had received from the Lord of Spirits
(v. 4). In 82:2–3, in a testamentary context between the Astronomical Book
and the Book of Dreams, Enoch tells Methuselah that he has given him
and his children wisdom to pass on to future generations, and in v. 3
he describes this wisdom in words whose imagery may be compared
with that of Sir 24:20–21:
And those who understand it will not sleep, but will incline their ears that
they may learn this wisdom, and it will be better for those who eat (from it)
than good food (1 En. 82:3).
For the memory of me is sweeter than honey,
And the possession of me sweeter than the honeycomb.
Those who eat of me will hunger for more,
And those who drink of me will thirst for more (Sir 24:20–21, NRSV).
Reference may also be made to the heading in 92:1, already mentioned,
of which only a small part has survived in Aramaic, but enough to
recognize that in this Enoch himself is described as wise; according to
the paraphrastic Ethiopic his teaching is described as wisdom.
Writings more or less contemporary with the Book of Enoch provide
further support for the description of Enoch as a scribe, and his writ-
ing as the embodiment of wisdom. In Jub. 4:17–25, a passage that
represents perhaps the oldest stage in the reception-history of the
writings attributed to Enoch, and one that is frequently used in an
attempt to determine which sections of the Enochic corpus were in
existence by the time Jubilees was written, Enoch is described as “the
first of mankind who were born on the earth who learned (the art of )
writing, instruction, and wisdom”.16 All three are of significance within
the present context. The tradition that Enoch’s writings were a source
of wisdom reinforces the headings that occur in 1 Enoch itself and is
further reflected in 1QapGen XIX, 24–25, where, in a passage referring
16
All passages from Jubilees quoted from James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees
(CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
96 chapter five
17
Translation from Florentino García Martínez and Eigbert J. C. Tigchelaar, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998), 1.41.
18
So British Library Orient. 485 EMML 1768. Other manuscripts representative
of the older type of text have a similar reading.
19
Translation from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition,
1.483.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 97
Enoch. The Book of Watchers describes his ascent to the presence of God
(chapter 14), and in the further elaboration of this vision he not only is
shown the place where God will descend for judgment, and the places
where the wicked will be punished and the righteous enjoy eternal bliss,
but also is conducted on a journey around the cosmos and sees every-
thing. The Parables likewise describe Enoch’s ascent to heaven (39:3),
where, in a series of tableaux, he sees the judgement of the Son of
Man being played out before him. In the Astronomical Book, according
to the Ethiopic, he sees astronomical and cosmological phenomena,
including the laws of the sun and the moon. Similarly in the Book of
Dreams Enoch is depicted as seeing visions. According to Jub. 4:17–25,
Enoch not only “wrote down in a book the signs of the sky” for the
benefit of mankind, but also “saw in a vision what has happened and
what will occur”, and, while with the angels for six jubilees of years,
was shown “everything on earth and in the heavens”.
The picture that thus emerges of Enoch, both from 1 Enoch and
from writings belonging to the wider circle of Enochic writings, is of
Enoch as a learned man, a scribe, an individual known for his wisdom
and knowledge—but also as an individual who experienced an ascent
to the presence of God, was conducted around the cosmos, and saw
everything, and whose knowledge not only related to the themes of
judgment and salvation, but also covered cosmological and astronomical
matters. And it remains the case that, notwithstanding the description
of Enoch as a scribe, the Book of Enoch is quite different in character
from the books that have traditionally been regarded as belonging to
the wisdom category.
III
The question of the relationship of the Book of Enoch, and of the apoca-
lypses in general, to the wisdom literature has, however, been put in a
new perspective by the publication, primarily in DJD 20 and 34, of the
entire corpus of wisdom writings from Qumran. These writings have
not only shown that Jewish wisdom literature of the Second Temple
period was much more variegated than might have been suspected from
the wisdom writings of the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha, but also,
as largely pre-sectarian in origin, provided evidence of the pre-history
of beliefs that appear in sectarian form in texts such as the passage on
the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community. Helpful surveys of the
98 chapter five
20
Daniel J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea
Scrolls; London: Routledge, 1996).
21
John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, Ken.: Westminster
John Knox, 1997), 112–31.
22
Józef T. Milik, “Livre des Mystères,” in Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T.
Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 102–107; Lawrence Schiff-
man, “Mysteries,” in Torleif Elgvin and others, Qumran Cave 4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part
1 (DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 31–123.
23
Józef T. Milik, “Un Apocryphe,” in Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1), 101–102; John Strugnell
and Daniel J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2, 4QInstruction (Mûsar
LeMevîn: 4Q415ff.) (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999).
24
Torleif Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation,”
in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments (ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L.
Thompson; JSOTSup 290; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 113–50.
25
Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in
den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
26
For the texts, see Schiffman, in Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 43–44, 100–103.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 99
27
Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 102.
28
For the texts, see Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD 1), 103–105; Schiffman, Qumran Cave
4.XV (DJD 20), 34–38, 105–106.
29
Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 36–37, 105.
30
Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 131–36.
31
García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, e.g. 2.663, 859. Cf.
Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 50–52, 62–63; Lange, “Wisdom and Predestination in
the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995), 340–54 (here 341–43 and n. 4): “das Geheimnis
des Werdens,” “the mystery of becoming”.
32
For the texts, see Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 41–43, 107.
33
Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 44–48.
100 chapter five
5 2), and this suggests that the theme of creation also formed part of
the רז נהיה.
If mankind in general has failed to make use of the wisdom given to
it by God, and if the wisdom of the magicians is of no use, nonetheless,
according to 4Q299 8,34 wisdom is still available to some, described
as “those whose pursue knowledge” whose ear God has opened. The
author contrasts the position of mankind without understanding with
that of the group that he represents. Only part of the text survives,
but enough is preserved to indicate that this was part of God’s prede-
termined plan:
] he distributed their insight [
]
]
] And how can a ma[n] understand who did not know and did not hear [
[under]standing he formed for . . .; by (his) great insight he opened our
ears so that we[
] He formed understanding for all who pursue knowledge, and [
] all insight is from eternity; it will not be changed (or He will not change)[35
Here knowledge is revealed by God, it is not the outcome of observa-
tion and experience, as in traditional wisdom. Whether, however, the
appeal to “special revelation” is evidence that 4QMysteries originated in
a sectarian milieu, as John Collins suggests seems to me doubtful.36
The use of the phrase גלה אוזןin 4Q299 8 6 provides an appropriate
link to 4QInstruction, where it is attested in the surviving fragments six
times37—in all cases linked with רז נהיה. Much has been written about
this important document, and I confine myself to what is essential for
present purposes.
First, it is of importance that the document begins with a statement
(4Q416 1)38 that describes first God’s ordering of the cosmos, and
then the judgement of wickedness and the reward of the faithful. It
provides, as the editors observe, “a theological framework of cosmology
34
Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 50–51.
35
4Q299 8 2–8; translation adapted from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Dead
Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2:661.
36
Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 128.
37
1Q26 1 4; 4Q416 2 iii 17–18; 4Q418 10a–b 1; 123 ii 4; 184 2; 190 2; cf. 4Q423
5 1.
38
For the text, see Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV (DJD 34),
81–88.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 101
and judgement for the wisdom instructions that follow.”39 The theme
of eschatological judgement and reward recurs throughout the docu-
ment (cf. e.g. 4Q416 3; 4Q417 1 i 6–8, 13c–15a; 2 i 15–17a; 4Q418
69; 4Q418 126 ii).
Second, the concept of revelation is also of considerable importance
within the document. This is frequently, but not exclusively, linked to
the theme of the רז נהיה, which is mentioned more than thirty times
in the surviving fragments. References to this theme are often intro-
duced by commands to those being addressed to “gaze upon” (הבט,
e.g. 4Q416 2 i 4–5 = 4Q417 2 i 10–11) or “study” (דרוש, e.g. 4Q416
2 iii 9) or “grasp” (קח, e.g. 4Q418 77 4) or “meditate on” (הגה, e.g.
4Q418 43–45 i 4) the רז נהיה, and, as the editors point out,40 the pas-
sages that occur in parallel help to clarify the meaning of the phrase.
From these it is apparent that the רז נהיהincludes knowledge of past,
present, and future (4Q418 123 ii 3–4), understanding of the present
order of the world (“the ways of truth . . . all the roots of iniquity”;
4Q416 2 iii 14), and knowledge concerning the future judgement
(4Q417 2 i 10c–11). But the רז נהיהis also that by which God “laid
out” (or perhaps “expounded”, )פרשthe foundation of truth (4Q417
1 i 9). Elgvin concludes that the “ רז נהיהis a comprehensive word for
God’s mysterious plan for creation and history, his plan for man and
for redemption of the elect”, and he is surely right in seeing its back-
ground in speculation concerning ( חכמהcf. Prov 8:22–31; Job 28; Sir
24).41 Schiffman, in relation to 4QMysteries, summed up the meaning
of “mysteries” ( )רזיםin that composition as follows: “it refers to the
mysteries of creation, i.e. the natural order of things which depends on
God’s wisdom, and to the mysteries of the divine role in the processes
of history.”42
It is significant also in 4QInstruction that it is God who uncov-
ers the ears of men to the ( רז נהיהe.g. 4Q418 123 ii 4; 4Q418 184
2),43 and within these passages wisdom is revealed, not acquired by
39
Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV (DJD 34), 8.
40
Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV (DJD 34), 32–33; cf. Elgvin, “The
Mystery to Come,” 131–36.
41
Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 135–36.
42
Schiffman, Qumran Cave 4.XV (DJD 20), 31.
43
See the full list of passages in n. 37. Strugnell and Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV
(DJD 34), 122, have questioned whether God is the subject of גלה אוזןin 4Q416 2 iii
17–18 = 4Q418 10a–b 1, but it seems to me likely that God is the subject here also.
102 chapter five
44
For the text and a very detailed and helpful discussion, see Strugnell and Har-
rington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV (DJD 34), 151–55, 160–66. I confine myself in discussion of
this important and difficult passage to what is essential for the purposes of this essay.
45
Cf. Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 145.
46
For the interpretation of 4Q417 1 i 14–18, cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination,
50–55, 66–90; Lange, “Wisdom and Predestination,” 342–43; Collins, Jewish Wisdom
in the Hellenistic Age, 123–25; Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 139–47.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 103
has read the tablets of heaven. (In the Parables the Lord of Spirits is
praised by the kings and the mighty as one whose secrets are deep and
without number (63:3).) There are very frequent references to “the
secrets” (ªebu’at). The angel who accompanies Enoch shows him the
secrets (40:2; 46:2; 71:3). Enoch sees both the secrets of the cosmos
(41:1, 3; 59:1–3; 71:4) and the secrets relating to the end of this era
(38:3; 58:5; 61:5; 83:7). Enoch in turn passes on to Noah “the teaching
of all the secrets in a book” (68:1). In the Vision of the Animals Enoch is
presented as the one who knows past and future, a point noted in Jub.
4:19a,: “While he slept he saw in a vision what has happened and what
will occur—how things will happen for mankind during their history
until the day of judgment.” With this may be compared the comment
made about mankind in 4QMysteries (1Q27 1 i 3–4), “But they did
not know the mystery of that which was coming into being ()רז נהיה,
and the former things ( )קדמוניותthey did not consider. Nor did they
know what shall befall them ()מה אשר יבוא עליהמה.”
However, the differences between the wisdom writings and the Book
of Enoch must also be recognised. Thus while cosmology and eschatol-
ogy form part of the concerns of 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction,
they find expression in a way quite different from that of Enoch. In the
former cosmology and eschatology provide a theological underpinning
for the wisdom instruction that seems to have been its main concern.
In Enoch cosmology and eschatology are of primary importance and
are built into the structure of the book. Again, while in the case of
both 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction and in Enoch we can speak in
terms of “revealed wisdom”, and in both there is frequent reference to
either the רז נהיהor to “mysteries” or “secrets”, it is only in 1 Enoch
that this concern finds concrete expression in reports of visions and of
journeys through the heavenly regions and around the cosmos. One
should perhaps speak of a shared thought-world that finds different
expression in the two kinds of writings, and this is a point to which
we must return later.
IV
occasionally forms that occur in wisdom texts (e.g. the woe form) are
used.47 There are references to wisdom throughout the book, and though
not particularly numerous, it is perhaps significant that they are present
at all. Thus wisdom is depicted as a gift of the new age in the Book
of Watchers (5:8; 32:3,6) and in the Epistle (104:12; 105:1; cf. 99:10); in
contrast the lack of wisdom is a characteristic of the pre-exilic period
in the Apocalypse of Weeks (93:8), just as, according to the Epistle, sinners
debase wisdom in the last age (94:5; 98:3). In the Parables, where in
chapter 42 there is a wisdom poem, the spirit of wisdom dwells in the
Son of Man (49:3; cf. 51:3; Isa 11:2). Wisdom will be poured out in the
new age (48:1; 49:1) and will characterize the worship of the new age
(61:7,11). Elsewhere wisdom is seen as being possessed by God (63:2;
84:3) and given by him to his creatures (101:8).
In his article on 4QInstruction Elgvin has suggested that “apart from
early sectarian writings, the books of Enoch seem to be the closest
relative of 4QInstruction.” He suggests that most parallels are found
in the Book of Watchers and the Epistle and argues that terminological
similarities indicate some kind of dependence—he thinks in fact that
4QInstruction is dependent on Enoch,48 and to this point we must return.
His listing of parallels is helpful, but one point he makes in relation
to the Apocalypse of Weeks seems questionable. Thus he suggests, quite
properly, that the revelation of the רז נהיהmay be compared with the
sevenfold teaching given to the righteous as the present age reaches its
climax (1 En. 93:10). But he seems to me to go beyond the evidence
when he argues that the Epistle was a “main source” for the compiler
of 4QInstruction, and that the רז נהיהis “identical” with the sevenfold
instruction.49 Equally he seems to me to go beyond the evidence in
his suggestion that the (Book of ) Hagi (“book of meditation”) is to be
identified with a part of the Enoch literature, the Apocalypse of Weeks
and/or the Animal Apocalypse.50 From a different point of view, a concern
for the poor is one of the central issues in both 4QInstruction and the
Epistle, although it finds very different expression in the two works.51
47
For a recent survey of the literary forms used in 1 Enoch, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,
28–35.
48
Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 116–18, cf. 135–38.
49
Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 138.
50
Elgvin, “The Mystery to Come,” 146–47.
51
Cf. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 118–19.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 105
Quite apart from the above, I would in the final part of this essay
like to suggest that concerns with wisdom and knowledge are more
deeply embedded in the Book of Watchers, and to consider how it might
be read in this light. It is manifestly not a wisdom text in any conven-
tional sense, but rather a narrative text concerned above all with sin
and judgement, with problems of reconciling divine foreknowledge and
human suffering. It begins by announcing the coming of God to judge
the sinners and to bring salvation to the righteous. It traces the origins
of sin to the activity of the angels, the Watchers, who came down from
heaven in the days of Jared and it announces both their punishment
and that of the sprits of their offspring, the Giants, which are seen to
be responsible for the continuance of sin (15:8–16:1; slightly differ-
ent in 19:1). The narrative includes an account of Enoch’s ascent to
heaven, where he is told of the fate of the Watchers (chapter 14), and
the continuation of the narrative (chapters 17–36) then describes how
Enoch was taken on a journey around the cosmos which culminated in
his arrival at the Garden of Righteousness in the east which contains
the tree of knowledge.
However, looking more closely at this, the narrative does have certain
features that give the text a sapiential character and link with the themes
we have been discussing. The first point to notice is that immediately
after the prologue we have, in chapters 2–5, an admonition that has a
sapiential character. The admonition contrasts the orderly behaviour
of nature (2:1–5:4) with the disorderly behaviour of mankind, and this
in turn leads back into the theme of judgement for the wicked and
salvation for the righteous already announced in chapter 1 (5:5–9).
The contrast between obedient nature and disobedient humanity forms
a familiar theme in the Hebrew Bible, and in Jewish and Christian
literature, and commentators have drawn attention to a number of
comparable passages. Although not exclusive to wisdom literature,
the order and regularity of nature is a familiar theme in wisdom, for
example in Sir 43 or 16:24–28—in the latter there is an implicit contrast
in chapter 17 with the behaviour of man, as Nickelsburg indicates.52
52
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 153; cf. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 136–37. The parallels
between Sir 16:24–28 and 17:1–14 were noted by Luis Alonso Schökel, “The Vision
of Man in Sirach 16:24–17:14,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor
of Samuel Terrien (ed. John G. Gammie and others; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1978),
235–45. For the contrast between the obedience of nature and the disobedience of
sinners, see also 1 En. 101:6–7, 8–9.
106 chapter five
53
Cf. Hans Wildberger, Jesaja, 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT X/1; Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 14–15; Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah (NCBC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1992), 158–59.
54
Bilhah Nitzan, “Admonitory Parable,” in Torleif Elgvin and others, Qumran Cave
4.XV: Sapiential Texts, Part 1 (DJD 20; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 125–49, esp. 126,
136.
55
Cf. Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConBNT 12;
Lund: Gleerup, 1979), 138–45, for the view that, as an introduction, 1 En. 1–5 “gives
an important clue to the understanding of the whole Book of Watchers.”
56
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 165, 171–72.
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 107
arts of warfare, the means of beautifying the body for the purposes of
sexual allurement, and astrology/astronomy, and these topics no doubt
reflected contemporary concerns. But the teaching is presented as the
revelation of mysteries that belonged in heaven. Thus according to the
Aramaic and the Syncellus text of 8:3, the angels revealed the mysteries
(רזין, τὰ µυστήρια) to their wives and their children. In their appeal to
God on behalf of mankind (chapter 9), the four archangels state, “You
see what Asael has done, who has taught all iniquities on the earth and
has revealed the eternal mysteries (τὰ µυστήρια τοῦ αἰῶνος) which (were)
in heaven, which men practise (and) know” (9:6). And in God’s reply
(chapters 10–11), the risk that all mankind will perish is attributed to
the revelation of the mystery (τὸ µυστήριον) that the Watchers taught
to their sons (10:7–8). (For this theme, cf. 65:6,11; (68:2); (69:8).) The
story comes to an initial climax in the message of judgement that
Enoch is commissioned by God to deliver to the Watchers (16:3–4),
which according to the Ethiopic reads as follows,
You were in heaven, but (its) secrets (ªebuxat) had not yet been revealed
to you and a worthless mystery (menuna mes¢ira) you knew. This you made
known to the women in the hardness of your hearts, and through this
mystery the women and the men cause evil to increase on the earth. Say
to them therefore, You will not have peace.
The Greek of the first sentence is corrupt, but probably had “no mys-
tery had been revealed to you, and a worthless mystery you knew.”57 In
any event it seems clear that the knowledge revealed by the watchers
is condemned as being incomplete and worthless. Comparison might
be drawn with the view expressed in 4QMysteries that the wisdom of
the magicians is useless.58
The story of the Watchers comes to an initial conclusion at this
point, but the narrative continues in 17–19, without any introduction
or explanation, by describing Enoch’s journey to the edge of the world.
There is a literary seam at this point, one of a number that are visible
57
Reading καὶ πᾶν µυστήριον οὐκ ἀνεκλύφθη ὑµῖν καὶ µυστήριον ἐξουθενηµένον
ἔγνωτε for καὶ πᾶν µυστήριον ὃ οὐκ ἀνεκλύφθη ὑµῖν καὶ µυστήριον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ
γεγενηµένον ἔγνωτε. Cf. Robert Henry Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch
(Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906), 47. Cf. the com-
ments of Stuckenbruck on 4Q203 i 3 in Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36), 36.
58
See above, 98–99.
108 chapter five
59
So the Greek; the Ethiopic has “where all flesh walks.”
60
The parallel is not of course precise. Job is challenged inter alia as to whether he
has visited the realm of death, whereas the claim made in 1 En. 17:6 is that Enoch
had been to a region—apparently not Sheol—inaccessible to others. Enoch reaches
Sheol in 1 En. 22.
61
The series of rhetorical questions in 1 En. 93:11–14, which have been seen to
be reminiscent of the rhetorical questions in Job 38, appear to serve a similar pur-
ENOCH in the light of the qumran wisdom literature 109
Enoch then sees in rapid succession the throne of God, the place
of punishment for the Watchers, and the place of punishment for the
disobedient stars (18:6–19:3). Little explanation is provided of what is
seen, and the detail not spelled out. It is assumed that we do not need
to be told that the throne is the throne where God will descend for
judgement. However, it is characteristic of the description, as of that
in chapters 20–36, that it draws extensively on the Hebrew Bible for
its content—not by way of direct quotation, but by incorporating and
reworking material from relevant passages into the narrative. The way
in which the narrative, from one point of view, represents the outcome
of reflection upon, and interpretation of, scripture gives the narrative
something of a learned character.
The following passage, chapters 20–36, is perhaps best seen as a
commentary on, or expansion of, chapters 17–19. In any case Enoch
now visits the same places that he has just visited, but here there is
dialogue between Enoch and the angel who accompanies him, and
explanations are given. But the narrative is expanded to include a
description of the realm of the dead and of the earthly paradise based
on Jerusalem.62 Finally Enoch goes on a circuit of the earth (chapters
33–36). This passage has some similarities with material in the Book of
Astronomy and may have been added in the light of that material. But,
like 17:1–18:5, it also serves to confirm Enoch’s status as one who does
have access to the mysteries of the universe.
How should we evaluate the parallels between the Book of Enoch
and 4QMysteries and 4Instruction? Collins has spoken in terms of the
influence of apocalyptic traditions on the wisdom writings,63 and Elgvin
has even spoken of the dependence of 4QInstruction on the books of
Enoch, at least on the Epistle.64 They may be right in terms of the direc-
tion of influence. But it seems to me more important that the parallels
provide evidence of a shared thought-world. While Sirach may provide
evidence of a critical attitude towards the claims to the possession of
pose, namely of authenticating the revelation received by Enoch on his journeys. The
implied answer to all the questions in 1 En. 93:11–14 is: “no one except Enoch”. Cf.
Vanderkam, Enoch, A Man for All Generations, 91.
62
It is interesting to observe that this journey reaches its climax in the paradise of
righteousness in the east where Enoch sees “the trees of wisdom whose fruit the holy
ones eat and know great wisdom” (32:3, Greek).
63
Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 117, cf. 115–31 passim.
64
Elgvin, “The Mysteries to Come,” 116–17, 138, 146.
110 chapter five
1
Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1–5 (ConBNT 12; Lund:
Gleerup, 1979), 37–38; see also his earlier study, Prophecy Interpreted (ConBNT 1; Lund:
Gleerup, 1966).
2
On the reasons for the lack of explicit quotation in 1 Enoch and the difficulty
of determining the level of dependence, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1:
A Commentary on the Book of Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001), 57.
3
I assume that the Parables were composed in Aramaic like the other parts of 1
Enoch, although it is possible that the Parables were composed in Hebrew.
4
For further discussion of this point, see Michael A. Knibb, “Christian Adoption
and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha: The Case of 1 Enoch,” JSJ 32 (2001)
396–415, esp., 400–405.
112 chapter six
5
See Michael A. Knibb, “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom
Literature,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition
(ed. Florentino García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 193–210.
6
Eth does not have “and brought.” The text could also be translated “I was taken
and brought,” but that still leaves open the question of the identity of those who
escorted Enoch.
7
James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Studies on Personalities of
the Old Testament; Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press,
1995), 50.
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 113
has overlooked the fact that this verb can mean ‘to take’ as well as ‘to
raise’ and corresponds to a number of different verbs in Greek; and
that while the Greek of 14:8 has ἐπαίρω, in 17:1 it has παραλαµβάνω.
One of the meanings of this latter verb is ‘to take somebody along’
(so Gen 22:3; MT לקח, Eth naś a), and it is surely this meaning that
is intended here. It remains most likely that it is angels who are the
unnamed subject in 17:1, not least because they are mentioned several
times both before and after this passage: see 14:22–23; 14:25 (Greek);
18:14; 19:1.
The first part of the narrative (17:1–18:5) describes Enoch’s journey
through the cosmos to a group of seven mountains, the middle one of
which reached to heaven like the throne of God (18:6–9a). The account
of the journey is remarkable for the phenomena to which Enoch is led
or which he sees, and these may be listed as follows:8
17:1 (i) [καὶ παραλάβοντες µε εἴς τινα τόπον ἀπήγαγον] ἐν ᾧ οἱ ὄντες
ἐκεῖ γίνονται ῶς πῦρ ϕλέγον καὶ, ὅταν θέλωσιν, ϕαίνονται ὡσει
ἄνθρωποι
17:2 (ii) [καὶ ἀπήγαγον µε] εἰς ζοϕώδη τόπον
(iii) καὶ ἐις ὄρος οὗ ἡ κεϕαλὴ ἀϕικνεῖτο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν
17:3 (iv) [καὶ εἶδον] τόπον τῶν ϕωστήρων
(v) καὶ τοὺς θησαυροὺς τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν βροντῶν
(vi) καὶ εἰς τὰ αἐροβαθῆ, ὅπου τόξον πυρὸς καὶ τὰ βέλη καὶ αἱ
θῆκαι αὐτῶν9 καὶ αἱ ἀστραπαὶ πᾶσαι
17:4 (vii) [καὶ ἀπήγαγον µε] µέχρι ὑδάτων ζώντων
(viii) καὶ µέχρι πυρὸς δύσεως, ὅ ἐστιιν καὶ παρέχον πάσας τάς
δύσεις τοῦ ἡλίου
17:5 (ix) [καὶ ἤλθοµεν]10 µέχρι ποταµοῦ πυρός, ἐν ᾧ κατατρέχει τὸ πῦρ
ὡς ὕδωρ καὶ ῥέει εἰς θάλασσαν µεγάλην δύσεως
17:6 (x) [ἴδον] τοὺς µεγάλους ποταµούς
(xi) καὶ µέχρι τοῦ µεγάλου ποταµοῦ
(xii) καὶ µέχρι τοῦ µεγάλου σκότους [κατήντησα]
(xiii) [καὶ ἀπῆλθον] ὅπου πᾶσα σὰρξ οὐ περιπατεῖ
17:7 (xiv) [ ἴδον] τοὺς ἀνέµους τῶν γνόϕων τοὺς χειµερινούς
(xv) καὶ τὴν ἔκχυσιν τῆς ἀβύσσου πάντων ὑδάτων
17:8 (xvi) [ ἴδον] τὸ στόµα τῆς γῆς πάντων τῶν ποταµῶν
(xvii) καὶ τὸ στόµα τῆς ἀβύσσου
8
Verbs of motion and of seeing have been included in the following list in square
brackets for the sake of clarity.
9
Eth has in addition “and a flaming sword,” for which cf. the “flaming sword”
of Gen 3:24 (LXX).
10
Commonly emended to ἦλθον with Eth.
114 chapter six
18:1 (xviii) [ ἴδον] τοὺς θησαυροὺς τῶν ἀνέµων πάντων, [ἴδον] ὅτι ἐν
αὐτοῖς ἐκόσµησεν πάσας τὰς κτίσεις
(xix) καὶ τὸν θεµέλιον τῆς γῆς
18:2 (xx) καὶ τὸν λίθον [ ἴδον] τῆς γωνίας τῆς γῆς
(xxi) [ ἴδον] τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀνέµους τὴν γῆν βαστάζοντας καὶ τὸ
στερέωµα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
18:3 [And I saw] how the winds stretch out the height of heaven,
and they stand between earth and heaven; they are the pillars of
heaven11
18:4 (xxii) [ ἴδον] ἀνέµους τῶν οὐρανῶν στρέϕοντας καὶ διανεύοντας12
τὸν τροχὸν τοῦ ἡλίου, καὶ πάντας τοῦς ἀστέρας
18:5 (xxiii) [ ἴδον] τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀνέµους βαστάζοντας ἐν νεϕέλῃ
(xxiv) [I saw] the paths of the angels13
(xxv) [ ἴδον] πέρατα τῆς γῆς, τὸ στήριγµα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπάνω
Enoch at this point has arrived at the ends of the earth, apparently in
the north-west (on this, see further below), and it is at this point that
he sees the group of seven mountains, the middle one of which is
like the throne of God (18:6–9a), and beyond that the prison for the
disobedient stars and the watchers (18:9b–19:2).
The account of Enoch’s journey and the description of the seven
mountains and of the prison presuppose a geographical model which
it has often been assumed reflects the influence of non-Jewish—par-
ticularly Babylonian or Greek—conceptions. In recent years Grelot,14
followed by Milik,15 has argued that the geographical ideas reflected
in chapters 17–19 (and in other sections of 1 Enoch, particularly the
account of Enoch’s second journey (chapters 21–36) and chapter 77)
are based on Babylonian, rather than Greek, conceptions, although he
suggests that they might have been mediated to the Jews via Phoenicia.
However, although some Babylonian ideas may ultimately lie in the
background of 1 Enoch, the suggestion of a major influence from this
source seems quite unlikely.16 Much more plausible is the assumption
11
Greek omits the first and last clauses through homoioteleuton and for the middle
class has: καὶ αὐτοὶ ἱστᾶσιν µεταξὺ γῆς καὶ οὐρανοῦ. Restoration is based on Eth.
12
Read δύνοντας (Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Enoch (2d ed.; Oxford: Claren-
don, 1912), 40.
13
Greek omits through homoioteleuton (“I saw” . . . “I saw”).
14
Pierre Grelot, “La Géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales,”
RB 65 (1958): 33–69.
15
Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 15–18, 29–30, 33–41.
16
Grelot compared the geographical ideas reflected in Enoch with those of a Late
Babylonian World Map, and the phenomena that Enoch sees on his journey with
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 115
those that, according to tablets 9 and 10 of the Gilgamesh Epic, Gilgamesh sees on his
journey to Ut-Napishtim in search of the secret of immortality. However, VanderKam
(“1 Enoch 77:3 and a Babylonian Map of the World,” RevQ 11/2 (1983): 271–78) has
shown that Grelot’s arguments were based on a reading of the textual evidence of the
Babylonian World Map that is almost certainly wrong and on a false understanding
of the ideas in 1 Enoch. Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 279–80) has further shown that there
are significant differences between the phenomena seen by Enoch and those seen by
Gilgamesh.
17
Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter In Palestine during the
Early Hellenistic Period. vol. 1 (London: SCM Press, 1974), 197–98; vol. 2, 132; Nickels-
burg, 1 Enoch 1, 279–80; cf. already Albrecht Dieterich, ΝΕΚΥΙΑ: Beiträge zur Erklärung
der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1913), 218–19.
18
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 280; cf. T. Francis Glasson, Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatol-
ogy (S.P.C.K. Biblical Monographs 1; London: S.P.C.K., 1961), 8–11.
19
Grelot, “La Géographie mythique d’Hénoch,” 38. Cf. also Ezek 28:14, 16. Nick-
elsburg (1 Enoch 1, 281 and n. 17) suggests that the author may be thinking of seraphim
understood as “fiery beings,” but this seems unlikely. The seraphim were serpentine
beings, and any connection with the Hebrew root meaning ‘to burn’ is secondary.
116 chapter six
The dark place and the mountain appear to be on the edge of the
world in the west, where the sun has disappeared.20 The mountain21 is
in the vicinity of the storehouses (θησαυροί) for the luminaries, the stars,
the thunder, and the flashes of lightning, which are conceived to be on
the edge of the world (17:3, nos. [iv]–[vi]). The word ‘storehouses’ is
not used in the Old Testament in relation to the luminaries and stars
or the thunder and lightning, but the concept and the word are used
in Job 38:22 (for snow and hail), in Ps 33:7 (LXX 32:7; for the deeps),
and in Ps 135:7 (LXX 134:7); Jer 10:13; 51:16 (for the wind; but LXX
Jer 10:13; 28:16, for the light). The elaboration of the description of
the thunder and lightning in terms of God’s bow, arrows, and quiver
then draws on language used in theophanic passages that depict God
appearing in a storm, for example Hab 3:9, 11; Ps 18:15 (LXX 17:15);
77:18–19 (LXX 76:18–19). Here we see for the first time a concern
with natural phenomena, with the “secrets”—to use the term that is
employed in the Parables (41:3; 59:1–3; 71:4)—of the cosmos, a concern
that is characteristic generally of 17:5–18:5.
The significance of the living waters22 and of the fire of the west
(17:4, nos. [vii]–[viii]), to which Enoch is next led, is not entirely clear.
The expression “living waters” is used in the Hebrew Bible to express
the meaning ‘fresh water’ (e.g. Gen 26:19), but that is hardly what is
intended here. The expression is also used in Zech 14:8 in a context
referring to life-giving water, and it is possible that this is what is in
mind in 1 Enoch, but if so, the idea is not developed. More is said about
the fire of the west, which in the Greek is said to “provide,” but in the
Ethiopic, which should probably be preferred, to “receive” all the set-
tings of the sun.23 What may be in mind is the appearance of the sky
at sunset. The relationship of this fire to the fire described in chapter
23, to which Enoch goes during his second journey, is unclear.24
20
Cf. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 38.
21
The description of the mountain in the Greek version of 1 En. 17:2 (“whose top
reached to heaven”) corresponds exactly to what is said about Jacob’s ladder in Gen
28:12. This is probably an instance of unconscious use of parallel phraseology.
22
Eth “waters of life” is not a real variant, but merely represents the use of two
nouns in a construct relationship to express Greek noun + adjective: cf. Zech 14:8
(Greek and Ethiopic); August Dillmann, Ethiopic Grammar (2d ed.; London: Williams
& Norgate, 1907), 462.
23
Greek παρέχον is probably corrupt for παραδεχόµενον (so August Dillmann, SAB
1982, 1045) or κατέχον (so Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English
Edition [SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985], 156); contrast Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 276.
24
Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 282.
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 117
Enoch has now arrived at the extreme western edge of the world, but
at this point he changes direction and goes towards the north, as the
reference to the winter winds of darkness (17:7, no. [xiv]) indicates.25
Milik suggests that Enoch at this point goes on a circular journey around
the world,26 but this has been questioned by Nickelsburg who points
out that the verbs of motion and progression that typified 17:1–8 are
missing in 18:1–527—in fact there are no verbs of motion in 17:7–18:5.
However, the reference to the four winds that support the earth and
the firmament of heaven and are apparently situated at the edge of
the world (18:2–3, no. [xxi]) does suggest that what is in mind is the
four cardinal points of the compass (cf. Ezek 42:16–20; 1 Chron 9:24),
and it is difficult to understand how Enoch would have seen the winds
if he had not gone on a circuit of the world.
What is not in dispute is that 17:5–18:5 do have something of a dif-
ferent character from the surrounding material. On the one hand this
section is not taken up in the account of Enoch’s second journey except
in so far as chapters 33–36 is also an account of a circular journey.28
On the other a strong interest in natural phenomena is reflected in
the material. In this connection it is of interest to observe, that after
Enoch has visited the river of fire, the great rivers, and the great river
(17:5–6, nos. [ix]–[xi]), which were discussed above, several of the
items of natural phenomena that Enoch sees or visits are mentioned
in the list of rhetorical questions with which Job is challenged ( Job
38), or are mentioned in rhetorical questions in other wisdom passages,
as the following list indicates. In Job 38, Job is asked whether he had
any knowledge of, or power over, the objects that are mentioned, and
the answer implied is of course that he had no such knowledge or
power—and was incapable of acquiring it.29
17:6 (xii) the great darkness: cf. Job 38:19, חשך/σκότος
17:7 (xv) the outflow of all the waters of the abyss: cf. Job 38:16, חקר תהום/
ἴχνη ἀβύσσου; Sir. 1:3, ἄβυσσος
25
Cf. Sir 43:17bLXX.
26
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 39.
27
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 284.
28
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 38–39.
29
Similarly the answer implied by the rhetorical question in Prov 30:4 is “God,”
and in Job 36:29; Sir 1:3 is “no one.”
118 chapter six
18:1 (xviii) the storehouses of all the winds: cf. Ps 135:7 (LXX 134:7),
מוצא־רוח מאוצרותיו/ὁ ἐξάγων ἀνέµους ἐκ θησαυρωῦ αὐτοῦ30
(xix) the foundation of the earth: cf. Job 38:4, איפה הײת ביסדי־ארץ/
ποῦ ἦς ἐν τῷ θεµελιοῦν µε τὴν γῆν;
18:2 (xx) the cornerstone of the earth: cf. Job 38:6, אבן פנתה/λίθον
γωνιαῖον
(xxi) the four winds that support the earth: cf. Job 38:24b, . . . אי־זה
יפץ קדים ﬠלי־ארץ/πόθεν . . . διασκεδάννυται νότος εἰς τὴν ὑπ᾿
οὐρανόν; Prov 30:4, מי אסף־רוח בחנפיו/τίς συνήγαγεν ἀνέµους
ἐν κόλπῳ;
18:3 (xxi) the height of heaven; cf. Sir. 1:3, ὕψος οὐρανοῦ; Prov 30:4,
מי ﬠלה־שמים וירד/τίς ἀνέβη εὶς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ κατέβη;
18:4 (xxii) the winds of heaven that turn . . . the disk of the sun and all
the stars: cf. Job 38:33, הידﬠת חקות שמים/ἐπίστασαι δὲ τροπὰς
οὐρανοῦ;
18:5 (xxiii) the winds on the earth that support the clouds: cf. Job 36:29,
אף אם־יבין מפשרי־ﬠב/καὶ ἐὰν συνῇ ἀπεκτάσεις νεϕέλης;
In addition, a comparison might be drawn between the statement
that Enoch reached the great darkness and went to a place where no
flesh walks (1 En. 17:6, nos. [xii]–[xiii]) and the question in Job 38:17:
“Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the
gate of deep darkness?”31
The fact that Enoch is said in 1 En. 17:5–18:5 to have seen such a
variety of natural phenomena has rightly been regarded as evidence
of the fact that the authors of apocalypses like the Book of Enoch were
concerned not only with eschatology, but also with the cosmos, but
the relevance of this passage at just this point in the narrative does
require further explanation.32 However, the evidence presented in the
list above does suggest that there is some kind of connection with Job
38 in 1 En. 17:5–18:5, and this may perhaps help in understanding
30
Ps 135 (LXX 134) is not a wisdom psalm and does not employ rhetorical questions,
but the passage is listed here because of the similarity of the thought (Yahweh as the
one who [controls the forces of nature and] brings out the wind from his storehouses)
to that of 1 En. 18:1 (Enoch sees the storehouses of the winds with which God orders
his creation).—Two of the objects seen by Enoch are not mentioned in Job 38 or
similar passages, but are mentioned in contexts referring to God. For “firmament of
heaven” (18:2–3, no. [xxi]; cf. 18:5, no. [xxv], with στήριγµα for στερέωµα), cf. Gen
1:14–17; for “pillars of heaven” (18:2–3, no. [xxi]), cf. Job 26:11.
31
The parallel is not of course precise. Job is challenged whether he had visited
Sheol, in 1 Enoch the claim is made that Enoch had visited a region—not, apparently,
Sheol—inaccessible to other human beings.
32
Cf. the comment of Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 284): “Why these verses are inserted
here is not certain.”
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 119
33
It is impossible to know for certain whether or not the author of 1 Enoch was
making a conscious reference back to Job 38, but in a sense it does not matter because
in any case quite remarkable claims are implicitly made here for the knowledge pos-
sessed by Enoch, a knowledge that Job was forced to admit he did not possess.—It may
be noted that VanderKam (Enoch: A Man for All Generations, 91) has suggested a similar
connection between the rhetorical questions in 1 En. 93:11–14 and Job 38.
34
According to 17:7, Enoch had already journeyed towards the north, and whether
or not he had been on a circular journey around the world, it seems clear that he is
now in the northwest.
35
See, for example, the discussion of this material by Grelot (“La Géographie
mythique d’Hénoch,” 38–41).
120 chapter six
(chapters 21–36), Grelot has suggested that the author has attempted
to harmonise the conflicting biblical traditions concerning the location
of paradise: of Gen 2, which places Eden in the east, of Isa 14, which
places the residence of God on the mountain of the north, and that of
Ezek 28, which identifies Eden as the mountain of God.36 But whereas
in 1 En. 21–36, the harmonisation has been achieved by placing the
mountain of God, which contains the tree of life, in the northwest (chap-
ters 24–25) and the garden of righteousness, which contains the tree of
knowledge, in the east (chapter 32), in chapters 17–19 the traditions are
all associated with only one sacred place, and we should perhaps think
in terms of a process of integration rather than of harmonisation. In
any event the biblical traditions that lie in the background provide an
indication of the significance of the mountain for the author as the
holy mountain of God, identical with Eden.
More deserves to be said concerning the precious stones of which
the seven mountains consist. In the first instance a deliberate allusion
was no doubt intended to the list of precious stones of which the robe
of the king of Tyre is said to consist in Ezek 28:13,37 and thus to the
idea that the mountain of God was also to be identified with Eden,
the garden of God. But in detail there are few direct correspondences
between the stones that are mentioned in 1 En. 18 and those that are
mentioned in Ezek 28, and it appears that the author also draws on
the language of Isa 54:11–12,38 where, significantly, the New Jerusalem
is depicted as paradise restored, and of 1 Chron 29:2.
The seven mountains as a whole are said to be “of precious stones”
(1 En. 18:6; ἀπο λίθων πολυτελῶν), and this seems obviously to be based
on Ezek 28:13 (כל־אבן יקרה/πᾶν λίθον χρηστόν), but that is not the case
for at least two of the three mountains that lay towards the east (1 En.
18:7). The first is “of coloured stone” (ἀπὸ λίθου χρώµατος), perhaps
the equivalent of the רקמה. . . ( אבניλίθους . . . ποικίλους) of 1 Chron
29:2. The word for “pearl,” of which the second mountain consists (ἀπὸ
λίθου µαργαρίτου), does not occur in the Old Testament, but it is per-
haps mentioned here as an example of a very precious gem. The third
mountain on the east is said to be ἀπὸ λίθου ταθεν, probably corrupt
for ἀπὸ λίθου ἰάσπιδος (“jasper”; cf. Ezek 28:13). Such a corruption
36
Grelot, “La Géographie mythique d’Hénoch,” 43.
37
The fact that the list in Ezek 28:13 seems to have been secondarily inserted from
Exod 28:17–20 is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
38
It may be noted that Tobit 13:16 draws heavily on Isa 54:11–12.
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 121
seems not impossible at the uncial stage, while the Ethiopic “healing
stone” is no doubt to be understood as an ‘etymological’ translation of
a Greek form that was corrupt or not totally intelligible.
The mountains that lay towards the south are all said to be “of red
stone” (1 En. 18:7; ἀπὸ λίθου πυρροῦ, translated literally into Ethiopic
as em ebna qayye ). It may be suggested that this is the equivalent of
ἄνθραξ (“carbuncle”; cf. Ezek 28:13, where Ethiopic translates as yakent
qayye [literally “red jacinth”]).39
The mountain in the middle that reached to heaven, like the throne
of God, is described as being “of antimony” (1 En. 18:8; ἀπὸ λίθου
ϕουκά). In this case the Greek (followed by the Ethiopic) has transliter-
ated the Hebrew פוךthat is mentioned in Isa 54:11 and 1 Chron 29:2.40
The summit of this mountain is, finally, said to be “of sapphire” (ἀπὸ
λίθου σαϕϕείρου). Sapphire is one of the precious stones mentioned
in Ezek 28:13 (and in Isa 54:11), but—apart from other occurrences
in the Old Testament—it is also used in Ezek 1:26 of the “likeness of
a throne” on which was seated “something like the appearance of a
human form”; and in Exod 24:10 of the pavement under the feet of
the God of Israel at the summit of Mount Sinai.41 This last reference
is perhaps the most significant as pointing to the identification of the
mountain in the middle also with Sinai, which is mentioned in 1 En. 1:4
as the mountain on which God will descend to exercise judgement.
The theme of judgement is certainly present in the account of the
final part of Enoch’s journey (1 En. 18:9b–19:2), in which he sees a
great chasm on the edge of the world in which pillars of heavenly fire
were falling (18:9b–11), and beyond this a desolate and terrible place
(18:12) that serves as the prison in which the stars that transgressed the
Lord’s command were to be kept until the time of the consummation
of their sin—ten thousand years (18:13–16), and in which the angels
who were promiscuous with the women were to be kept until the great
judgement (19:1–2). As has frequently been observed, the location of
this prison below the mountain of God was no doubt suggested by
the apparent location of the pit into which the star Helel ben Shaar
39
The suggestion of Nickelsburg (1 Enoch 1, 286) that the “flame-coloured stones”
(as he translates) correspond to “the stones of fire” of Ezek 28:14, 16 seems quite
unlikely. On the latter, see W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2. Teilband: Ezechiel 25–48 (BKAT
XIII/2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 685–686.
40
It is interesting to observe that the Septuagint does not transliterate in either case.
In Isa 54:11 it uses ἄνθραξ, and in 1 Chron 29:2 λίθοι πολυτελεῖς.
41
Cf. Grelot, “La Géographie mythique d’Hénoch,” 40.
122 chapter six
was cast below the mount of assembly of the gods in the north (Isa
14:12–15) and of the place into which the king of Tyre was cast below
the mountain of God (Ezek 28:16–18).42 The importance of this pas-
sage in the context of the account of the first journey as a whole is
indicated by the fact that here for the first time an angel (18:14; 19:1,
here identified as Uriel) gives Enoch an explanation of what he has
seen,43 and we should no doubt see the message announcing the impris-
onment of the watchers and the limitation of the activity of the spirits
“until the great judgement” as crucial (19:1). But the interpretation of
the passage is not without problems.
In the first place Nickelsburg has argued that 18:12–16 is a secondary
addition: in his view the original text consisted of 18:9b–11 + 19:1–2
and was concerned with the chasm beyond the edge of the world
that served as the prison for the watchers (cf. 21:7–10); 18:13–16 is a
secondary intrusion that was concerned with the waste and desolate
place beyond the chasm that served as the prison for the disobedient
stars (cf. 21:1–6).44 Nickelsburg, not entirely consistently, then translates
18:13–16 after 18:9b–11 + 19:1–2 and interprets the text as if it stood
in this order.45 However, as he notes, it is all but certain that 18:12 fol-
lowed immediately on 18:11 in 4QEnc 1 viii.46 4QEnc dates from the
last third of the first century B.C.E., and thus if 18:13–16 is a second-
ary addition, it must have been inserted at a very early stage—but in
this case it becomes questionable whether it makes sense to talk of a
secondary addition. It seems much simpler to assume that 18:9b–19:2
has a different view from chapter 21 and thinks in terms of only one
prison,47 just as it also has a different view from 15:11–16:1 as to
those who are responsible for the continuance of sin in the world. (In
15:11–16:1 it is the spirits of the giants, in 19:1 it is the spirits of the
watchers themselves.)
A second problem concerns the significance of the stars in that the
statement that the stars “transgressed the commandment of the Lord at
42
Cf. e.g. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 39–40.
43
Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 286.
44
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 287–88.
45
Nickelsburg’s comment (1 Enoch 1, 298) that in chapter 21 Enoch visits “in reverse
order” the prison for the disobedient stars and the prison for the watchers that he had
seen in the account of his first journey would only be valid if 18:12–16 did follow on
18:9b–11 + 19:1–2. But we have no evidence that such a text ever existed.
46
Cf. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 200.
47
Cf. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 39.
the use of scripture in 1 ENOCH 17–19 123
the beginning of their rising . . . for they did not appear at their proper
times” (18:15) stands in marked contrast to what is said in 2:1 about
the obedience of the heavenly bodies to the order prescribed for them.
It has long been suggested that the stars represent personified beings,
that is angels, or rather the watchers that transgressed.48 But the fact
that there are said to be seven stars, and that the sin of which they are
accused concerns their failure to appear at the right time, makes this
suggestion unlikely, and we should think rather of the seven planets.49
Elsewhere in the Enoch tradition there is a concern with the failure
“in the last days” of the heavenly bodies to appear at the right time
(80:2–6), and though the appearance of this theme in the Book of
Watchers is unexpected, it was perhaps prompted by the reference to
Helel ben Shaar in Isa 14:12 (a passage clearly in the mind of the
author) and by the reference to the imprisonment of the host of heaven
in a pit in Isa 24:21–22.
In view of what has been said above about Enoch as the recipient
of mysteries otherwise known only to God, it is perhaps significant that
the text ends with the statement: “I, Enoch, alone saw the visions, the
ends of all things, and no human has seen what I have seen.”
In conclusion, the account of Enoch’s first journey is a densely-written
narrative in which—in marked contrast to the account of the second
journey—very little explanation is offered concerning the significance
of the things that Enoch sees, and there are few explicit clues as to the
overall purpose of the material in the context of the Book of Watchers
as a whole. However, consideration of the extent to which the material
draws on, and represents an interpretation of, a range of interrelated
biblical passages does cast light on its meaning.
48
Cf. e.g. Wilhem Bousset and Hugo Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im
späthellenitischen Zeitalter (4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 323; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1,
288–89.
49
Black, The Book of Enoch, 160.
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Book of Parables (maÉaf zamesale), the title used in 1 En. 68:1 for
chaps. 37–71 (or for an earlier version of this section), appears at first
sight to have a simple structure and literary form. The overarching genre
of the text is that of a report of an otherworldly journey, and the mate-
rial, after an introduction (chap. 37), is clearly divided by headings and
colophons1 into three “parables” (38:1–44:1; 45:1–57:3; 58:1–69:29).
Chaps. 70–71, which bring the section to a conclusion, then describe
Enoch’s ascent to heaven and identification as Son of Man. So much
is obvious, but closer inspection suggests that the structure and literary
form of the Book of Parables are not quite so straightforward.
The Book of Parables forms some of the latest material to be included
in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and it is apparent that the authors drew
their inspiration from the sections of 1 Enoch that were already in exis-
tence, particularly the Book of the Watchers, on which the Book of Parables
to some extent seems consciously modeled. The text is headed “The
second vision which he saw,”2 and this suggests that the Book of Parables
was intended as a continuation of the previous “vision” that Enoch had
seen (cf. 1:2).3 More particularly, the use of the term ‘parable’ (mesale)
to describe the contents of this section (see 37:5; 38:1; 45:1; 57:3; 58:1;
69:29) seems to have its obvious point of reference in 1:2,4 although
a wider background for its use is provided by the occurrence of the
Hebrew term mashal in the Balaam narratives (cf., e.g., Num 23:7, 18)
and in prophetic texts (cf., e.g., Ezek 17:2; 20:49; Mic 2:4). In relation
to content, there are frequent references in the Parables to the story of
1
There is no colophon at the end of the first parable (chap. 44).
2
Cf. 1 En. 39:4, “and there I saw another vision.”
3
Milik speaks of a contrast with the “first vision,” but identifies the “first vision”
with “the whole collection of revelations contained in the Aramaic and Greek Enochic
Pentateuch in two volumes: the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Giants, the Book
of Dreams, the Epistle of Enoch in the first volume, and the Astronomical Book in
the second volume.” See Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân
Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 89.
4
In the Aramaic and the Greek, but not in the Ethiopic.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 125
5
The return of Enoch to earth is not reported until the end of the Astronomical
Book (81:5–10).
6
1 En. 17:5; 18:6; 21:1, 7; 22:1; 23:1; 24:1; 26:1; 28:1; 29:1; 30:3; 32:2–3; 33:1;
34:1; 35; 36:1, 2. See also 14:9, 10, 13, 25.
7
1 En. 17:1, 2, 4.
8
1 En. 17:3, 6, 7, 8; 18:1 (bis), 2 (bis), 3, 4, 5 (ter), 9, 10, 11 (bis), 12, 13; 19:3; 21:2,
3, 7 (ter); 22:5; 23:2; 24:2; 26:1, 2, 3; 28:1; 29:2; 30:1, 2, 3; 31:1, 2; 32:1, 3; 33:1, 2,
3; 34:1, 2; 35; 36:1, 2, 4; cf. 23:4; 25:3. See also 14:14, 18.
9
1 En. 22:1; 24:1; 33:3, 4.
10
Cf. Marie-Theres Wacker, Weltordnung und Gericht: Studien zu 1 Henoch 22 (FB 45;
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1982), 101–2; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Com-
mentary on the Book of 1 Enoch 1–36, 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001),
291.
11
See 1 En. 18:9b–19:2; 21:1–6; 21:7–10; 22:1–4, 5–7, 8–14; 23:1–4; 24:1–25:7;
26:1–27:5; 32:2–6.
126 chapter seven
12
First parable: 39:4, 7; 40:1, 2 (“I looked, and . . . I saw”); 41:1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 43:1 (bis),
2; second parable: 46:1; 47:3; 48:1; 52:1 (“in that place where I had seen”); 53:3 (“For
I saw”); 54:1 (“And I looked and turned . . . and I saw”); 56:1; third parable: 59:2, 3
(“all the secrets . . . were shown to me”); 61:1; 64:1; 67:5.
13
First parable: 39:5, 6, 13: 41:2, 3; second parable: 52:2; 53:1; 54:3; third par-
able: 59:1.
14
First parable: 40:3, 5, 6, 7; second parable: 57:2; third parable: 67:12.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 127
central themes of the Parables: the glory of the Lord of Spirits, the
judgment of the Son of Man, the punishment of the kings and the
mighty and the Watchers, the salvation of the righteous, and cosmic
phenomena.
Although there are no accounts of otherworldly journeys in the
Hebrew Bible, the background to the use of this genre in the Ethiopic
Book of Enoch is to be found in the vision reports of the prophetic litera-
ture, and particularly in the two great vision reports preserved in chaps.
8–11 and 40–48 of the book of Ezekiel. Both sections of the book are
composite, and in both a core, consisting maximally of 8:1–10:22 +
11:22–25 on the one hand, and of 40:1–43:12 + 44:1–2 + 47:1–12
on the other, has been expanded by later material that is different in
character.15 In both the hand of YHWH comes upon Ezekiel and brings
him “in visions of God” to Jerusalem. In both Ezekiel is led about (see
8:7, 14, 16; 40:17, 24, 28, and frequently), and indeed the core vision
that forms the basis of chaps. 40–48 was described by Zimmerli as a
“guidance vision.”16 In both cases Ezekiel describes what he has been
shown, in the first vision the sin of Jerusalem and its destruction, and
the departure of YHWH, in the second the new Jerusalem and the
return of YHWH. In chaps. 8–11 there are frequent occurrences of the
verb “to see,” and although this is not the case in 40–48, the section
begins with the command to the prophet: “Mortal, look closely and
listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I shall show you, for
you were brought here in order that I might show it to you; declare
all that you see to the house of Israel” (40:4). The prophet does not
ask questions about the significance of what he sees, but in the second
vision there are occasional brief explanatory comments from Ezekiel’s
angelic guide (see 40:45–46; 41:4, 22; 42:13–14; 47:8–12) as well as
two speeches by YHWH (43:7–9; 44:2).
The accounts of the two visions in which Ezekiel is carried by the
hand of YHWH to Jerusalem offer the closest parallel in the Hebrew
Bible to the literary genre of the otherworldly journey. However, the
cycle of eight visions preserved in Zech 1–6 is also of some relevance
15
Cf. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT XIII/1–2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirche-
ner Verlag, 1969), 1:201–6, 241; 2:977–80, 990–93, 1073–76, 1108–10, 1190–91,
1240–43 (ET, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 230–34, 256; Ezekiel 2
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 327–29, 342–44, 411–13, 439–40, 508–10,
547–49).
16
See, e.g., Zimmerli, Ezechiel 2:992, 1074 (ET, Ezekiel 2, 344, 411).
128 chapter seven
17
Wacker (Weltordnung, 292–94) has drawn attention to the parallels between Zech
1–6 and 1 En. 21–33.
18
See Zech 3.
19
I take for granted the view that, notwithstanding the presence of some second-
ary material, the Book of Parables is to be regarded essentially as a unity. For a critical
discussion of the two-source theory of composition advocated by Beer and Charles,
see E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungl.
Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 41; Lund: Gleerup, 1946), 24–33.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 129
The words with which the Book of Parables begins, “the second vision
which he saw,” present the Parables as the continuation of the Book of
the Watchers, as we have seen, and were no doubt intended to facilitate
the integration of the Parables into the Enochic corpus. The words that
follow immediately, “the vision of wisdom which Enoch saw” (37:1),
may have constituted the original title of the Book of Parables. The
reference to wisdom, together with the use of wisdom terminology
to describe the content of the revelation given by Enoch (see 37:2–4),
is a reflection of the sapiential connections of the Parables and of the
Enochic writings generally.22
20
Cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 221–23; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 7.
21
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,”
NTS 25 (1979): 345–59.
22
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom
Literature,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition
(ed. Florentino García Martínez; BETL 168; Leuven: Leuven University Press and
Peeters, 2003), 193–210.
23
Cf. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch, 31. In the second parable
the introductory speech (chap. 45) becomes, from v. 3, a speech of God.
130 chapter seven
is foretold. The first parable begins with such a speech (38:1–39:2), and
with a description of the carrying of Enoch up to heaven (39:3), and
then consists of a series of vision reports that are typical of the genre
of the otherworldly journey. Secondary material is relatively limited
and is perhaps confined to 39:1–2a and chap. 42.
The introductory speech uses a rhetorical question—When the sin-
ners are judged and salvation appears for the righteous, where will the
dwelling of the sinners be (38:2)?—to affirm the coming judgment of
the sinners and the destruction of the kings and the mighty (38:1–39:2).
It thus serves to introduce one of the key themes of the Book of Parables.
However, 39:1–2a breaks the connection between 38:6 and 39:2b and
is widely regarded as an interpolation. The passage appears to be a
fragment or a summary of the story of the Watchers, and it may be
that Charles was right that the tenses in v. 1 have been adapted to their
context and that at one stage the reference was to the past, not the
future;24 as such the story might offer an explanation for the behavior
of the kings and the mighty. It may also be wondered whether 39:1–2a
was originally a marginal comment intended to explain the origin of
the Book of Parables in which the “books” were understood as a refer-
ence to the Parables.
The first two vision reports (39:4–14; 40:1–10) are related in that both
are concerned to describe scenes in heaven, the former the dwelling
of the righteous (39:4) and of the Chosen One (39:6) in heaven, the lat-
ter the divine throne room in which the heavenly hosts, and particularly
the four archangels, stand before the Lord of Spirits. We may note, by
way of example, the repeated use of verbs of seeing and hearing (39:4,
5, 6, 7, 13; 40:1, 2, 3–7), the use of question-and-answer in the second
vision report, and the clear markers at the end of each scene (39:14;
40:10). The concern with the “dwelling” of the righteous provides a
contrast with the concern with the future “dwelling” of the sinners
(38:2). The attention paid to the role of the four archangels (chap. 40)
perhaps reflects the influence of the Book of the Watchers (chaps. 9–10),
although the name “Phanuel” (40:9) is not used there.
24
Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Enoch (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1912),
74. As the Ethiopic text stands, the sequence way
kaww
n . . . way
warr
du, which comes
at the end of a string of prefix tenses referring to the future (1 En. 38:3–6), is most
naturally translated with reference to the future: “And it will come to pass that . . . (they)
will come down.”
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 131
25
In chap. 41 the vision report is expanded by comment from Enoch (vv. 6–9), in
chap. 43 by a question from Enoch and explanation from the angel (vv. 3–4).
26
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Use of Scripture in 1 Enoch 17–19,” in Jerusalem,
Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst (ed. Florentino
García Martínez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; JSJSup 82; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 165–78
(here 171–73).
27
Charles, for example, argued that 1 En. 41:3–9 is alien to its context, and that
41:9 should be read directly after 41:2; and Uhlig questions the relationship between
41:1–2 and 41:3–9. See Charles, The Book of Enoch, 79, 81; and Siegbert Uhlig, “Das
Äthiopische Henochbuch,” in JSHRZ V/6 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), 582.
28
Cf. Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: A New English Edition with Com-
mentary and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 203; André Caquot, “I Hénoch,”
in La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires (ed. André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko;
Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 463–625 (here 512).
132 chapter seven
29
Elsewhere I have provided a brief commentary on chaps. 45–51: see Michael A.
Knibb, “The Ethiopic Book of Enoch,” in Outside the Old Testament (ed. Marinus de Jonge;
Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 B.C. to
A.D. 200, 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 26–55 (here 43–55).
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 133
the angel from the previous chapter. The second passage begins as a
description of a vision, but from v. 3 onward becomes a statement about
the attributes and functions of the Son of Man (48:3–7) and about the
judgment of the kings of the earth (48:8–10). The final words of 48:10
(“May the name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed!”) form a conclusion,
but attached to the three vision reports is a series of statements (chaps.
49–51) that are concerned with essentially the same themes as the vision
reports: the attributes and role of the Chosen One, the judgment of the
sinners, the salvation of the righteous. However, some inconsistencies
of viewpoint in chap. 50 (the opportunity for repentance; the role of
God as judge) underline the looseness of the structure.30
The opening words of chap. 52 (“And after those days, in that place
where I had seen all the visions of that which is secret—for I had been
carried off by a whirlwind, and they had brought me to the west”)
clearly mark a new beginning. The following section consists of four
interrelated vision reports (52:1–9; 53:1–7; 54:1–6 + 55:3–4; 56:1–4)
that are all structured in the threefold pattern of description, question,
explanation, and all reveal the influence of the Book of the Watchers.
However, the text does raise a number of problems.
The allusion in chap. 52 to the mountains of metal in the west that
serve the authority of God’s messiah (v. 4) and will melt like wax before
the Chosen One (v. 6) seems to have been influenced by the tradition
of the seven mountains of precious stones in the northwest (18:6–9a;
24:1–3; 25:1–3), the middle one of which is the throne on which God
will sit when he comes to visit the earth. However, this tradition has
been transformed by its association with the tradition, familiar from
theophanic passages, of the melting of the mountains at the coming
of God (Mic 1:4; Ps 97:5; cf. Nah 1:5; Judg 5:4). It has further been
transformed by its combination with the theme of the metals, which
are no doubt to be seen, as in Dan 2:31–45, as representative of a
succession of world empires. Vv. 7–9, which are introduced by “And it
will come to pass in those days” and draw in v. 7 on Zeph 1:18, offer
additional comment on the metals and may be secondary.
Chaps. 53 and 54 both refer to valleys that are connected with the
judgment and punishment of the kings and the powerful: in the former,
30
Cf. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 97; Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,”
592–93.
134 chapter seven
31
The reference to the mountains in 1 En. 53:7 indicates that chap. 53 presupposes
chap. 52.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 135
The structure of the third parable is the most complex of the three
and raises the most questions about the originality of the material. The
core of the parable consists of an introductory speech from Enoch
(chap. 58); two vision reports (59:1–3; 61:1–5), to the second of which
a series of statements concerning the enthronement of the Chosen
One and the judgment of the kings and the mighty has been attached
(61:6–63:12); and a concluding statement (69:26–29). All this material
fits in with the ideas reflected in other parts of the Book of Parables.
But the third parable also includes two substantial passages relating
to the figure of Noah (60:1–25; 65:1–67:3), as well as other material
(64:1–2; 67:4–69:25), and it seems clear that some at least of this has
been added at a second stage.
The third parable is said at the beginning of the introductory speech
to be about the righteous and the chosen (58:1), and in the remain-
der of the speech the author through the mouth of Enoch describes
the blessed life that the righteous will enjoy (58:2–6). In practice the
32
Black, The Book of Enoch, 219.
33
Cf. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 109; Knibb, “The Date,” 355. It is because the
views expressed in 1 En. 56:5–57:3a seem so out of character with those of the rest
of the Book of Parables that it seems to me hazardous to try to hang the date of the
Parables on this passage.
136 chapter seven
34
Cf. above, 131.
35
Black, The Book of Enoch, 225.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 137
36
On the text of 1 En. 60:24–25a, see the comments in Michael A. Knibb, The
Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 2.170. In the light of the evidence of Tana 9, the passage
should be translated: “And the angel of peace who was with me said to me: These two
monsters are prepared for the great day of the Lord, and they will provide food that
the punishment of the Lord of Spirits may rest upon them, that the punishment of
the Lord of Spirits may not come in vain. And it will kill children with their mothers,
and sons with their fathers, when the punishment of the Lord rests upon them.” See
also Knibb, “Commentary on 2 Esdras,” in Richard J. Coggins and Michael A. Knibb,
The First and Second Books of Esdras (The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New
English Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 157–58; and Caquot,
“I Hénoch,” 532–33.
138 chapter seven
37
Charles (The Book of Enoch, 129) makes the same divisions, but assumes the whole
section belongs to a Noah Apocalypse.
the structure and composition of the PARABLES OF ENOCH 139
Watchers that brings the passage about their judgment and punishment
to a close. However, 69:1 also serves as a bridge to a series of passages
(69:2–25) that appear to be secondary, and in any case hardly form
the natural continuation of the material from the book of Noah. The
point of connection between 69:2–12 and 67:4–69:1 is the common
concern with the fall of angels.
The additional material begins with a new heading, “And behold
the names of those angels” (69:2a), which is followed immediately by
a version of the list of 6:7 (69:2b–3). This list is commonly regarded
as an interpolation, and it is assumed, rightly in my opinion, that the
real continuation of 69:2a is to be found in 69:4–12. This latter pas-
sage provides a tradition about the fall of the Watchers quite different
from that in chaps. 6–8; it is often argued that the angelic figures in
this passage are satans and are superior to the Watchers, and such an
interpretation is demanded once vv. 2b–3 have been inserted into the
text. The list of names of angels (69:4–12) appears to continue in v. 13
with the mention of Kesbeel, but there is an abrupt transition in this
verse, and 69:13–25 forms an independent section that deals with the
divine oath. Even within this material 69:23–24 may be an interpolation,
although there are connections with ideas elsewhere in the Parables.
Overall it would hardly appear that the material in 65:1–69:25 can be
regarded as a unity. Rather it would appear that material from a book
of Noah that bore on the theme of the last judgment (65:1–67:3) was
successively expanded by related material concerned with the theme of
the judgment and punishment of the angels and of the kings and the
mighty, and with the theme of the fall of the angels who were held to
be responsible for all the corruption of the earth.
Chap. 69 ends with the words “This is the third parable of Enoch,”
and it might be expected that the Book of Parables would end here. But
there follows a further section, chaps. 70–71, in which Enoch’s ascent to
heaven and identification as the Son of Man, apparently the individual
Enoch had previously seen enthroned in heaven, are described.38 A
38
On the interpretation of these chapters, see Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in
the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls” DSD 2 (1995): 165–84 (esp. 170–80);
Knibb, “The Translation of 1 Enoch 70:1: Some Methodological Issues,” in Biblical
Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. Ada Rapaport-Albert
140 chapter seven
good case can be made that the passage was intended as an account
of Enoch’s translation to heaven at the end of his earthly life.39 The
passage falls into two parts, a third-person narrative, which gives a
summary account of Enoch’s ascent (70:1–2), and an autobiographical
report in which Enoch describes his ascent40 and identification as Son
of Man (70:3–71:17). Clear allusions are made throughout the section
both to the Book of Parables41 and to the Book of the Watchers,42 and on
any showing chaps. 70–71 belong at a late stage in the formation of
the Book of Parables.
The interpretation of these two chapters raises a number of prob-
lems of translation and exegesis, particularly how 70:1 should be
translated and whether it does report the elevation of Enoch’s name,
that is, of Enoch himself, to heaven, and whether 71:14 does refer to
a real identification of Enoch as Son of Man. In relation to 70:1, I
have discussed in detail elsewhere the alternative texts offered by the
older manuscripts, which are represented on the one hand by British
Library Orient. 485, Berlin, Petermann II, Nachtr. 29, Abbadianus 35,
and to a lesser extent by Tana 9, and on the other by Abbadianus 55
(as well as by some other manuscripts).43 Here I can state only that,
on balance, it still seems to me most likely that the oldest accessible
text of 70:1 is represented by the former, and that 70:1–2 should be
translated as follows:
And it came to pass after this (that), while he was living, his name was
lifted
into the presence of the [or “that”] son of man
and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits
from among those who dwell upon the dry ground.
And he was lifted on the chariots of the wind [or “the spirit”],
and his name vanished among them.44
Correspondingly, it seems most likely to me that 70:1–2 does describe
the translation of Enoch to heaven. It also seems to me most likely that
71:14, which makes a connection with 46:3, does refer to his identifica-
tion as Son of Man.45 But I must refer to my earlier studies for further
discussion of this issue. Here it should simply be noted that the con-
trast with the view of chaps. 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 chaps. 70–71 are a secondary
addition to the Book of Parables.
Conclusion
44
Contrast the translation offered by Caquot, “I Hénoch,” 549. See also Caquot,
“Remarques sur les chapitres 70 et 71 du livre éthiopien d’Hénoch,” in Apocalypses et
théologie de l’espérance (ed. Louis Monloubou; LD 95; Paris: Cerf, 1977), 111–22; and
Daniel C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,” JSP
18 (1988): 27–38.
45
Cf. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha,” 177–80.
142 chapter seven
1
Józef T. Milik (with the collaboration of Matthew Black), The Books of Enoch. Ara-
maic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). For a review see Edward
Ullendorff and Michael A. Knibb, BSOAS 40 (1977): 601–602.
2
Typical dates that have been proposed include the early Maccabaean period (cf.
Jean B. Frey, “Apocryphes de l’Ancient Testament. 1. Le Livre d’Hénoch,” Suppl. Dict. Bible
1, cols. 360–64; Frey argues that the Parables were composed shortly after the death
of Antiochus Epiphanes); the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (cf. Robert Henry Charles,
The Book of Enoch (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), liv, 67, 72–73, 109); the reign
of Herod (cf. Erik Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleerup,
1946), 35–39; Sjöberg allows for the possibility of a slightly later date, but believes
that the Parables are from before 70 C.E.). Matthew Black (“The Parables of Enoch
(I En. 37–71) and the ‘Son of Man’,” Exp T. 88 (1976): 5–9) apparently accepts the
dating proposed by Milik. After summarizing Milik’s discussion he states: “This is an
impressive array of arguments, the result of which could lead to the total rejection
of the Parables, in particular their Son of Man visions, as late secondary tradition,
inspired by the gospels rather than the basis of their Son of Man Christology. The
negative arguments, in particular the silence of Qumran and of versional and patristic
tradition, seem absolutely decisive for the mediaeval origins and composition of the
Book” (6). He subsequently qualifies this statement by arguing that the Parables include
old material side by side with later traditions.
144 chapter eight
The evidence which Milik adduces for his dating of the Parables has
both a negative and a positive aspect. On the negative side Milik argues
that the complete absence of any fragments of this work amongst the
Qumran discoveries makes it certain that it did not exist in the pre-
Christian era; it is rather a Christian work which draws its inspiration
from the New Testament, and especially from the gospels. Milik further
argues that the absence of any quotation of the Parables amongst Chris-
tian writers of the first to the fourth centuries makes it unlikely that it
is an early Christian work.3 Milik’s view about the date and origin of
the Parables is also linked to his theory of how the Book of Enoch in the
pentateuchal form known to us came into being.
So far as the last point is concerned, Milik believes that there is
evidence to substantiate the view that as late as the fifth century C.E.
the traditions associated with Enoch continued to circulate in Greek
in the form in which they existed at Qumran, namely in two volumes,
the first a Book of Astronomy much longer than the astronomical sec-
tion attested by the Ethiopic, the second a tetrateuch consisting of the
Book of Watchers, the Book of Giants, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle
of Enoch.4 He thus feels able to conclude “that at the beginning of the
fifth century there did not yet exist an Enochic Pentateuch such as we
know it through the Ethiopic translation, with the Book of Parables in
the second place.”5 He believes that the Greek archetype of this Pen-
tateuch dates from the sixth or seventh centuries and is first attested,
albeit indirectly, by the Stichometry of Nicephorus.
It must be said, first of all, that the evidence on which Milik bases
his view that the Enoch traditions retained in Greek the two-volume
form which they had at Qumran does not seem very strong. Thus Milik
draws attention to the presence of chapters 106–7 in the Chester Beatty
text of the Epistle of Enoch and suggests that this is “evidence of the fact
that this Greek text of the Epistle of Enoch was extracted from a col-
lection which probably combined the four Enochic books.”6 He argues
in this way because he believes that chapters 106–7 were intended as
3
Milik, Books of Enoch, 91–92.
4
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76–77.
5
Milik, Books of Enoch, 77.
6
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 145
an appendix, not just to the Epistle, but to the whole Enochic corpus.7
Whether this is so or not, Milik’s conclusions with regard to the Chester
Beatty papyrus hardly seem to follow. But even if it were true that the
Chester Beatty text of the Epistle were taken from a larger collection,
it is impossible for us to know the nature or extent of that collection.
Milik is on slightly firmer ground when he turns to the evidence of
Syncellus. This Byzantine historian derived his Enoch quotations from
the chronicle of Annianus, who in turn took them from Panodorus.
From the fact that Syncellus includes under the same heading and the
same colophon extracts from the Book of Watchers as well as an extract
which he attributes to the so-called Book of Giants Milik concludes that
in the copy of Enoch which Panodorus had available the Book of Giants
followed immediately on the Book of Watchers.8 This may well be so,
although it is also possible that it is wrong to attach too much weight to
the heading and colophon—as Milik himself admits elsewhere.9 Milik’s
further statement, “I believe that (Panodorus’s) volume of the books of
Enoch also contained the Book of Dreams and the Epistle of Enoch,’10
can only remain a statement of belief pending the discovery of further
evidence. Such evidence is hardly provided by the assertion that the
extract in a Vatican manuscript (Vat. Gr. 1809) which gives a Greek text
of 1 En. 89:42–9 was taken from a Byzantine chronicle, and that the
extract in a British Library manuscript (Royal 5 E. XIII) which gives
a Latin text of 106:1–18 was likewise taken from a chronicle.11 Thus it
seems to me that the evidence for the existence in the early fifth century,
the time at which Panodorus lived, of an Enochic tetrateuch comparable
to that known from Qumran is far from being compelling.
7
Milik, Books of Enoch, 57.
8
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76.
9
In his discussion of the quotation from Syncellus which he attributes to the Book
of Giants Milik observes: “It is true that Syncellus expressly identifies this quotation as
forming part ‘of the first Book of Enoch, on the Watchers.’ It will be remembered,
however, that he was acquainted with the Enochic writings only through the works of
the Alexandrian historians Panodorus and Annianus (around 400 C.E.). He could thus
combine under the same heading and the same colophon quotations one of which did
not come from the first Book of Enoch at all” (Milik, Books of Enoch, 319). Milik gives
the text and a translation of the passage in question on p. 318; see also G. Dindorf,
Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus CP (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 1; Bonn:
Weber, 1829), 47.
10
Milik, Books of Enoch, 76.
11
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 76–77.
146 chapter eight
12
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 20, 77, 319. The passage reads: παραλάβοντας ἀπὸ τοῦ
τετάρτου τῶν ἐγρηγόρων ἄρχοντος Χωραβιήλ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνακυκλευµατικὸν µέτρον
εἶναι ἐν ξωδίοις δώδεκα, µοίραις τριακοσίαις ἑξήκοντα‧ ἡ δὲ µοῖρά ἐστιν ἡµέρα µία
καὶ λεπτὸν ἕν (see Dindorf, Syncellus, 1, 57; Milik, Books of Enoch, 319).
13
Milik, Books of Enoch, 77. The evidence for this view is set out more fully in Milik’s
article, “Fragments grecs du Livre d’Hénoch (P.Oxy. xvii 2069),” Chronique d’Égypte 46
(1971): 321–43. Milik argues that the five fragments of this manuscript correspond to
parts of the Book of Dreams and the Book of Astronomy, viz. fr. 1r + 2r = 1 En. 85:10–86:2;
fr. 1v + 2v = 1 En. 87:1–3; fr. 3v = 1 En. 77:7–78:1; fr. 3r = 1 En. 78:8; fr. 5 probably
belongs with fr. 3, and fr. 4 with frs. 1 and 2. Differences in the character of the papyrus
fragments to which the original editor (Hunt) referred, and Milik’s calculations, on the
basis of his restoration of the text, as to the length of the lines of fragments 1 and 2
as compared with that of fragment 3, lead him to conclude: “On retiendra . . . comme
un fait établi que l’écrit astronomique et le livre des Songes de notre papyrus grec
n’étaient pas réunis à l’origine dans un même codex” (Milik, “Fragments grecs,” 343).
Milik’s identifications may be right, but the fragments themselves are so small that it
seems doubtful whether any firm conclusions can be based upon them. For the text
of the fragments see Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part 17 (London: Egypt
Exploration Society, 1927), 6–8.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 147
14
Milik, Books of Enoch, 92–6.
15
Milik, Books of Enoch, 95.
148 chapter eight
wars between the Parthians and the Romans in the middle of the third
century C.E. Thus he concludes:
it is to (the) events of the years a.d. 260 to 270 that, in my opinion, the
author of the Book of Parables is referring; he sees in them signs of the end
of the world. He was already greatly disturbed by the sight of the blood
of the just which the kings and the powerful ones who possess the earth
were causing to flow (En. 47:1–4 and 62:11), a clear allusion to the first
great persecution of Christians decreed by the emperors Decius, in a.d.
249 to 251, and Valerian, in 257 and 258, and carried out in the prov-
inces by Roman governors. In conclusion, it is around the year a.d. 270
or shortly afterwards that I would place the composition of the Book of
Parables. Its author conceived it on the model of the Sibylline Oracles
which circulated in this period.16
As a subsidiary argument in support of his dating Milik refers to the
similarities that exist between 1 En. 51:1–3, 2 Esdras 7:32–33, and
Pseudo-Philo’s Antiquitates Biblicae 3:10, and argues that the passage in
Enoch is drawn from the Antiquitates Biblicae.17
I think it must be admitted that the positive evidence that Milik
adduces for his dating is not all that substantial. The similarities that
exist between 1 En. 51:1–3, 2 Esdras 7:32–33, and Antiquitates Biblicae
3:10 have been observed before, but it is by no means clear on which
side the dependence lies. Charles stated with equal plausibility that
the passage from Enoch is quoted in Pseudo-Philo.18 In any case, even
if Enoch is dependent on Pseudo-Philo, this would only mean that the
Parables are not earlier than about 100 C.E. With regard to the Sibyl-
lines, the similarities that are said to exist between Enoch and the Oracles
are not in my opinion sufficient to show the dependence of the former
on the latter. I am likewise not very convinced by the suggestion that
the literary genre of the Parables is most closely akin to that of the
Sibylline literature; other, more obvious, parallels lie nearer to hand in
Enoch itself.19 There remains the suggestion that 1 En. 56:5–7 alludes
to the events of the years 260 to 270 C.E., but this same passage has
been taken by other scholars as evidence for very different datings, e.g.
that the Parables belong before the period of Roman intervention in
Palestine, and it is perhaps best to conclude that these verses are too
16
Milik, Books of Enoch, 96.
17
Milik, Books of Enoch, 93–94.
18
Charles, Book of Enoch, 99.
19
The literary form of the Parables, the account of a heavenly journey, is closely
comparable to that used in 1 En. 14:8–36:4.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 149
II
20
Milik, Books of Enoch, 95–96.
150 chapter eight
references to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of the kind that
are to be found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or in the Chris-
tian parts of the Ascension of Isaiah? There are works which on good
grounds are regarded as Christian in their present form, and where
the specifically Christian element is not very pronounced, e.g. 2 Esdras
1–2, 15–16, but given the subject matter of the Parables it seems very
hard to understand the absence of clear references to Christ if the
Parables are Christian.
Apart from this general consideration there are two other points
which underline the Jewish character of the Parables. The first is that
the language of composition was almost certainly Semitic, not Greek.
Few scholars in this century, apart from Milik,21 have in fact denied
this, although there has been no agreement as to whether the Semitic
language was Aramaic or Hebrew. This latter question is, however,
of incidental importance for our present purposes, even if—which I
doubt—it were capable of being settled. Not all the evidence that has
been adduced to prove that the original language of the Parables was
Aramaic or Hebrew is equally convincing, and some of the evidence
refers to sections of the Parables which are commonly regarded as com-
ing from another source, namely the Book of Noah. But there is clear
evidence in the Parables themselves which points to a Semitic original,
and I mention two well-known examples. In both cases the evidence
consists of an assumed mistranslation of the underlying Hebrew or
Aramaic text. In 45:3 the Ethiopic reads: “On that day the Chosen
One will sit on the throne of glory, and will choose their works.”
“Choose” is hardly the right word, and it seems very probable that
we have here a mistranslation of the verb b r which in Hebrew and
Aramaic can mean both ‘to choose’ and ‘to test’; it is the latter which
is required in the context. In 52:9 the Ethiopic appears to state: “All
these things will be denied and destroyed from the face of the earth.”
However, “denied” makes no sense in the context, and it seems very
likely that the common Ethiopic verb ‘to deny’ (k da) was used here
because the equivalent Hebrew and Aramaic root k d, which has the
meaning ‘to wipe out, destroy’, was used in the original.22 This second
example, incidentally, points to the direct use of a Semitic original by
21
Milik, Books of Enoch, 91.
22
Cf. Michael A. Knibb in consultation with Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book
of Enoch. A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978), 2.41, 137.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 151
23
For a discussion of this question see Knibb, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.37–46;
Edward Ullendorff, “An Aramaic ‘Vorlage’ of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch?,’ Atti del
Convegno Internazionale di Studi Etiopici (Academia Nazionale dei Lincei: Problemi Attuali
di Scienza e di Cultura 48; Rome: 1960), 259–67.
24
Johannes Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter. Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtlichen
Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). See my review in JSS 21 (1976): 197–200.
152 chapter eight
III
Specific suggestions for dating the Parables have to a great extent turned
on attempts at identifying the wicked rulers who persecute the right-
eous. These have variously been thought to be the Seleucids, the
Hasmonaeans, or the Romans, but since an early date for the Parables
seems now on general grounds rather unlikely, the choice is really
between the Hasmonaeans and the Romans. Sjöberg’s discussion of
the evidence26 seems to point decisively to the view that foreign rul-
ers, namely the Romans, must at least be included among the wicked.
Of native rulers it could not be said, unless as a piece of exaggerated
invective, “their faith is in the gods which they have made with their
hands” (46:7). Perhaps of greater significance is the argument that in
the repeated descriptions of the wicked as “the kings of the earth and
the strong who possess the dry ground” (48:8, cf. 62:9, 63:1, 12) the
use of the term yäb s (‘dry ground’) points to world-wide dominion.
Sjöberg concludes that the Parables were composed during the period
of Roman domination of Palestine, and this view seems eminently
reasonable. But even if one thinks that the composition of a work like
this by a Jew is unlikely after the failure of the revolt of 132–5 C.E.,
this still leaves a very long period, from 63 B.C.E. to 135 C.E., in
which the Parables could have been written. Is it possible to define the
period of composition more precisely? Sjöberg himself believes that
since the destruction of the temple is not mentioned, the Parables must
have been composed before 70 C.E. It may be asked how far the lack
of mention of the destruction of the temple is really decisive, but this
is a point to which I wish to return.
The one passage in the Parables which does seem at first sight to
provide some firm evidence for dating is 56:5–8. This passage, some-
what after the style of Ezek 38–39, describes the assault in the last
25
For a recent discussion of 11QMelch see Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition
(SNTSMS 30; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 64–82.
26
Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn, 35–37.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 153
days on the land of God’s chosen ones of the forces of the Parthians
and Medes:
And in those days the angels will gather together, and will throw them-
selves towards the east upon the Parthians and Medes; they will stir up
the kings, so that a disturbing spirit will come upon them, and they will
drive them from their thrones . . . And they will go up and 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
chosen ones will be a hindrance to their horses, and they will stir up
slaughter amongst themselves and their (own) right hand will be strong
against them; and a man will not admit to knowing his neighbour or
his brother, nor a son his father or his mother, until through their death
there are corpses enough, and their punishment—it will not be in vain.
And in those days Sheol will open its mouth, and they will sink into it;
and their destruction—Sheol will swallow up the sinners before the face
of the chosen.
It is the specific reference to the Parthians and Medes which has led to
the attempts to use this passage as a means of dating the Parables, but
the interpretations that have been put upon this reference have varied
considerably. Charles believed that since it is the Medes and Parthians
who are the great world powers from whom danger can be expected,
56:5–8, and consequently the Parables themselves, date from before 64
B.C.E.27 A different approach was taken by Sjöberg: he argued that
the references to the Parthians and Medes were best understood on
the assumption that the Parables were composed before the impression
caused by the events of 40–37 B.C.E., when the Parthians captured
Jerusalem and installed Antigonus as king and high-priest, had died
away—although he did not believe that this argument could be deci-
sive.28 At the other extreme, Milik, as we have seen, interpreted 56:5–8
in terms of the wars between the Parthians and the Romans in the
third century C.E.29 This same passage was also used by J. C. Hindley
in a recent article on the date of the Parables.30
Hindley takes as his starting-point Sjöberg’s discussion of the evidence
for dating. While accepting some of the main features of Sjöberg’s argu-
ment, he rejects his interpretation of 56:5–8, primarily on the grounds
27
Charles, Book of Enoch, 109.
28
Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn, 39.
29
Cf. above, 147–148.
30
John C. Hindley, “Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch: A Historical
Approach,” NTS 14 (1967/68): 551–65.
154 chapter eight
31
Hindley, “Towards a Date,” 553.
32
Hindley, “Towards a Date,” 557–58. The passages to which he refers are Sib. Or.
4:137ff., 5:99ff., 143ff., 247ff. For the Rabbinic evidence he refers to George F. Moore,
Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1927), 2.354–55; the passages to which Moore alludes are Sanhedrin
98a–b and Lam. R. on 1. 13.
33
Hindley, “Towards a Date,” 558–60.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 155
Parthian aggression and the return of the Exiles which is predicted in Sim.
En. 56–7. We could well believe that the writer produced these chapters
under the stimulus of the events we have described.34
Although on other grounds I would be inclined to date the Parables at
approximately the same time as Hindley does, his arguments for dating
seem to me to be unconvincing. If it could definitely be shown that
in the period from the Fall of Jerusalem to the early decades of the
second century there was an expectation of a last assault on Jerusalem
by the Persians and Medes, this would provide valuable evidence for
dating the Parables. Unfortunately the chief evidence on which he relies,
the Sibyllines, is itself of very uncertain dating, and the most important
passage to which he refers (Sib. Or. 5:99ff.) was attributed by Milik to
a later period and used in evidence of a third-century dating for the
Parables.35 The evidence for the view that the Parthians took Antioch and
could thus have been regarded as a threat to Palestine is, as Hindley
himself admits, circumstantial and very uncertain; but even if it could
be shown that the Parthians did reach Antioch, this would not in itself
prove the point Hindley is making. On the contrary it seems rather
unlikely that the Parthians could have been regarded in a hostile light
by the Jews at that particular time, since it appears that the rebellion
of the Jews was prearranged with the Parthians.36 It is possible that this
rebellion could have provided the background for 1 En. 57:1–3, but
the prophecy is cast in such general terms that there is no real way of
showing whether Hindley’s view is correct or not.
On more general grounds any attempt to date the Parables by refer-
ence to 56:5–8 seems to me to be unsatisfactory. On the one hand I am
not convinced by Hindley’s assertion that we need to look for a specific
historical situation as the background to this passage. This prophecy
takes up a typical element of Old Testament expectation about the end,
and is entirely general in character. Given that the Parthians were a
potential source of trouble throughout the period with which we are
concerned, it seems to me quite natural that the Parthians and Medes
34
Hindley, “Towards a Date,” 561.
35
Cf. above, 147–148. The oldest Rabbinic evidence to which he (indirectly) alludes
belongs in the time of Hadrian, cf. Moore, Judaism, 2.114, 354.
36
Cf. M. Cary and H. H. Scullard, A History of Rome down to the Reign of Constantine
(3d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1975), 438–39, 440; Geo. Widengren, “Quelque rapports
entre Juifs et Iraniens à l’époque des Parthes,” VTSup 4 (1957): 201–202. For a general
discussion of the Parthian campaign see Frank A. Lepper, Trajan’s Parthian War (London:
Oxford University Press, 1948).
156 chapter eight
should be presented as the enemy. I think this could have been done
at any time after 40 B.C.E. On the other hand the question whether
56:5–57:3 is an integral part of the Parables seems to me to demand
consideration. What is presented in this section is completely out of
character with the remainder of the Parables, and it may well be that
this is an independent piece which was taken over by the author of
the Parables, or interpolated at a later stage. It seems to me, therefore,
somewhat hazardous to try to hang the dating of the Parables on this
one passage.
IV
37
Charles, The Book of Enoch, xcv–ciii.
38
Cf. T. Francis Glasson, The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine
(3d ed.; London: Epworth, 1963), 31–38.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 157
And on that day all the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those
who possess the earth, will stand up; and they will see and recognize how
he sits on the throne of his glory . . . And pain will come upon them as
upon a woman in labour . . . and they will be terrified, and will cast down
their faces, and pain will take hold of them when they see that Son of
Man sitting on the throne of his glory (1 En. 62:3–5).
A comparison of these two passages shows that they share a common
theme (the terror of the great men of the earth before the judgement
throne), and that there are some similarities in the language used.
Despite this it is difficult to believe that there is any real connection
between them. The passage in Revelation is built up from a number
of Old Testament texts (Isa 2:19, 21; Hos 10:8 (cf. Luke 23:30)) which
are not used in Enoch. On the other hand the image of the woman in
childbirth, which Enoch seems to take from Isa 13:8, is not present in Rev
6:15–16. Finally, Rev 6:15–16 does not mention the Son of Man.
Charles’s list of passages in Enoch which allegedly influenced the
New Testament remains unconvincing because he did not sufficiently
consider what criteria need to be fulfilled in order to show that there is
quotation, or specific usage of a text, and not merely a general similar-
ity of thought. A much more sophisticated attempt to isolate passages
in the New Testament which have been directly influenced by the
Parables has recently been made by Theisohn.39 From a methodological
point of view he rightly argues that it is a mistake to talk in terms of
a generalized influence of the Parables on the New Testament; rather
the different layers of tradition need to be examined independently. On
this basis he believes it possible to show that the Parables influenced the
author of the Gospel of Matthew in the case of Matt 19:28, 25:3140
and that the Parables likewise provide the background for the tradition
which has been incorporated into Matt 13:40–3.41 He himself specifi-
cally makes the point that his conclusions with regard to Matt 19:28,
25:31 provide firm evidence for dating the Parables in that they give us
a terminus ad quem.42 How strong is his case?
Theisohn argues that the use in Matt 19:28 of the expression ὅταν
καθίσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, and in 25:31
of the expression τότε καθίσει (sc. the Son of Man) ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης
39
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 149–201.
40
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 152–82.
41
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 182–201.
42
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 253 n. 20.
158 chapter eight
43
It is interesting to observe that “furnace of fire” does occur in 1 En. 98:3.
the date of the PARABLES OF ENOCH: a critical review 159
Where then does this leave us with the dating of the Parables? Is there
no firm evidence for dating which would enable us to go beyond say-
ing that this is a Jewish work which belongs somewhere in the period
63 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. or 135 C.E.? I think it certainly true that we
cannot hope to date the Parables very precisely, and yet on balance I
think there is something to be said for dating them at the end of the
first century C.E.44
First of all, I am not convinced by Sjöberg’s view that the Parables must
date from before 70 C.E. because there is no allusion to the destruction
of Jerusalem. Not every work written after that time must automatically
refer to the Fall of Jerusalem, and it seems to me perfectly possible
that the Parables could have been composed after this event—although
presumably a little time afterwards. On the other hand the absence of
any fragments of the Parables amongst the Qumran discoveries seems
to me to point fairly strongly to the view that this section of Enoch
was composed after the Qumran site was abandoned in 68 C.E. The
Parables were not written in isolation from the other Enoch traditions,
but rather represent a continuation of them; in view of this it is all the
more difficult to explain the absence of any fragments of the Parables
if they were composed before 70 C.E.
Secondly, it seems to me that the kind of things that are said about
the Son of Man fit most naturally into the period at the end of the first
century C.E. In the course of his study Theisohn45 has drawn attention
to the fact that the attribution of judicial functions to a “messianic”
figure is by no means unique, although it has to be said that there are
not all that many parallels, and that in those that do exist the judicial
function is not as pronounced as in the Parables. Of the parallels that
he lists some of the most significant seem to me to occur in 2 Baruch
and 2 Esdras 3–14. Thus according to 2 Bar. 40:1–2, 72:2ff. before the
44
Geza Vermes regards the last quarter of the first century C.E. as the most suitable
period for the composition of the Parables (Geza Vermes with the collaboration of Pamela
Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London: Collins, 1977), 223.
45
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 100–13.
160 chapter eight
rule of God’s Messiah begins, the Messiah acts as judge of the wicked.
In a similar way the Messiah acts as judge in 2 Esdras 12:32–33:
this is the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days
who will arise from the posterity of David, and will come and speak to
them; he will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wicked-
ness, and will cast up before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he
will set them living before his judgement seat, and when he has reproved
them, then he will destroy them.
Similarly in 2 Esdras 13, which does not really have any place for a
judicial process, the Son of Man is somewhat surprisingly presented
in vv. 37–38 as judging the wicked.46 It seems to me not without sig-
nificance also that in 2 Esdras the figure known as the Messiah (12:32)
or the Son of Man (13:25–26, 51–52) is implicitly presented as being
preexistent; he is kept hidden by God now until the time comes for
him to act. Exactly the same kind of things are said about the Son of
Man in the Parables, cf. 48:6, 62:7.
These similarities lead me to suggest that it is plausible to attribute
the Parables to more or less the same period as that in which 2 Baruch
and 2 Esdras 3–14 were composed, i.e. the end of the first century
C.E.—although I am fully aware of how tentative this must be.47 If
this is right, the Parables could be seen as being written in reaction to
the events of 66–73 C.E., but probably some time after these events.
The author sees no hope in the present situation and looks for the
intervention of God’s judge, the Son of Man or Chosen One, who
alone would bring to an end the rule of the Romans.
46
Cf. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 108–109. Of the other passages to which
Theisohn refers the most significant are T. Levi 18 (cf. 2) and T. Judah 24 (cf. 6), cf.
Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter, 102–8. However, the date and origin of these pas-
sages is very uncertain.
47
It is perhaps worth adding that the New Testament writing which most explicitly
attributes judicial functions to the Son of Man, i.e. the Gospel of John (cf. 5:27), also
belongs at the end of the first century; similarities between John and Enoch in this
respect have recently been observed by Barnabas Lindars (cf. “The Son of Man in
the Johannine Christology,” Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Studies in Honour of C.
F. D. Moule (ed. Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 57–58, 59–60). On the view presented here the Parables and
John may be regarded as more or less contemporary reinterpretations of the Son of
Man traditions.
CHAPTER NINE
1
Cf. André Caquot, “Remarques sur les chapitres 70 et 71 du livre éthiopien
d’Hénoch,” in Apocalypses et théologie de l’espérance (ed. Louis Monloubou ; Association
catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible: LD 95; Paris: Cerf, 1977), 111–22 (112–13);
James 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. James
H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 169–91 (178–79). According to the fic-
tion reflected in 81:5–6, Enoch was to teach his children for one year all that he had
learnt in these heavenly journeys before finally being taken from them.
2
Cf. 70:2 with 39:3; 70:3 with 61:1; 71:7 with 61:10; 71:8 with 40:9; 71:10 with
46:1; 71:14 with 46:3; 71.16 with 48.7; 62:14. See Caquot, “Remarques”, 114; Michael
A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2
(1995): 165–84 (179–80).
3
Cf. 70:3–71:11 with 14:8–25.
162 chapter nine
4
Cf. Caquot, “Remarques”, 114 (“par palliers”).
5
There are no other significant variants in this passage apart from this.
6
This sentence could also be translated “You are a son of man [or “a man”] who
was born to righteousness”. See further Caquot, “Remarques”, 115–18; Sigmund
Mowinckel, He that Cometh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), 441–44.
7
See 38:2 (although the reading “righteousness” is perhaps to be preferred); 53:6.
8
See, e.g., 40:5; 45:3–4.
9
See 48:10; 52:4.
10
See, e.g., 46:1–6; 48:1–10.
11
See, e.g., Maurice Casey, “The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in the Similitudes
of Enoch,” JSJ 7 (1976): 11–29 (18–19, 22–29); VanderKam, “Righteous One,” 182–85;
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 163
John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992): 448–66
(453–57); Knibb, “Messianism,” 177–80.
12
For the purposes of this article I have thought it unnecessary to use anything
more than a simple system of transliteration.
13
Michael A. Knibb in consultation with Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of
Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clar-
endon, 1978), 2:165.
14
See Johannes Flemming and Ludwig Radermacher, Das Buch Henoch (GCS 5;
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901), 90; Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford:
Clarendon, 2d ed., 1912), 141; Siegbert Uhlig, “Das äthiopische Henochbuch,” in
JSHRZ V/6; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984), 631.
15
See August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch (Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1853), 40.
164 chapter nine
16
See above, n. 13.
17
British Library Orient. 485 (early 16th century), Berlin Peterm. II, Nachtr. 29
(16th century), Abbadianus 35 (end of the 17th century), Tana 9 (first half of the
15th century).
18
The two forms differ only in the presence or absence of the anticipatory suffix.
19
See Caquot, “Remarques,” 113.
20
See Caquot, “Hénoch,” in La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires (ed. André Dupont-
Sommer and Marc Philonenko, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1987),
463–625 (549); cf. Casey, “The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’,” 25–27.
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 165
21
The text of Abbadianus 55 could in fact also be translated “while he was living,
his name was raised to the [or ‘that’] son of man” (cf. VanderKam, “Righteous One,”
184), but this seems less likely.
22
For the date of this manuscript, see Oscar Löfgren, Die äthiopische Übersetzung des
Propheten Daniel (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1927), xxvii.
166 chapter nine
II
23
Löfgren, Die äthiopische Übersetzung, xli–xlii.
24
Cf. VanderKam, “Righteous One,” 184; Collins, “The Son of Man,” 453–54.
25
Daniel C. Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables,”
JSP 18 (1998): 27–38 (30).
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 167
99 and 19726 (both 19th century),27 but the number of manuscripts with
this type of text has now been increased as a result of the Ethiopian
Manuscript Microfilm Library (EMML) project. The manuscripts pho-
tographed as part of this project include at least 30 copies of Enoch, of
which four (EMML 1768, 2080, 6281 and 7584) have been identified
as representative of the older type of text.28 Olson notes that three of
these (EMML 1768, 2080, 7584) as well as two manuscripts with the
later type of text (EMML 2436 [17th century] and 6974 [18th century?])
have virtually the same text as Abbadianus 55 in 1 En. 70:1. He repeats
the claim made when EMML 2080 was first identified that it “may be
the oldest Ethiopic MS of 1 Enoch extant, possibly dating to the twelfth
century”, and he argues that the support from the EMML manuscripts
shows that the text represented by Abbadianus 55 should be regarded
as a genuine alternate reading. He concludes that because only Tana 9
(which, as we have seen, has a double reading) can claim equal antiquity
with Abbadianus 55, EMML 1768, 2080 and 7584, “from a purely
text-critical point of view, it can be persuasively argued that the balance
of evidence now tilts slightly in favour of the minority reading”,29 that
is the text represented by the latter manuscripts. This is a strong claim
to make, and for a number of reasons it must be doubted whether it
can be justified. The comments that follow are based on knowledge
of Abbadianus 55, EMML 1768 and 2080, but not of EMML 7584,
which is said to date to the late fifteenth century.
First, the claim that EMML 2080 may be the oldest Ethiopic
manuscript of Enoch extant and possibly dates to the twelfth century is
certainly wrong. I note that Olson does not discuss the palaeography of
the manuscript, nor even refer to what is now the standard treatment of
Ethiopic palaeography, Uhlig’s Äthiopische Paläographie. But even a super-
ficial examination of the manuscript shows that from a palaeograpical
point of view it belongs clearly with manuscripts from Uhlig’s Period
III, that is, in the period from the middle of the fifteenth to the middle
of the sixteenth century. Uhlig himself, in the light of his discussion of
the characteristics of the script, concludes that there is much to be said
26
Johannes Flemming, Das Buch Henoch (TU, NF 7.1; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs,
1902), 86.
27
See Carlo Conti Rossini, “Notice sur les manuscrits éthiopiens de la collection
d’Abbadie,” (suite) JA 10.20 (1912): 5–72 (7–8, 34).
28
Cf. Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBLEJL 4;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 129 n. 8; 143.
29
Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” 30–32.
168 chapter nine
for the view that EMML 2080 dates from the latter part of his Period
III.30 But the manuscript has been subjected to extensive revision and
correction at different times, and the reading that corresponds with
that of Abbadianus 55 is a correction; the original reading, as Olson
himself notes, was very probably ba aba we etu.31
Second, there is some reason to doubt whether the testimony of
EMML 1768 is all that significant in support of that of Abbadianus
55. EMML 1768 is, like Abbadianus 55 and EMML 2080, a large
manuscript containing the prophetic and wisdom books of the Old
Testament and dates from the same general period as the other two
manuscripts, that is, the end of the fifteenth or the early sixteenth
century. I have collated the text of Ezekiel in this manuscript, and its
readings agree so often with those of Abbadianus 55 that it is clear
that, at least in the case of Ezekiel, there is some connection between
the two manuscripts; such limited soundings as I have undertaken
suggests the likelihood of this in Enoch also. In any case, the evidence
in relation to Ezekiel calls into question the value of EMML 1768 as
independent additonal testimony alongside Abbadianus 55.
Third, Olson is inclined to dismiss the value of the evidence of Tana
9 on the grounds that it contains a double reading (baqedma ba aba
lawe etu), but this seems to me mistaken. Here it would appear that the
copyist inadvertently wrote baqedma (‘before’) and then immediately
corrected himself, but without deleting the word written in error; this
kind of phenomenon can be observed not infrequently in older Ethi-
opic manuscripts. But be that as it may, the crucial point is that Tana
9 provides evidence that the reading ba aba lawe’etu was known in the
first half of the fifteenth century and is thus attested at an earlier date
than the reading without ba aba or ba abehu.
In summary, the evidence of EMML 1768, 2080 and 7584 has
strengthened the claim for the reading of Abbadianus 55 in 1 En. 70:1
to be taken seriously as representing the oldest accessible Ethiopic text
of this passage, and has made it less likely that the non-occurrence of
ba abehu or ba aba is simply a mistake. However, the original reading
30
Siegbert Uhlig, Äthiopische Paläographie (Äthiopistische Forschungen 22; Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner, 1988), 419–20. See on Uhlig’s book the reviews by Edward Ullendorff
in JSS 36 (1991): 128–34 and by Michael A. Knibb in ZDMG 141 (1991): 405–408.
31
Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” 37–38. Olson argues that the original
copyist simply made a mistake and corrected it himself from his master copy, but in
the light of the other manuscript evidence it is very hard to believe that the reading
ba aha we etu was a spontaneous mistake made by the copyist.
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 169
in EMML 2080 has been corrected at the key point in 1 En. 70:1,
and it is not clear at what stage the correction was inserted, while in
general it may be wondered how far EMML 1768 provides genuinely
independent additional evidence by the side of Abbadianus 55. More
importantly, these manuscripts all date from the same general period,
the end of the fifteenth century and the early part of the sixteenth,
and it is in this same general period that two of the oldest representa-
tives of the majority reading, British Library Orient. 485 (early 16th
century) and Berlin Peterm. II, Nachtr. 29 (16th century), belong, while
Tana 9 carries the evidence for the majority reading back to the first
half of the fifteenth century. The dates of the different manuscripts do
not provide sufficient grounds for asserting the priority of either the
majority or the minority reading, and certainly not for the claim that
on purely text-critical grounds the balance of evidence has now tilted
slightly in favour of the latter.
III
Olson has not only argued in favour of the originality of the minority
text in 1 En. 70:1–2, but has also offered what he suggests might be a
better translation of this text:
And it happened afterwards that the immortal name of that Son of Man
was exalted in the presence of the Lord of Sprits beyond all those who
live on the earth. He was raised aloft on a chariot of wind, and his name
was spoken among them.
This translation should be compared with that of Caquot, reproduced
above. It will be apparent that Olson has given an interpretative para-
phrase rather than a translation in one or two places. But this aside,
his translation is based on taking three phrases in the Ethiopic text in
a different way from virtually all his predecessors,32 and in each case
his decision must be regarded as problematic in the context.
First, Olson has argued that the translation of semu eyaw as “his
name during his lifetime” is forced and implausible, and that the
phrase means “his living name”. In itself such a translation is perfectly
possible, but it has to be asked whether this translation is plausible in
the context. Olson in fact argues that the intended meaning is likely
32
Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” 32–33.
170 chapter nine
33
In Sirach we three times find the statement “and his name will live forever” or
similar: see 37:26 (καὶ τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα); 39:9; 44:14. It is of
interest that the Ethiopic does not use the verb ‘to live’ for ζῆν but instead nabara (‘to
sit’, 37:26) or qoma (‘to stand’, 39:9; 44:14), both here with the meaning ‘to endure’.
34
Cf. August Dillmann, Lexicon linguae aethiopicae (repr.; New York: Ungar, 1955
[1865]), col. 55; Caquot, “Remarques,” 113.
35
Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1985), 250.
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 171
IV
In the final section of his article Olson argues that attention to the fact
“that 1 Enoch as we now have it is, among other things, a document
of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and part of its canon of scrip-
ture” can help us to understand particular readings in the Ethiopic
text of Enoch, and notably in 1 En. 70:1 and 71:14. He is quite right
to highlight the fact that 1 Enoch has been transmitted in the context
of the Ethiopian Church,36 and that within that context the Parables
naturally lent themselves to christological interpretation, as is well illus-
trated by the fifteenth-century homiletical work MaÉafa Milad (“the
Book of Nativity”), to which Olson (and others) have drawn attention.
MaÉafa Milad,37 whose composition is attributed to King Zarxa Ya{qob
(1434–68), contains extensive extracts from the Parables and from other
36
Transmitted, but not of course translated, in this context. Thus, while it is very
likely that the text of 1 Enoch was influenced during its transmission by the context in
which it was transmitted, at the time of the original translation the theology of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Church hardly existed and was certainly insufficiently developed
to have had any influence on specific details of the text.
37
For an edition and translation, see Kurt Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād (Liber Nativita-
tis) und Ma afa Sellāsē (Liber Trinititatis) des Kaisers Zar a Yā qob (4 vols.; CSCO, 221–22,
235–36, Scriptores Aethiopici, 41–44; Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962,
1963).
172 chapter nine
38
For the text, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, 1:54.
39
Olson (“Enoch and the Son of Man,” 35–36) gives some other examples of changes
of this kind in 1 Enoch. He suggests that many Ethiopian copyists would have found
walda be esi unacceptable as a term for ‘son of man’ because it would have implied
that Jesus is the biological son of Joseph, and thus they deliberately made changes.
But it is not clear that the changes were in all cases deliberately made for theological
reasons, and the possibility that the changes were made spontaneously must also be
kept in mind. See also, in relation to 62:5, the suggestion of VanderKam (n. 40). The
text of Tana 9 in 62:5 means “when those sons of men see him”, not, as Olson states,
“when the sons of men have seen that one”.
40
VanderKam, “Righteous One,” 174 n. 15.
41
For these three expressions, see, e.g., Black, Book of Enoch, 206.
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 173
42
See above, n. 21.
43
For Olson’s view that walda be esi was “troublesome”, see n. 39.
44
Olson, “Enoch and the Son of Man,” 33–36.
45
For the text, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, 1.62.
46
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament
(The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995; Oxford: Oxford University
Press for the British Academy, 1999), 87–112. It is to be observed that sabe , be esi, and
eguala emma eyaw are all routinely used as translation-equivalents for ἄνθρωπος; cf. Ps
48.13, 21 (MT 49.13, 21) where sabe is used for ἄνθρωπος in the first occurrence of
the refrain, but eguala emma eyaw in the second.
174 chapter nine
for both the majority and the minority reading, and a decision between
the two is likely to depend on a consideration of wider issues relating
to the interpretation of this section of 1 Enoch.
In his edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch, Milik commented
that it was strange that no edition of the Ethiopic Enoch had taken
account of the numerous quotations of the book to be found in Ge{ez
literature, and he gave a provisional list of such quotations.47 One of
the most important sources for these quotations was MaÉafa Milad,
which includes extensive extracts from 1 Enoch, as we have seen, as well
as from other biblical books. Subsequently, both Berger and Piovanelli
have drawn attention to MaÉafa Milad as an important textual witness
for 1 Enoch, and Berger worked through the list of quotations given by
Milik and noted that the text of the extracts from Enoch in MaÉafa
Milad agreed with that of the older group of manuscripts.48
I have examined the text of 1 En. 46:1–51:5 and 62:1–16 in MaÉafa
Milad as a test. There is no question but that its text belongs with
that of the older group of manuscripts, and there is some evidence,
as Berger noted, of a connection with Tana 9. There are some 26
readings in these chapters that I have not—at least as yet—found
in other manuscripts. But none of these unique readings appears to
represent the original Ethiopic text; rather they represent the kind of
changes that regularly occur when manuscripts are copied (omissions,
occasionally additions, of odd words, substitution of one word by a
synonym, use of different tenses or constructions, minor mistakes). And
unfortunately in key passages MaÉafa Milad does not help us, at least
so far as I have seen. For example, in 70:1 it gives essentially the same
text as Berlin Peterm. II, Nachtr. 29, tala ala semu eyaw ba aba (Berl +
we etu) walda eguala emma eyaw waba aba (Berl wa aba) egzi a manafest,49
that is the majority text. And in 62:2, where scholars have long thought
that the reading of all the manuscripts “And the Lord of Spirits sat
(nabara) on the throne of his glory” ought to be emended to “And the
Lord of Spirits set him ( anbaro; sc. the Chosen One) on the throne of
his glory”, MaÉafa Milad reads, “And that (or ‘the’) Chosen One, the
47
Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 85–88.
48
Klaus Berger, review of Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, in JSJ 11
(1980): 100–109 (108); Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Sulla Vorlage aramaica dell’Enoch etiopico,”
Studi Classici e Orientali 37 (1987): 545–94 (563–64).
49
For the text, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, 1:61.
the translation of 1 ENOCH 70:1 175
Lord of Spirits sat (nabara) on the throne of his glory (wanabara zeku
eruy egzi a manafest diba manbara seb atihu).”50 Here it seems to me that
“that Chosen One” is a gloss, and that the passage is not somehow to
be understood as meaning “The Lord of Spirits set that Chosen One
on his glorious throne.”51 Rather the text in MaÉafa Milad is to be
understood in the light of the later comment that follows the quotation
of 63:11–12: “Son of man Enoch calls him, and Lord of Spirits Enoch
calls this Christ, the son of Mary and the son of God.”52
The quotations of Enoch in MaÉafa Milad are important, probably
not for any individual reading they attest, but because they reinforce
our knowledge of the Ethiopic text of Enoch that was in circulation
in the fifteenth century. This is, of course, also the date of the oldest
manuscripts of Enoch that we possess. Unless and until a manuscript of
Enoch that genuinely dates from before the fifteenth century comes to
light, the fifteenth century, or perhaps shortly before, will remain the
earliest period to which we can carry back knowledge of the Ethiopic
text.53
50
For the text, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, 1:59.
51
Cf. Uhlig, “Das äthiopische Henochbuch,” 613.
52
For the text, see Wendt, Das Ma afa Milād, 1:61.
53
See further, Knibb, Translating the Bible, 41.
CHAPTER TEN
1
For information about the Greek version, see Albert-Marie Denis and others with
the collaboration of Jean-Claude Haelewyck, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-
hellénistique. Vol. 1: Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 104–121;
Michael A. Knibb in consultation with Edward Ullendorff, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch.
A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon,
1978), 2.15–21; George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1. A Commentary on the Book of
1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 12–14. For
an edition of the Greek evidence, see Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (PVTG
3; Leiden: Brill, 1970)—but there are mistakes in the edition; and for the fragments
from Qumran Cave 7 that possibly belong to the Greek Enoch, see Ernest A. Muro,
Jr., “The Greek Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 7 (7Q4, 7Q8, & 7Q12 =
7QEn gr = Enoch 103:3–4, 7–8),” RQum 18 (1997): 307–312; Émile Puech, “Notes
sur les fragments grecs du manuscrit 7Q4 = 1 Hénoch 103 et 105,” RB 103 (1996):
592–600; Puech, “Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105)
dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHén gr),” RQum 18 (1997): 313–323. However, the
plausibility of the identification of the fragments from Qumran Cave 7 as fragments
of the Greek Enoch varies from case to case, and some are too small for certain iden-
tification to be possible; cf. Timothy H. Lim, “The Qumran Scrolls, Multilingualism,
the text-critical value of the quotations 177
and Biblical Interpretation,” in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. John J. Collins and
Robert A. Kugler; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 69, n. 30.
2
For the Aramaic Enoch, see Jozéf T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of
Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). See also Loren Stuckenbruck, “4QEnocha
ar,” in Stephen J. Pfann and others, Qumran Cave 4.XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea,
Part 1 (DJD 36; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 1–7 + pl. I; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and
Florentino García Martínez, “4QAstronomical Enoch a–b ar,” in Pfann and others,
Qumran Cave 4.XXVI (DJD 36), 95–103, 132–171 + pls. V–VII.—Further information
concerning the transmission of the text of 1 Enoch and further bibliography is given in
my article, “Christian Adoption and Transmission of Jewish Pseudepigrapha. The Case
of 1 Enoch,” in JSJ 32 (2001): 396–415; see also Knibb, “The Book of Enoch or Books
of Enoch? The Textual Evidence for 1 Enoch,” in The Early Enoch Literature (ed. Gabriel
Boccaccini and John J. Collins; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 21–40.
3
For further information, see Michael A. Knibb, Translating the Bible. The Ethiopic Ver-
sion of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1995; Oxford:
Oxford University Press for the British Academy: 1999), esp. 1–54.
4
Paris, Abbadianus 55 (fifteenth–sixteenth century); Ethiopian Manuscript Micro-
film Library (EMML) 2080 (fifteenth–sixteenth century); British Library Orient. 485
(sixteenth century); Berlin, Petermann II, Nachtr. 29 (sixteenth century); EMML 1768
(sixteenth century).
178 chapter ten
5
Milik, Books of Enoch, 85–88.
6
Klaus Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, in JSJ 11 (1980):
100–109, esp. 102–109.
7
Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Sulla Vorlage aramaica dell’Enoch etiopico,” Studi Classici e
Orientali (Pisa) 37 (1987): 545–594 (here 563–564).
8
Siegbert Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” in JSHRZ V.6 (1984), 461–780.
the text-critical value of the quotations 179
9
Arthur Vööbus, Die Spuren eines älteren äthiopischen Evangelientextes im Lichte der litera-
rischen Monumente (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 2; Stockholm,
1951), esp. 21–31.
10
Rochus Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Part 1: General
Introduction. Part 2: Edition of the Gospel of Mark (Äthiopistische Forschungen 27; Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner, 1989), Part 1, 119–123, 125–126.
11
Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (The Schweich Lectures of the British
Academy 1967; London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1968),
54–55.
12
Zuurmond, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Part 1, 143–154
(here 143–144).
13
For the text and an Italian translation, see Carlo Conti Rossini with the col-
laboration of Lanfranco Ricci, Il Libro della Luce del Negus Zar a Yā qob (Ma afa Berhan)
180 chapter ten
already mentioned),14 and Ma afa Mes ira samay wameder (the Book of the
Mysteries of Heaven and Earth).15 Ma afa Berhan and Ma afa Milad 16 are
both attributed to the king Zarax Ya{aqob (1434–68), the great military
and political leader and religious reformer, during whose reign there was
a flowering of Ethiopian literature. However, it is more likely that they
were composed by high-ranking clergy under the auspices of the king
in order to give expression to his views. They reflect the christological
and ecclesiastical controversies of the day, and Ma afa Milad quotes,
apart from other passages, the complete text of 1 Enoch 46:1–51:5 and
62:1–16—exactly the passages that have attracted the interest of mod-
ern scholars concerned with messianism. It may be observed that the
manuscript on which Wendt’s edition of the text (Paris, Abbadianus
62) is based is dated by Uhlig to the fifteenth century.17 The Book of the
Mysteries of Heaven and Earth also dates from the time of Zarax Ya{aqob
and is apocalyptic in character.18 The hagiographical texts from this
period are concerned with the lives of local saints, who lived in the
fifteenth century or shortly before. They tend to contain free renderings
of, or allusions to, 1 Enoch, rather than quotations as such. Thus, for
example, the Acts of Ezra of Gunda Gunde, in a passage about the cross,
give a free rendering of 25:5 and, in a passage about the death of
Ezra, use the phrase “the first ram” from 89:46–47 to refer to Ezra.19
Finally, Milik included in his list a British Library manuscript, Add.
20
August Dillmann, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum qui in Museo Britannico asservantur.
Pars III: Codices Aethiopici (London, 1847), 53.
21
Cf. Uhlig, Äthiopische Paläographie, 342–343.
22
CSCO 221: 66, 123 (on p. 123 the quotation does not cover the second half of
the verse).
23
Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch ( JSJ 11 (1980)), 103.
24
Josef Hofmann and Siegbert Uhlig, Novum Testamentum aethiopice: Die Katholischen
Briefe (Äthiopistische Forschungen 29; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner: 1993), 255–256.
25
For the purposes of this study I have thought it unnecessary to use anything more
than a simple system of transliteration. In all cases the reading before the bracket is
that of the majority of the manuscripts.
182 chapter ten
26
Milik, Books of Enoch, 143–144.
27
Perruchon, Le Livre des mystères du ciel et de la terre (PO 1.1), 30.
28
The great majority of these quotations are to be found in CSCO 221: 54–63.
29
CSCO 235: 81–82.
30
Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch ( JSJ 11 (1980)), p. 107.
the text-critical value of the quotations 183
Christ. Thus 91:12–13 and 15–17, covering the eighth and the tenth
weeks, are quoted in Ma afa Milad; the former is interpreted in rela-
tion to the incarnation, which is placed in the eighth week, the latter
in relation to the view that the last judgment will occur at the end of
7,000 years in the tenth week.31 In a similar way, in a computation that
occurs in a Paris manuscript (Éth. 64), the Apocalypse of Weeks is listed,
along with passages from other works, to arrive at a total of 7,000
years for the end of the world, the epoch of the second coming of
our Lord. The purpose of the computation is summed up as follows:
“Table by which you may know the number of days, from Adam to the
end of the world.”32 Again, short extracts from the Apocalypse of Weeks,
with commentary interspersed, are given in the Book of the Mysteries of
Heaven and Earth; here the man who ascends in the sixth week (93:8) is
interpreted as Christ.33
Another topic that was of concern in Ma afa Milad was the question
of the authority of Enoch, who is presented as the first prophet, the
first who announced the coming of Christ. Those who are attacked
in the text are represented as denying the authority of Enoch and the
canonical status of his book. One argument used against them is the
reminder that they do accept Enoch’s authority in astronomical and
calendrical matters, and in relation to this theme, there are quotations
in Ma afa Milad of 72:33–34 and 78:15–17,34 and allusions to 82:7.35 If
the opponents accept his authority in this area, why are they unwilling
to accept his authority as a prophet?
However, apart from the passages mentioned that could be related
to the themes of Christology and of the authority of Enoch, there are
very few actual quotations from the book in Ethiopic writings, and very
few for which we also have a Greek text that may be compared with
the Ethiopic. It is also the case that the passages represented do not
shed any light on the really obscure sections of the Ethiopic text. That
is not to say that the quotations are not important for what they tell
us about the history of the Ethiopic text of Enoch, but the limitations
31
CSCO 221: 53, 64. For the placing of the incarnation in the eight week, cf. p. 14.
32
Sylvain Grébaut, “Calculs et tables relatifs au comput,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien
(Troisième série) 22 (1920–21): 212–220.
33
Grébaut, Les trois derniers traités du Livre des mystères du ciel et de la terre (PO 6.3),
172–175.
34
CSCO 221: 63.
35
CSCO 221: 2, 111; CSCO 235: 101.
184 chapter ten
36
Cf. Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch ( JSJ 11 (1980)), p. 108;
Piovanelli, “Sulla Vorlage aramaica dell’Enoch etiopico,” 563–564.
37
Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch ( JSJ 11 (1980)), 108.
the text-critical value of the quotations 185
Once account has been taken of agreements of this type, there are not
in fact all that many readings that have not as yet been identified in
manuscripts of Enoch—and it remains a possibility that what appear to
be unique readings may not turn out to be so when other manuscripts
of the book are collated. However, it has to be said that, so far as the
quotations of which I am at present aware are concerned, the read-
ings that have hitherto been unattested do not on the whole appear to
be of great significance, but rather are typical of the kind of variants
that are spontaneously introduced whenever manuscripts are copied.
Thus apart from actual mistakes, we find omissions and additions of
odd words and phrases, for example:
47:4 wadamu la edeq (“and the blood of the righteous”)] om. MM
49:3 wamanfasa zayalebbu (“and the spirit that gives understanding”)]
om. MM
51:2 adeqana (“the righteous”)] add. wa eruyana (“and the chosen”)
MM
62:8 kuellomu eruyan (“all the chosen”)] kuellomu ma bara eruyan (“all
the community of the chosen”) BL Add. 11,678
Not infrequently we find the substitution of a word different from
the one used in the manuscripts of Enoch, or a change of word-order,
but with no difference in meaning in either case, as in the following
examples:
46:1 wabaheya re iku (“And there I saw”)] ware iku baheya (“And I saw
there”) MM (twice,38 but not in the main quotation of the text
covering chapters 46–51)
46:7 westa (“at”)] aba (“at”) MM
62:9 layabes (“dry ground”)] lameder (“earth”) MM Add. 11,678
71:13 we etu (“that”)] zeku (“that”) MM
We also find differences in the tense used or in grammatical construc-
tion, but with no difference of meaning (e.g. 47:4 temalle ] mal a (“were
full”) MM ).
Variants of the kind that I have just been discussing do not in any
significant way affect the meaning of the text. It may be of course that
in individual cases they do preserve an older form of the Ethiopic text
of 1 Enoch than that attested in the manuscripts of the book, but if so
the change would not be of great significance. It is only quite rarely
that we come across hitherto unattested variants where there would
38
CSCO 221: 111; CSCO 235: 74.
186 chapter ten
39
Berger, Review of Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch ( JSJ 11 (1980)), 104.
40
Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” 588.
41
Uhlig (“Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” 613) treats nabara as transitive, but it is
not clear to me that this is correct.
the text-critical value of the quotations 187
42
Cf. Piovanelli, “Sulla Vorlage aramaica dell’Enoch etiopico,” 563.
43
Knibb, “The Ethiopic Text of Ezekiel and the Excerpts in GEBRÄ ÆEMAMAT,”
JSS 34 (1989): 443–458 (here 454–455).
PART TWO
1
Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century
B.C. (London: SCM, 1968), 237–47. I would like to acknowledge the late Professor
Ackroyd for his characteristic kindness in reading this essay and making several very
helpful comments on it. He is not, of course, in any way to be held responsible for
the views expressed here.
2
Cf. Charles F. Whitley, “The Term Seventy Years Captivity,” VT 4 (1954): 65–8.
The setting of a definite end to the exile in 29:10–14 contrasts with the exhortation of
192 chapter eleven
the seventy year prophecy itself, but rather with the widespread use
that was made of it. Allusions to the prophecy are to be found already
in Zech 1:12 and 7:5, in 2 Chr 36:21, and in the parallel passages 2
Chr 36:22 and Ezra 1:1.3 But there is little of significance in these
references for our immediate purposes, apart from the fact that 2 Chr
36:21 interprets the seventy years as a period of sabbath rest for the
land. The passage in 2 Chronicles is repeated, with some variations,
in 1 Esdras, but the only really important variation is that what had
been a mere allusion to Jeremiah in 2 Chr 36:21 has become an actual
prophecy of Jeremiah in 1 Esdras 1:57–58.
The situation is very different in the book of Daniel because in chap-
ter 9, as is well known, Jeremiah’s prophecy is interpreted to mean that
the exile was to last for seventy weeks of years, i.e. for four hundred
and ninety years. This interpretation is based upon the understanding
of the exile as a period of sabbath rest for the land (cf. Lev 25) and
follows lines already laid down in Lev 26:34 and 2 Chr 36:21. The
Hebrew text of Dan 9:24–27 (which contains the actual reinterpreta-
tion of Jeremiah’s prophecy) is at times rather obscure, and there are
substantial differences between the Masoretic form of this text and
the texts in Theodotion and the Septuagint. Despite this, the following
points do seem fairly clear: (1) The language of the Jeremianic passages
is not reused in Dan 9:24–27, with one possible exception. It seems
to me conceivable that lehāshib in Dan 9:25 is to be understood as a
reminiscence of lehāshib in Jer 29:10. But the dependence of Daniel on
Jeremiah is really one of theme, not of language. (2) The actual return
from the exile under the leadership of Zerubbabel or, more probably,
Joshua is clearly referred to in verse 25. This is not always the case in
the passages that we shall subsequently be considering. (3) Although
the return is mentioned, the author does not think much of conditions
in post-exilic Jerusalem, and the sixty-two weeks during which the city
was rebuilt are described in verse 25 as troubled times—ūbe ōq hā ittīm.
It is not entirely clear what the author understood by this expression,
vv. 4–9 to settle in Babylon and may well represent a reinterpretation of the original
prophecy (cf. Ackroyd, Exile, 56; for a different view, cf. Wilhem Rudolph, Jeremia (3d ed.;
HAT 12; Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), 183–5). On the other hand there are good grounds
for regarding 25:12 as secondary (so e.g. Rudolph, 160), while the mention of 70 years
at the end of 25:11 has probably been inserted from 29:10 by a redactor. On these
two passages see also Peter R. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of
the Early Persian Period. B. The ‘Seventy Year’ Period,” JNES 17(1958): 23–7.
3
Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 11.1.1.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 193
4
James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 380.
5
Cf. the description of the period in Josephus, A. J. 12.3.3. For a summary account
of the wars between Antiochus III and the Ptolemies cf. Martin Hengel, Judaism and
Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. by
John Bowden; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1974), 1.7–10.
6
Otto Plöger, Das Buch Daniel (KAT 18; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965), 134.
7
Contrast the rendering of Theodotion, καὶ ἐκκενωθήσονται οἱ καιροί.
8
Cf. e.g. the emendations proposed by Walter Baumgartner in the third edition
of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica.
9
The textual situation is in fact rather complex. Part of the additional material in
v. 27 covers the end of v. 25 and the beginning of v. 26, a passage which has dropped
out of the basic Septuagint version by homoioteleuton. The remainder of the material
provides an alternative version of the end of v. 26 and the beginning of v. 27. But
the two pieces of text do not run on continuously, and the greater part of v. 26 is not
covered by this additional material. On the complexities of the Greek versions of Dan
9: 24–27, cf. Montgomery, Daniel, 401–4.
10
See below, 196–197.
194 chapter eleven
and to atone for iniquity.”11 And this brings us to the next point. (4)
Although the return from the exile at the end of the sixth century is
mentioned, it is clear that the author is not really concerned with that
event, nor with the events of the post-exilic period; he is really only
concerned with the activities of Antiochus Epiphanes and with the time
of the end which Antiochus’s persecution had inaugurated. The exile
was now, and only now, to have its proper end, and in the author’s
view everything that had happened between the carrying away into
captivity of the Jewish people and the time of Antiochus was of little
importance. Rather this period is seen as a unity whose characteristic is
sin. We are in a situation where the exile is understood as a state that
is to be ended only by the intervention of God and the inauguration
of the eschatological era.12
The same kind of understanding of the exile recurs elsewhere in the
literature of the intertestamental period. It is to be found already in the
Vision of the Animals, a section of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch that dates
from approximately the same time as ch. 9 of the book of Daniel. In
the Vision of the Animals (1 En. 85–90) the Jewish people at the beginning
of the exile are handed over into the control of seventy shepherds, and
these shepherds are responsible for the fate of the people until God
comes to judge the earth and to establish his kingdom. The symbolism
of the Vision has a rich background within the Old Testament. The use
of animals to represent human beings was probably directly influenced
by the symbolism of Dan 7 and 8, although the fact that Jacob and
his descendants are depicted specifically as sheep no doubt reflects the
idea, widespread in the Old Testament, that Israel is the sheep of God’s
pasture.13 (Those who lived before Jacob, as well as the righteous in the
eschatological era, are depicted as bulls.) On the other hand the use
of human beings to represent angels—for the shepherds are generally
understood to be angels—was in part dictated by the prior choice of
animals to represent the Jews and their enemies; but the fact that these
humans are further defined as shepherds seems to reflect the influence
of Ezek 34, as well as of such passages as Zech 11:4–17 and Jer 50:6–7.
What is of greater interest at the moment, however, is the fact that
from the exile to the end-time there are to be seventy shepherds, for
11
All translations of biblical and apocryphal texts are from the RSV.
12
Cf. Ackroyd, Exile, 242–43.
13
Cf. Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 2d ed., 1912),
191.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 195
the use of the number seventy has generally been seen to be not mere
chance, but rather to represent a further reinterpretation of the seventy
year prophecy of Jeremiah.14 What we have here in fact, exactly as in
Dan 9, is an understanding of the exilic and post-exilic periods as a
unified era which is only to be ended when God comes to the earth
to establish the Messianic age.
In its details the Vision of the Animals seems in many ways to reflect
the same attitude as the book of Daniel. The seventy shepherds are
divided into four groups, and historically the divisions seem to be as
follows: the exile—89:65–71; the Persian period—89:72–77; the period
from Alexander to the end of Ptolemaic control of Palestine—90:1–4;
the period from the beginning of Seleucid control of Palestine until
God’s intervention—90:5–19. This division actually corresponds fairly
well to the main phases of Jewish history from the sixth to the second
centuries, but it seems likely that the split was made in this particular
way not so much because of historical considerations, but under the
influence of the idea, found in Dan 2 and 7 and, outside Israel, in
Graeco-Roman literature, that there are to be four world empires before
the eschatological era.15 That dogmatic considerations were influential
here is suggested by the rather arbitrary way in which the seventy
shepherds are divided into groups of twelve, twenty-three, twenty-three
and twelve. This grouping corresponds to reality in as much as we have
two short periods at the beginning (the exile) and the end (the first
third of the second century B.C.E.) and two rather longer periods in
the middle (i.e. the periods during which Palestine was under Persian
and Ptolemaic control). But the arbitrary way in which the shepherds
have been split up indicates that the author was not really concerned
with the actual changes on the world scene, so much as with the idea
that there must be four periods.
The first of the four periods needs no comment here, but it is
worth saying something more about the details of the other periods.
1 En. 89:72 refers, as does Dan 9, to the return from the exile and
14
Cf. Charles, Enoch, 200–201.
15
Cf. Joseph W. Swain, “The Theory of the Four Monarchies. Opposition History
under the Roman Empire,” Classical Philology 35 (1940): 1–21; Walter Baumgartner, “Zu
den vier Reichen von Daniel 2,” ThZ 1 (1945): 17–22; Martin Noth, “Das Geschichts-
verständnis der alttestamentlichen Apokalyptik,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament
(Theologische Bücherei 6; Munich: Kaiser, 1960), 248–73 (here 255–259) (ET, “The
Understanding of History in Old Testament Apocalyptic,” in The Laws in the Pentateuch
and Other Studies (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 194–214 (here 200–203)).
196 chapter eleven
16
Cf. Charles, Enoch, 203. The fact that the three sheep appear to be contempo-
raries might suggest that Sheshbazzar was the third sheep. But Sheshbazzar tends to
recede in the material, while later tradition shows little concern for exact chronology
in the case of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus 4 Ezra places Ezra in the exilic period, and
2 Macc 1:18 has Nehemiah as temple builder. It is significant that Sir 49:11–13 has
Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah in one group.
17
The translations of Enoch are my own. For the text cf. Robert Henry Charles, The
Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1906).
18
There may also be a link with Hag 2:10–14.
19
Cf. above, 193–194.
20
There is some evidence, both literary and archaeological, to suggest that the Jews
were involved in the Phoenician revolt against the Persians under Artaxerxes III Ochus,
and it is conceivable, as Professor Ackroyd has pointed out to me, that Enoch 89:74b
alludes to the troubles of this period. For the revolt, cf. Diodorus Siculus 16.40–46, and
for a recent evaluation of the evidence for Jewish involvement, cf. Dan Barag, “The
Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine,” BASOR 183 (1966): 8–12.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 197
21
Cf. Charles, Enoch, 205, and note 5, above.
22
Cf. above, 192–193.
23
Cf. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction (trans. by Peter R. Ackroyd;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1965; ET of Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr,
1964)), 619. For a different view cf. Harold H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A
Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (3d ed.; London: Lut-
terworth Press, 1963), 98–99.
198 chapter eleven
(93:9): “And after this in the seventh week an apostate generation will
arise, and many (will be) its deeds, but all its deeds (will be) apostasy.”
This extremely negative judgement passed on the exilic and post-exilic
periods corresponds to the negative judgement that we have already
observed in the Vision of the Animals. Interestingly, however, the author
of the Apocalypse goes on to refer, in all probability, to the emergence
of the Hasidim24 and the promulgation of his own teaching: “And at
its end the chosen righteous from the eternal plant of righteousness
will be chosen, to whom will be given sevenfold teaching concerning
his whole creation” (93:10). The author seems here to be referring
to the period in which he was living, i.e. the early part of the second
century, and the implication of his statement is that the first significant
event since the beginning of the exile was the formation in the second
century of a group which regarded itself as specially chosen and as
having received a new revelation. The similarity with the beginning of
the Damascus Document, a work to which we shall have to return,25 seems
fairly clear, and in the Damascus Document, of course, there is also to be
found the same imagery of planting.
It will be necessary later to say something about the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, but it is convenient at this point to refer to two passages
in the Testament of Levi. On the one hand T. Levi 16 reuses the seventy
year prophecy of the Book of Jeremiah, but in a rather different way
from that of Daniel and Enoch. The chapter begins: “And now I know
from the writing of Enoch that for seventy weeks you will go astray, and
defile the priesthood, and pollute the sacrifices” (verse 1; the catalogue
of sins continues in verses 2–3). As a result of this the temple is to be
destroyed (verse 4), and Levi’s descendants are to be scattered amongst
the Gentiles (verse 5).26 Here the seventy weeks do not mark the length
of the exile, but rather the period of sin which is the cause of the
exile and the dispersion of the Jews. This passage belongs, in fact, to
the so-called Sin-Exile-Return passages to which we shall have to refer
later.27 On the other hand, T. Levi 17:10–11 contain a fragment of an
apocalypse of weeks comparable to the apocalypse in Enoch:
24
On the Hasidic background of the earliest sections of Enoch, cf. Hengel, Judaism
and Hellenism, 1.176–180.
25
Cf. below, 200–203.
26
The Christian elements in this chapter do not alter the basic pattern and need
not concern us. For the text of the Testaments, cf. Marinus de Jonge, Testamenta XII
Patriarcharum (2d ed.; PVTG 1, Leiden: Brill, 1970).
27
Cf. below, 203–207.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 199
And in the fifth week they will return to the land of their desolation and
will rebuild the house of the Lord. And in the seventh week will come
priests (who are) idolaters, contentious, lovers of money, proud, lawless,
lascivious, pederasts and practisers of bestiality.
I mention this passage only because of its very negative view of the
post-exilic period, as represented by its priesthood.
We have been concerned so far with the way in which the seventy
year prophecy of Jeremiah was reused at a later date to provide an
understanding of the exilic and post-exilic periods. For the sake of
completeness28 we should perhaps also refer here to two other writings:
the apocryphal Letter of Jeremiah and the Assumption of Moses. The
former defines the length of the exile as seven generations (verse 3),
and this seems fairly clearly to be a deliberate correction of the seventy
years mentioned in the Old Testament Letter of Jeremiah, i.e. in Jer
29:10. However, it seems to me doubtful whether there is any more to
this particular alteration than an allusion to the fact that many Jews
remained in Babylonia after the end of the sixth century.
The prophecy of Moses (As. Mos. 3:14) that the southern tribes
would be in bondage for “about seventy and seven years” is not so
easily explained. The prophecy occurs in the context of a passage (As.
Mos. 3–4) that is heavily dependent on Dan 9,29 and what seems to be
intended is a further reinterpretation of the seventy years in Jeremiah.
But the precise nature of the reinterpretation remains obscure. The
return at the end of the sixth century is mentioned in 4:5–7, and it
seems unlikely that seventy-seven weeks of years are meant. But in that
case it is not obvious why seven years should have been added to the
conventional length of the exile.30 However, the seventy year theme is
not further developed.
This section of the Assumption also contains a reference to the post-
exilic cultus, and this too raises some problems: “And the two tribes
will continue in their prescribed faith, sad and lamenting because they
will not be able to offer sacrifices to the Lord of their fathers” (4:8).31
Moses’ ‘prophecy’ contradicts historical reality inasmuch as sacrifices
28
Cf. (?) also the pseudo-Daniel writing from Qumran ( Józef T. Milik, “‘Prière de
Nabonide’ et autres étrits d’un cycle de Daniel. Fragments araméens de Qumrân 4,”
RB 63 (1956): 413).
29
The parallels with Daniel are all noted by Robert Henry Charles, The Assumption
of Moses (London: A. & C. Black, 1897), 11–14.
30
See the discussion of this problem in Charles, Assumption of Moses, 13–14.
31
Translation by Charles, Assumption of Moses, 15–16.
200 chapter eleven
II
We began with Jeremiah 25 and 29, but we could just as easily have
begun with Ezekiel 4 because in Ezekiel we also find—in a passage that
was subsequently to be reused—an attempt, of a sort, to set a precise
limit for the duration of the exile. Ezek 3:22–5:17 is a passage of some
32
Cf. Charles, Assumption of Moses, 15.
33
The account of Israel’s history ends in 6:8–9 with a reference to Varus and the
events that followed the death of Herod (cf. Josephus, A. J. 17.8.4–10.10; B.J. 2.1–5);
7:1 marks the change from vaticinium ex eventu to genuine prophecy. The Assumption can
thus be dated fairly precisely to soon after 4 B.C.E., cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 624. On
the date see also the articles by John J. Collins, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jonathan A.
Goldstein and David M. Rhoads in Studies on the Testament of Moses (ed. George W. E.
Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 4; Cambridge, Mass.: SBL,1973). Although it is not possible to
argue the case here, I remain unconvinced by the view (defended e.g. by Nickelsburg)
that chs. 6 and 7 have been interpolated, and that the Assumption is a revision of a
work dating from the time of the persecution of Antiochus.
34
Cf. Charles, Assumption of Moses, 29. Charles himself believed that chs. 8–9, which
describe the Second Visitation, provide an account of the Antiochene persecution which
has been misplaced from between chs. 5 and 6. That the text is out of order seems
very unlikely, and although chs. 8–9 do draw on motifs from the time of Antiochus,
it also seems to me unlikely that these chapters were, at some previous stage, meant
to provide an account of the persecution (cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 624, and for a very
different view see the article by Nickelsburg mentioned in the previous note). Rather
Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem and the Second Visitation stand at the begin-
ning and end of a period of distress which is seen as a whole. For the term ‘Second
Visitation’, cf. 8:1 (where “second” is partially restored) and 9:2.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 201
35
For detailed analysis see Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT XIII/1–2;
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 1:93–138.
36
Cf. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 1:114–122, especially 119–122.
37
Translation by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1962), 97.
202 chapter eleven
38
Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes and their History,” RB 81 (1974):
215–44, especially 219–26. See also his articles in RB 77–9 (1970–72).
39
Translation by Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls, 99–100.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 203
history, particularly the time of the monarchy. But at least some refer-
ence is made to the monarchy, whereas there is no mention at all of
the return from Babylon or the events of the post-exilic period. On
the other hand it is arguable, although it seems to me unlikely, that the
text refers not to those living at the beginning of the sixth century,
but to the first members of the Qumran Community itself when it
speaks of “the first members of the Covenant” who “sinned and were
delivered up to the sword.”40 However, it seems to me at least possible
that a pattern of thought is to be discerned here comparable to that at
the beginning of the Damascus Document and of the Apocalypse of Weeks
according to which Israel remained in a state of exile until the emer-
gence, in the author’s day, of an elect group who were the recipients
of a special teaching.41
III
The exile is, of course, referred to in many passages that are not depen-
dent on the prophecies in Jeremiah 25 and 29 and Ezekiel 4. Of these
the eleven so-called ‘Sin-Exile-Return’ (henceforth ‘S.E.R.’) passages
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs42 are particularly important.
These passages, which were first clearly identified by de Jonge43 and
have subsequently been studied by Aschermann,44 Baltzer,45 Steck46
and Becker,47 explain the exile as the result of the sin of the pre-exilic
40
Cf. the comments of André Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran
(trans. by Geza Vermes; Oxford: Blackwell, 1961), 126, n. 1.
41
For a very different interpretation of this passage, cf. Murphy-O’Connor, RB
81(1974): 221; “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1,” RB 77 (1970):
205–7.
42
T. Levi 10; 14–15; 16; T. Jud. 18:1, 23; T. Iss. 6; T. Zeb. 9:5–9; T. Dan 5:4–13;
T. Naph. 4:1–3; 4:4–5; T. Asher 7:2–4; 7:5–7.
43
Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Com-
position and Origin, (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 83–6.
44
Hartmut Aschermann, Die paränetischen Formen der ‘Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen’
und ihr Nachwirken in der frühchristlichen Mahnung (Typewritten dissertation, Humboldt
University, Berlin, 1955), 11–17.
45
Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1960), 158–67.
46
Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23;
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 149–53.
47
Jürgen Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriar-
chen (AGJU 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 172–177; “Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen,”
JSHRZ III/1 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1974), 54–55.
204 chapter eleven
48
But cf. also below.
49
Cf. note 46.
50
The Testaments in their pre-Christian form date very probably from some time
during the 2nd century B.C.E., but whether from the pre-Maccabaean period (cf. e.g.
recently Becker, Untersuchungen, 375) or from later in the century is immaterial to this
particular point.
51
Cf. Steck, Israel, 151–52; Becker, Untersuchungen, 176.
52
As we have already seen (cf. above, 198), in T. Levi 16:1 the period of sin is to
last for 70 weeks, and it is impossible not to see here a connection with Dan 9:24
where 70 weeks of years are decreed “to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity” (cf. above, 193). But what is at first sight surprising is that
in T. Levi 16 the 70 weeks of sin come before the exile (v. 5). It seems to me that this
apparent difference is to be explained on the grounds that the author of the Testaments
has blurred the distinction between his own age and the pre-exilic age. The pre-exilic
generations who originally were the cause of the exile belong in that 70 week period
just as much as does his own generation which is still in a state of exile.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 205
of precision in the description has led to the view that the author was
looking back in a rather generalized way on the disasters that had
overtaken Israel in both 722 and 587.53
In the third element the Patriarch foretells that eventually God will
visit his descendants in mercy—sometimes this is seen to follow on their
repentance—and bring them back to their land. The restoration to
the land cannot, however, be understood in terms of the return from
Babylon at the end of the sixth century, but was an event that lay in
the future so far as the author of the Testaments was concerned.
With the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we appear to have aban-
doned more or less completely a historical understanding of the exile
and have to do only with a theological interpretation of the events.
The theological scheme employed in the Testaments explains the fact
that the Jews were scattered in the Dispersion and looks for the escha-
tological intervention of God to bring the people back into the land.54
The actual details of the carrying away into captivity are, as already
stated, very vague, and there is no concern at all with what happened
afterwards in the exilic and post-exilic periods, except that in T. Naph.
4 the S.E.R. pattern is repeated (verses 1–3 and verses 4–5) so that this
chapter in its present form does refer to the return at the end of the
sixth century. It seems very likely that the Testaments are a product of
Hellenistic Judaism—I am thinking now of the set of twelve Testaments,
not of works such as the Aramaic Levi document known from Qumran55
which were utilized in the composition of the Testaments—and it could
well be that they come from Alexandria; if this is so, it might to some
extent explain the theological emphasis in the S.E.R. passages. But the
understanding of the exile to be found in the Testaments represents in
reality only a more extreme form of the kind of interpretation found
already in Daniel, Enoch and the Damascus Document.
Two passages which have been seen to be fairly similar to the
S.E.R. passages need also to be considered here. These are Jubilees
1:9–18 and Tobit 14:4–7. It is, incidentally, perhaps worth noticing that
the Testaments, Jubilees and Tobit probably all date from the second
53
Cf. Becker, Untersuchungen, 176.
54
Cf. Elias J. Bickermann, “The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,”
JBL 69 (1950): 253–54.
55
Cf. Józef T. Milik, “Le Testament de Lévi en araméen,” RB 62 (1955): 398–
406.
206 chapter eleven
century B.C.E. (or just before) and are thus more or less contempora-
neous with one another.56
The threefold pattern can be discerned fairly clearly in Jub. 1:9–18,
a passage which forms part of God’s speech to Moses in the introduc-
tion to the book. The sin element consists of verses 9–12, the exile of
verses 13 and 14, and the return of verses 15–18. Typically, a negative
judgement is passed on the exilic and post-exilic periods in verse 14:
“And they will forget all my law and all my commandments and all
my judgements, and will go astray as to new moons, and sabbaths, and
festivals, and jubilees, and ordinances.”57 However, it is likely that the
reference to errors over the calendar had a contemporary significance
for the second century author.58
It is worth quoting the return section (verses 15–18) in full:
And after this they will turn to me from amongst the Gentiles with all
their heart and with all their soul and with all their strength, and I shall
gather them from amongst all the Gentiles, and they will seek me, so that
I shall be found of them, when they seek me with all their heart and
with all their soul. And I shall disclose to them abounding peace with
righteousness, and I shall transform them into a plant of uprightness with
all my heart and with all my soul, and they will be for a blessing and not
for a curse, and they will be the head and not the tail. And I shall build
my sanctuary in their midst, and I shall dwell with them, and I shall be
their God and they will be my people in truth and righteousness. And I
shall not forsake them nor fail them; for I am the Lord their God.59
Charles interpreted this passage historically, i.e. with reference to the
return at the end of the sixth century and the building of the second
temple,60 but it seems much more likely that it is to be interpreted
eschatologically. For the author the divine intervention and the return
56
For the Testaments cf. above, note 50. Eissfeldt (Introduction, 608) dates Jubilees about
100 B.C.E., but it seems to me to be somewhat older than this, perhaps Maccabaean
(so Rowley, Relevance, 99–105) or even pre-Maccabaean (so Gene L. Davenport, The
Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 13–14). Tobit is pre-Maccabaean
(cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 585) and probably dates from the end of the third or the
beginning of the second century B.C.E.
57
Translation by Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London: A. & C.
Black, 1902), 5.
58
On the calendar in Jubilees, cf. Annie Jaubert, La Date de la Cène (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1957). Controversies over the calendar are, of course, a
recurring theme of Jubilees, Enoch and the Scrolls.
59
Translation by Charles, Jubilees, 5–6, but with the acceptance in v. 16 of the
rendering of Littmann which Charles rejected (cf. Enno Littmann in APAT 2.40).
60
Cf. Jubilees, 5.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 207
from the exile still lay in the future, and again we have the idea of
the exile as a state that will only be brought to an end with the end
of this world order. It is also to be noted that in Jubilees, as in some of
the S.E.R. passages in the Testaments, the repentance of the exiles is to
be the prelude to the return.61
The book of Tobit contains, in chs. 4 and 14, two testaments of
Tobit; the former of these is similar to the parenetic sections of the
Testaments of the Twelve Partiarchs, the latter to the eschatological sections.
Tobit 14:4b–7 has its closest affinities, in fact, with the S.E.R. passages
in the Testaments, although it also differs from them in some significant
ways. Verses 4b and 5 read as follows in the RSV translation (which is
based on the shorter text found in Vaticanus and Alexandrinus):
Our brethren will be scattered over the earth from the good land, and
Jerusalem will be desolate. The house of God in it will be burned down
and will be in ruins for a time. But God will again have mercy on them,
and bring them back into their land; and they will rebuild the house of
God, though it will not be like the former one until the times of the age
are completed. After this they will return from the places of their captiv-
ity, and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendour. And the house of God will
be rebuilt there with a glorious building for all generations for ever, just
as the prophets said of it.
Verses 6 and 7 then go on to describe the conversion of the gentiles. In
contrast to the S.E.R. passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
this passage does not mention the sin of the pre-exilic generations, and
does mention the return and rebuilding of the temple. But there could
hardly be a more explicit statement of the view, known to us already
from Dan 9, that the return from the exile in the sixth century had
only a provisional character, and that the post-exilic cultus was defec-
tive. The decisive change in Israel’s condition of exile was only to come
when “the times of the age” were completed.
IV
61
On this passage see also Davenport, Eschatology, 14–15, 19–29.
208 chapter eleven
make some general observations about three works that were based
entirely on the assumption that Israel was in a state of exile. I refer to
the apocryphal Baruch, 4 Ezra and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.
The apocryphal Baruch is a composite work whose individual parts
may well be somewhat older than the book as a whole. The attempt
of Steck62 to date the book fairly precisely to the period just after 164
is unconvincing, and it seems to me difficult to go beyond the generally
accepted view that the work in its present form dates from some time
before the middle of the first century.63 On the other hand the book
is supposed to derive from the period between the first and second
deportations—at least according to 1:(2a), 3–14, although 1:2b, 8, on
whose originality Gunneweg has recently cast doubts, allude to (or
presuppose) the destruction of Jerusalem in 587.64 However, whatever
conclusions one might come to about the introduction in 1:1–14, it is
clear that there is no reference in Baruch to any event in Israel’s history
after 587. Rather the viewpoint of all the sections is summed up in
the closing words of the Prayer of Repentance (3:8): “Behold, we are
today in our exile where thou has scattered us, to be reproached and
cursed and punished for all the iniquities of our fathers who forsook
the Lord our God.” Going beyond this, the dependence of the first
part of the Prayer of Repentance on the prayer in Dan 9:4–19 is of
course well known, but it is perhaps also worth pointing out that the
latter part of the Prayer of Repentance (particularly 2:27–35) shows
close affinities with the S.E.R. passages in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, although it does not employ the same literary form. The prayer
and the S.E.R. passages both ultimately reflect the attitude towards the
exile of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history.
4 Ezra purports to have been written in Babylon thirty years after
the fall of Jerusalem in 587, although it actually reflects the situation
of the Jews after 70 C.E. and was perhaps composed during the reign
of Domitian.65 The fact that Ezra, who belongs to the end of the fifth
century, could be placed in the exilic period is probably indicative
both of a deliberate compression of events and of a certain degree of
62
Cf. Israel, 128–33.
63
Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 593.
64
Cf. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, “Das Buch Baruch,” JSHRZ III/2 (Gütersloh:
Gerd Mohn, 1975), 169–70, 171.
65
Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 626.
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 209
66
Professor Ackroyd has kindly pointed out to me that already in the Old Testa-
ment the events of the exilic and post-exilic periods are compressed, and that Ezra
is seen as the link back across the exile. The events of Ezra 7 are presented as the
direct sequel to those of Ezra 6, while in the priestly genealogy of Ezra 7:1–5 Ezra is
made the son and successor of Seraiah, the last chief priest of the pre-exilic temple
(2 Kgs 25:18–21; on Ezra 7:1 cf. Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS
19 (1974): 190). See also above, note 16. It is interesting to observe that according to
a rabbinic tradition Ezra was the disciple of Baruch in Babylon (cf. Pierre Bogaert,
L’Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du syriaque et commentaire (2 vols.; Paris: Cerf,
1969), 1.111–13).
67
Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, 629–30, but contrast the view of Bogaert, Baruch,
1.111–13, 118.
210 chapter eleven
reality reflects the problems and uncertainties of the Jews after 70 C.E.
In contrast to 4 Ezra, the Baruch apocalypse does allude to the post-exilic
period. Thus both Baruch (in ch. 39, part of the interpretation of the
Vision of the Forest, the Vine, the Fountain and the Cedar) and Ezra
use the motif of the four world empires, but only Baruch mentions the
succession of the first three (39:3–4), and thereby makes some reference
to the history of the period after Nebuchadnezzar. It is perhaps hardly
surprising, however, that more attention is devoted to the Romans
(39:5–7) than to the other empires. The harsh rule of the Romans is
mentioned, but there is no reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
The interpretation of the Vision of the Black and the Bright Waters
is rather more explicit. In ch. 68, which explains the significance of
the twelfth period, consisting of bright waters, the author refers to the
rebuilding of the temple at the end of the sixth century, but, typically,
passes a negative judgement on the post-exilic cultus:
And at that time after a little interval Zion will again be builded, and
its offerings will again be restored, and the priests will return to their
ministry, and again the Gentiles will come to glorify it. Nevertheless, not
fully, as in the beginning. But it will come to pass after these things that
there will be the fall of many nations (68:5–7).68
It is noticeable that here also there is no reference to the fall of Jerusalem
in 70 C.E., although this event may be subsumed in the statement about
the fall of many nations (68:7) or in the description of the Messianic
Woes which follows in chapter 70. The only place where there does
appear to be a reference both to the rebuilding of the temple at the
end of the sixth century and to its subsequent destruction in 70 C.E.
is in 32:2–4, although there are some problems in the interpretation
of this passage:
Because after a little time the building of Zion will be shaken in order
that it may again be built. But that building will not remain, but will
again after a time be rooted out, and will remain desolate until the time.
And afterwards it must be renewed in glory, and it will be perfected for
evermore.69
68
Translation by Robert Henry Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch (London: A. & C.
Black, 1896), 111. Note, however, that the sentence “Nevertheless, not fully, as in the
beginning” is translated and interpreted a little differently by Bogaert (Baruch, 1.513;
2.122).
69
Translation by Charles, Baruch, 58–59. Charles regarded this passage as an
interpolation because he interpreted the shaking of Zion in v. 2 negatively to refer to
the exile in the literature of the intertestamental period 211
The three works that we have just been considering are all based on
the assumption that Israel is in exile. All three are also pseudonymous,
and although pseudonymity is a feature we tend to take for granted, it
does seem to me worth asking why, in any individual case, a particular
pseudonym was chosen. The choice of Baruch as the supposed author
of the apocryphal Baruch would not seem to have had any real effect on
the contents of the work, but clearly the pseudonymous authorship of
2 Baruch and 4 Ezra is intimately linked with the problems with which
the two books are concerned and has had a profound effect on both
their form and their contents. The fact that the situation in which the
Jews found themselves after 70 C.E. was so very similar to that in which
they had been after 587 no doubt had much to do with the choice of
Baruch and Ezra as the pseudonymous authors of the two apocalypses.
But it seems to me possible that the sense of having been in a more
or less permanent state of exile since 587—an attitude which seems
to emerge from 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, as well as from all the other writ-
ings we have been considering—may also have been influential in this
matter and made it seem appropriate to issue the apocalypses under
the names of those who had been important figures at the beginning
of the period. This kind of explanation, which seems to me at any
rate worth considering for 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, could obviously also
be applied to the apocryphal Baruch where, as we have seen, there is
no reference whatsoever to events after 587.
This study has been concerned to survey the references to the exile
in intertestamental literature. Despite many differences in presentation
the writings that we have been considering all seem to share the view
that Israel remained in a state of exile long after the sixth century, and
that the exile would only be brought to an end when God intervened
in this world order to establish his rule. But this survey seems to me to
have a bearing on a rather wider problem. We have been concerned
largely, although not exclusively, with apocalyptic material, and it is
quite characteristic of the apocalypses that in referring to the exile
they reused themes and motifs drawn from earlier writings. Thus the
seventy year prophecy of Jeremiah was reused in Daniel and Enoch,
while the Assumption of Moses 3 and 4 has been influenced by Daniel 9
and also has to be considered in this context. The theme of the four
world empires was taken over from Daniel by the authors of Enoch, 4
Ezra and 2 Baruch, and is also to be found in the Apocalypse of Abraham
27–28. The reuse of older material (of which these are just two exam-
ples) gives to the apocalypses a learned character, and the bearing of
this on the question of the relationship between apocalyptic, prophecy
and wisdom seems to me to be a theme worth pursuing.
CHAPTER TWELVE
1
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI,
1,” RB 77 (1970): 201–229; “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document VI, 2–VIII,
3,” RB 78 (1971): 210–232; “The Critique of the Princes of Judah (CD VIII, 3–19),”
RB 79 (1972): 200–216; “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document XIX, 33–XX,
34,” RB 79 (1972): 544–564; “The Essenes and their History,” RB 81 (1974): 215–244;
“The Essenes in Palestine,” BA 40 (1977): 100–124.
2
Samuel Iwry, “Was there a Migration to Damascus? The Problem of שבי ישראל,”
Eretz Israel 9 (1969): 80–88; see 83.
3
RB 81 (1974): 226–227, cf. 223; RB 77 (1970): 201–225.
214 chapter twelve
argument for the Babylonian origin of the Essenes on his view that
the various geographical references in the Scrolls have not been taken
sufficiently seriously.4 Thus he criticises Stegemann’s symbolic inter-
pretation of the allusions to leaving Jerusalem (CD XX, 22) or the
land of Judah (CD IV, 3; VI, 5), and going to the land of the North
(CD VII,14) or the land of Damascus (CD VI, 5; XX, 12) or the wil-
derness (1QS VIII, 13; IX, 20).5 With regard to CD VI, 5, which he
translates “the returnees of Israel who went out of the land of Judah
and were exiled in the land of Damascus,” Murphy-O’Connor notes
that many scholars have identified “Damascus” with “Qumran.” In his
view, however, this poses problems for the understanding of “land of
Judah” because Qumran is in the territory of Judah. He argues that a
symbolic interpretation of the expression—such as the suggestion that
it designates the prince-priest class of Jerusalem6—is quite implausible
and continues:
Such desperate expedients are unnecessary if one takes the phrase at
its face value as meaning a literal exodus from Judaea. This approach
is confirmed by the context of the same phrase in CD IV, 3 because
there, as S. Iwry has shown, it is a question of a return from exile with
adequate qualifications to gain acceptance in Jerusalem. When did this
exodus take place? The answer is indicated by the historical summary of
CD II, 18–III, 12 which culminates with the exile to Babylon. Among
those who survived that catastrophe “God established his covenant with
Israel for ever, revealing to them the hidden things in which all Israel
had strayed” (CD III, 13–14). This can only be “the new covenant of the
land of Damascus” (CD VI, 19; XIX, 33–34). “Damascus,” therefore, is
a symbolic name for Babylon.7
In support of his case Murphy-O’Connor draws attention to indica-
tions of Babylonian influence on the Essenes, and indications that the
legislation of the Damascus Document was intended for a group living
in a gentile environment. He recognises that these arguments are less
tangible than those based on the historical allusions in the biblical com-
4
RB 81 (1974): 219–221.
5
Hartmut Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Diss., University of Bonn,
1971), 240.
6
Cf. Roland de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Schweich Lectures of
the British Academy, 1959; rev. ed. in an English translation; London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press for the British Academy, 1973), 114; Annie Jaubert, “Le pays de Damas,”
RB 65 (1958): 224, 228.
7
RB 81 (1974): 221.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 215
mentaries, but believes that they must be taken properly into account
in considering the origins of the Essene movement.8
Reaction to Murphy-O’Connor’s hypothesis has been varied. In
a survey article Charlesworth states that the hypothesis “has only
ambiguous evidence to commend it.”9 Similarly Vermes maintains
that the suggestion that Damascus symbolises Babylon is insufficiently
solid to amount to anything more than unsupported speculation.10 On
the other hand F. D. Weinert accepts the hypothesis and argues that it
enables us to place one of the smaller Qumran texts, 4Q159 (entitled
simply “Ordinances” in DJD 5), which it had previously been difficult
to situate. He summarises his argument as follows:
In terms of Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis, the composition of 4Q159 fits in
well with the initial withdrawal to rural areas by mid-second century B.C.
conservative Babylonian returnees who had failed to reform Palestinian
Judaism. The text would have been written to set down the returnees’
understanding of the Law on those points that differed markedly from
current Palestinian custom or were related to practical situations that might
arise in the new setting to which the returnees had withdrawn.11
Again, Fitzmyer believes that Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis is plausible
“because it helps to explain many details in the Scrolls by a historical
setting that was not understood earlier.” He continues: “It has often been
the custom to understand phrases in Qumran literature in a symbolic
or allegorical sense; now in his interpretation many pieces begin to fall
together better.”12 Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis is also taken seriously by
Philip R. Davies in his recent monograph on the Damascus Document.13
8
RB 81 (1974): 222–223.
9
James H. Charlesworth, “The Origin and Subsequent History of the Authors of
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Four Transitional Phases among the Qumran Essenes,” RevQ
10 (1980): 222.
10
Geza Vermes, “The Essenes and History,” JJS 32 (1981): 28; cf. Emil Schürer,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (rev. and ed.
by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1973–1987), 2 (1979): 586, n. 51.
11
Francis D. Weinert, “A Note on 4Q159 and a New Theory of Essene Origins,”
RevQ 9 (1977–78): 223–230; see 229–230.
12
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament After Thirty
Years,’ Theology Digest 29 (1981): 357–358.
13
Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant ( JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: 1982). I would
like to record here my thanks to Philip Davies for kindly drawing my attention to the
article mentioned in note 12 and for the stimulus provided by much helpful discussion
of the issues examined in this essay.
216 chapter twelve
II
One immediate difficulty with any theory of a Babylonian origin for the
Essenes is that we know virtually nothing about the circumstances of
the Jews in Babylonia from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah until the
first century B.C.E.14 Certainly the Old Testament contains no precise
information. It is true that the book of Esther is commonly thought
to have originated in the Eastern diaspora and to be based ultimately
on an incident in which Jews were subjected to persecution. Similar
considerations apply to the stories in the first half of the book of Daniel
which are likewise thought to have originated in the Eastern diaspora.
But even the assumption that Esther and Dan 1–6 accurately reflect
the circumstances in which Jews sometimes found themselves during
the Persian and Hellenistic periods does not tell us very much.
In a wider perspective the possibility of Babylonian influence on
material in Dan 7–12 and in the book of Enoch has been considered,
and this may be of greater significance. So far as Enoch is concerned
the possibility of Babylonian influence has been raised more than once,
particularly in recent years by Grelot. Thus Grelot argued that the figure
of Enoch has been elaborated in the light of characteristics associated
with two Mesopotamian figures: on the one hand Enmeduranki of Sip-
par, the seventh antediluvian king—at least according to one version of
the Sumerian King List—who was initiated into the secret of the gods
and was the founder of the arts of divination; and on the other hand
the flood-hero, who was carried off to paradise and who, according to
Berossos, transmitted through his books the wisdom of the antediluvian
period to the post-flood generations (for Enoch in this connection see
Jub 21:10).15 Here it may be noted that in a more recent study Borger
14
Cf. Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia. I: The Parthian Period (StPB 9:
Leiden: Brill, 1965), 11.
15
Pierre Grelot, “La légende d’Hénoch dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible: Ori-
gine et signification,” RSR 46 (1958), 5–26, 181–210; see 13, 17, 23–24, 191–192.
For the traditions about Enmeduranki, see now Near Eastern Religious Texts relating to the
Old Testament (ed. Walter Beyerlin; OTL; London: SCM, 1978), 87–89; ET of Reli-
gionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Grundrisse zum Alten Testament; ATD
Ergänzungsreihe 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 113–114); Wilfred G.
Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 127, 132–133.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 217
16
Rykle Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie Bīt Mēseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs,”
JNES 33 (1974): 183–196; see 193.
17
Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales,” RB 65
(1958): 33–69; see 64, 68.
18
Grelot, RB 65 (1958): 68, cf. 62; T. Francis Glasson, Greek Influence in Jewish
Eschatology (S.P.C.K. Biblical Monographs 1; London: S.P.C.K., 1961), 8–11; George
W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary
Introduction, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 54, 66.
218 chapter twelve
19
Wilfred G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic (paper given as The Ethel
M. Wood Lecture at the University of London, 1977: London: University of London,
1978), 9–16.
20
Helge. S. Kvanvig, “An Akkadian Vision as Background for Dan 7?,” ST 35
(1981): 85–89. The text to which Kvanvig refers was first published by Erich Ebeling
and was subsequently edited anew by Wolfram von Soden in “Die Unterweltsvision
eines assyrischen Kronprinzen,” ZA (N.F.) 9 (43) (1936): 1–31.
21
On Berossos see Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossos (SANE 1.5,
Malibu: Undena, 1978 (repr. 1980)).
22
William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, (2d ed.; Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press,1957), 376, cf. 21; Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 222; cf. Murphy-
O’Connor, RB 77 (1970): 215.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 219
various kinds of uncleanness (e.g. Lev 15:5, 7). There seems little ques-
tion that the washing rites mentioned in the Community Rule and by
Josephus derive from this Old Testament legislation and are not to be
understood in terms of hygiene, or at least not primarily so. The refer-
ences to divination and astrology and to a concern with the properties
of plants and stones are, however, more significant and are amongst the
matters discussed by Hengel in his discussion of “New developments
and alien influences in Essene teaching.”23 Murphy-O’Connor criticises
Hengel for what he describes as systematically downplaying “the pos-
sibility of direct Babylonian influence on the Essenes.” He notes that
Hengel is surprised to find such a closed community so open to alien
influences, and that he finally assumes the unconscious assimilation
of foreign ideas.24 But in Murphy-O’Connor’s view this problem only
arises on the assumption that the Essene movement is a Palestinian
phenomenon. He continues:
Once they came into [the Palestinian] environment, the Essenes were
in violent reaction to any tendency to assimilation, but the same is not
true of the time before the return to Palestine. Having lived in Babylon
for nearly three hundred years, they cannot reasonably be assumed to
have been totally immune to their social environment, however rigoristic
their inclinations.25
However, it should be said that Hengel is concerned with a wide range
of alien cultural influences—not just Babylonian—which were in the
air in the Hellenistic period. So far as I can see, there is nothing which
compels us to assume that the early Essenes could not have been exposed
to these influences in Palestine.
It is appropriate here to refer to Murphy-O’Connor’s view that the
legislation in the Damascus Document (i.e. that contained in columns
IX–XVI) was intended not, as has often been suggested, for those
Essenes living scattered throughout Palestine, but for a community
living in a gentile environment However profound the hellenisation of
Palestine, it could not be considered a gentile environment, and thus,
23
Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v.Chr. (WUNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr,
1969), 414–453; ET Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the
Early Hellenistic Period, (2 vols.; London: SCM, 1974), 1:228–247).
24
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 222–223, referring to Hengel, Judentum und
Hellenismus, 415, 449 (ET, 1: 228, 245).
25
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 223.
220 chapter twelve
26
Iwry, Eretz Israel 9 (1969): 85; Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974), 223.
27
Cf. Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (trans. John
Strugnell; SBT 26; London: SCM,1959), 151–152.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 221
III
28
Iwry, Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 82.
29
Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, (2d ed.; Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1975), 102.
30
Iwry, Eretz Israel 9 (1969), 86.
31
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 77 (1970): 211; cf. Iwry, Eretz Israel 9 (1969): 86.
32
BDB, col. 997b; William L. Holladay, The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament with particular
reference to its Usages in Convenantal Contexts, (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 78–79. On the meaning
of the passages in CD see Heinz-Josef Fabry, Die Wurzel Šûb in der Qumran-Literatur: Zur
Semantik eines Grundbegriffes (BBB 46; Cologne and Bonn: Hanstein, 1975), 63–68.
222 chapter twelve
examples suggested are not all entirely convincing, but there do seem
to be some clear cases of this absolute usage, such as Hosea 11:5; Isa
6:10; Jer 5:3. What is more important is that the participle is in one
instance used on its own in this sense, namely Isa 1:27–28:
Zion shall be redeemed by justice,
and her converts (יה
ָ )וְ ָשׁ ֶבby righteousness.
But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together,
and those who forsake Yahweh shall be consumed.
It is true that the Septuagint understood the word differently, i.e. as “her
captivity” ()וְ ִשׁ ְביָ הּ. And it is also true that there have been proposals for
emendation here—thus the suggestion noted in BHS of יה ָ ישׁ ֶב
ְ ְו. But
there seems no real reason to question the translation “her converts,”
and such a translation is defended by Wildberger who points out that
it forms a pendant to the negative terms “rebels and sinners” used in
verse 2833—and even more, one might add, to the expression “those
who forsake Yahweh.” Murphy-O’Connor notes that the Old Testament
contains no expression parallel to שבי ישראל, but the usage in Isa
1:27 seems to me to come close to the construction in the Damascus
Document. In any case it appears to me that Old Testament usage leaves
the meaning of the expression entirely open.
The clear meaning of the related expression ( שבי פשעII, 5; XX,
17, the latter passage quoting Isa 59:20) might appear to suggest that
שבי ישראלshould be interpreted throughout in a religious rather than
a literal sense. This is, however, rejected by Murphy-O’Connor on
the grounds that there is no justification for transferring the religious
meaning from the one expression to the other, and that in any case
שבי פשעrepresents a later usage.34 In a similar way he believes that
the passages where שבי ישראלdoes have a religious meaning (VIII,
16 = XIX, 29) belong to a separate document and refer to a different
group, one which adhered to Essene doctrines but was not composed
of returned exiles.35 This last point seems to me questionable. But in
any case, if one accepts—as I think is right—that the Damascus Docu-
ment is composite, it can hardly be suggested that the successive layers
of which it is composed were written in isolation from one another.
33
Hans Wildberger, Jesaja (BKAT X/l; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972),
56.
34
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 77 (1970): 211–212.
35
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 79 (1972): 211.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 223
The fact that שובwas clearly used in a religious sense in four of the
six passages seems to me to be an indication of the meaning attached
to this verb in the other two.
This is perhaps the place to refer briefly to Murphy-O’Connor’s
translation of XIX, 33b–34, “None of all those who entered the New
Covenant in the land of Damascus and who returned, but who (then)
betrayed it . . .”; he quotes this text as evidence that not all of those
who entered the New Covenant “in the land of Damascus” returned
to Palestine.36 Despite Murphy-O’Connor’s statement to the contrary,
there do seem to be instances in the Old Testament where שובis used
absolutely in the sense “to turn back,” i.e. “to apostatize” (cf. Josh 23:12;
Jer 8:4; 2 Chr 7:19),37 and I think it likely that שובhas this meaning
in XIX, 33b–34—as it clearly does in XX, 10b–11a which refers to
those who “turned back with the scoffers.”
To revert to VI, 5, the meaning of “land of Damascus” also poses
problems. In recent years this has commonly been understood as a
symbolic name for Qumran, but Murphy-O’Connor argues that it is
a symbolic name for Babylon. Because Qumran lies in the territory of
Judah it is, in his view, contradictory to speak of going out of the land
of Judah to sojourn in the land of Damascus if the latter is understood
as Qumran. On the other hand he rejects a symbolic interpretation of
“land of Judah.”38 There seems to be something of an inconsistency
here. “Land of Damascus” is a symbol for Babylon, but “going out
of the land of Judah” must be given a literal interpretation. But leav-
ing this on one side, how are “Damascus” and “Judah” used in the
Damascus Document?
There are seven references to “Damascus” in the Damascus Document,
but none elsewhere in the Scrolls. One of these references occurs in VI,
5; four are to be found in passages mentioning the new covenant made
in the land of Damascus (VI, 19; VIII, 21 = XIX, 34; XX, 12); and
two belong in the Amos-Numbers Midrash (VII, 14b–15a, 18b–19a).
Vermes has shown that a distinct exegetical tradition associating the
eschatological sanctuary with Damascus underlies the symbolic use
of “Damascus,”39 and this tradition finds its fullest expression in the
36
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 225; cf. RB 79 (1972): 545–546.
37
See BDB, col. 997b; Holladay, The Root Šûbh, 80–81.
38
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 220–221.
39
Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2d ed.; StPB 4;
Leiden: Brill, 1973), 43–49. The exegetical tradition is based on Zech 9:1, where
224 chapter twelve
there may be already an echo of Amos 5:27, the passage used in the Amos-Numbers
Midrash; cf. Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977), 84–85.
40
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 81 (1974): 221–222, n. 39.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 225
41
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 77 (1970): 207.
42
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 253–272.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 227
43
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 77 (1970): 224–225, 228–229.
44
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 78 (1971): 228–232; RB 79 (1972): 562–563.
45
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 79 (1972): 562–563.
228 chapter twelve
Document’ in the ancient world, and thus I question the view that this
material was originally addressed to outsiders. Be that as it may, the point
I wish to make here is that in the present form of the text the disaster
of the exile is now followed immediately by a reference to the origins
of the community which lies behind the Damascus Document:
But God remembered the covenant with the men of former times, and
he raised up from Aaron men of understanding, and from Israel men of
wisdom, and made them hear (his voice). And they dug the well . . . those
who dug it are the converts of Israel who went out from the land of
Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus (VI, 2b–5).
This passage presents the same theological pattern as that discussed
above, but again tells us nothing about the origins of the community
to which it refers. Information of this nature appears to be given only
in the third passage that concerns us, the statement about the origins
of the community in what appears in CD as the introduction to the
Damascus Document (I, 1–II, 1). It should be noted, however, that other
material is said to have preceded this in the text attested by the Qumran
fragments.46 In fact the introduction tells us little more than the passages
we have already considered.
The introduction to the Damascus Document (I, 1–II, 1) refers in
lines 3–11a to the origins of the community and the appearance of
the teacher of righteousness. It has sometimes been thought that this
passage is cast in rhythmic form, and if this is so, it suggests that the
well-known chronological references are secondary.47 The passage runs
as follows:
For when they were unfaithful in that they forsook him,
he hid his face from Israel and his sanctuary
and gave them to the sword.
But when he remembered the covenant with the men of former times,
he left a remnant to Israel
and did not give them to destruction.
And in the time of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after he had
given them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, he vis-
ited them
and caused a root of planting to spring from Israel and Aaron,
46
See note 27.
47
Cf. Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1963), 151–152; Isaac Rabinowitz, “A Reconsideration of ‘Damascus’ and
‘390 Years’ in the ‘Damascus’ (‘Zadokite’) Fragments,” JBL 73 (1954): 12–15 (see notes
8 and 11); Robert Henry Charles, “Fragments of a Zadokite Work,” APOT 2.800.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 229
48
Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 152.
49
Cf. Rabinowitz, JBL 73 (1954): 14, n. 8(b); Ernest Wiesenberg, “Chronological
Data in the Zadokite Fragments,” VT 5 (1955): 286–292; Jaubert, RB 65 (1958):
216–217.
50
Cf. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 153–154, 158.
51
Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 158–159.
52
Cf. Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel 1 (BKAT XIII/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1969), 114–122; ET, Ezekiel 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 163–168).
230 chapter twelve
pattern as in the two other passages we have considered: the exile and
the emergence of the community are linked immediately together, and
it is the latter which brings the former to an end. In the light of the
parallel already drawn with the Apocalypse of Weeks it is interesting to
observe the use of plant imagery in both 1 En. 93:10 and CD I, 7, a
similarity which many have noted.
If the chronological references are removed from the passage, we
are left in lines 6–7 merely with the statement:
And in the time of wrath he visited them
and caused a root of planting to spring from Israel and Aaron.
The exilic context is still, however, provided by lines 3–4a, and the theo-
logical pattern remains the same, the only difference being that there
is now no attempt to date the moment of God’s visitation. Jeremias
has argued that usage in 1–2 Maccabees indicates that “the time of
wrath” means the period of persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes,53
and if this is so, it would provide a valuable chronological point of
reference. But it may well be that “the time of wrath” means simply
the period in which the author was living—which would be brought to
an end by the eschatological judgement. The expression קץ חרוןoccurs
elsewhere in the Scrolls only in 1QHa XI(III), 28 where it refers to the
eschatological judgement, and the related expression קצי חרוןonly in
two fragmentary passages (1QHa XXII, 5; 4QpHosa I, 12). Thus the
introduction to the Damascus Document tells us very little more about the
origins of the community which lies behind it than the two passages
considered earlier.
Nothing that has been said here makes Murphy-O’Connor’s thesis
completely unacceptable, and it may still be right. But the evidence on
which it is based does seem to me a good deal weaker than he suggests,
and for the time being it would appear more prudent to say, not with
Fitzmyer that it is a plausible thesis, but that it is a possible one.
IV
In conclusion I would like very briefly to say a few words about the
alternative hypothesis, namely that the origins of the Essenes belong in
Palestine. This view has commonly been presented in the form that the
53
Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, 159–162.
exile in the DAMASCUS DOCUMENT 231
Essene movement emerged from the Hasidim, but in fact the literature
of the period contains very few references to the Hasidim, and Philip
Davies has argued that we do wrong to think that they constituted a
distinct sect.54 However, the writings often attributed to the Hasidim,
1 Enoch and Daniel, still require explanation whoever their authors
were. These writings, together with Ecclesiasticus and Jubilees, bear
witness in their different ways to the appearance of a reform move-
ment in Palestinian Judaism at the end of the third and the beginning
of the second century B.C.E. They are very different in character,
reflecting different viewpoints, and it is unlikely that they all stem from
the same circles. But they do provide evidence of a Palestinian reform
movement which offers a plausible context for the later emergence of
the Essenes. Here Jubilees, which I date to before the persecution of
Antiochus Epiphanes,55 is particularly important because of its legalis-
tic approach and its links with the Qumran writings. It seems entirely
plausible to think of the Essenes—and the Qumran community—
emerging in a Palestinian context from the religious movement that
lies behind Jubilees.
54
Philip R. Davies, “Æasidim in the Maccabean Period,” JJS 28 (1977): 127–140.
55
Cf. Knibb, JSS 25 (1980): 274; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and
the Mishnah, 78–79, 95–96.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
1
Cf. e.g. the interpretation of the archaeological evidence by Roland de Vaux in
Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1959;
rev. ed. in an English translation; London: Oxford University Press for the British
Academy, 1973) with that of Ernest-Marie Lapperousaz in “Qumran et découvertes
au Désert de Juda,” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9.51 (1978), cols. 744–98.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 233
ment as to how far back from the end of the second century the initial
occupation of the site by the Qumran community can or should be
placed. In any case the archaeological evidence cannot provide us with
information concerning the precise events which led to the occupation
of the Qumran site, but only concerning the period of occupation and
the kind of life lived by the community which settled there.
For information concerning the events which led to the settlement
at Qumran it is necessary to turn to the scrolls themselves, but here
again there are many problems. Only four of the scrolls—the Damascus
Document, the Commentaries on Habakkuk and Nahum, and one of
the Commentaries on the Psalms (4QpPsa)2—clearly contain statements
relating to the origins and history of the Qumran community. It is true
that a fifth document, the collection of Hymns, has also been thought
to contain statements of a historical or biographical kind, primarily
on the basis of the assumption that the Hymns were composed by the
founder of the community, the Teacher of Righteousness. But at most
only a small number of the Hymns were composed by the Teacher,
and in any case the interpretation of the statements which the Hymns
contain—like the interpretation of the supposed historical allusions in
the biblical Book of Psalms—is very uncertain. In reality the Hymns
can only provide very general information concerning the community
and its opponents.
The interpretation of the other four documents is, however, by no
means straightforward. In the first place, none of the documents pur-
ports to be a historical writing in any sense of the term. The Damascus
Document was apparently intended for use at the annual ceremony of
the renewal of the covenant. It consists of two parts, a sermon-like
exhortation and a collection of laws. The statements of a historical
kind are found within the exhortation, and because of the very context
in which they occur they lack any precision. The historical statements
in the biblical commentaries—and the same is also true of some of
the historical statements in the Damascus Document—are based on the
interpretation of specific biblical passages, and the language used is
often strongly influenced by the language of the biblical passage com-
mented on rather than by the actual character of the persons and events
2
For a translation of these writings and a commentary, see Michael A. Knibb, The
Qumran Community (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian
World 200 B.C. to A.D. 200; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
234 chapter thirteen
described. In any case the language used in the Damascus Document and
the Commentaries on Habakkuk, Nahum and Psalms is often indirect
and opaque, rather like the language used in Daniel 11. Furthermore,
nicknames (“the Teacher of Righteousness”, “the Wicked Priest”,
“the Man of Lies”, “the Seekers after Smooth Things”, “Ephraim”,
“Manasseh”, and so on) are almost always used instead of real names.
The one clear exception in these four documents is the reference in the
Commentary on Nahum (4QpNah 3–4 I, 2–3) to Demetrius and Antio-
chus. It is virtually certain that these are the Seleucid rulers Demetrius
III Eucaerus (95–88 B.C.E.) and Antiochus IV Epiphanes,3 and the
mention of these two named individuals—isolated as it is—provides a
valuable point of reference.
Uncertainties of the kind that I have indicated have been apparent
for some time and have very recently been brought into prominence
by Phillip Callaway in his book, The History of the Qumran Community: An
Investigation,4 which, despite some major weaknesses, deserves consider-
ation. It is because of these uncertainties that—even within the frame
of reference provided by the archaeological evidence—it is still possible
for quite divergent accounts of the early history of the Qumran com-
munity to be published, as witness the differences between two such
‘standard’ treatments as the section on the archaeology and history
of Qumran by Laperrousaz in the Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 5
and the account by Geza Vermes in his The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in
Perspective.6 If in the end consideration of all the archaeological, pal-
aeographic and literary evidence relevant to the early history of the
community still on balance inclines me to the view held by a number of
scholars that the Wicked Priest of the scrolls was the Maccabean leader
Jonathan, that the occupation of the Qumran site by the community
began sometime during or shortly after the period when Jonathan was
High Priest (152–143 B.C.E.), and that the Teacher of Righteousness
was the person who held the office of High Priest immediately before
3
Cf. Knibb, The Qumran Community, 210–12.
4
Phillip R. Callaway, The History of the Qumran Community: An Investigation ( JSPSup 3,
Sheffield: JSOT, 1988). Cf. also Philip R. Davies, Behind the Essenes: History and Ideology
in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Brown Judaic Studies 94; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987),
15–31.
5
Laperrousaz, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9.51 (1978), cols. 744–98.
6
Geza Vermes with the collaboration of Pamela Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran
in Perspective, (2d ed.; London: SCM, 1982), 32–44, 137–62.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 235
II
7
See further Knibb, The Qumran Community, 3–10.
8
Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D.
135) (rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; 4 vols.; Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987), 2 (1979): 586–87. Cf. Martin Hengel, Judaism and
Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.;
London: SCM, 1974), 1:224–25.
9
Cf. e.g. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:175–218.
10
Cf. Philip R. Davies, “Hasidim in the Maccabean Period,” JJS 28 (1977): 127–40;
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism,” in
Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen:
Mohr, 1983), 647–48.
11
See particularly Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes and their History,”
RB 81 (1974): 215–44. The historical synthesis presented in this article was based on
236 chapter thirteen
an analysis of the Damascus Document which had been published in a series of articles
in RB 77–79 (1970–72).
12
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Damascus Document Revisited,” RB 92 (1985),
223–46, here 226.
13
Cf. Laperrousaz, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9.51 (1978), cols. 794–96.
14
See note 12. Cf. also Murphy-O’Connor, “Recent Discoveries: The Judaean Des-
ert,” in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E.
Nickelsburg; SBLCP: The Bible and its Modern Interpreters 2; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars
Press, 1986), 119–56, particularly 126–28, 139–43.
15
Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Docu-
ment” ( JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983).
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 237
16
Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 122–23.
17
Cf. e.g. Murphy-O’Connor, RB 92 (1985): 224–30; Murphy-O’Connor, “Recent
Discoveries: The Judaean Desert,” 142; Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 93–94, 202–203;
Davies, Behind the Essenes, 36, 37, 42–43, 47–48, 124–25.
18
Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 202.
19
Cf. Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 95–103, particularly 100–103; Davies, Behind
the Essenes, 40–43; Murphy-O’Connor, RB 92 (1985): 230–34.
20
Michael A. Knibb, “Exile in the Damascus Document,” JSOT 25 (1983): 99–117.
21
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 92 (1985): 227–34.
238 chapter thirteen
one matter that does, I think, call for further comment, and that relates
to the exilic ideology of the Damascus Document.
III
22
For what follows see further JSOT 25 (1983): 108–13, and the commentary on
the Damascus Document in The Qumran Community.
23
See JSOT 25 (1983), 110; cf. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertes-
tamental Period,” Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 253–72, here 259, 262–64.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 239
to this pattern Israel remained in a state of exile long after the return
at the end of the sixth century, and the exile was only brought to an
end in the events of a much later period. A good example of this pat-
tern—and one that is particularly relevant to the Damascus Document—is
to be found in the Book of Enoch in the so-called Apocalypse of Weeks
(1 Enoch 93:1–10 + 91:11–17), in which world-history is schematised
in a series of weeks. The exile occurs at the end of the sixth week,
and the seventh week, which covers the exilic and post-exilic periods,
is described as follows: “And after this in the seventh week an apostate
generation will arise, and many will be its deeds, but all its deeds will be
apostasy. And at its end the chosen righteous from the eternal plant of
righteousness will be chosen, to whom will be given sevenfold teaching
concerning his whole creation” (93:9–10). Here no mention is made
of the return from exile at the end of the sixth century, but the whole
period is condemned as one of apostasy. In contrast the end of the
period is marked by the appearance of a reform group—“the chosen
righteous from the eternal plant of righteousness”—perhaps the same
group as the one from which the Qumran community later emerged.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the theological pattern used in the
Apocalypse of Weeks is also used in column III of the Damascus Document.
The passage indicates that for the author the founding of the Essene
movement marked the end of Israel’s state of exile, but beyond that
it gives no clear information as to when or where the founding of the
movement took place.
The theological pattern is also used in the two other passages in the
Damascus Document that refer to the origins of the movement. One of
them (V, 20–VI, 11a) is similar to the passage in column III that we
have just considered and must here be left out of account. The other,
which forms the introduction to the Damascus Document, is sufficiently
important that it deserves to be quoted in full:
And now, listen all you who know what is right
and consider the deeds of God,
for he has a dispute with all flesh
and will execute judgement on all who despise him.
For when they were unfaithful in that they forsook him,
he hid his face from Israel and his sanctuary
and gave them to the sword.
But when he remembered the covenant with the men of former times,
he left a remnant to Israel
and did not give them to destruction.
And in the time of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after he had
240 chapter thirteen
24
Murphy-O’Connor, “An Essene Missionary Document? CD II, 14–VI, 1,” RB 77
(1970): 225–27; Murphy-O’Connor, “A Literary Analysis of Damascus Document XIX,
33–XX, 34,” RB 79 (1972): 563–64; cf. RB 92 (1985): 228.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 241
25
Murphy-O’Connor, RB 92 (1985): 227–28; cf. Davies, The Damascus Covenant,
61–63, 67.
242 chapter thirteen
now to take up the suggestion made at the end of my 1983 article that
writings such as the Book of Enoch, Daniel, Ecclesiasticus, and Jubilees
provide evidence, in their different ways, of the existence in Palestine
in the late third and early second century B.C.E. of a reform move-
ment, from which it is plausible to think that the Qumran group later
emerged.26 Here the Book of Jubilees is particularly important because
its theological concerns have been widely seen to be very similar to
those of the Qumran sectarian writings.
IV
26
See JSOT 25 (1983): 114.
27
Cf. 1:5, 7, 26; 2:1. However, in 1:27 the angel of the presence is commanded
by God to write the account for Moses; cf. 50:13. This contradiction may indicate
that the text of 1:27 is in some way out of order or may point to the use of sources
in the composition of Jubilees. Cf. on 1:27 James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical
Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard
Semitic Museum, 1977), 103; Klaus Berger, “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” JSHRZ II/3
(1981), 319.
28
Jub. 50:1 draws on Exod 16:1, while the sabbath laws in Jub. 50:6–13 were perhaps
inspired by the sabbath regulations in Exod. 16:22–30 (see below, 248).
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 243
29
For the fragments that have been published so far, see VanderKam, Textual and
Historical Studies, 18–101; Menahem Kister, “Newly-Identified Fragments of the Book
of Jubilees: Jub. 23:21–23, 30–31,” RevQ 12 (1985–87): 529–36.
30
For the Ethiopic and Latin versions of Jubilees see Robert Henry Charles, The
Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 8;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1895). Recent translations of Jubilees include those by Berger in
JSHRZ II/3, 273–575 (see above, note 27); by Chaim Rabin (based on the transla-
tion of Charles) in AOT 1–139; by Orval S. Wintermute in OTP 2.35–142; and by
André Caquot in La Bible: Écrits intertestamentaires (ed. André Dupont-Sommer and Marc
Philonenko; Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), 627–810. Recent stud-
ies of Jubilees include the following: Michel Testuz, Les Idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilés
(Geneva: Droz, 1960); Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (StPB
20; Leiden: Brill, 1971); VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies (see above, note 27);
Eberhard Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen
Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung
des Jubiläenbuches (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Series 23, vol. 162; Frankfurt am
Main: Lang, 1982); John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS
18; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Bible Society of America, 1987).
244 chapter thirteen
once the people have entered the land, they will forget the command-
ments of God and turn to strange gods, and will in consequence be
sent into exile. The passage refers clearly to the exile of Israel (verse
10) and Judah (verse 13). Verse 14 gives the author’s judgement on the
exilic and post-exilic periods:
And they will forget all my law and all my commandments and all my
judgements, and will go astray as to new moons, and sabbaths, and fes-
tivals, and jubilees, and ordinances.
The remainder of the passage (verses 15–18) then describes the restora-
tion that would follow after the exile:
And after this they will turn to me from amongst the gentiles with all
their heart and with all their soul and with all their strength, and I will
gather them from amongst all the gentiles, and they will seek me . . . And
I will reveal to them abounding peace with righteousness, and I will
transplant them as the plant of uprightness, with all my heart and with
all my soul, and they will be for a blessing and not for a curse, and they
will be the head and not the tail. And I will build my sanctuary in their
midst, and I will dwell with them, and I will be their God and they will
be my people in truth and righteousness. And I will not forsake them
nor fail them; for I am the Lord their God.
This passage makes use of a theological pattern of sin, exile and return
that can be found in other writings of the period, particularly the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,31 and can be traced back ultimately
to Deuteronomy (e.g. 4:25–31). The question is how the pattern has
been used here. At one level the passage just quoted can be interpreted
historically to refer to the return after the exile. But it is clear from
the book as a whole that in the author’s view the situation described
in verse 14—neglect of the law and error in the observance of the
religious calendar—still continued, and the passage should therefore
be interpreted eschatologically. The author was living in a situation
which he regarded as unsatisfactory, and the true end to Israel’s state
of exile, which was conditional upon repentance, still lay in the future.32
31
Cf. recently Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 51–56; for references to earlier
literature see Knibb, Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 264.
32
See also Heythrop Journal 17 (1976): 266–67. Davies (Behind the Essenes, 107–34) has
recently compared Jubilees 1 with 1 Enoch 93:1–10 + 91:11–17 and Damascus Document
II, 14–III, 20, V, 15–VI, 11 and I, 1–12, but he has blurred some of the differences
between Jubilees and the Damascus Document. Also, it does not appear to me that Jub.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 245
1 supports the view that the community behind the Damascus Document was founded
“literally in exile” (Davies, 125).
33
See XVI, 2b–4a.
34
For parallels between Jubilees and the Qumran sectarian writings see Bent Noack,
“Qumran and the Book of Jubilees,” SEÅ 22–23 (1957–58): 191–207; Testuz, Les Idées
religieuses, 179–92; VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 255–83.
35
Cf. Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung, 17, 19.
246 chapter thirteen
36
See for example the entry for berît in Karl G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten,
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 36–37.
37
See Józef T. Milik, “Milkî-Éedeq et Milkî-resha{ dans les anciens écrits juifs et
chrétiens,” JJS 23 (1972): 135–36; cf. Knibb, The Qumran Community, 88–89.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 247
ings have long been recognised. The Book of Jubilees advocates a 364-
day solar calendar, according to which the days of the week and the
feasts always fall on the same date each year—thus the Feast of Weeks
always falls on the fifteenth day of the third month, a Sunday. This
solar calendar is also found in the astronomical section of the Book of
Enoch and in the Temple Scroll, and is presupposed in some Old Testa-
ment writings from the exilic and post-exilic periods. It was apparently
used at one stage for cultic purposes, but it is uncertain when it was
replaced by the lunisolar calendar. For the author of Jubilees, however,
observance of the 364-day calendar was a matter of some concern. We
have already seen how, in God’s speech in 1:14, the author condemns
the men of the exilic and post-exilic periods for going astray in respect
of the calendar. It is in line with this that in an important passage
about the calendar that is attached to the account of the making of
the covenant with Noah (6:29–38) the author expresses concern that
Israel “should not forget the feasts of the covenant and keep the feasts
of the gentiles” (verse 35). But he foresees that Israel will disturb the
calendar through taking account of the moon, and will cause the feasts
to fall on the wrong day (verses 36–37), and he warns that they “will
go astray about the new moons and seasons and sabbaths and feasts”
(verse 38). And in 23:19, a passage referring to the circumstances of
the time in which the author was writing, it is said that Israel has
forgotten “commandment, and covenant, and feasts, and new moons,
and sabbaths, and jubilees”.
Talmon showed long ago on the evidence of Habakkuk Commentary
XI, 6–8a that the Qumran community followed a calendar different
from that of the main Jewish community,38 and the Calendrical Documents
and the work known as David’s Compositions later proved that this was
the 364-day calendar attested in Jubilees.39 The author of the Damascus
Document, like the author of Jubilees, believed that “all Israel had gone
astray” in regard to God’s “holy sabbaths” and “glorious feasts” (III, 14),
and the summary of the duties of members in the Damascus Document
38
Shemaryahu Talmon, “Yom Hakkippurim in the Habakkuk Scroll,” Biblica 32
(1951): 549–63.
39
On the Qumran calendar see recently James C. VanderKam, “The Origin,
Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert’s
Hypothesis,” CBQ 41 (1979): 390–411; VanderKam, “2 Maccabees, 6,7a and Calen-
drical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981): 52–74; Philip R. Davies, “Calendrical
Change and Qumran Origins: An Assessment of VanderKam’s Theory,” CBQ 45
(1983): 80–89.
248 chapter thirteen
includes the instruction “to keep the sabbath day according to its exact
rules, and the feasts, and the fast-day according to the finding of those
who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus” (VI, 18b–19).
In a similar way the Community Rule includes the following amongst the
obligations it imposes on members: “They shall not depart from any
one of the commandments of God concerning their times; they shall
not anticipate their appointed times or be behind in any of their feasts”
(I, 13b–15a). There are thus indications that observance of the proper
calendar was a matter of concern to the Qumran community, but the
impression given is that this was not quite such an issue as it was for
the author of Jubilees.
It is appropriate here to refer briefly to the sabbath, for which Jubi-
lees and the Damascus Document provide similar regulations that are in
each case quite strict. Jubilees deals with the sabbath in two places, in
a long section at the beginning of the book (2:17–33) that is attached
to the account of creation, and in the very final section of the book
(50:6–13). The first passage, which was inspired by Genesis 2:3, speaks
in fairly general terms concerning sabbath observance, and only in
verses 29–30 provides a few detailed regulations; the latter passage,
which is conceivably secondary, was perhaps inspired by the sabbath
regulations in Exodus 16:22–30 and gives detailed rules as to how the
sabbath was to be kept. It is the rules in this latter passage that are
similar to the rules given in the long passage on sabbath observance
in the Damascus Document (X, 14–XI, 18a). However, whereas Jubilees
(2:25,27; 50:8,13), in accordance with Old Testament regulation (e.g.
Exod 31:14–15), prescribes the death penalty for violation of the sab-
bath, the Damascus Document (XII, 3b–6a) explicitly forbids this, but
instead prescribes imprisonment for seven years. One further point
should be added. According to Jubilees 2 Israel alone of all the nations
has been set apart by God to observe the sabbath, but this privileged
position is one that Israel shares with the angels: Israel keeps sabbath
with the angels (see verses 17–22, 30–31). The idea that Israel shares
in the life of the angels, which can also be found in other places in
Jubilees,40 has a close parallel in the Qumran texts, as Schwarz has
pointed out.41 Thus a number of passages (e.g. 1QS XI, 7b–9a; 1QSa
40
Cf. 6:18 (observance of Feast of Weeks); 15:27 (circumcision); 30:18; 31:14
(ministry of the Levites).
41
Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung, 88–89.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 249
II, 8–9a) attest the idea that the members of the community share in
the life of the angels, and that the angels are present among them.
Intermarriage with gentiles is repeatedly forbidden in the Book of
Jubilees (cf. e.g. 20:4; 25:1–10; 30:7, 11–17), and this has long been
interpreted against the background of the situation in the early second
century B.C.E., when the process of Hellenisation appeared to pose an
ever-increasing threat to the integrity of Judaism. The ban on intermar-
riage has been set in a wider context by Schwarz in his study, Identität
durch Abgrenzung. Israel had been “set apart” (Ethiopic fälä ä) by God
(2:19), and this provides the ideological background for the demand
that Israel must “keep separate” from the nations.42 This demand is set
out clearly in 22:16–22, part of Abraham’s speech on his deathbed to
Jacob, and is summed up in verse 16: “Keep yourself separate (Ethiopic
täfäl ä, which points back via chōrızō to Hebrew bā al) from the nations,
and do not eat with them; and do not imitate their rites, nor associate
yourself with them; for their rites are unclean and all their practices
polluted, an abomination and unclean.” This passage has long been
interpreted in relation to the situation in the first half of the second
century, but Schwarz43 has helpfully observed that precisely the atti-
tude that was of such concern to the author of Jubilees is reflected in
1 Maccabees 1:11: “In those days lawless men came forth from Israel,
and misled many, saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the
gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils
have come upon us.’” The “lawless men” were Hellenising Jews, and
the passage in 1 Maccabees is concerned with the events which led to
the conversion of Jerusalem into a Greek city in 175 B.C.E.
A demand for separation is also found in the Qumran writings, but
with a difference: the demand is no longer for separation from gentiles,
but for separation from “the sons of the pit” (so Damascus Document VI,
14c–15a) or from “the men of injustice” or “the congregation of the
men of injustice” (so Community Rule V, 1b–2a, 10b), that is to say for
separation from Jews outside the movement. In an important passage
in the Community Rule (VIII, 1–IX, 26a), which appears to provide a
programme for the new community, the demand for separation is taken
a step further and linked to a call for withdrawal into the wilderness:
“they shall separate themselves from the settlement of the men of
42
Cf. Indentität durch Abgrenzung, 21–23.
43
Indentität durch Abgrenzung, 29, 38, 99–100.
250 chapter thirteen
injustice and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of
him, as it is written: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of. . . ., make
level in the desert a highway for our God” ’ (VIII, 13–14). It is difficult
not to associate this passage with the occupation of the site at Qumran.
In all these passages in the scrolls the Hebrew word used is bā al, the
same word that was apparently used in Jubilees.
There are many other matters in which similarities exist between
Jubilees and the Qumran literature, but it must suffice here to refer
finally to the topic of dualism. As is well known, dualistic beliefs form
an important element in several Qumran writings, particularly the War
Scroll and the Community Rule; in the latter they are explicitly set out in
the long passage on the two spirits, those of truth and injustice (III,
13–1V, 26). But dualistic beliefs also form an important element in
Jubilees, although they are not set out in the formal way that they are
in the Community Rule. Angels, at the head of whom stand the angels of
the presence and the angels of sanctification, are frequently mentioned
in Jubilees: they act as God’s agents, and instruct and assist the chosen
people on countless occasions, as for example Israel at the time of the
exodus (48:12–13). Over against the angels stand the demons or evil
spirits who seek to lead men astray and to harm the chosen: thus, for
example, it is said that in the time of Noah “the unclean demons began
to lead the children of Noah’s sons astray and to mislead them and
destroy them” (10:1). It should be noted, however, that the dualism in
Jubilees is not absolute, and in this respect there is a further link with
the Qumran writings. In Jubilees the demons are permitted by God to
carry out their activities (10:9, 11), and it is even said that God put
them in authority over the nations—but not over Israel—in order to
lead men astray: “for there are many nations and many peoples, and
all are his, and he has set spirits in authority over all of them to lead
them astray from him. But over Israel he appointed no angel or spirit,
for he alone is their ruler; and he will preserve them” (15:31b–32a).
The idea that God permits the demons to act is analogous to the idea
expressed in the Community Rule that God “created” the spirit of dark-
ness (III, 25b).
At the head of the demons stands Satan44 or, as he also appears to
be called, ‘Prince Mastema’. ‘Mastema’ is a transliteration, probably
via the Greek, of the Hebrew word maś ēmāh, which is used in Hosea
44
See 10:11; 23:29; 40:9; 46:2; 50:5.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 251
9:7–8 with the meaning ‘hatred’. The word also has this meaning in
the scrolls, where inter alia it is twice used in the phrase “the angel of
hatred” as a title for the leader of the forces of evil.45 In Jubilees ‘Mas-
tema’ appears to be a name, and this is clearly the case in the Latin
version where, in the two places in which it has survived (18:12; 48:2),
we have the expression “princeps Mastima”. But the situation in the
Ethiopic, where the word occurs nine times joined to the word ‘prince’46
and twice elsewhere,47 is not so straightforward. In one case (11:5) all the
manuscripts available to me have “prince Mastema”.48 But in the other
cases where ‘Mastema’ is joined to the word ‘prince’, the best Ethiopic
evidence points to the view that in the original Hebrew maś ēmāh was
used as an abstract noun ‘hatred’—hence “the prince of hatred”—and
not as a name.49 If this is correct, it would strengthen the connections
between the dualistic ideas of Jubilees and those of the scrolls.
Enough has been said to show that there are very strong links between
Jubilees and the Qumran sectarian writings, and there can be no question
that Jubilees belongs in the prehistory of the Qumran community. This
is important in regard to the question of the origins of the Qumran
45
See Damascus Document XVI, 5; War Scroll XIII, 11. Cf. Yigael Yadin, The Scroll
of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1962), 233–34.
46
11:5, 11; 17:16; 18:9, 12; 48:2, 9, 12, 15.
47
10:8; 19:28.
48
Ethiopic mäkwännen mästema.
49
VanderKam (Textual and Historical Studies, 257–58, n. 91; cf. already Robert Henry
Charles, The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis, (London: A. & C. Black, 1902), lviii,
who drew attention to the fact that Paris Éth. 51 and British Library Orient. 485
read mäkwänn nä mästema in 18:9, 12; 48:9,12,15. The fact that the first word is in the
construct state suggests that in the original Hebrew maś ēmāh was used as an abstract
noun (‘the prince of hatred’). The evidence of Paris Éth. 51 and BL 485 is supported
by that of Lake Tana 9, which not only has the same reading (mäkwänn nä mästema) in
the above five passages, but also in 11:11; 17:16; 48:2. This evidence is important in
that these three manuscripts (Paris Éth. 51 BL 485 Tana 9) are representative of an
older Ethiopic textual tradition. As to the remaining passages, in 19:28 the Ethiopic
mänaf stä mästema is usually translated ‘the spirits of Mastema’, but it is possible that
here too in the original Hebrew maś ēmāh was understood as an abstract noun (‘the
spirits of hatred’). In 10:8 the text is uncertain; the manuscripts used by Charles have
“the chief of the spirits, Mastema,” but Tana 9 has “the chief of the spirits and (of ?)
Mastema,” and it is possible that the text has been glossed.
252 chapter thirteen
50
See Davies, The Damascus Covenant, 203. Contrast Murphy-O’Connor, RB 92 (1985):
239–240, who describes Jubilees as “indisputably of Palestinian origin.”
51
For a recent discussion of epispasm see Robert G. Hall, “Epispasm and the Dating
of Ancient Jewish Writings,” JSP 2 (1988): 71–86.
52
A date in the same period was also proposed by Louis Finkelstein (“Pre-Maccabean
Documents in the Passover Haggadah. Appendix: The Date of the Book of Jubilees,”
HTR 36 (1943): 19–24). George W. E. Nickelsburg ( Jewish Literature between the Bible
the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1981), 76–79; “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in
Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael E. Stone; CRINT 2.2: Assen: van
Gorcum, 1984), 101–103) dates Jubilees to close to 168 B.C.E., and no later than early
167 B.C.E. While I am entirely in agreement with the general thrust of his arguments,
I am doubtful about the precise dating he proposes because it seems to me uncertain
whether Jub. 23:22–23 does refer to “the bloody reprisals of Antiochus and Apollonius
in 169 and 167” ( Jewish Literature, 77). However, I hope to return to the question of
the date of Jubilees on a future occasion. For a slightly later date (between 161 and
140 B.C.E., and probably between 161 and 152 B.C.E.) and a survey of other views,
see VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies, 207–85.
JUBILEES and the origins of the qumran community 253
53
See 30:18–20; 31:12–17; 32:1–9; 45:16. Cf. Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung,
127–129; VanderKam, “Jubilees and the Priestly Messiah of Qumran,” Mémorial Jean
Carmignac, RevQ 13 (1988): 353–65, especially 359–65.
54
See RB 92 (1985): 239–240.
254 chapter thirteen
The founding of the Journal for the Study of Judaism in 1970 served as a
formal recognition of the way in which interest in Judaism in the Second
Temple period, of whose character the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha1
are major witnesses, had increased enormously over the previous two
decades. In the Introduction to the first issue of the Journal the sec-
retary of the editorial board, Professor Adam van der Woude, noted
that the increase in interest was “in part due to the discovery of new
manuscripts, the new directions in New Testament scholarship, and
the growing attraction of rabbinical literature.” At least so far as the
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are concerned, the renewed interest
came after a period in which, following the work at the end of the
last and the beginning of the present century which culminated in the
publication of the collections edited by Kautzsch and by Charles, little
fresh work on this literature had been undertaken. Since 1970 interest
in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha has grown, in line with interest
in the Second Temple period in general, at an ever more rapid rate
and was in the 1990s further stimulated by the opening up of access
to the texts from Qumran Cave 4 and their publication. The last
quarter of the twentieth century saw the publication of new editions
and translations of important texts, of new introductions and com-
mentaries, of new collections of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
in a number of different languages, of Greek and Latin concordances,
1
For the purposes of this study I have taken the significance of the terms ‘Apocrypha’
and ‘Pseudepigrapha’ for granted and have not attempted to discuss the question of
which writings belong to these corpora, particularly to the latter; for brief comments,
see Knibb, “Pseudepigrapha,” A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. Richard J. Coggins
and J. Leslie Houlden; London: SCM, 1990) 564–68. The difficulties in the use of the
term ‘pseudepigrapha’ stem on the one hand from the fact that traditionally it has been
employed in a rather imprecise way, and on the other from the fact that a number of
the non-biblical writings from Qumran ought to be included in this category.
256 chapter fourteen
of new journals and monograph series. The difficult task now for the
scholar concerned with this literature is to keep up with the vast range
of what is being done.
Methods in the study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have
inevitably tended to mirror those that have been applied to the study of
the Old and New Testaments, and the developments that have occurred
in biblical scholarship in general over the last few decades, for example
the emergence of new literary approaches to the text or of feminist
approaches,2 have also affected study of the Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha. However, my concern here is with what is distinctive in the
study of these writings. In this respect, the most important factor that
has affected, and will continue to affect, study of the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha has undoubtedly been the discovery of the Dead Sea
scrolls, or rather in this context of the non-biblical scrolls primarily.
At the most obvious level, the scrolls have provided us with fragments
in the original languages, and from close to the time of their compo-
sition, of works—for example, Ben Sira,3 or Enoch,4 or Jubilees5—for
which in the past we were forced to rely on translations into Greek,
or on daughter versions of the Greek, or—exceptionally in the case
of Ben Sira—on medieval copies of the text in the original language.
The evidence from Qumran for the writings of the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha is limited in extent, and we are still heavily dependent
on the translations into Greek or on the secondary translations. But
the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments from Qumran have brought us
much more closely into touch with the writings of the Apocrypha and
2
See e.g. Monika Hellmann, Judit—eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und
göttlicher Führung (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Series 23, vol. 444; Frankfurt am
Main: Lang,1992); James C. VanderKam (ed.), “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on
Judith (SBLEJL 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); Maren Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph
in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (AGJU 16; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Angela Standhartinger,
Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von “Joseph und Aseneth”
(AGJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
3
See Maurice Baillet, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de
Qumran (DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 75–77 and plate XV (2Q18); James A.
Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965),
79–85 and plates XIII–XIV; Yigael Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada ( Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society, 1965).
4
See Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon,1976); Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light
of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).
5
See James VanderKam and Józef. T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Harold Attridge and
others, Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994),
1–185 and plates I–XII.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 257
6
For the Levi texts, see further below.
7
For a recent survey of the Qumran wisdom texts and their significance, see Daniel
J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls;
London: Routledge, 1996).
8
Cf. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls,” DSD
2 (1995): 165–84.
258 chapter fourteen
9
This point has been repeatedly and properly emphasised by Marinus de Jonge; see
e.g. Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985).
10
See e.g. Enrico Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe (Turnhout: Brepols, 1993); Jonathan
Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1995); Paolo Bettiolo and others, Ascensio Isaiae: Textus; Enrico
Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum
7–8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995).
11
See Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related
Literature (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1997).
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 259
II
12
Albert Pietersma, review of Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter in
Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1997): 185–90.
13
Michael E. Stone and Jonas C. Greenfield, “Aramaic Levi Document,” in George
Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996), 1–72 and plates I–IV.
14
Émile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatolo-
gique. 4QTestLévic–d(?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress (ed. Julio Trebolle
Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2.449–501
and plates 16–22.
15
James L. Kugel, “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” HTR 85 (1992):
1–34; Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR
86 (1993): 1–64. Cf. also the study by Tjitze Baarda, “The Sechem Episode in the
Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions,” in Sacred History and Sacred
Texts in Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude (ed. Jan N. Bremmer
and Florentino García Martínez; Biblical Exegesis and Theology 5; Kampen: Kok
Pharos, 1992), 11–73.
16
Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi
to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
17
Marinus de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and the Testament of Levi,” in Pseude-
pigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997 (ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael Stone with
the collaboration of Avital Pinnick; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999, 71–89.
260 chapter fourteen
III
The Aramaic Levi Document has been known since the beginning of this
century from two leaves found in the Geniza, a single leaf with four col-
umns now in the Bodleian Library, and a double-leaf with the remains
of six columns now in Cambridge University Library.20 At Qumran one
18
Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi in the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. Michael
E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren; Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998),
203–236.
19
Cf. David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville,
1995), 189–93; Julia M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBLDS 121; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), 104–106; Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 9–22.
20
For an edition, see Robert Henry Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1908; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966) 245–56;
cf. Jonas C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone, “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament
of Levi from the Geniza,” RB 86 (1979): 214–30; repr. in Stone, Selected Studies in
Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha (SVTP 9; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 228–46.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 261
21
See Józef T. Milik, “Testament de Lévi,” in Dominique Barthélemy and Józef T.
Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (DJD I; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955), 87–91 and plate XVII.
22
For the DJD edition, see above, note 13.
23
For an edition, see Charles, The Greek Versions, 254.
24
For the Greek fragments, see Marinus de Jonge in collaboration with Harm W.
Hollander and others, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek
Text (PVTG I,2; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 25, 46–48, 30.
25
For what follows in this section, cf. de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the
Testament of Levi.”
26
See e.g. the translation of the central section of the Aramaic Levi Document by Jonas
C. Greenfield and Michael E. Stone in Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, 461–69.
262 chapter fourteen
27
For Levi’s wisdom speech, see 4QLevia 1 i, 1 ii, 2; 4QLevie 2–3 ii; 4QLevif 8;
Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 5–20, 58–60, 70–72.
28
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 23–24; cf. now Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 20–23.
29
Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 36–37.
30
Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 33–35.
31
For the text, see now Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 27–33; cf. Jonas C. Greenfield
and Michael E. Stone, “The Prayer of Levi,” JBL 112 (1993): 247–66.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 263
at T. Levi 2:3 was a reflection of its place in the Aramaic Levi Document.
Stone and Greenfield have properly pointed out that the position of
the prayer in the Koutloumous manuscript teaches us nothing about
its place in the Aramaic Levi Document, and in view of certain differences
between the events surrounding the prayer in the Testament of Levi and
in the Aramaic Levi Document, and of their suggestion that in the latter
the prayer may be set in a testamentary context, they suggest that
Levi was already consecrated priest by the time of the prayer in the
Aramaic Levi Document.32 They do not, however, suggest a place for this
incident in the Document, and in DJD 22 they merely state that it has
been questioned whether the order of events in the Document and the
Testament was the same.33 The statement in the prayer on which the idea
of a testamentary context is based, “And now my children are with me”
(καὶ νῦν τέκνα μου μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ, Greek fragment, verse 6), is somewhat
unexpected, and we are hampered in understanding it by not having
more of the material that preceded the prayer; but there is nothing else
in what we do have to suggest a death-bed scene for the prayer.34
Kugler has gone further than Stone and Greenfield and argued that
the Aramaic Levi Document contained only one vision, and that it and the
prayer to which it responded occurred after the Shechem incident, that
is, in terms of the Genizah fragments, betweeen the Shechem material
in Cambridge columns a–b and the material referring to the end of a
vision in Bodleian column a, which forms the beginning of the central
section of the Document.35
Kugler is critical of the arguments used to support the view that
the Aramaic Levi Document contained two visions, but his positive argu-
ments for his own view appear to amount only to two. First he argues
that the statement (in Greek fragment, verses 1–2) that immediately
precedes the prayer:
32
“The Prayer of Levi,” 248–51.
33
See DJD 22, 28.
34
The suggestion that the Greek text is based on a mistranslation of an original
Aramaic וכאן בני לי, “And now, build for me (and grant me all the paths of truth)” (so
Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1984), 193; cf. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 42–43) is unconvincing.
35
Cf. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 45–59. For the end of the vision, see also 4QLevic
(Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 37–41).
264 chapter fourteen
36
The translation is from Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 31.
37
From Patriarch to Priest, 57–58.
38
“The Prayer of Levi,” 249–50.
39
From Patriarch to Priest, 58–59.
40
See above, 262.
41
“Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.”
42
Cf. Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 38–39.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 265
“I hid this very thing in my heart,”43 imply the existence in the Aramaic
Levi Document of two visions. It is certainly clear that the author of the
Testament of Levi handled the traditions in the Aramaic Levi Document with
considerable freedom, and we cannot assume that the structure of the
latter was always followed in the former. But where we do have clear
evidence—in the central section—the order of events is the same.
Kugler may be right in his reconstruction, but we cannot know this;
and on present evidence the balance of probability still seems to me to
favour the view that there were two visions in the Aramaic Levi Document,
and that their position corresponded to that in the Testament of Levi.
IV
43
From Patriarch to Priest, 49–50. Kugler refers in support to the occurrence of אףin
11QtgJob 21 l, 9 (so read for 12 l, 9), but he has been misled by the free translation
given by Joseph. A. Fitzmyer and Daniel J. Harrington (A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic
Texts (Biblica et Orientalia 34; Rome: Biblical Istitute, 1978), 26–29).
44
“Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi,” (above, note 14), 485–91.
45
Cf. Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi,” 491–92.
46
Cf. Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi,” 468–69, 487; Knibb, “Messian-
ism in the Pseudepigrapha,” (above, note 8) 182–83.
266 chapter fourteen
47
“Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi,” 479–85, 490–91.
48
Cf. already Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 51–52; de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi
and in the Testament of Levi.”
49
A possibility noted by Puech (“Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi,” 476), but
rejected in favour of the view that fragment 24 ii refers to the violent death, possibly
crucifixion, of the priest of 4Q541 (pp. 496–501); cf. Knibb, “Messianism in the
Pseudepigrapha,” 183–84 and references there.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 267
50
Jean Starcky, “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,” RB 70 (1963):
492.
51
For the sapiential character of this material, cf. Michael E. Stone, “Ideal Figures
and Social Context: Priest and Sage in the Early Second Temple Age,” Ancient Israelite
Religions: F. M. Cross Festschrift (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr. and others; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988) 578–86 (reprinted in Selected Studies, 262–70).
52
Michael E. Stone, “Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins,” JSJ 19 (1988)
159–70 (reprinted in Selected Studies, 247–58).
53
“Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood,” (above, note 15), 45–46, 52–58.
54
From Patriarch to Priest, 92–93, 110–11, 130–31, 146–55 (see the references there
to earlier studies).
55
Jürgen Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen
(AGJU 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 79–87, 103.
268 chapter fourteen
56
See the discussion of this material in de Jonge and Tromp, “Jacob’s Son Levi in
the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and Related Literature” (above, note 18).
57
“Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood,” 24–27.
58
Unfortunately we do not know what stood in the vision whose beginning is found
in 4QLevib 2 15–18.
perspectives on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 269
and the blessing, one might be tempted to conclude with Kugel that
the former was dependent on the latter. But the relationship between
the two writings is perhaps better explained by the common depen-
dence of the two on pre-existent traditions. These traditions may have
been embodied in a now-lost written source, an Apocryphon of Levi, as
Kugler most recently suggests;59 but I am not sure that the existence
of a written source is necessary to explain the relationship between
the two works.
In contrast to the above, there is little doubt that we should think in
terms, not of a traditio-historical, but of a literary relationship between
the Testament of Levi and the Aramaic Levi Document;60 the close correspon-
dence in the structure of the two writings, which is quite clear for the
material in the central section of the Aramaic Levi Document, and, in part,
the close similarity of language make it all but certain that the Testament
was directly dependent on the Aramaic Levi Document or a writing very
similar to it. It is, however, also clear that the author of the Testament
handled his source with considerable freedom, particularly by way of
the omission, compression and addition of material. The existence of
the two Greek fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document suggests that a
Greek translation of this work was in existence, and it is plausible to
think that the Christian author would have used this Greek translation,
although we cannot know how this translation would have compared
overall with the Aramaic Document.61 In this connection comparison of
the wisdom instruction in the Aramaic Levi Document with the correspond-
ing passage in T. Levi 13 is instructive in that in the latter—as Stone
and Greenfield have pointed out—“wisdom” has been replaced by “the
law of God” (cf. Aramaic Levi Document, verses 88b, 89a, 93 with T. Levi
13:2b, 3, 4c). The observation by Stone and Greenfield that this may
be an indication that the Greek translation of the Aramaic Levi Docu-
ment was done by a Jew62 is well made, and indeed T. Levi 13 would
fit naturally into a Jewish wisdom context—as the many parallels that
may be drawn with works such as Ben Sira indicate. But in addition
59
From Patriarch to Priest, 146–55; cf. Pierre Grelot, “Notes sur le Testament araméen de
Lévi,” RB 63 (1956): 402–406.
60
Cf. e.g. Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Com-
mentary, 21–25, 129–30; more recently, de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the
Testament of Levi.”
61
Cf. Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary,
23–24; de Jonge, “Levi in Aramaic Levi and in the Testament of Levi.”
62
Stone and Greenfield, DJD 22, 3.
270 chapter fourteen
to a Greek version of the Aramaic Levi Document, it also seems likely that
the author of the Testaments made use of other Jewish traditions, as for
example in chapter 18, although we do not know in what form he had
access to these traditions.
During the past century it has seemed at times as if scholars con-
cerned with the Testament of Levi have believed that the only important
thing was the recovery of some intermediate Jewish Levi text between
the Aramaic Levi Document and the Testament of Levi—as if this might
provide us with reliable Jewish evidence on which to work, or provide
the key to the understanding of the Testament. Kugler’s very recent
attempt to recover from the Testament of Levi what he calls Original Testa-
ment of Levi is only the latest of such enterprises.63 He is aware of the
methodological difficulties inherent in such an undertaking and states
that his “objective is only to gain a sense of Original Testament of Levi’s
broad outline, not of the exact number of words that it contained.”64
But even on this basis, it seems to me that the uncertainties are so great
as to make it very questionable whether such reconstructions have value,
and perhaps the time has come to concentrate on the understanding
of the Testament in the light of what we clearly possess.
63
From Patriarch to Priest, 171–220.
64
From Patriarch to Priest, 178.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
It was, I suppose, Gerhard von Rad who first gave prominence to the
idea that apocalyptic is a form of wisdom. In itself the idea is quite
old; it can be found already in an article on Daniel published by
Hölscher in 1919 and can be traced back even before this.1 However,
in the face of the overwhelming view that apocalyptic is the child of
prophecy it was only with the publication in 1960 of volume 2 of von
Rad’s Theologie des Alten Testaments (where his arguments on the origins
of apocalyptic were first set out) that serious consideration began to
be given to the possibility of a connection between apocalyptic and
wisdom.2 Von Rad has found few followers, although Hans-Peter Müller
has sought to defend von Rad by defining more precisely the kind of
wisdom which, in his view, lies behind apocalyptic; Müller argues that
we must distinguish between educational and mantic wisdom, and
that apocalyptic is a continuation of the latter rather than the former.3
More recently Jürgen Lebram has expressed support for the approach
1
Gustav Hölscher, “Die Entstehung des Buches Daniel”, TSK 92 (1919): 134–8,
cf. 129–30. A link between apocalyptic and wisdom had already been suggested by
Ludwig Noack and Heinrich Ewald; see Johann M. Schmidt, Die jüdische Apokalyptik.
Die Geschichte ihrer Erforschung von den Anfängen bis zu den Textfunden von Qumran, (2d ed.:
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), 13–14, 20–1.
2
Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, (2 vols.; Munich: Kaiser, 1960),
2:314–28 (ET of this edition, Old Testament Theology, trans. by D. M. G. Stalker; Edin-
burgh: Oliver & Boyd,1965), 2:301–15). Von Rad made extensive revisions to the
chapter on Daniel and Apocalyptic for the fourth German edition (published 1965).
I have used the fifth edition (1968); see 316–38. Cf. von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, (Neu-
kirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970), 344–62 (ET, Wisdom in Israel, London: SCM,
1972, 269–82).
3
Hans-Peter Müller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik,” VTSup 22 (1972):
268–93. As evidence for his view Müller argues, inter alia, that passages such as Isa
19:11–13; 44:25; 47:13; Jer 50:36; Esther 1:13 (cf. Gen 41:8) indicate that Israel became
more familiar with mantic wisdom in the period after 587 B.C.E.; that the Daniel of
Dan 2; 4; and 5 is a wise man of a mantic type; and that various features of apoca-
lyptic (e.g. its eschatological orientation, its determinism) can be explained more readily
against the background of mantic wisdom than of educational wisdom.
272 chapter fifteen
4
Jürgen Lebram, “Apokalyptik/Apokalypsen. II. Altes Testament,” TRE 3 (1978):
192–202.
5
Theologie 2:315–21, 326 (ET, 303–8, 313); cf. Theologie, 5th ed., 2:320–3, 336.
6
See Theologie, 5th ed., 2:317–18.
7
Theologie, 5th ed., 2:318–19.
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 273
8
Theologie, 5th ed., 2:324–6.
9
Theologie, 5th ed., 2:326–7.
10
Klaus Koch, Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik (Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1970),
43–4 (ET, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (SBT, Second Series, 22; London: SCM, 1972),
45–6). Cf. Philipp Vielhauer in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Neutes-
tamentliche Apokryphen (2 vols.; 3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1964), 2:420 (ET, New Testament
Apocrypha (2 vols.; London: Lutterworth Press, 1965) 2:598).
11
See Theologie, 5th ed., 2:319; cf. Theologie, 1st ed., 2:319 (ET, 306).
12
Müller (VTSup 22 (1972): 280–1) argues that the eschatological orientation of
apocalyptic is readily explicable on the assumption that apocalyptic is a continuation
of mantic, rather than educational, wisdom; see above, note 3.
274 chapter fifteen
13
Theologie, 5th ed., 2:329; cf. Theologie, 1st ed., 2:320 (ET, 307); von Rad, Weisheit
in Israel, 357–62 (ET, 279–82).
14
Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik in ihrem Verhältnis zu Prophetie und Weisheit
(Theologische Existenz heute 157; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 18–34.
15
Otto Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; 2d ed.; Neukirchen: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1962); see, e.g., 33–6, 38, 112, 126, 127, 131 (ET, Theocracy and
Eschatology, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 22–5, 27, 92, 104, 105, 108). Cf. also Hartmut
Gese, “Anfang und Ende der Apokalyptik dargestellt am Sacharjabuch,” ZTK 70
(1973): 20–49; Ina Willi-Plein, Prophetie am Ende. Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9–14 (BBB
42; Cologne: Hanstein, 1974), 123–8.
16
Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 5th ed., 2:325; von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, 355–62 (ET,
277–82).
17
Cf. von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik, 59.
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 275
18
Von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik, 10–11.
19
Von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik, 13–52.
20
Cf. Plöger, Theokratie, 38 (ET, 27).
21
Von der Osten-Sacken does not discuss the date of the apocalyptic writings, but
some sections of 1 Enoch are at least contemporary with the latest sections of Daniel
(chs. (7); 8–12) and may well be older. A terminus ad quem for the composition of 1 En.
1–36 in the first half of the second century B.C.E. is provided by the date of 4QEna;
see Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 140.
22
Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 5th ed., 2:318.—Apocalyptic material is associated with
the names of the prophets Isaiah, Elijah, and Zephaniah, but it is not clear that this
is relevant to the present discussion. The apocalyptic sections of the Ascension of Isaiah
are Christian. The fragmentary Apocalypses of Elijah and Zephaniah are Christian in
their present form, and the extent and character of any underlying Jewish material is
unclear. The Jewish Apocalypse of Elijah, extant in rabbinic Hebrew, was dated by its
editor (Moses Buttenwieser) to 260 C.E., but is commonly thought to be later than
this, even though it may contain earlier traditions. For information of these writings
see the relevant sections of Albert-Marie Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs
d’Ancien Testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970); and James H. Charlesworth (assisted
by P. Dykers), The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SBLSCS 7; Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press, 1976).
276 chapter fifteen
23
Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 6–7. See
the review by Peter R. Ackroyd in Interpretation 30 (1976), 412–15. Cf. also Joseph
Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (University of
Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3; Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 113–14.
24
Walter Schmithals, Die Apokalyptik. Einführung und Deutung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1973 (ET, The Apocalyptic Movement. Introduction and Interpretation, Nashville:
Abingdon, 1975)).
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 277
II
25
For the issues discussed in section I of this article see now the author’s essay,
“Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition.
Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd (ed. Richard J. Coggins, Anthony Phillips and Michael
A. Knibb; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 155–180.
26
2 Esdras 1–2 and 15–16 are, of course, Christian additions to the Jewish work,
2 Esdras 3–14, which is commonly known as 4 Ezra.
27
I follow the common view that 4 Ezra was composed in Hebrew.
278 chapter fifteen
28
Cf. the link that is made between prophecy and law in Mal 3:22–4.
29
The parallel is clearly not exact, but Ezek 2:8–3:3 seems to offer the most plausi-
ble background to the drinking of the cup. In any case, the image in 4 Ezra does not
appear to have developed from those passages in the Old Testament in which ‘cup’ is
used in a figurative way as a symbol of judgement (e.g. Isa 51:17, 22) or of blessing
(e.g. Ps 16:5).
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 279
ings.30 So far as the latter are concerned, there are two points that are
of relevance to the present discussion. In the first place, the concluding
words of 4 Ezra, as well as the overall argument of the chapter, make
clear that although the author felt a concern for the general mass of
the people (cf. verses 20–1), he saw the apocalyptic writings, including
no doubt his own work, as quite definitely intended for a select circle,
the wise.31 This idea corresponds to the distinctions made in verses 13
and 26 between the ordinary people and the wise. No doubt the refer-
ences in verses 26 and 46 to the keeping back of the seventy books is
partially intended to explain why the apocalyptic writings, supposedly
written in a much earlier age, had only been made public in the intert-
estamental period, i.e. it is part of the apocalyptic technique. But the
fact that they are nonetheless to be handed over to the wise suggests
that the sociological setting of the apocalypses is to be sought in learned
circles, and more generally it seems to me that the apocalypses are not
popular writings. In the second place, 4 Ezra 14:45b–47 indicates that
the apocalypses were in some sense seen as a form of wisdom, at any
rate they contain wisdom.
Some support for these two points is to be found elsewhere in
4 Ezra, namely in the concluding remarks of the angel after the inter-
pretations of the Vision of the Eagle and the Lion and of the Vision
of the Man from the Sea, 12:37–8 and 13:53b–55. The significance
of these remarks is increased, it seems to me, because of the position
in which they occur, i.e. as descriptive comment on the character of
30
This seems to me more likely than the view that the seventy books are the tradi-
tional law; see, e.g., George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. The
Age of the Tannaim, (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927, 1930),
1 (1927): 8n. It may, however, be observed that a clear parallel is drawn between the
revelation given to Moses at Sinai (cf. vss. 4–6) and the revelation of the scriptures to
Ezra, and that in both cases a distinction is made between the writings that are to be
made public and the writings that are to be kept secret. It is significant for the present
discussion that the words that Moses is to keep secret (vs. 6) are probably meant to be
the apocalyptic writings as the description of them in vs. 5 (“the secrets of the times”,
“the end of the times”) indicates. One of the purposes of 4 Ezra 14 appears to have
been an attempt to claim for the apocalyptic writings the same kind of Mosaic author-
ity (explicitly in vss. 4–6, implicitly in vss. 45b–7) as was accorded to the oral law (cf.
Aboth 1, 1). See further my comments in Richard J. Coggins and Michael A. Knibb,
The First and Second Books of Esdras (The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New
English Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 272, 274.
31
Although 4 Ezra uses the term “the wise”, it is not suggested that the character
of this group was identical with that of the group which produced such writings as
Proverbs. For further comments on the character of the group behind 4 Ezra see
below, 287–288.
280 chapter fifteen
the preceding visions. According to 12:37–8 the things that Ezra has
seen are to be written in a book and kept hidden; but they are none-
theless to be taught to the wise. We thus have the same two ideas of
the restriction of apocalyptic to a learned circle and of the link with
wisdom. In 13:53b–55 Ezra is told:
And you alone have been enlightened about this, because you have
forsaken your own ways and have applied yourself to mine, and have
searched out my law; for you have devoted your life to wisdom, and called
understanding32 your mother.
Here Ezra’s concern with wisdom is placed on a par with his concern
for law—an equation reminiscent again of Ecclesiasticus. For the pas-
sage about wisdom Myers refers as parallels to Prov 2:2; 4:5 and to
Prov 7:4 (but wisdom is sister in Proverbs, not mother).33 The point I
want to make here, however, is that in 4 Ezra 13:53b–55 there is again
seen to be a link between apocalyptic (more precisely the interpretation
of the Vision of the Man from the Sea) and wisdom.
III
The last chapter of 4 Ezra thus presents us with several different mod-
els for understanding the role of Ezra and of the author of the book
who stands behind him. I now want to look at the book as a whole to
see whether this sheds any further light on the character of the book.
Here, the first point to notice is the parallelism—which has often been
observed—between 4 Ezra and the Book of Job. 4 Ezra and Job are
concerned with a similar problem, theodicy, although, of course, they
handle it in very different ways. Both books employ a dialogue form
as a means of dealing with the problem; in both cases the dialogue
is inconclusive, and a divine revelation (I use the term very loosely) is
needed as a means of resolving the difficulty. Further, in one case at
least it is clear that Job was in the mind of the author of 4 Ezra in
view of the close similarities between the questions of 4 Ezra 4:7–8
and Job 38:16–18. Similar wisdom-style questions are used in 5:36–7,
and here it is probable that one of the passages which provided inspi-
32
Bruno Violet (Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32;
Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924), 188) suggests that ōkmā and bīnā stood in the original.
33
Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras (AB 42: Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 313.
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 281
ration for the author was Job 36:26–7. In line with this is the fact that
on several occasions the speeches of the angel are introduced in the
way in which the words of a wisdom teacher are introduced; cf. 5:32,
“Listen to me, and I will instruct you; pay attention to me, and I will
tell you more”; and 7:49, “Listen to me, Ezra, and I will instruct you,
and will admonish you yet again.” Cf. also 10:38 and 8:4. These facts
suggest that 4 Ezra has to some extent been intentionally modelled
on the Book of Job, and might also suggest that there are strong links
between 4 Ezra and wisdom. However, while it seems to me clear that
Job has served in some ways as a model for 4 Ezra, this view needs to
be qualified in a number of ways.
The dialogue portion of 4 Ezra obviously provides the closest parallel
to Job, but the moment the two books are brought together the differ-
ences between them also become apparent. In Job the dialogue is very
stylised; there are a series of fairly long set speeches, and the participants
in the dialogue frequently make no real attempt to deal with the points
made by those who have spoken before them. In 4 Ezra, by contrast,
there is much more of an attempt to maintain a real dialogue, and the
speeches for the most part are fairly short. It is also true of 4 Ezra that
towards the end of each of the first three sections there is a change in
the character of the debate; Ezra ceases to be on the attack and asks
purely informational questions (cf. 4:33–5:13; 5:50–6:28; 7:[75]–[115];
8:63–9:13).34 But questions and answers of this kind are completely
lacking in Job. These features of 4 Ezra do not mean that Job was not
in the mind of the author, but they do indicate that he was not slav-
ishly trying to imitate this model.
It is also the case that the composition of the dialogue section of
4 Ezra has been influenced by other biblical passages, and in particular
Dan 9–12 seems to have served in part as a model for the author. Thus
we may observe the use of a question and answer method of revela-
tion in Dan 12:5–13 which is comparable to the use of questions and
answers in the informational sections of the dialogues (see the passages
listed in the preceding paragraph). But the introductions to the dialogues
in 4 Ezra rather more obviously show dependence on Daniel. The fact
that Ezra is commanded to fast in preparation for the revelations which
34
See my comments in Coggins and Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras,
127, 144, 181, 212–13; cf. Alden L. Thompson, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of
IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 144–5.
282 chapter fifteen
35
Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and
of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. (ConBNT 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 136–7;
cf. 76, 96–8, 99, 101.
36
But see below, n. 46.
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 283
in the way in which Old Testament material is used, but that in places
close dependence upon specific Old Testament passages can still be
observed. Thus it is difficult not to think that there is some connection
between 4 Ezra 6:1–6 and Prov 8:22–31, whereas 4 Ezra 7:132–140
has been seen as a midrash on Exod 34:6–7.37 These two passages are,
however, relatively incidental, and it seems to me of more importance
to observe the way in which specific Old Testament passages have been
used at a number of very significant points within 4 Ezra. I refer to the
laments at the beginning of the first three sections of 4 Ezra (3:4–36;
5:23–30; 6:38–59) and the visions at the beginning of the second three
sections (9:38–10:28; 11:1–12:3a; 13:1–13a).
The laments at the beginning of the first three sections of 4 Ezra
are used by the author to pose the problems with which the book is
concerned; all three make use of the Old Testament, and two of them
draw on quite definite sections of the Old Testament. The first lament
(3:4–36) begins with a recapitulation of the saving history, although the
account of this is used rather differently from the ways in which such
accounts are normally used.38 The first half of the lament is largely
dependent on a number of passages in the early chapters of Genesis.
Thus 4 Ezra 3:4–5 is dependent on Gen 2:4b–7, with 3:5, “and thou
didst breathe into him the breath of life, and he was made alive in
thy presence”, being very similar to Gen 2:7.39 4 Ezra 3:6 and 7a draw
on Gen 2:8, 9, 15–17, while 3:7b, death following upon disobedience,
summarizes Gen 3. 4 Ezra 3:7c–11 gives the story of the Flood (Gen
6–9). 4 Ezra 3:12, “When those who dwelt on earth began to multiply,
they produced children and peoples and many nations, and again they
began to be more ungodly than were their ancestors”, picks up Gen
10:32 and the story of the Tower of Babel which follows (Gen 11:1–9),
but the phraseology recalls that of Gen 6:1. 4 Ezra 3:13–15 deal with
Abraham, and verses 14 and 15 contain allusions to Gen 15:12–18
as well as to Gen 17:7. Thereafter the account of the saving history
is abbreviated, and dependence upon the Old Testament is much less
37
Cf. David Simonsen, “Ein Midrasch im IV. Buch Esra,” in Festschrift zu Israel
Lewy’s siebzigsten Geburtstag (ed. Marcus Brann and Ismar Elbogen; Breslau: M. & H.
Marcus, 1911), 270–8.
38
In 4 Ezra 3:4–36 the account of God’s dealings with his people is used as the
basis of Ezra’s complaint that God has treated his people unjustly. The closest parallel
to this in the Old Testament is perhaps to be found in Ps 89.
39
However, the mention of God speaking at the time of creation and commanding the
dust recalls the idea of creation by the word in Gen 1.
284 chapter fifteen
direct. But it seems to me that there is sufficient evidence for the view
that the early chapters of Genesis were quite definitely in the mind of
the author when he composed his lament.
The position in the case of the lament at the beginning of the third
section (6:38–59) is even clearer, for the third lament, which culminates
in the question, If the world was created for Israel, why did Israel not
possess the world?, is heavily dependent on the narrative of the creation
in Gen 1. The account in 4 Ezra follows that in Genesis quite closely,
and even the one major elaboration, the incorporation of the tradition
concerning Behemoth and Leviathan, has, of course, a basis in the
Genesis narrative in the reference to the creation on the fifth day of
“the great sea-monsters” (Gen 1:21). It seems difficult not to think that
the person who composed the lament had Genesis 1 in front of him,
even though he clearly also had access to other traditions.
By contrast, the lament at the beginning of the second section
(5:23–30) draws on a much wider range of Old Testament material.
The lament uses a variety of traditional images (the vine, the lily, etc.)
to describe the election of Israel. Parallels for these images can be found
in the Old Testament without too much difficulty, e.g. in laments such
as Psalms 74 and 80 and in prophetic passages such as Isa 5:1–7 or
Hosea 14:5–7. The allegorical interpretation of passages in the Song
of Songs has also been seen to underlie the choice of some of the
images.40 But what we do not find here is the conscious use of a fairly
restricted section of the Old Testament as in the case of the first and
third laments.
Turning now to the visions in the fourth, fifth and sixth sections of
4 Ezra there is clearly no parallel here at all between these revelations
and the theophany at the end of Job—except in the most general,
functional terms.41 But there is still a link of a sort with wisdom, and
there is still—in the case of two of the visions—a conscious dependence
on specific Old Testament material. The allegorical visions, with their
clearly defined threefold structure—vision, fear and request for inter-
pretation, and interpretation—have their closest parallel in the classic
visions of Dan 7 and 8, and also of Dan 2, and there can be no doubt
that the visions of Daniel were in the mind of the author in the case
40
For detailed references see Myers, I and II Esdras, 193; Knibb in Coggins and
Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras, 136–7. On vs. 24a see Violet, Die Apokalypsen
des Esra und des Baruch, 32.
41
Cf. above, 280–281.
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 285
of the fifth and sixth visions. But beyond Daniel the allegorical vision
has a rather mixed ancestry in the Old Testament. On the one hand
there are obvious links with prophecy, and such passages as Ezek 17 and
Zech 1–6. On the other hand, the interpretation of mysterious dreams
and visions is a part of wisdom, as witness the Joseph narrative and the
early chapters of the Book of Daniel. Here Müller’s article, drawing
attention to the links with mantic wisdom, seems to me important.42
With regard to the contents of the visions, it has been generally held
since the time of Gunkel that the Vision of the Woman in Distress
(4 Ezra 9:38–10:28) makes use of an old folk-tale.43 Individual elements
in the story have their parallels in the Old Testament—e.g. the barren-
ness of the mother (9:43), or the death on the wedding-night (10:1),
for which cf. Tobit 8. But overall there is no dependence on the Old
Testament. It is also the case that the author has kept to the lines of
the story which he uses, with the result that several features in the vision
are ignored in the interpretation. The situation is very different in the
fifth and sixth sections where there is clear and conscious dependence
on Daniel, and where the author has handled his material much more
freely. It is difficult to escape the feeling here that whatever visionary
experiences may ultimately underlie them, the visions have been com-
posed, on the basis of the biblical material, with the interpretation
in mind.44 Thus the composition of the Vision of the Eagle and the
Lion (4 Ezra 11:1–12:3a) has obviously been inspired by Dan 7, and
in some places fairly close dependence on Daniel may be observed.45
The vision is, in fact, consciously presented as a reinterpretation of
Dan 7, as 12:11–12 make clear: “The eagle which you saw coming
up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to
42
See above, note 3. Cf. von Rad, Theologie, 5th ed., 2:325; von Rad, Weisheit in
Israel, 358–9 (ET, 280).
43
Cf. Hermann Gunkel, “Das vierte Buch Esra,” APAT 2.344.
44
On this question cf. the comments of Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted, 104–8.
45
The following elements seem to have been taken directly from Dan 7: the dream
by night (11:1—cf. Dan 7:1); the eagle rising from the sea (11:1—cf. Dan 7:2–3); the
description of the eagle as a monstrous creature with twelve wings and three heads
(cf. Dan 7:4–8); the winds (11:2—cf. Dan 7:2); the clouds (11:2—perhaps taken inap-
propriately from Dan 7:13); the talons (11:7—cf. Dan 7:19); the burning of the eagle
(12:3—cf. Dan 7:11). In addition, the use of the lion as a symbol for the Messiah
(11:37), which perhaps derives ultimately from Gen 49:9 may have been influenced by
the reference to the lion in Dan 7:4. The description of the eagle as the fourth beast
(11:39–40) is a clear allusion to Dan 7.
286 chapter fifteen
your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain
or have explained it to you.”
What is explicit in the Vision of the Eagle and the Lion is also
implicit in the Vision of the Man from the Sea (4 Ezra 13:1–13a), for
here detailed use is made of Dan 7 and, to a lesser extent, of Dan 2,
as well as of a number of other Old Testament passages. The basis
of the vision is Dan 7 from which are taken the motifs of the dream
by night, the wind stirring up the sea, the figure of the man, the fly-
ing with the clouds, and perhaps the burning of the multitude (verse
11, cf. Dan 7:11). From Dan 2 has been taken the motif of the great
mountain (verses 6–7) which has its counterpart in the stone cut out
without hands which became a great mountain (Dan 2:34–5, 44–5).
The vision has then been built up on this basis with the aid of such
passages as follows (I mention only the more important): for verse 4,
Ps 46:6; 97:5; Micah 1:4; for verse 10, Isa 11:4; Ps 18:8, 13; for verse
13, Isa 66:20. Apart from the dependence of this vision on Dan 7 in
terms of content, the form of the Vision of the Man from the Sea
reflects the form of the vision in Dan 7. Thus the repeated formula
“And I looked, and behold . . .” (Et vide, et ecce . . .; see verses 3 (twice),
5, 6, 8) corresponds to the Danielic āzeh hawêt wa arû (Dan 7:2, 6, 7,
13). It is thus reasonable to see the Vision of the Man from the Sea as
a reinterpretation of Dan 7.46
There is a further characteristic of the fifth and sixth sections of
4 Ezra to which I should like to draw attention, and that is that they
to some extent share the literary form of the Qumran Pesharim. This
emerges in two distinct ways. On the one hand the accounts of the
visions are treated rather like the scriptural text and are interpreted
systematically, section by section. On the other hand, the introductory
formulae that are used in the interpretations in 12:10–35 and 13:25–53a,
although quite different from the Qumran formulae, are nevertheless
46
Hartman (Prophecy Interpreted, 96) believes that the use of Old Testament motifs in
4 Ezra 13:5–11 was more casual and superficial than in earlier texts, and that depend-
ence on the Old Testament was indirect: “While in the earlier texts the authors were
content with, so to speak, building with stones from the OT, it seems as if the author
of the present text built with stones which had become traditional and were not taken
directly from the OT. Moreover he gave some of these building stones which were
originally taken from the OT some extra adornment to make them more impressive.”
While the point about the embellishment of the underlying material seems to me
right, I see no reason to doubt that the author of 4 Ezra 13 used Dan 7, as well as
other Old Testament passages, directly. Hartman does accept this for the use of Dan
2:34–5 (Prophecy Interpreted, 96–7).
apocalyptic and wisdom in 4 EZRA 287
IV
47
Cf. also 12:26 (Et quoniam vidisti . . ., quoniam . . .); 12:31–2 (Et leonem quem
vidisti . . ., hic est . . .); 13:25b–26 (Quia vidisti . . ., ipse est . . .); 13:39–40 (Et quoniam
vidisti . . ., haec sunt . . .). For the last three passages cf. IQpHab X, 1–3, w šr mr . . . pšrw
hw . . .
48
Cf. John J. Collins, “Jewish Apocalyptic against its Hellenistic Near Eastern
Environment,” BASOR 220 (1975): 30–1.
288 chapter fifteen
49
The learned character given to 4 Ezra by its use of the Old Testament suggests that
there was a link of some kind between the author and the rabbinic circles of his day
(cf. Ferdinand Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Bücher aus der Zeit und Schule R. Akiba’s (Leipzig:
Schulze, 1885), 57). This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that in ch. 14, where Ezra
dictates the law to five men, there seems to be a deliberate allusion to Rabban Yo anan
ben Zakkai and his five famous disciples. From the rabbinic side, on the other hand,
it may be observed that Jacob Neusner has recently emphasized that the study and
interpretation of scripture undertaken by Yo anan and his disciples included mystical
exegesis (cf. A Life of Yo anan ben Zakkai. Ca. 1–80 C.E. (StPB 6; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill,
1970), 134–41); this points to some kind of knowledge of the apocalyptic writings, cf.
Neusner’s comment (p. 138): “The mention of several levels of heaven indicates that
Yo anan and his disciples were familiar with an earlier tradition, now found in Enoch,
2 Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and a broader range of mystical speculation.” See also
Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, (London: Thames & Hudson,
1955), 40–3. Rosenthal (Vier apokryphische Bücher, 57–71) argued that the author of
4 Ezra was a disciple of Yo anan’s pupil, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.
50
Cf. von Rad’s comments on the exegesis of scripture as an important element in
Daniel; see Theologie, 1st ed., 2:327 (ET, 314); 5th ed., 2:336–7. Cf. also Collins’s descrip-
tion of apocalyptic as “prophecy by interpretation” (BASOR 220 (1975): 30–1).
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
1
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the
Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995), 167.
2
Cf. e.g. Johannes Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsge-
schichtlichen Ort der Menschensohnsgestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 56–63; and Knibb in the article mentioned
in note 10 below.
3
Cf. Harm W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:
A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 180, 228.
290 chapter sixteen
4
For recent treatments of Psalms of Solomon 8, see e.g. Svend Holm-Nielsen, “Die
Psalmen Salomos,” JSHRZ IV/2 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977), 78–82; Robert B.
Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” in OTP 2.658–60.
5
Cf. Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos, 79; Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” 659.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 291
6
See Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos, 79.
7
The MT has לגוים מרחוק, but this is commonly emended to לגוי ממרחק, as in
Jer 5:15; it is in any case clear that the passage refers to a single nation. See e.g. Hans
Wildberger, Jesaja. 1. Teilband: Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT X/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972), 207.
8
The MT uses הכהin both Isa 10:20 and 10:24. In twenty out of the twenty six
passages in which παίειν occurs in the Septuagint, it is used to render הכה, and so it
is plausible to think that הכהwas used in the original Hebrew version of the Psalms
of Solomon. In Isa 10:20 the Septuagint exceptionally used ἀδικεῖν, but in 10:24 it has
πατάσσειν, the most common translation equivalent for הכה.
9
Cf. Holm-Nielsen, Die Psalmen Salomos, 80; Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” 659.
For the historical background, see also George B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,”
in APOT 2.641.
292 chapter sixteen
II
Despite the fact that there is widespread use of the book of Isaiah
within the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the prophet himself is
rarely mentioned. Very few even of the quotations from the book are
attributed to Isaiah, and the description of the abbreviated quotation
of Isa 43:2 in 4 Macc. 18:14 as “the scripture of Isaiah” (τὴν Ησαιου
γραφήν) is quite exceptional. The Ascension of Isaiah is, however, in a
different category as a narrative text about Isaiah. At first sight the
Ascension hardly appears to draw on traditions from the book of Isaiah
itself, but in fact in a number of places it does make significant use
of the book.
The Ascension of Isaiah is a Christian work which is divided clearly
into two parts: an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah (chaps. 1–5),
which includes a report of a vision which he had experienced before
his arrest by Manasseh (3:13–4:22), and an account of the mystical
ascension of Isaiah into heaven where he saw the descent and ascent
of the Beloved (chaps. 6–11).11 At an earlier stage it was commonly
maintained that the Ascension of Isaiah was a composite work, and thus
Robert Henry Charles, whose views brought earlier study of the Ascen-
sion to a conclusion, argued that the Ascension had been compiled by an
editor from three independent works: the original Martyrdom of Isaiah,
10
Michael A. Knibb, “Isaianic Traditions in the Book of Enoch,” in After the Exile:
Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (ed. John Barton and David J. Reimer; Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1996), 217–29.
11
For recent treatments of the Ascension of Isaiah, see e.g. Michael A. Knibb, “Mar-
tyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in OTP 2.143–76; Enrico Norelli, Ascension du
prophète Isaïe (Apocryphes: Collection de poche de l’Association pour l’Étude de la
Littérature Apocryphe Chrétienne; Turnhout: Brepols, 1993); Jonathan Knight, The
Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1995). See also Paolo Bettiolo and others, Ascensio Isaiae: Textus;
E. Norelli, Ascensio Isaiae: Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum
7–8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995).
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 293
12
Cf. Robert Henry Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (London: A. & C. Black, 1900),
xxxvi–xlv.
13
Cf. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 147–148.
14
See Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 43–48; Robert G. Hall, “The Ascension of
Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” JBL 109 (1990):
289–306.
15
Cf. e.g. Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah”; Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 74–78;
Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah, 21–23, 25–26.
16
Cf. e.g. Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 73; Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah, 26.
17
For the idea that the author of the Ascension belonged to a circle of Christian
prophets, see e.g. Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah”; Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isäie,
12–29, 66–78; Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah, 13, 31–38.
294 chapter sixteen
18
Cf. Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 156 n. g.
19
In Isa 7:3 MT שאר ישובappears in the Septuagint as ὁ καταλειφθεὶς Ιασουβ,
for which the older Ethiopic manuscripts give the equivalent of ὁ καταλειφθεὶς καὶ
Ιασουβ (xella tarefu waxiyosab); the younger Ethiopic manuscripts have only xiyosab. In the
Ascension, the Greek text has Ισασουφ (2:9) and Ιασουβ (4:1) in the only two places
where the name is extant; the Ethiopic has xiyosab or xiyoseb throughout.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 295
Samnas the secretary had written out” (1:2b–5a). This passage appears
to state that at the time of his sickness the king experienced a vision,
and that he dictated the content of the vision to Samnas (i.e. Shebna;
cf. 2 Kgs 18:18; Isa 36:3).20 There is no direct basis in the Hebrew
Bible for either part of this, but the idea that Hezekiah experienced a
vision at the time of his sickness was perhaps built up on the tradition
that he was given a “sign” (2 Kgs 20:8–9; Isa 38:7, 22; 2 Chron 32:24),
and the idea that he dictated the content of this vision to Shebna was
perhaps derived from the use of the term “writing” ()מכתב21 in the
heading of the individual psalm of thanksgiving that is attributed to
Hezekiah in Isa 38:9–20.22 However, although the reference to Gehenna
in Ascen. Isa. 1:2b–5a has an analogy in the psalm in the references
to Sheol (Isa 38:10–11, 18), there is no real connection between Isa
38:9–20 and Ascen. Isa. 1:2b–5a. In fact Ascen. Isa. 1:2b–5a serves as an
anticipation of 3:13–4:22, an account of a vision which the Ascension
ascribes to Isaiah, not Hezekiah, just as 1:5b–6a, where there seems
to be reference to a written account of a vision seen by Isaiah, clearly
serves as an anticipation of chaps. 6–11. It appears that the author of
the Ascension drew on the detail in Isa 38:9 concerning the “writing”
of Hezekiah as a means of structuring the opening chapter without
regard to the overall coherence of the narrative.
Chapter 2 describes the apostasy of the reign of Manasseh, the
withdrawal of Isaiah from Jerusalem, and—by way of analogy with the
impending fate of Isaiah—the fate of Micaiah at the hands of Ahab
and Ahaziah. None of this has any basis in the book of Isaiah, and
indeed Manasseh the king is not even mentioned in Isaiah, but many
of the details in the chapter have been taken from 1 and 2 Kings.
The narrative of the events that were the immediate cause of the
martyrdom of Isaiah is contained in chaps. 3–5: a Samaritan called
Belkira (2:12a), who was the agent of Beliar, discovered the hiding-
place of Isaiah and accused him of treason and blasphemy (3:1–10);
in consequence Manasseh had him arrested (3:11–12) and put to death
(5:1–16). These events are explained as the result of Beliar’s anger
20
MT שבנהor שבנא, LXX Σομνας. The Ethiopic form (samnas or samenas) reflects
the Greek.
21
The fact that MT מכתבis commonly emended to ( מכתםcf. e.g. Hans Wildberger,
Jesaja. 3. Teilband: Jesaja 28–39 (BKAT X/3; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982),
1442) is irrelevant to the point made here. LXX προσευχή.
22
Cf. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 4; Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of
Isaiah,” 156, nn. 1 and n.
296 chapter sixteen
23
For the Jewish and Christian background to the story of the maryrdom, see
recently Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 23–29.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 297
24
Norelli (Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 115; cf. 142) suggests rather the use of Isa 47:8,
10, but it is more likely that Isa 47:8, 10 lie behind Ascen. Isa. 10:13.
25
Cf. e.g. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 34, 96.
26
See Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 162, n. p.
298 chapter sixteen
27
It is of interest that אסירdoes not occur in 1QIsaa and is not reflected in the
Septuagint (καὶ συνάξουσι καὶ ἀποκλείσουσιν εἰς ὀχύρωμα καὶ εἰς δεσμωτήριον). If the
author of the Ascension used a text that did not have or presuppose אסיר, the parallel
with Ascen. Isa. 4:14b would be even closer.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 299
book of Isaiah itself (4:19, 20, 21a) or more generally in the scriptures
of the Hebrew Bible (4:21b–22). Of the statements referring to the
book of Isaiah, the first two are presented as comments on the vision
that immediately precedes (3:13–4:18). But whereas 4:20 makes a gen-
eral claim for a christological interpretation of the book of Isaiah on
the basis that what was said in the vision about the Lord was already
written “in parables” in Isaiah itself, 4:19 refers to a specific section of
the book of Isaiah. Thus the phrase “the vision of Babylon,” which
serves in 4:19 as a title, derives from the Septuagint text of Isa 13:1
(Ὅρασις, ἣν εἶδεν Ησαιας υἱὸς Αμως κατὰ Bαβυλωνος; MT משא
)בבל אשר חזה ישעיהו בן־אמוץ. Isaiah 13:1 stands in the present form
of the text as a heading for the collection of prophecies concerning
Babylon in 13:2–14:23,28 and the reason for the linking of this section
of Isaiah to the vision of Ascen. Isa. 3:13–4:18 perhaps lay in the fact
that the prophecy on the downfall of the king of Babylon (Isa 14:3–23)
provided a parallel to what is said about Beliar. Thus the prophecy
refers to the overweening arrogance of the king and his claim to be
like God (Isa 14:13–14; cf. Ascen. Isa. 4:6) and to the casting down of
the king to Sheol (Isa 14:9–11, 15; cf. Ascen. Isa. 4:14).
Ascen. Isa. 4:21a also refers to a specific section of the book of Isaiah,
namely “the section where the Lord says, ‘Behold my son shall under-
stand.’” These words are a quotation from the Septuagint text of Isa
52:13 (Ἰδοὺ συνήσει ὁ παῖς μου; MT )הנה ישכיל עברי, and it seems
clear that they were understood by the author as a heading for Isa
52:13–53:12. In this case, however, the link is not made backwards to
Isaiah’s vision of the Beloved and of the Church (Ascen. Isa. 3:13–4:18),
but forwards to the account of the descent and ascent of the Beloved
contained within the description of Isaiah’s mystical ascension into
heaven (Ascen. Isa. 6–11; see particularly 9:12b–18; 10:7–11:33). The
quotation of Isa 52:13 indicates that Isa 52:13–53:12 was interpreted
by the author of the Ascension in a christological sense.
Ascen. Isa. 4:21a specifically mentions the descent of the Beloved into
Sheol (cf. 9:16; 10:8, 10, 14; 11:19), and it seems likely that in referring
to this the author had in mind Isa 53:8 in its Septuagint form (ἤχθη εἰς
θάνατον; MT )נגע למו.29 But there are other elements in Isa 52:13–53:12
28
Cf. Hans Wildberger, Jesaja. 2. Teilband: Jesaja 13–27 (BKAT X/2; Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 506; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCB; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980), 132.
29
Cf. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 38; Knibb, “Martyrdom and Ascension of
Isaiah,” 163, n. u. 1QIsaa has נוגע למו.
300 chapter sixteen
30
Cf. Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 53–54.
31
Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 54–56.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 301
III
The account of the sawing of Isaiah in half ends with a further state-
ment that Sammael (i.e. Beliar) was very angry with Isaiah “because
of the things which he had seen concerning the Beloved, and because
of the destruction of Sammael which he had seen through the Lord”
(Ascen. Isa. 5:15b–16a; cf. 3:13; 5:1 and 11:41), and this serves both as
a conclusion to the narrative of the martyrdom and as a bridge to the
second main section of the Ascension, the account of Isaiah’s mystical
ascension to the seventh heaven (chaps. 6–11). This section, which
culminates in Isaiah’s vision of the descent and ascent of the heavenly
Christ through the seven heavens, has a strongly Christian concern, and
there is little in the text that is based directly on the book of Isaiah.32
The title “his Chosen One,” which is used of the heavenly Christ in
8:7, no doubt goes back ultimately to Isa 42:1, but Luke 9:35 and 23:35
perhaps provide a more immediate source.33 More obviously, there are
two descriptions of God that draw on the Septuagint text of Isa 57:15
as a means of emphasising the majesty of God:
And they praised the God of righteousness, the Most High, the One who
(dwells) in the upper world and who sits on high, the Holy One, the One
who rests among the holy ones (6:8).
This is the Most High of the high ones, who dwells in the holy world,
who rests among the holy ones (10:6).
In both cases the verbal similarities provide clear evidence of depen-
dency on LXX Isa 57:15a: Τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς
κατοικῶν τὸν αἰῶνα, Ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις ὄνομα αὐτῷ, κύριος ὕψιστος ἐν
ἁγίοις ἀναπαυόμενος.
The use of Isa 57:15 (and of 42:1) is, however, in a sense incidental
to the narrative, and apart from the passages just mentioned there is
no use of the book of Isaiah within Ascen. Isa. 6–11—except that the
underlying assumption of this narrative, as of Ascen. Isa. 3:13–4:22, is
that Isaiah was a visionary, and the basis for this understanding of his
32
Hall (“The Ascension of Isaiah,” 291) notes that Ascen. Isa. 7:1–11:35 “bears no
essential connection with Isaiah.”
33
The use in the Ascension of the title “the Beloved” no doubt, of course, derives
from the substitution of ὁ ἀγαπητός μου for ὁ εκλεκτός μου in the quotation of Isa
42:1 in Matt 12:18; cf. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, 3; Norelli, Ascension du prophète
Isaïe, 62.
302 chapter sixteen
34
See above, 292–297.
35
Clements, Isaiah 1–39, 29; cf. 177; cf. also Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, 5. However,
Wildberger ( Jesaja 13–27, 775) argues that in Isa 21:1–10 we should undoubtedly think
in terms of a genuine visionary experience.
36
The evidence is set out in Joseph Ziegler, Isaias (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 14; 3d ed.; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 96–97.
37
Cf. Norelli, Ascension du prophète Isaïe, 32, 147n.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 303
IV
38
See above, 293, and n. 17.
39
See especially the Life of Isaiah in the Lives of the Prophets; cf. Norelli, Ascension du
prophète Isaïe, 20–29.
40
For recent treatments of the Paraleipomena, see Gerhard Delling, Jüdische Lehre und
Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae (BZAW 100; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967); George
W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1981), 313–18; Stephen E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” in OTP 2.413–425. See also Jens
Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen
Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994); Jean Riaud, Les Paralipomènes du Prophète
Jérémie (Angers; Université Catholique de l’Ouest, 1994).
304 chapter sixteen
While Jeremiah was saying this about the coming of the Son of God
into the world, the people became incensed and said, These are the
very same words that were spoken by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, when
he said, I beheld God and the Son of God. Come then: let us kill him,
but not in the same way as we killed Isaiah: let us rather stone him to
death (9:19–21).41
There is here an obvious close link with, if not actual dependence upon,
the account of Isaiah’s martyrdom in the Ascension,42 and, as in Ascen.
Isa. 3:9, the narrative makes use of the claim that Isaiah had seen the
Lord (Isa 6:1) in its depiction of the hostility of the people towards
Jeremiah. The use made of Isa 6:1 is, however, tied to the use made
of the legend of Isaiah’s martyrdom and is not of significance within
the Paraleipomena beyond this.
Of much greater importance are the allusions to the book of Isa-
iah that occur in the section of Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers that
deals with Hezekiah and Isaiah (Sir 48:17–25).43 The section focusses
particularly on Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and on Hezekiah’s
sickness (verses 18–23), and Isaiah is mentioned as the one through
whom God saved the people (verse 20d) and who instructed Hezekiah
(verse 22c); the biblical background to this material is provided by
2 Kgs 18:13–20:11 and Isa 36:1–38:22, and specific allusions could
have been taken from either passage.44 The last two verses of the sec-
tion (Sir 48:24–25) are concerned solely with Isaiah. They are extant
in Hebrew in Cairo Genizah MS B and read as follows:
ברוח גבורה חזה אחרית וינחם אבלי ציון
עד עולם הגיד נהיות ונסתרות לפני בואן
By a spirit of strength he saw the future
and comforted the mourners of Zion.
He declared what shall be until eternity
and hidden things before they came to pass.
41
Translation by R. Thornhill in AOT, 833.
42
Cf. Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit, 13–14.
43
For recent treatments of Ben Sira, see Georg Sauer, “Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira),”
JSHRZ III/5 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981); Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella,
The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; Garden City: Doubleday, 1987).
44
For the biblical references in Sir 48:17–25, see e.g. George H. Box and William
O. E. Oesterley, “The Book of Sirach,” in APOT 2.502–503; Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 627–28;
Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 538–39.
isaianic traditions in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 305
45
Cf. Box and Oesterley, “The Book of Sirach,” 503; Skehan and Di Lella, The
Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539.
46
Cf. Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 628; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539.
47
It is interesting to compare the use of ( נסתר)ותin CD III, 14; 1QS V, 11; VIII, 11
to refer to the hidden meaning of the law revealed by inspired exegesis, and the use of
( נהיות עדso read for נהיית עדof the manuscript) in CD II, 10 to refer to the events
of the future as determined by God; cf. 1QH XXI, 12 (XVIII, 27) נהיות עולם.
48
Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 539.
49
There is no Hebrew text extant for 48:22c–23, and we are forced to rely on the
Greek.
306 chapter sixteen
50
See above, 302–303.
51
Cf. the comment of Box and Oesterley (“The Book of Sirach,” 503): “With
[48:24–25] compare what is said in The Martyrdom of Isaiah, ch. iv.”
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
In view of the importance that has been attached to the messianic beliefs
of early Judaism, it is salutary to recall that within the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha such beliefs are expressed in only a restricted number
of writings. In fact, within these corpora the main evidence for belief
in a messiah of any kind is contained in only five writings: Psalms of
Solomon 17 and 18, 1 Enoch 37–71, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs. Of these, the Testaments stand somewhat apart
because they have come down to us as a Christian work, while three
of the other writings (1 Enoch 37–71, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch) probably all
come from towards the end of the first century C.E. and contain views
that have some similarities with one another. In these circumstances
the discovery at Qumran of a number of texts containing messianic
beliefs has provided a valuable addition to the evidence available for
early Jewish messianic expectations; at the same time the Qumran
texts have cast some light on the interpretation of the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical texts that were already known.
The Qumran evidence for messianic belief has been surveyed a
number of times, most recently in a helpful article by García Martínez
in Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, and it must suffice here to refer to
this article as a first point of reference.1 The Qumran texts, like the
apocryphal and pseudepigraphical texts themselves, contain a vari-
ety of messianic beliefs, and it is not clear, as García Martínez has
rightly argued,2 that these can be arranged in a chronological scheme
1
Florentino García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschrif-
ten,” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, vol. 8 (1993): Der Messias 171–208; see the recent
bibliography in nn. 3 and 4. See also Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and
Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
(ed. James H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 116–29.
2
García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 207.
308 chapter seventeen
3
Jean Starcky, “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,” RB 70 (1963):
481–505.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 309
allusions to, passages in the Hebrew Bible, particularly royal psalms and
passages concerning the ideal future king. The promise to David in 2
Sam 7:12–16 (cf. Ps 89:4–5; 132:11) is drawn on in verse 4. The main
part of the psalm consists of an appeal to God to raise up “the son of
David” (verses 21–46), and this draws heavily on Isa 11:1–5, the promise
of a shoot from the stump of Jesse; the passage is quoted or referred
to in verses 23–24 (cf. Isa 11:2, 4),4 29 (cf. Isa 11:3), 35 (Isa 11:4),5 36
(Isa 11:4), and 37 (Isa 11:2). But the basis provided by Isaiah 11 has
been built up with the help of royal psalms and other passages. Ps 2:9
is quoted in verses 23–24. Ps 18 (LXX 17):33, 40 is alluded to in verse
22. Ps 44 (LXX 43):7, where it is plausible to argue that the speaker
is the king, is picked up in verse 33, and Ps 44:5 may be alluded to in
verse 34. The reference to the righteous judgement exercised by “the
son of David” (verse 29) is reminiscent of Ps 72 (LXX 71):1–2, and Ps
72:9–11 may be alluded to, along with a number of passages from the
prophets, particularly Isa 49:22–23 and 66:18–20, in verse 31. Finally
amongst royal Psalms, Ps 101 (LXX 100):7 clearly underlies verse 27.
In addition, the Deuteronomic Law of the King is taken up in verse
33 (cf. Deut 17:16–17; 11QT 56:15b–19), and the theme of the king
as the faithful and righteous shepherd (verse 40) is taken up from Jer
23:5 and Ezek 34:23.
Ps. Sol. 18:1–9, which apparently quotes from Psalms of Solomon 17 (cf.
verse 6 with 17:44), also reflects the expectation of a Davidic messiah.
Like Psalms of Solomon 17, the section concerning the messiah (verses
5–8) drawns on Isa 11:1–5, but adds little to what is contained in the
previous psalm.
A comparable expectation of a Davidic messiah is now also to be
found in a number of texts from Qumran. None of them makes use
of either of the two messianic titles that occur in Psalms of Solomon 17:
“son of David” (verse 21) and “anointed Lord” or “Lord Messiah”
(verse 32). More will be said concerning the latter in a moment. With
regard to the former, while ‘son of David’ is not used as a messianic
title at Qumran, two messianic texts make use of the comparable
title ‘branch of David’ (צמח דויד: cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12):
4Q252 (4QpGena) V, 1–7, part of a thematic pesher on Genesis, refers
in its interpretation of Gen 49:10 to the coming of “the messiah of
4
Cf. Ps. Sol. 17:24 ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ and Isa 11:4 LXX.
5
Cf. the very similar wording in Ps. Sol. 17:35a and Isa 11:4 LXX.
310 chapter seventeen
righteousness, the branch of David” (משיח הצדק צמח דויד, lines 3–4)6
and 4Q285 5, a text related to the War Scroll, refers in an interpreta-
tion of Isa 10:34–11:1 to “the prince of the congregation, the bra[nch
of David” (נשיא הצדק צמ]ח דויד, line 3).7 The same title, ‘branch of
David’, has also plausibly been reconstructed in a third messianic text
4Q161 (4QpIsaa) III, 11–25, in the introduction to its interpretation of
Isa 11:1–5 (פשרו על צמח[ דויד, line 18).8 The use of the titles “prince
of the congregation” and “branch of David” in parallel in 4Q285 5
confirms the view that the blessing of the prince of the congregation
in 1Q28b (1QSb) V, 20–29 also belongs amongst the Qumran texts
that contain the expectation of a Davidic messiah, although this was
in any case apparent from the character of the passage;9 the biblical
background to the use of ‘prince of the congregation’ as a Davidic
messianic title is to be found in Ezek 34:24; 37:25.10
The “branch of David” and the “prince of the congregation” are
also mentioned in two passages where the expectation of their coming
is linked to that of the coming of an “interpreter of the law”: 4Q174
(4QFlor) I, 10–13 refers to the “branch of David” and the “interpreter
of the law” in its interpretation of 2 Sam 7:11c–14a,11 and CD VII,
18–21 refers to the “prince of the whole congregation” alongside the
“interpreter of the law” in its interpretation of Num 24:17.12
6
For the text, see John M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in the Qumran
Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 174–76; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,”
174–77.
7
For the text, see Geza Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research:
Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” JJS 43 (1992): 85–94; cf. García
Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 180–82.
8
For the text, see John M. Allegro, DJD 5 (1968), 11–15 and pls IV–V; John
Strugnell, “Notes en marge du volume V des ‘Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of
Jordan’,” RevQ 7 (1969–71): 183–86. Cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartun-
gen,” 177–78.
9
For the text, see Józef T. Milik, DJD 1 (1955), 118–30 and pls XXV–XXIX; cf.
García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 178–80.
10
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII, 9b–VIII,
2a and XIX, 5b–14,” RevQ 15 (1991–92): 250.
11
For the text, see John M. Allegro, DJD 5 (1968), 53–57 and pls XIX–XX; John
Strugnell, “Notes en marge,” 220–25. But see now Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur
Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat a.b) (STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 5–53.
Cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 201–202.
12
Inasmuch as the ‘messiah of Israel’ is to be regarded as a royal, and hence Dav-
idic, figure, reference should also be made here for the sake of completeness to 1QS
IX, 9–11; 1Q28a (1QSa) II, 11–15, 17–22; and CD XII, 23–XIII, 1; XIV, 19; XIX,
10b–11a; XX, 1—if these passages in the Damascus Document do refer to two figures,
‘the messiah of Aaron’ and ‘the messiah of Israel.’ On this point, see recently Frank M.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 311
Cross, “Some notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” The Madrid Qumran Congress
(ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; 2 vols.; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill,
1992) 1.13–14; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 195–96.
13
Cf. Robert H. Eisenman and Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered
(Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element Books, 1992), 24–27, 84–85, 171.
14
See Hedley F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Aprocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon,
1984), 679; James H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City,
312 chapter seventeen
New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 2.667–68. Contrast Svend Holm-Nielsen, “Die
Psalmen Salomos,” JSHRZ IV/2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977), 104.
15
Cf. George B. Gray, “The Psalms of Solomon,” APOT 2.650.
16
Cf. Sebastian P. Brock, “The Psalms of Solomon,” The Apocryphal Old Testament,
681.
17
John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism,” NTS 38 (1992):
448–66 (here 464–66).
18
Reading wä’änbäro for wänäbärä (so all MSS).
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 313
19
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,”
NTS 25 (1978–79): 345–59.
20
See Johannes Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter: Untersuchungen zum traditionsgeschichtli-
chen Ort der Menschensohngestalt der Bilderreden des Äthiopischen Henoch (SUNT 12; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 152–82.
21
James C. VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man
in 1 Enoch 37–71,” The Messiah (ed. James H. Charlesworth), 169–91 (here 180).
22
VanderKam, “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in
1 Enoch 37–71,” 180.
23
“The Son of Man,” 455.
314 chapter seventeen
in the presence of his power, and revealed him (only) to the chosen.”
But he argues that the Ethiopic word translated “from the beginning”
may mean nothing more than ‘before.’24 It is certainly possible that in
62:7 x
mq
d
m or x
mq
dmu (so British Library Or. 485, VanderKam’s
preferred reading) might mean simply ‘before,’ and x
mq
d
m is used for
πρότερον in 1 Chron 9:2. But q
d
m is often used as an equivalent for
ἀρχή; thus, for example, x
mq
d
m is used for ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς in 1 John 1:1,
and the related form x
mqädami for the same phrase in 1 Enoch 2:2. In
view of this, and of what is said about the son of man in 48:3 and 6,
it seems to me that it is more natural to translate x
mq
d
m/x
mq
dmu in
62:7 as “from the beginning,” and to see in Enoch a real belief in the
pre-existence of the son of man.
The titles used for these messianic figures are, in Enoch: “righteous
one” (38:2 [although the reading ‘righteousness’ is probably to be
preferred]; 53:6); “chosen one” (e.g. 39:6 [Eth I]; 40:5; 45:3–4); “son
of man” (e.g. 46:1–6; 48:1–10) and “messiah” (48:10; 52:4); and in
4 Ezra: “messiah” (7:28–29; 12:32), and “my son” (7:28–29; 13:37, 52),
this latter reflecting either υἱός or, as Stone has recently argued, παῖς.25
Apart from “messiah,” none of these titles is reflected in the Qumran
messianic texts. Admittedly, the Davidic messiah in 4Q252 V, 3 is
called “messiah of righteousness,” and righteousness and the exercise
of a righteous judgement are qualities associated with the messiah in
1Q28b V, 21–22, 26 and in 4Q246 II, 5–6 (the “Son of God” text); this
is of course in dependence on what is said of the ideal future king in
Isa 11:4–5. Also, the idea that the messiah is God’s son is inherent in
what is said of the Davidic king in Ps 2:7 and is apparently expressed
in the Son of God text (4Q246; see below). It may also be reflected in
1Q28a (1QSa) II, 11–12, if the text is to be translated “when [God]
begets the messiah with them”; but the reading יולידis uncertain and
difficult.26 The phrase ‘ בחיר אלהאchosen of God’ or ‘chosen by God’
is used in the so-called Aramaic Elect of God text (4Q534 I, 10), but
24
“Righteous One,” 180–82.
25
See Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Herme-
neia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 207–208.
26
Cf. Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev.
ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1980 [1961] 87–88, n. 67); Lawrence
H. Schiffman, The Eschatological Community of The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Study of the Rule of
the Congregation (SBLMS 38; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 53–54.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 315
it is not clear that it is used as a title, and in any case it is unlikely that
this is a messianic text.27
Although messianic titles comparable to those that are used in 1 Enoch
37–71 and 4 Ezra do not occur very widely in the Qumran messianic
texts, there are two texts which have increasingly been recognised to
have similarities with the messianic ideas of Enoch and 4 Ezra. The first
of these, 11Q Melchizedek (11Q13), has been known for some time.28
It is a midrash or thematic pesher which builds on Lev 25:8–13, Deut
15:2 and Isa 61:1–3, and in it Melchizedek is described as one who is
to make atonement “for all the sons of [God] and for the men of the
lot of Melchizedek” (II, 5b–8), to carry out the judgement of God (II,
9–14), and to free “those who establish the covenant, who turn aside
from walking [in the wa]y of the people” from the hand of Belial (II,
23b–25a). Two things are important about this text in this context.
First, although the term ‘messiah’ is not applied to Melchizedek, he
is clearly presented as an exalted heavenly being. Two passages from
the Psalms are applied to him that in the Hebrew Bible refer to God:
Ps 82:1 ( אלוהים ]נ[צב בע]דת אל[ בקורב אלוהים ישפוטII,10), and
7:8b–9a ( ע[ליה למרום שובה אל ידין עמיםII, 10b–11a). The applica-
tion of the terms אלוהיםand אלto Melchizedek suggests that he was
understood as some kind of angelic being, and this is reminiscent of the
fact that the individual in 1 Enoch 46:1 who is subsequently identified
as the son of man is said to be “like one of the holy angels,” and of
the fact that increasingly the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13 has
been regarded as an angelic being and identified with the archangel
Michael.29 The application to Melchizedek of passages that in the
Hebrew Bible refer to God also reminds us of the way in which in 4
Ezra 13:3–4 the man from the sea is described in language that is used
of God in the Hebrew Bible.
27
Cf. Florentino García Martínez, “4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah,” Qumran
and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992),
1–44.
28
For the text, see Adam S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlöserg-
estalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OTS
14 (1965): 354–73; Émile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelchîsédeq,” RevQ
12 (1985–87): 483–513; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 202–203.
29
John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula,
Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 144–45.
316 chapter seventeen
30
The passage is wrongly translated into English in Florentino García Martínez, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 140 as “the vengeance of God’s judges.”
The Spanish edition correctly has “la venganza de los juicios de Dios.”
31
Émile Puech, “Fragment d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand)
et le ‘Royaume de Dieu,’ ” RB 99 (1992): 98–131; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische
Erwartungen,” 190–93.
32
Milik’s views, which were never published, were summarised in Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
“The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” NTS
20 (1973–74): 382–407 (here 391–94); reprinted in A Wandering Aramean: Collected
Essays (SBLMS 25; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1979), 85–113 (here 90–94, and the
Addendum, 102–107).
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 317
33
Cf. “Fragment d’une apocalypse,” 127–30.
34
“Fragment d’une apocalypse,” 130.
35
Cf. “Messianische Erwartungen,” 190–93.
36
Cf. “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and
New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. Martinus C. de Boer; JSNT
Supplement Series 84; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 65–82.
37
“Fragment d’une apocalypse,” 130.
38
Cf. “The Son of God Text,” 70–71.
39
Cf. “Fragment d’une apocalypse,” 128; Collins, “The Son of God Text,” 71.
318 chapter seventeen
he will make war for him; he will give nations into his hand and cast
them all down 9 before him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and all the abysses . . .
The text shows a number of signs of dependence on the Aramaic
section of Daniel, the most obvious being the quotation of מלכותה
( מלכות עלםII, 5) from Dan 7:27, and of ( שלטנה שלטן עלםII, 9)
from Dan 7:14. Collins has put forward the case for the view that the
text represents a reinterpretation in messianic terms of the “one like
a son of man” of Daniel 7, and although he is properly cautious in
making the case, he concludes, “it is difficult to avoid the impression
that the author had Daniel’s figure in mind.”40 He notes that if this
view is right, the Son of God text would probably represent the oldest
surviving interpretation of Dan. 7. On this kind of view, the son of man
figure has been endowed with characteristics that belong to the Davidic
messiah, much as has also happened in 4 Ezra and 1 Enoch 37–71. In
particular, the designation of the saviour figure as “son of God” and
“son of the Most High” makes most sense against the background of
the beliefs associated with the Davidic king in the Hebrew Bible (cf.
2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:27–30), and certainly more sense than the view
that the saviour figure is to be regarded as an angelic being, comparable
to Michael, Melchizedek, or the prince of light of 1QM XIII, 10 (so
García Martínez),41 if only because we nowhere else have evidence for
the attribution of divine sonship to an angel. García Martínez put for-
ward the idea that the ‘son of God’ was an angelic being in the course
of his original presentation of a messianic interpretation of the text,
and he now in fact believes it more appropriate to speak simply of a
‘heavenly’ being.42 But while it seems most sensible to regard the ‘son
of God’ as a Davidic messiah in the first instance, García Martínez was
nonetheless right to draw attention to the parallels with Melchizedek
in 11QMelch. The “son of God” in 4Q246 has an exalted status: as
“son of God” he has a divine status, and he is the object of worship
(II, 7). Puech, inasmuch as he allows for a messianic interpretation
of the passage, speaks of a “divinisation of the eschatological figure
which goes back to a utopian view, the days of final peace, and which
is not a simple national restoration of the kingdom of David, [but] has
40
Collins, “The Son of God Text,” 76–82 (here 81).
41
“The Eschatological Figure of 4Q246,” Qumran and Apocalyptic, 162–79.
42
“Messianische Erwartungen,” 191.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 319
43
“Fragment d’une apocalypse,” 129 (my translation), cf. 104.
44
“The Son of God Text,” 80–81; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartun-
gen,” 192–93.
45
“Righteous One,” 177–85.
320 chapter seventeen
46
“Righteous One,” 184.
47
“Son of Man,” 454.
48
“Righteous One,” 179.
49
“Son of Man,” 453, 455.
50
As he argued in The Apocalyptic Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 151–53;
cf. “The Heavenly Representative: The Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch,” Ideal
Figures in Ancient Judaism (ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg and John J. Collins; SBLSCS
12; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 119–24.
51
“Son of Man,” 457. A similar view was expressed by Sigmund Mowinckel, He
that Cometh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), 441–44.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 321
52
Demonstratives are used as follows: z
ku: 46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11; w
x
tu:
69:26, 29bis (in the first case omitted by two Eth I MSS); 70:1; z
ntu: 46:4; but in
all cases the demonstrative may only be intended to represent the definite article (cf.
August Dillmann, Ethiopic Grammar (1907; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo, 1974), 425).
No demonstrative is used in 46:3; 62:7; 69:27.
53
“Son of Man,” 456–57; cf. “The Heavenly Representative,” 120–21.
54
“Righteous One,” 182–83.
322 chapter seventeen
2 Baruch
55
Translation from J. Z. Smith, “Prayer of Joseph,” OTP 2.713. Smith dates the
work to the first century C.E.
56
For the text, see Émile Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521),” RevQ 15
(1991–92): 475–519; cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 182–85. The
view of García Martínez that the messiah in this text is to be regarded as the Davidic
messiah does not seem to be based on any very substantial evidence.
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 323
Testament of Levi 18
The messianic beliefs of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs stand apart
from those that have been considered so far because, whatever its origin,
the work is Christian in its present form, and this fact is reflected in
what is said in the text about the ideal figure(s) of the future. There
exists a substantial body of Jewish material in Hebrew and Aramaic that
relates to the Testaments, and recently our knowledge of the Aramaic
material relating to the Greek Testament of Levi has been considerably
increased by the publication by Puech of the fragments of two manu-
scripts which he believes belong to a Levi work (4Q540 and 541 [4QTest
Lévic and d]).58 It is not intended here to take up the complex questions
of translation and interpretation raised by these texts, but only—by
way of completeness—to offer two brief comments on the material in
4Q541 concerning the priestly messiah that relates to Testament of Levi
18, the passage concerning the saviour priest.
4Q540 and 541 were regarded by Starcky as fragments of an Aaronic
work because of the priestly character of the contents,59 but Puech has
made a strong case for the view that they are in fact fragments of a Levi
work, probably a testament. 4Q540 is represented by three fragments,
and 4Q541 by twenty-four, but of these particular attention has been
focussed on frags 9 and 24 of 4Q541. Striking parallels exist between
4Q541 9 i and Testament of Levi 18, and for convenience I give G. J.
Brooke’s translation of 4Q541 9 i:
57
The resurrection of the dead in this text is not the work of the messiah, but of
God (4Q521 2 ii + 4 11–12). However, Collins may be right that the messiah “most
probably serves as God’s agent in raising the dead”; See Collins, “The Works of the
Messiah,” DSD 1 (1994), 98–112.
58
Émile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique:
4QTestLévic–d(?) et 4QAJa,” The Madrid Qumran Congress, 2.449–501; cf. George J. Brooke,
“4QTestament of Levid(?) and the Messianic Servant High Priest,” From Jesus to John,
83–100. On 84 Brooke provides a convenient list of all the Qumran Aramaic material
relating to the Testament of Levi.
59
“Les quatre étapes,” 492.
324 chapter seventeen
2 ]his [wi]sdom.
And he will make expiation for all the sons of his generation;
and he will be sent to all the sons of 3 his [peop]le(?).
His word is like a word of the heavens,
and his teaching conforms to the will of God.
His eternal sun will shine,
4 and its fire will burn in all the corners of the earth.
And on the darkness it will shine;
then the darkness will disappear 5 [fr]om the earth
and the cloud from the dry land.
They will speak many words against him,
and a number of 6 [fiction]s(?).
And they will invent fables against him,
and they will speak all manner of infamies against him.
His generation evil will destroy,
7 [ ] will be;
And because falsehood and violence will be its setting,
[and] the people will stray in his days;
and they will be confounded.60
There are a number of parallels between 4Q541 9 i and Testament of
Levi 18: Puech compares line 3 with 18:2, and lines 3–5 with 18:3–4,
9;61 and one could also compare line 7 with 18:9. The existence of
these parallels, although they are not exact, inevitably raises the ques-
tion of the relationship between the Aramaic fragments and the Greek
Testament of Levi, and the question of the origin of the latter. On this
issue Puech comments as follows: “It goes without saying that this new
text refutes without appeal the hypothesis of a Christian origin for
T. Levi 18, apart perhaps from a few interpolations.”62 In one sense this
is of course true. But in relation to the Greek text it is not clear that
the new evidence substantially changes the situation. We have long
known that the Christian compiler/author of the Greek Testament of
Levi made use of an existing Jewish source (or existing Jewish sources),
and we now have further evidence as to what these sources were. But
it is still not clear that it is possible to get behind our existing Christian
text, and to recover an underlying Jewish source, by the removal from
the Greek Testament of a few ‘interpolations.’
60
“4QTestament of Levid,” 87.
61
“Fragments d’un apocryphe,” 468–69, 487; cf. Brooke, “4QTestament of Levid,”
88.
62
“Fragments d’un apocryphe,” 490, n. 47 (my translation).
messianism in the pseudepigrapha in the light of the scrolls 325
63
“Fragments d’un apocryphe,” 496–501, cf. 476–78; cf. Brooke, “4QTestament
of Levid,” 90–94.
64
Brooke, “4QTestament of Levid,” 90.
65
Cf. García Martínez, “Messianische Erwartungen,” 188.
326 chapter seventeen
as that it is at the prospect of the death of the future priest. Thus the
mourning may simply form part of the testamentary framework of the
document. Above all, the translation and interpretation of lines 4–5
are uncertain and fraught with difficulty, as the alternatives offered in
Brooke’s translation indicate. In particular, it is by no means clear that
( צצאline 5) is to be translated as “nail,”66 and in any case the idea of
crucifixion seems alien to the passage. For all these reasons I would
reject the suggestion that the death of the priestly messiah is envisaged
here, and equally the further suggestion that the atonement he carried
out may have been effected by his death as well as by the temple ritual
(cf. 541 9 i 2).67
66
The alternative translations that are possible are discussed by Puech, “Fragments
d’un apocryphe,” 477–78.
67
Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe,” 499–501.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
1
For older studies of eschatological and messianic beliefs in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
see (for example) Adam S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde
von Qumrân (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1957); Helmer Ring-
gren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963),
152–98 (expanded edition as The Faith of Qumran (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New
York: Crossroad, 1995), 152–98); Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges
Heil: Untersuchungen zu den Gemeindeliedern von Qumran (SUNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1966).
For more recent studies, see (for example) Émile Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la
vie future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? (2 vols., Études bibliques, n.s. 21–22; Paris:
Gabalda, 1993); Puech, “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology at Qumran
and in the New Testament,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame
Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam; CJA 10;
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 235–56; James VanderKam,
“Messianism in the Scrolls,” in Ulrich and VanderKam (ed.), Community of the Renewed
Covenant, 211–34; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea
Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL 10; New York: Doubleday, 1995); Florentino
García Martínez, “Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings,” in Florentino García
Martínez and Julio Trebolle Barrera, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill,
1995), 159–89, 256–63; Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the
Light of the Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 165–84.
2
For the significance of this term, see recently Annette Steudel, “ אחרית הימיםin
the Texts from Qumran,” RevQ 16/62 (1993): 225–46.
328 chapter eighteen
3
For a thorough study of the Pesharim, see Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran
Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Associa-
tion of America, 1979).
4
Cf. Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschat a.b)
(STDJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
5
Cf. Adam S. van der Woude, “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den
neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI,” OTS 14 (1965):
354–73; Émile Puech, “Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQMelkîsédeq,” RevQ 12/48
(1987): 485–513.
6
Particularly 4Q285; cf. Geza Vermes, “The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research:
Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),” JJS 43 (1992): 85–94.
7
On the texts in Aramaic, see Florentino García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic:
Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992); Devorah Dimant,
“Apocalyptic Texts at Qumran,” in Ulrich and VanderKam (ed.), Community of the
Renewed Covenant, 175–91, esp. 180–87.
8
Cf. Émile Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologi-
que. 4QTestLévic–d(?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Congress on the Dead Sea Scroll, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera
and Luis Vegas Montaner; 2 vols., STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2.449–501.
9
Cf. Józef T. Milik, “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène,” RB 79
(1972): 77–97.
10
For the texts, see John Collins and Peter Flint, “243–245. 4QPseudo-Daniela–c
ar,” in George Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD
22; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 95–164 + pls. vii–x.
11
For the text, see Émile Puech, “246. 4QApocryphe de Daniel ar,” in Brooke and
others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII (DJD 22), 165–84 + pl. xi.
12
For the texts (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554–555, 5Q15, 11Q18), see Klaus Beyer, Die
aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 214–22;
Beyer, Ergänzungsband (1994), 95–104; cf. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic,
180–213.
13
For the text, see Émile Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521),” RevQ
(1992): 475–522; Puech, “521. 4QApocalypse messianique,” in ÉmilePuech, Qumrân
Grotte 4.XVIII: Texte Hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1998), 1–38 + pls. i–iii.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 329
Rule of the Community (1QS IX, 11), in halakhic texts, the Temple Scroll
(11QT XXIX, 8–9) and the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT C, 12–16, 21, 30),
and even in the wisdom instruction originally known as 4QSapiential
Work A, in which practical admonition of a kind familiar from the
wisdom literature is placed in the context of a final judgment.14
It is characteristic of the above writings that all in one way or another
look forward to a turning point in events, to the ending of the present
age and the inauguration of a new age. Thus within these writings the
eschatological topics familiar from other literature of the Second Temple
period are all reflected: the idea of a final judgment in which the righ-
teous will be rewarded and the wicked punished (e.g. 1QS III, 13–IV
26; 4QSapiential Work A); the idea of a last great battle with the forces
of evil (e.g. the War Rule; 1QH XI [= III], 19–36); descriptions—in the
form of benedictions—of the blessings of the new age (4Q285; 11Q14);15
the expectation of a new Jerusalem (the New Jerusalem text); rules for
the ordering of life in the new age (the Rule of the Congregation): an
explanation for the delay in the expected time of the end (1QpHab
VII, l–14);16 belief in resurrection (e.g. 4Q521 2 ii + 4 12); and mes-
sianic beliefs (e.g. the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document). The
broad lines of the interpretation of this material are well known, but
in finer detail—for a variety of reasons—many problems still remain
and make it difficult, even now, to provide a comprehensive account
of the eschatological beliefs reflected in the scrolls.
In the first place, these writings are diverse in character and date,
belong to a variety of literary genres, and are often allusive in the
extreme when referring to the time of the end. One striking example
of this is the reference to the coming of a prophet and the messiahs of
Aaron and Israel in 1QS IX, 11, which serves merely to mark the end
of the time during which “the first rules” would remain valid. There
clearly are differences—at the very least, differences of emphasis—within
these texts, and the temptation to generalize should certainly be resisted.
Secondly, many of these texts are fragmentary, which obviously poses
14
The text survives in fragmentary form in 1Q26, 4Q415–18 and 4Q423. See Daniel
J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (LDSS; London: Routledge, 1996) 40–59; Torleif
Elgvin, “The Reconstruction of Sapiential Work A,” RevQ 16/64 (1995): 559–80.
15
Cf. Bilhah Nitzan, “Benedictions and Instructions for the Eschatological Com-
munity (11QBer; 4Q285),” RevQ 16/61 (1993): 77–90.
16
Hartmut Stegemann, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für die Erforschung
der Apokalyptik,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. David
Hellholm; 2d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989), 495–530, esp. 522–3.
330 chapter eighteen
17
Hartmut Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Mes-
sianism,” RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996): 479–505; Johann Maier, “Messias
oder Gesalbter? Zu einem Übersetzungs- und Deutungsproblem in den Qumrantexten,”
RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996): 585–612.
18
Peter Flint, “4Qpseudo-Daniel arc and the Restoration of the Priesthood,” RevQ
17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996): 137–50.” See now Collins and Flint, “245. 4QPseu-
do-Danielc ar,” in Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII (DJD 22), 153–64 + pl. x.
19
Translation from Collins and Flint, “245. 4QPseudo-Danielc ar,” 163.
20
Cf. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 146; Puech, La croyance des Esséniens,
569–70.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 331
of “these and those” clearly alludes to Dan 12:2; the opposition also
implies a resurrection and probably a return to the New Jerusalem on
a renewed earth.21
Here it may be thought that Puech’s final comments go beyond the avail-
able evidence. However, other scholars have denied that the fragment
reflects a belief in the resurrection of the dead. John Collins suggests
that it “may be more appropriately related to the distinction of groups
in the course of the emergence of the sect (cf. CD I, 9–10),”22 while
Flint has attempted to explain the fragment in relation to the list of
priests (which runs from Levi to Jonathan and Simon) and the list of
kings (which begins with David, but breaks off with Joash or perhaps
Manasseh) in frg. 1. He comments that one of the groups is said to
be in blindness and to have gone astray, which he argues is scarcely a
post-resurrection condition, and suggests that the two groups are two
kinds of priests: those in error and those who will arise and walk in
the way of truth. Thus he argues that the text is a subtle piece of anti-
Hasmonean and pro-Zadokite propaganda on the part of a group that
was prepared to accept the Hasmoneans as high priests, but not when
they combined the offices of high priest and king.23
The interpretation of these fragments is made no easier by the fact
that that they apparently do not—as was assumed in the past—belong
to the same writing as is represented by 4QpsDana,b ar, which might
have provided a context in which they could be understood. In the end
the repeated אלן, אלןdoes make a connection with Dan 12:2—and
thus an interpretation in terms of resurrection—seem plausible. But
there is actually very little to go on, and 4QpsDanc serves admirably to
illustrate the difficulties frequently caused by the fragmentary condition
of key passages in the eschatological writings, not least because of the
inadequate context which they provide.
In his important two-volume study, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie
future: Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle?,24 Puech provides a compre-
hensive study of the Qumran texts that have a bearing on eschatology.
21
Puech, “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology,” in Ulrich and VanderKam
(ed.), Community of the Renewed Covenant, 247.
22
John J. Collins, Review of Émile Puech, La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future:
Immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle?, DSD 1 (1994) : 246–52, esp. 252.
23
Peter Flint, “4Qpseudo-Daniel arc and Priesthood,” 142–43, 148; Collins and
Flint, “245. 4QPseudo-Danielc ar,” 157–58, 163.
24
See note 1; Puech offers a summary of his views in his article “Messianism,
Resurrection, and Eschatology.”
332 chapter eighteen
One of his main concerns is to argue that the Essenes did not adopt
a “realised eschatology,” and that the major sectarian texts (the Hod-
ayot, the Rule of the Community, the War Rule, the Damascus Document) as
well as other Qumran texts reflect a belief in resurrection. Although
the idea of resurrection is certainly to be found in a few texts (4Q521
2 ii + 4 12; 4Q385 [4Qpseudo-Ezekiel] II, 5–9; possibly 4QpsDanc
ar 2 i), the suggestion that belief in resurrection is widely reflected in
the scrolls does not do justice to the evidence of the texts. This point
has been well made by Collins in his review of Puech’s book,25 and
it is thus unnecessary to repeat his arguments here. Rather in what
follows I wish to focus on a number of messianic texts, concerning
whose interpretation—despite important studies by Florentino García
Martínez, James VanderKam, Émile Puech, John Collins, Hartmut
Stegemann and Johann Maier26—considerable areas of disagreement
still remain.
II
25
See Collins, Review of Puech, La croyance des Esséniens.
26
See above, notes 1 and 17.
27
Johann Maier (“Messias oder Gesalbter?”) has argued for the use of the term
“anointed” rather than “messiah,” not least because of the potentially misleading
overtones that are associated with the use of the latter. While recognizing the danger of
reading into the Qumran texts theological ideas that belong elsewhere, I have continued
to use the terms “messiah” and “messianic” as a convenient shorthand.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 333
The Cave 4 manuscripts of the Rule have suggested that 1QS rep-
resents a relatively late stage in the evolution of its text, and it is well
known that 4QSe lacks the equivalent of 1QS VIII, 15b—IX, 11, of
which the sentence referring to the prophet and the two messiahs forms
the conclusion. However, the significance of this evidence is unclear
because of the uncertainty concerning the date of 4QSe. Thus, whereas
Józef T. Milik believed 4QSe to be the oldest manuscript of the Rule28
and dated it to the second half of the second century B.C.E.,29 Frank M.
Cross has assigned it to the third quarter of the first century.30 Sarianna
Metso, while leaving the question of its date open, has argued that 4QSe
represents an older form of the text than 1QS, and has made a very
strong case for the view that the equivalent of 1QS VIII, 15b–IX, 11
did not form part of the original document.31 On the other hand, James
VanderKam has suggested the possibility of mechanical error in 4QSe,32
and Philip S. Alexander has argued for the priority of the 1QS text
over the 4QSe text on the grounds that we should take palaeographi-
cal considerations into account, and that the omission of the material
found in 1QS by the redactor of 4QSe is just as plausible on internal
grounds as is its insertion by the redactor of 1QS.33 A decision on this
issue can only be made in the light of an overall assessment of the
redaction history of the Rule of the Community, and we are, as Alexander
notes, only at the beginning of that assessment. So far as the messianic
beliefs in the Rule of the Community are concerned, for the time being
we cannot get behind the clearly datable evidence of 1QS.
The Damascus Document, probably dating from ca. 100 B.C.E., also
reflects the dual messianism that occurs in the Community Rule and
4QTestimonia. The statement ]עד עמוד משי[ח אהרן וישראל ויכפר
28
Józef T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (SBT 26; London:
SCM, 1959), 123.
29
Józef T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 61. Milik refers here to 4QSb, but since he states that fragments of
a calendrical work (i.e. 4QOtot) occurred in this manuscript it is clear that he means
4QSe, in which the calendrical work was copied immediately after the Rule.
30
Frank M. Cross, “Paleographical Dates of the Manuscripts,” in (ed.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (ed. James H. Charlesworth;
Tübingen: Mohr, 1994–), 1.57.
31
Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (STDJ 21;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), 48, 71–73, 118.
32
VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” 212–13.
33
Philip S. Alexander, “The Redaction History of Serekh Ha-Yahad: a Proposal,”
RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996): 437–56, esp. 447–50, 452–53.
334 chapter eighteen
עונםin XIV, 19, and similar references in XII, 23b–XIII, 1a; XIX,
10b–11a; XX, 1, led in the past to the view that the Damascus Docu-
ment contained the expectation of a single, priestly, messiah. However,
VanderKam has properly pointed to the difficulty of attaching any
significance to a title ‘the messiah of Aaron and Israel,’34 and it has
increasingly been recognized that the phrase אהרן וישראלshould
be translated ‘the messiah of Aaron and (the one) of Israel.’ Paral-
lels for such a construction can be found not only in the Hebrew
Bible (Gen 14:10; Judg 7:25), but also in the War Rule (III, 12–13,
)שם ישראל ואהרוןand, in Aramaic, in 4Q246 (I, 6, )מלך אתור ] ומ[צרין.
The singular form of the verb in CD XIV, 19 (—)ויכפרwhich was the
source of misunderstanding in the past—is either to be explained with
VanderKam as referring back to the singular משיח, or with Ginzberg,
and more recently Cross, as a Pu{al.35
The reference to the messiah of Aaron and (the one) of Israel in CD
XIX, 10b–11a forms part of manuscript B, which diverges considerably
from manuscript A. The passage in A parallel to XIX, 10b–11a also
contains a messianic reference, which forms the climax of the so-called
Amos-Numbers Midrash:
The star is the interpreter of the law who will come to Damascus, as it is
written: “A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out
of Israel.” The sceptre is the prince of the whole congregation, and when
he appears he shall beat down all the sons of Seth (CD VII, 18–21).
The exact relationship between the texts contained in the two mediaeval
manuscripts (A and B) remains disputed,36 but it is clear that the text
represented by A is already to be found in the oldest manuscript of
the Damascus Document, 4QDa, which dates to the first half of the first
century B.C.E. and includes the passage quoted above. This passage
clearly contains the expectation of a royal messiah (“the prince of the
whole congregation”), and the background to the use of the title is to
be found in Ezekiel. However, it has been argued that here the inter-
34
VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” 229–31.
35
Frank M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3d ed., The Biblical Seminar 30;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 187–88.
36
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII 9b–VIII
2a and XIX 5b–14,” RevQ 15/57–58 (Starcky Memorial, 1991), 243–51 and the
literature cited there; George J. Brooke, “The Messiah of Aaron in the Damascus
Document,” RevQ 15/57–58 (Starcky Memorial, 1991), 215–30.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 335
preter of the law is a figure of the past, not the future.37 This view
turns partly on the fact that the title ‘interpreter of the law’ is used
in the Scrolls in two different ways: firstly, in CD VI, 7 with reference
to a figure of the past—in fact the Teacher of Righteousness; and
secondly, in 4QEschMidr III, 11–12 with reference to a figure who
accompanies the royal messiah. Furthermore, the participle used in
CD VII, 19 ( )הבאis ambiguous, and the text could be translated ‘who
came to Damascus’ instead of ‘who will come to Damascus.’ However,
the parallel within CD VII, 18–21 itself—where the interpreter of the
law is mentioned side by side with the clearly messianic “prince of the
whole congregation”—and the parallels with other passages in which
the interpreter of the law is a future figure who accompanies “the
branch of David” (4QEschMidr III, 11–12; 4Q252 [4QpGena] V, 5
[as plausibly reconstructed]) provide very strong evidence for the view
that here too we have a belief in two messiahs.38 Thus it may be argued
that in both the Amos-Numbers Midrash and the passages referring to
“the messiah of Aaron and (the one) of Israel” the Damascus Document
presents the same dual messianism as the Rule of the Community.
What is less clear is whether the interpreter of the law is to be
regarded as a priest or as a prophet. The expectation of a prophet,
which is alluded to in 1QS IX, 11, also occurs in the more or less
contemporary 1 Maccabees (see 4:46; 14:41). Within the Scrolls the
expectation takes various forms: in 4QTestimonia, where Deut 18:18–19
is quoted, the expectation is of a prophet like Moses; in the fragmen-
tary 4Q558, where Mal 3:23 (EVV 4:5) is quoted, it is of the return of
Elijah;39 while in 11QMelch the description of “the messenger of good”
(Isa 52:7) is elaborated by means of the quotation of Isa 61:2b–3a. But
beyond these passages the expectation of a prophet is not further clearly
mentioned in the scrolls that have survived40—except that some scholars
have believed the interpreter of the law to be a prophetic figure. Thus,
37
Cf., for example, Phillip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the
“Damascus Document” ( JSOTSup 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 147;
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Damascus Document Revisited,” RB 92 1985) 242;
Brooke, “The Messiah of Aaron,” 224–27, esp. 225.
38
See further Knibb, “Interpretation of Damascus Document,” 248–51.
39
For the text, see Beyer, Ergänzungsband, 93–94.
40
Puech and Collins have argued that 4Q521 2 iii refers to Elijah, and Collins has
proposed that the messiah of 4Q521 2 ii + 4 is either Elijah or a prophet like Elijah.
See Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)”; Puech, La croyance des Esséniens,
646, 669–81; Collins, Scepter and the Star, 117–22.
336 chapter eighteen
for example, van der Woude long ago interpreted the reference to the
interpreter in CD VII, 18–19 in relation to the coming of Elijah,41 and
more recently Maier has discussed the interpreter passages as referring
to the prophet like Moses whose task is to declare the will of God.42
However, other scholars have believed that the interpreter of the law is
the messianic priest, the messiah of Aaron,43 which seems to me more
likely. Declaring the law for Israel is one of the functions specifically
attributed to Levi in Deut 33:8–11, the priestly messianic proof text
quoted in 4QTestimonia, and it is perhaps not without significance
that this text is also quoted in 4QEschMidr I, 9–12. Furthermore, it
was very likely believed that the interpreter of the law of the messianic
age would fulfil the functions of the Teacher of Righteousness, who
in CD VI, 7 is himself given the title “the interpreter of the law.” But
in this case we should note that the Teacher was a priest, perhaps the
one who held office as high priest between the death of Alcimus and
the assumption of office by Jonathan. Finally, we may also note that
in two passages (4Q161 [4QpIsaa] 8–10 22–25; 4Q285 5 5) it is said
that priests or a priest will accompany “the branch of David” and
will exercise command. For all these reasons it seems to me that the
interpreter of the law is to be identified with the messiah of Aaron,
and not with a prophetic figure.
The evidence of the Rule of the Community, 4QTestimonia, and the
Damascus Document—which can be clearly dated to the period about 100
B.C.E.—provides a background against which it is possible to interpret
the majority of the messianic texts from Qumran: 4QEschMidr, 4Q252
(4QpGena), 4Q161 (4QpIsaa), 4Q285, 4Q521, 4Q541 (4QTestLevid),
and 11QMelch. These texts do raise problems—for example, it is not
clear what role was attributed to the figure referred to as “his messiah”
in 4Q521—which are to a great extent caused by the fragmentary con-
dition in which the manuscripts have survived. Furthermore, there are
differences of terminology within the texts themselves and differences
of emphasis, for example in 11QMelch. This work makes no reference
to a Davidic messiah and presents Melchizedek, whose task as future
41
Van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen, 55.
42
Maier, “Messias oder Gesalbter?,” RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996):
596–604.
43
Cf. George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context ( JSOT-
Sup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985), 202–05; Collins, Scepter and the Star,
114–15.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 337
III
44
See above, notes 1 and 17.
45
RB 70 (1963): 481–505.
46
Hartman Stegemann, “Some Remarks to 1QSa, to 1QSb, and to Qumran Mes-
sianism,” RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996): 479–505.
338 chapter eighteen
47
Annette Steudel, “The Eternal Reign of the People of God—Collective Expecta-
tions in Qumran Texts (4Q246 and 1QM),” RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik Festschrift, 1996):
507–25.
48
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 503.
49
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 493, 500.
50
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 504.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 339
51
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 505.
52
Puech, “Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology,” 241.
53
Messianic exegesis in the Greek translation of the Psalms may also be of relevance
in this context. For a recent study, see Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter
(WUNT 2.76; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995); but see on this the review by Albert Pietersma
in BO 54 (1997), 185–90. The view that a messianic interpretation is reflected in the
Septuagint translation of Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17 seems to me correct; but on the
latter passage, see Johan Lust, “The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth
Oracles, the ἄνθρωπος in Num 24:7 and 17. Messianism and Lexicography,” in VIII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (SBLSCS
41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 233–57.
340 chapter eighteen
his three stages raise problems of interpretation, and I would now like
to consider these.
The book of Daniel, the basic draft of the War Rule, 4Q246 and the
hymn of self-glorification included in 4Q491 are all taken by Stegemann
and Steudel as works in which there is no expectation of an individual
messianic figure, but ‘messianic’ expectations are attached to the col-
lective people of Israel. All these texts are taken to be representative of
beliefs before the middle of the second century B.C.E. So far as Daniel
is concerned, both Stegemann and Steudel assume that the holy ones
of the Most High are the people Israel.54 However, while it seems more
likely to me that the holy ones are to be regarded as angels, and the
one like a son of man as their representative Michael,55 we need not
spend long on Daniel because it is generally recognized that this is not
a messianic text itself—however influential it was on the subsequent
development of messianic beliefs.
The situation in the War Rule (1QM) is somewhat ambiguous. The
text refers once to “the prince of all the congregation” (נשיא כול העדה
1QM V, 1) and several times to “the chief priest” (כוהן הראש, 1QM
II, 1). He is said to strengthen the army (XVI, 11–12; cf. the role of
“the priest” in Deut 20:2–4, which is quoted in 1QM X, 2–5) and—in
conjunction with his fellow priests and the levites—to pronounce bless-
ings and curses (XIII, 1–6; the reference to the chief priest is to be
restored at the very end of column XII) and to recite prayers during
and after the battle (XV, 4; XVIII, 5; XIX, 11). Thus the chief priest
clearly plays a role in the eschatological war, and implicitly the prince
of all the congregation is Israel’s military leader in this war.56 On the
other hand, the prince is mentioned only in passing in the context of a
reference to the inscription on his shield, and neither he nor the priest
is presented explicitly in messianic terms. In this text above all one
would expect a reference to the Davidic messiah as Israel’s leader in
battle. In fact, however, the emphasis in the key section, 1QM X–XIV,
is on the role of God as the one who gives victory to his people Israel:
God himself is the “hero” (גבור, XII, 8–9), as Steudel notes.57 And
54
Cf. Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 502; Steudel, “Eternal Reign of the People
of God,” 508–09.
55
Cf., for example, John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Herme-
neia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–19.
56
Cf. VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” 219, 231.
57
“Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 523; cf. Stegemann, “Some Remarks,”
502.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 341
she, following Stegemann, has also emphasised the way in which Num
24:17–19 is used in 1QM XI, 6–7, not in an individual messianic sense,
but in order to focus on Israel. Num 24:17 is one of the traditional
messianic proof texts, but here a longer passage than normal is quoted
in a reworked form so that it ends with the statement, “and Israel will
do valiantly.” Thus messianic ideas cannot be said to be totally absent
from the War Rule, but they are presented in a muted form.
The Aramaic Apocalypse (4Q246) raises somewhat greater problems.58
This text—of which only one column and the left side of the preced-
ing column survive—has attracted a good deal of attention because
it refers to the son of God, but it is far from clear who is meant by
the son of God. The manuscript dates from the last third of the first
century B.C.E., but the text—like the other Aramaic texts—may well
be pre-Essene. The first part of what remains (I, 1–4) serves as an intro-
duction in which an interpreter of a vision is brought before a throne.
The main part of the text (I, 4–II, 9) then provides an interpretation
of a vision, the first part of which refers to a succession of kings and
a period of oppression, followed by the appearance of another figure
(I, 4–9). Column 2 may then be translated as follows:59
(1) He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most
High. Like the sparks (2) of a vision, so will their kingdom be. They will
rule several years over (3) the earth and crush everything; a people will
crush (another) people, and a city (another) city. vacat (4) Until he raises
up the people of God and makes everyone rest from the sword. vacat
(5) His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all his paths will be in
righteousness. He will judge (6) the earth in righteousness, and all will
make peace. He will make the sword cease from the earth, (7) and all
cities will pay him homage. The Great God will be his strength, (8) and
he will make war for him; he will give nations into his hand and cast
them all down (9) before him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and all the abysses . . .
58
The text has been published by Puech as “246. Apocalypse de Daniel ar,” in
Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII (DJD 22), 165–84 + pl. XI; cf. Puech, “Fragment
d’une apocalypse en araméen (4Q246 = pseudo-Dand) et le ‘Royaume de Dieu’,” RB
99 (1992): 98–131; “Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246—‘Le Fils de Dieu’,”
RB 101 (1994): 533–58.
59
The translation is based on the view that the text refers to a messianic figure; cf.
Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 2 (1995), 174–77.
342 chapter eighteen
Among the various explanations of this text that have been put forward,60
two main lines of understanding have dominated:61 a historical inter-
pretation according to which the titles “son of God” and “son of the
Most High” are used in a polemical way to refer to a Seleucid ruler;
and a messianic interpretation according to which the titles are used in
a positive way to refer to a messianic figure. A decision between these
two lines of interpretation is made more difficult by the fact that it is
not clear whether the subject of the verbs in II, 4 is the son of God or
the people of God, and also by the fact that the first verb could be read
both as יקיםand as יקום, although the second verb is most probably
יניח.62 Milik believed that the son of God in this text was Alexander
Balas; but Puech (the editor of the text) and Steudel have argued that
the reference is to Antiochus Epiphanes, comparing the statement in
II, 1 (“He will be called son of God, and they will call him Son of
the Most High”) with the arrogant claims attributed to Antiochus in
Dan 11:36–37 and 2 Macc 9:8, 10, 12.63 A historical interpretation
would make sense of the text and certainly cannot be excluded: but if
it is accepted, then II, 4–9 must refer to the people of God. However,
Puech, while arguing that a historical interpretation is preferable, leaves
open the possibility that in II, 5–9 there may be an allusion to the royal
messiah and his kingdom.64 Collins, in particular, has argued in favour
of such an interpretation, and—in the light of the obvious dependency
on the book of Daniel—cautiously suggests that the text represents a
first reinterpretation of Dan 7 in a messianic sense.65
Objections may be brought against both lines of interpretation.
Against the historical interpretation it has often been argued that a
people would hardly “judge the earth in righteousness” (II, 5–6). In
response, Puech and Steudel have properly pointed to texts where a
60
For a convenient summary of views about this text, see Steudel, “Eternal Reign
of the People of God,” 509–11.
61
Cf. Puech, “246. Apocalypse de Daniel ar,” (DJD 22), 178–84 (here 181); Steudel,
“Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 511–19.
62
Cf. Puech, “246. Apocalypse de Daniel ar,” (DJD 22), 174–75.
63
Cf. Puech, “246. Apocalypse de Daniel ar,” (DJD 22), 173–74, 181; Steudel,
“Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 511–12.
64
Puech, “246. Apocalypse de Daniel ar,” (DJD 22), 182.
65
Cf., for example, John J. Collins, “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” in From
Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed.
Martinus C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield Academic Press, 1993): 65–82.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 343
group does in fact carry out judgment,66 but none of these seems to
provide an exact parallel. In 1 Enoch 91:12 (4QEng 1 iv 15–17) a sword
is given to the righteous ( )קשיטיןto exercise righteous judgment on the
wicked, and in 4Q542 (4QTQahat ar) 1 ii 5 the sons of Levi exercise
judgment.67 In 1QpHab V, 4 judgment of all the nations is placed in
the hand of God’s chosen ones, while the Septuagint version of Dan
7:22—in contrast to the Aramaic—states that the Ancient of Days
gave judgment to the holy ones of the Most High (τὴν κρίσιν ἔδωκε
τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῦ ὑψίστου).68 In Wis 3:8 the souls of the righteous dead
“govern (κρίνειν) nations and rule over peoples.” None of these texts,
nor the other passages mentioned by Puech and Steudel (1 Cor 6:2–3;
Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30), refer to judgment of the earth being given
to the people of God as a whole.
Steudel has made the strongest case against a messianic interpreta-
tion of 4Q246, arguing that I, 4–II, 9 forms an entity in which II, 4 is
the only turning-point. On this view the reference to the son of God
in II, 1a continues the polemic against the last ruler, which began in
the bottom half of col. I, and II, 1b–3 forms a concluding summary
concerning the reigns of the kings.69 Those who adopt a messianic
interpretation have to argue that I, 4–II, 9 falls into two parts, I, 4–II,
1a and II, 1b–9, with two turning-points, the first (now lost) at the
beginning of I, 7 and the second in II, 4. Collins has explained the
twofold form of the interpretation by analogy with Daniel 7, where a
summary interpretation (verses17–18) is followed by a more detailed
interpretation which goes over the same ground.70 But the parallel is
not exact,71 and it has to be accepted that the question of the structure
represents a weakness in the messianic interpretation.
In the end a decision between the two lines of interpetation can only
be made, it seems to me, in the light of three general considerations—
whether the titles ‘son of God’ and ‘son of the Most High’ would likely
66
Cf. Puech, “Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246,” 553; Steudel, “Eternal
Reign of the People of God,” 517.
67
For the text, see Puech, “Le Testament de Qahat en araméen de la Grotte 4
(4QTQah),” RevQ 15/57–58 (Starcky Memorial, 1991): 23–54.
68
Steudel (“Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 508 n. 6) argues that the Aramaic
text of Dan 7:22 could itself mean that the power to exercise judgment was given to
the holy ones, but this seems to me unlikely.
69
Steudel, “Eternal Reign of the People of God,” 514–16.
70
Collins, “The Son of God Text from Qumran,” 70–71.
71
Cf. Puech, “Notes sur le fragment d’apocalypse 4Q246,” 549–50.
344 chapter eighteen
72
Cf. Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 502; Steudel, “Eternal Reign of the People
of God,” 525.
73
Esther Eshel, “4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn,” RevQ 17/65–68 (Milik
Festschrift, 1996): 176–203.
74
Eshel, “4Q471B: A Self-Glorification Hymn,” 194–202; Collins, Scepter and the
Star, 136–53.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 345
Congregation and the Rule of the Blessings. The latter text is fragmentary,
but Stegemann has convincingly shown the view that it is divided into
four sections (blessing of the faithful, blessing of the high priest, blessing
of the priests, blessing of the prince of the congregation) to be correct.75
However, he has also argued that only the blessing of the prince of the
congregation—which he suggests may be a secondary addition—has a
messianic character, and that the first three sections of this work have
no eschatological connotations. Unfortunately, we lack the beginning of
the blessing of the high priest, which would no doubt have clarified the
character of that particular blessing and hence of the document as a
whole. But it may be accepted that what little survives of the blessing
of the high priest does not have an obviously eschatological character,
and any argument that he was the messsianic high priest would have
to be on the grounds of general consistency.76 Nevertheless, it seems to
me that the other text, the Rule of the Congregation, does contain a belief
in a priestly as well as a royal messiah.
The final section of the Rule of the Congregation (II, 11b–22) twice
refers explicitly to the messiah of Israel and so, although the text is
severely damaged, it has been commonly assumed that the priest, who
is also mentioned in the passage and takes precedence over the mes-
siah of Israel, was the messianic high priest, otherwise known as the
messiah of Aaron. Furthermore, although the text is difficult to read,
it was argued that lines 11–12 referred to God ‘begetting’ the messiah.
However, Stegemann argues that II, 11b–22, which he thinks may—like
the blessing of the prince of the congregation in 1QSb—be an addi-
tion, refers not to the messianic high priest or even to a high priest,
but rather to any priest. He further maintains that the Rule is not, as is
commonly assumed, intended for the messianic age despite the occur-
rence of אחרית הימיםat the beginning of the text, but was an early
rule book of the Essenes intended for the age of the author.77
The key passage so far as the messianic views of this text is concerned
is II, 11b–12. What can be clearly read or supplied with reasonable
confidence reads as follows:
75
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 495–501, esp. 500–501.
76
So VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” 224–25.
77
Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 487–95.
346 chapter eighteen
78
Or possibly “In the session” ( ;)במו[שבcf. Émile Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale
et Messie-Roi dans la Règle de la Congrégation (1QSa ii 11–22),” RevQ 16/63 (1994):
351–65, esp. 353; contrast Stegemann, “Some Remarks,” 489–90.
79
See the previous note.
80
Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale,” 357–60, 362.
81
So Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale,” 361–62.
eschatology and messianism in the dead sea scrolls 347
IV
82
Cf., for example, Maier, “Messias oder Gesalbter?,” 605.
83
Puech, “Préséance sacerdotale,” 363–64.
84
Cf. Karl G. Kuhn, “Die beiden Messias Aarons und Israels,” NTS 1 (1955):
168–79.
85
Cf. VanderKam, “Messianism in the Scrolls,” 222.
348 chapter eighteen
Concern with the subject of messianism goes back to the very beginnings
of the Colloquia Biblica Lovaniensia. Already in 1952, on the occasion
of the fourth colloquium, the subject chosen was L’attente du Messie1 and
apart from an introduction to the study of messianism and a discussion
of recent research by B. Rigaux, the President of the Colloquium,2 and
apart from a number of papers on New Testament topics, there were
several papers on messianism in the Old Testament and in Judaism,
including two of the three that Professor J. Coppens contributed. The
first of these was a discussion, from a somewhat critical viewpoint, of
the then recently published work by Sigmund Mowinckel, Han som
kommer (ET, He That Cometh),3 the second a defence—in response to
an article by J. J. Stamm—of the traditional messianic interpretation
of the Immanuel prophecy.4 The volume was very much a product
of the age in which it appeared, but some of the issues discussed, not
least the question of the continuity of messianic belief between the
Old and the New Testament, are still being debated, albeit in very
different circumstances.
Less than ten years later, for the thirteenth colloquium, held in 1961
under the Presidency of É. Massaux, the subject of messianism was
again chosen. This time the specific topic was La venue du Messie. Mes-
sianisme et Eschatologie,5 and although the Colloquium was primarily
1
Béda Rigaux (ed.), L’attente du Messie (Recherches Bibliques 1; Brugge: Desclée de
Brouwer, 1954), 2d ed., 1958.
2
Béda Rigaux, “L’étude du messianisme. Problèmes et methodes,” in L’attente du
Messie, ed. Rigaux, 15–30.
3
Joseph Coppens, “Les origines du messianisme. La synthèse historique de
M. Sigmund Mowinckel,” in L’attente du Messie, ed. Rigaux, 31–38.
4
Joseph Coppens, “La prophétie d’Emmanuel (Is., vii, 14–16),” in L’attente du Messie,
ed. Rigaux, 39–50.
5
Édouard Massaux (ed.), La venue du Messie. Messianisme et Eschatologie (Recherches
Bibliques 6; Brugge: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962).
350 chapter nineteen
6
Pierre Grelot, “Le Messie dans les Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament. État de la
question,” in La venue du Messie, ed. Massaux, 19–50.
7
Joseph Coppens, Le messianisme royal: Ses origines, son développement, son accomplissement
(LD 54; Paris: Cerf, 1968), 100: “Tout porte à croire qu’à l’époque du Christ il (sc.
le messianisme royal) s’etait de nouveau imposé à de larges couches de la population
juive aussi bien en Palestine que dans le Diaspora.”
8
Coppens, Le messianisme royal, 117: “En tout cas une telle relecture s’est accompli lors
de la traduction des Écritures en langue grecque. Il suffit de comparer les textes hébreux
et grecs d’Is 7,14; 9,1–5; du Ps 110, 3 pour se rendre compte de l’évolution accomplie
dans le sens d’un messianisme plus personnel, plus surnaturel, plus transcendant.”
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 351
Christ. He noted that the evolution of Israel’s religious belief did not
stop with the redaction of the last Old Testament book and added:
“The analysis of the Greek version of the Septuagint shows numerous
traces of a continuous development.”9 Similar claims concerning the
Septuagint have been made by many scholars, but also treated with
caution by some others, and the question remains where a proper bal-
ance should be struck.
No colloquium in this series has been directly concerned with the
Septuagint as such, but—as might be expected in such a distinguished
centre of Septuagint studies—papers on Septuagintal topics have formed
an important part of several colloquia, including the ones on Ezekiel
(1985)10 and Daniel (1991);11 and in a paper given in 1996, in the Col-
loquium on The Scriptures in the Gospels, Johan Lust addressed the topic
“Mic 5:1–3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism in
the Septuagint.”12 This was one of a series of papers on the Septuagint
and messianism that he has given over the last twenty-five years, which
happily have now been republished as a collection.13
The tradition of concern in Leuven with messianism and with the
Septuagint forms a fitting background for the subject with which the
present Colloquium is concerned, the question of whether an evolu-
tion in messianic beliefs is to be discerned in the Septuagint. At the
same time the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls in their entirety are now
available in reliable editions makes it an appropriate moment to take
up this question in that the Scrolls do provide us with some first-hand
evidence of Jewish messianic belief in the pre-Christian period.
9
Joseph Coppens, Le messianisme et sa relève prophétique. Les anticipations vétéro-testamentaires.
Leur accomplissement en Jésus (BETL 38; Leuven: Peeters, 1974), 2d ed. 1989, 149.
10
Johan Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Inter-relation
(BETL 74; Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 5–119.
11
Adam S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL
106; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 1–53.
12
Johan Lust, “Mic 5:1–3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism
in the Septuagint,” in The Scriptures in the Gospels (ed. Christopher M. Tuckett; BETL
131; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 65–88.
13
Johan Lust, Messianism and the Septuagint. Collected Essays (ed. Katrin Hauspie; BETL
178; Leuven: Peeters, 2004).
352 chapter nineteen
II
14
See note 8.
15
For the text, see Miroslav Marcovich, Justini Martyris, Dialogus cum Tryphone (Patris-
tische Texte und Studien 43; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997); for a translation, see St. Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (trans. Thomas B. Falls; rev. ed. with a New Introduction
by Thomas P. Halton; Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3; Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2003).
16
A helpful bibliography of works by scholars who since the Second World War
had expressed such a view was given by Johan Lust in an article published in 1985:
“Messianism and Septuagint,” in Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (ed. John A. Emerton;
SupplVT 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 174–191, esp. 174; repr. in Collected Essays, ed.
Hauspie, esp. 9.
17
Isac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of its Problems
(Leiden: Brill, 1948), 118–120; repr. in The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies
(ed. Robert Hanhart and Hermann Spieckermann; FAT 40; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004),
119–294, esp. 291–293.
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 353
18
Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. George W. Anderson; Oxford: Black-
well, 1959), 282–284.
19
Adam van der Woude, in TWNT 9 (1973): 501–502; = TDNT 9 (1974): 510.
20
Georg Bertram, “Praeparatio Evangelica in der Septuaginta,” VT 7 (1957):
225–249, esp. 231–232, 249; 232: “So konnte sich auf dem Boden des griechischen
Alten Testaments eine messianische Begriffsbildung als Vorlaüferin der neutestament-
lichen und urchristlichen Christologie entfalten.”
354 chapter nineteen
includes: “the lxx Pentateuch in the third century, the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs and the lxx Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Twelve Prophets
and Psalms in the second, and the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), the
Psalms of Solomon and relevant parts of the Third Sibylline book in the
first century B.C.E.”21 Earlier, Joachim Schaper, in his monograph
Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, argued that scholars had paid insufficient
attention to “theological exegesis” in the Greek Psalms, to the ways in
which it reflected the religious beliefs of the Jewish world in which it
was produced. He discussed the interpretation of eighteen passages
in the lxx Psalter in which he argued that, in comparison with the
Hebrew, the expression of eschatological or messianic beliefs could be
discerned, and in the light of this stated:
The material considered helps us to understand elements of the history of
Jewish messianism and eschatology which have hitherto been overlooked
because of the unfortunate preoccupation of so many scholars with only
the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and, consequently, the development of
apocalyptic thought and literature. It is therefore one of the present study’s
objectives to help to shift the attention given to this train of thought to
the original document that preserves so much of the most ancient mes-
sianic and eschatological material: the Septuagint.22
Some support for the kind of view put forward by Schaper has been
given by Natalio Fernández Marcos who has suggested that the study
of books of the Septuagint as religious documents, and as the “source
of historical and religious information for the exegesis and develop-
ment of Jewish thought in the first three centuries before Christ” has
proved fruitful.23
On the other hand, Schaper’s exegesis of the passages in the Greek
Psalter on which he bases his conclusions has been subjected to strong
criticism by Al Pietersma on methodological grounds.24 And Johan Lust,
in articles concerned with many of the passages in the Septuagint for
21
William Horbury, “Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. John Day; JSOTSup
279; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 402–433, esp. 408; repr. in Messianism
among Jews and Christians (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 35–64, esp. 40.
22
Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2.76; Tübingen: Mohr),
1995, 138; cf. Schaper, “Der Septuagint-Psalter als Dokument jüdischer Eschatologie,”
in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum (ed. Martin Hengel and Anna M.
Schwemer; WUNT 72; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 38–61.
23
Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version
of the Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 313.
24
Albert Pietersma, review in Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1997): 185–190.
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 355
25
See above, n. 13.
26
Cf. e.g. Lust, “Messianism and Septuagint” 175–177 (Collected Essays, 10–12); Lust,
“Septuagint and Messianism with a Special Emphasis on the Pentateuch,” in Theologi-
sche Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik (ed. Henning G. Reventlow;
Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 11; Gütersloh:
Kaiser, 1997), 26–45, esp. 31; repr. in Collected Essays, 129–151, esp. 135.
27
Johan Lust, “Messianism and the Greek Version of Jeremiah,” in VII Congress of
the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven, 1989 (ed. Claude E.
Cox; SBLSCS 31; Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1991), 87–122, esp. 87; repr. in Collected
Essays, 41–67, esp. 41.
28
Marguerite Harl, “Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique,” in
La Bible grecque des Septante (ed. Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl and Olivier Munnich;
Initiations au christianisme ancien; Paris: Cerf, 1988), 2d ed. 1994, 201–222, esp.
219–222.
29
Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2002), 96–97, 297–300.
356 chapter nineteen
believed this to be the case.30 However, Emmanuel Tov has stated that
although such changes can be found in all the books of the Septuagint,
they occur particularly frequently in books whose translation is “free”
in character,31 and he would appear to be correct in this. Equally it
cannot be excluded that there are some messianic interpretations in
the Septuagint, whether deliberately introduced or not, and prima
facie the three passages mentioned by Coppens (Isa 7:14; 9:2–6(1–5);
Ps 109[110]:3) should be regarded as such. However, my purpose in
what follows is not to discuss the correctness or otherwise of messianic
interpretations proposed for specific passages, or in respect of specific
books of the Old Testament, but rather to discuss some general issues
that seem to me important in this whole debate.
III
30
Leo Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948); repr. with Die
grammatikalische Terminologie des Abraham ibn Esra (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1987); cf.
his statement on p. xvi: “So darf die lxx in ihrer Beziehung zum hebräischen Text
oft nur von innen her aus ihrem eigenen Geist heraus, nicht durch mechanische, rein
äusserliche Vergleichung mit dem hebräischen Text verstanden warden.”—See, however,
the comments of Godfrey R. Driver, in Book List of the Society for Old Testament Study,
1949, 19–20; Henry S. Gehman, in JAOS 70 (1950): 304–307.
31
Emmanuel Tov, “Die griechische Bibelübersetzungen,” in ANRW II.20.1 (1987):
121–189, 147.
32
For statistical information and information about the meaning and usage of משיח
and χριστός, see the articles in ThWAT 5 (1986) cols. 46–59; = TDOT 9 (1998): 43–54;
TWNT 9 (1973): 482–495, 500–502; = TDNT 9 (1974): 493–505, 509–510. For recent
studies of the theme of messianism, see e.g. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The
Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday,
1995); Heinz-Josef Fabry and Klaus Scholtissek, Der Messias: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen
Testaments (Die Neue Echter Bibel, Themen 5: Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002).
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 357
33
“Septuagint and Messianism,” 37 (Collected Essays, 142).
34
Contrast William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM,
1998), 6–7.
35
Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 125.
36
Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 107–126; see on this Pietersma, in Bibliotheca
Orientalis 54 (1997) col. 189.
358 chapter nineteen
37
Bertram, “Praeparatio Evangelica,” 233.
38
See n. 7.
39
Cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (2d
ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 254–256; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the
Book of Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 7; Michael A. Knibb,
“The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” NTS 25 (1979): 345–359.
40
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the
Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995): 165–184, esp. 166–170.
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 359
are serious problems concerning the relevance of the Testaments for the
pre-Christian period, while the strength of the evidence in Sirach and
1 Maccabees is debatable.
The Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs have been brought into the
debate about messianism in the second century B.C.E. notwithstanding
the fact that the collection of twelve testaments in Greek is a Christian
text for which a strong case has been made that it belongs in the second
century C.E.41 The messianic passages in the Testaments clearly allude to
Christ, and the Greek text can only be used as evidence for the second
century B.C.E. by assuming a process of Christian interpolation into
an original Jewish text. But, as has been repeatedly said, it is not at all
clear that after the obviously Christian passages have been removed
from the Greek Testaments, what remains is necessarily Jewish; and it
is even less clear that what is left can then be taken as firm evidence
of Jewish belief in the second century B.C.E. and used as such for
comparative purposes. It is of course true that the Christian Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs draw extensively on Jewish traditions, knowledge
of which has been increased by the discovery of the Scrolls. Of these
older traditions, the most important are the work now known as the
Aramaic Levi Document 42 and the Aramaic text tentatively identified as an
Apocryphon of Levi (4Q541, 540).43 There is a definite literary relationship
between the Aramaic Levi Document and the Greek Testaments, but there is
nothing in the Aramaic Levi Document that can be regarded as messianic.
On the other hand, some of the fragments of 4Q541 and 540, which
are difficult to translate and hard to interpret, do refer to a messianic
41
Cf. Marinus de Jonge, “The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God in the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs and in the Writings of Justin and Irenaeus,” in Marinus de Jonge,
Jewish Eschatology, Early Christianity and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Collected Essays
(Leiden: Brill, 1991), 263–276; “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a Document
Transmitted by Christians,” in Marinus de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as
Part of Christian Literature (SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 84–106, esp. 97–106.
42
For the Cave 4 fragments of the Aramaic Levi Document, see Michael E. Stone and
Jonas C. Greenfield, in George Brooke and others, Qumran Cave 4.XVII. Parabiblical
Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1–72 + pls. I–IV; and for references
to all the other textual evidence for this document (in Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac),
see Michael A. Knibb, “Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The
Levi Traditions,” in Florentino García Martínez and Ed Noort, Perspectives in the Study
of the Old Testament & Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on
the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 197–213, esp. 203.
43
For 4Q541 and 540, see Émile Puech, in Qumrân Grotte 4.XXII. Textes araméens,
Première partie: 4Q529–549 (ed. Émile Puech; DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001),
213–256 + pls. XII–XIV.
360 chapter nineteen
high priest who is said to make atonement “for all the children of his
generation”. There are similarities between some of the statements
made about the high priest in 4Q541 9 i and the things that are said
about the Levitical priest in T. Levi 18, but it is clear that the material in
T. Levi 18 has been thoroughly reworked by the Christian author of the
Testament of Levi for his own purposes,44 and the Greek Testament cannot
be taken as providing evidence of Jewish belief in the second century
B.C.E. 4Q541 and 540 can be dated on palaeographical grounds to
about 100 B.C.E., but the text itself is probably older. This writing,
unlike the Greek Testaments, can be taken as evidence of messianic belief
in the pre-Christian period, but its evidence is limited.
A carefully argued case for the presence of messianic views in Sirach
and 1 Maccabees has been presented by William Horbury. For Sirach,
he discusses the references to David in 45:25; 47:11, 22.45 The first of
these occurs at the end of the passage on Moses, Aaron, and Phinehas
(44:23b–45:25) and contrasts the covenant made with Phinehas with
that made with David, but appears to suggest that the covenant made
with David is inferior—as the translation of Di Lella indicates:
For even his covenant with David,
the son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah,
was an individual heritage through one son alone,
but the heritage of Aaron is for all his descendants.46
The parallelism that is drawn here between the covenant with David
and that with Phinehas is no doubt based on the parallelism that is
drawn between the covenant with David and that with the Levites in
Jer 33:19–22, but the reference to David in Sir 45:25 merely serves
to heighten the importance of the covenant with the descendants of
Aaron.
The second reference (47:11) occurs at the end of the passage
that is concerned with David (47:1–11), and the statement that God
“exalted his horn forever” draws on imagery used of the Davidic king
in passages like 1 Sam 2:10 (see above, 357). Similarly the promise
that God would ensure the survival of the Davidic dynasty, which
44
Cf. Knibb, “Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi Tradi-
tions,” 207–209.
45
Horbury, “Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,”
414–417 (Messianism among Jews and Christians, 46–48).
46
Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39;
New York: Doubleday, 1987), 508, cf. 510, 514.
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 361
47
Skehan and di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 526, 528.
48
Horbury, “Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,”
416–417 (Messianism among Jews and Christians, 48).
49
“Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” 417–418
(Messianism among Jews and Christians, 48–50).
362 chapter nineteen
50
Gilles Dorival, “La géographie de la Septante (Prophètes et autres livres),” in La
Bible grecque des Septante, ed. Dorival, Harl and Munnich, 101–107.
51
Arie van der Kooij, “On the Place of Origin of the Old Greek Psalms,” VT 33
(1983): 67–74; Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, 34–45.
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 363
very substantial,52 and there needs to be a very clear case, before the
Septuagint Psalms can be taken as having a Palestinian origin and
reflecting a Palestinian viewpoint.
The relevance of this issue is that there is no evidence that mes-
sianism flourished in Alexandria. There is no messianic expectation in
the fragments of the Hellenistic-Jewish authors or in Wisdom. Sibylline
Oracles 3:652–653, which probably dates from some time in the second
century B.C.E., does refer to God sending “a king from the sun”, that
is, as Collins notes, an Egyptian king, “who will stop the entire earth
from evil war”;53 but this is hardly the expression of Jewish messianism.
Philo is cautious about any expression of messianic belief. He does
quote from the Septuagint of Num 24:7 twice (Mos. i.290; Praem. 95),
but hardly gives the passage a messianic emphasis. The former passage
gives the verse in full, but in a somewhat free form, the latter only an
abbreviated quotation:
lxx ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ
καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν,
καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γωγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ,
καί αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.
Mos. i.290 ἐξελεύσεταί ποτε ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν
καὶ ἐπικρατήσει πολλῶν ἐθνῶν,
καὶ ἐπιβαίνουσα ἡ τοῦδε βασιλεία
καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν πρὸς ὕψος ἀρθήσεται.
Praem. 95 ἐξελεύσεται γὰρ ἄνθρωπος
καὶ στραταρχῶν καὶ πολεμῶν
ἔθνη μεγάλα καὶ πολυάνθρωπα χειρώσεται.
52
See the comments of Olivier Munnich, “La Septante des Psaumes et le groupe
KAIGE,” in VT 33 (1983): 75–89; Albert Pietersma, “Septuagint Research: A Plea
for a Return to Basic Issues,” in VT 35 (1985): 296–311, esp. 307–311; Pietersma,
Bibliotheca Orientalis 54 (1997): 186.
53
Cf. John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.317–472, esp. 355, 376.
54
Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria, An Exegete for His Time (NovTSup 86; Leiden:
Brill, 1997), 269–275.
364 chapter nineteen
IV
The fact remains, however, that the Septuagint has introduced messianic
references in places where such do not exist in the Massoretic Text and
even if messianic expectation was less pervasive at the turn of the era
than is often assumed, Greek-speaking Christians found it natural to
apply numerous passages in the Septuagint to their interpretation of
the significance of the life and death of Jesus. The real difficulty is to
assess properly, without being unduly influenced by later Christian or
Jewish interpretation, the extent to which the translators have introduced
messianic references into the Greek translation. Two specific questions,
it seems to me, need to be addressed: firstly, what are the criteria that
need to be met for determining whether the Septuagint has, or has not,
55
John Lust, “The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles: The
ἄνθρωπος in Num 24:7, 17. Messianism and Lexicography,” in VIII Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (ed. Leonard Greenspoon
and Olivier Munnich; SBLSCS 41; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 233–257, esp.
246; repr. in Collected Essays, 69–86, esp. 81.
56
Cf. Marguerite Harl, in La Bible grecque des Septante, ed. Dorival, Harl and Mun-
nich, 220; Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 297.
57
Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 119 (The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and
Cognate Studies, 291).
the septuagint and messianism: problems and issues 365
There are very obviously significant differences between the Hebrew and
the Greek versions of both these passages,58 but two things above all
stand out: the introduction of ἄνθρωπος into verse 7 and the rendering
of ‘( שבטsceptre’) by ἄνθρωπος in verse 17; and the substitution in the
Greek of verse 7 of the name of the eschatological enemy Gog (cf. Ezek
38–39) for the name Agag of the Hebrew (in 1 Sam 15:8–33 Agag is
the king of the Amalekites). The second point seems clearly to give at
least Num 24:7 an eschatological thrust, but beyond this many have
argued that the “man” in both verses is to be understood as a messi-
anic figure. On the other hand Lust has subjected the Hebrew and the
Greek versions of these passages to a detailed critical assessment and has
concluded: “There is hardly any reason to state that the lxx version of
Num 24:17 is more messianic than the MT. The term ἄνθρωπος does
not have direct messianic connotations. The only feature in the Greek
version of Num 24:7 which may have directly promoted a messianic
interpretation is the replacement of king Agag by the eschatological
symbol of perversion, Gog”.59 Lust has shed a good deal of light on the
textual differences between the Hebrew and the Greek, and his detailed
58
See on these passages, Gilles Dorival, Les Nombres (La Bible d’Alexandrie 4; Paris:
Cerf, 1994), 139–140, 446, 451–453.
59
Lust, “The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles,” 233–257, esp.
251 (Collected Essays, 69–86, esp. 86).
366 chapter nineteen
60
This is far, however, from suggesting that ἄνθρωπος in itself has messianic con-
notations; see Lust, “The Greek Version of Balaam’s Third and Fourth Oracles,”
249–250 (Collected Essays, 84–85).
CHAPTER TWENTY
1
See the references in John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the
Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 71–72, 78–79, 84; Edith M. Humphrey,
Joseph and Aseneth (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000), 33–38.
2
Martin Goodman, “The Temple in First Century C.E. Judaism,” in Temple and
Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John Day; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
422; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 459–68.
368 chapter twenty
3
C. T. Robert Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London: Rout-
ledge, 1996).
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 369
4
Cf. Exod 29:38–42; Num: 28:3–8; for the view that the ceremony is the Daily
Whole-Offering, and not the Day of Atonement, cf. Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander
A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 550–52;
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 50.
5
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 52, 78.
6
Cf. 15:16; 16:4–6; 23:5, 30–32.
370 chapter twenty
7
Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 162; cf. verse 3.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 371
Bible in such passages as Isa 1:11–17; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; or Prov
15:8; 21:3. But there is one element that is different. In the Praise
of Wisdom (Ecclus 24), wisdom describes how, after she had sought
without success for a resting place in the world, she was commanded
by the Creator of all things to make her dwelling in Jacob. Wisdom
then states that she ministered (leitourgein) before the Creator in the
tabernacle and thereafter was established in Jerusalem, by implication
in the Jerusalem Temple:
In the holy tent I ministered before him,
and so I was established in Zion.
Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place,
and in Jerusalem was my domain. (Ecclus 24:10–11 NRSV)
That wisdom is here implicitly depicted as performing a liturgical func-
tion8 in the Jerusalem Temple receives support from one element of the
imagery with which wisdom praises herself in the following verses:
Like cinnamon, or fragrant cane, or precious myrrh,
I give forth perfume,
like galbanum and onycha and mastic,
like the smoke of incense in the tent. (Ecclus 24:15)9
Cinnamon, fragrant cane, and myrrh are three of the ingredients used
for the holy anointing oil (Exod 30:22–25), and galbanum, onycha, and
mastic were used to make the incense for the service in the tent (Exod
30:34–38). Wisdom is then identified with “the book of the covenant
of the Most High God” (Ecclus 24:23), and the effect of attributing
to wisdom a liturgical function is to bring together three of the key
themes within Sirach: wisdom, law, and temple.
II
At first sight the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36), which can be dated to
the latter part of the third or the beginning of the second century
B.C.E., has little concern with the Temple. It is only in the context
of the identification of the fragrant tree on the mountain-throne of
God (1 En. 25:4–6, cf. 24:4–5) that there is a reference to a Temple in
Jerusalem (depicted subsequently (26:1) as being at the centre of the
8
Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 334–35.
9
Translation adapted from Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 328.
372 chapter twenty
earth), although in accordance with the setting of the book the name
is not used:
As for this fragrant tree, no (creature of ) flesh has authority to touch it
until the great judgment in which (there will be) vengeance on all and a
consummation forever. Then it will be given to the righteous and holy. Its
fruit {will be} food for the chosen, and it will be transplanted to a holy
place by the house of God, the king of eternity. Then they will rejoice
with joy and be glad, and they will enter the holy (place); its fragrance
(will be) in their bones, and they will live a long life on the earth, such as
your fathers lived, and in their days torments and plagues and scourges
will not touch them. (1 En. 25:4–6, Greek version)
The tree is the tree of life of Gen 2:9, which is kept from human
beings at present (cf. Gen 3:24), but is to be transplanted in the new
age to near the Temple in Jerusalem. Nothing is said in this passage
about what view the author took of the Temple in his own day, nor
of the Temple in the new age other than that the righteous would
enter it. In that age the tree near the Temple, rather than the Temple
itself,10 will be the source of life, a life understood as being very long,
as in Isa 65:19–20, but not eternal. However, insofar as the Temple
is associated with the tree understood as the source of life, it may be
recalled that the palm trees carved on the inside walls of the Solomonic
Temple (1 Kgs 6:29, 32, 35; cf. Ezek 41:18) have been understood as
symbolizing the tree of life.11 The Temple is the source of life in Ezek
47:1–12, but the symbolism is different.
Apart from this reference to the Temple in the new age, it is widely
recognized that in the account of Enoch’s ascent to heaven (1 En.
14:8–25), heaven itself is conceived of as a Temple.12 The narrative
describes how Enoch proceeded from a court or temenos (verse 9) to a
“large house” (verses 10–14a), and then to a “larger house”, a holy of
holies, in which the great glory sat on a high throne (verses 14b–25).
The narrative has been influenced not only by Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, and
Isaiah 6, but also, as Michael Stone originally suggested,13 by Ezekiel
40–44. It may be noted that the term ‘sanctuary’ (Greek hagiasma,
10
So George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch,
Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 315.
11
Cf. Martin Noth, Könige, I (BKAT IX/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968),
125–26.
12
Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993), 14–20.
13
Cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 254.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 373
hagion) is used of heaven in two passages (1 En. 12:4; 15:3) in which the
Watchers are condemned for having left heaven. Further, Enoch himself
seemingly plays the role of priest of the heavenly Temple, when at the
request of the Watchers he intercedes on their behalf (1 En. 13:4–5).14
But intercession is a task that the Watchers ought themselves to have
undertaken, and they are accused: “You ought to petition on behalf
of men, not men on behalf of you” (1 En. 15:2).
Nickelsburg15 suggests that the mention of the intercessory function
of the angels at this point may be linked to their role as priests of the
heavenly Temple. In any case, it has been argued, particularly by Suter16
and by Nickelsburg,17 that the myth of the fall of the Watchers was
intended, at least in part, as a criticism of the Jerusalem priests—the
earthly counterparts of the priests of the heavenly Temple—of the
time of the author. On the one hand, the Watchers are accused of
leaving their natural order by marrying the women (1 En. 15:3–7), and
the offspring of their unions are called “bastards” (Greek mazēreoi, a
transliteration of an Aramaic mamzērîn) and “children of fornication”
( porneia, pointing back to Aramaic zenûtā, 1 En. 10:9). Further, there
are repeated accusations that the Watchers have defiled themselves
through their contact with women and with blood (1 En. 7:1; 9:8; 10:11;
12:4; 15:4). This concern led Suter to argue that the myth needed to
be examined in the light of the rules concerning family purity in the
Second Temple period, particularly priestly purity, and that what was at
issue was marriages by priests that were regarded as illegitimate, while
the emphasis on blood might imply contamination through contact
with menstrual blood.18 On the other hand, the Watchers are presented
14
For priests as intercessors, cf. Ezra 9:5–15; Joel 2:17; Exod 28:12, 29; for Enoch
as priest, cf. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 25, 45–46; Benjamin G. Wright, “‘Fear the
Lord and Honor the Priest’: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in The
Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference,
28–31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes; BZAW 255; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1997), 189–222 (here, 199).
15
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 271.
16
David W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in
1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979): 115–35; Suter, “Revisiting ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen
Priest’ ”, Henoch 24 (2002): 137–42.
17
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation
in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 230–31; cf.
Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven, 20–23.
18
Cf. the attacks on improper marriages, described as instances of “fornication”
[zenût] in CD IV, 12–V, 11, and on the defilement of the priests through contact with
menstrual blood in Ps. Sol. 8:13.
374 chapter twenty
19
Cf. Saul M. Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” HTR 80 (1987):
261–86.
20
Wright, “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest’:” 191; cf. “Sirach and 1 Enoch:
Some Further Considerations,” Henoch 24 (2002): 179–87 (here, 182).
21
Cf. 4QMMT B.75–82; Himmelfarb, “The Book of Watchers and the Priests of
Jerusalem,” Henoch 24 (2002): 131–35 (here 132–34); J. Harold Ellens and Florentino
García Martínez, “Enochians and Zadokites,” Henoch 24 (2002): 147–53 (here
148–50).
22
John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of
Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 39.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 375
dated through the historical allusions in the Vision of the Animals to the
period before the death of Judas (161 B.C.E.). The vision refers, under
the symbolism of a “house”, to the tabernacle in the wilderness period
and perhaps at Shiloh (1 En. 89:36, 40; Josh 18:1), although it may
be that the wider entity ‘the camp’ is also envisaged.23 “House” and
“tower” are then used from 1 En. 89:50 onwards to refer respectively
to Jerusalem and the Temple. The building of the Solomonic Temple
is mentioned in 1 En. 89:50, as well as the presence of the Lord in the
Temple and the offering of sacrifice: “and the Lord of the sheep stood
on that tower, and they spread a full table before him.” Thereafter refer-
ences to the house and the tower refer to the progressive abandonment
of Jerusalem and Temple in the pre-exilic period by Israel and Judah
(1 En. 89:51, 54) and in turn the abandonment of Jerusalem and Temple
by God (1 En. 89:56).
It is at this point in the narrative that the author introduces the notion
of the seventy shepherds to whom the Jewish people are entrusted and
who are responsible for the fate of the people until God comes to the
earth in judgment. The seventy succeed one another and are divided
into four groups corresponding to the periods of Babylonian, Persian,
Ptolemaic, and Seleucid rule of Judah, after which the judgment is to
take place. The destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple at the
beginning of the Babylonian period is noted in 1 En. 89:66, the return,
and the rebuilding of city and Temple at the start of the Persian period
in 1 En. 89:72, 73. The return and rebuilding are said to occur under the
leadership of three of the sheep, most probably Joshua, Zerubbabel, and
either Ezra or Nehemiah. Significantly it is said of the Second Temple:
“and they began again to place a table before that tower, but all the
bread on it was unclean and was not pure.” This very negative judg-
ment has rightly been compared with the condemnation of the priests
and the cult in Malachi 1 and 2, where there is specific reference to
offering polluted food on the altar (Mal 1:7). The condemnation of the
cult in the Second Temple period allied with the device of the seventy
shepherds and the four world empires forms part of a more widespread
pattern of interpretation according to which Judah continued in a state
23
Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta,
Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 296–97; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 381–82.
376 chapter twenty
of exile after the return, a state that would only be finally brought to
an end with the inauguration of the new age.24
Somewhat surprisingly the desecration of the Temple in the time
of Antiochus is not mentioned, but in fact the Temple (“the tower”) is
not explicitly mentioned after the rebuilding at the beginning of the
Persian period. Instead, after the rule of the seventy shepherds has
run its course, and after the Lord of the sheep has appeared in judg-
ment, it is noted, in the course of the description of the events of the
judgment, that the abyss of fire into which apostate Jews (“the blind
sheep”) were thrown was on the south of the house, i.e. was south
of Jerusalem (1 En. 90:26). Thereafter, it is stated that the old house
was removed and put in the south of the land, and a new house was
erected “larger and higher than the first one” (90:28–29), in which
the Lord of the sheep was present (90:29), and into which all the
sheep were gathered (90:33–36). The vision of a New Jerusalem is of
course familiar from expectation in the prophets (e.g. Ezek 40–48; Isa
54:11–12; 60). Whether a new Temple was implicitly included in the
expectation of a New Jerusalem, or whether the presence of God in
the house, conceived of thereby as both city and Temple, rendered the
need for a traditional Temple in the new age superfluous, remains, as
Nickelsburg observes, uncertain.25
The one other place in the Book of Enoch where there is mention of
the Temple is in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10 + 91:11–17),
which most probably dates from the pre-Maccabaean period, perhaps
about 170 B.C.E., although it is not certainly attested before the second
half of the first century B.C.E., the date of 4QEng (4Q212). The whole
of world history is divided up in the Apocalypse into ten ‘weeks’,26 and
within this scheme the fifth and sixth weeks (1 En. 93:7–8) correspond
to the period of the monarchy. The construction of the Temple (“a
house of glory and sovereignty”) is placed in the fifth week, its destruc-
24
Michael A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
HeyJ 17(1976): 253–72 (here, 256–58).
25
Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 405; cf. Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 45–51, 376; James C.
VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Studies on Personalities of the Old
Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995), 84; John J.
Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic of the Second Temple Period (International
Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1; Bar-Ilan University, 1998), 9–10.
26
For the background to the use of the symbolism, cf. Klaus Koch, “Sabbat,
Sabbatjahr und Weltenjahr: die apokalyptische Konstruktion der Zeit,” Ars Semeiotica
20 (1997): 69–86.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 377
tion and the exile at the end of the sixth: “and at its end the house
of sovereignty will be burnt with fire, and in it the whole race of the
chosen root will be scattered.” It appears that the author lived in the
seventh week, a time which he describes as being marked by the emer-
gence of a chosen group to whom a special revelation was given (1 En.
93:9–10 + 91:11, in which the Aramaic text of 93:10 and 91:11 has
been preserved more or less completely):
(93:9) And after this in the seventh week an apostate generation will arise,
and many (will be) its deeds, but all its deeds (will be) apostasy. (93:10,
Aramaic) [And at its end] the ch[osen one]s [will] be chosen, as witnesses
to righteousness, from the eternal plant of righteousness, [to whom] will
be given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge. (91:11, Aramaic) And they
will uproot the foundations of violence and the work of deceit in order
to carry out [ judgment].
The last three weeks cover the events of the end of this age and the
inauguration of the new age, and these need not concern us here
except to note that a new Temple is erected in the eighth week (1 En.
91:12–13): “And at its end they will acquire riches in righteousness, and
the Temple of the [k]in[g]ship of the Great One in his glorious great-
ness will be built for all generations forever” (verse 13, Aramaic).
What is striking about the Apocalypse of Weeks is that the return and
the rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua and Zerubbabel are passed
over completely, and the whole of the post-exilic period is condemned
as one of apostasy. It is only in the events of his own day, and within
the group to which he no doubt belongs, that the author sees the period
of renewal beginning. And it is as if it would only be in the new age
that the Temple would be replaced. The Apocalypse of Weeks represents a
further example of the view that the state of exile continued long after
the return and would only be brought to an end with the inauguration
of the new age.27 But it also represents a further example of the criti-
cism of the Jerusalem Temple, cult, and priesthood that is present in the
Vision of the Animals and, in a veiled form, in the Book of Watchers, and it
is probable, as Wright suggests in relation to the Book of Watchers, that
all three sections of 1 Enoch represent the views of priests and scribes
who felt marginalized vis-à-vis the ruling priests in Jerusalem.28
27
Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 259.
28
Wright, “ ‘Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest,’ ” 218.
378 chapter twenty
III
This is perhaps the place to refer briefly to two other writings from
the same general period as those we have so far considered, Tobit and
Jubilees. The first of these, which probably dates from about 200 B.C.E.
and stems from the eastern Diaspora, contains two distinct groups of
references to the Temple. On the one hand, in the main narrative (Tob
1–12), Jerusalem is mentioned as the place chosen from all the tribes
of Israel “where all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice and where
the temple, the dwelling of God, had been consecrated and established
for all generations forever” (1:4; all quotations from Tobit are from
the NRSV). Tobit twice mentions, as a sign of his piety, that although
from the northern kingdom he continued even after the division of
the kingdoms to go to Jerusalem for the festivals (1:6–8; 5:14). On the
other hand, the hymn and the testament at the end of the book (Tob
13 and 14) contain references to the Temple from the standpoint of
the exile, not just of Israel, which would be appropriate to the situation
of Tobit, but also of Judah—the two are not differentiated. The hymn
sees the exile as punishment for sin, but asserts that God will again
have mercy on them if they repent (13:5–6). The people are urged to
acknowledge the Lord so that his “tent” may be rebuilt (13:10). It looks
forward, in language reminiscent of Isa 54:11–12; 60, to the rebuild-
ing of Jerusalem (Tob 13:16) and the streaming of the nations to the
city (13:11). In the testament Tobit foretells the scattering of “all of
our kindred, inhabitants of the land of Israel”, the desolation of the
whole land, and the burning and desolation of the Temple (14:4). The
text continues:
But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them back
into the land of Israel, and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not
like the first one until the period when the times of fulfilment shall come.
After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in
splendour; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets
of Israel have said concerning it. Then the nations in the whole world
will all be converted and worship God in truth. (Tob 14:5–6a)
Here there is a clear statement of the view that the Second Temple
only had a provisional character, and this no doubt reflects the critical
attitude towards the Second Temple that we have seen in 1 Enoch,29
29
Cf. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 267–
68.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 379
although the criticism itself is not spelt out. There is a very sharp
contrast, as Hayward30 has pointed out, between the attitude toward
the Second Temple reflected in Tobit 14 and the very positive attitude
of Ben Sira.
The Book of Jubilees has a good deal to say about the Temple service
and its meaning,31 but refers to the Temple itself in only a few passages.
These are of interest both because of their content and because of the
circles from which the book stems. VanderKam32 has argued that cumu-
latively the evidence suggests that Jubilees was composed in the period
between 160 and 150 B.C.E., and he may be right; but because there
is no clear reference to the measures imposed by Antiochus IV in 168,
it is also possible that it dates from the period shortly before 168.33
The main references to the Temple occur in ch. 1. The speech of
God to Moses ( Jub. 1:5–18), which serves as an introduction to the
book, begins with a warning that once the people have entered the land,
they will forget the commandments of God, turn to foreign gods, and
in consequence be sent into exile (verses 5–13). Verse 10, which may
allude specifically to the fate of the northern kingdom, mentions, as
one of the causes of the exile, their abandonment of “my tabernacle,
and my temple which I sanctified for myself in the middle of the land
so that I could set my name on it and that it could live (there).”34 Verse
14 then refers to the period after they were exiled from the land: “They
will forget all my law, all my commandments, and all my verdicts. They
will err regarding the beginning of the month, the sabbath, the festival,
the jubilee, and the decree.” The passage was no doubt intended in the
first instance as a description of the exilic age, but the indication of
disputes over the calendar suggests that this verse also had relevance in
the time of the author and represented his view of his own age.
30
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 47–48.
31
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 85–107.
32
James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–21.
33
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Jubilees,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period:
Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone;
CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum,1984), 97–104 (here, 102–103); Michael A. Knibb,
Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community: An Inaugural Lecture in the Department
of Biblical Studies, King’s College London (London: King’s College London, 1989), 16–17,
20.
34
All translations from Jubilees are from James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees
(CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
380 chapter twenty
The next events mentioned are the repentance of the people, and
the gathering of them from among all the nations by God (verse 15).
The text continues:
I will transform them into a righteous plant with all my mind and with
all my soul. They will become a blessing, not a curse; they will become
the head, not the tail. I will build my temple among them and will live
with them; I will become their God and they will become my true and
righteous people. I will neither abandon them nor become alienated from
them, for I am the Lord their God. ( Jub. 1:16–18)
Charles35 took this as a reference to the Second Temple, but it seems
clear that what is really in mind is the Temple of the new age, and
that—in a way similar to in the Apocalypse of Weeks—we have a further
example of the view that the condition of exile had continued beyond
the return and would only be brought to an end with the inauguration
of the new age.36 That the Temple mentioned here was really under-
stood as the Temple of the new age is confirmed by the references to
the Temple later in the chapter, which speak of the revelation to Moses
being intended to cover the period “until the time when my temple
is built among them throughout the ages of eternity” (verse 27), or
“[until] the time of the new creation when the heavens, the earth, and
all their creatures will be renewed . . ., until the time when the temple
of the Lord will be created in Jerusalem on Mt Zion” (verse 29). One
of the petitions in Rebecca’s blessing of Jacob ( Jub. 25:14–22) likewise
seems to envisage the Temple of the new age: “May the righteous God
live with them; and may his sanctuary be built among them into all
ages” ( Jub. 25:21b).
The one other significant reference to the Temple occurs in the
eschatological passage, Jub. 23:8–32. The description of the sins of the
“evil generation” (verse 14) includes the statement: “They will mention
the great name but neither truly nor rightly. They will defile the holy
of holies through the impure corruption of their contamination” (verse
21). VanderKam rightly points out that these faults “demonstrate that
priests, including apparently the high priest (the one who entered the
35
Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Jubilees (London: A. & C. Black, 1902, 5.
36
Cf. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” 266–67;
Knibb, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community, 11.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 381
IV
In the final part of this study I would like to turn, much more briefly,
to a group of documents that were composed under the impact of the
measures taken under the orders of Antiochus IV in 168, particularly
the desecration of the Temple, and of the events that followed. Here
1 and 2 Maccabees most obviously deserve consideration. As is well
known, for the period down to the death of Nicanor in 161 they cover
the same events (although 1 Maccabees then continues down to the
death of Simon and accession of John Hyrcanus), but they present very
different interpretations of the events.
37
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 58.
38
Hayward, The Jewish Temple, 89.
382 chapter twenty
39
Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS
12; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 114, 75.
384 chapter twenty
40
Cf. Benedikt Otzen, Tobit and Judith (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha;
London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 94–97, 132–34.
41
Jan Willem van Henten, “Judith as Alternative Leader: A Rereading of Judith
7–13,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, Susanna (ed. Athalya Brenner; Feminist
Companion to the Bible, 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 224–52 (here,
252).
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 385
Other writings that should be included here for the sake of complete-
ness include the Letter of Aristeas and the Sibylline Oracles. But here it is
possible to mention only 1 Esdras, a writing in which the Temple is
above all the focus of attention. The difficulty with 1 Esdras is to know
whether it should be regarded as a translation of a more original form
of the biblical account of the restoration under Ezra, in which the story
of the three young men has been interpolated, perhaps only a frag-
ment of a more complete translation; or whether it should be regarded
42
Cf., e.g., E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian:
A Study in Political Relations (SJLA 20; 2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 231–32.
43
Johannes Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” Henoch
17(1995): 311–28 (here, 321).
386 chapter twenty
44
For representatives of these two views see Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien
zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluss des chronistischen
Geschichtswerks (FRLANT 104; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) and Hugh
G. M. Williamson, “The Problem with First Esdras,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour
of Rex Mason (ed. John Barton and David J. Reimer; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1996), 201–16.
45
Zipora Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS, 47; Atlanta, Ga.:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 106.
46
Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 42;
Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 9.
temple & cult in apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings 387
is raised acutely. It has been suggested that the work has something to
do with polemics in the second century between the Jerusalem Temple
and the temple at Leontopolis, and that it was intended as a defence of
the legitimacy and authority of the Jerusalem Temple,47 and although
not without difficulties, this is an attractive suggestion.
47
Cf. Harold W. Attridge, “1 Esdras,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period:
Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. Michael E. Stone;
CRINT 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 157–60 (here 160).
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
The majority of the eighteen psalms that together make up the Psalms of
Solomon are concerned with individual piety and contrast the behaviour
and ultimate destiny of the righteous and the wicked. A much smaller
number contain veiled historical allusions and describe a situation of
1
Michael A. Knibb, “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical
Writings from before the Common Era,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. John
Day; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 401–16.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 389
2
Adapted from the translation by Robert B. Wright, in OTP 2:659.
390 chapter twenty-one
(cf. Lev 15:19–24, 31). The passage may also be compared with the
strong criticism of the sons of Levi in T. Levi 14:5–8; 16:1–2.
Those accused of defiling the sacrifices in Pss. Sol. 8:12 are fairly
obviously the priests, and it is also very likely that it is priests who
are accused of robbing the temple (verse 11). Atkinson, on the basis
of a comparison between Pss. Sol. 8 and a number of passages in the
Hebrew Bible, the Scrolls, and the Mishnah relating to purity, has gone
further than this and has interpreted verses 8–13 as a whole as being
concerned with priestly transgressions.3 However, it is not necessary to
assume that the accusations of incest and adultery were also directed
specifically at priests, and they may well have been intended to have
a wider application.
The pollution of the temple of the Lord is also mentioned in Pss. Sol.
1:8 and 2:3. In the latter passage the pollution of the temple is attrib-
uted to “the sons of Jerusalem,” who are said to have been “profaning
the offerings of God with lawless acts,” and is regarded as the cause
of the desecration of the altar by the Gentiles (verses 1–2). Here “the
sons of Jerusalem” may well be the priests, but in verses 11–13, where
“the sons of Jerusalem” and “the daughters of Jerusalem” are accused
of sexual sins, the reference would appear to be to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem in general.4
Psalms of Solomon 1 serves as an introduction to the collection of
psalms as a whole and may have been composed for this purpose. In
the psalm Jerusalem, personified as a mother, is alarmed by the threat
of war, but comes to acknowledge that, despite seeming righteousness,
she cannot be assured of divine protection because of the sin of her
children. The psalm ends with the statement that they (the inhabitants)
had “completely profaned the temple of the Lord,” and this serves as
3
Kenneth Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical
Background and Social Setting ( JSJSup 84; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 64–80. While some of
the comparisons drawn by Atkinson are illuminating, they are not all plausible. For
example, he interprets the reference to sins committed “in secret places underground”
(v. 9) in relation to a purification ritual for priests performed in a chamber under the
temple, which is described in m. Tamid 1:1. However, it seems much more likely that
the phrase “in secret places underground” is poetic metaphor and that the reference
in v. 9 is to sexual sins committed in secret (cf. 4:5; 1:7).
4
Cf. Svend Holm-Nielsen, “Die Psalmen Salomos,” JSHRZ IV/2 (Gütersloh:
Mohn, 1977), 63.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 391
5
Cf. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A
Historical and Literary Introduction (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 238.
6
Adapted from the translation by Wright, in OTP 2:667.
7
On the problems of the text, see Holm-Nielsen, “Die Psalmen Salomos,” 103.
8
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community (an Inaugural
Lecture delivered at King’s College London on Tuesday 17 January 1989, London,
1989), 11.
392 chapter twenty-one
II
Israel’s attitude towards the temple and cult forms a major concern of
the “prophecy” of Israel’s history, from the occupation of the land to
her exaltation to heaven, that is spoken by Moses to Joshua and takes
up the major part of the Assumption of Moses. The “prophecy” represents
a new application, a reworking of the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43);
it uses the Deuteronomic historical scheme and divides the history into
two cycles (chs. 2–4 and 5–10), namely sin (2; 5:1–6:1), punishment
(3:1–4; 6:2–8:5), turning point (3:5–4:4; 9), and salvation (4:5–9; 10).
The author is less concerned to provide an accurate chronological
9
Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 211–20, cf. 176, 182, 191, 195–97, 201.
10
Atkinson, I Cried to the Lord, 213, cf. 201.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 393
11
This identification, which is generally accepted, still seems to me correct. But note
the cautious qualifications of this view expressed by Johannes Tromp, The Assumption
of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 116–17,
204–5.
12
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “An Antiochan Date for the Testament of Moses,” in
Studies on the Testament of Moses (ed. Nickelsburg; SBLSCS 4; Cambridge, Mass.: Society
of Biblical Literature, 1973), 33–37; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 74–76, 247–48.
13
Nickelsburg, “An Antiochan Date,” 34.
14
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 76.
15
Norbert J. Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung
( JSJSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 45–80, cf. 62, 69–70, 329; cf. Tromp, Assumption of
Moses, 120–23.
394 chapter twenty-one
16
Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 187.
17
Cf. Michael A. Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
HeyJ 17 (1976): 261, n. 33 and 34.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 395
and serve them, and they will act disgracefully in the house of the
Lord, and sculpt many idols of all kinds of animals” (2:7b–9).18 The
capture of Jerusalem, the burning of the city and temple, the carrying
off of the temple vessels, and the taking of the entire people into exile
(3:1–3) are all the consequence of the abandonment of the covenant
manifested in the worship of foreign gods.
The return from exile (4:5–7) follows repentance (3:5–14) and a
prayer on the people’s behalf by an unnamed intercessor (4:1–4). The
rebuilding of the temple is not specifically mentioned, but the com-
ment that is made on the post-exilic cult raises some problems: “But
the two tribes will hold on to the allegiance that was ordained for them,
mourning and weeping, because they will not be able to bring offerings
to the Lord of their fathers” (4:8).19 Moses’s “prophecy” contradicts
historical reality inasmuch as sacrifices were offered in the post-exilic
period, but the passage indicates that it was faithful Jews, those who
“h(e)ld on to the allegiance that was ordained for them,” who were
unable to offer sacrifice, not the majority of the population.20 The pas-
sage thus represents a further reflection of the view that the post-exilic
cult was unclean and illegitimate. Israel had returned to the land, and
the cult had been re-established, but the restored cult is seen to have
been invalid.21
The “prophecy” of events in the post-exilic period continues in ch. 5,
but a new beginning is marked in verse 1 by the temporal clause, “And
when the times of judgment approach.” The author believed that he
was living in the period just before the end of the present age, and the
second part of the “prophecy” covers the period preceding the eschato-
logical era (As. Mos. 5–7) and the eschatological events that would lead
to the establishment of the reign of God (As. Mos. 8–10). This second
cycle follows the pattern of the first and represents an intensification of
it. The period preceding the author’s own age is characterized by the
pollution of the temple and the worship of foreign gods (5:2–4) and by
crime and injustice in society (5:5–6). As noted, this passage may well
refer to the hellenizers, but in any case it is clear that 6:1 refers to the
Hasmonaeans, and they also are accused of polluting the temple (“they
18
Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 159.
19
Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 181.
20
See the detailed discussion of this passage by Tromp, Assumption of Moses, 181–
83.
21
Cf. Knibb, “Exile,” 261.
396 chapter twenty-one
will act most impiously against the Holy of Holies”). For the author,
the post-exilic cult had continued to be impure and illegitimate. There
follow allusions to the reign of Herod and his sons (6:2–7) and to the
intervention of the Romans under Varus (6:8–9), and, as has been
suggested, these events are to be seen as the beginning of the time of
judgment on the sin depicted in 5:1–6:1.
It is then “foretold” that Israel will be ruled by “pestilent and impious
men” who will commit every kind of sin and iniquity (As. Mos. 7)—but
at this point the author has reached his own age. Such was the sinful-
ness of this age that he expected God would shortly bring “the king
of the kings of the earth” to carry out God’s final judgment on his
people. The account of the persecution that this king would unleash
(As. Mos. 8) is based, as already noted, on the accounts of the persecu-
tion of Antiochus Epiphanes, and what is depicted is the attempt to
compel the Jews under threat of crucifixion and torture to abandon
their faith and to adopt paganism—to deny circumcision, publicly to
carry idols of pagan gods, and to blaspheme the word of God. In this
situation it would only be the sinlessness of Taxo and his family and
his willingness to “die rather than transgress the commandments of the
Lord of lords, the God of our fathers” (9:4–7) that would precipitate
the intervention of God to punish the nations, to destroy their idols,
and to exalt Israel to heaven (10:1–10). The salvation that is envisaged
for Israel in this case is not in a restored land with a restored temple,
but an angelic existence “in the heaven of the stars” (11:9–10).
We know very little about the author of the Assumption, but the con-
cern with the temple and cult that runs throughout the work raises the
possibility, as Nickelsburg observes, that he was a priest.22 If so, he was
clearly a dissident figure who believed that the temple cult was pol-
luted, and who, on the evidence of ch. 7, was radically opposed to the
ruling authorities of his day. He also appears to have been concerned
at the continuing threat posed to the proper observance of the Jewish
faith by the attractions of the worship of pagan gods. He wrote at a
time when Judaea had recently come under the direct control of the
Romans, and when it must have appeared that the survival of the Jewish
state and the Jewish faith was under threat. In this situation one of
his main concerns was to urge the strict observance of the command-
22
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 76–77.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 397
ments of God, which alone offered the hope of salvation (cf. 3:11–12;
9:4–7; 12:10–11).
III
23
For the literary unity of Baruch, cf. André Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité littéraire du
Livre de Baruch (EBib, NS 38; Paris: Gabalda, 1998).
24
Cf. Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1977), 256.
25
Cf. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, 260.
26
A number of scholars have suggested that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are
“stand-ins” for Antiochus IV and Antiochus V and that behind Jehoiakim (1:7) we
are perhaps meant to see Alcimus (1 Macc 7:5–25, 9:54–57). On this view Baruch
dates from the time of Antiochus V and was intended to gain support for the view
398 chapter twenty-one
that submission to the Seleucids (cf. 1:11–12) was at that stage the right policy; it was
perhaps also intended as propaganda on behalf of Alcimus. Cf. Nickelsburg, Jewish
Literature, 97; Odil Hannes Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” in Das Buch Baruch, Der Brief
des Jeremia, Züsatze zu Ester und Daniel (ed. Steck and others; ATD, Apokryphen 5;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 22–23, 31–32; Jonathan A. Goldstein,
“The Apocryphal Book of 1 Baruch,” PAAJR 46–47 (1979–80): 179–99. However, it
seems to me difficult to believe that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are meant to
represent Antiochus IV and Antiochus V and that the book’s readers were being urged
to offer prayers on their behalf.
27
Cf. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions, 289.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 399
IV
28
Steck, “Das Buch Baruch,” 31.
29
For the theme of continuity in relation to the temple vessels, see Peter R. Ackroyd,
“The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel
(VTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166–81; repr. in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the
Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 46–60, 261–63.
30
Limitations of space prevent the consideration of 4 Ezra, which otherwise would
also deserve consideration here. But see Hermann Lichtenberger, “Zion and the
Destruction of the Temple in 4 Ezra 9–10,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Community without
Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten
Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (ed. Beate Ego and others; WUNT 118;
Tübingen: Mohr, 1999), 239–49.
400 chapter twenty-one
31
For the theme of the temple in 2 Baruch, see Frederick J. Murphy, “The Temple
in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” JBL 106 (1987): 671–83. Murphy rightly points out
that Jerusalem and the temple are inextricably interlinked in 2 Baruch and that “the
significance of the loss of Jerusalem is that the temple no longer exists.” The same point
could be made in relation to 4 Baruch, while in 3 Baruch the temple is not separately
mentioned, but is subsumed in the references to Jerusalem.
32
All quotations from 2 Baruch are taken from the translation of Robert Henry
Charles revised by Leonard H. Brockington, AOT, 841–95.
33
Quite distinct from the references to a new temple at the end of this age is the
mention of the building of the Second Temple that occurs in 68:5–7 in the context of
the interpretation of the Vision of the Black and the Bright Waters. Here, as we have
seen elsewhere, a negative judgement is passed on the post-exilic cultus: “And then,
after a short interval, Zion will be rebuilt, and its offerings will be restored again, and
the priests will return to their ministry, and the Gentiles also will come and acclaim
it. However, things will not be as they were in former times. And after this disaster
will strike many nations.”
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 401
but apparently with some differences of view between the relevant pas-
sages.34 On the one hand, the description of the hiding of the temple
furnishings and vessels in the earth by the angel is accompanied by the
command to the earth to keep them safe “until the last times” so that,
when the earth is ordered, they can be restored (6:8, cf. Jer. 27:22). The
passage continues: “For the time has come when Jerusalem also will be
delivered for a time, until it is said that it shall be restored again for
ever (6:9).” Here the expectation would appear to be of the manifesta-
tion in the last times of an ideal version of the earthly Jerusalem and
temple,35 and the vessels serve as a guarantee of continuity with the
temple as it existed before the exile.
On the other hand, 4:1–7 clearly expresses the idea of the existence
of a heavenly Jerusalem and temple, of which the earthly Jerusalem
and temple are copies. In 32:2–4, reference to the building and the
destruction of the second temple (verses 2–3) is again linked with
the expectation of a new temple (verse 4): “For after a little while the
building of Zion will be shaken so that it may be built again. But that
building will not endure, but will after a time be razed to the ground,
and it will remain desolate until the appointed time. And afterwards it
must be renewed in glory and be made perfect for evermore.”36 Here
it is the manifestation in the new age of the heavenly temple to which
verse 4 refers.37 However, although the expectation of a heavenly
temple is clearly present in 2 Baruch as part of the author’s response
to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the theme, as Murphy
rightly points out, is not further developed.38 In particular, the theme
of the heavenly temple plays no part in the description in 51:7–13 of
the heavenly existence of the resurrected righteous, who will be made
like the angels.
34
Cf. Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch (2 vols.; SC 144–145;
Paris: Le Cerf, 1969), 1:422–24.
35
Murphy, “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” 679, argues that this
passage “must refer to the building of the Second Temple and not a third.” But the
fact that the vessels are to be kept “until the last times” and that the new temple is to
last “for ever” suggests that this is not the case.
36
On the interpretation of this passage, see Knibb, “Exile,” 270–71, n. 69.
37
Cf. Daniel C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic
Judaism and Early Christianity (SVTP 12; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 72–73, n. 125; Bogaert,
L’Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, 1:422–24.
38
Murphy, “The Temple in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” 676.
402 chapter twenty-one
2 Baruch and 4 Baruch differ considerably from one another in their lit-
erary form—the former an apocalypse, the latter best described by the
broad term “haggadah”39—and their theological views, but the numer-
ous parallels between them, particularly in their narrative framework
(cf. 2 Bar 1:1–10:19; 77:12–26; 4 Bar 1:1–4:9; 6:8–7:12), make it clear
that there is a relationship between them. This has been explained on
the assumption that 4 Baruch is dependent on 2 Baruch,40 but is perhaps
better explained on the assumption that they are separately dependent
on a common source, a cycle of Jeremiah legends, as Schaller amongst
others has recently argued.41
The problem that 4 Baruch is concerned to address is the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem (and the temple) and the taking of the people into
captivity in Babylon; the theme is summed up in Baruch’s lament in
4:6–9 and in Jeremiah’s words to Baruch in 2:7, and the distress caused
by the destruction is underlined by the references to the lamentation
undertaken by Jeremiah and Baruch (2:1–2, 5–6, 8–10; 4:5, 10; cf.
3:3). It is made clear that the delivery of the city into the hands of the
Babylonians was the consequence of the sin of the people (1:1, 7; 4:6–7;
6:21), and in response to Jeremiah’s fear that the king would boast he
had “prevailed against the holy city of God” (1:5–6), it is further made
clear that the Babylonians were only able to enter the city, because God
first opened the gates and destroyed the city (1:8–10; 4:1).
The above is all similar to what occurs in 2 Baruch. However, in
4 Baruch’s version of the destruction of the city by the angels (3:1–14),
Jeremiah takes the initiative in asking what should be done with the
temple vessels and is told to consign them to the earth and to say:
“Listen, O earth, to the voice of him who created you in the abun-
dance of the waters, who sealed you with seven seals in seven periods
of time, and who will afterwards receive your beauty: guard the vessels
of the service till the coming of the beloved” (3:8).42 The passage may
be compared with 2 Bar. 6:8, in which the earth is commanded by the
39
Cf. Jens Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer
Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 37.
40
Cf. e.g. Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae, 33–77.
41
Berndt Schaller, “Paralipomena Jeremiou,” JSHRZ I/8 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus, 1998), 670–75.
42
All quotations from 4 Baruch are taken from the translation by R. Thornhill, AOT,
821–33. But see also the next footnote.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 403
angel to guard the temple vessels “until the last times” so that, when
ordered to do so, it might restore them. In 4 Bar. 3:8, “the beloved”
is probably Israel, and the earth is to preserve the vessels until the
gathering of the nation in the last days.43 Again, while in 2 Bar. 10:18
Baruch commands the priests to throw the keys of the sanctuary up
to heaven, and to give them to the Lord and say “Guard thy house
thyself, for we have been found false stewards,” in 4 Bar. 4:3 Jeremiah
himself throws the keys up in the face of the sun and instructs the
sun to guard them “until the day when the Lord tells you what to do
with them; because we have proved unworthy guardians of them and
faithless stewards.” But notwithstanding the references in 4 Bar. 3:8;
4:3 to the possibility that there would be a new temple, the temple as
such, as Herzer points out, plays no further part in the development
of the author’s thought.44
It is true that, after he has led the exiles back to Jerusalem, Jeremiah
is said to offer sacrifice on an altar on the day of atonement, and that
he acts as high priest (9:1–2; cf. his role in relation to the temple vessels
and the temple keys, 3:8; 4:3), and behind this might lie the expecta-
tion of an eschatological high priest and a restored eschatological
temple. But if this is so, as Schaller observes, the idea is only hinted
at.45 Instead of this, the author’s expectations of salvation are focused
on the belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead, of which the figs
that remained fresh throughout the exilic period are symbols (6:2–7;
cf. 7:17), and the gathering of the people (“the beloved”) in the last
times in the heavenly Jerusalem.
The clearest expression of the latter belief occurs in 5:34, in which
Abimelech gives some of the figs to the old man and assures him:
“God will light your way to the city of Jerusalem which is above.” It
is reflected also in Jeremiah’s words to the people in Babylon: “Do
everything you have been told to do in the letter, and God will bring
us to our city” (7:22) and in his command to the Samaritans: “Repent,
for the angel of righteousness is coming and will lead you to your place
on high” (8:9; cf. 9:5). The repeated assurances that God would bring
43
Thornhill (AOT, 823) translates the final phrase of this passage as “till the com-
ing of the Beloved One,” as if the reference were to a messianic figure, but it is more
likely that the reference is to the return of Israel, and it is possible that λαοῦ dropped
out of the text by homoioteleuton after τοῦ ἠγαπημένου; see Schaller, “Paralipomena
Jeremiou,” 718.
44
Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae, 50, 144, 146, 147, 184, 194.
45
Schaller, “Paralipomena Jeremiou,” 685.
404 chapter twenty-one
the people back from exile in Babylon conditional upon their obedience
(3:10; 4:8; 6:13, 22; 7:28), and the account of the return from Babylon
under the leadership of Jeremiah at the end of the exilic period (ch. 8),
point forward to this expectation of the gathering of the people in the
heavenly Jerusalem in the last times.
VI
46
Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch), 34–76.
47
According to the Greek title, v. 2, Baruch was weeping over the captivity of
Jerusalem “by the beautiful gates where the Holy of Holies stood,” and this may be
compared with 2 Bar. 34:1; 35:1. On the relationship between the Greek and the
Slavonic version of 3 Baruch, see Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch),
5–10. All quotations from 3 Baruch are taken from the translation by Harry E. Gaylord,
Jr., in OTP 1:653–79.
48
Cf. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch), 89.
temple and cult in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha 405
irritating God, and I will disclose to you other mysteries greater than
these” (1:6); in response to this Baruch promises not to speak further
(1:7), and he does not thereafter mention the fall of Jerusalem. He is
then led by the angel through the five heavens and is shown a series
of mysteries concerning the punishment of the wicked and the reward
of the righteous (2:1–16:4), which are presented as being greater than
the mystery concerning the salvation of Jerusalem. He is then abruptly
brought back to earth (17:1–4).
The implication of the command not to be concerned over the
salvation of Jerusalem is that the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the
reconstruction of the temple play no part in the author’s eschatol-
ogy. Jerusalem and the temple have become dispensable. Instead the
author’s hopes for salvation are focused on the individual. Humans are
held to be responsible for their own actions (cf. 4:16), and their reward
or punishment depend on whether they have good works that can be
presented by Michael before God (11:3–16:4). Those who have many,
or at least some, good works are assured that they will be rewarded by
God (15:1–4) and—according to the Greek version—are offered the
prospect that their souls will dwell in the heavenly realm (ch. 10). Those
who have no works to offer are condemned to punishment in this life
(16:1–3) and are destined—according to the Greek—to dwell in Hades
(4:3–5) and to be burnt in eternal fire (4:16).49 The description of the
fifth heaven,50 and the action of Michael in presenting the works of
humans before God, forms the climax of 4 Baruch, and although there
is evidence of Christian editing in chs. 15–16, there is no reason to
doubt the Jewish basis of the account.
VII
49
See the detailed discussion by Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch),
109–62 (156).
50
The author, as Harlow points out (The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch [3 Baruch],
34–36) uses temple imagery in describing the fifth heaven, but does not make it part
of the celestial temple.
406 chapter twenty-one
Books
The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments.
2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.
Het Boek Henoch (Dutch translation of volume 2 of the above). Deventer: Ankh-Hermes,
1983.
Commentary on 2 Esdras in 1 and 2 Esdras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979.
The Qumran Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Translating the Bible: The Ethiopic Version of the Old Testament (The Schweich Lectures
of the British Academy 1995). Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British
Academy, 1999.
“The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,” Heythrop Journal 17 (1976):
253–272.
“The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,” New Testament Studies 25
(1978/79): 345–359.
“The Dead Sea Scrolls: Reflections on Some Recent Publications,” Expository Times
90 (1978/79): 294–300.
“The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets: Ezekiel and Daniel,” Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 43 (1980): 197–206.
“Prophecy and the Emergence of the Jewish Apocalypses,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition:
Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by Richard J. Coggins, Anthony Phillips
and Michael A. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 155–180.
“Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 13 (1982):
56–74.
“Exile in the Damascus Document,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983):
99–117.
“1 Enoch” (translation of the Ethiopic text with textual notes), in The Apocryphal Old
Testament. Edited by Hedley F. D. Sparks. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984, 169–319.
“The Ethiopic Version of the Lives of the Prophets. II: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, Elijah, Elisha, Nathan, Ahijah, and Joel,” Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies 48 (1985): 16–41.
“Ascension of Isaiah” (translation of the Ethiopic text with textual and exegetical notes),
in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden
City, New York: Doubleday, 1985, 2.143–176.
Translation and comment on extracts from the Ascension of Isaiah and 1 Enoch
in Outside the Old Testament. Edited by Marinus de Jonge. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985, 26–55, 178–192.
“Hebrew and Syriac Elements in the Ethiopic Version of Ezekiel?”, Journal of Semitic
Studies 33 (1988): 11–35.
Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community. An Inaugural Lecture delivered on
Tuesday 17 January 1989 at King’s College London. London, 1989.
408 bibliography of publications by michael a. knibb
“Life and Death in the Old Testament,” in The World of Ancient Israel. Edited by Ronald
E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 395–415.
“The Ethiopic Text of Ezekiel and the Excerpts in GEBRÄ HEMAMAT”, Journal of
Semitic Studies 34 (1989): 443–58.
“Pseudepigrapha,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Richard J. Coggins
and J. Leslie Houlden. London: SCM, 1990, 564–568.
“The Teacher of Righteousness—A Messianic Title?” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes.
Edited by Phillip R. Davies and Richard T. White. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 100. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990,
51–65.
“The Interpretation of Damascus Document VII,9b–VIII,2a and XIX,5b–14,” Revue
de Qumran 15 (1991): 245–251.
“A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S.
van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Florentino García Martínez,
Anthony Hilhorst and Caspar J. Labuschagne. Leiden: Brill, 1992, 164–177.
“ ‘You are indeed wiser than Daniel’. Reflections on the Character of the Book of
Daniel”, in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings. Edited by Adam S. van
der Woude. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 106. Leuven:
Peeters, 1993, 399–411.
“The Place of the Damascus Document,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by Michael O.
Wise and others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York:
New York Academy of Sciences, 1994, 149–162.
“Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls”, Dead Sea Discoveries
2 (1995): 165–184.
“Isaianic Traditions in the Book of Enoch,” in After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex
Mason. Edited by John Barton and David J. Reimer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1996, 217–229.
“Isaianic Traditions in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Writing and Reading the
Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig
A. Evans. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 2.633–50.
“Perspectives on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The Levi Traditions”, in Perspectives
in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van
der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Florentino García Martínez
and Ed Noort. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 197–213.
“Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls after
Fifty Years. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill,
1999, 2.379–402.
“The Ethiopic Translation of the Psalms”, in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Toch-
terübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997. Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus and Udo
Quast. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2000, 107–122.
Seven articles (Community Organization in the Damascus Document, Community
Organization in Other Texts, Exile, Interpreter of the Law, Apocryphon of Joseph,
Rule of the Community, and Teacher of Righteousness) in Encyclopedia of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Collaborator on Ethiopic writings in Introduction à la littérature religeuse judéo-hellénistique.
Edited by Albert-Marie Denis and others with the collaboration of Jean-Claude
Haelewyck. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.
“The Book of Daniel in its Context”, in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception.
Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. 2 vols. The Formation and Interpretation
bibliography of publications by michael a. knibb 409
“The Book of Enoch or Books of Enoch? The Textual Evidence for 1 Enoch”, in The
Early Enoch Literature. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins. Supplements
to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007, 21–40.
“Temple and Cult in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Future Perspectives”, in Flores
Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García
Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eigbert J. C. Tigchelaar.
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007,
509–27.
Translation of the Wisdom of Salomon (Solomon), in A New English Translation of the
Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007, 697–714.
One article (Hyatt, Harry Middleton) in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica. Edited by Siegbert
Uhlig. 5 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. 3, 2007.
Joint Publication
Peter R. Ackroyd and Michael A. Knibb, “Translating the Psalms”, The Bible Translator
17 (1966): 1–11.
Major Reviews
In addition to the above, numerous reviews or book notices in the following journals:
Aethiopica, Book List of the Society for Old Testament Study, Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, Dead Sea Discoveries, Expository Times, The European, Heythrop
Journal, Journal for the Study of Judaism, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Journal
of Jewish Studies, Journal of Semitic Studies, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Journal of
Theological Studies, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Religious Studies, Theology, and Times
Literary Supplement.
Editorships
Hebrew Bible
New Testament
Matthew John
3:17 355 5:27 160
4:8–10 300 12:41 302
12:18 301
13:40–43 157, 158–159 1 Corinthians
13:49–50 158 6:2–3 343
17:5 355
19:28 73, 156, 157–158, 2 Timothy
313, 343 3:8 227
20:22 300
25:31 157–158, 313 1 John
26:39 300 1:1 314
Mark Jude 22
10:38 300 14–15 21, 25, 48, 73, 84,
14:36 300 91, 181
14 21
Luke
2:11 311 Revelation
4:5–8 300 4:4 73
9:35 301 6:15–16 156–157
22:30 343
22:42 300
23:30 157
23:35 301
Apocrypha
Pseudepigrapha
Josephus
Philo
Christian Authors
Augustine 73 Jerome 73
Rabbinic Literature
Papyri
Jaubert, A. 206, 214, 229, 247 Maier, J. 330, 332, 336, 347
Jeremias, G. 228, 229, 230 Manson, T. W. 313
Jobes, K. 355, 364 Marcovich, M. 352
Jones, D. R. 106 Mason, R. 224, 292, 386
de Jonge, M. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 198, Massaux, É. 349–350
203, 244, 258, 259–260, 261, 264, Metso, S. 333
266, 268, 269, 289, 317, 342, 359 Milik, J. T. 5, 10, 18, 23, 36, 37, 38,
39 40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47–48, 49, 50,
Kautzsch, E. 255 51, 54, 60–61, 63, 65–68, 70–71,
Kister, M. 243 72, 73, 77, 94, 98, 99, 114, 116,
Kittel, R. 193 117, 122, 124, 143–152, 153, 155,
Knibb, M. A. 1–14 passim, 17, 18, 19, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180–182, 205,
21, 23, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 220, 246, 256, 261, 262, 275, 310,
44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 316–317, 328, 330, 333, 336, 337,
63, 67, 73, 111, 112, 129, 131, 135, 338, 342, 344
137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 150, 151, Millar, F. 215, 235
161, 163, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, Miller, P. D. 267
177, 178, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, Monloubou, L. 141, 161
226, 231, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, Montgomery, J. A. 193
244, 246, 255, 256, 257, 277, 279, Mosshammer, A. A. 49, 68
281, 284, 289, 292, 293, 294, 295, Moore, C. A. 397, 398
297, 299, 310, 313, 327, 334, 335, Moore, G. F. 154, 279
358, 359, 360, 376, 377, 378, 379, Moule, C. F. D. 160
380, 388, 391, 394, 395, 401 Mowinckel, S. 162, 320, 349, 352–353
Knight, J. 258, 292, 293 Mukenge, A. K. 397
Koch, K. 209, 273, 376 Müller, H.-P. 26, 92, 271, 273, 285
Kollmann, B. 65 Munnich, O. 335, 363, 363, 364
van der Kooij, A. 362 Muro, E. A. 61, 176
Kraft, R. A. 3, 59, 61, 236 Murphy, F. J. 400, 401
Kraus, T. J. 61 Murphy O’Connor, J. 9–10, 202, 203,
Kugel, J. L. 259, 267–269 213–231, 235–238, 240–241, 252,
Kugler, R. A. 50, 61, 177, 259, 260, 253, 335
262, 263–265, 266, 267, 269, 270 Myers, J. M. 280, 284, 386
Kuhn, H.-W. 327
Kuhn, K. G. 246, 347 Nebe, G.-W. 61
Kvanvig, H. 217 Neusner, J. 59, 216, 288
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 4, 5, 7, 18, 19,
Lambert, W. G. 216–218 23, 37, 43, 45, 46, 51, 52, 65, 68–69,
Lange, A. 94, 98, 99, 102 71, 72, 77–90, 93, 94, 104, 105, 106,
Lapperousaz, E.-M. 232, 234, 236 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122,
Laurence, R. 22 123, 125, 129, 176, 200, 217, 231,
author index 447