The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote:While reading the Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift I have come across another reason why the Similitudes of Enoch could be dated to the third century CE. This is seeing the Parthians and Medes in 56:5-57:2 as referring to the invasion under Shapur and the Palmyreme kingdom (empire) under Odaenathus (c. 252-67). A problem with this is that in 226 the Parthian Empire had been replaced by the Persian Empire under the Sassanids.
Looking at the key parts of the passage:
56:5 And in those days the angels shall return And hurl themselves to the east upon the Parthians and Medes: They shall stir up the kings, so that a spirit of unrest shall come upon them, And they shall rouse them from their thrones, That they may break forth as lions from their lairs, And as hungry wolves among their flocks. 6 And they shall go up and tread under foot the land of His elect ones, [[And the land of His elect ones shall be before them a threshing-floor and a highway:]] 7a But the city of my righteous shall be a hindrance to their horses.


"Parthians & Medes" could have been meant figuratively, just as "Babylon" stood for "Rome" in the Apocalypse. While it could also be a description of a Sassanid Persian invasion using Parthian & Median units of the army, that would be 100% pure speculation on my part. It seems more likely, to me, to refer here to Roman armies (Parthians = Roman cavalry units) and troops sent by Herodian client princes controlling Trachonitis, Batanea and those parts (Medes = Assyrians = Old Syria) sent against them in the Judean rebellion of 66-73 CE.

The focus seems to shift a bit at 56:7b:
56:7b And they shall begin to fight among themselves, And their right hand shall be strong against themselves, And a man shall not know his brother, Nor a son his father or his mother, Till there be no number of the corpses through their slaughter, And their punishment be not in vain. 8 In those days Sheol shall open its jaws, And they shall be swallowed up therein, And their destruction shall be at an end; Sheol shall devour the sinners in the presence of the elect.'
This section, IMO, seems to be a commentary on the strife that prevailed in Judaea when the rebels of 66 CE attacked the Greeks who dominated Caesarea and the coastal towns, and the Gentiles returned the attacks, each side, it seems, attempting to "ethnically cleanse" the regions they set out to control.

There is that story of the Judean man who lived in a Greek majority city, and who had fought against the Judean rebels to protect it. He, along with the other Judeans of the city were evacuated to the city's stadium ("as a security measure" I'm sure). In the night, the more extreme factions among the gentiles attacked them there and began to slaughter the men and take families as booty. When this man saw it, he was ashamed of himself for having picked the less noble side in rebellion, and instead of trying to fight them, which he knew would be fruitless, he successively grabbed his wife, parents and children and ran them through with his sword rather than let the gentiles kill or enslave them, then he committed suicide.

Then there was the inter-Judean rivalries that played their part inside Jerusalem that was continuous from the collapse of the Galilean front to the time the Romans advanced to the city walls, encircled it, and finally breached the walls and sacked it and its temple. Aristocrats and power brokers were betraying one another rather routinely.

That phrase "And their punishment be not in vain," tells me that this passage was added after the Romans captured and destroyed the city and enslaved all caught within it, which was their "punishment." This "armchair quarterbacking" (as we call it here) by the commentator is meant to justify, in his mind, what he felt must have been the cause of their "punishment." 57:1-3 is generally thought to represent a return of Judeans from exile in other lands, because "they shall all fall down and worship the Lord of Spirits."

The problem with this is 56:5-7a & 7b-8 seem to intrude into a story that went from 54:1-56:4, which is widely believed to have originally been a Noah apocalypse of some kind:
54:1 And I looked and turned to another part of the earth, and saw there a deep valley with burning fire. 2 And they brought the kings and the mighty, and began to cast them into this deep valley. 3 And there mine eyes saw how they made these their instruments, iron chains of immeasurable weight.

4 And I asked the angel of peace who went with me, saying: 'For whom are these chains being prepared?' 5 And he said unto me: 'These are being prepared for the hosts of Azazel, so that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation, and they shall cover their jaws with rough stones as the Lord of Spirits commanded.

54:6 And Michael, and Gabriel, and Raphael, and Phanuel shall take hold of them [the fallen Watchers] on that great day, and cast them on that day into the burning furnace, that the Lord of Spirits may take vengeance on them for their unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth.'

54:7 And in those days shall punishment come from the Lord of Spirits, and He will open all the chambers of waters which are above the heavens, and of the fountains which are beneath the earth. 8 And all the waters shall be joined with the waters: that which is above the heavens is the masculine, and the water which is beneath the earth is the feminine. 9 And they shall destroy all who dwell on the earth and those who dwell under the ends of the heaven. 10 And when they have recognized their unrighteousness which they have wrought on the earth, then by these shall they perish.'

55:1 And after that the Head of Days repented and said: 'In vain have I destroyed all who dwell on the earth.' 2 And He sware by His great name: 'Henceforth I will not do so to all who dwell on the earth, and I will set a sign in the heaven: and this shall be a pledge of good faith between Me and them for ever, so long as heaven is above the earth. And this is in accordance with My command. 3 When I have desired to take hold of them by the hand of the angels on the day of tribulation and pain because of this, I will cause My chastisement and My wrath to abide upon them, saith God, the Lord of Spirits.

55:4 Ye mighty kings who dwell on the earth, ye shall have to behold Mine Elect One , how he [Enoch] sits on the throne of glory and judges Azazel, and all his associates, and all his hosts in the name of the Lord of Spirits.'

56:1 And I saw there the hosts of the angels of punishment going, and they held scourges and chains of iron and bronze. 2 And I asked the angel of peace who went with me, saying: 'To whom are these who hold the scourges going?' 3 And he said unto me: 'To their elect and beloved ones [the giants who were born of the liaisons between fallen Watchers and human females], that they may be cast into the chasm of the abyss of the valley [reserved for them above]. 4 And then that valley shall be filled with their elect and beloved, And the days of their lives shall be at an end, And the days of their leading astray shall not thenceforward be reckoned.


My recollection from my earlier studies of Ethiopic Enoch was that many of the accounts in the Parables roughly corresponded with stories in the Book of Watchers, including the random insertion of "Noachic" fragments like this.

This is all very very confused.

DCH
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:While reading the Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift I have come across another reason why the Similitudes of Enoch could be dated to the third century CE. This is seeing the Parthians and Medes in 56:5-57:2 as referring to the invasion under Shapur and the Palmyreme kingdom (empire) under Odaenathus (c. 252-67). A problem with this is that in 226 the Parthian Empire had been replaced by the Persian Empire under the Sassanids.
Looking at the key parts of the passage:
56:5 And in those days the angels shall return And hurl themselves to the east upon the Parthians and Medes: They shall stir up the kings, so that a spirit of unrest shall come upon them, And they shall rouse them from their thrones, That they may break forth as lions from their lairs, And as hungry wolves among their flocks. 6 And they shall go up and tread under foot the land of His elect ones, [[And the land of His elect ones shall be before them a threshing-floor and a highway:]] 7a But the city of my righteous shall be a hindrance to their horses.


"Parthians & Medes" could have been meant figuratively, just as "Babylon" stood for "Rome" in the Apocalypse. While it could also be a description of a Sassanid Persian invasion using Parthian & Median units of the army, that would be 100% pure speculation on my part. It seems more likely, to me, to refer here to Roman armies (Parthians = Roman cavalry units) and troops sent by Herodian client princes controlling Trachonitis, Batanea and those parts (Medes = Assyrians = Old Syria) sent against them in the Judean rebellion of 66-73 CE.

The focus seems to shift a bit at 56:7b:
56:7b And they shall begin to fight among themselves, And their right hand shall be strong against themselves, And a man shall not know his brother, Nor a son his father or his mother, Till there be no number of the corpses through their slaughter, And their punishment be not in vain. 8 In those days Sheol shall open its jaws, And they shall be swallowed up therein, And their destruction shall be at an end; Sheol shall devour the sinners in the presence of the elect.'
This section, IMO, seems to be a commentary on the strife that prevailed in Judaea when the rebels of 66 CE attacked the Greeks who dominated Caesarea and the coastal towns, and the Gentiles returned the attacks, each side, it seems, attempting to "ethnically cleanse" the regions they set out to control.

The problem with this is 56:5-7a & 7b-8 seem to intrude into a story that went from 54:1-56:4, which is widely believed to have originally been a Noah apocalypse of some kind:
I have not seen such a detailed argument for a particular date. However if you see Parthians & Medes as only being used figuratively they could be anyone. I think Babylon links to the Assyrian Empire and the destruction of Solomon’s Temple. Persians would link to the restoration of the Temple. As far as I know Parthians and Medes do not have an older historical link which could be used figuratively. Hence I assume their interpretation literally.

The Romans never conquered Parthia (south-east of the Caspian Sea). The Romans I think during the first century used auxiliaries as cavalry and these were provided by allies such as Numidia and then non-citizens. It was not until much later that troops were recruited from outside of Roman controlled areas. Therefore I think it is unlikely that Parthian would be used to describe Roman cavalry. The major element of the Parthian army was their cavalry, while for the Romans (until c. 284) the major element was heavy infantry.

Trachonitis, Batanea and Gaulonitis were part of King Herod the Great’s kingdom and I can’t image anyone thinking of them other than Syrian. They are a long way from Mesopotamia, Parthia and Media.

With the Parthian invasion of 40 BCE Antigonus II Mattathias was made king replacing Hyrcanus II as high priest. Hyrcanus was his uncle. This could be the fighting among themselves referred to in verse 7. Jerusalem was captured by Herod and the Romans in 37 BCE. Josephus’ description includes men, women and children being killed when Jerusalem was captured with fighting in the Temple (Ant. 14.16.2).
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by DCHindley »

MBG wrote:Trachonitis, Batanea and Gaulonitis were part of King Herod the Great’s kingdom and I can’t image anyone thinking of them other than Syrian. They are a long way from Mesopotamia, Parthia and Media.
Not as far as one might think. Damascus used to be the capitol of Syria before the Romans got hold of it. Later it went through cycles of waxing and waning in power in the region. Syria is essentially the rump state of the Assyrians, and Assyrians once controlled Media.

One of the other reasons it is a good source for Cavalry is that when Herod obtained authority over this region, he intercepted a band of a couple hundred discharged Parthian horsemen of Judean descent who were migrating out of Mesopotamia, all of whom could ride a horse at full gallop, spin around and take a "Parthian shot" (to hit a target accurately while moving is incredibly difficult). Herod offered them a deal. Rather than become some band of outlaws feeding off the caravan trade routes, which is what they were apparently aiming to do, he said that if they established a police presence with Herod's backing, they could administer the area tax free, as long as tolls and tariffs from the trade routes was not inhibited. They took the deal. So, the region was heavy with well trained horse-mounted archers.

If one searches the works of Josephus for the mention of cavalry, it seems the Romans had full compliments of them, and used then to great effect in their engagements on Galilee and approaching Jerusalem. Besides the 120 or so assigned to each Legion, there were auxiliary forces, such as those provided by various Herodian princes as well as Aretas (V?), king of the "Arabs" (Nabateans), who could not stand the thought of being one-upped by Herodian princes in assisting the Romans in kicking Judean buttocks.

So, cavalry was very effective in plains and open areas, as there were no Judean forces that seemed to employ them. Once they reached the defensive walls of Jerusalem, though, they had to switch to siege craft. Sure, the Romans had laid siege to Jotapata, but it did not hold out especially long. After that, all the Romans had to do was show up near a town, and the defenders abandoned it, for fear of them.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote:I have now read Chapter 3 The Date and Provenience of the Parables of Enoch in Bock and Charlesworth’s book Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PW3 ... &q&f=false).

It seems important to Charlesworth that chapters 71 that identifies Enoch as the son of man are part of the original text and not a later addition. As I think he thinks this means no Christian could have written the Parables of Enoch.
My first impression of that passage was that it probably referred to Enoch.

Now I'm not so sure, as I came across a crackpot hypothesis that had enough truth in it to warrant a 2nd look. That was a book by John I Riegel & John H Jordan, called Simon Son of Man (1917), that suggested that Simon's surname, "bar Giora," was not an alias that he called himself, but a corruption for "son of man" which is what he did call himself, as this surname is preserved in Josephus. Josephus is suggesting that Simon, like Herod & his family, was descendent from converts, widely considered to be a "second rate" kind of Judean. In fact, Riegel & Jordan come up with literally dozens of ways to twist "son of man" into all sorts of nick names, useful to both the pro- and the anti-Simon factions. I think that this is possible, although by no means certain.

This crackpot book does not so much as mention the Parables/Similitudes of Enoch, but it seemed natural to wonder, if it is true that Simon called himself "son of man," whether the Similitudes of Enoch was not originally some sort of propaganda put out by Simon in the Judean War 66-70 CE. So I'll have to look more closely into who exactly is being referred to in 1 Enoch 71.
Charlesworth mentions 4 Ezra 13 and the figure of a man who came from the sea.
I think this has been discussed in another thread by others.
He writes, “We may now revisit the conclusion that 1 En 37-71 is Jewish. There is no obvious “Christian” thought in them. Jesus is never mentioned and there is no allusion to him. (p 43). I [MBG] am not sure that things are this clear. He carries on “The Son of Man is certainly not Jesus. The Son of Man is revealed, in the final scene to be none other than Enoch” (p 43).
This one is already covered in a separate post.
Charlesworth has five reasons to support a Herodian date:
1) Not found at Qumran insignificant;
2) It being late within 1 Enoch;
3) Not composed at Qumran;
4) The reference to Parthian invasion;
5) The curse on the landowners.
Wouldn't reasons 1, 2 & 3 all basically be the same argument? All relate to the time & place of composition, which can make a book composed earlier than 1st century CE not be present in the archives of the factions which preserved the DSS near Qumran.
He states that Esther, 1 Maccabees and the Psalms of Solomon are also not found at Qumran. I suppose this is relevant as they were written by then. He makes the point that most of the scrolls that were in library of Qumran did not survive as the majority of the find there is made up of only fragments. He concludes that “the absence of identifiable fragments …is … (not) a viable reason for dating the composition” (p 44).
Charlesworth suggests that “the author of the Odes of Solomon, which was completed by or before 125 CE, was most likely influenced by the Parables of Enoch, especially the vision of Enoch’s exaltation in which he is named “the Son of Man”. I think the reference to 36.3 is meant to be an example of this influence but I can’t see it.
Don't get me wrong. There are lots of parallels between phrases in NT books and the Similitudes of Enoch:

1 Enoch 38:1 The first Parable. When the congregation of the righteous shall appear, And sinners shall be judged for their sins, And shall be driven from the face of the earth: 2 And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous, Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits, And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the earth, Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners, And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits? It had been good for them if they had not been born.

Matthew 26:24 "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." See also Mark 14:21.

1 Enoch 62:1 And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: 'Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.'
2 And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory, And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.
3 And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, And the exalted and those who hold the earth, And they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, And righteousness is judged before him, And no lying word is spoken before him.
4 Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [[And she has pain in bringing forth]] When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth.

Revelation 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery

Matthew 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" 4 And Jesus answered them, "Take heed that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: 8 all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.

1 Enoch 63:1 In those days shall the mighty and the kings who possess the earth implore (Him) to grant them a little respite from His angels of punishment to whom they were delivered, that they might fall down and worship before the Lord of Spirits, and confess their sins before Him.
2 And they shall bless and glorify the Lord of Spirits, and say: 'Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord of kings, And the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, And the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom,
3 And splendid in every secret thing is Thy power from generation to generation, And Thy glory for ever and ever: Deep are all Thy secrets and innumerable, And Thy righteousness is beyond reckoning.
4 We have now learnt that we should glorify And bless the Lord of kings and Him who is king over all kings.'

Revelation 17:14 they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."

And others, if I can motivate myself to look them up. I am not convinced that these cannot also be accounted for by mere coincidence. Both the gospels of Matthew/Mark and the Book of Revelation may have drawn from a common pool of phrases and ideas also drawn upon by the Similitudes of Enoch. The relationship does not have to be linear.
Charlesworth suggests Jude 14 “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied …” was influenced by 1 Enoch 60:8 “Where my grandfather was taken up, who was seventh from Adam, …” Jude is clearly stating that Enoch is the seventh generation from Adam, but 1 Enoch is not so clear. If we assume Enoch is the speaker then he is stating that his grandfather was the seventh from Adam making Enoch the ninth! Charlesworth does note “each person could have counted the number in Genesis” but then goes on “no other early Jewish author did so in the extant literature”.
Charles found a number of fragments of "Noah" apocalypses peppered through the Book of Watchers as well as the Similitudes of Enoch.
Charlesworth states that the Qumran community “would not have been open to the claim that the Messiah is to be identified as the Son of Man; and, indeed, that an archangel revealed that the titles define only Enoch”. He continues “To admire Enoch as 'that Son of Man' would also clash with the Davidic and Levitical concepts of the Messiah”.
I do not think I want to pretend to speak for the writers of many of the "sectarian" DSS.
Charlesworth quotes some of Enoch 56:5-6
5 And in those days the angels shall return And hurl themselves to the east upon the Parthians and Medes:
They shall stir up the kings, so that a spirit of unrest shall come upon them, And they shall rouse them from their thrones,
That they may break forth as lions from their lairs, And as hungry wolves among their flocks.
6 And they shall go up and tread underfoot the land of His elect ones …7 But the city of my righteous shall be a hindrance to their horses.
Charlesworth points out that the Parthians captured Jerusalem (Ant. 14.344) and put Hyrcanus and Phasael (according to Wikipedia a tetrarch appointed by Mark Antony) in chains. Again according to Wikipedia Herod (also appointed a tetrarch by Mark Antony) fled to Rome. He concludes “Chapter 56 is ambiguous.”
"Ambiguous is ... what ambiguous does."
I couldn’t see pages 48 and 49. At the top of page 50 Charlesworth talks of the landowners in a particular translation (E. Isaac) of Enoch 48:8. I found “And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands” in a version of 48:8. These people will “burn before the face of the holy”. Charlesworth states that these people “seem to be infidels who have taken the land”. He sees these people in 62:1, 3, 6. The translation I am using has “those who hold the earth,” in verses 3, while verse 1 has “dwell” and verse 6 has “possess”. Charlesworth dates the replacement of Jewish landowners to the times of the Herodians. He gives Ant. 17.304-14 as evidence (17.304 = 17.11.2) The Jews suffered "from the danger their estates were in of being taken away by him (Herod) … he had slain any of the nobility, he took away their estates; and when he permitted any of them to live, he condemned them to the forfeiture of what they possessed". Charlesworth asserts “through taxation and intrigue, Herod and his hierarchy eventually controlled virtually two-thirds of the fertile land by the time he died” (but I couldn’t see him giving a reference for this assertion). Therefore Charlesworth concludes that the reference to people who had lost their land refers to this social change under Herod.
This is just smugness on the parts of Charlesworth and Bock. The final section of 1 Enoch (ch 91-104) is full of rants against the rich and powerful. Was that not likely written well before Herod's time? Economic inequality and social injustice has been around since the beginning of time. Injustice and oppression are always a matter of degree. If you can find it, get a copy of Fabian Udoh's book To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.),* which pretty much explodes this myth about Herod crushing his subjects to abject poverty. I called it elsewhere the "Sunday School" description of Herod's rule.

DCH

*I came across this as a PhD thesis, which I got thru ILL, but the published version of the PhD thesis (this book) is still available for sale, but for a pretty hefty $43 US per Amazon.

Per Amazon's blurb: "Udoh investigates the system of taxation in Palestine under Roman authority. Udoh examines Roman tribute in Jewish Palestine under Pompey (63-47 BC), Caesar (47-44 BC), Cassius and Antony in the East (43-40 BC). He also covers Herodian taxation (37-4 BC), taxation of Judea under the governors, and tithes in the Second Temple period."
https://www.amazon.com/Caesar-What-Caes ... 1930675925

The SBL Press blurb is "This book is the first detailed and comprehensive study of taxation in Jewish Palestine in the Early Roman period, from the conquest of the Jewish state by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Rather than constructing theoretical models of the economic conditions of Palestine, this study is based on a historical analysis of the extant sources. Judea’s systems of taxation depended on the politics of its relationship with Rome and its magistrates. This work clarifies the problem of taxation and the role that economic factors might have played both in the rise of early Christianity and in the Revolt of 66 C.E. By situating Judea within its wider context within the Roman Empire, this study also contributes more generally to our understanding of Roman provincial administration."
https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDetai ... BL&PCS=SBL
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote:
MBG wrote:Trachonitis, Batanea and Gaulonitis were part of King Herod the Great’s kingdom and I can’t image anyone thinking of them other than Syrian. They are a long way from Mesopotamia, Parthia and Media.
Not as far as one might think. Damascus used to be the capitol of Syria before the Romans got hold of it. Later it went through cycles of waxing and waning in power in the region. Syria is essentially the rump state of the Assyrians, and Assyrians once controlled Media.
Syria is not Assyria. Damascus is about 700 miles away from Media and even further from Parthia (in my terms it is the distance between France and the Ukraine). Palestine and Syria were in the Egyptian sphere. Syria was once part of the Hittite Empire. The Assyrians did conquer Syria (9th century BCE), Israel (722 BCE) and Egypt (671 BCE). The Persians conquered Egypt c. 343 BCE. Damascus was not the capital of a country, it often past between the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Empire. Antioch was capital of the Seleucid Empire. The rise of Damascus started in the 2nd century CE.
DCHindley wrote:One of the other reasons it is a good source for Cavalry is that when Herod obtained authority over this region, he intercepted a band of a couple hundred discharged Parthian horsemen of Judean descent who were migrating out of Mesopotamia, all of whom could ride a horse at full gallop, spin around and take a "Parthian shot" (to hit a target accurately while moving is incredibly difficult).
Was this after 37 CE?
DCHindley wrote:If one searches the works of Josephus for the mention of cavalry, it seems the Romans had full compliments of them, and used then to great effect in their engagements on Galilee and approaching Jerusalem. Besides the 120 or so assigned to each Legion, there were auxiliary forces, such as those provided by various Herodian princes as well as Aretas (V?), king of the "Arabs" (Nabateans), who could not stand the thought of being one-upped by Herodian princes in assisting the Romans in kicking Judean buttocks.
I accept that Romans used auxiliaries as cavalry. My point was about the difference in that Roman armies were based around heavy infantry and Parthian armies were based around heavy cavalry. I am sure that the Romans after their defeat at Carrhae recognised the difficulty infantry had against cavalry.
DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Charlesworth has five reasons to support a Herodian date:
1) Not found at Qumran insignificant;
2) It being late within 1 Enoch;
3) Not composed at Qumran;
4) The reference to Parthian invasion;
5) The curse on the landowners.
Wouldn't reasons 1, 2 & 3 all basically be the same argument? All relate to the time & place of composition, which can make a book composed earlier than 1st century CE not be present in the archives of the factions which preserved the DSS near Qumran.
Reasons 1, 2 & 3 are related. Reasons 2 and 3 could be reasons for reason 1.
DCHindley wrote:Don't get me wrong. There are lots of parallels between phrases in NT books and the Similitudes of Enoch:

1 Enoch 38:1 The first Parable. When the congregation of the righteous shall appear, And sinners shall be judged for their sins, And shall be driven from the face of the earth: 2 And when the Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the righteous, Whose elect works hang upon the Lord of Spirits, And light shall appear to the righteous and the elect who dwell on the earth, Where then will be the dwelling of the sinners, And where the resting-place of those who have denied the Lord of Spirits? It had been good for them if they had not been born.

Matthew 26:24 "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." See also Mark 14:21.
“[21] For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

A clear parallel but if I was forced to make a case for dependency I think the logical position would be from the general – the sinners of 1 Enoch to the particular – the betrayer of Mark.
DCHindley wrote: 1 Enoch 62:1 And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: 'Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.'
2 And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory, And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners, And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face.
3 And there shall stand up in that day all the kings and the mighty, And the exalted and those who hold the earth, And they shall see and recognize How he sits on the throne of his glory, And righteousness is judged before him, And no lying word is spoken before him.
4 Then shall pain come upon them as on a woman in travail, [[And she has pain in bringing forth]] When her child enters the mouth of the womb, And she has pain in bringing forth.

Revelation 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery

Matthew 24:3 As he sat on the Mount of Olives, … 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: 8 all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.
Mark 13:8 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places, there will be famines; this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs.”
I think the Greek word that is being used ωδινων can be translated as travail.

I think Theissen in The Gospels in Context Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (p 130-32) sees Mark 13:7-8 as part of a Jewish text written c 38-41 CE.

I would not like to be forced into making any case regarding dependency here.
DCHindley wrote: And others, if I can motivate myself to look them up. I am not convinced that these cannot also be accounted for by mere coincidence. Both the gospels of Matthew/Mark and the Book of Revelation may have drawn from a common pool of phrases and ideas also drawn upon by the Similitudes of Enoch. The relationship does not have to be linear.
Agreed. However it would be good to see some examples where cases for possible dependency could be made.
DCHindley wrote: Charles found a number of fragments of "Noah" apocalypses peppered through the Book of Watchers as well as the Similitudes of Enoch.
Do you think this is significant when discussing a date for as the Similitudes of Enoch?
DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote: At the top of page 50 Charlesworth talks of the landowners … Charlesworth states that these people “seem to be infidels who have taken the land”. … Charlesworth asserts “through taxation and intrigue, Herod and his hierarchy eventually controlled virtually two-thirds of the fertile land by the time he died” (but I couldn’t see him giving a reference for this assertion). Therefore Charlesworth concludes that the reference to people who had lost their land refers to this social change under Herod.
This is just smugness on the parts of Charlesworth and Bock. The final section of 1 Enoch (ch 91-104) is full of rants against the rich and powerful. Was that not likely written well before Herod's time? Economic inequality and social injustice has been around since the beginning of time. Injustice and oppression are always a matter of degree. If you can find it, get a copy of Fabian Udoh's book To Caesar What Is Caesar's: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administration in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.),* which pretty much explodes this myth about Herod crushing his subjects to abject poverty. I called it elsewhere the "Sunday School" description of Herod's rule.
I have added bold to your quotation of me. I think the important thing for Charlesworth is not that these people are landowners but that they are what he calls “infidels” (I assume gentiles). It is the displacement of Jewish landowners that he sees as important for the dating of the Similitudes of Enoch.

I did point out that I sometimes found the case being presented by Charlesworth weak in some particular details. However I still think the most likely date range for the Similitudes of Enoch is between 4 BCE and 70 CE.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by John T »

Michael BG wrote: However I still think the most likely date range for the Similitudes of Enoch is between 4 BCE and 70 CE.
I would suggest that the oral tradition of the Parables of Enoch goes back to at least the 5th century B.C.E. and was more or less written down in the current form during the Hasmonean Dynasty around 130 B.C.E.

As I understand it: The concept of angles and demons in Judaism started shortly after the Babylonia captivity in the 5th century B.C.E. This new off-shoot theology could be best described as Enochic Judaism. The followers of Enochic Judaism were tolerated by the Zadokite priesthood but under the wicked priest Menelaus (167 B.C.E.) they were covertly persecuted. Enochic Judaism found refuge in the Qumran region during the Maccabean revolt but did not reclaim its social status.

Based on that scenario, I would suggest the Parables of Enoch were written in Hasmonean Aramaic style during the Hasmonean Dynasty between 142 -37 B.C.E. I'll even go so far as the reign of King Herod but certainly decades before the advent of Christianity. Although the Parables of Enoch were not found in the caves of Qumran with other Enoch scrolls, e.g. (4Q201-2, 204-12) it should not be assumed that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Why? Because what we do have at Qumran are only fragments of fragments of Enoch. I have long hoped that some new computer software program will finish the work started by Milik and unveil the tiny unidentifiable pieces of Qumran fragments that contain the Parables of Enoch.

Enochic Judaism gave rise to the Essenes and the Essenes gave rise to Christianity.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Michael BG »

John T wrote:
Michael BG wrote: However I still think the most likely date range for the Similitudes of Enoch is between 4 BCE and 70 CE.
I would suggest that the oral tradition of the Parables of Enoch goes back to at least the 5th century B.C.E. and was more or less written down in the current form during the Hasmonean Dynasty around 130 B.C.E.

As I understand it: The concept of angles and demons in Judaism started shortly after the Babylonia captivity in the 5th century B.C.E. This new off-shoot theology could be best described as Enochic Judaism. The followers of Enochic Judaism were tolerated by the Zadokite priesthood but under the wicked priest Menelaus (167 B.C.E.) they were covertly persecuted. Enochic Judaism found refuge in the Qumran region during the Maccabean revolt but did not reclaim its social status.
(I thought it was only me who mistypes Angels as Angles [but without their Saxons] :) )

I think it is likely that Judaism developed its angelology and demonology after the Babylonian captivity. Do you have any evidence that under the Hasmonean Dynasty there were any attempts to reduce angelology and demonology?

Tobit I think was being read during this period. 1 Maccabees has 7:41b
your (God’s) angel went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand of the Assyrians.
John T wrote:Based on that scenario, I would suggest the Parables of Enoch were written in Hasmonean Aramaic style during the Hasmonean Dynasty between 142 -37 B.C.E. I'll even go so far as the reign of King Herod but certainly decades before the advent of Christianity. Although the Parables of Enoch were not found in the caves of Qumran with other Enoch scrolls, e.g. (4Q201-2, 204-12) it should not be assumed that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Why? Because what we do have at Qumran are only fragments of fragments of Enoch. I have long hoped that some new computer software program will finish the work started by Milik and unveil the tiny unidentifiable pieces of Qumran fragments that contain the Parables of Enoch.

Enochic Judaism gave rise to the Essenes and the Essenes gave rise to Christianity.
I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However I don’t see how you explain away the references to Herod’s death, the Parthians of 40 BCE (and maybe the Gentile landowners) to give such an early date (142 -37 BCE). This is why my earliest date is 4 BCE, but likely to be after this. However I would be content with a date before 20 CE if we could find any evidence for such a small timeframe.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by John T »

Michael BG wrote:... Do you [John T] have any evidence that under the Hasmonean Dynasty there were any attempts to reduce angelology and demonology?

...I don’t see how you [John T] explain away the references to Herod’s death, the Parthians of 40 BCE (and maybe the Gentile landowners) to give such an early date (142 -37 BCE). This is why my earliest date is 4 BCE, but likely to be after this. However I would be content with a date before 20 CE if we could find any evidence for such a small timeframe.
1. Enochic Judiasm is about prophecy and the end times and not just about angels and demons. The Sadducees gained political strength under the Hasmonaean kingdom and were no believers in angels, demons, nor the resurrection: (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Acts 23:8.

It is my understanding that during the expansion of the Hasmonaean kingdom, 134-63 B.C.E. that Qumran remained independent even though the Essenes were no friends of the wicked-priesthood. The Essenes were tolerated by the Sadducees not espoused.

The Essenes looked at major political events for signs that the Son of Man would soon appear and wrote scenarios/prophecies accordingly. The clash between Antiochus IV of Syria and Ptolemy VI of Egypt is a good example, see Daniel 11-12, especially Daniel 12:1-4. I believe The Parables of Enoch were an extension (not the best term) of Daniel 11-12.


2. As far as the references to Herod's death. I will look at it again but I thought it was in reference to Antiochus VII (129 B.C.E).
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Michael BG »

John T wrote:1. Enochic Judiasm is about prophecy and the end times and not just about angels and demons. The Sadducees gained political strength under the Hasmonaean kingdom and were no believers in angels, demons, nor the resurrection: (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) [Acts 23:8.
I think the Pharisees were sometimes in control under the Hasmonean Dynasty. They were around so one of them could call for the resignation of John Hyrcanus as High Priest. According to Wikipedia “Josephus attests that Salome Alexandra was very favorably inclined toward the Pharisees and that their political influence grew tremendously under her reign,”
John T wrote:
Michael BG wrote:... I don’t see how you [John T] explain away the references to Herod’s death,
2. As far as the references to Herod's death. I will look at it again but I thought it was in reference to Antiochus VII (129 B.C.E).
Sorry my mistake.
there is reference to hot springs in 67:5-13. It is thought these verses are inspired by Herod’s attempt to be cured in the hot springs at Callirhoe during his last illness.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by John T »

Michael BG wrote:
John T wrote:1. Enochic Judiasm is about prophecy and the end times and not just about angels and demons. The Sadducees gained political strength under the Hasmonaean kingdom and were no believers in angels, demons, nor the resurrection: (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) [Acts 23:8.
I think the Pharisees were sometimes in control under the Hasmonean Dynasty. They were around so one of them could call for the resignation of John Hyrcanus as High Priest. According to Wikipedia “Josephus attests that Salome Alexandra was very favorably inclined toward the Pharisees and that their political influence grew tremendously under her reign,”
John T wrote:
Michael BG wrote:... I don’t see how you [John T] explain away the references to Herod’s death,
2. As far as the references to Herod's death. I will look at it again but I thought it was in reference to Antiochus VII (129 B.C.E).
Sorry my mistake.
there is reference to hot springs in 67:5-13. It is thought these verses are inspired by Herod’s attempt to be cured in the hot springs at Callirhoe during his last illness.
1. The Antiquities of the Jews Book 13 Chapter 10, Explains why Hyrcanus joined the sect of the Sadducees and left that of the Pharisees. There is debate among scholars as to just what was the major differences between the two sects at the time of Hyrcanus. Josephus seems to downplay it, perhaps being a Pharisee himself.

2. Let's look at Enoch LXII once again : "And those same waters will undergo a change in those days; for when those angels are punished in these waters, these water-springs shall change their temperature, and when the angels ascend, this water of the springs shall change and become cold. 12. And I heard Michael answering and saying: 'This judgement wherewith the angels are judged is a testimony for the kings and the mighty who possess the earth.' 13. Because these waters of judgement minister to the healing of the body of the kings and the lust of their body; therefore they will not see and will not believe that those waters will change and become a fire which burns for ever."

If those Enoch verses inspired Herod to go to the springs for healing then it would suggest that the Parables of Enoch were written before his reign.

************

I may have not changed your mind as far as dating but do you agree there appears to be a lot of editing (cut&paste) in the Parables of Enoch?
Finally, do you agree the phraseology matches the DSS more than the New Testament?

I enjoyed reading the Parables of Enoch once again and I thank you for allowing me to join the discussion.

Sincerely,

John T

Enochic Judaism gave rise to the Essenes and the Essenes gave rise to Christianity.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply