The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Michael BG »

As far as I can tell there are two main dates put forward for the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) the first or third century CE.

As far as I can tell there are two arguments for it being third century CE. Firstly that in the text there are many parallels to Christianity – Wisdom figure, the Son of Man, a heavenly judgement, a Messiah. Secondly that it has not be found at Qumran, while all the other parts of 1 Enoch have been.

The arguments for it being first century CE are:

That in 56:5-57:2 Parthians and Medes appear. This is seen as referring to the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 BCE when they setup Antigonus II Mattathias as King of Judea (40-37).

That there is reference to hot springs in 67:5-13. It is thought these verse are inspired by Herod’s attempt to be cured in the hot springs at Callirhoe during his last illness (before 4 CE).

It has been suggested that it is earlier than the expansion of Christianity because it uses the term son of man, while 4 Ezra instead of son of man has “man from the sea”. It is suggested that “man from the sea” is used instead of son of man because after 70 CE when 1 Ezra was written the term son of man was being applied to Jesus Christ.

It is often suggested that Mt 19:28 and 25:31 have been influenced by 1 Enoch 62:4ff and 69:27 and 29. If this is the case and we date the gospel of Matthew to c 85 then the Similitudes of Enoch must have been written by then.

1 Enoch 56:7 “But the city of my righteous shall be a hindrance to their horses” clearly implies that the author of the Similitudes of Enoch still sees Jerusalem as existing. This seems to be evidence that this text was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

If the Similitudes of Enoch were written around 10-20 CE should we expect to find them at Qumran? I think the answer is no. If we assume that the Qumran community was setup as a reaction against the Hasmonean rulers in the second century BCE and that it expected the eschatological event sometime around 70 BCE. Then it is possible that in the first century CE it was no longer interested in any new Jewish writings that were being produced.
Last edited by Michael BG on Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

As I mentioned, in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (2013) Darrell Bock lists about 25 authorities and claims that these indicate that scholarly consensus has shifted from a later date (after the Gospels were written) to a date in the later part of Herod's reign or a little after. Last time I read his article, "Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht," was maybe a couple years ago.

In my humble opinion, Bock had seriously overstated this evidence based on comparison to the actual papers he summarizes in his article that I could find online. He also kept assuming Sunday School type "truths" about Herod that other authors I read had pretty much exploded, although notions that Herod's taxation scheme was grinding poor folks into the dirt with debt still seem to persist in writers such as J D Crossan who advocate a Marxist like socio-economic analysis to justify the image of Jesus as a the wandering charismatic sage.

Bock and Charlesworth are both really gung-ho to establish this early dating as the new "paradigm," so much so that I felt there was an agenda to make things easy for traditional Christian understanding of the origin of the Jesus movement. The terminology seems a bit old fashioned. For instance, the term "Paradigm" I have to assume is an allusion to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions from 1962 when historical-criticism was replacing the traditional Christian practice of making the world revolve around the NT. "Oh wouldn't it be grand to turn the tables on those GDMF liberals!" Charlesworth, for his part, was also a fuddy-duddy when he named his update to Charles' APOT "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" rather than "Judean" or "Jewish" or "Jewish-Christian Pseudepigrapha" (thus stubbornly referring to Judean sacred scripture by the Christian term rather than a neutral term). It is pretty clear where his sympathies lie as well.

Back then I outlined all 25 positions and Bock's analysis of them, with commentary, but at the time there was apparently no interest in such things (maybe because it didn't relate well with Marcion or Jesus mythicism). I had hoped Peter would add his 2 centavos, and even mailed him a spare copy Amazon sent me in error, at his request, but he has been and remains silent on the matter (must have been busy earning his BS degree, although he could have just said that) so I just erased the kit and caboodle of posts (maybe 3-4) in frustration.

If you have access to this volume, which takes things to around 2013, and perhaps Enoch & the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions & Intertextuality (2016, although this is not just about the Parables, and I'll be ordering a copy to read it myself), I'd be happy to re-do the review of Bock's article from the 2013 book above. If this is not what you wish, so be it.

DCH
User avatar
Rich
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:56 am
Contact:

.

Post by Rich »

.
Last edited by Rich on Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Secret Alias »

It is suggested that “man from the sea” is used instead of son of man because after 70 CE when 1 Ezra was written the term son of man was being applied to Jesus Christ.
Whoever suggested that is stupid. Man from the sea is clearly from Exodus 15. That person suggesting this argument should be ignored.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by andrewcriddle »

DCHindley wrote: Bock and Charlesworth are both really gung-ho to establish this early dating as the new "paradigm," so much so that I felt there was an agenda to make things easy for traditional Christian understanding of the origin of the Jesus movement. The terminology seems a bit old fashioned. For instance, the term "Paradigm" I have to assume is an allusion to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions from 1962 when historical-criticism was replacing the traditional Christian practice of making the world revolve around the NT. "Oh wouldn't it be grand to turn the tables on those GDMF liberals!" Charlesworth, for his part, was also a fuddy-duddy when he named his update to Charles' APOT "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" rather than "Judean" or "Jewish" or "Jewish-Christian Pseudepigrapha" (thus stubbornly referring to Judean sacred scripture by the Christian term rather than a neutral term). It is pretty clear where his sympathies lie as well.
Charlesworth like all of us doubtless has an agenda. However I would support the title The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. What we are dealing with are pseudepigrapha concerning Old Testament characters which have almost entirely survived due to being copied by Christians. Some of these texts are straightforwardly Christian in origin and many of them are Christian in their surviving form.

Andrew Criddle
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:As I mentioned, in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (2013) Darrell Bock lists about 25 authorities and claims that these indicate that scholarly consensus has shifted from a later date (after the Gospels were written) to a date in the later part of Herod's reign or a little after. Last time I read his article, "Dating the Parables of Enoch: A Forschungsbericht," was maybe a couple years ago.

… so I just erased the kit and caboodle of posts (maybe 3-4) in frustration.
I did find your thread in which you had deleted everything you posted!

You suggested a later date in another thread when I suggested the consensus was for a first century date. After some more thought I decided that I had not presented the case for the first century as fully I as I should have, hence this new thread.

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.

Charlesworth mentions 4 Ezra 13 and the figure of a man who came from the sea.

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 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).

Charlesworth has five reasons to support a Herodian date:
Not found at Qumran insignificant;
It being late within 1 Enoch;
Not composed at Qumran;
The reference to Parthian invasion;
The curse on the landowners.

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.

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”.

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”.

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.”

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.

Please can you post your thoughts on the next chapter “Dating the Parables of Enoch: A forschungsbericht" by Darrell Bock.
Rich wrote:Dear Michael BG,

I found your post interesting. Thank you. If you have got a Twitter account, let me know, would enjoy following you.

Cheers! Rich
Thank you for your comment Rich. Sorry I don’t have a Twitter account.
Secret Alias wrote:
It is suggested that “man from the sea” is used instead of son of man because after 70 CE when 1 Ezra was written the term son of man was being applied to Jesus Christ.
Whoever suggested that is stupid. Man from the sea is clearly from Exodus 15. That person suggesting this argument should be ignored.
Where do you think Exodus 15 has a man from the sea?
The Latin and Syriac versions of 4 Ezra 13 instead of man from the sea have son of man reflecting the imagery of Daniel “whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages” (13:26).
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 »

andrewcriddle wrote:Charlesworth like all of us doubtless has an agenda. However I would support the title The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. What we are dealing with are pseudepigrapha concerning Old Testament characters which have almost entirely survived due to being copied by Christians. Some of these texts are straightforwardly Christian in origin and many of them are Christian in their surviving form.
Maybe so, but most of them are undoubtedly Judean that were preserved by the accident of Christian interest that persisted after Judeans ("Jews" since the end of the Roman empire in the west) lost interest, probably because Christians had appropriated them for their own purposes, and Jews had other priorities.

IMO, the fact that Christian hands preserved them does not make them the sole property of Christianity. In the 1980s I felt we should have been beyond that. That is why I suggested "Judeo-Christian" as an alternative.

FWIW, I have the 2 volume set in my home library and frequently refer to them.

DCH
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The dating the Similitudes of Enoch

Post by Secret Alias »

Where do you think Exodus 15 has a man from the sea?
What is the name of the chapter? שירת הים It's a song right? Philo says "Moses sang, and those who heard him joined in for two choruses." Josephus "Moses composed it himself." "Moses sang it and the people repeated, line by line" Rabbi Akiva in m. Sotah 5:4 "Moses in sections, the elders answered. "Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously, horse and his rider has He cast into the sea," and all of Israel would say, "My strength and my song, and He is become my salvation" until "the Lord is a hero in war, the Lord is His name." (Tibat Marqe 72b, 104a). Those are the earliest witnesses. What do you think they saw manifested on the sea? A pig? A chicken? Read the material. A man - God - was on the water attacking Pharaoh.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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,

Don't want to seem aloof for too long after you replied to my post, but it has been a busy week at work.

Let me respond this weekend, if you will.

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,

Don't want to seem aloof for too long after you replied to my post, but it has been a busy week at work.

Let me respond this weekend, if you will.

DCH
I understand that it can take some time before a reply can be posted.

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.
Post Reply