|
Reaction
to Millik's Books of Enoch |
||
|
for Prof. Carol Newsom I turn now to Joseph Milik's The Books of Enoch for insight into his theories concerning the portions of Enochan literature now in question: the Parables of Enoch and the Book of Giants. In the opening paragraphs, Milik immediately turns his attentions to these: explaining (1) that, primarily due to the total lack of identification of any part of the Parables among the "countless mass of fragments of 4Q," chapters 37-71 in the Ethiopic version must therefore be of post-Qumran origin; and, (2) that the Manichaean Book of Giants of the third century has its source in a dozen or so (Qumran) cave 4 manuscripts which are also entitled "Book of Giants" (siglum 4QEnGiants). This information bears on the works that compose his (3) Enochan Pentateuch of the first century B.C.E., which includes the AB, BW, Giants, BD, and the Epistle; the parables are of course missing from this list. He claims that these five books were copied and bound together on what were once two separate scrolls. In the Christian era, Giants was eliminated and replaced with the Parables. (1) The title "Parables of Enoch" was adapted from Enoch 1:2 -"and taking up his parable" - perhaps an allusion to Num 23:7. (This title is from the Greek rendering, "parable" is not found in the Ethiopic). The original title chosen by the author is "Second Vision of Enoch" (37:1), which includes three discourses universally directed to "those who inhabit dry land," and "from the first to last generations." The first (parable) paraphrases several passages in BW, the doings of the four archangels, the journeys of the patriarch, the astronomical journeys of Enoch. The second is a discourse on the fate and folly of sinners ("renegades"). The third returns to BW themes - the "just" are venerated, Noah journeys widely, Michael repeats the BW's list of angels. The author had at his/her disposal an excellent Greek text of the BW (and the LXX). Passages from other Enochan literature are used cautiously. Milik also believes the author of the Parables had access to Giants, citing the description in 60:7-10 of Leviathan and Behemoth. The inspiration for the work comes from the Synoptic Gospels (!); Common eschatological titles include "the elect" and "Son of Man." Since no quotations from Parables are recorded in the existing literature of the first through fourth centuries (quotations from other Enochan literature are common), Milik dates the Parables very late - perhaps as late as the middle ages. The Book of Parables is most closely related to the Sibylline Oracles, which were especially popular in the second to fourth century. Milik points out a plethora of common key words, phrases, passages and ideas between the two. Two parallels are especially poignant: Sib ii:233-7 and Enoch 61:6, describing the judgment of Giants; and the war against the holy land and its elect of Sib iii:663 ff. and Enoch 56:5-7. Personal critique of the previous two paragraphs: Certainly the relationship to the Sibyllines is much more obvious in reading the literature than that of the Synoptic Gospels. The term "son of man" is certainly not unique to Matthew. If the Parables are so late, would we not expect much more borrowing, as the author has borrowed directly from BW, Sib, etc.? Having studies other popular apocalyptic literature dating from second to fourth century (such as some of the Nag Hammadi codices and pseudo-historical texts like the Gospel of Nicodemus), I recall many and frequent quotations from the Gospels. Not so in the parables, only a few similarities. In sum: (a) By internal evidence, some of the Sibylline Oracles used by the author of the Parables can be dated accurately; (b) the Oracles (at least some of them) are undoubtedly Christian (as I recall, they, too, are lacking any direct New Testament quotations); (c) yet, if so, why aren't the Parables more blatantly and obviously Christian than they are? I recall Collins (I think) refuting Milik's judgment on this point, observing that the parables were a sectarian Jewish answer to the claims of Christians that Jesus was the "son of man" spoken of in Daniel. This makes more sense to me, although it poses perhaps equally difficult questions. (2) Milik reconstructs the Book of Giants from twelve fragments (six copies) found in Qumran cave 4. What has emerged seems to be an expansion on the story of the fallen angels of Enoch 1 - 36. Although the BW speaks only in the most general terms about the progeny of the union of Watchers and women, the BG gives names, and recounts the exploits, teachings, and future destruction by flood and fire of the nephilim and giants. Semihazah is one of the common characters of both the Enochan and Manichaean Giants (in the later, he is Sahmizad), as are his sons, the dragon, and the various angels. (I found the Manichaean method of evangelism interesting, as described by the author: In addition to the seven books of Mani, missionaries translated other religious works into whatever the vernacular of the targeted people-group happened to be - they proselytized on three continents. They translated every word, adapting the original language of their scriptures to the koine and mentality of their future disciples, including names of months, persons, divinities, and countries. Today, we have parts of the manuscript or quotes from it in many languages, including Persian, Sogdian, Arabic, and Latin.) The contents of Giants may include (a) a vision of Mahawai, son of the watcher Baraq'el, (b) a vision seen by 'Ahyah, the second son of Semihazah, about the "world-garden destroyed by water and fire," (c) an account of the birth of the giants, (d) the sins of the two hundred trees (demons), (e) a dream of 'Ohyah, one of the giants, (f) Enoch's dream interpretations. Milik contends that the Book of Giants enjoyed wide popularity, greater than the other Enochic book, and on par with Jubilees and Daniel. (3) I found little about Milik's concept of the use of an Enochan Pentateuch in this book. I will next try to located his journal article(s) on the subject. |