Nathan wrote:spin wrote:Given that there is no evidence of the Similitudes found at Qumran and Milik's evidence concerning Roman wars with the Parthians, would you agree with his assessment [The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments form Cave 4, Oxford, 1976, 95-96] that they reflect a third century context? That there were no fragments of the Similitudes among the voluminous remains of Enoch at Qumran, there is no way to date that part of the Enochian pentateuch early.
It's been a long time since I've read any scholarship on the subject. As I recall, though, members of the Enoch Seminar (Boccaccini and co.) tend to part ways with Milik and date the Similitudes early, to the 1st cent. CE.
I have not looked at all messages in this thread, but thought this was worthy of comment as it stands.
IMHO, the Similitudes of Enoch only exists in Ethiopic translation (one of the five sections of 1 Enoch). No other trace of it has survived, including the DSS documents/fragments, but it exhibits doctrines that superficially resemble Christian ones related to Christ as a divine redeemer. As a result, there is a debate going on to try to account for its origins. Did it precede the origins of Christianity, and perhaps influence it in some way? Or was it a Christian work, or at least a Christian revision of an existing work?
Milik had his quirks WRT the Enoch books, and is not the last word on the subject. He postulated that there were indeed five Enoch books in the time of the DSS deposits, but instead of the Similitudes he felt that fragments of a Book of Giants was revered, although DSS fragments of this are sparse.
Ethiopians revere several Jewish Pseudepigraphic books, such as Enoch Books and the Book of Jubilees, which the Ethiopic Orthodox church give canonical status. The relatively recent western recognition that there were Ethiopic Jews (now known as Falasha Jews) and the preservation of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in the E.O. Church, suggest that Judeans had emigrated there after the initial Judean rebellion.
We know from Josephus that a number of "Sicarii" escaped to Egypt after the fall of Masada in 73 CE, prompting Vespasian (I think) to close the schismatic temple at Heliopolis, Egypt. That war likely generated a large number of refugees entering Egypt and working themselves south into non-Roman kingdoms, with all sorts of points of view. In fact, disaffected Judean refugees even caused a small revolt in Egypt, Cypress, etc. Later problems like the rebellion of bar Kosiba and the somewhat later problems Judeans resident in northern Mesopotamia had with the Parthians (they fell out of favor) probably contributed to this, and any refugees surely took whatever literature they were inclined towards with them. So there are all sorts of possible origins for such a work as Similitudes.
Now why did some at the Enoch seminar want to date the Similitudes early? They felt that the cries for justice and vengeance by the people confirmed the popular opinion that Herod the Great had "ground the people into the ground", giving rise for hopes God would provide a deliverer. They believe that the Son of Man (who apparently goes under several titles in the Similitudes), the deliverer, was believed to be "exalted" in God's eyes, so much so that they even interpret this as "pre-existence" to fit Christian theology about the role of Christ as a redeemer.
First of all, the "Herod ground them into the dirt" interpretation does not fit the economic facts of 1st century Judea or even Galilee. Read Fabian Udoh's
To Caesar what is Caesar's: tribute, taxes and imperial administration in early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) (2005), which covers "Roman tribute in Jewish Palestine under Pompey (63-47 B.C.E.) -- Caesar's favors (47-44 B.C.E.) -- Cassius and Antony in the East (43-40 B.C.E.) -- Herodian taxation (37 B.C.E.-4 B.C.E.) -- Taxation of Judea under the governors -- Tithes in the Second Temple period". The Duke University Phd Thesis upon which that book is based,
Tribute and taxes in early Roman Palestine (63 BCE-70CE): the evidence from Josephus (1996), is also available thru interlibrary loan.
In fact, Herod did quite a bit to *raise* the standard of living of his subjects, carefully improving trade routes through his territories for luxury goods from the east, thus allowing him to shift a good portion of the tax burden from his subjects to tolls and customs charges on the goods transported through his kingdom. As a result, he remitted taxes on occasion as this policy bore fruit. He also won no small number of privileges for Judeans from the Roman rulers, wherever they (the Judeans) were resident. As for accounts of subjects petitioning for lower taxes after his death, etc, who doesn't want lower taxes? Josephus' own Hasmonean family connections caused him to not be a big fan of Herod, making his portrayal of him a bit disingenuous, although he was quick to equally note what benefits and privileges he won for Judeans in general.
Christians tended to have a low opinion of Herod generally, possibly originating from Jesus' relatives claims that Herod was not a legitimate Judean king (see Africanus). The Herod killing babies story from Matthew 2 is probably, IMHO, bullsh*t, and was developed to "explain" why Jesus was known to have resided in Egypt for a period of time.
So, what some of the scholars who contributed to that Enoch Seminar scholars did was use the Christian prejudice against Herod to uncritically "explain" how Jesus came to be regarded as a pre-existent divine being. I do not think that this is tenable, as psychological responses by gentile associates of the Judean Jesus movement to the Judean war of 66-73 CE, similar to the ones that created Gnostics out of some Judeans, explain them easier, and IMO better, than the "Herod's taxes were the cause of it all" hypothesis.
Besides, there has always been social injustice. It crops up even in Nehemiah's memoirs. But for more relevant consideration, the fifth division of 1 Enoch (ch 91+), sometimes called the Epistle of Enoch (and which IS found among the Aramaic DSS fragments of Enoch books), speaks plenty about social injustice, the rich oppressing the poor, etc. Charles dated this section to early 1st century BCE, and Milik to about 100 BCE, both well before Herod the Great's time. "The poor you will always have with you ..."
My own estimation is that the Similitudes did
not consider the Son of Man to be "pre-existent", but certainly did consider the figure to be exalted in the sense of having God's favor. While I do not want to press the following point too hard, my personal opinion is that the book of Similitudes was originally a propaganda release by Simon Bar Giora, someone who may have nick-named himself the "son of man" (a common man), to promote his own bid for control of the Judean rebellion of 66 CE onwards, which included a radical social reform program.
Just my 2 cents.
DCH
