Who Is This Son of Man
Page 23
152
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
Eschaton, before his revelation to the holy and elect, indeed before the creation of the world, the Elect son of man was known, named and preserved in the company of the host of heaven. Chapter 48 makes clear his pre-mundane origin, just as 62.7 and 39.4-9 affi rm his ontological existence prior to his revelation.
Later identifi cation with Enoch
The Parables conclude with a surprising ending. We are told, in the third person, that Enoch was raised up, while living, in a chariot of wind to ‘the presence of the son of man and the presence of the Lord of Spirits’. He has now left, for a fi nal time, those who dwell on the earth (70.1-2). The text then switches to fi rst person. Enoch recounts his journey to Paradise, in the north-west of the earth where he sees the fi rst fathers and the righteous (70.3-4). After this Enoch is taken to heaven where he sees ‘the sons of the holy angels’ and two rivers of fi re (71.1-2), is then taken on a tour of the heavenly treasuries by Michael (71.3-4), and then is taken up into the heaven of heavens and is brought to just outside the heavenly throne room (71.5-8). There, at the door of the heavenly throne room, he is met by the four archangels, innumerable lesser angels and the Head of Days himself, before whom he falls down in worship (71.9-12).
An angel, probably Michael,70 informs him, ‘You are the son of man who was born to righteousness and with you righteousness dwells, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you’ (71.14).
Given that throughout the Parables Enoch has seen in visions the Elect son of man and there has been no indication that he was viewing himself, this identifi cation is unexpected – to say the least. It is surely one of the most surprising endings in the whole of ancient literature; for many interpreters, too surprising to be accepted at face value. The distinction between Enoch and the Elect son of man runs throughout the text and is maintained as late as 70.1, according to the majority of manuscripts.
A signifi cant textual variant, however, has occasioned of late no little discussion in scholarly circles and, thus, demands our attention. Of the manuscripts 70. Although some manuscripts merely read ‘that one’, the best text asserts ‘that angel’
spoke to Enoch. The identity of ‘that angel’ is not made explicit, but the context, especially vv. 3-5, suggests Michael. Casey’s ( Solution, p. 109) attempt to make the Head of Days the speaker is unconvincing. The speech which follows, whether it extends to the end of v. 17 or just v. 16, speaks about the Head of Days and so is not likely to have been spoken by him!
7. The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch 153
known at the time of R. H. Charles’ edition, one relatively early witness, Abbadianus 55 (late fi fteenth or early sixteenth century), contained a text which omitted the preposition
( ba-xabēhu; ‘the presence of’) prior to the
phrase ‘that son of man’ (
; la-we’etu walda ‘eg w āla
’emma-ḥeyāw).71 The resulting text should probably be translated ‘the name of that son of man was raised up, while living, to the Lord of Spirits’.72 Much has been made of the fact that the text of Abbadianus 55 is now known to be supported by other early manuscripts only recently made available to scholars, especially EMML 1768, EMML 2080, and EMML 7584 (all from the late fi fteenth or early sixteenth centuries).73 It is worth emphasizing a number of facts concerning the Ethiopic manuscript tradition, especially in light of claims made by Olson and Casey.74
First, the original text of EMML 2080 has been erased at this point and is no longer legible. Only the corrected text of EMML 2080 supports the omission of the preposition. Given what we know about the wider textual tradition of this verse and the space available between the words
( ḥeyāw; ‘while living’)
and
( la-we’etu; ‘to that’), it is reasonable to suppose that EMML 2080
originally contained the preposition.75 Second, Olson asserts that EMML 2080
‘may be the oldest Ethiopic MS of 1 Enoch extant, possibly dating from the twelfth century’.76 This is very debatable and almost certainly incorrect. Siegbert Uhlig, in his defi nitive study of Ethiopic palaeography, places EMML 2080 in his third period, that is, the second half of the fi fteenth to fi rst half of the sixteenth centuries. He, moreover, is inclined because of certain ‘ well-developed 71. The exact form of the preposition varies in the manuscripts which attest it (
[ ba-xabēhu],
[ ba-xaba], and
[ ba-qedma ba-xaba], but these variations make
no difference to the meaning of the passage. Such variation is quite common in Ethiopic manuscripts. Two nineteenth-century manuscripts, Abbadianus 99 and 197 (Charles’ v and w), support Abbadianus 55 (Charles’ u) in the omission of the preposition.
72. It should be acknowledged, however, that because the ( la-) preposition can function similarly to the preposition
( ba-xabēhu), the shorter text could still be rendered as the longer text. This is less likely, but not impossible. See also VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, p. 184 and Knibb, ‘ 1 Enoch 70:1’, p. 165, n. 21.
73. Olson, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, pp. 30–32 and Casey, Solution, p. 108.
74. In what follows, I have followed and summarized the arguments of Michael Knibb’s article on this verse, ‘ 1 Enoch 70:1’.
75. This is admitted by Olson, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, pp. 37–38, but Casey, Solution, p. 108, neglects to mention either the erasure or the correction.
76. Olson, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, p. 31.
154
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
essential characteristics’ to place it in the second half of that period.77 It is, then, perhaps a century later than the earliest Ethiopic witness to the text of 1 Enoch, Tana 9.
Third, that manuscript, our earliest witness to the text of the Parables, supports the longer reading, with the preposition.78 Fourth, it has long been known that Abbadianus 55 is characterized by important omissions from chapter 83 onward, and so ‘the signifi cance of any omission in this manuscript is diminished’.79 Fifth, Knibb, who has worked with these manuscripts closely, is of the opinion that Abbadianus 55 is closely related to EMML 1768; it is possible, then, that their witness should count as one, not two, manuscripts. Thus, perhaps only EMML 7584 remains as a new early supporter of Abbadianus 55.
Finally, it is just as probable that the omission of the preposition at 70.1 resulted merely from a transcriptional error. Ethiopic manuscripts are full of variants of this sort and it is unlikely that much should be made of them. In light of all this, that the original Ethiopic reading of this verse made a distinction between Enoch and the Elect son of man should not be doubted. In other words, the tension between 70.1 and 71.14 remains, despite the efforts of Casey and Olson to remove it.
It should be added that the change from third to fi rst person at 70.3 looks suspiciously like an editorial seam. In light of these two facts, it would appear that 70.3–71.17 is best regarded as a latter addition to the text of the Parables.80
An inconsistency of detail between 70.3–71.17 and the text of the rest of the Parables adds further weight to this conclusion. According to 70.3-4 the realm of the righteous dead lies on earth, in the north-west. This agrees with the Book of the Watchers ( 1En. 22.1-9; cf. also 32.3 and 77.3), but contradicts the Parables themselves which situates the righteous dead in the heavens (39.3-8; 47.2; 58.5).81 The author of 70.3-4 has, it would seem, mistakenly understood 61.1-5 to locate the realm of the dead in the North. And, fi nally, the ontological 77. S.
Uhlig,
Äthiopische Paläographie (ÄF, 22; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988), pp. 419–20.
78. In fact, Tana 9 has an even longer reading with two prepositions: ( ba-qedma ba-xaba).
79. Knibb,
‘ 1 Enoch 70:1’, p. 165.
80. So also Nickelsburg, ‘Discerning the Structure(s)’, pp. 42–43.
81. 61.12 should probably be added h
ere; its parallelism would seem to indicate that ‘the garden of life’, in which the elect dwell, is situated in the heavenly realms.
7. The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch 155
and pre-mundane pre-existence of the Elect son of man, discussed above, confi rms such a conclusion. Since he was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and was preserved with the angelic hosts before the creation of the world, he cannot be the same person as Enoch, ‘the seventh from Adam’ (Jude 14; 1En. 60.8; cf. Gen. 5.1-24; 1En. 37.1; 93.3; Jub. 7.39). The ontological, pre-mundane pre-existence of the Elect son of man is an insurmountable obstacle to viewing their identity proclaimed in 71.14 as original.82
All of the above makes a strong case that in 70.3–71.17 we have an addition, made at a later time, whose sole purpose was to give an identity to the otherwise mysterious Elect son of man. This position remains popular and has many supporters.83 It has, however, been challenged. VanderKam, for example, who has dismissed the evidence for a real pre-existence, but in my opinion has missed the signifi cance of both 62.7 and 39.4-6, has suggested that either the Elect son of man functions as Enoch’s heavenly doppelgänger or that Enoch merely ‘sees the son of man in visions of the future, not in disclosures of the present. [In chapters 38–69, h]e is seeing only what he will become’.84 Both of these propositions lose all force once it is allowed that in the Parables the Elect son of man possesses a real and pre-mundane pre-existence.
However, even if one does not accept that the Elect son of man enjoys real pre-existence, signifi cant problems remain with both of VanderKam’s proposals.
First, there is no contemporary evidence of a seer observing his own heavenly doppelgänger in a vision and neither example which VanderKam offers, of Uriel/Jacob in the Prayer of Joseph nor the features of Jacob ‘engraved on high’ according to GenR 68.12, provide this. More to the point, as Collins has noted, the words of the angel to Enoch in 71.14 are ‘You are the son of man’, 82. Casey
( Solution, p. 101) seems to accept the son of man’s pre-existence. He nonetheless never addresses how Enoch can be both pre-existent and the seventh from Adam. Does he suppose that the author of the Parables preceded Christians in attributing two natures, human and heavenly/angelic/divine, to their heavenly mediator?
83. So, among others, Nickelsburg, ‘Discerning the Structure(s)’, pp. 42–45; Knibb,
‘Structure and Composition’, pp. 62–63; Collins, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, and his earlier
‘The Heavenly Representative: The “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch’, in J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 111–33; and S. Chialà, ‘The Son of Man: The Evolution of an Expression’, in Boccaccini, Enoch, pp. 153–78, citing 162.
84. VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, pp. 182–84.
156
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
not ‘This is your heavenly “double.”’85 Second, as Collins has also noted, Enoch’s observation of himself without any recognition is both odd, requiring an explanation which is never given, and without parallel.86
Maurice Casey has offered three instances of ‘hints’ within the main text of the Parables which prepare for the identifi cation of the Elect son of man with Enoch in the fi nal chapter. First, he claims that since Enoch was held in Enochic literature to have been a paragon of righteousness ( 1En. 12.4; 14.1; 15.1; cf.
also Jub. 10.17; T. Levi 10.6; T. Jud. 18.1), the characterization of ‘that son of man’ as having righteousness and that ‘righteousness dwells with him’ (46.3) would have been ‘instantly recognized’ by members of an Enochic community as an allusion to Enoch. Moreover, the major function attributed to Enoch in Second Temple literature is, in this same verse, applied to ‘that son of man’:
‘He reveals all the treasures of the mysteries.’87
Righteousness, however, characterizes all the members of the group behind the Parables; ‘righteous ones’ appears throughout the text as a title for the adherents of the Elect One. This is not just true of the Parables; in Enochic literature the community ( 1En. 10.16; 93.10; 91.11-17), Noah ( 1En. 106.18) and God himself ( 1En. 22.14) are all characterized by righteousness. Moreover, it is striking that in the Parables themselves, as well as the Animal Apocalypse, Enoch functions primarily as the recipient of revelations, not as the revealer of heavenly mysteries.88 Second, Casey believes that 69.26 (‘because the name of that son of man was revealed to them’) points forward to 71.14 when it is made clear that his name is ‘Enoch’.89 However, given 70.1 where, as we have seen, our author(s) use ‘name’ for ‘person’, there is no diffi culty in supposing 85. Collins, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, p. 223.
86. Collins, ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, p. 223 and ‘Heavenly Representative’, p. 122.
In ‘Enoch and the Son of Man’, pp. 218–19, Collins also rightly dismissed as unfounded Kvanvig’s (‘Son of Man’, pp. 200–201) attempt to interpret 1En. 12-14 as another instance of Enoch viewing himself in a vision. Casey ( Solution, pp. 110–11) offers two other parallels: Levi in Testament of Levi 7.4–8.1 and Enoch in the Animal Apocalypse ( 1En. 85-90). Admittedly, in both of these the seer sees himself in a dream. But Casey overlooks the central point: In neither of these does the seer fail to recognize himself, as Enoch would do in the Parables, if he is indeed identifi ed with the Elect son of man.
87. Casey,
Solution, pp. 99–100.
88. Contrast his function in the Book of the Watchers (esp. 1En. 15); the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (esp. 1En. 81.1–82.2); Jubilees 4.16-19; and 2 Enoch in all of which Enoch both receives and passes on revelations.
89. Casey,
Solution, p. 105.
7. The Elect Son of Man of the Parables of Enoch 157
the same meaning here. Thus, 69.26 says no more than what is implied in 62.7.
Finally, Casey introduces at 69.27b the questionable translation ‘(the son of man) will not pass away and he will not perish from the face of the earth’. He then argues that this refers to Enoch, who did not die but was translated while still living (Gen. 5.24).90 Casey here follows the text of a single manuscript, Tana 9, which is our oldest and often our best. However, none of our manuscripts of Ethiopic Enoch is particularly good and Tana 9 should be regarded as corrupt here. The majority of manuscripts, with support from Berlin Petermann II Nachtrag 29 (sixteenth century), offer the only text which makes any sense:
‘(the son of man) will cause sinners to pass away and be destroyed from the face of the earth’.91 Nonetheless, even if one were to accept the reading of Tana 9, it must be admitted that it does not fi t Enoch at all. Enoch may not have died, but he did pass (or vanish or depart) from the earth. In the end, none of Casey’s preparations for 71.14 can stand up to scrutiny and the ending remains contradictory, unexpected and surprising: simply too contradictory to be regarded as original.
Another defender of the originality of 70.3–71.17, Helge Kvanvig, has insisted that ‘[s]cholars who assume a later addition cannot escape the trouble-some question that at one stage in the growth of the book readers actually were invited to identify Enoch and the Son of Man’.92 He rightly observes that ‘[t]his section [which] not only adds new material, but [also] alters the basic meaning of the book’ demands some explanation.93 Nonetheless, it does not follow that the identifi cation was made by the original author(s). Would not the original author(s) have at least attempted to explain how Enoch had not recognized himself or his heavenly double? More importantly, how did they conceive that Enoch could be both pre-existent and ‘the seventh from Adam’? An interpolator, who is intent, in changed circumstances, to give new meaning to an old text, need not be bothered with such niceties. An original author is much less likely to leave them unexplained. Moreover, a later interpolator is much more likely than the original author(s) to have been guilty of the incongruity of placing 90. Casey,
Solution, p. 105–106.
91. So also the translation of Nickelsburg and VanderKam and that of Knibb.
92. Kvanvig, ‘Son of Man’, p. 199.
93. Kvanvig, ‘Son of Man’, p. 199.
158
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
the realm of the righteous dead on earth, after repeatedly situating it, in the proceeding chapters, in the heavens.
Kvanvig’s challenge that the reasons for a late addition must still be explained should be taken seriously, even if, in the end, it proves unanswerable. The transformation of Enoch into a heavenly being in 2 Enoch and the identifi cation of Enoch with Metatron, which we encounter in Sefer Hekhalot or 3 Enoch, appears to have developed out of 1En. 71. It is clear that some Jews came to regard Enoch as an exalted heavenly mediator. One, admittedly, uncertain piece of evidence suggests that this development had already occurred before the end of the fi rst or the beginning of the second century. Asc.Isa. 9.7-9 looks like an allusion to 1En. 70.4. If this is correct, then, 70.3–71.17 must have been added to the text of the Parables before the Ascension of Isaiah was composed, late in the fi rst century or in the opening decades of the next. That the addition was made to counter claims made about Jesus by Christians is only a guess, but a plausible one.94 One can easily imagine an ‘Enochic’ Jew, that is, a Jew who valued the Enochic corpus and whose hope was set on its Elect son of man, disturbed by the all too similar assertions being made for the crucifi ed Messiah of early Jewish Christians, responding with an identifi cation of his own. Kvanvig is certainly right that the identifi cation of the Elect son of man with Enoch probably resulted from a brilliant intertextual reading of 1En. 14-15
and Daniel 7. He may well be right that 1En. 90.37-38 also played a role.95