Tenth Enoch Seminar (2019 Florence), conference

The Tenth Enoch Seminar (June 9-14, 2019), is an international conference organized by the Enoch Seminar.

< ... -- Ninth Enoch Seminar -- Tenth Enoch Seminar -- Eleventh Enoch Seminar -- ... >

Tenth Enoch Seminar Overview

Theme: “Enoch and Enochic Traditions in the Early Modern Period: Reception History from the 15th Century to the End of the 19th Century”

Chairs: Gabriele Boccaccini (University of Michigan) and Annette Yoshiko Reed (New York University).

Date: June 9-14, 2019

Place: Florence, Italy

Registration

Registration for invited participants is now online. Please complete your registration here by February 28, 2019.

Attendance at the Enoch Seminar is by invitation only and is limited to university professors and scholars in the field. If you are interested in attending or participating in the Tenth Enoch Seminar, please contact Jason Zurawski.

All participants are expected to pay the registration fee, which will range from $0 - $165, depending on the participant's past involvement in Enoch Seminars or Nangeroni Meetings. Spouses and guests of participants are not required to pay the registration fee.

Lodging

Contribution (including 5 nights lodging and lunches), To be paid in Florence at the Seminar:

• 0: Authors of major papers
• 300 euros: Respondents
• 250 euros: Guests, spouses, etc. (children under 12 years old: free)
• 400 euros: All other participants

Extra nights before or after the meeting should be booked directly with the Villa Stella at booking@florentour.it.

Preliminary Schedule

Sunday, 9 June 2019

Arrivals Dinner

Monday, 10 June 2019

• 9am - 10:30 - Introduction

Annette Reed: The Legacy of Enoch from the Middle Ages

The aim of this brief essay is to help set the stage for our discussions by surveying what we know of Enoch and his books in the Middle Ages. The medieval period has been typically treated as an era marked by the loss of early Enochic literature, often as part of a larger scholarly narrative concerning the late antique Christian rejection or suppression of “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” and the resultant medieval forgetting of their unique witness to those ancient forms of Judaism that most shaped Jesus and the origins of Christianity. This essay experiments with reconsidering the relevant data, not with the usual eye backward towards ancient “origins,” but rather looking forward as well, within and beyond the usual trajectory from the Roman Empire to Europe. In the Middle Ages—just prior to the period of the much-lauded modern European “discovery” of 1 Enoch—what was known of Enochic literature, and where, how, and to whom? What do we know of their circulation but also of the circulation of excerpts from and references to Enoch’s books and writings? What was known and lost and forgotten of the literary tradition surrounding Enoch from Second Temple times—but also reimagined, revived, and rewritten?

Gabriele Boccaccini: "The Reception History of Enoch From the Middle ages to the Nineteenth Century: Main Stages"

"The goal of this introductory paper is to offer an overview of what was known about the reception history of Enoch before our conference. Our Florence seminar is the first international gathering to explore this neglected chapter in the history of the reception of Enochic traditions from the 15th to the 19th century. The Christian cabalists (Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin, Guillaume Postel) were the first to get interested in the rediscovery of the Enoch books. Thanks to the presence of Ethiopian monks in Rome it was known since the mid-16th cent. that the entire book of Enoch was preserved in Abyssinia. In 1606 Scaliger published Greek portions of the Book of the Watchers, opening the path to the publication of the first commentaries. Many attempts were made to recover the book of Enoch but only in 1773 Bruce brought back from Ethiopia four copies of the manuscript. The English translation by Laurence in 1821 marks the beginning of the modern study of 1 Enoch."

• 11am - 12: 30 - Giulio Busi: Pico della Mirandola, Enoch and Hermetism Respondent: Francis Borchardt

Lunch

• 2pm - 3:30 - Tobias Churton: The Influence of Enoch in the Genesis of Masonic Mythology Respondent: Lorenzo DiTommaso

"Despite the Ethiopic Book of Enoch’s having having returned to the west through the efforts of Scottish Freemason James Bruce (1773), it is plain that in terms of its reception history, Freemasonry’s relevance to the Book of Enoch is limited. Complete texts of the Enochian corpus played no discernible, direct role in the genesis of masonic mythology. Nor, to any significant degree, did original Enochian texts feature significantly in subsequent masonic developments, such as the Ancient and Accepted Rite, or in Masonic-Hermetic para-movements, such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

Nevertheless, the figure of Enoch was apparently of symbolic and allegorical significance to the largely orally transmitted mythology of the earliest known freemasons’ sodalities (late fourteenth century), with regard to the myth of “lost knowledge”, a portion of which masons believed to have been vouchsafed anciently to masons. This paper comprehensively explores this specific masonic interest, analyzing sources certain, probable and possible for freemasons’ understanding of Enoch from the fifteenth to the late eighteenth century.

The first part of the paper investigates the curious problem that the earliest written evidence for Enoch’s personal masonic significance (in relation to the famous Sethian pillars story conveyed by Josephus) comes as late as 1723 in the revolutionary book of “Free-Masons”’ Constitutions, which otherwise heralded a departure from many “old masons’” traditions, in which category the Constitutions’ author associated an allegedly cherished tradition of the “pillars of Enoch”. The figure of Enoch was downgraded in subsequent editions of the Free-Masons’ Constitutions, probably because the figure, and the Enochian, or Sethian, pillars did not serve the interests of the “new order” of Masonry that appeared in London ca. 1716-1720. The downgrading of “antediluvian Masonry” provoked a reaction discernible in the breakaway “Antients” masonic Order (1751), and in the Ancient & Accepted Rite of French and North American provenance (evident by 1783).

It is also significant that the novel “Grand Lodge of London” showed no interest in Hermes Trismegistus who, in early masonic “Charges” documents, rediscovered – along with Pythagoras - the antediluvian pillars of knowledge constructed, according to the earliest “Old Charges” of masons, by Jabal, son of Adah and Lamech, of Cainite lineage, in contradistinction to Josephus’s Sethian narrative.

It would be mere conjecture to conclude that the earliest known masonic documents were concerned with an “Hermetic Enoch”, or were disposed to conflate Hermes and Enoch as is found in Harranian and other medieval literary traditions. Indeed, Hermes is described in the Old Charges as son of Noah’s grandson Cush (whose father is given as Shem, not Ham as in the Bible). The Cushite link to Hermes is significant, possibly influencing James Bruce’s assessment of Egyptian origins.

Early masonic interest lies primarily with the contents of the antediluvian pillars of knowledge, with Cain’s son Enoch revered as the first human architect. Early masonic tradition seems indifferent to distinctions of Cainite and Sethian lineage; knowledge was what counted: an apotheosis of geometry, along with the other six liberal arts. While the 1723 Constitutions’ author, Rev. James Anderson, identified pillar-making Enoch with the prophet and prophecy from the Book of Enoch that appeared in Jude’s epistle - he who was raised, still living, to heaven - we do not know if this view was held by earlier masonic brethren, or whether Enoch’s “raising” had any early ritual significance. However, one direct historical source (Higden’s Polychronicon) for the early “Cooke MS.” of Old Charges (ca. 1450 or earlier) is aware of Enoch as prophet and author of books, though Higden’s wholly negative judgment of Lamech’s Cainite progeny was alien to freemasons. If pre Grand Lodge masons did revere Enoch, they did not obtain that reverence from the “Old Charges” directly, so a conflation of Hermes and Enoch might have been accepted by some reasonably learned master-masons. As medieval and post-Renaissance symbolic and practical Freemasonry was an oral tradition, self-consciously secretive, there must be allowed some room for informed, if cautious, speculation as to traditional belief-priorities.

In this regard, the paper focuses on possible interpretations of an “Acception” ceremony that appears in records of the London Freemasons’ Company in 1638 (a century or so before any manifestation of a “Grand Lodge”), and which has been understood as the origin of the phrase “Free and Accepted Masonry”. The paper explores possible links between the thinking of two learned, alchemically-minded symbolic Free-Masons of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and the idea of a “donum dei” possibly conveyed (and “accepted”) at an inner masonic body, conceivably expressing the interest of Hermetic Free-Masons and their associates (such as Elias Ashmole’s friend Thomas Vaughan) in the kabbalistic figure of Metatron (identified with a transfigured Enoch in III Enoch), and understood as the Anima Mundi, identified by Hermetic Rosirucian-enthusiast, Dr Robert Fludd, with Christ as Great Architect (or inner principle) of the Universe, and by implication with Paracelsus’s divine “Mercurius” that animates all things, and which the Hermetic Asclepius implies was invoked by ancient Egyptian architects and sculptors, into statues. Links between Masonry and Hermetic Rosicrucianism are explored, the famous Fama Fraternitatis (pub. 1614) having regarded Enoch as significant in the line of prisci theologi. The relevance of John Dee’s interest in Euclidian geometry, mathematics, and alchemico-spiritual speculation, is also examined in context.

The richness of understanding available to learned Free-Masons in the 17th century suffered decline after the Grand Lodge’s appearance, necessitating efforts to restore some vanished symbolism in ulterior rites (from the 1750s), though evidently without the keys available to pre “Enlightenment” brethren for a thoroughgoing apocatastasis, or restoration of man to his divine source. A significant attempt to give the supposed ancient “pillars of Enoch” a revival in the context of progressive initiation is found in the 13th Degree of the Ancient & Accepted Rite (established between the late 1760s and early 1780s in North America) called the “Royal Arch of Enoch”. The legend adumbrated in the rite attempts to link Enoch’s pillars with the (now) more familiar setting of Solomon’s Temple and pillars, together with the Royal Arch degree, favoured by the “Antients” Grand Lodge, and that rite’s interest in the lost “Name”.

In 1773, during the period of the A&A Rite’s establishment, Scottish Freemason James Bruce returned from Ethiopia with four copies of the Book of Enoch. If there was any significant Masonic interest in this event at the time, it has not left records, as far as is known - hardly surprising since the work was not available in translation until considerably later, and Bruce himself had thoroughly denigrated its contents as unworthy of serious interest in his account of his travels (1790). The paper examines Bruce’s account in detail; it reveals onenotable Freemason’s natural interest in the genesis of Egyptian architecture, significantly linked to the Cushites of Upper Egypt and Ethiopia, and to the figure of Thoth-Hermes, regarding whom Bruce offers a prosaically rational, enlightenment-style, assessment, albeit a speculative one. Bruce does not link Thoth to Enoch, and does not think written language could have predated the Flood, which annihilates any conception of Enoch’s or Seth’s Pillars at a stroke. The Book of Enoch is essentially dismissed as “apocryphal”, and as a “Gnostic book”, that is, un-canonical, unreliable, sectarian, and superstitious.

The paper gives probable reasons for Bruce’s dis-interest in his “discovery”, a denigration which also reflects the arguable decline in Freemasonry’s interest in Enoch, a result of older masonic traditions being superseded by an effectively new order (which cleverly portrayed itself as both “revival” and continuity), garbed in a renovated mythic superstructure erected, in part, in accordance with Newtonian ideas about the universe embodied proportionally in the lineaments of Solomon’s temple. Modernism triumphed at the expense of an “antediluvian Masonry”, and possibly an alchemico-spiritual scheme, in which the figures Enoch and Hermes had once been significant to at least some learned brethren.

It should be noted that the paper is the first scholarly investigation into the relation of the figure of Enoch to the genesis and development of Masonic mythology and self-understanding."

• 4 pm- 5:30 - Ariel Hessayon: Knowledge and reception of the Ethiopic book of Enoch in Western Europe, c.1770 - c.1820 Respondent: Leslie Baynes

"In the first part of this paper I trace the history of the Scottish explorer James Bruce's personal copy of Ethiopic Enoch until its acquisition by the Bodleian Library in 1843. In the remainder I focus on Western European knowledge and reception of the Ethiopic version of the book of Enoch from about 1770 to 1820; that is a 50-year period beginning with the various scribal copies of the text made for Bruce at Gondar and ending just before the publication of Richard Laurence's English translation. The fundamental question that needs addressing is why did it take so long to produce and print a complete version in a major European written or spoken language? I will suggest that there are three main aspects to this answer."

• 5:30 - 7:00pm - 11th Enoch Seminar Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 11 June 2019

Morning

Visit to Florence

• Verrocchio and Leonardo (Palazzo Strozzi) and the new Museo dell'Opera del Duomo and Battistero
• Free time

4pm Facolta' Teologica dell'Italia Centrale - Central Italy School of Theology (p.za Tasso)

• Public session: Enoch and the Fallen Angels in the History of Art (Shelley Perlove)

A reception will follow at 6pm.

Wednesday, 12 June 2019

Morning (Reading sessions)

• 9-10:30am - Shaul Magid: Enoch in Jewish Traditions

• 11-12:30pm - Kameliya Atanasova: Enoch in Islam

Afternoon

• 2pm - 3:30pm - Euan Cameron: The Book of Enoch in relation to the pre-modern Christian doctrines of spiritual beings Respondent: Francis Watson

The purpose of this paper has been to argue that a massive body of theology and biblical exegesis also stood in the way of treating Enoch, and some of the late antique traditions from which Enoch was possibly drawn, at all seriously. To delve into the Enochian traditions from the 13th to the 17th centuries would have entailed setting aside a formidable body of inherited and shared wisdom about angels, fallen and unfallen, their history, their natures, and how to deal with them. Even if the manuscript sources had been available much earlier than they were, it would have taken a major transformation in Western Christian metaphysics to welcome Enoch into the Christian canon. The rare murmurs of dissent from the scholastic norm are most interesting, but they are in a manner of speaking the exceptions which help to prove the rule.

• 4pm - 5:30pm - Gabriele Boccaccini: Enoch Commentaries Before Bruce Respondent: James Charlesworth

Richard Laurence is credited as the author of the first commentary on 1 Enoch in 1821. But his was not the first commentary on 1 Enoch. After the publication of the Syncellus fragments by Scaliger in 1606, the recovered text was considered long enough to support the composition of full commentaries, both written in Italian, by Pompeo Sarnelli in 1710 and Daniele Manin in 1820. The striking continuity between the works of Scaliger, Sgambati, Sarnelli, Fabricius, Manin and Laurence requires that we push back the time of the “rediscovery” of the books of Enoch at least two centuries. More than a sudden new beginning the Ethiopic text opened just a new stage (albeit fundamental) in a process that started in 1606 with the publication of the Syncellus fragments, and would continue then in the twentieth century with the recovery of the Aramaic fragments from Qumran. None of these stages should be studied apart from the others. We would like the group to discuss the elements of continuity or discontinuity between the study of 1 Enoch before and after the recovery of the Ethiopic text as well as the impact that the Syncellus fragments had in the theology and culture of early modern Europe and their legacy on the contemporary study of 1 Enoch. (Gabriele Boccaccini & Jim Charlesworth).

Thursday, 13 June 2019

Morning

• 9-10:30am - Florentina Badalanova Gellar: Enoch in the Slavonic Church and Daniel Assefa: The Archangel Uriel in 1 Enoch and other Ethiopian texts Respondent: Elena Dugan

Daniel Assefa - The study of 1 Enoch’s reception in the Ethiopian Church is relatively recent. However, the last decade has enjoyed quite interesting researches in this connection. Works like “the Book of the mysteries of heaven and earth” (15th century), the “Book of Nativity” (15th century), The Amharic Andemta commentary of 1 Enoch, various Ethiopian hymns have drawn the attention of scholars. Like other Orthodox and Oriental Churches, the veneration of angels is an important component of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church. However, the veneration of the archangel Uriel, a significant character in 1 Enoch, adds more distinctive features to the Ethiopian Church. According to the Ethiopian Book of Saints or Synaxarium the annual feast of the archangel Uriel takes place on July 28. Besides churches dedicated to the Archangel Uriel, one also finds various texts narrating deeds and miracles. The archangel is believed to have sprinkled blood in various regions of Ethiopia, taken from the drops of the Cross of Jesus. The homilies written in his honour and the hymns composed to praise him not only mention Enoch but also take recourse to motifs found 1 Enoch. Can we however identify the portrait of Uriel in 1 Enoch with the descriptions given in the subsequent Ethiopian texts related to Uriel? How far do we find the same characteristics as far as the angelic person is concerned? Where and how can we speak of new elements and innovations? This paper will address these questions by focusing mainly on hymns written in honour of the archangel Uriel.

• 11-12:30pm Jared Ludlow: Enoch in Mormonism Respondent: Lester Grabbe

The figure of Enoch plays an important role in the tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) due to members’ belief in additional scriptural accounts about him. This session reviews where additional Enochic accounts are found in the Latter-day Saint corpus, their transmission and use in later stages or phases, and possible origins for these stories and conceptions. One important question is the possible connection of some these additional Enoch stories with other earlier Enochic accounts, especially 1 Enoch. While it is clear that Latter-day Saints became familiar with 1 Enoch in the 1840s, it is less certain that it was known by Joseph Smith in 1830-1831 when many of these additional Enoch passages were first published. Regardless of origin, these Enoch stories became an important influence in the early Latter-day Saint effort to gather in one body to create an ideal society, Zion; and Latter-day Saints have maintained an interest and curiosity in early Enochic material mostly to ascertain parallels to and support for their additional accounts of this enigmatic figure.

Possible discussion questions:

• 1. What is the source of the Enoch material in the Latter-day Saints Book of Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants?
• 2. What aspects from the Latter-day Saint story of Enoch have parallels or similarities to other Enochic texts and traditions?
• 3. In what ways does Joseph Smith’s presentation of Enoch have similarities to the ancient phenomenon of “rewritten Bible” or Pseudepigrapha? Can we learn anything about creating religious tradition in modern times and/or anciently?
• 4. Boccaccini states in his paper on the reception history of Enochic traditions that Joseph Smith and the early Latter-day Saints were “the last major development of the character of Enoch in a religious context.” How so, and why have there not been others since then?
• 5. Many have approached the Latter-day Saint Enoch material from an apologetic angle to support the prophetic status of Joseph Smith, or from the opposite side to debunk him. What are some meaningful options between these two extremes to approach this material?

Afternoon

• 2 - 3:30pm - Loren Stuckenbruck and Ted Erho: Enoch in Manuscript Traditions Respondent: Liv Ingeborg Lied

The paper by Erho and Stuckenbruck focuses on the possibilities and challenges in understanding the Ethiopic manuscript tradition to 1 Enoch as a witness to a Jewish text of the Second Temple period. The authors argue that, ultimately, the extant Ge'ez manuscripts, in themselves, should not be simplistically understood as transmitters of an ancient Jewish text, though they are not irrelevant to the study of Second Temple Judaism. Taking both the paper and the larger project of an edition of Ethiopic Enoch into account, several issues can be constructively discussed: (1) How can the Ethiopic manuscripts fruitfully be applied in textual scholarship on 1 Enoch; (2) how can a text edition reflect the text of Ethiopic Enoch as "a living tradition"; and (3) given that the surviving Ethiopic manuscripts, the European discovery of an extant text of Enoch and the development of academic models of textual scholarship all date from the 15th century and onwards: (how) are they entangled, how has the pre-modern/modern context influenced knowledge production, and how has a potential confluence affected our present conceptions of a “Book of Enoch” [as an ancient text]?

• 4pm - 6pm - Short paper session & Wrap-Up session

• Francis Borchardt, "Enoch’s Testaments and Their Representation in the Art of William Blake"

This paper examines William Blake’s two pieces depicting the figure of Enoch in the act of teaching, the famous lithograph of 1806-1807 and the ink and watercolor work, usually dated somewhat earlier. In both of these works, Enoch is presented as seated at the center of a small group of bodies and texts. However, in the lithograph, the bodies are all active and productive, almost ignoring the figure of Enoch himself, while in the ink and watercolor piece, all the bodies are passive seemingly hanging on Enoch’s every word and absorbing his teachings. The differences between the two scenes are striking. This paper argues that, despite these differences both images depict Enoch as the ideal teacher. Building on the work of Newsom, Wright, and Vayntrub on literary depictions of instructional scenes, this paper suggests that Blake depicts two sides of effective pedagogy. On the one hand, he depicts Enoch in the active of teaching, with a silent and submissive audience absorbing his lessons. On the other he depicts the productive potential of Enoch’s curriculum in the bodies of those around him. In both cases, however, Enoch’s efficacy as teacher and source of knowledge is asserted.

• Ralph Lee, "The Reception and Function of 1 Enoch in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tradition"

This paper explores the use of 1Enoch from its emergence in the Ethiopian manuscript tradition in the 14th century and the theological function that it serves. The focus will be on the Apocalypse of Weeks, which is one of the most quoted parts of 1Enoch in Ethiopic classical literature, and is accompanied by commentary in material that dates from the 15th to the 17th centuries, and possibly later, and may be used to show some development in reflection on 1Enoch with the Ethiopian Christian tradition.

• Robert Hall, "Scales of Creation or Scales of Judgment? Variant Readings for Parables of Enoch 41 and 43"

Wrap-up session

Friday, 14 June 2019

Breakfast and departures

Questions from the participants

• Which should be considered the main channel for the diffusion of Enochic traditions in early modern Europe? Christian Liturgy? The arts? Freemasonry? Or else?

• Why did it take nearly 50 years to produce and print a complete translation of Ethiopic Enoch in a major European written or spoken language? [I am referring to the period from roughly 1770 to 1820]

• Does the Ethiopian reflection on 1Enoch contribute significantly to the broader understanding of 1Enoch and its significance in Christian theology?

• By the end of the 19th century, translations and (critical) editions of the writings attributed to Enoch made these writings available to European and American scholars. These translations and editions were shaped by 19th century methods and models of textual scholarship and by a limited access to manuscript witnesses. How have these translations and editions shaped the conceptions of the writings attributed to Enoch, (how) has scholarship changed as new manuscripts have come to light, and how may new editorial ideals and digital interfaces change the understanding of these writings?

• Until the late 18th century, the Book of Enoch was not known in Western Europe in the shape of an extant text. It was known by title (mentioned in other accounts) and in the form of some quotes and excerpts. This means that for centuries the Book of Enoch was primarily a postulated book: talked about and imagined, but not read. What were the main frames and functions of the ongoing imaginations of a Book of Enoch in early modern Europe? How may the analytic category of imagined books (Mroczek)/books known only by title (Lied) help us nuance our understanding of the reception history of the Book of Enoch?

• A few times, the authority (authoritativeness) of 1 Enoch is mentioned. Among other things, it also stated that the authority was the subject of discussion in the history of Judaism and Christianity. How was the authority of 1 Enoch discussed in the past? Moreover, how could one describe the concept of authority? Is there a difference between canonicity and authority? Is there a difference in the concept of authority when speaking about 1 Enoch and about other (canonical?) books?

• Other non-canonical books [Jubilees; Testaments of the XII Patriarchs; Life of Adam and Eve; Testament of Abraham) were saved by the Church. What is the evidence of this in the Western Church?

• Would the greater emphasis on original sin, especially since Augustine, has played a part in the reduced interest of 1 Enoch in Western Christianity? Moreover, did the fact that Christianity became state religion played a role in the disappearance of interest in 1 Enoch?

• How could one explain “return” of 1 Enoch in Judaism after the Talmud (see a.o. the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 in PRE 22; Bereshit rabbati; Aggadat Bereshit; MHG)?

• What are some ideological and cultural continuities and discontinuities between the different groups of people who have transmitted pieces or the entirety of 1 Enoch over time? What does this tell us, if anything, about the nature of 1 Enoch?

• Did historical European cultural and racial attitudes towards Ethiopia influence the early reception of Ethiopic Enoch? If so, how?

• Because believers had the fullest certainty and fullest relief in their spiritual life on account of their secret knowledge, in real life they appear to avoid engagement in political affairs, taking things peaceably, not forcing issues? Is there a link between the violence of their beliefs and their non-violent stance in actual life?

• How do we evaluate the fact that many breakthroughs in the history of science come from nonsensical views in Apocalyptic texts, e.g. Newton's absorption in the Hermetica?

• Enoch is a created figure, a manufactured entity. Its presentation in forms literary and non-literary is presumably purposeful. But the portrait of Enoch in the Book of Watchers is not interchangeable with that painted by the hermetic philosophers. So can we speak of the "reception of Enoch"? Which Enoch? The portraits of Enoch bear a family resemblance but they are not of the same individual. Who, then, are these "Enochs" that stand behind the various texts and traditions in a literary trajectory that was neither uniform nor unbroken? What is their relationship, as they were imagined in their cultural settings, both manuscript and print? What were their social functions? What does all this suggest about the audiences for which such portraits were meaningful?

• How did Ethiopian scholars train their students for studying 1 Enoch? How did they form their minds? What methods did they expect their students to use for interpreting 1 Enoch?

• We’ve known for centuries that Eastern Orthodox churches (particularly the Ethiopian and Slavonic traditions) have played a fundamental role in the transmission of Enochic literature. Why? Can digging deeper into this question give us more insight? To take one example, how do particularly Orthodox conceptions of canon (see for example Eugen Pentiuc’s excellent discussion in The Old Testament in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition) play a role in the sustained presence of Enochic material in parts of the Orthodox east?

• How to deal with the problems of studying the Book of Parables when we realize that the oldest manuscript witnesses date back to the XV century and the only language of transmission of this text has been ge'ez?

Prospective Participants

• Daniel Assefa (Capuchin Institute of Philosophy Addis Abeba)*
• Kameliya Atanasova (Washington and Lee University)*
• Florentina Badalanova Geller (Free University of Berlin)*
• Leslie Baynes (Missouri State University)*
• Andreas Bedenbender (University of Paderborn)*
• Gabriele Boccaccini (University of Michigan)*
• Francis Borchardt (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
• Giulio Busi (Berlin)
• Euan Cameron (Union Theological Seminary)*
• Calum Carmichael (Cornell University)*
• James H. Charlesworth (Princeton Theological Seminary)*
• Randall Chestnutt (Pepperdine University)*
• Tobias Churton (independent scholar)*
• Kelley Coblentz Bautch (St. Edwards University)
• Lorenzo DiTommaso (Concordia University Montreal)*
• Elena Dugan (Princeton University)
• Ted Erho (University of Munich)*
• Gabriella Gelardini (Nord University)*
• Lester Grabbe (University of Hull)*
• Robert Hall (Hampden-Sydney College)*
• Matthias Henze (Rice University)*
• Ariel Hessayon (University of London)*
• Giovanni Ibba (Florence Theological Seminary)
• Ralph Lee (University of Cambridge)*
• Liv Ingeborg Lied (Norwegian School of Theology)*
• Jared Ludlow (Brigham Young University)*
• Shaul Magid (Indiana University Bloomington)*
• Luca Mazzinghi (Pontificia Università Gregoriana)*
• Rivka Nir (Open University of Israel)*
• Shelley Perlove (University of Michigan)*
• Annette Yoshiko Reed (New York University)*
• Jacques van Ruiten (University of Groningen)*
• Loren Stuckenbruck (University of Munich)*
• Cecilia Wassen (Uppsala University)*
• Francis Watson (Durham University)*
• Benjamin Wright (Lehigh University)*
• Jason Zurawski (University of Groningen)*

Getting to the Seminar

The Seminar will take place at the lovely Villa La Stella (http://www.villalastella.it/en/)

Villa La Stella

Via Iacopone da Todi, 12

50133 Firenze

+39 055 5088018

Villa La Stella is located just outside of the city center of Florence, on the way up to Fiesole. From Peretola airport, you can take a taxi. It is only around 11 km, and there should be flat fare from the airport to anywhere in the city limits. From the main train station, Santa Maria Novella, you can also take a taxi. Or, you can take the number 7 bus towards Fiesole and get off at the stop "Di San Domenico 07" (13 stops, around 16 minutes). The bus stop is only 200 meters from the Villa.

External Links

• Enoch Seminar Website