Talk:Main Page

When in 1913, in the Introduction to his collection of “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” Henry Robert Charles described Second Temple Judaism as “a church with many parties,” he was largely an isolated voice, surrounded by the loudness of normative Judaism and orthodox Christianity. By contrast, the last fifty years of critical scholarship have built a solid case about ancient Jewish diversity (as also proved by the subject of this international conference here in Berlin). What once was described as a theological monolith is now commonly presented as the diverse and lively world out of which both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism emerged in a variety of competing expressions. The contemporary "rediscovery" of Enochic Judaism has added an important component to such diversity. While many scholars today would agree that Enochic Judaism was a “distinctive” form of ancient Judaism, the debate about what was “distinctive” in Enochic Judaism is today as open and lively as ever. Some conclusions are more widely accepted than others. Probably, no issue has been more controversial than the attitude of Enochic Judaism toward the Mosaic Torah. In a recent publication (The Invention of Judaism, 2017), John Collins has described Enochic Judaism as a “non-Mosaic” form of Judaism, which I certainly agree upon. The phrase however needs some clarifications. The revelation of Enoch was “Non-Mosaic” in the sense that it was claimed to precede that of Moses and was seen in no way subordinated to it. However, at no point in the early Enoch texts is there any evidence of opposition to, or rejection of, the Mosaic Torah, and certainly no attempt to replace Mosaic laws with Enochic laws. Enochic Judaism was indeed a movement of dissent. With the myth of the Fallen angels the Enochians created a “counter-narrative”, a paradigm of disruption that altered the Mosaic “master-narrative” of order. The Enochic dissent however did not come from a direct criticism of the Law, but from the recognition that the angelic rebellion had made difficult for people to follow any laws (including the Mosaic Torah) in a universe now disrupted by the presence of evil. The problem therefore was not the Torah itself but the incapability of human beings to do good deeds, which affects the human relationship with the Mosaic Torah. The shift of focus was not primarily from Moses to Enoch, but from the trust in human responsibility to the drama of human culpability. While at the center of the Mosaic Torah was the human responsibility to follow God’s laws (as exemplified by the experience of Adam in the Garden of Eden), at the center of Enochic Judaism was now a paradigm of victimization of the entire humankind. This is the reason it would be incorrect to talk of Enochic Judaism as a form of Judaism “against” or “without” the Torah. Enochic Judaism was not “competing wisdom,” but more properly a “theology of complaint.” In this sense Enochic Judaism must be clearly distinguished from Essenism (as it sprang forth from the Book of Jubilees) which instead sought a creative synthesis between Enochic and Mosaic traditions as an effective “medicine” against the spread of evil. In the Essene worldview the eternal covenant established by God with Israel before the fall of angels, redefines a space where the people of Israel can live protected from the evilness of the world under the boundaries of an alternative halakah. Enochic Judaism would never develop an alternative halakah and would never question the legitimacy of the Mosaic Torah. The Enochians were not competing with Moses, they were merely complaining. They kept their focus on the inability of humans to obey the Torah as a consequence of the spread of evil. There was no alternative Enochic halakah for this world, no Enochic purity code, no Enochic Torah; every hope of redemption was postponed to the end of times. Enochic Judaism was born as, and always remained, a “theology of complaint”.

Forgiveness of sins At the center of the Enochic “theology of complaint” is the absolute rejection of God’s forgiveness of sins. The message of repentance and forgiveness is significantly missing in 1 Enoch, or when it is present, as in chapter 12-16 of the Book of the Watchers, is only to deny it. It could not have been otherwise. If the angels were forgiven, it would have meant to undermine the very foundations of Enochic Judaism. There is no remedy to the corruption generated by the angelic sin, not even God’s forgiveness can do it. The original order of the universe cannot and will not be restored until the end of times. In the Book of the Watchers (chps.12-16), a compassionate Enoch indeed accepted to intercede on behalf of the fallen angels and "drew up a petition for them that they might find forgiveness, and to read their petition in the presence of the Lord of Heaven." (13: 4-5) but only to be lectured by God. The text makes it clear that Enoch was chosen by God not as a preacher of forgiveness, but rather as a messenger of unforgiveness--to announce to the fallen angels that "there will be no forgiveness for them." (1 En 12). The first mission of Enoch in heaven (before becoming a revealer to humankind) is to report back to the fallen angels that their petition “will not be accepted.” The last word of God leaves no room for any hope of forgiveness. "Say to them: You have no peace" (16:4). Later Enochic texts, Both Dream Visions and the Epistle of Enoch draw a clear distinction between good and evil, the righteous and the sinners. The language of repentance and forgiveness is completely absent. In the Animal Apocalypse there are white sheep who open their eyes but no black sheep becomes white. In the Epistle of Enoch the opposition between the righteous and the sinners is turned into a sociological conflict between the rich and the poor, the oppressors and the oppressed, the haves and the have nots. Only after the end of times and after the Judgment, Enoch saw in the Animal Apocalypse that the righteous among the gentiles (“all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven”) who entered the new creation, “made petition … and they all became white cattle” (90:37). Thanks to an act of God’s mercy the unity of humankind will be then restored in the eschaton.

Book of the Parables of Enoch

The language of repentance and forgiveness fully reemerges only in the Parables of Enoch. The text does it in direct conversation with chaps. 12-16 of the Book of the Watchers, with some intriguing developments.

At first the Book of Parables seems to reiterate the same language of revenge and judgment and the same uncompromised opposition between the oppressed and the oppressors, the righteous and the sinners that characterize the entire Enochic tradition.

With words that are directly reminiscent of the Book of the Watchers, Parables says that in the Last Judgment the destiny of the “kings and the mighty” will be like that of the fallen angels at the beginning of creation: “no one will seek mercy for them from the Lord of the Spirits” (38:1).

But then in chap 40 we are told that in heaven the “Holy ones” (who seem to include the deceased righteous) are petitioning and interceding for the sons of men. Enoch heard a “voice petitioning and praying for those who dwell on the earth and interceding in the name of the Lord of the Spirits” (40:6) and saw an archangel “in charge of the repentance to hope of those who inherit everlasting life, <and> his name is Phanuel” (40:6, 9). But there is no reference that such intersession extends to the sinners.

When in chap 48 the actual judgment of the Messiah Son of Man is described, we are repeated that at the Last Judgment the righteous will be saved in the name of God (as in all their deeds they “have hated and despised this age of unrighteousness”), while “the kings of the earth and the strong who possess the land”) will not save themselves "because of the works of their hands".

Then in chaps. 50-51 the judgment is presented in its more universal dimension, as “the days in which earth will give back what has been entrusted to it and Sheol will give back what it has received… (51:1). The sinners here appear as a much larger group, not limited to the kings and the landowners. As expected the righteous will be “victorious” while “evil is stored against the sinners” However, quite unexpectedly a third group ("the others") is singled out besides the saved and the damned--they are "those who repent and abandon the works of their hands." "1 And in those days a change shall take place for the holy and chosen, and the light of days will dwell upon them, and glory and honor will return to the holy, 2 On the day of distress, evil will be stored up against the sinners. And the righteous will be victorious in the name of the Lord of Spirits: and He will cause the others to witness (this), so that they may repent and abandon the works of their hands. 3 They will have < no > honor in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, yet through His name they will be saved, and the Lord of Spirits will have mercy on them, for great is His mercy. 4 And He is righteous in His judgement, and in the presence of His glory unrighteousness will not stand: at His judgement the unrepentant will perish in His presence. 5 "And hereafter I will have no mercy on them," says the Lord of Spirits.

In the context of the Enochic tradition, the passage is extremely important as for the first time introduces the idea of repentance and forgiveness at the time of the Last Judgment, yet it has not received the attention it deserves and has been mistranslated and misinterpreted even in the most recent and comprehensive commentaries to the book of Parables by Sabino Chiala' (1997) and George Nickelsburg (2012).

With the majority of manuscripts and all previous translations, Chiala' correctly translates verse 3 as 'they will have no honor' (Eth. kebr)", in the sense that they will have no "merit" before God. In the commentary however Chiala understands the verse as referred to the "righteous": in his interprattion "they" (the righteous, not the others) are the subject of the sentence. Chiala' takes then the verse as a general statement that God's judgment is based exclusively on God's Mercy even for the "righteous," who cannot claim any "honor" before God. But this contradicts what the Book of Parables had said in chapter 48; the righteous have good works, while the sinners do not. Besides, here the author refers to "the others" (the ones who repent and abandon the works of their hands) as it is proved by the fact that the following verses (4-5) continue the discussion about repentance not about "righteousness", to the extent that "the damned" are now denoted as "the unrepentant."

Nickelsburg correctly identifies the "others" as a distinctive group—an intermediate group between the righteous and the sinners, but understands them as a subgroup of "the righteous" (not a subgroup of the sinners). They may be not as righteous, they may not have the same merits but will share the same destiny. In Nickelsburg’s words, "Given the references to the righteous and their oppressors in vv. 1-2b, 'the others' mentioned in this action must be either the gentiles not included among the oppressors of the righteous or other Israelites not included among the righteous, the holy, and the chosen" (Nickelsburg, p. 182). To reinforce his own interpretation Nickelsburg quite arbitrarily "corrects" the text, based on the testimony of only two manuscripts against most mss. (and all previous and subsequent translations, like Charles and Chiala'). He suppresses the negative ("they will have no honor" becomes “they will have honor). Like the righteous, the others will have "honor" before God and will be saved in His Name.

The problem is that in this text "the others" are not defined for who they are but for what they do (“they repent and abandon the works of their hands”). Nickelsburg's interpretation that the "works of their hands" is a reference to idolatry is contradicted by the fact that the text here repeats the same phrase used in 48:8 to denote the sinners ("the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands… will not be saved"). "The others" are not "good gentiles" or "not-so-bad Israelites"; They are sinners who can claim no honor before God, but they repent.

Both Chiala' and Nickelsburg miss the revolutionary importance of the text, which at the end of times envisions the emergence of a third group beside "the righteous" and "the sinners." The righteous have "honor" (merit, good works) and are saved in the name of God, while "the sinners" have no honor (no good works) and are not saved in the name of God. The others are not a subgroup of the righteous nor a less guilty group of sinners or gentiles, but as the text explicitly states, they are rather a subgroup of the sinners who will repent and abandon the works of their hands. Like the sinners (and unlike the righteous), the "others" have no "honor" (no merit or good works) before God, but because of their repentance they will be saved in the name of God, like the righteous (and unlike the sinners).

In other words, the text explores the relation between the Justice and Mercy of God, a theme that we would also find at the center of the Jesus movement and broadly discuss in the early rabbinic movement. According to the Book of Parables, the righteous are saved according to God's Justice and Mercy, and the sinners are condemned according to God's Justice and Mercy, but those who repent will be saved by God's Mercy even though they should not be saved according to God's Justice. Repentance makes God's Mercy prevail on God's Justice. No reference is made to the traditional means of atonement related to the Temple or good works; the Book of Parables refers to the time of the manifestation of God and the Messiah Son of Man as a (short) time in which a last opportunity of repentance will be offered to the sinners. The time is limited: after the judgment absolutely no further chance of forgiveness will be offered to "the unrepentant." The ones who do not quickly repent will be lost forever.

The following narrative

The interpretation of chap. 50 sheds light and explains the subsequent narrative in the Book of Parable and allows us to better understand the reasoning of the author. Having affirmed that at the end forgiveness is granted to the sinners who repent, the text is now compelled to clarify that nonetheless this possibility is not given to all the sinners. It does not apply to the Fallen angels (as already stated in the Book of the Watchers) and does not apply to the rulers of this world (the kings and the landowners).

First, in chap. 53 we are told that the same angels of punishment who “are preparing all the instruments of Satan” (53:3), are also preparing those “for the Kings and the Mighty of this earth, that they may perish thereby” (53:5). The point is that the destiny of the Kings and the Mighty is linked to that of the Fallen Angels, and not to the sinners in general.

The vision of chaps. 62-63 them offers another description of the Last Judgment, in which the protagonists are not the sinners in general (like in chap 50) but specifically the Kings and the Mighty.

At the moment of judgment all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his presence of the Messiah; and they will worship and set their hope on that Son of Man, and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him.” (62:9)

Once again the language is reminiscent of the Book of Watchers. Like the fallen angels did with Enoch, the kings and the Mighty will petition the Son of Man to have mercy. Now we can better understand why they did it. The scene is not simply a “pitiful spectacle of role reversal” (p.266), as labelled by Nickelsburg. The kings and the landowners also hope that they could take advantage of God’s mercy announced to the sinners in chap. 50. But this is not the case. In spite of their act of submission and repentance, the possibility of receiving forgiveness does not apply to them: “But the Lord of the Spirits will press them.. and he will deliver them to the angels for punishments…” (62:10).

In order the reinforce the point, and not leave any doubts to the readers, the same scene repeats itself. Even when in the hands of the angels of punishment, the kings and the landowners will “ implore” the angels to give them “a little respite, that they might fall down and worship in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, and the at they might confess their sin in his presence” (63:1)

Like the fallen angels in the Book of the Watcher, they are repeated that their pledge is useless and no mercy will apply to them. ( God’s final answer in the Parables to the plea of the Kings(“This is the law and the judgment of the mighty and the exalted the kings) echoes God’s final answer to the Fallen Angels in the Book of the Watchers (There will be no peace).

In a brilliant play of intertexuality, at the end of time the Son of Man acts like Enoch did in chaps. 12-16 of the Book of the Watcher, as the mediator between the sinners and God, the one whom the sinners ask to present God their petition for forgiveness. The similarity of roles is striking and prepares the final scene in chap. 71 where Enoch if finally revealed that he is the Son of Man.

Forgiveness of sins

In spite of all limitations and the explicit exclusion of the fallen angels, the kings, the mighty, and the landowners, the Parables of Enoch signals a radical turn in a tradition that had never paid attention to the problem of repentance or forgiveness of sin, if not in order to exclude such a possibility. Repentance has now become a central theme in the book of Parables. This offers the possibility to a new look at the conceptual relation between the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics that goes beyond the mere reference to terms like the Son of Man. The absence of any reference to God’s forgiveness has been in fact one of the major obstacles in establishing a connection between the book of Parables and the Synoptics, where the idea of forgiveness of sins takes central stage. What does the Forgiving Jesus have to do with the unforgiving Enoch?

The Synoptics do not repeat the Enochic model of Parables. The Book of Parables does not attribute any special power of forgiveness to the Messiah, who remains the judge and destroyer of evil. It is him that the Kings and the Mighty worship and pledge for forgiveness as the mediator exactly like Enoch was ask to do in the Book of the Watchers, but Forgiveness belongs to the Lords of Spirits, the Son of Man has the authority to destroy not to forgive. Yet, the Parables’ concept of the existence of a time of repentance immediately before the judgment and the prophecy that at that point "the sinners" will divide between "the repentant" (the others) and "the unrepentant" (the damned) is conceptually the necessary "premise" to the missions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, as descripeb by the Synoptics. Their entire mission would be devoted to "the others."

What is John’s baptism if not a call to the sinners to repent and become “the others” through repentance?

The function of eschatological judge immediately connects the Messiah announced by John the Baptist to the "Son of Man" of the Parables of Enoch. The imminent coming of the eschatological Judge who will cleanse the earth with fire, makes urgent repentance and "forgiveness of sins" for those who in this world have "no honor." At the last Judgement, only the unrepentant will be damned. The urgency of John's call is consistent with the Book of Parables' view that that at the end only a small window will be opened to repentance and there will be no time afterwards. The appeal to God as the agent of forgiveness (rather that the Son of Man as in Christian tradition) even strengthen the connection between John the Baptist and the Book of Parables. An so his uncompromised attitudes against the kings and the landowners which led to his arrest and execution.

And What is Jesus’ mission if not a call to the sinners to repent and accept the authority of the one who in heaven will be the Judge and on earth has the authority to forgive sins?

According to the Synoptics, Jesus was not sent to "the righteous" but to "the sinners" so that they may repent. God is like a good shepherd who search for the lost sheep; Jesus was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt 10:6) There is no evidence in the Synoptics of a universal mission of Jesus to every person; the righteous do not need the doctor; Jesus was the doctor sent to heal the sinners (Mark 2:17; Matthew 9:13), as Luke makes explicit: "I have come to call not the righteous but the sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32).

Regardless of the issue whether or not the synoptic interpretation reflects, "adjusts" or corrects what the historical John the Baptist and the historical Jesus "really" did or meant to do, from the view point of the Synoptics the time of the end has come and the Messiah Son of Man has been revealed in Jesus. The prophecy of 1 Enoch 50 does no longer belong to the future, since now is the time of Judgment. And so is the time for repentance.

I am not claiming that the Jesus movement was an Enochic movement but that – at least from this perspective – it was an outgrowth of the Enochic movement. The Synoptics are not Enochic texts, but an answer to an Enochic problem.