Can someone get me up to speed and tell me what the question of the OP is? And, to jump ahead, can someone (preferably the OP creator) demonstrate to me that there are good grounds for answering the question. Let me explain the last request. I have over the last several years grown very disenchanted with many “doctoral proposals” and “academic theories” that deal with documents whose dates we cannot pin down more specifically than “200BC-100BCE”. There’s a point where someone needs to say, “Let’s stop wasting money on funding more and more theories. It is not just a waste of money. The whole endeavor suggests to academia that we are in fact “advancing knowledge”, and we aren’t.
Connor are you asking about the point of this thread? I attempted to explain in the lengthy post you copied. Essentially, to write about what we read adds a layer of perception and understanding to what we read. So in one sense it is a purely selfish endeavor. An opportunity presented itself and I have taken advantage of it. I do occasionally note the index counter of thread hits and it appears that somebody else is also interested. I find this pleasing. At the very least I will have succeeded simply by helping somebody else appreciate this strange and wonderful text as much as I do.
I’m not sure what “getting up to speed” would mean in this context since my encounter with The First Book of Enoch is an ongoing process. If you’re interested you can read my previous posts. if you’re not then this thread won’t have much to offer you.
I have discussed dating in various posts. As I begin each section of the book I plan to try to place it in its context. As far as the Book of Enoch we must date it using internal textual clues. This is part of the process of critical analysis of the text. Not being able to narrow composition down to the hour or the day is simply part of the situation we face with these ancient texts. You’re either going to do historical/critical analysis or you’re not. If you are then you have to accept the limitations inherent in the process. If you’re not, fine, do something else. But I’m mystified why you would want to limit someone else’s ability to engage these texts.
Leaving aside my general laziness I delayed a bit on this thread because the subject of the next section gives me pause. I could see myself chasing rabbits and going around in circles and making a big botch of it. I may do that anyway but I do have a sort of a plan. I am going to create bookends. I will first discuss the passage that everyone agrees is the source text behind the “Son of Man” in the Book of Parables, namely Daniel 7. Then I will discuss the use of the term “Son of Man” in the New Testament. I will then try to fill in the gap between them with what I can glean from the Book of Parables.
Please remember I’m not teaching, I’m learning.
There will be loads of questions and certainty is foolishness. Which is why all those fundamentalist end times fantasies and occult conspiracy theories are rubbish.
First there will be an introduction.
The Second Parable (Chapters 45–57)
This is the second parable concerning those who deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones and of the Lord of Spirits.
To heaven they will not ascend, and on earth they will not come.
Thus will be the lot of the sinners who have denied the name of the Lord of Spirits,
who will be kept thus for the day of affliction and tribulation.
On that day, my Chosen One will sit on the throne of glory…
On that day, I shall make my Chosen One dwell among them…
-Chpt 45, 1-3, portions of 4&5 (all translations, Nickelsburg)
The intro to the second parable makes it sound as if the discussion will center on the fate of the sinners but once again the later text focuses on the contrast between the “chosen” and the sinners and their differing fates. In this case we will see the “Chosen One”, not God (!), sitting on the God’s throne (!), pronouncing judgment.
Note that the point of view has shifted from Enoch to God. Note that the fate of sinners is again expressed in spatial terms. There is no place for them in heaven or on earth. I keep harping on this aspect but later on it’ll come into play when I discuss the issue of authorship and time of composition. It will offer a clue.
Finally, I find it interesting that we always see the “Chosen One” described in association with the community of the “chosen”. This figure is never described in isolation. This aspect provides a clue to the nature and character of the “Chosen One”.
The Head of Days and the Son of Man
There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.
And I asked the angel of peace, who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that son of man —who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days.
And he answered me and said to me,
“This is the son of man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him.
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.
And this son of man whom you have seen—
he will raise the kings and the mighty from their couches,
and the strong from their thrones.
He will loosen the reins of the strong,
and he will crush the teeth of the sinners.
– Chpt 46, 1-4 Nickelsburg
So far in the Book of Parables, this mysterious figure known variously as the “Son of Man”, the “Chosen One”, the “Righteous One” and the “Anointed One”, has been only alluded to in passing. Now we jump into the deep end of the pool feet first. Who is this figure? Needless to say the shelves groan with scholarly musings. I might have mentioned this one before but here’s a good spot for a convenient link to keep you from having to scroll back.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is the edited collection of papers that came out of the Third Enoch Seminar back in 2005. All the scholarly heavy hitters are included and the book will get you up to speed on how the subject is viewed among critical scholars. (Not a bad price as academic tomes go.)
All the names for this figure found in the BoP can be traced back to earlier Biblical tradition. The “Chosen One” and the “Righteous One” point back to Second Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. The “Anointed One” points back to the Davidic oracles in Psalms and (First) Isaiah. And the “Son of Man” points back to Daniel 7.
Right from the start scholars argued about the nature of the relationship between chpt 46 and Daniel 7. Did the BoP pull directly from Daniel or are they descended from a common ancestor? Nickelsburg’s textual analysis (vocabulary & sentence structure) makes it seem pretty clear that the author of the BoP depended on Daniel although he took the imagery and separated it from Daniel’s context.
Ok so to Daniel 7:
As I watched,
thrones were set in place,
and an Ancient One [Ancient of Days] took his throne;
his clothing was white as snow
and the hair of his head like pure wool;
his throne was fiery flames,
and its wheels were burning fire.
A stream of fire issued
and flowed out from his presence.
A thousand thousands served him,
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him.
The court sat in judgment,
and the books were opened.
…As I watched in the night visions,
I saw one like a human being [son of man]
coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One [Ancient of Days]
and was presented before him.
To him was given dominion
and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
that shall never be destroyed.
-Daniel 7, 9-10, 13-14 NRSVUE
What is the context of Daniel’s “night vision” (a Biblical euphemism for a visionary dream)? Chpt 7 functions as a link between chpts 1-6 and the rest of the book. It’s in Aramaic like chpts 1-6 but it focuses on Daniel’s visions like 8-12. There’s also a jump in the time frame of the narrative. The tales in chpts 1–6 narrate the rulership of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar to Darius. Chpt 7 jumps back to the first year of Belshazzar’s rule.
Daniel has an apocalyptic dream of Four Beasts, a lion with the wings of an eagle, a bear, a winged leopard with four heads, and a beast with ten horns. On the latter another horn appears which tears out three of the original ten horns. the Ancient of Days assumes his divine throne and sits in judgment on the Beasts. The fourth Beast, the worst, is put to death. Then a figure “like a son of man” comes before the Ancient of Days and upon him is bestowed everlasting kingship.
A divine being helpfully explains the vision. The Four Beasts represent four earthly kingdoms, but they will be destroyed and the righteous ones will possess the kingdom forever. The business about the horns of the Fourth Beast describe the events leading up to its destruction. These Beasts will have their allotted time but in the end the holy ones will triumph.
Scholars recognized quite early that although set in Babylon in the 6th century, the book of Daniel consists of folk tales originating in the fifth to third centuries BCE supplemented by apocalyptic visions describing events of the second.
If anyone is interested in taking a deep dive into Daniel you can’t do any better than check out John J Collins’ commentary from ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Collins has written extensively about Daniel so check out his other stuff as well.
A vastly interesting passage. Note the reference to “multiple” thrones. The Ancient of Days took his! (Where is all that monotheism we keep being assured fills the scriptures?) Note how his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire, A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence points back to the vision of Ezekiel in his vision of the divine throne/chariot at Chebar. (Chapter one of Ezekiel was the source for a vigorous stream of Jewish mystical speculation that lasted centuries until absorbed by Medieval Kabbalah.) Lastly, note that the term “son of man” is not a title or a name, but a simile. What is being communicated here is that this figure looked like a human being.
I looked for some “Son of Man” music to augment this thread. The “group” Six Organs of Admittance is the platform for the work of guitarist Ben Chasny. If you like this sort of droney psychedelic folk by all means check out his other work.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
*****
Scholars have long recognized that Daniel 7 is deeply rooted in Biblical traditions, prophecy and apocalyptic. Here we have a classic “throne vision”. Examples abound: 1Kgs 22:19; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1; then, when we move closer to home, 1 Enoch 14.
But in Daniel 7 we see the transference of the traditional divine attributes from the Ancient of Days to another. As the AoD achieves transcendence he becomes obscured rather than revealed. It is the Son of Man who is described in terms of “dominion, glory and kingship” (7:14). The kavod of the AoD can only be perceived through the medium of the SoM. You can see how this prepares for what came later in both Judaism and Christianity. Ultimately however, Rabbinical Judaism became less and less comfortable with the idea of what came to be called “Two Powers”. Christianity of course centered all those prerogatives on Christ.
More and more it strikes me how Christianity seems to have been a natural and spontaneous outgrowth of Hellenized Judaism. I was raised with the fundamentalist view of a “pure” Judaism, pointing to Jesus, which was only later corrupted by contact with pagan culture. It’s amazing how wrong this turns out to be. If it hadn’t been Christianity that won the day I suspect something like it would have developed. Not as an invasion of pagan culture but as an outgrowth of Hellenism.
Daniel 7 does retain aspects of pre-Hellenistic, Ancient Near Eastern thinking. And that’s in its anthropomorphism. Scholars point out that biblical anthropomorphism has its most explicit expression in what’s been identified as the “Priestly” tradition (the “P” in the old JEDP, documentary hypothesis) where God is depicted in the most human terms.
A couple really good books that deal with this subject –
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In Genesis 1:27, God creates humans in his own “image”. That is usually interpreted as God bestowing on humans the powers of reason and moral awareness and spiritual perception but the ancient writers meant it quite concretely. God gave humans his form, his body. In the older “non-P” creation account (the documentary hypothesis wobbles but is still with us) God breathes into the nostrils of the man, bestowing life, and take strolls in the Garden of Eden. The mythological viewpoint is always quite concrete.
But how did we get from a simile to a title? One “like” a human, to Son Of Man as a cosmic figure? As I planned I’m going to take some time and revisit the NT. Just what does it say about the Son of Man? Then I’ll plunge back into 1 Enoch.
There really must be Higher Forces at work. After I posted about anthropomorphism I picked up Andreas Wagner’s book God’s Body (link above) and noticed that there were a couple points about the priestly Source I had not mentioned, points that relate to your question Robert.
First a qualification. In the current thinking about what has come to be called the “Neo-documentary” hypothesis, it is doubted that the traditional Yahwist and Elohist sources actually existed as discrete sources. What you’ll hear now are references to “P” and “D”, which do seem to be discrete sources. Everything else is usually referred to as “not-P”, since the Deuteronomist seems to be most distinct, identifiable “discrete” source and “P” is still somewhat fuzzy around the edges. Oh well. (Actually in Europe the documentary hypothesis has been largely abandoned. Not that they go back to Mosaic authorship, far from it, but the dominant views tend to be, either a “Fragmentary” hypothesis”— seeing the Pentateuch as a collection of multiple, small, independent traditions assembled over time — or a “Supplementary” hypothesis, suggesting the presence of a core base text expanded upon by later editors. Both these views push the dates of final composition forward to the Persian/Second Temple period.)
But yes, if we mean stories where God acts like a human, perhaps in what we can identify as similar to other ANE or Greek myths, the source formerly known as the Yahwist does stand out. However, and this gets to the points Wagner makes and expands upon, it is a mistake to consider “P” as less anthropomorphic. The difference is that in the Priestly source Yahweh’s anthropomorphic tendencies express themselves through the instrumentality of cultic practice. There is a feedback between physical form, function and action.
Wagner centers his view on the concept of the Imago Dei of Gen 1,27. That chapter is worth the price of the book alone. He argues that the writers describe a god whose transcendence is expressed through an embodied presence. Divine holiness is not an immaterial concept but involves the body.
The other point Wagner makes is that there is no fundamental conflict between the prohibition against images and the anthropomorphism of Yahweh. He rejects the idea that the latter is a “primitive” stage of religion. He views it as a mode of conceptualizing divine presence. The difference between the former “J” and “P” is that “J” uses anthropomorphism to move the story along highlighting divine/human interaction, and “P” serves the needs of the cult demonstrating Yahweh’s power and making his commands understandable to humans.
A terrific book if someone is interested in the subject.
I’m not insisting upon the traditional designation of sources, merely using the traditional designations as a kind of short-hand. Note my language: “at least as they are traditionally ascribed.” One of my Dutch OT professors considered the JEDP theory as already dead over 40 years ago.
Well in this particular thread I make no assumptions about the general awareness of a lot of these issues among whoever might be reading so I think it only fair to expand occasionally on some aspects of the subject matter.
The most vocal supporter of the Neo-documentary hypothesis is Joel Baden who teaches at Yale. For anyone interested, see ** you do not have permission to see this link **, surely one of the great characters in ancient literature, whether he was actually historical or not. He gives a good interview so a search on YouTube will produce multiple items of interest. Baden wrote a commentary on Exodus and he has a series of video talks with John J Collins about it, produced by the Yale Divinity School.
One other point about Biblical anthropomorphism. There is still a tendency among many to regard this point of view as somehow “primitive”. it’s easy to see why when you look back through a lens of Medieval scholasticism and Neo-Platonism. But what it does is highlight the internal contradictions of Biblically “derived” Monotheism. (One can seriously make the argument that true monotheism never actually appears in the Biblical texts.)
Our sophisticated theologians/ministers/apologists want to eat their cake and have it. Here’s the conflict. To the degree that you have God demonstrate preferences, wishes, desires, you cannot escape anthropomorphism. Even “Absolute Mind” or “Ultimate Consciousness” cannot escape. We have zero examples of mind or consciousness without bodies. You’ve essentially done what the Priestly Source did. What’s not anthropomorphic about a mind, however abstract?
But then when you try to fly beyond all that into “Ground of Being” or “Being Itself” you’ve completely left behind the God of the Bible altogether.
So which is it? Is there a connection? If so what is it?
Philosopher Nicholas Shackel coined an idea he called the Motte-and-Bailey doctrine. In an ** you do not have permission to see this link ** he described it thusly:
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.
[The Bailey] represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.
I think my point will be pretty clear. The sophisticated theologians/ministers/apologists spend most of their time talking about God as if he walks and talks and commands, but when the liabilities of this position are pointed out, they sneer at our obtuseness and they retreat to the “sophisticated” God who rises above these distinctions. Then, when the “coast is clear”, they go right back to talking about God as if he walks and talks and commands.
Is this not an admission that the Christian monotheistic concept is internally incoherent, its propositions contradictory? Better the mythic world of the ancients! I have the sneaking suspicion that the gods, born within that mythic world, cannot truly live outside it.
Note that I haven’t abandoned this thread. I am simply in the process of going through every mention of the Son of Man in the New Testament. (And some of the non-Enochic pseudopigraphal literature.) This is as close to “school” as I’ve been in decades. I’m having a blast.
More to follow.
Here is an interesting video.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Here is the book referenced within-
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I look forward to reading it very much. I’ve touched on the mythology of the Giants a bit already. As Prof Doak discusses there is a very much obscured tradition behind the OT’s occasional mention of the Giants. And the Book of the Giants is one of those legendary lost texts we dearly wish we had.
Prof Doak got his PhD at Harvard and is professor of biblical studies and faculty fellow in the William Penn Honors Program at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon. There’s so much evangelistic and occult nonsense out there folks. Stick with the actual scholars.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert