MELCHIZEDEK LEGEND OF 2 (SLAVONIC) ENOCH
[published in the Journal for the Study of Judaism 31
(2000) 23-38]
Contemporary scholarship does not furnish a consensus concerning
the possible provenance of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch.[i] In the context of
ambiguity and uncertainty of cultural and theological origins of 2
Enoch, even distant voices of certain theological themes in
the text become very important. One of these important
theological reminiscences of 2 Enoch is the theme of
Melchizedek -- the legendary priest of God Most High.[ii]
Before giving an exposition of the content of the story it is
worth mentioning that for a long time the legend was considered
to be an interpolation in the text of 2 Enoch. Charles,
Morfill, and Bonwetsch[iii]
thought that the theme of Melchizedek was sort of an appendix and
did not belong to the main body of the text. For this reason, the
legend was not investigated for a long time. Even Fred Horton in
his fundamental work dedicated to the Melchizedek tradition
ignores the material of 2 Enoch on the basis that it is
found only in one recension.[iv]
On the contrary to these opinions, A. Vaillant successfully
demonstrates that Melchizedek's legend is an integral part of 2
Enoch. Andersen supports this position. His new collation of
manuscripts shows that the Melchizedek tradition is found in both
recensions, in six manuscripts which represent four text
families. His final conclusion is that "there is no evidence
that the second part ever existed separately."[v]
Exposition
The Melchizedek narrative occupies the last chapters of the book.
The content of the story is connected with the family of Nir,[vi] the priest, who is
pictured in the book as "second son of Lamekh"[vii] and the brother of
Noah. Sothonim[viii]
the wife of Nir, gave birth to a child "in her old
age,"[ix] right
"on the day of her death."[x]
She conceived the child, "being sterile" and
"without having slept with her husband."[xi] The book told that Nir the
priest had not slept with her from the day that the Lord had
appointed him in front of the face of the people. Therefore,
Sothonim hid herself during all the days of her pregnancy.[xii] Finally, when she
was at the day of birth, Nir remembered his wife and called her
to himself in the temple. She came to him and he saw that she was
pregnant. Nir, filled with shame, wanted to cast her from him,
but she died at his feet. Melchizedek[xiii]
was born from Sothonim's corpse. When Nir and Noah came in to
bury Sothonim they saw the child sitting beside the corpse with
"his clothing on him." According to the story they were
terrified because the child was fully developed physically. The
child spoke with his lips and he blessed the Lord.
It is of great significance that the newborn child was marked by
the sign of priesthood. The story describes how "the badge
of priesthood"[xiv]
was on his chest, and it was glorious in appearance. Nir and Noah
dressed the child in the garments of priesthood and they fed him
the holy bread. They decided to hide him, fearing that the people
would have him put to death. Finally, the Lord commanded His
archangel Gabriel[xv]
to take the child and place him[xvi]
in "the paradise Eden" so that he might become the high
priest after the Flood. Final passages of the short recension
describe the ascent of Melchizedek on the wings of Gabriel to the
paradise Eden.
Shem Traditions
The Melchizedek narrative in the book is connected with the name
of Noah, the legendary pre-deluge patriarch. We can not only find
Noah in the book but also his grandfather, Methuselah[xvii] and his father,
Lamech. The midrashim of these descendants of Enoch occupy
chapters 68-73 of the text. Right after Enoch's ascension to the
highest heaven, the firstborn son of Enoch, Methuselah, and his
brothers, "the sons of Enoch," constructed an altar at
Achuzan[xviii] the
place where Enoch had been taken up (ch. 68). It is important to
stress that the term Achuzan here is a specific name for
the hill of the Temple in Jerusalem. In chapter 69 the Lord
appeared to Methuselah in a night vision and appointed him as the
priest before the people. Verses 11-16 of this chapter describe
the first animal sacrifice of Methuselah on the altar. Chapter 70
reveals the last days of Methuselah on the earth before his
death. The Lord again appeared to Methuselah in a night vision
and commanded him to pass his priesthood duties on to the second
son of his son Lamech - Nir. The text does not explain why the
Lord wanted to pass the priesthood to Nir, instead of Noah -
Lamech's firstborn son. The text just mentions that the people
answered on that request, "Let it be so for us, and let the
word of the Lord be just as he said to you." Further the
book tells that Methuselah invested Nir with the vestments of
priesthood in front of the face of all the people and "made
him stand at the head of altar."[xix]
As shown, 2 Enoch presents Melchizedek as a continuation
of the priestly line from Methuselah, son of Enoch, directly to
the second son of Lamech, Nir (brother of Noah), and on to
Melchizedek. 2 Enoch therefore considers Melchizedek as
the grandson of Lamech. This understanding of Melchizedek as the
continuation of the priestly line of descendants of Enoch has
interesting parallels in rabbinic literature.
In the Babylonian Talmud the following passage is found:
R. Zechariah said on R. Ishmael's authority: The Holy One,
blessed be He, intended to bring forth the priesthood from Shem,
as it is written, 'And he [Melchizedek] was the priest of the
most high God' (Gen 14:18). But because he gave precedence in his
blessing to Abraham over God, He brought it forth from Abraham;
as it is written, 'And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram
of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth, and blessed
be the most high God' (Gen 14:19). Said Abraham to him, 'Is the
blessing of a servant to be given precedence over that of his
master?' Straightway it [the priesthood] was given to Abraham, as
it is written (Ps 110:1), 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou
at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;'
which is followed by, 'The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek' (Ps
110:4), meaning, 'because of the word of Melchizedek.' Hence it
is written, And he was a priest of the most High God, [implying
that] he was a priest, but not his seed (Ned. 32b). [xx]
This identification of Melchizedek with Shem, son of Noah,
descendant of Methuselah and Lamech by Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha
was very popular in rabbinic literature.[xxi] We can find the origins of the
tradition from a very early time; identifying Melchizedek as Shem
can be found in the Targums,[xxii]
Aramaic renderings of the Hebrew Bible. Tg. Neof. on Gen
14:18 shows the exegetical development of this identification:
"And Melchisedech, king of Jerusalem - he is Shem the Great
- brought out bread and wine, for he was the priest who
ministered in the high priesthood before the most High God."[xxiii] The Tg.
Ps.-J. holds the similar exegetical position when it reads:
"... the righteous king - that is Shem, the son of Noah -
king of Jerusalem, went out to meet Abram, and brought him bread
and wine; at that time he was ministering before God Most
High."[xxiv]
Biblical chronology proves the possibility of the meeting of Shem
(Melchizedek) and Abraham after the defeat of the kings (Gen
14:17). According to Gen 11:10-26, Shem lived 500 years after the
birth of his first son Arphaxad. There were 290 years between the
birth of Arphaxad and the birth of Abram. When Abram was born,
Shem lived for another 210 years. According to Gen 25:7 Abraham
lived 175 years. Therefore Shem in fact outlived Abraham by 35
years.
Another important point in identification of Shem and Melchizedek
is the fact that the blessing of Shem in Gen 9:26 has distinct
parallels with the blessing which Melchizedek gives to Abraham.
Fred Horton proves that both blessings have some similarities
from "a formcritical standpoint."[xxv]
It is interesting to note several important similarities between
Targumic and rabbinic material and Melchizedek's portion of 2
Enoch.
a. 2 Enoch as well as Targumic and rabbinic sources tried
to put the genealogy of Melchizedek into the Semitic context of
Enoch's descendants. They endevoured to give this abstract and
ahistorical character of Genesis a certain historical location
and place him in the context of the pre-Deluge generation.
b. Both traditions are interested in the descriptions of the
priestly functions of Enoch's family.[xxvi]
2 Enoch has a lengthy account of Methuselah and Nir with
elaborated descriptions of their priestly and sacrificial duties
and practices. As Rubinstein notes, "it is hard to escape
the impression that the purpose of the account is to build up the
priestly antecedents of Melchizedek."[xxvii] The main point of the passage
from Ned. as well as from Gen. Rab. and Pirke R.
El. is the building up of the priestly antecedents of
Melchizedek (Shem) in the context of the transmission of this
priestly line to Abraham.
c. Both traditions are also interested in taking away the
priestly line from Enoch's historical descendants. Ned. 32b
stressed about Shem-Melchizedek, "he was priest; but not his
seed." Melchizedek's final translation to heaven at the end
of 2 Enoch also shows discontinuation of the historical
priestly line of Enoch's relatives. In the text, the Lord says:
"Melchizedek will be my priest to all priests,[xxviii] and I will
sanctify him and I will change him into a great people who will
sanctify me....Melchizedek will be the head of the priests in
another generation."[xxix]
d. Another important point, which can be found in observations of
the rabbinic and 2 Enoch sources, is that the text of the Slavonic
Enoch attempts to build an alternative to the traditional
rabbinic line from Methuselah's priestly vocation, which can be
some type of parallel to the official Noah-Shem line. The
important theological role in this shift is played by previously
unknown Nir, the young brother of Noah.[xxx]
We can see some sort of theological polemic by the author of 2
Enoch with traditional Judaic (Targumic, rabbinic) positions.
It shows that the traditional Judaic settings of the Oral Torah
about Melchizedek as Shem were very important and authoritative
for the audience of 2 Enoch even in the situation of their
rejection.
Noahitic Traditions
Our previous analysis of Shem traditions in the Melchizedek story
reveals also some references to the Noahitic tradition.[xxxi] A substitution of
the line Noah-Shem to the line Nir-Melchizedek shows that one of
the main targets of author's polemic in 2 Enoch is in fact
a Noah figure. It is not a coincidence that this sort of polemic
takes place in the Enochic narrative. From earliest Enochic
materials we can see the interdependence of Noahitic and Enochic
traditions. Kvanvig shows that in Noahitic traditions Noah and
Enoch often appear in the same roles.[xxxii]
The Slavonic Enoch in many ways is a continuation of this
tendency.
According to some scholars, Melchizedek's story in Slavonic
Enoch recalls some parallels with the birth of Noah[xxxiii] in the Genesis
Apocryphon of Qumran.[xxxiv]
In the Qumran text, Lamech is worried about the birth of Noah,
his son. Lamech suspects that his wife Bathenosh was unfaithful
to him and that "the conception was (the work) of the
Watchers and the pregnancy of the Holy Ones, and it belonged to
the Nephil[in]."[xxxv]
The story of the relationships between Lamech and Bathenosh found
in the Apocryphon is very similar to the story of the
relationships between Nir and Sophonim. However, there are some
essential differences between the texts. In the Qumran text the
wife of Lamech, in response to his angry questions, tries to
remind him of their intimacies - "Oh my brother and lord!
remember my sexual pleasure... [...] in the heat of intercourse,
and the gasping of my breath in my breast."[xxxvi] She swears that the seed was
indeed of Lamech: "I swear to you by the Great Holy One, by
the King of the hea[vens...]...[...] that this seed comes from
you, [...] and not from any foreigner nor from any of the
watchers or sons of heav[en]."[xxxvii]
On the other hand, in 2 Enoch Sothonim did not explain the
circumstances of the conception. She answered Nir: "O my
lord! Behold, it is the time of my old age, and there was not in
me any (ardor of) youth and I do not know how the indecency of my
womb has been conceived."[xxxviii]
However, some scholars draw attention to the fact that both texts
have similar features in this situation. Delcor affirms that the
phrase of Lamech in the beginning of the Apocryphon,
"Behold, then I thought in my heart that the conception was
the work of the Watchers and the pregnancy, of the Holy
Ones..." can be compared with the words of Noah in 2
Enoch spoken at the time of the examination of Melchizedek:
"This is of the Lord, my brother."[xxxix] An important supporting
detail here is the fact that the description of Enoch and his
descendants in Genesis Apocryphon shows a number of
interesting similarities with 2 Enoch's story.
Chapters 39-66 of 2 Enoch describe the instruction which
Enoch gave to his sons and the elders of the people during his
thirty day visit to the earth. The text makes clear that during
this visit Enoch is already an angelic being. In chapter 56 of 2
Enoch he says to his son: "Listen, my child! Since the
time when the Lord anointed me with the ointment of my glory, it
has been horrible for me, and food is not agreeable to me, and I
have no desire for earthly food."[xl]
Chapter 67 of 2 Enoch describes the final departure of
Enoch to heaven. The information about the transformed Enoch can
be found also in the Genesis Apocryphon. The text says
that when Methuselah knew about Lamech's suspicions he decided to
ask advise from Enoch. The Genesis Apocryphon continues
that "he (Methuselah) left for the higher level, to Parvaim,
and there he met Enoch, [his father...]."[xli] This reference to the
"higher level" can be considered as a hint for the
elevated status of the translated Enoch. Apocryphon
further tells that " He (Methuselah) said to Enoch, his
father: O my father and lord, to whom I have co[me...] [...] I
say to you: Do not be annoyed with me because I came here to
[...] you [...] fear (?) before you [...]."[xlii] Methuselah's fear before Enoch
is an additional supporting detail that he in fact met not a man,
but a heavenly being.
Another feature of 2 Enoch which shows some possible
connection between this text and the sectarian Judaism is the
issue of animal sacrifices. The description of animal sacrifices
occupies a very important place in the narrative of 2 Enoch.
In chapter 59, Enoch instructed Methuselah, his brothers - Regim,
Ariim, Akhazukhan, Kharimion - and the elders of all the people
how to perform animal sacrifices: "...he who brings a
sacrifice of clean beasts, it is healing, he heals his soul. And
he who brings a sacrifice of clean birds, it is healing, he heals
his soul. And everything which you have for food, bind it by four
legs[xliii]; there is
healing, he heals his soul. He who puts to death any animal
without binding it, it is an evil custom; he acts lawlessly with
his own soul."[xliv]
Further the book tells that right after the appointment of
Methuselah to the position of the priest he came up to the Lord's
altar "with all the people in procession behind him and he
stood in front of the altar with all the people...around the
altar...and ...the elders of the people,... taking sheep and oxen...tied
(their) four legs together, and placed (them) at the head of the
altar."[xlv] S.
Pines draws attention to this unique practice of tying together
four legs during animal sacrifices. He refers to a passage in the
Mishna (Tamid, 31b) which, according to the most probable
interpretation, states that each of the forelegs of the
sacrificial animal was tied to the corresponding hind leg and
declares that the tying together of all the four legs was
contrary to the tradition.[xlvi]
Pines gives one of the two explanations found in the Gemara of
the Babli that this expression of disapproval was due to the fact
that the customs of the heretics, minim, should not be imitated.[xlvii] The practice of
tying together all four legs had very strong sectarian meaning
for the authors of Mishnaic sacrificial prescriptions. In his
final conclusion, Pines suggests that "it may have been an
accepted rite of a sect, which repudiated the sacrificial customs
prevailing in Jerusalem. It might be conjectured that this sect
might have been the Essenes, whose sacrificial usage differed
according to the one reading of the passage of Josephus[xlviii] from those
practiced at the Temple."[xlix]
Sethian Traditions
Schlomo Pines' reference to sacrificial practices of
"minim," heretics, which were usually represented in
Jewish orthodox mindset as Jewish Gnostics,[l] necessitated further examination
of the relationship between the Melchizedek story of 2 Enoch
and some Gnostic traditions. One of the tractates of the Nag
Hammadi corpus, Melchizedek (further Melch.) deserves
special attention because it contains materials that echo certain
motifs in 2 Enoch's story.[li]
The text has a form of revelations given by heavenly
intermediaries to Melchizedek who communicates the revelations to
a privileged few, "the congregation (ejkklhsiva)
of [the] [children] of Seth (5:19-20)."[lii] According to scholars,[liii] Melch. has
important similar features with traditions associated with
Sethian gnosticism. It is possible that the author of the
tractate reworked some earlier Judaic Melchizedek's traditions
into gnostic Christian settings.[liv]
In spite of the fragmentary character of the tractate, there are
a number of important details which can be connected with
Melchizedek's story in 2 Enoch. Two features of the
Gnostic text are especially valuable. First, the author's use of
the phrase "the children of Seth" (5:20), and second,
his usage of the phrase "the [race] (gevnoß)
of the High priest (ajrciereuvß)
(6:17)."[lv]
These details seem to have certain parallels with Melchizedek's
narrative of 2 Enoch, which contains materials about
priestly functions of Seth. In chapter 72 of the shorter
recension of 2 Enoch, the following statement comes from
the lips of the Lord: "... and Melchizedek will be the head
of the priests in another generation as was Seth in this
generation."[lvi]
The author's familiarity with the traditions which exalted Seth
however become evident much earlier in chapter 33:10 where the
Lord promises to give Enoch an intercessor archangel Michael and
guardian angels Ariokh and Mariokh on account of his handwritings
and the handwritings of his fathers -- Adam and Seth.[lvii] Mentioning all
three traditions together shows that Sethian tradition has in the
eyes of 2 Enoch's author equal value to the tradition of
Adam and Enoch.
Melch. also gives an interesting list which includes Adam,
Enoch and Melchizedek.[lviii]
Birger Pearson suggests that "the list of biblical figures
mentioned in this passage, culminating with Melchizedek, may be
intended as a list of those heroes of the past who functioned as
priests."[lix]
Another important testimony to Sethian tradition is found in
chapter 71 where the author of 2 Enoch depicts a priestly
line which begins with Seth: "Therefore honor him
(Melchizedek) together with your servants and great priests, with
Seth, and with Enoch, and Maleleil, and Aamilam, and Phrasidam,
and with Maleleil, and with Rusif and with Enoch and with your
servant Nir..."[lx]
Through observing these testimonies to Sethian tradition there
are obvious similarities between Melch. and 2 Enoch.
Both stories emphasize priestly functions of Seth in their
connections with priestly functions of Melchizedek. It is
noteworthy that this emphasis on priestly role of Seth is a rare
motif in Sethian traditions. In the variety of Sethian
traditions, Seth is often pictured as an astrologer, a scribe, or
the head of a generation, but he is rarely viewed as a priest.[lxi]
From the other side despite these parallels,[lxii] there is a fundamental
divergence between Melch. and 2 Enoch. The purpose
of the author of Melch. is apparent -- to place
Melchizedek in the context of Sethian priestly authority. In
observations on the tractate, B. Pearson stresses that because of
the reference to the "children of Seth" (5:20), and the
parallel reference to the "race of the high priest"
(i.e. Melch., 6:17), it is possible that in Melch.,
the priest-savior Melchizedek is regarded as an earthly
incarnation of the heavenly Seth.[lxiii]
On the contrary, in 2 Enoch, however, there is an
established attempt to challenge the Sethian priestly line and
replace it with a new postdiluvian priestly authority of
Melchizedek.
Conclusion
The fragmentary character of our observations about the
Melchizedek legend does not allow the complete picture of
possible cultural, historical, or theological provenance of
Melchizedek's story in 2 Enoch to be considered. However,
some conclusions can be made at this stage of the research. These
conclusions focus on the problem of the hypothetical community
behind the Melchizedek narrative.
First, the Melchizedek portion demonstrates the interest in the
issues of priestly practice, succession and authority, which
occupies an important part in the eschatology of 2 Enoch;
Second, the material reflects complicated polemics with various
traditions of the priestly practice and the priestly succession
inside Judaism;
Third, the story of Melchizedek, this sacerdos in aeternum,
is used in 2 Enoch as well as in many other traditions as
the theological tool of legitimization of alternative priestly
authority (line);
Fourth, it is possible that in the text we can see a specific
attitude toward the priestly authority (hierocracy) connected
with the Temple in Jerusalem.[lxiv]
The important supporting detail here is naming the place of
sacrificial duties of Enoch's descendants as Achuzan.[lxv] This may also be
the main reason for the replacement of official priestly line
Noah-Shem to the line Nir-Melchizedek, as a legitimate background
for the new sectarian priestly authority;
Fifth, the Melchizedek material of 2 Enoch was probably
composed in a community which respected the authority of the
Jewish lore (the opinion about Enoch's ancestors as predecessors
of Melchizedek). This community might have had certain liturgical
and theological differences (sectarian biases) from the
mainstream of Second Temple Judaism;
Sixth, apparently, the community of 2 Enoch repudiated the
sacrificial customs prevailing in traditional Judaism (Jerusalem)
(the tying together of all the four legs of the animals during
the sacrifices);
Seventh, liturgical (priesthood's line) and exegetical (Noah,
Melchizedek) features of the Melchizedek portion of 2 Enoch
have certain similarities to the ideology of the Qumran community
(an alternative priestly line, exegesis of Noah, and
Melchizedek's story). It is evident, however, that the
ideological and theological settings of the document cannot be
explained solely by referring to the Qumran materials because of
an absence of major Judaic symbols and themes which occupied a
central place in the ideology of the Qumranites.
[i]
On different approaches to 2 Enoch see: I. D. Amusin, Kumranskaja
Obshchina (Moscow: Nauka, 1983); F. Andersen, "2
(Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday,
1985 [1983]) 1. 91-221; G. N. Bonwetsch, Das slavische
Henochbuch (AGWG, 1; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1896); G. N. Bonwetsch, Die Bücher der
Geheimnisse Henochs: Das sogenannte slavische Henochbuch (TU,
44; Leipzig, 1922); C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit,
Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch
(WUNT, R.2, 50; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992); C. Böttrich, Das
slavische Henochbuch (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus,
1995); C. Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung
zum slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1995); R. H. Charles, and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the
Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896); J. H.
Charlesworth, "The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen
and Paris on the Books of Enoch (Seminar Report)," NTS
25 (1979) 315-23; J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament. Prolegomena for the Study
of Christian Origins (SNTSMS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985); J. Collins, "The Genre of
Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," Apocalypticism in the
Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. Hellholm;
Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1983); L. Cry, "Quelques noms
d'anges ou d'ętres mystérieux en II Hénoch," RB 49
(1940) 195-203; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung
im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1978); A. S. D. Maunder, "The Date and Place of
Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch," The
Observatory 41 (1918) 309-316; N. Meshcherskij, "Sledy
pamjatnikov Kumrana v staroslavjanskoj i drevnerusskoj literature
(K izucheniju slavjanskih versij knigi Enoha)," Trudy
otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 19 (1963) 130-47; N.
Meshcherskij, "K voprosu ob istochnikah slavjanskoj knigi
Enoha," Kratkie soobshchenija Instituta narodov Azii
86 (1965) 72-8; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic
Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976);
H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York:
KTAV, 1973); A. Orlov, "The Origin of the Name 'Metatron'
and the Text of 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," JSP
(forthcoming); A. Orlov, "Titles of Enoch-Metatron in 2
Enoch," JSP 18 (1998) 73-89; S. Pines,
"Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book
of Enoch," Types of Redemption (ed. R. J. Zwi
Werblowsky; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970) 72-87; A. Rubinstein,
"Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch," JJS
15 (1962) 1-21; P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History
(JSPSS, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); A. De
Santos Otero, "Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc
eslavo)," Apócrifos del AT IV (ed. A. Díez Macho;
Madrid, 1984) 147-202; G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism,
Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic tradition (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1965); M. I. Sokolov,
"Materialy i zametki po starinnoj slavjanskoj literature.
Vypusk tretij, VII. Slavjanskaja Kniga Enoha Pravednogo. Teksty,
latinskij perevod i izsledovanie. Posmertnyj trud avtora
prigotovil k izdaniju M. Speranskij," Chtenija v
Obshchestve Istorii i Drevnostej Rossijskih (COIDR) 4 (1910);
M. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (2
vols; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 2, 406-8; A. Vaillant, Le
livre des secrets d'Hénoch: Texte slave et traduction française
(Paris: Institut d'Etudes Slaves, 1952; repr. Paris, 1976); J.
VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia:
University of South Carolina, 1995).
[ii] On Melchizedek's
traditions and Melchizedek in 2 Enoch see: I. Amusin,
"Novyj eshatologicheskij tekst iz Kumrana
(11QMelchizedek)," Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3 (1967)
45-62; I. Amusin, Teksty Kumrana (Pamjatniki pis'mennosti
vostoka, 33/1; Moscow: Nauka, 1971); V. Aptowitzer,
"Malkizedek. Zu den Sagen der Agada," Monatschrift
für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 70 (1926)
93-113; A. Caquot, "La pérennité du sacerdoce," Paganisme,
Judaďsme, Christianisme (Paris: E. De Boccard, 1978) 109-16;
De Jonge, M. and Van der Woude, A. S., "11QMelchizedek and
the New Testament," NTS 12 (1965-6) 301-26; M.
Delcor, "Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran texts and
the Epistle to the Hebrews," JSJ 2 (1971) 115-35; F.
du Toit Laubscher, "God's Angel of Truth and Melchizedek. A
note on 11 Q Melh 13b," JSJ (1972) 46-51; J.
Fitzmyer, "Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave
11," Essays on the Semitic Background of the New
Testament (SBLSBS, 5; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974)
245-67; J. Gammie, "Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of
Gen. 14:18-20," JBL 90 (1971) 385-96; F. García
Martínez, "4Q Amram B 1:14; ?Melkiresa o Melki-sedeq?"
RevQ 12 (1985) 111-14; C. Gianotto, Melchizedek e la sua
tipologia: Tradizioni giudiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec II
a.C.-sec.III d.C) (SrivB, 12; Paideia, 1984); I. Gruenwald,
"The Messianic Image of Melchizedek," Mahanayim
124 (1970) 88-98 (in Hebrew); F. Horton, The Melchizedek
Tradition; A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth
Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS, 30;
Cambridge/London/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University, 1976);
P. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchires7a;
(CBQMS, 10; Washington: The Catholic Biblical
Association of America, 1981); O. Michel,
"Melchizedek," TDNT 4 (1967) 568-71; B. Pearson,
"The Figure of Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the
Unpublished Coptic-Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi,"
Proceedings of the XIIth International Congress of the
International Association for the History of Religion
(Supplements to Numen, 31; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 200-8; B.
Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); J. Petuchowski, "The
Controversial Figure of Melchizedek," HUCA 28 (1957)
127-36; H. Rowley, "Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps
110)," Festschrift für Alfred Bertholet zum 80.
Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950) 461-72; M. Simon,
"Melchisédech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens
et dans la légende," Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie
Religieuses (1937) 58-93; R. Smith, "Abram and
Melchizedek (Gen. 14, 18-20)," Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft LXXXVII (1965), 129-53; H.
Stork, Die sogenannten Melchizedekianer mit Untersuchungen
ihrer Quellen auf Gedankengehalt und dogmengeschichtliche
Entwicklung (Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, 8/2;
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1928); G. Vajda, "Melchisédec dans la
mythologie ismaélienne," Journal Asiatique 234
(1943-1945) 173-83; G. Wuttke, Melchisedech der Priesterkönig
von Salem: Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Exegese (BZNW, 5;
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1927).
[iii] Cf. R. H. Charles
and W. R. Morfill., The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896); G. N. Bonwetsch, Das
slavische Henochbuch (AGWG, 1; Berlin, 1896).
[iv] Horton, The
Melchizedek Tradition, 81.
[v] Andersen, 92.
[vi] Nir (Nir).
There were a number of attempts to interpret this enigmatic name.
One of them was Vaillant's hypothesis that Slavonic
"Nir" equals Semitic rn,
and can be taken in its etymological sense as "light."
He supports his opinion by referring to Ethiopic Enoch, since
Nir, the brother of Noah, is in 2 Enoch a
"dedoublement" of Noah, who was described as the wonder
child in 1 Enoch 106. Vaillant, xii. Vaillant's argument
probably refers to the "light-like appearence" of Noah
in Ethiopic Enoch: "His eyes are like the rays of the sun,
and his face glorious" (106:5). The hypothesis has many weak
points. Rubinstein shows the difficulty of this explanation,
because the "dedoublement" of Noah in Slavonic Enoch
is related to the description of Melchizedek, not Nir (see our
discussion about Noah-Melchizedek's birth). Rubinstein also
stresses that there is nothing miraculous about Nir in 2 Enoch
and he (Nir) can be described as a "sacerdotal drudge."
Rubinstein, Observations, 17-18. Rubinstein notes a remote
possibility that the name of Nir was chosen with an eye to the
figurative use of the term rn in
the Old Testament for the description of "dominion" of
David's descendants. He further suggests that "it is not
impossible that an oral exegesis of the Melchizedek legend in Slavonic
Enoch somehow connected Melchizedek and Nir with Davidic
descent, though the fact that Nir is only said to have adopted
Melchizedek is an obvious difficulty." Rubinstein,
Observations, 18. Finally, J. Milik argues that Nir
"certainly means 'luminary,' because the author of 2
Enoch doubtless drew on the name of the wife of Noah, Nwriva, meaning 'Fire of God'."
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 115. In my opinion, one more
possible explanation of the name Nir can be suggested. This
interpretation can be connected with the meaning of Nir as
"clearing, breaking ground or earth." M. Jastrow in his
dictionary defines ryn as
"to break ground," "to clear." Cf. M.
Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Judaica
Press, 1985) 909. According to Jastrow it can mean "new
broken land' in some instances. In 2 Enoch the destiny of
Nir is connected with "clearing of the Earth." The Lord
told him that He planned "to send down a great destruction
on the earth." Nir is the last priest before the great
destruction of the Flood. At the very end of 2 Enoch, Nir
says: "For I know indeed that this race will end in
confusion, and everyone will perish, except that Noah, my
brother, will be preserved in that generation for
procreation." Nir is indeed the man who beheld the future
"clearing, breaking down" of the earth, therefore it is
possible that his name reflects this coming situation.
[vii] Nira syna Lamehova vtorago.
Vaillant, 72.
[viii] Sofonim, Sofonima. Rubinstein tries
to connect this proper name with the facts of Sothonim's
biography. He draws attention to the details of the story:
Sothonim who had been described earlier as old and on the point
of death, falls dead at Nir’s feet and while Nir is away,
having gone to inform Noah of Sothonim’s death, the infant
Melchizedek emerges from her body. Rubinstein believes that it is
highly probable that the author of 2 Enoch had in mind the
story of Benjamin’s birth in Gen 35:18. Rachel travailed,
and had a difficult labor and as her soul was departing ... she
called his name Ben-oni..., i.e. the son of my sorrow. Rubinstein
further suggests that the name Sothonim may well mean "the
end of afflictions," "the end of sorrows" - in
Hebrew, µynwa _ws - symbolic of
Sothonim’s release from the feelings of shame and sorrow
during her pregnancy and her dispute with Nir. Cf. Rubinstein,
Observations, 18.
[ix] vo vremja starosti. Vaillant, 74.
[x] v den' smerti. Vaillant, 74.
[xi] Certain
parallels with the birth of Jesus were discussed by scholars.
Andersen concludes that "it is certainly not an imitation of
the account of Jesus' birth found in Matthew and Luke... No
Christian could have developed such a blasphemy." Andersen,
97.
[xii] Professor Ben
Zion Wacholder in his kind letter to me suggested an interesting
interpretation of the name Sothonim. He mentioned that the
phonetic pattern of the name could be traced to the Hebrew word µynwpx, hidden or mysteries. The
hypothesis is supported by the fact that Sothonim hid herself
from Nir during days of her pregnancy.
[xiii] Melhisedek.
[xiv] Pechat'
svjatitel'stva.
Vaillant, 78.
[xv] In the longer
recension - Michael,
[xvi] The
preservation of Melchizedek as protection against the
unrighteousness of the world reveals an interesting parallel to
the Qumranic term afçq sdrp -
"paradise of righteousness."
[xvii] Mefusalom, Mefousal.
[xviii] Achouzan. The text of 2 Enoch
defines this place as the center of the world, "the place
Achuzan, i.e. in the center of the world, where Adam was
created." Vaillant, 116. Compare with Ezek 48:20-1 where the
Hebrew word hzja "special
property of God" applies to Jerusalem and the Temple. Cf.
Milik, The Books of Enoch, 114; Böttrich, Weltweisheit,
Menschheitsethik, Urkult, 195.
[xix] Andersen,
197-203.
[xx] The
Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nedarim (London: Soncino Press,
1936) 98-9.
[xxi] Two other
rabbinic evidences that attest Melchizedek as Shem include Pirke
R. El. and Gen. Rab. Pirke R. El. has two
references to Melchizedek-Shem. The first reference occurs in the
passage dedicated to the handling of the tradition of
intercalation among the Patriarchs. The text says that "Noah
handled on the tradition to Shem, and he was initiated in the
principle of intercalation; he intercalated the years and he was
called a priest, as it is said, "And Melchizedek king of
Salem ... was a priest of God Most High" (Gen 14:18). Was
Shem the Son of Noah a priest? But because he was the first-born,
and because he ministered to his God by day and by night,
therefore was he called a priest." Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer.
Translated by Gerald Friedlander (New York: Hermon Press, 1965)
53. The second reference to Melchizedek-Shem in Pirke R. El. occurs
in the chapter 28 where we can find the following passage:
"Rabbi Joshua said: Abraham was the first to begin to give a
tithe. He took all the tithe of the kings and all the tithe of
the wealth of Lot, the son of his brother, and gave (it) to Shem,
the Son of Noah, as it is said, 'And he gave him a tenth of
all.'" Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. Translated by Gerald
Friedlander (New York: Hermon Press, 1965) 195.
Gen. Rab. gives a very interesting interpretation to the
fear of Abram after his meeting with Melchizedek. It says:
"Fear not, Abram. Whom did he fear? Rabbi Berekiah said: He
feared Shem (whose descendants, viz. Chedorlaomer and his sons,
Abraham had slain), as it is written, 'The isles saw, and feared'
(Isa 41:5): just as islands stand out in the sea, so were Abraham
and Shem outstanding in the world. And feared: Each one feared
the other. The former (Abraham) feared the latter, thinking,
Perhaps he nurses resentment against me for slaying his sons. And
the latter (Shem) feared the former, thinking, Perhaps he nurses
resentment against me for begetting wicked offspring." Midrash
Rabbah (10 vols.; London: Soncino Press, 1961) 1,365. This
passage shows that not only was Melchizedek Shem, but the four
kings of the Elamite opposition were sons of Shem.
[xxii] Only the Tg.
Onq. does not mention Shem in connection with Melchizedek.
The interesting fact here is that Tg. Onq. is the only
targum which also shows a negative attitude toward Enoch:
"and Enoch walked in reverence of the Lord, then he was no
more, for the Lord has caused him to die (Gen. 5,24)." B.
Grossfeld (tr.), The Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Aramaic
Bible, 6; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988) 52.
[xxiii] M. McNamara
(tr.), Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 1A;
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992) 92.
[xxiv] M. Maher
(tr.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 1B;
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992) 58.
[xxv] Horton, 117.
[xxvi] Sacchi notes
that the Melchizedek story in 2 Enoch gives "the
impression of a work that develops an Enochic priestly tradition
in the midst of the problems of first-century Jewish thought,
with particular reference to the relation between the function of
Enoch and those of Melchizedek." Cf. P. Sacchi, Jewish
Apocalyptic and Its History, 234-5.
[xxvii] Rubinstein,
5.
[xxviii] Andersen
notices that this detail is one more piece of evidence against
Christian authorship of 2 Enoch. He says that "the
fantastic details about this priest conflict with Christian
belief in Jesus as God's sole legitimate priest in heaven."
Andersen, 96.
[xxix] Andersen, 209.
[xxx] This
substitution of Nir for Noah could be also viewed as a polemic
with Noahitic tradition. See our analysis of Noahitic tradition.
[xxxi] On Noahitic
traditions see: L. Bailey, Noah: the Person and the Story in
History and Tradition (Columbia, South Carolina: University
of South Carolina, 1989); F. García Martínez, Qumran and
Apocalyptic (STDJ, 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 24-44; J. Lewis, A
Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and
Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1968); J. Reeves,
"Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?" JBL 12
(1993) 110-15; J. VanderKam, "The Righteousness of
Noah," Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms (eds. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg;
SBLSCS, 12; Chico: Scholars Press, 1980); J. VanderKam, "The
Birth of Noah," Intertestamental Essays in Honor of Josef
Tadeusz Milik (ed. Z. J. Kapera; Qumranica Mogilanensia, 6;
Krakow: The Enigma Press, 1992) 213-31.
[xxxii] H. Kvanvig,
Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch
Figure and the Son of Man (WMANT, 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 117.
[xxxiii] Another
similar motif in the Noahitic traditions is the story of Noah's
birth in 1 Enoch 106, who appears also as a marvellous
child. The story in 1 Enoch 106-7 says: "And after
(some) days my son Methuselah took for his son Lamech a wife, and
she became pregnant by him and bore a son. And his body was white
like snow and red like the flower of a rose, and the hair of his
head (was) white like wool...and his eyes (were) beautiful; and
when he opened his eyes, he made the whole house bright like the
sun so that the whole house was exceptionally bright. And when he
was taken from the hand of the midwife, he opened his mouth and
spoke to the Lord of Righteousness. And his father Lamech was
afraid of him and fled and went to his father Methuselah. And he
said to him: 'I have begotten a strange son; he is not like a
man, but is like the children of the angels of heaven, of a
different type, and not like us. And his eyes (are) like the rays
of the sun, and his face glorious. And it seems to me that he is
not sprung from me, but from angels.'" M. Knibb, The
Ethiopic Book of Enoch (2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1978) 2,244-45.
[xxxiv] M. Delcor,
"Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the
Epistle to the Hebrews." JSJ 2 (1971) 129; G. W. E.
Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the
Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 185.
[xxxv] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997)
1,29.
[xxxvi] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition, 1,29.
[xxxvii] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition, 1,29-31.
[xxxviii] Andersen,
205.
[xxxix] Delcor, 129.
[xl] Andersen, 183.
[xli] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition, 1,31.
[xlii] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition, 1,31.
[xliii] svœ'ete e po hetyre nogi (svjaz7ete e po chetyre nogi).
Vaillant, 58.
[xliv] Andersen, 185.
[xlv] Andersen, 199.
[xlvi] Pines, 74-75.
[xlvii] Pines, 75.
[xlviii] Ant,
XVIII, 18.
[xlix] Pines, 75.
[l] G. Scholem, Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1991),
359.
[li] The issue of
possible connections between the Nag Hammadi texts and the
Enochic tradition can be clarified by reference to some patristic
materials. As we know, the place of discovery of the Nag Hammadi
library was close to the former site of the Pachomian monastery
at Chenoboskion. The following condemnation of the
"apocryphal books" was made by patriarch Athanasius and
recorded in the Pachomian Lives: "Who has made the
simple folk believe that these books belong to Enoch even though
no scriptures existed before Moses?" Cit. in D. Brakke,
Athanasius and the Politics of Ascetism (Oxford, 1995) 330.
[lii] Birger A.
Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X (NHS, 15;
Leiden: Brill, 1981) 51.
[liii] Birger A.
Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 36.
[liv] Pearson
stresses the fact that Jewish apocalyptic elements are prominent
in Melch. He argues that "it might be suggested that Melch.
is a Jewish-Christian product containing an originally
pre-Christian Melchizedek speculation overlaid with Christian
christological re-interpretation." Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag
Hammadi Codices IX and X, 34.
[lv]Birger A. Pearson
(ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 53.
[lvi] "i Melkisedek boude glava iereem v rode tom
yako z7e bo mi Sif v rode sem." Cf. Manuscripts [B]
and [Rum] in: M.I. Sokolov, "Materialy i zametki po
starinnoj slavjanskoj literature. Vypusk tretij, VII.
Slavjanskaja Kniga Enoha Pravednogo. Teksty, latinskij perevod i
izsledovanie. Posmertnyj trud avtora prigotovil k izdaniju M.
Speranskij," Chtenija v Obshchestve Istorii i Drevnostej
Rossijskih (COIDR) 4 (1910) 106 and 155.
[lvii] Andersen, 157.
[lviii] "...of
Adam [Abel], Enoch, [Noah] you, Melchizedek, [the Priest] of God
[Most High] (12:7-11)." Birger A. Pearson (ed.), Nag
Hammadi Codices IX and X, 63.
[lix] Birger A.
Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 25. Pearson
supports his hypothesis by referring to the list of priests in
the Hellenistic-Jewish synagogue prayer quoted in Const. Ap.
VIII.5.3, which includes Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, and
Melchizedek.
[lx] Manuscript [B].
Cf. M.I. Sokolov, "Materialy i zametki po starinnoj
slavjanskoj literature. Vypusk tretij, VII. Slavjanskaja Kniga
Enoha Pravednogo. Teksty, latinskij perevod i izsledovanie.
Posmertnyj trud avtora prigotovil k izdaniju M. Speranskij,"
COIDR 4 (1910) 106.
[lxi] On the figure
of Seth and Sethian traditions cf. A. Klijn, Seth in Jewish,
Christian and Gnostic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1977); R.
Kraft, "Philo on Seth: Was Philo Aware of Traditions Which
Exalted Seth and His Progeny?" The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; Supplements to Numen, XLI; Leiden:
Brill, 1981) 457-8; G. MacRae, "Seth in Gnostic Texts and
Traditions," in SBLSP 11 (1977) 24-43; B. Pearson,
"The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature," The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; Supplements to
Numen, XLI; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 472-504; M. Stone, "Report
on Seth traditions in the Armenian Adam Books," The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism (ed. B. Layton; Supplements to
Numen, XLI; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 459-71.
[lxii] Several
additional parallels between 2 Enoch and Melch.,
which were noticed by Pearson should also be mentioned. According
to Pearson's hypothesis in both texts Melchizedek appears in
several historical manifestations. Pearson rightly observes that
in Slavonic Enoch Melchizedek "has three different
manifestations: miraculously born before the Flood, serving in
the post-diluvian age as a great priest, and functioning as a
priest in the end-time, i.e. in messianic capacity." Birger
A. Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 30.
Pearson also notes that in Melch. Melchizedek appears in
several roles: "as ancient priest and recipient of heavenly
revelations of the eschatological future, and as eschatological
savior-priest identified with Jesus Christ." Birger A.
Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 20.
According to Pearson, another parallel between 2 Enoch and
Melch. is that both texts belong to the genre
"apocalypse." Pearson notes that Melch.
"satisfies the generic requirements of an apocalypse: it is
pseudonymous, attributed to a biblical hero of the past, and
contains purported prophecies of future events given by an
angelic informant, as well as secrets pertaining to the heavenly
world, presumably in a visionary experience." Birger A.
Pearson (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X, 20.
[lxiii] B. Pearson,
"The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature," The
Rediscovery of Gnosticism, 498.
[lxiv] The question
of the relationship between 2 Enoch and the temple in
Leontopolis remains open. A possible Alexandrian provenance of Slavonic
Enoch could give additional support to this hypothesis. Cf.
Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen
Diasporajudentum, 40-41; Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in
Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993) 42-5. On the relationship between
Leontopolis, Jerusalem and Qumran see: J. Collins, The
Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Missoula: University
of Montana, 1974) 48-55; R. Hayward, "The Jewish Temple at
Leontopolis: A Reconsideration," JJS 33 (1982)
429-43; S. Steckoll, "Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple
of Leontopolis," RevQ 6 (1967) 55-69.
[lxv] It is
interesting to note that the text specifies the place of the
future priestly vocation of Melchizedek - "He, Melchizedek
will be a priest and a king on the place Achuzan, i.e. the center
of the world, where Adam was created." Vaillant, 116.
*pdf file of the original article