Andrei A. Orlov
"NOAH'S YOUNGER BROTHER": THE ANTI-NOACHIC POLEMICS
IN 2 ENOCH [1]
[The paper was presented on the Pseudepigrapha Group, AAR/SBL
Annual Meeting, November, 2000. Published in: Henoch 22.2
(2000) 207-221]
In recent years there has been a growing number of
publications devoted to Noachic traditions. [2] Even though the book
of Noah is not listed in the ancient catalogues of the apocryphal
books,[3] the writings
attributed to Noah are mentioned in such early materials as the Book
of Jubilees (Jub. 10:13[4]
and Jub. 21:10[5]),
the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran,[6] and the Greek fragment of the Levi
document from Mount Athos.[7]
In addition to the titles of the lost Noah's book, several
fragmentary materials associated with the early Noachic
traditions have survived. Most researchers agree that some parts
of the lost book of Noah "have been incorporated into 1
Enoch and Jubilees and that some manuscripts of Qumran[8] preserve some traces
of it."[9]
A large bulk of the survived Noachic fragments is associated with
Enochic materials. This association points to an apparent unity
behind the "Enoch-Noah's axis." In some Pseudepigrapha
texts, "the words of Noah" often follow closely
"the words of Enoch." From the earliest Enochic
materials we can see this interdependence between Noachic and
Enochic traditions. H. Kvanvig points out that in Noachic
traditions Noah and Enoch often appear in the same roles.[10]
In some Enochic writings, however, this long-lasting unity of
Enoch and Noah appears to be broken for some reasons. They ignore
the "Enoch-Noah axis" and show fierce theological
polemics against Noah and the traditions associated with his
name. One of the Pseudepigrapha texts which attests to such
uncommon criticisms against Noah is 2 Enoch.[11] The purpose of this
article is to investigate these anti-Noachic tendencies in the
Slavonic text of 2 Enoch. In our further analysis we will
examine certain features of Noah's story which come under attack
in these polemics.
Noah's Sacrifices
Gen 8:20 pictures Noah's animal sacrifice after his debarkation.
It may be the first account of an animal sacrifice on the altar
found in the Bible. Although Abel's animal offerings are
mentioned in Gen 4:4, these sacrifices did not establish any
significant sacrificial pattern for future generations.[12] Until Noah, the
Bible does not attest to any ongoing tradition of animal
sacrifices. When Jub. mentions the offerings of Adam and
Enoch, it refers to them as incense sacrifices.[13]
Noah thus can be regarded as the originator of the official
ongoing tradition of animal sacrifices. He is also the first
person to have received from the Lord the commandment about the
blood. As M. Stone observes, Noah's connection to the sacrificial
cult and to instructions concerning the blood was not accidental.[14]
In 2 Enoch, however, the role of Noah as a pioneer of
animal sacrificial practice is challenged by a different story.
We learn in this text that immediately after Enoch's instructions
to his sons during his short visit to the earth and his ascension
to the highest heaven, the firstborn son of Enoch, Methuselah,
and his brothers, the sons of Enoch, constructed an altar at
Achuzan,[15] the
place[16] where Enoch
had been taken up. In 2 Enoch, chapter 69 the Lord
appeared to Methuselah in a night vision and appointed him the
priest before the people. Verses 11-16 of this chapter describe
the first animal sacrifice of Methuselah on the altar. The texts
says that the people brought sheep, oxen, and birds (all of which
have been inspected) for Methuselah to sacrifice them before the
face of the Lord.[17]
Further, the text gives an elaborate description of the
sacrificial ritual during which Methuselah slaughters with a
knife, "in the required manner," sheep and oxen placed
at the head of the altar.[18]
All these sheep and oxen, of course, are tied according to the
sectarian instructions given by Enoch earlier in the book. It is
apparent that Methuselah's role in the animal sacrificial
practice conflicts with the canonical role of Noah as the
originator of animal sacrificial tradition.
The text[19] poses a
more intensive challenge to Noah's unique place in the
sacrificial tradition by indicating that before his death
Methuselah passes his priestly/sacrificial duties to the younger
brother of Noah--the previously unknown Nir. Chapter 70 of 2
Enoch recounts the last days of Methuselah on earth before
his death. The Lord appeared to Methuselah in a night vision and
commanded him to pass his priesthood duties on to the second son
of Lamech, Methuselah's grandson Nir. The text does not explain
why the Lord wanted to pass the priesthood to Nir instead of Noah
(Lamech's[20]
firstborn son), [21] even though Noah is also
mentioned in the dream. The text only tells about the response of
the people to 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 before the face of all the people and "made him
stand at the head of the altar."[22]
He also taught him "everything that he would have to do
among the people."[23]
The text offers a detailed description of Nir's sacrifice during
which he commanded people to bring sheep, bulls, turtledoves, and
pigeons. People brought them and tied them up at the head of the
altar. Then Nir took the sacrificial knife and slaughtered them
in the front of the face of the Lord.[24]
The important detail here is that immediately following the
sacrifice the text offers the formula in which the Lord is
proclaimed to be the God of Nir. This title apparently stresses
the patriarchal authority of Nir: "and all people made merry
in front of the face of the Lord, and on that day they glorified
the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, (the God) of Nir"[25] 70:21-22.[26]
Noah as an Originator of Sacrificial Instruction
The teaching about sacrifices comes from ancient times and is
connected with Noah both in Jub. 21 and in the Levi
document (Mount Athos) §57.[27]
Jub. 21:10 refers to the sacrificial traditions written
"in the words of Enoch and in the words of Noah."[28] The first part of
this statement about Enoch as the originator of sacrificial
instruction fully agrees with 2 Enoch's story. The
text offers a lengthy account of Enoch's sacrificial
prescriptions to his sons during his short visit to the earth.
These instructions have a form of sacrificial halakhot. The
halakhic character of these commands is reinforced by the
specific Slavonic vocabulary which employs the term zakon' ("law")
in reference to these sacrificial regulations. The text stresses
that "he who puts to death any animal without binding it, it
is an evil law, [29] he acts lawlessly[30] with his own
soul." Clearly, the passage speaks not about secular legal
prescriptions, but about the halakhic precepts. The Slavonic word
zakon' commonly used to denote a binding custom or a rule
of conduct in the community, in some instances, carries forward a
much more restricted, technical meaning: it sometimes refers to
the Mosaic Law and serves as an alternate designation for
"halakha." [31]
Enoch's sacrificial precepts occupy an important place in the
narrative of 2 Enoch. Some of these sacrificial rules,
however, have an apparent sectarian flavor. In chapter 59, Enoch
offers Methuselah, as well as his brothers--Regim, Ariim,
Akhazukhan, Kharimion--and the elders of all the people, some
instructions in animal sacrifices. These halakhot include the
following guidelines:
1. Enoch commands his sons to use clean beasts in their
sacrifices. According to his prescriptions, "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."[32]
2. Enoch teaches his sons that they should not touch an ox
because of the "outflow."[33]
3. Enoch's prescriptions address the issue of the atoning
sacrifices. He suggests that "a person bring one of the
clean animals to make a sacrifice on account of sin, so that he
may have healing for his soul."[34]
Although the blood is not mentioned in these sacrificial
prescriptions of Enoch, the text uses extensively the term
"an animal soul." Enoch commands his sons to be
cautious in dealing with animal souls, because those souls will
accuse man in the day of judgment.[35]
4. Enoch also teaches his sons to bind sacrificial animals by
four legs:
... 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[36];
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.[37]
S. Pines draws attention to this unique practice of tying
together four legs during animal sacrifices. On the basis of a
passage in the Mishna (Tamid, 31b) which states that each
of the forelegs of the sacrificial animal was tied to the
corresponding hind leg, Pines notes that the tying together of
all four legs was contrary to the tradition.[38] Pines gives one of the two
explanations found in the Gemara of the Babli that this
disapproval sought to prevent the immitation the customs of the
heretics, minim[39]
(the authors of Mishnaic sacrificial prescriptions considered the
practice of tying together all four legs to have strong sectarian
overtones). 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[40]
from those practiced at the Temple."[41]
As we can see, 2 Enoch depicts Enoch as the originator of
the sacrificial instruction. Although some of these instructions
are not necessarily canonical, the role of Enoch in the
sacrificial tradition fully agrees with Jub. 21:10a. On
the other hand, 2 Enoch is completely silent about Noah's
role in these sacrificial instructions. He is refered to neither
as the originator of these instructions nor as their
practitioner. While the text speaks several times about the
future role of Noah as a "procreator" of the
postdiluvian race,[42]
it is silent about his place in the priestly/sacrificial
tradition. We might expect that Noah, then, will have an
opportunity to do his part after the Flood, but the text, leaves
out any significant role for Noah in the postdiluvian
priestly/sacrificial tradition. The duty of the priestly
successor is given to Nir's "son" - Melchisedek, who
"will be the head of the priests"[43] in the postdiluvian generation.
Noah's role is less prominent. According to the Slavonic
Enoch, he "will be preserved in that generation for
procreation."[44]
Noah and Divine Revelations
In the Bible and the Pseudepigrapha, Noah is portrayed as a
recipient of divine revelations, given to him both before and
after the Flood. In Gen 6:13-21 and Gen 7:1-5, God speaks to Noah
about the Deluge and the construction of the ark. The evidence
for the direct communication between God and Noah is further
supported by 1 Enoch 67, Jub. 5, and the Genesis
Apocryphon 6-7. According to the Pseudepigrapha, Noah also
enjoys various angelic revelations. In 1 Enoch 10:1-3, an
angel Asuryal warns Noah about the upcoming destruction of the
earth. Jub. 10:1-14 records an angelic revelation to Noah
about evil spirits and healing herbs which he wrote in a book and
gave to Shem, his oldest son.[45]
Scholars also believe that in 1 Enoch 60 it is Noah who
was described as a visionary.[46]
These traditions depict Noah as the chosen vessel of divine
revelation who alone found favor in the sight of the Lord[47] in the antediluvian
turmoil.
These details and emphases on the direct communication between
the Lord and Noah are challenged by the information about Noah
found in 2 Enoch. As has been shown earlier, in the Slavonic
Enoch Noah keeps a low profile. Although Noah is the
firstborn of Lamech, he is portrayed as a family man, a helper to
his prominent younger brother Nir, who assists him during the
troubles with Sothonim and Melchisedek. While Nir is a priest
surrounded by the crowds of people, Noah is a timid relative
whose activities are confined to the circle of his family. After
Melchisedek's situation was settled, Noah quietly "went away
to his own place."[48]
In contrast to this modest role of Noah, Methuselah and Nir are
pictured as priests of the Lord who have dreams/visions in which
the Lord gives them important instructions about priestly
successions and future events. It sharply contrasts with the
absence of any indication of the direct revelations of the Lord
to Noah. [49] We therefore learn about the
Flood and Noah's role in it from Methuselah[50] and Nir's dreams.
In 2 Enoch chapter 70 the Lord appears to Methuselah in a
night vision. The Lord tells him that the earth will perish but
Noah, the firstborn son of his son Lamech, will be preserved in
order that "another world rise up from his seed."[51] The account of the
Lord's revelation to Methuselah about the Flood and Noah in 2
Enoch 70:4-10 might belong to the "original"
Noachic tradition. It shows some similarities to the account of
Enoch's revelation to Methuselah in 1 Enoch 106:15-19. The
affinities, however, should not be exaggerated.
A symmetrical parallel to Methuselah's dream in 2 Enoch
70:4-10 is Nir's night vision in 71:27-30. In this short dream,
which also describes in almost identical terms[52] the future destruction of the
earth, one important detail is missing. Noah is absent from this
revelation,[53] and
his place is now occupied by Melchisedek, who according to the
Lord will not perish during the Flood but will be the head of the
priests in the future.[54]
This revision which substitutes one surviver of the Flood for
another fits perfectly in the pattern of antiNoachic polemics of
the Slavonic Enoch. The important role of Noah as the
"bridge" between the antediluvian and postdiluvian
worlds is openly challenged.
Noah as a Bridge over the Flood
M. Stone stresses that "the sudden clustering of works
around Noah indicates that he was seen as a pivotal figure in the
history of humanity, as both an end and a beginning."[55] He also points out
that the Pseudepigrapha from Qumran, which ascribe the priestly
teaching to Noah, stress Noah's role as the "bridge"
between the ante- and postdiluvian worlds.[56]
In the Pseudepigrapha Noah carries the priestly tradition through
the Flood. Jub. pictures Noah and his sons as priests.
Targumic and Rabbinic traditions also attest to the priestly
functions of Noah's family. The canonical emphasis on the role of
Noah in the sacrificial practice has been mentioned earlier.
In 2 Enoch, however, this function of Noah as a vessel of
the priestly tradition over the Flood[57]
is seriously undermined by Melchisedek--the child predestined to
survive the Flood in order to become the priest to all priests in
the postdiluvian generation. This story is repeated in the text
several times during the Lord's revelations to Nir and to
archangel Gabriel.[58]
In chapter 71 the Lord appeared to Nir in a night vision. He
tells Nir that the child Melchisedek will be placed by the
archangel in the paradise of Eden where he can survive the
destruction of the earth in order to become the priest to all
priests after the Flood.[59]
Further, in chapter 72 the Lord commands his archangel Gabriel to
take Melchisedek and place him in the paradise for preservation,
so that he becomes "the head of the priests" in the
postdiluvian generation.[60]
In the midst of the antiNoachic polemic, Noah himself recognizes
the future priesthood of Melchisedek and surrenders his own and
his descendents' priestly right to this child. From 71:20-21 we
learn that when Noah saw the child Melchisedek with the badge of
priesthood on his chest, he said to Nir: "Behold, God is
renewing the continuation of the blood of the priesthood after
us."[61]
The Birth of Noah
It has been shown that in the course of anti-Noachic polemics,
the elements of Noah's story are transformed and his traditional
roles are given to other characters. It is therefore no surprise
to see that some details of Noah's birth in 2 Enoch are
transferred to a new hero--the future postdiluvian priest,
Melchisedek.
The birth of Noah occupies an important place in the Noachic
traditions. In 1 Enoch 106-107 and in the Genesis
Apocryphon 2-5, Noah is portrayed as a wonder-child. 1
Enoch pictures him with a glorious face and eyes like the
rays of the sun. He was born fully developed; and as he was taken
away from the hand of the midwife, he spoke to the Lord. These
extraordinary qualities of the wonder-child lead his father
Lamech to suspect that Noah's birth was angelic in origin.
In the context of antiNoachic polemics of 2 Enoch, this
prominent part of Noah's biography finds its new niche. Here
again we have the polemical rewriting of the Noachic narrative
when the peculiar details of Noah's story are transferred to an
another character, namely, to Melchisedek.
Scholars noted previously that Melchisedek's birth in Slavonic
Enoch recalls some parallels with the birth of Noah in 1
Enoch and in the Genesis Apocryphon.[62] The Melchisedek narrative
occupies the last chapters of 2 Enoch. The content of the
story is connected with the family of Nir. Sothonim, the wife of
Nir, gave birth to a miraculous child "in her old age,"
right "on the day of her death." She conceived the
child, "being sterile" and "without having slept
with her husband." The book tells that Nir the priest had
not slept with her from the day that the Lord had appointed him
before the face of the people. Therefore, Sothonim hid herself
during all the days of her pregnancy. On the day she was to give
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. Melchisedek 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. The unusual child was marked by the sign of
priesthood. The story describes how "the badge of
priesthood" was on his chest, glorious in appearance. Nir
and Noah dressed the child in the garments of priesthood and 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 to take the child and place him in
"the paradise Eden," so that he might become the high
priest after the Flood. The final passages of the short recension
describe the ascent of Melchisedek on the wings of Gabriel to the
paradise Eden.
The details of Noah's birth correspond at several points with the
Melchisedek story:
1. Both Noah and Melchisedek belonged to the circle of Enoch's
family.
2. Both characters are attested as "survivors" of the
Flood.
3. Both characters have an important mission in the postdiluvian
era.
4. Both characters are pictured as glorious wonder children.
5. Immediately after their birth, both characters spoke to the
Lord.
1 Enoch 106:3 - "And when he (Noah) arose from the
hands of the midwife, he opened his mouth and spoke to the Lord
with righteousness."
2 Enoch 71:19 - "he (Melchisedek) spoke with his
lips, and he blessed the Lord."[63]
6. Both characters were suspected of the divine/angelic lineage.
M. Delcor affirms that Lamech's phrase in the beginning of the Genesis
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 uttered at the time of the examination of Melchisedek:
"This is of the Lord, my brother."[64]
7. Their fathers were suspicious of the conception of their sons
and the faithfulness of their wives.[65]
In the Genesis Apocryphon, Lamech is worried and
"frightened" 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]."[66]
The motif of Lamech's suspicion about the unfaithfulness of
Bathenosh found in the Genesis Apocryphon seems to
correspond to Nir's worry about the unfaithfulness of Sothonim:
"And Nir saw her, and he became very ashamed about her. And
he said to her, 'what is this that you have done, O wife? And why
have you disgraced me in the front of the face of all people? And
now, depart from me, go where you conceived the disgrace of your
womb.'"[67]
8. Their mothers were ashamed and tried to defend themselves
against the accusation of their husbands.
In the Genesis Apocryphon, the wife of Lamech responds to
the angry questions of her husband by reminding 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."[68]
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]."[69]
In 2 Enoch Sothonim does not explain the circumstances of
the conception. She answers 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."[70]
9. Their fathers were eventually comforted by the special
revelation about the prominent future role of their sons in the
postdiluvian era.
It is noteworthy that this information is given in both cases in
the context of the revelation about the destruction of the earth
by the Flood.
1 Enoch 106:16-18 - "And this son who has been born
unto you shall be left upon the earth, and his three sons shall
be saved when they who are upon the earth are dead."
2 Enoch 71:29-30 - "And this child will not perish
along with those who are perishing in this generation, as I have
revealed it, so that Melchisedek will be ...the head of the
priests of the future."[71]
One cannot fail to note a host of interesting overlaps between
the birth of Noah in the Pseudepigrapha and the birth of
Melchisedek in 2 Enoch. It is not difficult to notice that
the author of 2 Enoch wants to diminish the
extraordinarity of Noah's person and transfer these qualities to
Melchisedek. The text therefore can be seen as a set of
improvisations on the original Noachic themes.
Noah's Son
Shem b. Noah plays a prominent role in Noachic traditions.[72] According to Jubilees,
Shem is Noah's choice in the transmission of his teaching. From Jub.
10:13-14 we learn that "Noah wrote down in a book everything
... and he gave all the books that he had written to his oldest
son Shem because he loved him much more than all his sons." [73]
Because of his unique role in the Noachic tradition, Shem b. Noah
is also one of the targets of the anti-Noachic polemics of 2
Enoch. This debate takes its place in the last chapters of
the book which are connected with the Melchisedek legend.
The previous exposition shows that the Melchisedek story is
closely connected with Nir's family. Even though Nir is not the
biological father of Melchisedek, he later adopts him as his son.
In 2 Enoch chapter 71 Nir says to the Lord: "For I
have no descendants, so let this child take the place of my
descendants and become as my own son, and you will count him in
the number of your servants."[74]
In this instance of Nir's "adoption" of Melchisedek we
have again an anti-Noachic motif.
In Targumic and rabbinic literature Melchisedek is often attested
as the oldest son of Noah - Shem. The identification of
Melchisedek and Shem can be found in Tg. Ps.-J., Frg.
Tg., Tg. Neof., Gen. Rab. 43.1; 44.7, 'Abot R. Nat. 2, Pirqe
R. El. 7; 27, and b. Ned. 32b.
The basic message of the passages from the Targums and rabbinic
literature is the building up of the priestly antecedents of
Melchisedek (Shem) in the context of the transmission of this
priestly line to Abraham.[75]
In these texts Shem b. Noah (Melchisedek) represents an important
link in the passing of the Noachic priestly/sacrificial tradition
to Abraham. This prominent motif of the succession of the Noachic
priestly/sacrificial tradition by the tradition of Abraham and
his descendants, including Isaac and Levi, can be found already
in Jub. 21 and in the Levi document from Athos.
In contrast, the text of the Slavonic Enoch attempts to
build an alternative to the traditional Targumic/rabbinic line of
interpretation, which serves as a parallel to the official
Noah-Shem line. Previously unknown Nir, the young brother of
Noah, plays an important theological role in this shift. The
substitution of Noah's "fatherhood" to Nir's
"fatherhood" is one more facet of the complicated
anti-Noachic polemics in the text of 2 Enoch.
Conclusion
The goal of our research was to show the existence of antiNoachic
polemics in 2 Enoch. To understand the reasons of the suppression
of the Noahic traditions in the text would require another
lengthy investigation. However, some conclusions can be made at
this stage of the research.
1. The foregoing survey testifies to the existence of antiNoachic
polemics in 2 Enoch. The analysis shows that these
polemics seem to be based on the "original" Noachic
materials which demonstrate some distant parallels with the
fragments of the Book of Noah found in 1 Enoch, Jub.,
and the Genesis Apocryphon.[76]
2. The antiNoachic debates involve a substantial rewriting of the
"original" Noachic motifs and themes. The details of
the Noah "biography" are rearranged and transferred to
other characters, including Methuselah, Nir and Melchisedek.
3. It appears that the main target of the antiNoachic polemics is
the Noah-Abraham priestly connection. It explains why Melchisedek
(who in Targumic/rabbinic traditions represents the important
link in the passing of the Noachic priestly/sacrificial tradition
to Abraham) becomes the center of the fierce antiNoachic debates
in 2 Enoch. The fact that Abraham and his progeny are
completely absent in 2 Enoch further supports the
hypothesis. In this Slavonic apocalypse the Lord is named as
"God of your father Enoch"[77]--the
familiar title which in the Bible is connected with Abraham and
his descendants.
4. The antiNoachic polemics could be also triggered by the
prominence of the Adamic tradition in the Slavonic Enoch, [78] where
"the high priesthood is traced back ultimately to
Adam." [79] In the Pseudepigrapha and the
Qumran writings, the Adamic and Priestly-Noah traditions often
compete with and suppress each other. In the Adamic tradition,
the source of evil is traced to the fall of Adam and Eve in Eden.
In contrast to that, the Noachic tradition bases its
understanding of the origin of the evil on the Watchers story. In
this story descended Watchers corrupt human beings by passing to
them various celestial secrets. By those mysteries the humans
multiply evil deads upon the earth.[80]
This Noachic motif seems to be challenged in 2 Enoch,
where the Lord keeps His utmost secrets from the angels.[81]
5. It is evident that 2 Enoch contains a systematic
tendency to diminish or refocus the priestly significance of the
Noachic tradition. These antiNoachic revisions take place in the
midst of the sectarian debates about the sacrificial practice and
the priestly succession.[82]
[1]
I am indebted to Professor Michael Stone for his useful comments
and criticism of this work. All errors that remain are, of
course, my responsibility alone.
[2] On Noachic
traditions see: M. Bernstein, "Noah and the Flood at
Qumran," The Provo International Conference on the Dead
Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and
Reformulated Issues (eds. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; STDJ 30;
Leiden: Brill, 1999) 199-231; D. Dimant, "Noah in Early
Jewish Literature," Biblical Figures Outside the Bible
(eds. M.E. Stone and T.A. Bergren; Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1998) 123-50; F. García Martínez, Qumran and
Apocalyptic (STDJ 9; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 24-44; F. García
Martínez, "Interpretation of the Flood in the Dead Sea
Scrolls," Interpretations of the Flood (eds. F.
García Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen; TBN 1; Leiden: Brill,
1998) 86-108; H. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic. The
Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and the Son of Man
(WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 242-54;
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.M. Scott, "Geographic Aspects of Noachic
Materials in the Scrolls of Qumran," The Scrolls and the
Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (eds. S.E. Porter and
C.E. Evans; JSPS 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997)
368-81; R.C. Steiner, "The Heading of the Book of the Words
of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a
'Lost' Work," DSD 2 (1995) 66-71; M. Stone, "The
Axis of History at Qumran," Pseudepigraphic Perspectives:
The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (eds. E. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden:
Brill, 1999) 133-49; M. Stone, "Noah, Books of," Encyclopaedia
Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971) 12.1198; 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)
13-32; J. VanderKam, "The Birth of Noah," Intertestamental
Essays in Honor of Jósef Tadeusz Milik (ed. Z.J. Kapera;
Qumranica Mogilanensia 6; Krakow: The Enigma Press, 1992) 213-31;
Cana Werman, "Qumran and the Book of Noah"
Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and the
Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. E.
Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 171-81 .
[3] F. García
Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 24.
[4] "Noah wrote
down in a book everything (just) as we had taught him regarding
all the kinds of medicine..." J.C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510-11, Scriptores Aethiopici 87-88;
Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 2.60.
[5] "...because
this is the way I found (it) written in the book of my ancestors,
in the words of Enoch and the words of Noah." J.C.
VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 2.123.
[6] "The Book of
the Words of Noah" col. 5, line 29. Cf. R.C. Steiner,
"The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment
of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a 'Lost'Work," DSD
2 (1995) 66-71.
[7] "For thus my
father Abraham commanded me for thus he found in the writing of
the book of Noah concerning the blood" §57. J.C. Greenfield
and M. Stone, "The Aramaic and Greek Fragments of a Levi
Document," in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
(ed. H.W. Hollander and M. de Jonge; SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1985)
465. Among other important late allusions to Noah's writings, the
Chronography of Syncellus and the Book of Asaph the
Physician should be mentioned. See F. García Martínez,
Qumran and Apocalyptic, 25 and 38.
[8] According to F.
García Martínez, the following Qumran materials are related to
the Book of Noah: 1QapGen 1-17, 1Q19; 1Q20; 4Q534 (4QMess
Ar), and 6Q8. Cf. F. García Martínez, Qumran and
Apocalyptic, 43-4.
[9] F. García
Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 26.
[10] 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. On Enoch's roles cf. A. Orlov, "Titles of
Enoch-Metatron in 2 Enoch" JSP 18 (1998)
71-86.
[11] M. Stone notes
that "an extensive development of Noachic traditions is to
be observed in 2 Enoch 71-72 which rewrites the story of
Noah's birth, transferring the special traditions to
Melkisedek." M. Stone, "The Axis of History at
Qumran," 139.
[12] Cf. M. Stone,
"The Axis of History at Qumran," 138.
[13] "On that
day, as he was leaving the Garden of Eden, he burned incense as a
pleasing fragrance--frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and aromatic
spices..." Jub. 3:27; "He burned the evening
incense of the sanctuary which is acceptable before the Lord on
the mountain of incense." Jub. 4:25. J.C. VanderKam, The
Book of Jubilees, 2.20 and 2.28.
[14] Michael E.
Stone, "The Axis of History at Qumran," 138.
[15] Slav. Achuzan.
Unless noted otherwise, this and the subsequent Slavonic
citations are drawn from Vaillant's edition. Cf. A. Vaillant, Le
livre des secrets d'Henoch: Texte slave et traduction francaise
(Paris: Institut D'Etudes Slaves, 1952).
[16] 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 48:20-21
where the Hebrew word hzja
"special property of God" applies to Jerusalem and the
Temple. Cf. J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976) 114; C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit,
Menschheitsethik, Urkult, (WUNT R.2, 50; Tübingen: Mohr,
1992) 195.
[17] F. Andersen,
"2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York:
Doubleday, 1985 [1983]) 1.199. Here and later on I use Andersen's
English translation and follow his division of chapters.
[18] Andersen, 198-9.
[19] It should be
stressed that both the longer and the shorter recensions of 2
Enoch include all significant points of the anti-Noachic
polemics. There is no substantial difference between the
recensions in the representation of these materials. During my
analysis I have used illustrations from both recensions in equal
proportions.
[20] Lamech died
before Methuselah. According to Gen 5:26-31, after Lamech was
born, Methuselah lived 782 years... Lamech lived a total of 777
years.
[21] This priestly
succession from Methuselah to Nir is an apparent violation of all
the norms of traditional succession. Cf. the traditional view in Jub.
7:38-39: "For this is how Enoch, your father's father,
commanded his son Methuselah; then Methuselah his son Lamech; and
Lamech commanded me everything that his fathers had commanded
him. Now I am commanding you, my children, as Enoch commanded his
son in the first jubilee." J.C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees, 2.49-50.
[22] Andersen,
197-203.
[23] Andersen,
202-03.
[24] Andersen, 202.
[25] Slav. Gospoda
Boga nebesi i zemlja Nirova. Vaillant, 74.
[26] Andersen, 202.
[27] Michael E.
Stone, "The Axis of History at Qumran," 138.
[28] J.C. VanderKam, The
Book of Jubilees, 2.123.
[29] Slav. zlozakonie.
Vaillant, 58.
[30] Slav. bezzakonit'.
Vaillant, 58.
[31] Cf. P.I.
Avanesov, ed., Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka XI-XIV vv.
(10 vols.; Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 1988-) 3.317-9; R.M. Cejtlin,
ed., Staroslovjanskij slovar' po rukopisjam X-XI vekov
(Moscow: Russkij jazyk, 1994) 228; J. Kurz, ed., Lexicon
Linguae Palaeo-Slovenica (4 vols.; Prague: Akademia, 1966-)
1.643-4; I.I. Sresnevskij, Slovar' drevnerusskogo jazyka (3
vols.; Moscow: Kniga, 1989) I(II), 921-2.
[32] Andersen, 185.
[33] The terminology
of this prescription is unclear. For a detailed discussion of the
passage cf. Andersen, 184-5.
[34] Andersen, 184.
[35] Andersen, 185.
[36] Slav. svjazhete
e po chetyre nogi. Vaillant, 58.
[37] Andersen, p. 185
[38] S. Pines,
"Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of
Enoch," in Types of Redemption (ed. R.J. Zwi
Werblowsky; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970) 74-75.
[39] Pines, 75.
[40] Ant.
XVIII, 18.
[41] Pines, 75.
[42] "Then I
will preserve Noah, the firstborn son of your son Lamech. And I
will make another world rise up from his seed, and his seed will
exist throughout the ages" 70:10. Andersen, 203. "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" 71:37. Andersen, 209.
[43] Andersen, 211.
[44] Andersen, 209.
[45] J.C. VanderKam, The
Book of Jubilees, 2.60.
[46] Kvanvig argues
that "in 1 Enoch 60, 1-10.24c-25 Noah is described as
a visionary (as in 4QMess Ar) and in a vision he is warned about
the coming catastrophe. This description of the flood hero as a
visionary had its parallel in both Atra-Hasis and Berossos'
version of the Flood story when the flood hero is warned in a
dream." Kvanvig, 242.
[47] Cf. Gen 6:8 and Jub.
5:5 - "He was pleased with Noah alone." J.C. VanderKam,
The Book of Jubilees, 2.33.
[48] Andersen, 206-7.
[49] 2 Enoch
73, which attests to such a revelation, is a later interpolation
represented only by the manuscript R and partly (only one
line) by Rum. 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) I, 80 and 155. Our
analysis of antiNoachic polemics strengthens the hypothesis that
2 Enoch 73 is a later addition, foreign to the original body
of the text. For the discussion about chapter 73 cf. Vaillant,
xxii; Andersen, 212.
[50] The motif of
these divine/angelic revelations to Melthuselah parallels 1
Enoch 106, 1QapGen 2:19 and to the text of Pseudo-Eupolemus
where "Methuselah ... learned all things through the help of
the angels of God, and thus we gained our knowledge." Carl
Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors
(Chico, Calif.: Scholar Press, 1983) I.175.
[51] Andersen, 203.
[52] For example, see
in the manuscript R: 2 Enoch 70:8 -"everything
that stands will perish" and 2 Enoch 71:27 -
"everything that stands on the earth will perish." 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)
1.69 and 1.75.
[53] It is clear that
Noah's name was purged from the original Noachic account which
lies behind Nir's vision. The additional supporting detail here
is that right after Nir's vision, when he arose from the sleep,
he repeats the vision in his own words. In this repetition Nir
mentions both Melchisedek and Noah as survivors of the Flood. It
is apparent that we have here two different traditions which
sometimes do not reconcile with each other. Cf. "And
Melchisedek will be the head of the priests in another
generation. 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"
71:33-7. Andersen, 209.
[54] Andersen, 208.
[55] Michael E.
Stone, "The Axis of History at Qumran," 141.
[56] Michael E.
Stone, "The Axis of History at Qumran," 143.
[57] Another
challenge to Noah's role as a carrier of antediluvian traditions
over the Flood is the theme of Enoch's books. From 2 Enoch
33:8-12 we learn that the Lord commanded his angels Ariokh and
Mariokh to guard Enoch's books, so "they might not perish in
the impeding flood." Andersen, 157. This motif of the
"secret" books by which antediluvian wisdom reached
postdiluvian generations plays a prominent role in the
Mesopotamian flood stories. Cf. P. Grelot, "La légende
d'Hénoch dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible: origine et
signification", RSR 46 (1958) 9-13.
[58] This story is
supported by the lenghty priestly geneology which also includes
Enoch, Methuselah, and Nir. Noah, of course, is not presented in
this list. Cf. "Therefore honor him (Melchisedek) together
with your servants and great priests, with Sit, and Enos, and
Rusi, and Amilam, and Prasidam, and Maleleil, and Serokh, and
Arusan, and Aleem, and Enoch, and Methusalam, and me, your
servant Nir. And behold, Melchisedek will be the head of the 13
priests who existed before" 71:32-33. Andersen, 208.
[59] Andersen, 208-9.
[60] Andersen, 211.
[61] Andersen, 207.
[62] Cf. M. Delcor,
"Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the
Epistle to the Hebrews." JSJ 2 (1971) 129; idem,
"La naissance merveilleuse de Melchisédeq d'après
l'Hénoch slave" Kecharitomene. Mélanges René Laurentin
(ed. C. Augustin et al.; Paris: Desclée, 1990) 217-229;
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and
the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 185; A. de
Santos Otero, "Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc
eslavo)," Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento (ed. A.
Dies Macho; Madrid: Ediciones Christiandad, 1984) 4.199; R.
Stichel, Die Namen Noes, seines Bruders und seiner Frau. Ein
Beitrag zum Nachleben jüdischer Überlieferungen in der
außerkanonischen und gnostischen Literatur und in Denkmälern
der Kunst (AAWG.PH 3. Folge 112; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1979) 42-54.
[63] Andersen, 207.
[64] Delcor, 129.
[65] George
Nickelsburg observes that the miraculous circumstances attending
Melchisedek's conception and birth are reminiscent of the Noah
story in 1 Enoch, although the suspicion of Nir is more
closely paralleled in the version of the Noah story in the Genesis
Apocryphon. George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature
between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1981) 188.
[66] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997)
1.29
[67] Andersen, 205.
[68] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997)
1.29
[69] F. García
Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997)
1.29-31.
[70] Andersen, 205.
[71] Andersen, 208.
[72] On Shem
traditions in 2 Enoch see: Andrei A. Orlov,
"Melchisedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch," JSJ
(forthcoming).
[73] J.C. VanderKam, The
Book of Jubilees, 2.60.
[74] Andersen, 209.
[75] Cf. for example b.
Ned. 32b: "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." The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nedarim
(London: Soncino Press, 1936) 98-9.
[76] It is possible
that some traces of the polemics with Noachic tradition can be
found already in early Enochic documents, including bookletes of 1
Enoch, where Enoch often "substitutes" Noah in
Noachic narratives. Such tensions between Enoch and Noah can be
rooted in certain Mesopotamian "prototypes" common for
both characters. Cf. P. Grelot, "La légende d'Hénoch dans
les apocryphes et dans la Bible: origine et signification", RSR
46 (1958) 189-91.
[77] Cf. 2 Enoch
69:2, 69:5, and 70:3 - "I am the Lord, the God of your
father Enoch" Slav. Bog' otca tvoego Enoha. Vaillant,
68.
[78] On the Adamic
traditions in the Slavonic pseudepigrapha and in 2 Enoch
see: Émile Turdeanu, Apocryphes Slaves et Roumains de
L'Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 405-35; C.
Böttrich, Adam als Mikrokosmos: eine Untersuchung zum
slavischen Henochbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1995).
[79] Stone, "The
Axis of History at Qumran," 148.
[80] 1 Enoch
16:3.
[81] Cf. Andersen,
143.
[82] As A. Rubinstein
notes, "it is hard to escape the impression that the purpose
of the account is to build up the priestly antecedents of
Melchizedek." A. Rubinstein, "Observations on the
Slavonic Book of Enoch," JJS 15 (1962) 5. P.
Sacchi adds that the Melchizedek story gives "the impression
of a work that developes 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." P. Sacchi, Jewish
Apocalyptic and Its History (JSPSS 20; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996) 234-5.