Re: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis?
Please look at the text. Ezek mentions Noah, Danel (not Daniel) and Job. They are three famous righteous men of the larger cultural world. Perhaps the reference to Danel has something to do with the hero of Ugaritic epic. In any case, dating Ezek by the reference to Danel to the Maccabean era is absurd, by my lights. Al Baumgarten For private reply, e-mail to Albert Baumgarten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
Re: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis?
Hi Soren, I just read most of Boccaccini's book -- skipped over his discussion of the Essenes in classical sources. Boccaccini's thesis runs something like this. First, he distinguishes and contrasts between Enochian Judaism (i.e. that responsible for the Enoch literature) and Zadokite Judaism (by which he means that associated with the Zadokite high priesthood - the high priests of the second temple down to Onias III - which he associates with the Biblical texts and Mosaic Judaism). He considers the Enoch literature to be opposed to that of the temple, high priests, and Moses (who doesn't appear in the Enoch literature). Drawing somewhat on the ideas of Philip Davies' and F. Garcia Martinez, Boccaccini hypothesizes that the Essenes in post-Maccabean times, utilizing both Enochian and Zadokite literature, and that the Qumran sect was an offshoot of the Essenes c. 100 BCE. He then analyzes the Qumran texts and detects an alienation of the Qumran sect from Enochian Judaism. I hope my brief summary is reasonably accurate. If not, any inaccuracies are purely unintentional. On the opposition of Enochian and Zadokite Judaism, I think Boccaccini has gone beyond the evidence. He says the Enoch literature is opposed to Mosaic, Zadokite Judaism, and it is true that (a) Enoch rather than Moses is the central figure; (b) in the Animal Apocalypse the second temple is viewed unfavorably, its offerings impure even in the Persian Period. This is interesting, and it does tend to show opposition to the current priests and temple. But Boccaccini asserts that while the Zadokite texts view the temple and priests as the defenders of moral purity, the Enoch literature views the entire world hopelessly and universaly evil, corrupted by the Watchers and even after the flood by the demons that were the souls of the drowned giants. If I read Boccaccini right, Enoch was the last righteous man, translated to the angelic realm before the evil of the Watchers took over the earth. I just do not see this as an accurate take on the Enoch texts. Yes, evil is in the world, at least partially traceable to the Watchers in the Enoch literature (notably the Book of Watchers). But Mosaic, Zadokite Judaism also acknowledges the existence of evil. And the books of Enoch do not exclude the possibility of the righteous people as well. Indeed, in the Animal Apocalypse the Israelites go through different phases of good sheep (whose eyes are open) and blind sheep, etc. Additionally, Moses appears as a positive figure in the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks refers favorably to Noah, to Abraham as the planting of righteousness, to the Mosaic law at Sinai. Boccaccini overlooks these references. There just does not seem to be the conflict between Enochian literature and Zadokite / Mosaic literature as overstated in Boccaccini's scheme. IMO his view of Jubilees is symptomatic of his mistaken analysis. Acknowledging that Jubilees is in the Enochian tradition, he considers the positive treatment of Moses and the Zadokite outlook as an amazing innovation by the author of Jubilees, brilliantly reconciling the Enochian and Zadokite approaches. This interpretation is only valid if Boccaccini's questionable model of an anti-Zadokite Enoch tradition is already granted. Rather, IMO Jubilees merely shows that the Enoch literary tradition had no problem at all with Moses, Genesis / Exodus, or the whole Zadokite tradition. The Enoch texts were also popular at Qumran, which is full of Zadokite texts. Similarly among Christians. Where were Enoch texts used in another context in which the Biblical tradition was rejected?? Boccaccini acknowledges that the Enoch literature was not associated with a separate Jewish sect. I basically think Boccaccini's Enochian Judaism is a mirage, in the sense that there's no evidence they rejected Mosaic traditions or literature. That is not to say it wasn't popular with some specific subset of Judaism, just that whoever wrote the Enoch texts -- and this is an important unsolved problem -- also appear to have held Moses and the Torah in high esteem. Another problem in Boccaccini's scheme is his dating of texts, which is frequently wrong in my opinion. For instance, he dates Jubilees after the Maccabean Crisis, based on Jub. 4:19, And he [Enoch] saw what was and what will be in a vision of his sleep as it will happen among the children of men in their generations until the day of judgment. This he properly takes to be a reference to the Book of Dreams (1 En. 83-90). The second dream in this sub-document consists of the Animal Apocalypse, which was written in 163 BCE (it surveys Biblical history down to this date), so Boccaccini dates Jubilees to the post-Maccabean era (after 163 BCE). But Boccaccini fails to note that the Book of Dreams is comprised of two dreams, and that the Jubilees reference only refers to
RE: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis?
In the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha online course and discussion list we are coming up on sections on some of the Enochic works (The Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Epistle of Enoch) in the next few weeks. Boccaccini's theory is very relevant to this material and discussion of it would be welcome on the otpseud list. For subscription information, see: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/otpseud.html (This message sent to the Orion list and copied to otpseud.) Jim Davila Soren, Boccaccini's approach is worth discussing, and to my knowledge has not been worked to death. The one question might be the appropriate venue for the discussion. I'm in the midst of reading his more recent book on the sources of Rabbinic Judaism and have yet to reach a conclusion about what the Zadokite/Enochic distinction. What is interesting to me at the moment, however, is his methodological parallel in the recent work between the discussion of the history of philosophy and the discussion of the history of Judaism. David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: Søren Holst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 1:27 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis? I was wondering whether anybody on the list has insights to offer regarding Gabriele Boccaccini's book, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis? Apart from strictly scroll related issues, the underlying idea of 2nd temple judaism containg two main strands describable as Zadokite and Enochic respectively sounds intriguing. (I apologize if the subject has been flogged to death before -- I may have missed the discussion for the ironic reason of being in Jerusalem when the book came out, and not reading Orion e-mail regularly. And even worse: I haven't read the book, as the only copy in Denmark is found at the OTHER theology department, opposite end of the country). Dr. Jim Davila St. Mary's College University of St. Andrews St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9JU Scotland Tel.: +44 1334 462834 Fax.: +44 1334 462852 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/jrd4.html Apologies for the regrettably necessary legal gobbledygook below. This message is sent in confidence to the addressee only. It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the original addressee. Unauthorised recipients must preserve this confidentiality and should please advise the original sender immediately of the error in transmission. For private reply, e-mail to James R. Davila [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
RE: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis?
Soren, Boccaccini's approach is worth discussing, and to my knowledge has not been worked to death. The one question might be the appropriate venue for the discussion. I'm in the midst of reading his more recent book on the sources of Rabbinic Judaism and have yet to reach a conclusion about what the Zadokite/Enochic distinction. What is interesting to me at the moment, however, is his methodological parallel in the recent work between the discussion of the history of philosophy and the discussion of the history of Judaism. David Suter Saint Martin's College -Original Message- From: Søren Holst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 1:27 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: orion-list Boccaccini: Beyond Essene Hypothesis? I was wondering whether anybody on the list has insights to offer regarding Gabriele Boccaccini's book, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis? Apart from strictly scroll related issues, the underlying idea of 2nd temple judaism containg two main strands describable as Zadokite and Enochic respectively sounds intriguing. (I apologize if the subject has been flogged to death before -- I may have missed the discussion for the ironic reason of being in Jerusalem when the book came out, and not reading Orion e-mail regularly. And even worse: I haven't read the book, as the only copy in Denmark is found at the OTHER theology department, opposite end of the country). For private reply, e-mail to Suter, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: unsubscribe Orion. Archives are on the Orion Web site, http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il. (PLEASE REMOVE THIS TRAILOR BEFORE REPLYING TO THE MESSAGE)
