The Enochic Son of Man and Pauline Christology more

James A. Waddell, Ph.D. / Pauline Epistles Group – Open Session / Society of Biblical Literature / 2011, San Francisco / “The Enochic Son of Man and Pauline Christology” In the first century CE Jewish identity was defined in a context of significant religious diversity. This presents those who read the Letters of Paul with a problem: how to locate Paul’s thought within the complicated matrices of Jewish intellectual traditions of this period. This study proposes a contribution to Pauline studies and the ongoing scholarly debate by examining Paul’s place in the development of Jewish thought with respect to messiah figures in the Second Temple period. The key problem this study proposes to address is this: What is the relationship, if any, between the concept of the messiah figure in the Book of the Parables of Enoch and the concept of the messiah figure in the letters of Paul? In other words, is there a relationship between the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios? A corollary question is: Where does Paul as a Jew fit within the landscape of Jewish intellectual development of messianic ideology of the Second Temple period? In 2007 the Enoch Seminar published an important volume on the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch titled Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables. Les Walck has a book on the Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and Matthew published last spring with T. & T. Clark in their Jewish and Christian Texts in Context series. My own research on the Parables and Paul was just published two weeks ago by T. & T. Clark in the same series under the title, The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios, is an attempt to locate one aspect of Paul’s thought, his christology, in the matrix of Jewish intellectual traditions between the second century BCE and the first century CE, and to be very specific about this. There is a growing awareness among some New Testament scholars and scholars of Second Temple Judaism that the Enoch literature is important for our understanding of Christian origins. Since the pronouncement of Josef Milik in the 1970s that the Parables of Enoch should be dated to the late third century CE and that we should consider the Parables to be dependent on the gospels and the Sibylline Oracles, the Parables have not been taken seriously as having any real significance for our understanding of the Son of Man traditions in the canonical gospels. While Milik’s opinion did not gain wide acceptance, it generally influenced scholars’ views of the Parables as a later, less significant text of little relevance for New Testament studies. This has been the unfortunate, ongoing opinion of scholars about the Parables, because we continue to assume that the Parables postdate the canonical gospels. This continues to be the common theme in New Testament scholarship. The Enochic Book of Parables is either not taken seriously as a text reflecting conceptual elements of messianic traditions that predate the New Testament, or the evidence in the Enochic Parables is marginalized in such a way that enhances the status or the uniqueness of the evidence in the New Testament. Waddell 2 The consensus arrived at by a group of specialists of the Enochic literature at the 2005 meeting of the Enoch Seminar in Camaldoli, Italy, is that the Parables of Enoch should be dated to the end of the first century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE. Michael Stone cautiously makes this claim. Jim Charlesworth is more confident that the Son of Man traditions in the Parables predate the historical Jesus. Hanan Eshel and others, including myself, have argued that there is an explicit reference to the Parthian invasion of 40 BCE in the Parables. More generally Jim VanderKam, John Collins, George Nickelsburg, and Gabriele Boccaccini have also indicated their acceptance of this earlier dating of the Parables of Enoch toward the end of the first century BCE . The newly published Hermeneia commentary, 1 Enoch 2, by Nickelsburg and Vanderkam, more specifically dates the Parables between 40 BCE and the early decades of the first century CE. This consensus of contemporary Enoch specialists on the date of the Enochic Book of Parables should reorient New Testament scholarship to take the Parables seriously for understanding the origins of Christianity. Nevertheless, this critical consensus of Enoch specialists has gone by and large unnoticed by many New Testament scholars today. There are, however, a few of us who are scholars of Second Temple Judaism and New Testament who are actually doing comparative research on the Enoch literature and the New Testament. The new consensus on the date of the Enochic Book of Parables is especially critical for our understanding of the messiah figure in the letters of Paul and the canonical gospels. For the comparative analysis, the methodology of my research is fairly basic. I examined the different elements of the nature of the divine figure and the nature of the messiah figure in the Parables. I did this in order to establish a clear understanding of the relationship between these two figures in the thought of the authors of the Parables. I did the same thing in the undisputed Letters of Paul—Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Romans, with the sole exception of Philemon, since there are no conceptual elements of messianic traditions anywhere in Paul’s Letter to Philemon. My examination of these conceptual elements of messianic traditions in the Parables of Enoch and the Letters of Paul has implications for understanding divine and human agency and the relationships between mediatorial figures and the one God in Jewish literature from the Second Temple period. While mediatorial figures can share some of the elements of the nature of the divine figure, this does not mean they share the divine figure’s essence or that they are also divine. Likewise, while mediatorial figures can share some of the elements of the functions of the divine figure, this also does not mean they share the divine figure’s essence or that they are also divine. Comparative analysis demonstrates that the Enochic Book of Parables and the Letters of Paul share specific conceptual elements of messianic traditions. The combination of shared elements is so striking as to preclude the possibility that the Book of Parables and the Letters of Paul Waddell 3 constituted independent, parallel developments. The evidence indicates that Paul was familiar with the conceptual elements of the Enochic messiah, and that Paul developed his concept of Jesus as the Kyrios out of the Son of Man traditions in the Book of the Parables of Enoch. I am arguing that at least one facet of Paul’s thought, his christology, was heavily influenced by Enochic Son of Man traditions. The Book of the Parables of Enoch is particularly bold in its assertions about the messiah figure. There are three, possibly four, ways of referring to the messiah figure in the Parables—Son of Man, Chosen One, Messiah (or Anointed One), and Righteous One, though this last designation is not strongly supported in the Ethiopic manuscripts. The boldness of the Parables is to be seen in its extraordinary combination of conceptual elements of messianic traditions that are combined to make the Parables such a unique contribution to the Jewish intellectual tradition. With regard to the conceptual elements of messianic nature, in the Parables of Enoch, the messiah figure is both a human being and a heavenly being, is closely associated with wisdom, is preexistent, is righteous, and is like one of the angels. And the Enochic messiah is in some way associated with the divine name, although this carries with it a certain amount of ambiguity. This combination of conceptual elements of messianic nature is unprecedented in the history of Jewish thought. Regarding conceptual elements of messianic function in the Parables of Enoch, the messiah figure assumes several roles, some of which are shared with the divine figure, or the Lord of Spirits as the divine figure is referred to in the Parables. The Enochic messiah figure is a revealer of wisdom, which in the Parables is also closely associated with being the object of divine revelation. The Enochic messiah brings salvation to the righteous, and sits on the throne of the divine figure, presides over the judgment, and executes punishment after the judgment. In relation to the final judgment the messiah figure causes the houses of his congregation to appear at the eschaton, which is a reference to resurrection. The messiah figure subverts oppressive rulers at the judgment. And in the Parables the messiah figure is worshiped by humans and angels. It’s the unprecedented combination of these conceptual elements of messianic traditions that leads me, and other Enoch specialists, to draw the conclusion that the Book of the Parables of Enoch is an extraordinary development of Second Temple Judaism. The descriptions of Jesus as messiah in the letters of Paul include all of these same conceptual elements of messianic tradition that we have in the Parables of Enoch. For Paul Jesus was both a human being and a preexistent heavenly being who was also closely associated with wisdom and was like an angel. For Paul Jesus the messiah sits on God’s throne of judgment, presides over the judgment, and executes punishment after the judgment, just like the messiah figure in the Parables of Enoch. It has also been argued, and I agree with some of the arguments, that there is evidence in Paul’s letters that Jesus was the object of worship among the earliest followers of Jesus. There are a few Waddell 4 messianic elements that Paul applies to Jesus that are not from the Parables, such as the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus, and that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, for example. But this only demonstrates that Paul developed his concept of Jesus as the messiah beyond the system he appears to have inherited from the Enochic tradition. The most striking similarities of conceptual elements of messianic traditions shared by the Enochic Parables and the letters of Paul must be approached from a perspective that appreciates the way in which these conceptual elements are combined. Simply listing the conceptual elements or viewing the connections separately can be misleading and will lead to a wrong conclusion. In other words, it would be wrong to conclude that the similar conceptual elements in the Parables and in Paul taken separately simply suggest that Paul’s messianic thought is nothing more than a parallel development. The conceptual elements “human being” and “heavenly being” are not in themselves unique with reference to mediatorial figures in the Second Temple period. It is the combination of these two conceptual elements with reference to the messiah figure that is unprecedented in the history of Jewish thought. Add to this combination the attribute of preexistence, an extensively developed association with wisdom, an unprecedented association with the divine name (with the possible exception of the Melchizedek figure in the Dead Sea Scrolls), an unprecedented presiding of the messiah figure over the eschatological judgment, and the unprecedented function of being worshiped by humans and the combination of conceptual elements of messianic traditions in the Enochic Parables becomes even more extraordinary. It is only when these conceptual elements are taken together that we begin to understand the unprecedented level of development of messianic thought in the Parables. Such a level of development precludes any suggestion of coincidental development or parallel development of the same combination of messianic conceptual elements in the letters of Paul. It’s just impossible that this could have been a coincidence. To this point I have analyzed, compared, and drawn conclusions about the evidence that shows a common set of conceptual elements of messianic traditions shared by the Enochic Parables and the Letters of Paul. What can be said of their differences? With regard to the nature of the messiah figure in the letters of Paul there are three elements that extend Paul’s point of view beyond that of the Parables of Enoch. The first is that Paul referred to some sort of pre-human state of the messiah figure in First Corinthians 10 in his midrash on the rock that followed God’s people in the wilderness, where Paul wrote that “the rock was Christ.” This kind of pre-human state of a mediatorial figure is not unprecedented as something similar to this appears in Philo’s description of the Logos. Paul also associated the messiah figure with the divine image and glory. This does not appear in the Enochic Parables. The divine image and glory are not unprecedented in Jewish literature, however, as these concepts are applied specifically to the figure Adam in the Greek Life of Adam Waddell 5 and Eve and to priestly liturgical traditions in various other texts, such as Sirach 50 and the scrolls of Qumran. Paul further claimed that the messiah figure was without sin. This conceptual element of messianic nature is missing from the Book of Parables, but again it is not unprecedented in the literature from the period. There are also a number of functions of the messiah figure in the letters of Paul that are not present in the Book of Parables. It is unclear whether the role of the messiah figure as agent of creation is present in both the Parables and in Paul. In the Parables this role may be associated with the messiah figure via the divine name, but it is an enigmatic association if it is there at all. If it is present in the Parables, then it is clear that the function of the messiah figure as agent of creation is more strongly attested in Paul than in the Enochic Parables. There are three functions of the messiah figure in Paul that clearly do not appear in the Parables. In Paul the messiah figure is crucified and raised from the dead. These two functions of the messiah figure have no precedent anywhere in Second Temple period literature, although they were central to the kerygma of the earliest followers of Jesus. The third difference between the Enochic Parables and Paul regarding the functions of the messiah figure is the unprecedented role that Paul claimed for the messiah figure in delivering the forgiveness of sins. Prior to Paul the role of forgiveness is attributed in the literature solely to the divine figure. Sometimes this forgiveness is discussed in terms of the individual’s penitential relationship with the divine figure; sometimes it is discussed in terms of the corporate liturgical experience of the people as they participated in the sacrificial system of the temple cult. Paul interpreted the crucifixion and resurrection of the messiah figure in terms of Israel’s experience of forgiveness through the temple sacrifices. This does not appear in the Parables of Enoch. These are the conceptual elements of messianic nature held in common by the Enochic Parables and Paul: a heavenly being, preexistence, like an angel, and association with the divine name. These are the elements of messianic function held in common by the Enochic Parables and Paul: session on the throne of judgment, presiding over the judgment, raising the dead, and being worshiped by humans. These are the conceptual elements of messianic traditions that are unprecedented in the literature for messiah figures. All the other elements held in common by the Parables and Paul have precedents in the literature. The evidence leads to the conclusion that Paul must have been familiar with the conceptual elements of messianic traditions in the Parables of Enoch. While Paul developed his concept of the messiah figure well beyond that of the Parables by adding the functions of crucifixion, resurrection, and forgiveness of sins, the correspondence between Paul and the Parables in their combination of conceptual elements of messianic nature and function is too striking to dismiss as coincidental or as a parallel development. In the end it is the extraordinary combination of conceptual elements of messianic ideology held in common by the Book of the Parables of Enoch and the Letters of Paul that leads to the firm Waddell 6 conclusion that Paul was aware of the Enochic Son of Man traditions, and that he was in fact influenced by these traditions. We really cannot say with any certainty that Paul knew the text of the Parables, because there is no evidence of direct quotation. On the basis of my comparative analysis, however, we can say with confidence that Paul was familiar with the conceptual elements of the Enochic messiah traditions, and that Paul developed his concept of the Kyrios out of these Enochic messiah traditions. I should add here that monotheism and the divinity of the messiah figure were not the main focus of this study. My research has focused on antecedents and developments of messianic traditions. And regardless of whether one takes a position on the divinity of the messiah figure, we still need to make sense of the evidence and the conclusions presented here. Paul was a Jew. Now we can say with a high degree of certainty from which stream of Jewish intellectual tradition Paul developed his concept of the Messiah. It was Enoch. James A. Waddell, Ph.D. The Philip Markowicz Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish Biblical Studies Department of Philosophy University of Toledo ——— Table-1 Precedented and Unprecedented Conceptual Elements of Messianic Nature Held in Common by BP and LP Nature in common Precedented or unprecedented? human being heavenly being associated with wisdom preexistent righteous like an angel divine name precedented for messiah figures: PsSol 17 precedented for mediatorial figures: Ezek 1; Dan 7; 11Q13 UNPRECEDENTED for messiah figures precedented for mediatorial figures & messiah figures: Philo; PsSol 17 / far more developed in BP & LP precedented for mediatorial figures: Prov 8–9 UNPRECEDENTED for messiah figures precedented for messiah figures: PsSol 17 / far more developed in BP & LP precedented for mediatorial figures: Dan 7; Sirach; 11Q13 UNPRECEDENTED for messiah figures UNPRECEDENTED for mediatorial figures and messiah figures ——— Table-2 Precedented and Unprecedented Conceptual Elements of Messianic Functions Held in Common by BP and LP Functions in common Precedented or unprecedented? object of divine revelation appears at judgment sits on throne presides over judgment executes punishment resurrection of the dead subverts oppressive rulers worshiped by humans precedented for mediatorial figures: Prov 2 precedented for messiah figures: PsSol 17 precedented for mediatorial figures: WisSol 9.4; EzekTrag UNPRECEDENTED for messiah figures UNPRECEDENTED for mediatorial figures and for messiah figures precedented for mediatorial figures and for messiah figures: PsSol 17; 11Q13; 4Q491 UNPRECEDENTED for mediatorial figures and for messiah figures precedented for mediatorial figures and for messiah figures: PsSol 17; 11Q13 UNPRECEDENTED for mediatorial figures and for messiah figures