Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (review)

Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 417 Reviews Angel does not note any significant differences between the employment of the Hebrew Chaoskampf tradition in wisdom literature or Jewish historiography versus its use at Qumran or in apocalyptic literature. Yet based upon his own presentation, it seems evident that apocalyptic literature is much more explicit in its use of the Hebrew Chaoskampf tradition, with its fantastic beasts and heavenly battles, while its appearance in wisdom literature is usually confined to brief, veiled allusions to chaos or to the Divine Warrior (at best). One wishes that Angel would attempt to address the implications of these differences or to explain why they exist. The above critiques notwithstanding, Angel has produced a valuable study worthy of attention. I heartily recommend Chaos and the Son of Man as a helpful collection, analysis, and explication of Second Temple period texts which include the Chaoskampf tradition. David P. Melvin Baylor University Waco, TX 76798 David_Melvin@baylor.edu ENOCH AND THE MESSIAH SON OF MAN: REVISITING THE BOOK OF PARABLES. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Pp. xv + 539. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Paper $50.00 This volume brings together main and short papers presented at the third Enoch Seminar held at Camaldoli monastery, Italy, June, 2005. The Enoch Seminar is an ongoing research initiative led by Gabriele Boccacini, bringing together international scholars to focus on major documents of “Enochic Judaism,” or, at least, Jewish writings associated with and inspired by Enochic tradition. This includes the collection preserved as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 2 Enoch, the theme for 2009. The subtitle more adequately reflects the book’s theme and significance: “Revisiting the Book of Parables,” namely, 1 Enoch 37–71, the section of 1 Enoch not preserved at Qumran. Much interest in the past has been on its potential relevance for the evolution of Christology, but its significance is much wider than that and this is reflected in the contributions. Thus of the six parts, only one deals with the “Son of Man.” The work begins with an introduction to previous research, which was characterized by concern with dating, absence from Qumran being taken as an indicator of later origins. Pointing to the conclusions of Sacchi and Nickelsburg, that the work was produced around the turn of the era, Boccaccini reports: “After the Camaldoli meeting, it can now be confidently said that the position of Nickelsburg and Sacchi is confirmed and supported by the overwhelming Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 418 Reviews majority of specialists in the Enoch literature and Second Temple Judaism” (p. 15). None dated it prior to the Roman period or beyond the end of the first century C.E. This is a major outcome of the seminar. Part one addresses “The Structure of the Text.” In “Discerning the Structure(s) of the Enochic Book of Parables” (pp. 23–47), George Nickelsburg identifies the threefold structure based on the three parables as reflecting the early shape of the work, which includes some rewriting of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), conflated with material from elsewhere . He proposes some rearrangement of the material especially in the first parable around the account of Wisdom’s descent. The work underwent a Noachic redaction, identifiable in four interpolations, which depicts Noah as recipient of the Book of Parables and is possibly also responsible for Enoch’s identification as Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71. Michael Knibb similarly addresses the “Structure and Composition of the Parables of Enoch” (pp. 48–64), concluding that 70–71 “are a secondary addition” (p. 63) because of their surprising identification contrasted with chapters 37–69, and that the loose structure of the work facilitated the inclusion of Noachic but also other material “on an ad hoc basis over a period of time” (p. 64). Loren Stuckenbruck then notes agreement and disagreement between the two on composition and raises questions for further discussion (pp. 65–71), including on the language of the original. In reviewing both papers on structure (pp. 72–78), Benjamin Wright argues that Nickelsburg’s placement of the account of Wisdom’s descent still leaves problems (pp. 73–74) and underlines the problem of dealing with a work which has survived only...