I Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (review)

Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 347 Reviews McLay is appropriately conservative about concluding that the Theodotion or Old Greek translations of Daniel indicate a different Vorlage . It is to be expected that readers will differ with some of McLay's explanations of the divergences among the texts. Nevertheless particularly problematic to this reviewer is his too frequent assessment that the translator did not understand or guessed at the meaning of the Hebrew or Aramaic text. Such explanations. while often valid. are most convincing when the translation was made at centuries remove from the formation of the text But McLay's own dating of Theodotion to "before the common era" (p. 240). would have both the Theodotion and the Old Oreek version of Daniel made close to the time the book was composed. Readability of the book is marred by errors in the typesetting of the MT, and by some infelicitous phrases, for example, "Hebrew/Aramaic version" (p. 1), "00 abbreviating the monotonous repetition of the MT" (p. 151). Overall the treatment is technical and rigorous, and the analysis very interesting for the methodology. McLay's conclusions will be of general interest but his analysis is primarily for those concerned with the Theodotion question and with the process of reconstructing the Old Greek. Sara Winter New School for Social Research New York, NY 10011 sawinter@jtsa.edu I ENOCH AND SIRACH: A COMPARATIVE LITERARY AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE THEMES OF REVELATION , CREATION AND JUDGMENT. By Randal A. Argall. SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 8. pp. xiii + 304. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Cloth $34.95. Paper $24.95. Randal Argall's innovative study of I Enoch and Sirach challenges an established genre division which has, until recently, justified the separate treatment of these works as examples of apocalyptic and wisdom literature respectively. Such division, argues Argall, obscures the conceptual framework shared by these two texts. Traditional divisions have been challenged before. but this book has advanced scholarly discussion by carefully comparing the two works in a series of three thematic studies, involving close readings and detailed comparisons. Argall's overall argument that "there is much to be gained by moving beyond conventional labels of macrostruc- Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 348 Reviews ture," (p. 2) is well supported and refreshing. In what follows, I raise some methodological questions about how to challenge traditional distinctions. Genre distinctions are not fonnulated on the basis of two texts. Similarly, the transgression of such genre boundaries must be fonnulated with sufficient attention to a variety of texts, if one wishes to argue for a reorganization of the literature. Hence, it would be worthwhile to supplement Argall's study by examining other contemporaneous or even slightly later texts. For example, consideration of such texts as Jubilees, IV Ezra, and Pseudo-Philo, among others, would contribute significantly to Argall's main argument that genre lines should be crossed if we are to fully appreciate the relationships among Second Temple traditions. Argall's comparative study unveils important parallels between I Enoch and Sirach, but it is limited insofar as it focuses, almost exclusively, on the similarities between the two selected texts. Even a study devoted to demonstrating shared elements in I Enoch and Sirach must still account for the differences which motivated the established genre division in the first place. For example, although Argall does note some differences, he does not attend fully to the fact that Enoch receives revelation, while Sirach does not. In claiming that "comparative analysis has shown that revelation has essentially the same formal structure in I Enoch and Sirach," (p. 98) Argall neglects to examine the reasons why scholars traditionally treated these works as members of entirely different genres. It is one thing to transgress genre boundaries, another to ignore the boundaries as if they have never served any function. If one challenges traditional genre distinctions, how is one to establish an alternative framework for one's investigation? Argall organizes his study around three themes that are shared by I Enoch and Sirach: revelation , creation, and judgment. He demonstrates, through detailed textual comparison, that there is indeed a great deal of conceptual overlap between the treatments of the themes in the two works...