Maklelan

So my concern with your comment that "Hebrews has nothing to do with the other epistles" and your confusion of development of literary imagery with "error" just get ignored because you've called me an apologist? And I'm the one with poor methods?

DCHindley

Somewhere on this list is my own summary of the research, which I'll reproduce here:

Before the discovery of the DSS, the consensus was that the Similitudes were composed between c. 105-64 B.C. (see R H Charles' translation and commentary in Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol 2, 1913, pp. 170 ff).

This was challenged by J C Hindley (no relation), who in the article "Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch," NTS 14 (1967/68), finds two historical markers. He links a reference to shaking hills with streams of water in 54:7 with the Antioch earthquake of A.D. 115 as described by Dio Cassius. In addition, the reference to Parthians in 56:5-7, usually taken as a reference to the Parthian threat of 40 B.C., he takes as a reference to the Parthian confrontation with Trajan ca. A.D. 113-117. (The Book of Enoch, or, I Enoch: a new English edition: with commentary and textual notes, by Matthew Black, James C. Vanderkam & Otto Neugebauer, 1985, 1997)

Then there is J T Milik, in The Books of Enoch (1976), who says:

It seems to me quite certain that it did not exist during the pre-Christian era, in an Aramaic or Hebrew text, since not one fragment of it, Semitic or even Greek, has been located in the very rich assortment of manuscripts from the caves of Qumran. Hence it is probably a Christian Greek composition (its use of the text of the LXX has already been pointed out) which draws its inspiration from the writings of the New testament, the Gospels especially, beginning with the titles of the pre-existent Messiah: 'Son of Man' (Matt. 9:6; 10:23; 12:8; etc.) and 'Elect' (Luke 23:35). However, it is not likely to be an early Christian work, since no quotation from it is recorded between the first and fourth centuries, that is, during the period in which quotations, allusions, and reminiscences of other works attributed to Enoch abound. In fact, the existence of the Greek Book of Parables is not attested until the early Middle Ages, and even then indirectly, by the stichometry of Nicephorus and by the Slavonic Enoch ... Finally, we must recall its absence from any early version (apart from the Ethiopic) and especially the absolute silence on this subject in Coptic literature. No discovery of Byzantine papyri in Egypt has provided a Greek or Coptic sample of it.

Where its literary genre is concerned, the Book of Parables is most closely akin, in my opinion, to the Sibylline literature. Now, the Christian production of Sibyllines flourished in the second to fourth centuries. (pg 91-92)

His opinion was challenged by members of the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar in Tübingen (1977) and Paris (1978). See J H Charlesworth NTS 25 (1979) 315-23; M A Knibb, "The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review" NTS 25 (1979) 345-59; and C L Mearns, "Dating the Similitudes of Enoch," NTS 25 (1979) 360-69. Their consensus, as reported by E. Isaac in his translation of Ethiopic Enoch published in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1, was that the "Similitudes were Jewish and dated from the first century A.D." Opposing the opinion of Milik that the Similitudes had replaced an original Book of Giants by A.D. 400, he asserts "I am convinced that 1 Enoch already contained the Similitudes by the end of the first century A.D." (pg. 7).

To be honest, I think there is an ideological war to explain the existence of the Parables of Enoch without having to admit that it could be derivitive of Jewish-Christian speculation. The authors of the articles in the first reference you cited all seem to agree that its composition must be dated in the 1st century CE, maybe the beginning of the 2nd, but their reasoning appears to me to be designed to make the date fit. My personal take, and you can take this for what it is as I am a non-expert when it comes to Aramaic or Ethiopian, is that the Parables are a genuine Jewish production from a group that fled to Ethiopia AFTER the 1st century. I base this on the fact that there is not a trace of it among the DSS or other ancient literature (unless you count the parallels cited by R H Charles, etc), and it is only preserved as part of the holy books of the Ethiopic Orthodox Church, which has also adopted the other Jewish Enoch books and Pseudepigrapha such as Jubilees, which WERE found among the DSS. I don't detect anything in the Parables that is specifically Christian, but its Jewish author(s) could easily have been influenced by early Jewish-Christianity also in exile in Upper Egypt after say the Bar Kochba revolt.

I have a problem wrapping my head around the idea that Philo calls the Logos "another god." Are you referring to the Stoic doctrine of the two principles - the Logos as active ARCH, matter as passive ARCH, which finds its way back into the well of Middle Platonism from which Philo drew? To a Platonist, the word Logos is sometimes used of the Cosmic Soul that permeates everything and of which our souls are a part, and at other times the all permeating Mind of God and the source of the Ideas/Forms.

According to R T Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus Of Plato (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1983):

5.1.3. Cosmic soul and the Logos

3. Jewish Sophia/Logos speculation. …

It must be agreed with Wolfson 1.327-328 that, though Philo avoids the expression 'soul of the cosmos' and shows almost no interest in Plato's description of the creation of the cosmic soul, he nevertheless gives the Logos, situated at the intra-cosmic level, certain characteristics of that soul. Indeed we can safely say that the immanent Logos takes over the role given by Plato to the cosmic soul. It cannot, however, simply be identified with that Platonic cosmic soul.

For Plato soul has an intermediate status, acting as a bridge between noetic and sense-perceptible reality . The cosmic soul is … the highest being in the created order, brought forth by the demiurge, who belongs to the noetic realm and from whom it derives its LOGISMOS and ARMONIA (cf.36e6-37a2) . Philo too gives the Logos an intermediate or mediating role. It is UPERANW PANTOS TOU KOSMOU KAI GENIKWTATOS TWN OSA GEGONE (Leg.3.175, exeg. Deut.8:3 (manna as God’s ‘most generic’ word)). As God's archangel it stands midway between the uncreated and the created, OUTE AGENHTOS WS O QEOS WN OUTE GENHTOS WS UMEIS (ANQRWPOI) (Her.206, exeg. Deut.5:5 (symbolized by Moses)).

But Philo does not give the Logos a carefully worked out intermediate structure, such as Plato attributed to his cosmic soul. Consequently it always remains difficult to determine the extent to which the Logos becomes a hypostasis , i.e. an entity having a real existence separate from God himself. Further difficulties arise when one recalls the role of the Logos as place of the KOSMOS NOHTOS or as archetypal paradigm itself (IDEA TWN IDEWN Opif.25) . At Migr.6 (exeg. Gen.28:17) the Logos is PRESBUTEROS TWN GENESIN EILHFOTWN, a status higher than that given to the cosmic soul by Plato (cf. the pre-cosmic creation in the Jewish Sophia/Logos speculation). At Fug.101 the Logos is EIKWN QEOU, TWN NOHTWN APAX APANTWN O PRESBUTATOS(exeg. Ex.25:22). In terms of the Timaeus the Logos is equated with both the model and the cosmic soul. Is Philo not opening up the possibility of confusion by speaking of God's Logos at more than one level and in more than one function?

But that's just me ramblin' ... :dancy:

DCH

Maklelan

It happens that an acquaintance of mine just published an article on this question in JBL: "Historical-Allusional Dating and the Similitudes of Enoch," JBL 130.3 (2011): 417–30. Here's a portion of his conclusion:

This footnote (which I'm not going to take the time to format) is also of interest:

His use is not identical to Martyr's, as Christ was obviously a quite concrete personification of the logos, but see his comments in Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.62:

Ultimately, the point of my comment was the highlight a comment from Martyr that simply would not have been possible at the end of the second century or in the third century. It is more closely related to the first and early/mid second century.

stephan huller

I'd actually like to ask Maklelan a question while I am sitting at another drive thru. Do you think nukraya could be used as an Aramaic equivalent of Philo's “other” god among the Marcionites? The use of the terminology is reported in Ephrem

I have consistently argued for the exotic character of the Marcionites have been exaggerated

Duvduv

I am one who doesn't buy the description expressed by Tertullian about Marcion. I found the book by P.C. Sense from 100 years ago on the gospel of Luke quite interesting where he argues that Marcion was in fact NOT a docetist and did not believe in the idea of the "evil demiurge."

Maklelan

I thought I'd seen this discussed before, so I googled it and came up with your blog. I can see you've spent a lot of time with this. Nukraya seems to me to have more to do with an unknown figure rather than just "another" figure. While I don't think the Marcionites were quite as far out there as a lot of polemical texts like to insist, I do think their particular brand of Christianity was influenced by the secondary imposition of gnostic ideologies.

stephan huller

I'm at another store but Philo does say something like the god of this aeon is different from the god of the next aeon. Will dig out the reference soon

DCHindley

That is to cite one passage from Philo, but here is Wolfson's summary:

It is because the Logos is conceived by Philo as both the totality of ideas and the totality of powers that sometimes, as in the case of the ideas, he describes it as created. The Logos is thus spoken of as the eldest and most generic of created things [Leg. All. III, 61, 175] as "older than all things which were the objects of creation," [Migr. I, 6] as not being uncreated as God, though not created as human beings,[Heres. 42, 206] as being the first-born son of God,[Agr. 12, 51, et alia] the man of God,[Conf. 11, 41; cf. 14, 62; 28, 146] the image of God [Conf. 28, 147, et alia] second to God [Leg. All. II, 21, 86] a second God [Qu. In Gen. II, 62, secundus deus] and as being called a god by those who have an imperfect knowledge of the real God. [Leg. All. III, 73, 207; cf, Somn. I, 39, 229-230; 41, 238-239] An implication that the Logos is created is contained also in a passage where he says that "being the Logos of the Eternal (AIDIOU) it is of necessity also itself incorruptible (AFQARTOS)."[Conf. 11, 41] (Philo, vol. I, pg 234)

Justin, like many of the 2nd century Christian "philosophers" made their own attempts to shoehorn Christian dogma into Platonic shoes. I cannot recall where I read it, but one modern critic likened the knowledge of the early Christian writers (including Justin & Irenaeus, maybe even Tertullian despite his classical education) to the level one could garner from the sophistic "handbooks."

For Philo, the world was created by God through the utterance of God's divine word, but this word has a point of creation and is not eternal as God is. For Justin, God created the world through the Christ, which he conceives as someone completely in union with God, and while he uses the term "logos", I do not think he is quite as 'deep' as Philo was. True philosophical sophistication really only comes when we get to Clement & Origen of Alexandra and Hippolytus of Rome, who are late 2nd to mid 3rd century writers.

DCH

Duvduv

i wonder what the Greek words are for "second deity" since all Philo meant is that the Word is a divine essence that is from God and not any kind of separate deity.

Maklelan

τὸν δεύτερον θεόν. It's in the accusative, just so you know.