Enoch
at Qumran
Qumran
provides an identifiable location in ancient Judaism for the substantial use
and influence of the Enochic traditions. The evidence is diverse. Cave 4
yielded element manuscripts of various parts of 1 Enoch, dating from the early
second century B.C.E. to the early first century C.E. . . . Also preserved are
fragments of nine manuscripts of the Enochic Book of Giants, dating from the
first half of the first century B.C.E. to the early first century . . . Thus
the Enochic tradition was alive and well at Qumran, although extant copies from
the first century C.E. have been found for only the Book of Luminaries and the
Book of Giants. The complete absence of any fragments of the Book of Parables
at Qumran suggests that the Parables were composed outside Qumran, though in
circles that transmitted the Book of the Watchers—a work that itself was
composed outside Qumran before the establishment of the community there.
The
influence of the Enochic traditions at Qumran is evident also in the community’s
possession of (multiple copies of) texts that employ or quote from the Enochic
texts. These include the Book of Jubilees (eight copies) and a related text
(three copies), the Genesis Apocryphon (one copy), a fragmentary Hebrew text
from Cave 1 that contained a form of the story of the watchers very close to 1
Enoch 6-11 (1Q19), a pešer on the story of the watchers (4Q180-181), a
commentary or expansion on the Apocalypse of Weeks (4Q247), and the Damascus
Document (eight copies), which knows the story of the rebellion of the watchers
and a tradition about the giants (CD 2:16-20 . . .) and also appeals to the authority
of the Book of Jubilees (CD 16:2-4). Alongside these texts that explicitly
use the Enochic tradition are several others that appear to have employed the
tradition, while ascribing it to others are using them anonymously. These
include: the Aramaic Levi Document . . . 1QH 12[4]:29-40, which presents an
anthropologized form of the eschatological tradition from 1 Enoch 15; and the
Book of Daniel, whose vision of the heavenly throne room in chap. 7 is based on
the account in 1 Enoch 14 . . .
In
addition to the use of Enochic literature traditions at Qumran, attested in the
manuscript collections in Caves 1 and 4, we should note two descriptions of the
community’s origins found in sectarian texts that parallel descriptions of
origin in 1 Enoch (CD 1:3-16 and 1QS 8:5-7; cf. 1 Enoch 90:6-7; 93:7-10 +
91:11). Both sets of passages place the texts in a community that construes
itself as the eschatological Israel constituted by divine revelation.
The
proliferation of Enochic and quasi-Enochic material in the Qumran library suggests
two scenarios.
(1)
The Qumran community attracted people who prized the Enochic texts and others
closely related to them, and who brought their copies of these texts with them.
(2) The community provided an ambiance that fostered the copying and use of
these texts and the incorporation of their traditions into new texts.
The
Enochic texts and others related to them probably served several functions at
the Qumran community. (1) The Enochic and calendrical material was fundamental
for community life and religious observances. (2) Multiple copies of works like
the component parts of 1 Enoch, of Daniel, the Aramaic Levi Document, ad the
Testament of Amram indicate that these apocalyptic texts were wholly compatible
with the worldview and religious thought of the community in several ways. (a) They
informed and undergirded the community’s high eschatological consciousness; (b)
they informed and supported the community’s dualistic cosmology; (c) they were consonant
with Qumranic claims to possess special revelation. (3) The story of the
watchers and the women spoke to several central concerns of the community. It
provided a warning against human immorality and heresy, a critique of the
perceived pollution of the Jerusalem cult, and an aetiology of the demonic realm
that played an important role in the Qumran worldview.
These parallels and connections notwithstanding, the Qumranites developed their own profile and identity as an eschatological community, which was committed to observance of their own version of divine law. Three aspects of the Qumranic profile differ from their counterparts in 1 Enoch. (1) Although the Qumran corpus contains many sapiential texts, many other texts attest that the notion of covenant and adherence to the Mosaic Torah stood at the heart of their Israelite self-identity in a way that is strikingly absent in 1 Enoch’s sapiential myth and eschatology . . . The myth of demonic origins and operations in 1QS 3-4 differs from the explanation offered in the versions of the story of the watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees. (3) In their later history, the Qumranites tied their eschatology to the biblical prophets rather than to primordial, pseudonymous Enochic revelation . .. in keeping with the developing authority of the texts that would constitute the Hebrew Bible. (George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001], 76-78)
To
what extent 1 Enoch functioned as authoritative scripture among Jews is
uncertain. It has that role for the author of Jubilees, and for a while
it must have had that character at Qumran. (Ibid., 83)
The
Rabbis
Although
the rabbis tended to reject the angelic interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4, an
occasional hint of the tradition about the rebel angels occurs in the rabbinic
writings. In b. Nid. 61a the giants Sihon and Og are said to be
descendants of Shamhazi, and in b. Yoma 67b Azazel is associated with
Azazel. Enoch himself, however, is scarcely mentioned in the early rabbinic
tradition, and Gen. Rab. 5:24 indicates some distinctly negative attitudes
towards the patriarch. Although this is consonant with broader negative
attitudes toward apocalyptic literature among the rabbis, it should be set
side-by-side with the high valuation of Enoch in 3 Enoch, which derives
from circles that cherished Merkabah mysticism . . . (George W. E. Nickelsburg,
1 Enoch 1 [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001], 81)