Re: Enoch

Burgy wrote,

> ...that the thesis (the writer of Hebrews is the first to conclude that
> Enoch was
> translated) has not been disproven.
>
>
On the other hand, neither has it been proven.
 
Gen 5;24 in Hebrew has simply "God took him". The LXX translated "took" as
metatithemi, which is the verb used in Hebrews 11:5, as well as in Wisdom of
Solomon 4:10 about Enoch and Sirach 44:16 about Enoch.
The classical Greek lexicon of Liddell and Scott gives two basic meanings for
this verb which revolve around "placing differently, transposing" and
"change/alter."
A/G the standard NT Greek lexicon defines its meaning as "convey to another
place, transfer" and "change, alter."

In Wisdom of Solomon, the next verse says he was "snatched away" which was
used of an early death as well as of translation. So, little can be proven from
this pre-Hebrews writing. The same can be said of Sirach.

RH Charles (who was an authority on apocalyptic literature), in his
translation and notes on the Apocrypha says that the reputation of Enoch as pious and a
revealer of divine secrets, was thought to be exaggerated by the rabbis, so
"there arose a protest in rabbinical circles which is reflected in some of the
early Rabbinical literature." One aspect of this protest was the denial that
Enoch was translated and the insistence that he died a natural death. (p 482)

Given the basic meaning of metatithemi as transfer to a different place or
being changed or altered, it seems to me that the LXX (which is pre-Hebrews) is
speaking of translation such as occurred with Elijah. This is all the more
probable in that the LXX says, "and he was not found because God had epitihemied
him." Add to this that the tradition of his having died a natural death was a
_reaction_ to the earlier tradition, and you have a case that the idea of the
translation of Enoch did exist before the time of the writer of Hebrews.

Paul
Received on Sun Mar 28 20:39:13 2004