Re: Enoch

PASAlist@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

        At the risk of beating a dead horse, if not a dead Enoch, here are a couple of
additional thoughts on the matter.

        1) One might think that the Book of Enoch would be the best place to look for
pre-Christian development of ideas about the patriarch. I haven't read this in detail
in over 20 years so won't promise that there's no explicit answer to the question of
whether or not he died, but I don't think there is.
        However - At the beginning of Ch.12, there is the following. (I'm quoting from
Charles' translation.)
        "Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew
where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. And his
activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones."
        This doesn't say explicitly that he didn't die, but it sounds like it. This is
especially the case when you realize that one possible Christian interpretation - that
he died but his soul went to heaven - just isn't the way Jews normally thought about an
afterlife.

        2) The statement in Hebrews that Enoch didn't die might be connected
methodologically with what is said about Melchizidek (who is much more important in
Heb.) in 7:3: "Without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end
of life ..."
        Nothing is said in OT about Melchizidek's birth of death or lack thereof.
Buchanan, in his Anchor Bible commentary on Hebrews, suggests that the writer of Hebrews
is using the principle that "if it is not in the scripture, it is not in the world" (for
which he refers to Philo & Tractate Sanhedrin, neither of which I have at hand now).
Since Melchizidek's birth and death aren't in the scripture, they aren't. If this is
the basis for 7:3, it might also be the basis for the statement that Enoch "did not
experience death" in 11:5. But that would still not settle the question of whether or
not the writer of Hebrews was the first to reach that conclusion.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Mar 29 08:52:42 2004