The First Christians / pt. 5
The period between the death of Yeshu haNotsri ca. 65 BCE and the acceptance of the canonical gospels ca. 150 CE (215 years in all!) represents a lengthy period in which the theology of Jesus took forms that today we would scarcely recognize as “Christian.” A vast literature survives from this era, some of it denominated Christian, some denominated Jewish, some considered an amalgam of the two religions, and some whose theology remains frankly “uncertain.” This literature, because it did not enter either body of religious scripture, is termed “Jewish pseudepigrapha” and “Christian apocrypha.” Both terms are treated pejoratively by the guild. Pseudepigrapha literally means “false writings,” and the term “apocryphal” immediately raises suspicion in biblical scholarship. Helmut Koester once noted acerbically:
The terms “apocryphal” and “canonical” reflect a traditional usage which implies deep-seated prejudices and has had far-reaching consequences. Any standard dictionary, like Merriam-Webster, will explain the term “apocryphal” as “not canonical; unauthentic; spurious.” The synonyms are listed under “fictitious,” i.e., “invented or imagined rather than true and genuine,” and the term “apocryphal” is explained here as follows: “implies a mysterious or extremely dubious source of origin.” More than half a century ago, Montague Rhodes James wrote in the introduction to his edition of the apocryphal writings of the NT:
“The old word apocrypha is good enough for my purpose, and I employ it here in the sense of false and spurious, even when I am dealing with writings which may contain ancient and truthful elements.”
Something that contains “ancient and truthful elements” is automatically treated as “false and spurious”? It doesn’t get much worse than that, folks…
The above deprecatory attitude towards non-canonical literature reigns in the academic guild and, quite simply, prevents any whole-hearted investigation into Christian origins. Scholars in the field routinely and obstinately bypass an entire library of quasi-Jewish and quasi-Christian writings dating from Hasmonean and Early Roman times, a period usually referred to as “intertestamental.” However, as the historical reliability of the Christian scriptures themselves comes under increasing suspicion (from both within and outside the guild), the focus of research must necessarily move to the so-called “apocrypha” and “pseudepigrapha” (including the Dead Sea Scrolls). There is simply no other choice.
When we focus our attention on the “false and spurious” texts neglected by history, we note a number of works that describe in grosso modo an ascent to the divine. As mentioned in the previous post, that ascent is a hallmark of gnosticism and characterizes the religion of the naṣarenes, whom I propose were early followers of Yeshu haNotsri. Potentially naṣarene writings from around the turn of the era include (in no particular order): the Parables of Enoch, the Odes of Solomon, the Ascent of Isaiah, and the Urschrift of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.
The Parables of Enoch
Before the New Testament canon was settled (about 200 CE)…
… the authority of the Enochic scriptures was defended by influential theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, although they knew that the authority of these scriptures was not recognised in all churches. The authority of Enoch was then strongly denounced by Augustine in “The City of God,” which most possibly was one of the reasons why the book [1 Enoch] went out of use and was long forgotten in the western Church. The only place it survived was in the orthodox Ethiopic Church, since this church through the centuries was isolated from the West.
According to Gen 5:24, Enoch while alive “walked with the angels; then he was no more, because God took him” (on this translation see COMMENT here). This astonishing statement stimulated a great deal of literature in intertestamentary times, when—for some reason—interest in the ascent of man to God became pronounced. I suspect that reason had something to do with the ministry of Yeshu haNotsri in the 70s and 60s BCE, for his teachings (many of them recorded in the canonical gospels) insist that such an ascent is possible. In any case, the ascent to divinity through hidden wisdom (gnosis) became a hallmark of gnosticism, and Enoch became “the ultimate revealer of divine secrets” (Kvanvig). These elements—ascent to divinity, and “ultimate revealer”—would later be taken over by Jesus of Nazareth. These are two reasons to view Enoch as the proximate precursor to Jesus of the New Testament. We will be adding more reasons (such as Enoch as the Son of Man—next post), and will be keeping count as we add more similarities between Enoch and Jesus of Nazareth.
In all, three books are ascribed to Enoch in the Jewish pseudepigrapha. Here, I consider 1 Enoch, which is a sprawling work of 108 chapters. It is also a composite work, more a library than a single book, with sections of varying date and provenance. Josef Milik divided 1 Enoch into five sections or “booklets,” a division that still (roughly) holds:
1. The Book of the Watchers (chps. 1–36)
2. The Book of Parables (37–71)
3. The Book of Astronomical Writings (72–82)
4. The Book of Dream Visions (83–90)
5. The Book of the Epistle of Enoch (91–107)
One of the sections that I suggest is linked to the early followers of Yeshu haNotsri is the Book of Parables (chps. 37–71), sometimes called the “Similitudes of Enoch.” Scholars date the section to around the turn of the era—the time of the first Christians, according to the alternative chronology presented on this website. There are three “parables”: chps. 38–44; 45–57; and 58–69. An Introduction (chp. 37) and a conclusion (chps. 70–71) complete the booklet. Scholarship notes that the Parables of Enoch have undergone a good deal of tampering, interpolations, and movement of passages from one place to another. This is particularly the case with the third parable, where chps. 64–69 are late additions (including Noachic fragments that have nothing to do with Enoch) and chps. 62–63 seem to be misplaced from the second parable. In brief, the basic scheme of the three parables is as follows:
Parable 1: Pre-eschatological judgment (our present world); the righteous “Chosen Ones” persevere despite the wealthy rulers who oppress them.
Parable 2: The judgment (administered by Enoch = the Son of Man).
Parable 3: Post-judgment (the heavenly realm).
The tenor of these parables is clearly ebionite. The author repeatedly inveighs against “the rich who have denied the Lord of Spirits and are destroyed” (38:4-6; 46:4-6; 48:8-10, etc). The author’s anger also extends to those who deny the gnostic “way” (i.e., that gnosis alone leads to salvation). The first parable begins with a slap to the face of anti-gnostic traditionalists:
1/ The vision that Enoch saw…
2/ This is the beginning of the words of gnosis, which I took up to recount to those who dwell on the earth. Listen, O ancients, and look, you who come after—the words of the Holy One, which I speak in the presence of the Lord of Spirits.
3/ It is profitable to speak these things at first, and from those who come after, let us not withhold the beginning of gnosis.
4/ Until now there had not been given from the presence of the Lord of Spirits such gnosis as I have received according to my insight, according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits, by whom the lot of everlasting life was given to me.
5/ Three parables were imparted to me, and I took them up and spoke to those who dwell on the earth. (1 En 37:2–5)
Many elements stand out in these astonishing verses. First of all, the beginning of the passage has an uncanny resemblance to the opening of the Gospel of Thomas: “These are the secret words that Jesus the Living spoke…” In both cases, “Jesus the Living” and Enoch teach from a supra-mundane realm. We know from Gen 5:22–24 that Enoch “walked with the angels,” but in the above passage he is elevated even higher—into “the presence of the Lord of Spirits.” Other passages in the Parables reveal that the position of Enoch (in his various appellations of “Chosen/Elect One,” “Son of Man,” etc) is in no wise inferior to divinity itself—he “will crush the teeth of the sinners” (46:4), has “glory forever and ever” (49:2), and he even sits upon the “throne” of God (51:3). In other words, Enoch is no longer human but is tantamount to “the Son of God” (Mt 3:17). This is our third parallel with Jesus of Nazareth.
Enoch in vss. 2–3 above speaks words of gnosis to the “ancients” and those who “come after”—that is, to all humanity past, present, and future. He speaks these things “at first.” We learn elsewhere that Enoch is pre-existent (from “before time began” and with the “Head of Days,” 46:1–6). This recalls the Gospel of John (Jn 17:5 etc) and is our fourth parallel with Jesus of Nazareth.
In the above citation God receives a new name not known elsewhere in Judaism: Lord of Spirits. The name entirely ignores the material realm. This is consistent with other Naṣarene passages, where the author is even capable of rewriting Jewish scripture. For example, Isa 6:3 reads: “holy, holy, holy is the YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” But at 39:12, the author of the Parables writes: “holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Spirits, he fills the earth with spirits.” To the Naṣarenes, materiality is evidently of no account. From a normative Jewish perspective, this is pure heresy.