The First Christians / pt. 6
In the previous post I introduced the Parables (also called “Similitudes”) of Enoch, which forms a major part (chps. 37–71) of the book known as 1 Enoch. Scholars date these chapters to around the turn of the era, which happens also to be the critical period of the first followers of Yeshu haNotsri (d. ca. 65 BCE). I identify those early followers with Epiphanius’ Nasarenes (Panarion 18)—not to be confused with his invented sect of Nazoraeans (Pan 29). Except for the “nazirite” (in Judaism, a person consecrated to God, generally temporarily), all cognates with the “z” sound betray Catholic inventions: Nazarene (Mk 1:24), Nazareth and Nazoraean (Mt 2:23), as well as variations of these words found in various passages and textual witnesses of the gospels. Any authentic forms in Greek have a sigma (only Nasarene qualifies, q.v. Epiphanius, Pan. 18).
The sect of the Nazarenes/Nazoraeans is not mentioned before Epiphanius in the fourth century (Pan. 29). The Church Father invented the sect because he needed to explain Acts 24:5, where Paul is described as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoraeans [Nαζωραíων].” Epiphanius opens Panarion 29 with two confusing paragraphs that start: “After these come Nazoraeans, who originated at the same time or even before, or in conjunction with them or after them… I cannot say…” Obviously he has no historical information at hand. The rest of the section (seven long pages) is a digression which allows the Church Father to get into all kinds of trouble, including that Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Janneus (29.3.3), that Philo’s Therapeutae were “Christians” and “Jessaeans” (= Essenes, 29.5.1), and that the Nasarenes [with sigma] existed “before Christ” (29.6.1). So, in trying to solve one problem for the Church, Epiphanius only created several more.
Let us turn from Epiphanius’ dissimulation to the Nasarenes (Pan. 18), who I maintain were in fact the first Christians. They were a radical sect that “effected a schism” (Pan 19.5.1) and that had nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth, for (as mentioned above) they were “before Christ” and “did not know Christ” (29.6.1). This is Epiphanius’ transparent ploy to remove the gnostic Nasarenes as far as possible from the invented figure Jesus of Nazareth. But his maneuver came at a price: by dating the sect of the Nasarenes “before Christ” the Church Father introduces an oxymoron that has befuddled inquirers ever since: the existence of “pre-Christian Christians.”
Epiphanius was right, and we now have a solution to this particular conundrum. Yeshu haNotsri being the founder of Christianity, his followers (the Nasarenes) could not have known Jesus of Nazareth (the Church’s “Christ”) who, I have argued elsewhere, was created by the evangelists in mid-II CE. According to the alternative chronology, Yeshu’s followers did not know Jesus of Nazareth for over two centuries (ca. 65 BCE–ca. 150 CE). With the triumph of Pauline Christianity, the fourth century Epiphanius now disowned the Nasarenes, for they held very different beliefs from the emergent Roman Church—an outmoded theology that did not admit Jesus of Nazareth, as well as heretical beliefs that were gnostic, ebionite, and encratite.
As we considered in the previous post, the Parables of Enoch present a revolutionary theology, one of ascent from man to God, and were composed later in the first century BCE. This theology contrasts with all contemporary Jewish sects—Pharisees, Sadducees, and Qumranic Essenes. The scriptural anchor for the Enochian ascent was Gen 5:21–24, which reports that the patriarch Enoch was “taken” by God while still in the flesh. Enochian literature elaborates upon this theme beginning with the Book of Watchers (1 En 1–36, late II BCE), which presents Enoch as a privileged magus who, while in heaven, heard “everything [from the angels] and understood” (1 En 1:2). This myth derives ultimately from Mesopotamian religion, and we can find precursors for Enoch in the figure of Oannes (the fish-man who brought wisdom to mankind) and Emmeduranki, the seventh pre-dynastic king of Sumer who was also taken up to heaven by the gods. Finally, we recall that the name Enoch itself means “understand, acquire by experience, perceive” and is derived from the root cH-N-K. Enoch, in other words, is fundamentally a gnostic figure.
The Book of Daniel was written in the late 160s BCE. The Enochians borrowed from this book the concept “Son of Man,” so pregnant for future developments:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” (Dan 7:13–14)
The Parables of Enoch essentially expand upon this passage and answer the question: “Who is the Son of Man?” Daniel tells us that: (1) the Son of Man is “in the presence” of God; (2) he has “authority, glory and sovereign power” (all these are attributes of divinity); and (3) he has “everlasting dominion” and “his kingdom will not be destroyed” (this is also godlike). In short, Enoch becomes divine. Man becomes God.
The Parables of Enoch traces this transformation from man to God and uses Enoch as the model figure. At the beginning of the text Enoch is the naive but pure human who depends upon the Angel of Peace to answer his questions (1 En 40:8; 52:3; 53:4; 54:4; 56:2) and to reveal to him the “hidden things” (Heb. neṣuroth, related to the word Naṣarene).
Then, the enigmatic “Son of Man” is introduced to Enoch. The Son of Man is pre-existent (48:2), he is with the “Head of Days” (46:1-2), he is the name of the Lord of Spirits (i.e. is divine, 46:6); he is righteous (46:3), and he is the eschatological judge (46:5) who will crush the strong and sinners (46:4-6). All these elements were, of course, later taken up by the Catholics in the composition of the canonical gospels and applied by them to Jesus of Nazareth.
Having gradually learned about the Son of Man, Enoch is himself designated in terms such as “the Chosen One” (or “Elect One”) and the “Anointed One” (“Messiah”).
Finally, the culmination of the entire Book of Parables (and a passage that conservative Christians consider outrageous) identifies Enoch himself as the Son of Man (71:14). He is also the Messiah (Anointed One) and the Chosen One who “sits upon the throne” of God (1 En 51:3). This, of course, is the apotheosis of Man. It is also thoroughly un-Jewish. It demonstrates that Enochian theology moved over the centuries from a non-Mosaic form of Judaism to well outside Judaism altogether.
From where came this notion of the apotheosis of man? It is quite new with the Parables of Enoch which, as noted above, dates to the late first century BCE. Involved in that apotheosis, however, is a critical re-definition of “God.” For the author of the Parables, God is not the creator and ruler of the material realm. We saw in the previous post that materiality is of little consequence in the Parables of Enoch. God is uniquely called the “Lord of Spirits”—an epithet that occurs over one hundred times in the Parables and nowhere else.
If, like the author of the Parables, we consider “God” to be a purely spiritual entity, then becoming like God takes on an entirely new meaning. It is a spiritual transformation, one that the Parables emphasize entails the acquisition of gnosis, of learning “hidden things.” This, in fact, is the definition of the “Naṣarene”—the one who perceives the hidden wisdom of existence.
In my opinion, this new element of spiritual transformation through gnosis, together with a re-definition of God, originated with the teaching of Yeshu haNotsri and passed from him to his followers, the Naṣarenes.