the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

384 QUMRAN AND THE DATINGOFTHEPARABLES OF ENOCH
which is only hinted at in chapter 6 of Genesis. And again it was to the
Book of Watchers that the Epistle of Jude alluded (v. 14), giving the book a
certain credit in Christian circles.
That is not all, though. While it is true that there are no direct quotations,
there is at least one clear allusion to BP in Tertullian. He defends
the authority of the Enochic Pentateuch precisely because Enoch can be
considered a prophet of Christ; and for that reason it was rejected by the
Jews. He does, however, admit a limit in the work’s use. In order to
demonstrate that Enoch had truly spoken of Jesus Christ, Tertullian
writes in Cult. fem. 3.1: “Since Enoch in this same work (naturally the
Enochic Pentateuch) has made predictions regarding the Lord (that is
Jesus Christ) we can reject nothing that regards us. We know that every
work suited to edification has divine inspiration. We can clearly see that
this work was rejected by the Jews for precisely this reason, like nearly all
other writings that provide a glimpse of Christ.” For this, too, Milik’s
hypothesis does not hold up. 20
BP‘s absence from Qumran has drawn the attention of many scholars,
because it is certain, just as it is certain that BP is not a third century
Christian text. So, the question is open. Taking, for example, the minimal
hypothesis, that is that the text is Jewish, which is absolutely clear, but
trying to reconcile this with the book’s absence from Qumran, seen as
proof that it was written shortly after 70 C.E., we must still find a solution
to the problem of the Parthian invasion. The invasion tends to push
toward a higher dating, given the fact that the author describes the events
with a sense of immediateness, as though he still had the terror of those
days firmly in mind. It is also hard to believe that at the end of the first
century C.E. the most disturbing event that the author could think of was
a Parthian invasion of more than a century earlier, while the destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem hardly had any effect on him at all.
Thus, attempts have been made to eliminate the Parthians from the text
in two ways: interpreting the entire passage of 56:5–7 as an apocalyptic
literary topos with no precise value, 21 or, again assuming an apocalyptic
mentality, considering mention of the Parthians as merely a metaphor for
the Romans. 22 If a generic term like kittim may be referred to many peoples,
20. Cf. Chialà, Parabole di Enoc, 68. In BP many passages relating to the Son of Man
may be interpreted as prophecies of the Christ.
21. Cf. Michel Jas, “Hénoch et le Fils de l’Homme,” Revue Réformée 30 (1979):
105–19; Michael A. Knibb, “The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review,”
NTS 25 (1979): 345–59.
22. George W. E. Nickelsburg, review of J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, in CBQ 40
(1978): 411–19. Cf. David W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch