Several years ago, in an article published in the Henoch, I argued that 2 Enoch contains systematic polemics against the priestly Noachic tradition. My study tried to demonstrate that in the course of these polemics the exalted features of Noah’s story, such as his miraculous birth, his leading roles as the originator of animal sacrificial practice and a bridge over the Flood become transferred to other characters of the Slavonic apocalypse including Methuselah, Nir, who defined in the story as “Noah’s younger brother,” and his miraculously born child Melchisedek. The analysis showed that the transferences of Noah’s features and achievements to other characters were intended to diminish the extraordinary role traditionally assigned to the hero of the Flood in the crucial juncture of the primeval history.
While demonstrating the existence of the Noahic polemics my previous study did not fully explain the purpose of these polemics. Why did Noah, who traditionally is viewed as the main ally of the seventh antedeluvian hero in the early Enochic booklets, suddenly become devalued by the Enochic tradition? In this current investigation I will try to advance an argument that the polemics with the exalted figure of the hero of the Flood found in 2 Enoch might represent the response of the Enochic tradition to the challenges posed to the classic profile of the seventh antediluvian hero by the Second Temple mediatorial traditions about the exalted patriarchs and prophets.
A further and more important goal of this study will be clarification of the possible date of 2 Enoch, which represent a crucial problem for the students of the Slavonic apocalypse who often lament the absence of unambiguous textual evidence that can place the pseudepigraphon in the chronological boundaries of Second Temple Judaism. Scholars have rightly observed that “although many commentators take for granted a date as early as the first century CE for 2 Enoch, the fact remains that it survives only in medieval manuscripts in Slavonic and that exegesis of it needs to commence at that point and proceed backwards to a putative (and highly debatable) first-century Jewish original only on the basis of rigorous argument.”
possible that the anti-Noachic developments found in the Slavonic apocalypse can
finally provide the decisive proof for the early date of this text. The
investigation will explore whether Noachic polemical developments, which focus
on the issues of sacrificial practices and priestly successions, can be firmly
dated not later than 70 CE, since they reflect a distinctive sacerdotal
situation peculiar to the time when the
Purpose of the Polemics
My study published in Henoch demonstrated that 2 Enoch shows a systematic tendency to diminish or refocus the priestly significance of the figure of Noah. These revisions take place in the midst of the debates about sacrificial practice and priestly succession. But what is the role of this denigration of the hero of the Flood and the traditions associated with his name in the larger framework of the mediatorial polemical interactions found in the Slavonic apocalypse?
I have argued
elsewhere that the anti-Noachic developments is not the only polemical trend
found in the Slavonic apocalypse.
In fact 2 Enoch reveals an intricate
web of mediatorial debates in the course of which the several traditions about
exalted patriarchs and prophets prominent in Second Temple Judaism, including
Adam and Moses, underwent polemical appropriation when their exalted features
are transferred to the seventh antediluvian hero. These polemical tendencies
seem to reflect the familiar atmosphere of the mediatorial debates widespread in
It has been mentioned that 2 Enoch contains polemics with Adamic and Mosaic traditions. These polemical moves are consistent with the ambiguous attitude towards Adam and Moses already discernable in the earliest Enochic materials where these two exalted characters traditionally understood as the major mediatorial rivals of the seventh antediluvian patriarch. But why do the authors of the Slavonic apocalypse attempt to diminish the significance of Noah, who was traditionally considered as a main ally of the seventh antediluvian patriarch and, consequently, occupied a prominent place among the main heroes of the Enochic lore starting from the earliest Enochic booklets?
The important feature of the removal of Noah’s priestly and sacrificial roles in 2 Enoch is that, although the significance of the hero of the flood is almost completely sacerdotally denigrated, it does not affect or destroy the value or meaning of the alternative priestly tradition which he was faithfully representing for such a long time. The legacy of this priestly-sacrificial office is still strictly maintained within the Enochic family since Noah's priestly garments are not lost or destroyed but instead are skillfully transferred to other kinsmen of the Enochic clan, including its traditional member Methuselah and two other, newly-acquired relatives, Nir and Melchisedek.
that the impetus for the denigration of Noah, this important character of the
Enochic-Noachic axis, does not come from opponents to the Enochic tradition, but
rather originates within this lore. It represents a domestic conflict that
attempts to downgrade and devalue the former paladin who has become so notable
that his exalted status in the context of mediatorial interactions now poses an
imminent threat to the main hero of the Enochic tradition. It is noteworthy that
in the course of the aforementioned polemical transferences, the priestly
profile of Enoch and the sacerdotal status of some members of his immediate
family become much stronger. His son Methuselah, the first-born and heir of his
father's teaching, has now acquired the roles of high priest and pioneer of
animal sacrificial practice by constructing an altar on the high place
associated with the
Enoch also seems to have benefited from Noah's removal from priestly and sacrificial duties since this has made him the only remaining authority in sacrificial instruction, an office that he shared previously with Noah. This fact might have encouraged him to openly deliver a series of sacrificial halakhot to his children that he never did previously in the Enochic materials.
It is also significant that, although the priestly profile of Noah is removed in the text and his elevated qualities are transferred to other characters, he still remains a faithful member of the Enochic clan. Although he ceases to be an extraordinary figure and peacefully surrenders his prominent offices to his relatives, he still manages to perfectly fit in the family surroundings by virtue of his newly acquired role of an average person and a family helper in the new plot offered by 2 Enoch's authors. This depiction of Noah as an ordinary person provides an important key for understanding the main objective of Noachic polemics in the Slavonic apocalypse as an argument against the exalted profile of the hero of the Flood posing as a mediatorial rival of Enoch.
attitude toward Noah as a potential threat to Enoch's exalted role might already
be detected in the late Second Temple Enochic developments. A tradition
preserved in the Ethiopic text of the Animal Apocalypse
portrays Noah with imagery identical to that used in the portrayal of Moses in
the Aramaic and Ethiopic versions of the text, that is, as an animal transformed
into a human; in the zoomorphic code of the book this metamorphosis signifies
the transformation into an angelomorphic creature. The Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch do not attest to the tradition
of Noah's elevation, which suggests that this tradition was a later
Debates about the Date
The foregoing analysis of Noachic polemics in the Slavonic apocalypse points to the complex process of interaction between the various mediatorial streams competing for the primacy of their heroes. Yet these conceptual engagements allow us not only to gain a clearer view of the enhancement of Enoch’s elevated profile but also to determine a possible date for the text.
Students of Jewish pseudepigrapha have previously raised concerns about the date of the Slavonic apocalypse, pointing to the fact that the text does not seem to supply definitive evidence for placing it within precise chronological boundaries.
It should be
noted that the scholarly attitude towards the Slavonic apocalypse as evidence of
Second Temple Jewish developments remains somewhat ambiguous in view of the
uncertainty of the text's date. Although students of the apocalypse working
closely with the text insist on the early date of the Jewish pseudepigraphon, a
broader scholarly community has been somehow reluctant to fully embrace 2 Enoch as a Second Temple Jewish
In scholarly debates about the
The uncritical use of this brief statement about 2 Enoch as an enigma "in every respect" unfortunately tends to oversimplify the scholarly situation and diminish the value of the long and complex history of efforts to clarify the provenance and date the text. The following brief excursus into the history of arguments against the early date of the text demonstrates the extreme rarity of critical attempts and their very limited power of persuasion.
1. In 1896,
in his introduction to the English translation of 2 Enoch, R. H. Charles assigned "with
reasonable certainty" the composition of the text to the period between 1-50
before the destruction of the
Scholars have noted that Maunder's argumentation tends to underestimate the theological and literary complexities of the Slavonic Enoch. The remark was made that, after reading Maunder's article, one can be "astonished at the weakness of this argument and at the irrelevant matters adduced in support of it." Charles responded to the criticism of Maunder and Fortheringam in his article published in 1921 in the Journal of Theological Studies, in which he pointed out, among other things, that "the Slavonic Enoch, which ascribes the entire creation to God and quotes the Law as divine, could not have emanated from the Bogomils."
attempt to question the scholarly consensus about the early date of 2 Enoch was made by Josef Milik in his
introduction to the edition of the
John Collins, among others, has offered criticism of Milik's lexical arguments, noting that even if the Slavonic text uses the Greek word surmaio&grafoj, "a single word in the translation is not an adequate basis for dating the whole work." He has also pointed out that "the alleged correspondence of the angels Arioch and Marioch to Harut and Marut of Muslim legend is indecisive since the origin of these figures has not been established." 
Milik's arguments were not confined only to the lexical features of the apocalypse. He also argued that the priestly succession from Methuselah to Noah's nephew Melchisedek described in the third part of 2 Enoch reflects "the transmission of monastic vocations from uncle to nephew, the very widespread custom in the Greek Church during the Byzantine and medieval periods." This feature in his opinion also points to the late Byzantine date of the pseudepigraphon. Unfortunately Milik was unaware of the polemical nature of the priestly successions detailed in the Slavonic Enoch and did not understand the actual role of Nir and Melchisedek in the polemical exposition of the story.
It should be noted that Milik's insistence on the Byzantine Christian provenance of the Slavonic apocalypse was partially inspired by the earlier research of the French Slavist André Vaillant who argued for the Christian authorship of the text. Vaillant's position too generated substantial critical response since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.
The foregoing analysis of the arguments against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon demonstrates how scanty and unsubstantiated they were in the sea of the overwhelming positive consensus. It also shows that none of these hypotheses has been able to stand up to criticism and to form a rationale that would constitute a viable counterpart to the scholarly opinion supporting the early date. Still, one should recognize that, while the adoption of an early date for the text itself does not face great challenges, placing the text within the precise boundaries of Second Temple Judaism is a much more difficult task.
to this task one must first understand what features of the text point to the
early date of the text in the chronological framework of Second Temple Judaism.
It is noteworthy that the vast majority of scholarly efforts have been in this
respect directed towards finding possible hints that might somehow indicate that
affirmations of the value of the animal sacrificial practices and Enoch's
halakhic instructions also appear to be fashioned not in the “preservationist,”
mishnaic-like mode of expression, but rather as if they reflected sacrificial
practices that still existed when the author was writing his book.
There is also an intensive and consistent effort on the part of the author to
legitimize the central place of worship, which through the reference to the
place Akhuzan (a cryptic name for the
temple mountain in
One can see
that the crucial arguments for the early dating of the text are all linked to
the themes of the Sanctuary and its ongoing practices and customs. These
discussions are not new; even Charles employed the references to the
however, Christfried Böttrich attempted to broaden the familiar range of
argumentation by bringing to scholarly attention a description of the joyful
celebration which in his opinion may fix the date of the apocalypse within the
boundaries of the
Böttrich's observations are of
interest, but his understanding of Chapter 69 and especially of the motif of the
radiant face of Methuselah, pivotal for his argument, is problematic in light of
the polemical developments detected in the Slavonic apocalypse. Böttrich is
unaware of the Noachic polemics witnessed to by the Slavonic apocalypse and does
not notice that the description of Methuselah as the originator of the animal
sacrificial cult in 2 Enoch 69
represents the polemical counterpart to Noah's role, who is portrayed in the
Bible and the pseudepigrapha as the pioneer of animal sacrificial practice.
Methuselah, who has never been previously attested in
As one might recall, the early Enochic materials portray Noah as a wonder child. 1 Enoch 106, the Genesis Apocryphon, and possibly 1Q19 depict him with a glorious face and eyes “like the rays of the sun." 1 Enoch 106:2 relates that when the new-born Noah opened his eyes, the whole house lit up. The child then opened his mouth and blessed the Lord of heaven. Scholars have previously noted that the scene of the glorious visage of the young hero of the Flood delivering blessings upon his rising up from the hands of the midwife has a sacerdotal significance and parallels the glorious appearance and actions of the high priest. It manifests the portentous beginning of the priestly-Noah tradition. The priestly features of Noah's natal account are important for discerning the proper meaning of the symbolism of Methuselah's luminous visage in 2 Enoch 69.
In his analysis of the account, Böttrich recognizes that the description of Methuselah’s radiant face alludes to the picture of the high priest Simon attested in Sirach 50:1-24. Still, Böttrich is unable to discern the Noachic meaning of this allusion. Meanwhile Fletcher-Louis clearly sees this Noachic link, demonstrating that Methuselah's radiant face in 2 Enoch 69 is linked not only to Sirach 50:5-11 but also to 1 Enoch 106:2 and 1Q19. Sirach's description of the high priest Simon serves here as an intermediate link that elucidates the connection between Noah and Methuselah. All three characters are sharing the identical priestly imagery. Fletcher-Louis notes strong parallelism between Simon's description and the priestly features of the story of Noah. He observes that
this description of Simon
the high priest comes at the climax of a lengthy hymn in praise of Israel's
heroes which had begun some six chapters earlier with (Enoch and) Noah
(44:16-17), characters whose identity and purpose in salvation-history the high
priest gathers up in his cultic office. Obviously, at the literal level Noah's
birth in 1 Enoch 106:2 takes place in
the private house of his parents.
However, I suggest the reader is meant to hear a deeper symbolic reference in
that house to the house (cf. Sirach
been mentioned that Böttrich points to the possible connection of the radiance
of Methuselah's face to solar symbolism. Nevertheless, he fails to discern the
proper meaning of such a connection, unable to recognize the Noachic background
of the imagery. It is not coincidental that in the Noachic accounts the facial
features of the hero of the Flood are linked to solar imagery. Fletcher-Louis
notes the prominence of the solar symbolism in the description of Noah's
countenance; his eyes are compared with "the rays of the sun." He suggests that
"the solar imagery might ultimately derive from the Mesopotamian primeval
history where the antediluvian hero is closely identified with the sun."
Yet in the
In light of the aforementioned traditions, it is clear that Methuselah, who in 2 Enoch 69 inherits Noah's priestly office is also assuming there the features of his appearance as a high priest, one of which is the radiant visage associated with solar symbolism. The radiant face of Methuselah in 2 Enoch 69 thus represents a significant element of the polemics against the priestly Noachic tradition and its main character, whose facial features were often compared to the radiance of the sun.
Noachic Polemics and the Date of the Text
The analysis of the Noachic
background of the priestly and sacrificial practices in 2 Enoch leads us to the important
question about the role of Noachic polemical developments in discerning the
early date of the apocalypse. It is possible that the Noachic priestly polemics
reflected in 2 Enoch represent the
most important and reliable testimony that the text was composed when the
evidence here is the priestly features of the miraculous birth of the hero. It
has been already demonstrated that the main concern of the story of the wondrous
birth was sacerdotal; the story is permeated with imagery portraying the newborn
as the high priest par
excellence. It also has been
shown that the anti-Noachic priestly tradition reflected in 2 Enoch is not separate from the
Enochic-Noachic axis but belongs to the same set of conceptual developments
reflected in such Second Temple Enochic and Noachic materials as 1 Enoch 106, the Genesis Apocryphon, and 1Q19.
The traditions prevalent in these accounts were reworked by the Enochic
author(s) of the Slavonic apocalypse in response to the new challenging
circumstances of the mediatorial polemics. The priestly features of 2 Enoch's account of the wondrous birth
might thus point to the fact that this narrative and, as a consequence, the
whole macroform to which it belongs was written in the
of the later pseudepigraphic and rabbinic imitations of the account of Noah's
birth shows that the priestly dimension of the story never transcended the
boundaries of the Enochic-Noachic lore, nor did it cross the chronological
boundary of 70 CE since it remained relevant only within the sacerdotal context
of the Second Temple Enochic-Noachic materials. Although some later Jewish
authors were familiar with the account of Noah's birth, this story never again
became the subject of priestly polemics once the dust of the destroyed
Several examples can illustrate this situation. In search of the later variants of the story of the wonder-child Fletcher-Louis draws attention to the account of Cain's birth in the primary Adam books. Thus, the Latin Life of Adam and Eve 21:3 relates that Eve “brought forth a son who shone brilliantly (lucidus). At once the infant stood up and ran out and brought some grass with his own hands and gave it to his mother. His name was called Cain.” Fletcher-Louis points out that this narrative of the wonder child recalls the story of Noah. Yet he notes that “all the features which in the birth of Noah signal the child's priestly identity—solar imagery, birth in a house and child's blessing of God are markedly absent in the Adamic story.” Such absence of the significant features can be an indication that the final form of the text was composed outside the chronological boundaries of Second Temple Judaism and therefore, unlike 2 Enoch, displays no interest in the sacerdotal dimension of the story. Although the authors of the Latin LAE might have been familiar with the narrative of Noah's birth, the priestly concerns associated with the story were no longer relevant for them.
The same situation of the absence of the sacerdotal concern is observable also in the rabbinic stories of Moses' birth reflected in b. Sotah 12a, Exod. R. 1:20, Deut. R. 11:10, PRE 48, and the Zohar II.11b, whose authors were possibly cognizant of the Noachic natal account.
Reflecting on this evidence Fletcher-Louis notices that, although the authors of the rabbinic accounts of Moses' birth appear to be familiar with Noah's narrative, these materials do not show any interest in the sacerdotal dimension of the original story. Buried in the ashes of the destroyed Sanctuary, the alternative portrayal of the Noachic priestly tradition was neither offensive nor challenging for the heirs of the Pharisaic tradition. Fletcher-Louis observes that, although Moses, like Noah, is able to speak from his birth and the house of his birth becomes flooded with light, "the differences of the specifically priestly form of that older tradition can be clearly seen." He points out that while Moses is able to speak as soon as he is born, he does not bless God, as do Noah and Melchisedek. The same paradigm shift is detected in the light symbolism. While in the rabbinic stories the whole house becomes flooded with light, the Mosaic birth texts do not specifically say that Moses is himself the source of light. These differences indicate that, unlike in 2 Enoch, where the priestly concerns of the editors come to the fore, in the rabbinic accounts they have completely evaporated. Fletcher-Louis notices that "the fact that in the Mosaic stories the child is circumcised at birth indicates his role as an idealized representative of every Israelite: where Noah bears the marks of the priesthood, Moses carries the principal identity marker of every member of Israel, irrespective of any distinction between laity and priesthood."
marked absence of sacerdotal concerns in the later imitations of the story may
explain why, although the rabbinic authors knew of the priestly affiliations of
the hero of the Flood, the story of his priestly birth never appeared in the
debates about the priestly successions. This fact convincingly demonstrates that
the Noachic priestly tradition reflected in 2 Enoch can be firmly placed inside the
chronological boundaries of the
 A. Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," Henoch 22.2 (2000) 259-73.
 Noachic polemics take place
in the last chapters of the Slavonic apocalypse (chs 68-72). In this section of
the pseudepigraphon we learn that, immediately after Enoch's instructions to his
sons during his short visit to the earth and his ascension to the highest
heaven, the firstborn son of Enoch, Methuselah, and his brothers, the sons of
Enoch, constructed an altar at Achuzan, the place where Enoch had been taken up.
In 2 Enoch 69 the Lord appeared to
Methuselah in a night vision and appointed him as priest before the people.
Verses 11-16 of this chapter describe the first animal sacrifice of Methuselah
on the altar. The text gives an elaborate description of the sacrificial ritual
during which Methuselah slaughters with a knife, "in the required manner," sheep
and oxen placed at the head of the altar. All these sheep and oxen are tied
according to the sectarian instructions given by Enoch earlier in the book.
Chapter 70 of 2 Enoch recounts the
last days of Methuselah on earth before his death. The Lord appeared to
Methuselah in a night vision and commanded him to pass his priesthood duties on
to the second son of Lamech, the previously unknown Nir. The text does not
explain why the Lord wanted to pass the priesthood to Nir instead of Noah
(Lamech's firstborn son), even though Noah is also mentioned in the dream.
Further, the book tells that Methuselah invested Nir with the vestments of
priesthood before the face of all the people and "made him stand at the head of
the altar." The account of the sacerdotal practices of Enoch’s relatives then
continues with the Melchisedek story. The content of the story is connected with
Nir’s family. Sothonim, Nir’s wife, gave birth to a child "in her old age,"
right "on the day of her death." She conceived the child, "being sterile" and
"without having slept with her husband." The book narrated that Nir the priest
had not slept with her from the day that the Lord had appointed him in front of
the face of the people. Therefore, Sothonim hid herself during all the days of
her pregnancy. Finally, when she was at the day of birth, Nir remembered his
wife and called her to himself in the temple. She came to him and he saw that
she was pregnant. Nir, filled with shame, wanted to cast her from him, but she
died at his feet. Melchisedek was born from Sothonim's corpse. When Nir and Noah
came in to bury Sothonim, they saw the child sitting beside the corpse with "his
clothing on him." According to the story, they were terrified because the child
was fully developed physically. The child spoke with his lips and he blessed the
Lord. According to the story, the newborn child was marked with the sacerdotal
sign, the glorious "badge of priesthood" on his chest. Nir and Noah dressed the
child in the garments of priesthood and they fed him the holy bread. They
decided to hide him, fearing that the people would have him put to death.
Finally, the Lord commanded His archangel Gabriel to take the child and place
him in "the paradise
 J. R. Davila, “Melchisedek,
the ‘Youth,’ and Jesus,” in: The
 A. Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," Henoch 22.2 (2000) 259-73.
 A. Orlov, "On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich," Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003) 274-303; idem, "'Without Measure and Without Analogy:' Shciur Qomah Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” Journal of Jewish Studies (2005) (forthcoming).
 See: J. VanderKam, “The Interpretation of Genesis in 1 Enoch,” in: The Bible at Qumran (eds. P. W. Flint and T. H. Kim; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 142; P. Alexander, "From Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch," Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (ed. M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergen; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 100; idem, "Enoch and the Beginnings of Jewish Interest in Natural Science," in: The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiental Thought (ed. C. Hempel et al., BETL, CLIX; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 234; Orlov, "On the Polemical Nature of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reply to C. Böttrich," 276-7.
 Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," 209.
 Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," 210.
 Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," 216ff.
 2 Enoch 68-69. F. I. Andersen, "2
(Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," The Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth;
 In 2 Enoch 71 Nir says to the Lord: "For I have no descendants, so let this child take the place of my descendants and become as my own son, and you will count him in the number of your servants." Andersen, "2 Enoch," 209.
 Orlov, "'Noah's Younger Brother': Anti-Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch," 210-12.
 2 Enoch 59. Andersen, "2 Enoch," 184-87.
 In 2 Enoch 71, Noah is depicted as a timid relative whose activities are confined to the circle of his family. After Melchisedek's situation was settled, Noah quietly "went away to his own place." Andersen, "2 Enoch," 206-7.
 1 Enoch 89:9.
 P. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (EJL, 4; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 267.
 The early date of the pseudepigraphon was supported by, among others, the following investigations: R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896); M. I Sokolov, “Materialy i zametki po starinnoj slavjanskoj literature. Vypusk tretij, VII. Slavjanskaja Kniga Enoha Pravednogo. Teksty, latinskij perevod i izsledovanie. Posmertnyj trud avtora prigotovil k izdaniju M. Speranskij,“ COIDR 4 (1910), 165; G. N. Bonwetsch, Das slavische Henochbuch (AGWG.PH Neue Folge Bd.1 Nr.3; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1896); N. Schmidt, "The Two Recensions of Slavonic Enoch," JAOS 41 (1921) 307-312; G. Scholem, Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala (SJ, 3; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1962), 62-64; M. Philonenko, "La cosmogonie du 'Livre des secrets d'Hénoch,'" in: Religions en Egypte: Hellénistique et romaine (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1969) 109-116; S. Pines, "Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch," in: Types of Redemption (eds. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and C. Jouco Bleeker; SHR, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 72-87; J. C. Greenfield, "Prolegomenon," in: H. Odeberg, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: KTAV, 1973), xviii-xx; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 38-41; J. H. Charlesworth, "The SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminars at Tübingen and Paris on the Books of Enoch (Seminar Report)," NTS 25 (1979) 315-23; J. J. Collins, "The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck,1983), 533; F. Andersen, "2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch," The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1985 ), 1.91-221; M. E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT, 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 406; A. de Santos Otero, "Libro de los secretos de Henoc (Henoc eslavo)," Apocrifos del AT (4 vols.; ed. A. Diez Macho; Madrid: Ediciones Christiandad, 1984), 4.147-202; C. Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch (JSHRZ, 5; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1995), 812-13. P. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic and its History (JSPSS, 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
 Andersen, "2 Enoch," 97.
 After all it should not be forgotten that in the same study Francis Andersen explicitly assigns the book to the late first century CE. Andersen, "2 Enoch," 91.
 In his introduction to the
Forbes' translation of 2 Enoch in APOT, Charles broadened the range of the
dating of the apocalypse, postulating that "2 Enoch in its present form was written
probably between 30 B.C. and A.D. 70. It was written after 30 B.C., for it makes
use of Sirach, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Wisdom..., and before A.D. 70;
for the temple is still standing." R. H. Charles and N. Forbes, "The Book of the
Secrets of Enoch," The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols.; ed. R. H. Charles;
 R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), xxvi.
 A. S. D. Maunder, "The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch," The Observatory 41 (1918) 309-16, esp. 316.
 Maunder, "The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch," 315.
 J. K. Fotheringham, "The Date and the Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch," JTS 20 (1919) 252.
 A. Rubinstein, "Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch," JJS 15 (1962) 1-21, esp.3.
 R. H. Charles, "The Date and Place of Writings of the Slavonic Enoch," JTS 22 (1921) 162-3. See also K. Lake, "The Date of the Slavonic Enoch," HTR 16 (1923) 397-398.
 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of
 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 109.
 Sokolov, Slavjanskaja Kniga Enoha Pravednogo, 1.23, footnote 13.
 Milik's hypothesis is
implausible. Most scholars trace the word zmureniemü (zmureniem’)
to the Slavonic
zmurüna (zmur’na) which corresponds to
smu&rna, myrrha. J. Kurz, ed., Slovnik Jazyka Staroslovenskeho (Lexicon
Linguae Palaeoslovenicae)(4 vols.;
 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 111.
 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 110.
 J. J. Collins, "The Genre
Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," in: Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World
 Collins, "The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism," 533, note 7.
 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 114.
 A. Vaillant, Le Livre des secrets d'Hénoch: Texte slave et traduction française (Textes publiés par l'Institut d’études slaves, 4; Paris: L'Institut d’études slaves, 1976 ).
 Some of the supporters of the idea of the Jewish authorship of the text include the following scholars: Amusin, Andersen, Bonwetsch, Böttrich, Bousset, Charles, Charlesworth, Collins, De Conick, Delcor, Denis, Eissfeldt, Ginzberg, Gieschen, Greenfield, Gruenwald, Fletcher-Louis, Fossum, Harnak, Himmelfarb, Kahana, Kamlah, Mach, Meshcherskij, Odeberg, Pines, Philonenko, Riessler, Sacchi, Segal, Sokolov, de Santos Otero, Schmidt, Scholem, Schürer, Stichel, Stone, and Székeley.
 U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW, 44; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 40-41; Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 812-13.
 2 Enoch 59.
 In Ezek 48:20-21 the Hebrew
word hzx) "special property of God"
is applied to
 Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813.
 2 Enoch 61:1-5; 2 Enoch 62:1-2.
 2 Enoch 51:4: "In the morning of the day and in the middle of the day and in the evening of the day it is good to go to the Lord's temple on account of the glory of your creator." Andersen, "2 Enoch," 178.
 Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813. See also: C. Böttrich, "The Melchizedek Story of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch: A Reaction to A. Orlov," JSJ 32.4 (2001) 451.
 There are many discrepancies and contradictions in the calendarical data presented in the text.
 y. Tacan. 68c and b. Tacan. 26b.
 Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 813.
 M. Stone, "The Axis of
History at Qumran," Pseudepigraphic
Perspectives: The Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (eds. E. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ, 31;
 1 Enoch 106:5 "... his eyes (are) like
the rays of the sun, and his face glorious...." M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in
the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols;
 1QapGen 5:12-13 "...his face has been lifted to
me and his eyes shine like [the] s[un...] (of) this boy is flame and he..." F.
García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2
 A similar tradition is
reflected in 1Q19. 1Q19 3: "...were aston[ished ...] [... (not like
the children of men) the fir]st-born is born, but the glorious ones [...] [...]
his father, and when Lamech saw [...] [...] the chambers of the house like the
beams of the sun [...] to frighten the [...]." 1Q19 13:"[...] because the glory
of your face [...] for the glory of God in [...] [... he will] be exalted in the
splendor of the glory and the beauty [...] he will be honored in the midst of
[...]." García Martínez and Tigchelaar (eds.), The
 C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical
Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 42;
 Crispin Fletcher-Louis notes parallels between this scene and the description of the ideal high priest from Sirach 50. He argues that "in Sirach 50 the liturgical procession through Simon's various ministrations climaxes with Aaron's blessings of the people (50:20, cf. Numbers 6) and a call for all the readers of Sirach's work 'to bless the God of all who everywhere works greater wonders, who fosters our growth from birth and deals with us according to his mercy’ (50:22). So, too, in 1 Enoch 106:3 the infant Noah rises from the hands of the midwife and, already able to speak as an adult, 'he opened his mouth and blessed the Lord.'" Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 47.
 Fletcher-Louis argues that "the staging for [Noah's] birth and the behavior of the child have strongly priestly resonances." Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 46.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 50.
 He notes that the statement "I shall glorify you in front of the face of all the people, and you will be glorified all the days of your life" (2 Enoch 69:5) and the references to God "raising up" a priest for himself in 69:2,4 "is intriguingly reminiscent of 1Q19 13 lines 2-3." Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 50.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 47.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 46.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 46.
 Fletcher-Louis suggests that the authors of Jubilees probably also knew the story of Noah's birth, since the text mentions his mother Bitenosh. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 35, n. 9.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 51-52.
 G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. Second Revised Edition (SBLEJL, 17; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), 24-24E. See also Armenian and Georgian versions of LAE: "Then, when she bore the child, the color of his body was like the color of stars. At the hour when the child fell into the hands of the midwife, he leaped up and, with his hands, plucked up the grass of the earth..." (Armenian). "Eve arose as the angel had instructed her: she gave birth to an infant and his color was like that of the stars. He fell into the hands of the midwife and (at once) he began to pluck up the grass...." (Georgian). A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 24E.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.
 "He was born circumcised; and the Sages declare, At the time when Moses was born, the whole house was filled with light – as it is written here, 'And she saw him that he was good' (Ex 2:2), and elsewhere it is written, 'And God saw the light that it was good' (Gen 1:4)." b. Sotah 12a.
 "...she saw that the
Shechinah was with him; that is, the 'it' refers to the Shechinah which was with
the child." Midrash Rabbah (trs. H.
Freedman and M. Simon; 10 vols.;
 "Moses replied: 'I am the son of Amram, and came out from my mother's womb without prepuce, and had no need to be circumcised; and on the very day on which I was born I found myself able to speak and was able to walk and to converse with my father and mother ... when I was three months old I prophesied and declared that I was destined to receive the law from the midst of flames of fire.’" Midrash Rabbah, 7.185.
 "Rabbi Nathaniel said: the
parents of Moses saw the child, for his form was like that of an angel of God.
They circumcised him on the eight day and they called his name Jekuthiel." Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (tr. G.
Friedländer; 2nd ed.;
 "She saw the light of the
Shekinah playing around him: for when he was born this light filled the whole
house, the word 'good' here having the same reference as in the verse 'and God
saw the light that it was good' (Gen 1:4)." The Zohar (trs. H. Sperling and M.
Simon; 5 vols.;
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52.
 Fletcher-Louis reminds that "the illumination of the house through Noah's eyes and the comparison of the light to that of the sun are specifically priestly features of Noah's birth." Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 52-53.
 Although the priestly affiliation of the hero of the Flood was well known to the rabbinic authors, as the story of Shem-Melchisedek has already demonstrated.
 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 53.