George W. E. Nickelsburg on "The Temple According to 1 Enoch"

This is a presentation by George W. E. Nickelsburg (Emeritus Professor of Religion at the University of Iowa) on “The Temple According to 1 Enoch” at the conference “Enoch and the Temple,” on February 19, 2013, at Utah State University in Logan, Utah. He is a renowned scholar of 1 Enoch and is responsible for the Hermeneia commentaries on it.

His comment about Enoch being identified as the “Son of Man” is from 1 Enoch 71:14. He does not add though that this text clarifies that the Son of Man “was born for righteousness.” This is the only time in the Parables where the Son of Man is spoken of as being born. I therefore think it may cryptically mean that the Son of Man would be born from Enoch. Interestingly, the messianic genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 includes Enoch in Luke 3:37. (As this genealogy has 77 names with Enoch at the seventh place, that would make Jesus the 70^th from Enoch.)

1 Enoch and the Noachian Deluge

Does 1 Enoch identify the kinds of animals that died in the Noachian Deluge?

1 Enoch 89:5 states that cattle drowned and verse 6 adds that “bulls and elephants and camels and asses” also drowned. However, we must be careful for this passage is in the Animal Apocalypse where animals symbolize people. This is seen in 89:1 where one of the bulls became a man and built the ark, obviously as a man, Noah, and not as a bull. Then three other bulls, clearly representing his three sons, joined him on the ark.

Regarding the “elephants and camels and asses” mentioned in verse 6, these same animals were first introduced in 86:4 as being clear references to the Nephilim, the product of fallen stars who became bulls and conceived the “elephants and camels and asses” from cows. Regarding this verse, one commentator said that:

The names of these three animals in Aramaic are puns on “Nephilim,” “Giants” (gibborim), and “Elioud,” the three types mentioned in Enoch 7:2 (Milik 240). (Olson, Daniel. Enoch: A New Translation. 2004. 190)

Another commentator elaborated:

The particular species may be used as symbols because of the similarities between the two sets of Aramaic words: pilin (“elephants”) = neplin; gamilin (“camels”) = gibborin (“giants”); ‘arodin (“wild asses”) = “Elioud.” Footnote: See Milik, Enoch, 240. (Nickelsburg, George. 1 Enoch 1 Hermeneia Commentary. 2001. 373)

Milik’s book is The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from the Caves of Qumran. (1976)

With that said, I’m afraid that the scholarly consensus, and the text itself, does not readily support a literal identification with actual animals, however tempting to make such a literal identification may be.