The Story of the Watchers as a Counter Narrative: Enochic Responses to the Authority of Mesopotamian Sages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes an impressive and original use of a broad range of varying Mesopotamian traditions about primeval sages to suggest the use of such material in the formation of a counter narrative in the Enochic literature. The author's command of this material is evident and the rich discussion of these diverse traditions framed by the concept of counter narratives shaping Enochic literature certainly merits publication. Two main issues stood out to me for possible improvement of clarity.

First and most substantially, it seemed odd that the question of 1 and 2 Enoch's relationship to relevant primeval narratives of Genesis was conspicuously absent throughout the discussion, but then appeared at the very end of the article on page 11. Throughout the article I was waiting for some communication of the author's understanding of the relationship between the Enochic literature and Genesis (e.g. the truncated Enoch tradition in 5:24, the narrative of Gen 6:1-4, the figure of Noah), alongside 1 Enoch's relationship to the diverse Mesopotamian traditions that are in focus. Eventually I assumed this question was simply not included in the scope of the article, yet then it appeared abruptly in the final two paragraphs (but primarily focused on the animal imagery of 1 Enoch replacing straightforward narrative in Genesis). Still unaddressed in the article, but seemingly important, is how 1 Enoch's expansion and retelling of the primeval history in Genesis interacts with its posited effort to consruct a counter narrative of Mesopotamian traditions. Even if constructing a counter narrative to Mesopotamian traditions is part of its agenda, 1 Enoch is not responding to these traditions in a vacuum, but with existing Jewish textual traditions from Genesis already shaping and possibly constraining its narrative as well. For example, with the figure of Enoch, how much of 1 Enoch's narrative construction is based on expansion of this enigmatic tradition in Genesis as opposed to reversal of Mesopotamian traditions with similar figures. Or, to what degree has Genesis 1-11 already started a counter narrtaive process to Mesopotamian traditions that 1 Enoch expands upon with more diverse Mesopotamian narrative traditions about primeval humanity in view? Ideally the article would more clearly acknowledge these issues and their impact on the analysis of Enochic literature even if they are primarily set aside for the author's main focus.

Second, the rapid ranging between diverse sources, especially in Section 3, can be difficult to follow, and sometimes critical context is provided but in other cases it is not. In particular, the abrupt turn to later, even Medieval, Jewish sources on pages 5-6 appears odd (though citations suggest this depends on prior scholarship more fully explaining the context of such connections). Since these are also Jewish sources putatively interacting with reflections of Mesopotamian traditions, using them to fill in details of Adapa traditions, or Enoch traditions reflecting Adapa traditions, without addressing their own distinct participation in appropriation/mimicry/inversion/counter narrative, as is being done for the reflections of such traditions in 1 and 2 Enoch, seems odd and out of place. If this point of critique seems unclear, then this perhaps a reflection of the need for more clarity regarding what these later Jewish sources are meant to be doing in this section, with and alongside the Enochic literature and its Mesopotamian background.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The only hint of a non-native English fluency is occasional atypical use or non-use of the definite article, e.g. "of the 1 Enoch 85-90" (abstract), "in Hellenistic period" (page four paragraph 2), "about early history of mankind" (page 8, paragraph 1).

One example of verb agreement error occurs with "tend to have" in paragraph 4 on page 3.

There is some inconsistency of "counterstory" vs. "counter story" (e.g. paragraphs 1 and 4 on page 3).

These are minor editorial issues that in no cases detract from clarity of meaning, and otherwise the writing is fluent.

Author Response

Thanks for the review! Pointing out the need to discuss the relationship between the books of Enoch and Genesis is helpful. To address this issue, this sentence was added to the very end of the section 1 (Introduction):

"Within Judaism, Genesis 1–11 started a counter narrative process to cuneiform traditions that the books of Enoch further expanded with making use of more diverse Mesopotamian narratives about primeval humanity."

The speculations about later Jewish traditions on pp. 5-6 are based on the scholarship of Andrei Orlov. That some ideas in Jewish mysticism have origins in cuneiform traditions may seem odd, but it is a trend also found in publications of some scholars. There is always an option to disagree.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this paper, though I feel further research is needed to catch the paper up to the state of scholarship, and firmly establish its conclusions in the secondary literature.

Although this is an able and often-detailed summary of some previous research, it is not entirely clear how it advances past work already done by Annus (in particular), Kvanig, and Hendel. Also crucial but missing from the bibliography are James VanderKam's 1984 volume "Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition," with its third chapter on mesopotamian divination, Seth Sanders 2018 article "Enoch's Imaginary Ancestor," Sanders' 2017 book "From Adapa to Enoch," and Jeffrey Cooley's 2021 article "Exegeting Enoch: Re-inscribing a Mesopotamian Figure in the Yahwist Narrative," all of which greatly advance the conversation about Enoch and Mesopotamia, with specific reference to Adapa, and should be engaged here.

The question of access should be addressed--the exact library of the Enoch scribes in question is quite important to the paper. Reliance upon the generalized phenomenon of "oral circulation," without engaging with scholarship which attempts to fill out exactly what is meant by this, is not sufficient to demonstrate that a certain work was known to the Enoch scribe.

The author may wish to be cautious about postulating "Jewish" identities in the earliest strata of the Hebrew Bible, or Enoch writings. On this, the author might consult Creating Judaism, Michael Satlow, 2006.

Similarly, the Enoch materials collected in Sefer Hekhalot are quite complex, and potentially collected more than a millennium after the Sumerian and Akkadian materials summarized here. On this, the author might consult Annette Yoshiko Reed's work on 3 Enoch, beginning with her 2005 book, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity.

In the case of the Animal Apocalypse, the author's point that the demonisation of the Watchers is enacted by using animal imagery seems somewhat undercut by the reality that all beings in the Animal Apocalypse are represented by animals. The identification of the Watchers as animals, accordingly, does not seem quite so noteworthy or related to the backdrop of Mesopotamian materials assembled.

Finally, it is not demonstrated within the article that Enoch represents a text written by an author "uncomfortable within traditional Judaism." Arguments of that sort can be found in Boccaccini's 1998 book, "Beyond the Essene Hypothesis." But very strong critiques of this perspective have also been raised in John C. Reeves and John J. Collins' responses to this book in the 2005 book "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light On A Forgotten Connection."

 Overall, the paper is a fascinating assembly of materials and shows some knowledge of the secondary scholarship, though greater reading would need to be done to better situate the paper as an original contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Thanks for the review. It is rather interesting to read contemporary scholarly discussions about various trends in ancient Judaism, although it is to be noted that there are various schools, which approach the same material from very different angles. It may be useful to read about alternative views, but what to do in case of a disagreement? I do appreciate the scholarship cited in the review, but to take just one example, Seth L. Sanders is a "methodologist", who discusses mainly soundness of certain approaches and almost always reaches to negative conclusions about intercultural borrowings. For the present author, this is a failure in seeing patterns. For the present author, Sanders is also guilty of unethical "borrowings" in his scholarship.

There will always be a merit in reading and citing others, even in the realm of ancient studies, in which a component of speculation is always involved. To be connected with others' scholarship also means to be clouded by their sort of speculation. It is quite normal to prefer one's own thinking, knowing that in this kind of scholarship it is never devoid of unfounded beliefs.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I am in general agreement with this paper that the two books of Enoch belong to Mesopotamia in origin and in my view represent Jewish texts composed in Babylonia.   In my view, this paper merits publication but requires some changes.   It presents original interpretations of Enoch based upon Akkadian parallels.      However, there are some problems in the interpretations of key passages.    p. 2:  referring to Enoch as a ‘patriarch’ is confusing, since this term usually refers to Abraham-Isaac-Jacob.   Antediluvian figures were not actually patriarchs.     p. 2  It might be interesting to point out that the Tower of Babel was a counter-narrative because it was to be made of baked (permanent) rather than sun-dried bricks, which was the actual building process.      p. 3  There is no evidence for ‘groups within Judaism that held the figure of Enoch in high esteem.’  What is the evidence for such groups?  It is clear that rabbinic texts disapproved of Enoch.     p. 3. What other antediluvian sages from Babylonia visited heaven?  The evidence is to the paper of the author, without a page reference.   This is a general problem within this article, in which ‘evidence’ is often simply referring to the author’s own work.  This kind of self-referencing is not valid evidence, which has to be based upon primary sources.   There is much too much self-referencing in this article.    p. 3. The Maqlû reference is not to be understood literally but as hyperbole, reflecting on the power of the sorcerers.     p. 4. The  translated lines of K 8214 are particularly problematic nor does the translation agree with Izre’el.     First, a typo:   l. 10’ should read šubarrâšu.   Second:  l. 9’ is described in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary as problematic and not translated, while Izre’el translated this line as ‘at that time, Anu set Adapa at his service’.    The author translates this line as ‘at that time, Anu established Adapa as watcher’.   This is a highly interpretive translation which is unlikely to be correct, on grammatical and lexical grounds.      First, the translation ‘watcher’ is misleading, since it is intended to conform to the translation of angels in Enoch as the Watchers.  This is also a problematic translation of Greek (and Slavonic) ‘Gregoroi’, which can mean either ‘watcher’ or ‘wakener’.   In fact, the LXX use of this same term translates Aramaic ‘Ir’ (ayin-yod-resh), which means to awaken.   So it is likely that the term in Enoch refers to angels which ‘awaken’ the world, rather than ‘watching’, nor is it clear what this latter conventional translation would mean.   In any case, the term which the author relies upon as ‘watcher’ is Akkadian ša maṣṣarti, which literally means ‘one of the guard’, since maṣṣartu means ‘guard’ or ‘protection’ rather than ‘watch’ or ‘observe’.  This is playing fast and loose with translations.   In any case, l. 9’ is syntactically problematic, since the text reads d.a-nu šá a-da-pa e-li-šu ma-ṣar-ta iš-kun, which literally means 'Anu established that — over which Adapa — in respect to the guard’.    It is unclear what this means, but clearly not the way translated in this article.    p. 4-5l. l. 14’ . The translation ’so be it forever’ contrasts with Izre’el ’so be it’ (lu-u ki-a-am).  There is no evidence for ‘forever’ in this line.     p. 5:  the idea that Adapa remained in heaven is not based upon firm evidence but on a stative form of the term elû, 'to go up’ (and presumably remain).  This is an interpretation but not specifically stated in the text.      p. 6. The reference to Babylonian and Jewish priests is misleading, since we know nothing about Jewish priests and their role in astronomical observations, beyond simple calendar calculations relevant to the cult.      p. 8 The parallels with the Chronicle of the Esagila should be treated more tentatively, since this text does not resemble Enoch either in form or content.  For instance, the reference to the star of the offensive Babylonian king falling from the sky being parallel to the fall of the Watchers is stretching the parallel and should at least be stated as a possible interpretation of these sources, not not entirely concrete.      The only other general point is that the self-referencing to the author’s own articles should be based upon primary evidence, in addition to the secondary reference to the author’s previous work.  

 

Author Response

Thank you! I was able to agree with most of your proposals, which are highlighted in yellow in the revised paper.