Textual and redactional aspects of the Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83-90).

Abstract

The redactor of 1 Enoch 83-90 brings together two very distinct Enochian traditions: the Flood Vision and the Animal Apocalypse. Although each tradition reflects a social reaction to the threat of hellenization in the second century BCE, they offer radically different social constructions of the eschatological role of insiders and outsiders; presenting in the Flood Vision a spatial apocalyptic perspective with a strong deterministic outlook, and in the Animal Apocalypse a less deterministic perspective within a temporal apocalyptic framework. By bringing these two traditions together, the redactor creates a new text (the Book of Dreams), which reinterprets the apocalypse with the vision. Although redactional activity is not extensive in the Book of Dreams, it does indicate a later stage in the tradition history, a stage reflecting back upon the success of the Maccabean revolt.

**********

Social tensions and community self-defining processes typify the periods leading up to and following the Maccabean revolt in the second century BCE. Diverse reactions to both the cultural threat of hellenization and the success of the revolt are reflected within the redactional activity undergirding the Enochian traditions. Not only were these traditions influential upon the development of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions, they also serve to give us insight into the relationship between social tensions and theological development. The very raison d'etre of redaction is to appropriate existing traditions, relocate them within an alternative social milieu, and thereby directly apply those newly worked traditions (as new literary products) to a different community context. While analyzing redactional activity, one must appreciate both the close relationship between social formation and theological developments, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the literary products that emerged from such activity. The Enochian traditions in 1 Enoch offer a helpful example of such a relationship, and raise issues as to the function of a redactor as author and the very nature of early Jewish and Christian texts.

The Book of Dreams is a composite of two distinct Enochian traditions, which have been tied together by the redactor of Book IV of 1 Enoch. The first independent section of the Book of Dreams is the vision of the Deluge (henceforth the Flood Vision), comprising chapters 83-84. The second is the Animal Apocalypse (chapters 85-90). Enoch scholarship has tended to focus on the other traditions embedded within 1 Enoch, notably the Book of the Watchers. Even within scholarly discussion of the Book of Dreams, the Flood Vision is normally dealt with superficially, and even then usually as a preamble to its larger counterpart, the Animal Apocalypse. Little work, to my knowledge, has been devoted to ascertaining the role of the redactor in bringing these two Enochian traditions together in Book IV, and this neglect is likely due, in part, to lack of appreciation of the relationship between these two sections. This article addresses the question of redactional activity, exploring the textual and redactional aspects of the Book of Dreams. Our study falls into three sections. First, we explore the textual aspects of the Flood Vision, and second, a detailed exploration of the narrative progression of the Animal Apocalypse will be offered. By walking through each tradition used by the redactor, we shall bring forth the distinct nature of each and thereby set the stage for section three, which analyzes the redactional activity used to tie these two traditions together. An important question to ask in closing will be whether our redactor is merely an editor or also plays the role of author through his redactional activity.

The independence of the two sections comprising the Book of Dreams is supported by both the form of each section and the voice shifts that the redactor makes. We also find that the Qumran fragments of 1 Enoch contain only sections of the Animal Apocalypse. Admittedly, there are only four short fragments 4Q[En.sup.e] 4 (= 1 En 89:31-37); 4Q[En.sup.d] 2i and 2ii (= 1 En. 89:11-14, 29-31); 4Q[En.sup.e] 41 and 4ii and 4iii (= 1 En 88:3-89:6, 7-16, 26-30); and 4Q[En.sup.f] 1 (= 1 En 86:1-3) (see Milik for translations and orthographical introductions to each fragment). These fragments hardly offer conclusive evidence that the Animal Apocalypse circulated (at least to Qumran) separate from the Flood Vision. The fragments comprise only a small portion of even the Animal Apocalypse, and even then mainly of chapters 88 and 89 (with only one fragment from chapter 86; see Davidson: 96). When we consider the internal evidence of form and voice shifts, however, the Qumran evidence helps to argue, cumulatively, for a separate circulation of these two sections.

Textual Aspects of the Flood Vision (1 Enoch 83-84)

The internal form of the Book of Dreams indicates that the two sections are very distinct. The Flood Vision contains a mythical representation of a dream. In this short vision, Enoch has a dream (83:3a), rather than a revelatory vision, of an eschatological disaster that is to come upon the earth, evidently the coming great deluge of Noachic traditions. The dream is very short, and merely filled with scenes of destruction:

   I saw in a vision the sky being hurled down and snatched and falling upon
   the earth. When it fell upon the earth, I saw the earth being swallowed up
   into the great abyss, the mountains being suspended upon mountains, the
   hills sinking down upon the hills, and tall trees being uprooted and thrown
   and sinking into the deep abyss. Thereupon a word fell into my mouth; and I
   began crying aloud, saying, "The earth is being destroyed" [83:3b-5--all
   translations taken from Charlesworth unless otherwise noted].

These destructive scenes contain no mythical dimensions, nor do they contain any indications of a spectacular heavenly realm breaking into the mundane existence of the world of the visionary. There is no ascent by Enoch, and no revealer figure. In short, there is no relation to the apocalyptic tenets that we find in other sections of 1 Enoch, such as the Book of the Watchers and even, to a degree, the Animal Apocalypse. Rather than a mythopoetic visionary account, we find instead a child's role as seer of a deterministic future event of divine judgment, not unlike what we find with young Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:1-21. Dreams as revelatory mediums are also found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, such as Jacob's dream vision (which, by the way, does contain an ascending/descending ladder--Gen 28:10-22; cf. 32:22-32). Rather than being an apocalyptic vision, the Flood Vision is better seen as fitting into the scriptural model of dream visions.

The only possible apocalyptic element including an ascent/descent motif is found at 83:11, where we find a short digression in the account from the narrative to Enoch's narrator's time (his account to his son Methuselah). First Enoch 83:11 has Enoch say, between his statement that he "rose and prayed" and the actual prayer in chapter 84, that he "had descended underneath and seen the sky, the sun rising in the east, the moon descending in the west," concluding with a blessing upon the Lord for his creative abilities (the final one being the rising of the sun). We are reminded of Enoch's travel to the ends of the earth in the Book of the Watchers (see especially 1 Enoch 17-18, 28-36), and therefore this digression may indeed hold an element of apocalyptic vision, albeit through an intertextual allusion to the Book of the Watchers. The digression is far too short and undeveloped to plausibly stand on its own as an apocalypse without such an intertextual hermeneutical link. Indeed, if 83:11 is read exclusively within the context of the Flood Vision (i.e., as an independent section of the Book of Dreams let alone 1 Enoch), then we could see this digression as setting up the strong theme of glory and praise that we find in the prayer of Enoch (84:2-6). Within the context of the Book of Dreams, exclusive of 1 Enoch's larger context, the digression could be a redactional addition, especially with the reference to "the prayers of all generations of the world" being recorded by Enoch (83:10b), which may add an anticipatory link with the temporal, generational, movement of the Animal Apocalypse. Given the content of the prayer of Enoch in chapter 84, it strikes me as more plausible that this digression was not secondary to the Flood Vision, despite the attractiveness of a redactional hypothesis.

The Flood Vision also does not fit comfortably with a prophetic classification, at least in the traditional sense, for there is a strong deterministic element within the short dialogue between young Enoch and his grandfather, Mahalalel, as well as in the prayer of petition. Instead of calling upon God to hold back his wrath, or God giving instructions for Enoch to preach repentance to the chosen ones, Enoch merely asks for his remnant and posterity to continue beyond the food. Recognizing that the Flood Vision does not comfortably fit either a strictly apocalyptic or prophetic genre, or even world view, calls into question both the exclusivity of those very categories (i.e., they overlap and mix with other literature and this to varying degrees) as well as the simplistic demarcation between prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology. Rather than focusing on this vision as prophetic or apocalyptic, a remnant and posterity motif dominates the text's conceptual world, emphasizing a restoration theology.

The key word is remnant (83:8b; Mahalalel's admonition to Enoch of what to pray for). The goal of Enoch's prayer, and Mahalalel's command, is to preserve the posterity of the righteous. This future remnant is part of a larger discussion of insiders and outsiders, a distinction made as a contrast between two types of flesh. There are those who fall into the "flesh which has angered" God (84:6). These are those whom Enoch wishes God's wrath to fall upon, the cause being their sinfulness (83:7b). God's wrath, Enoch petitions, is to be twofold. First, God's wrath is to be upon "the flesh of the people" until the judgment, and then there is to be "the great day of judgment" (84:4). This day of judgment, within the narrative context of the vision of Enoch, likely refers to the great deluge to come in the days of Noah. Noah is, however, nowhere mentioned in the Flood Vision (unlike the allegorical reference in the Animal Apocalypse), but scholars have connected the destruction of the earth in 83:3-5 with the Noah tradition based upon Genesis 6:9-9:28 (and incorporating and developing the character Mahalalel of Genesis 5:15-17--see, e.g., Milik: 41-42; VanderKam 1984: 160; Black: 19; and Maxwell: 96). Given the popularity of the Noachic type within Second Temple Judaism, as well as later Christianity, and the characters selected for this pseudepigraphic work, a link to the Noachic deluge seems likely, though (contra most Enoch sscholars) still not certain. Also, we lack any indications of an apocalyptic new age, either on earth or in some transcendent realm. History, in effect, continues even after this great judgment: a history that is not redefined according to some post-eschatological finale. Consequently, this day of judgment likely only refers to a monumental moment of divine judgment upon humankind within the contours of human history, a history it should be observed which is not explicated at any length beyond the digression of 83:11.

Culpability, however, is a bit more ambiguous in the Flood Vision. The sin of humanity, mentioned in 83:7b, seems to be tied into angelic sinfulness (84:4a). Although both humans and angels commit sin upon the earth, 84:4b places divine judgment only upon humanity. The conjunction linking angelic culpability with punishment of humans (84:4--translated "and") is worth noting. Black (72) evidently takes this conjunction as periphrastic, organizing his translation so as to highlight a separate stanza in the prayer. Even ff his periphrastic reading of the prayer's meter is accepted, the logical discontinuity of culpability and punishment remains. Angelic culpability may, however, carry an intertextual allusion to the Book of the Watchers, where we find human suffering emergent from angelic sinfulness. (The etiology of human sinfulness is also linked back to the teachings of these fallen Watchers; see 1 Enoch 6-8). Two differences, however, between the Book of the Watchers (at least the first section, on the fall of the Watchers prior to Enoch's visionary travel; in the latter we do find humans held culpable for sin) and the Flood Vision are that (1) culpability is shared in the Flood Vision by both humans and angels (humans tend to be seen as the victims of suffering brought on by the Watchers), and (2) punishment falls upon humans in the Flood Vision, while it is the Watchers who are punished in the Book of the Watchers. Consequently, 1 Enoch 8344 remains problematic.

When the deterministic duality of this vision's anthropology is considered, however, the culpability issue may be clarified. Regardless of the origin of human sinfulness (there may indeed be an allusion to the fallen Watchers in 84:4), our narrator claims that humankind is bipartite: we have insiders and outsiders, two types of "flesh"--flesh likely reflecting the deterministic salvation/judgment by nature that we will find emerging a few centuries later in Jewish and Christian Gnosticism. Our Enochian author shows no interest in repentance, only in the preservation of those of "the flesh of righteousness and uprightness" (84:6b--note the rhetorical contrast with the preceding "flesh that has so angered you" at 84:6a). We are likely dealing with a text that recalls prophetic traditions of remnant theology, perhaps even an exilic or post-exilic theology. (For a helpful overview of Jewish texts reflecting a restoration theology, especially as appropriated by early Christians, see Murphy.) Maintaining a remnant of the elect, especially when tied into posterity (note the role of "generations of generations" (84:2b) reflecting back to the "prayers of the generations of the world" (83:10), which may highlight Jewish prophetic emphases upon posterity) substantiates such a theology and may help to explain the strong deterministic anthropology with its emphasis upon human culpability. The origins of evil or sin are not as important for this author as is keeping the insiders separate from the outsiders and judgment. Preservation by means of such a strong insider-outsider framework may indicate a sectarian world view, though there is too little to plausibly speculate about an actual socio-religious milieu for the Flood Vision.

The Textual Nature of the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85-90)

Unlike the Flood Vision, the Animal Apocalypse presents a mythic historical allegory that better fits into an apocalyptic genre with strong eschatological tendencies. We are given a series of allegorical ages through which Heilgeschichte progresses toward a messianic, eschatological restoration of the protological purity lost with the fallen angels. Animal figures are used allegorically of various social groups, not only historically but also politically and as signifiers of degrees of purity or lost purity. This "zoomorphic" historical apocalypse begins with a white bull, evidently Adam, and a heifer and two calves, evidently Eve along with Cain and Abel (1 Enoch 85). Significant is the purity of the bull, who is described as "snow-white" (85:3). (Although Charlesworth translates the Ethiopic here as "cow," the animal is obviously male and should have been rendered "bull" instead. I will use "bull" rather than "cow" throughout my discussion.) Following this zoomorphic Genesis account of the first human family--in a sense the first herd of humans--the author introduces us to the fall of the angels, again a likely intertextual reference to the Watchers in 1 Enoch 6. Like the Flood Vision, the Animal Apocalypse also indicates that Enoch's vision comes while sleeping (86:1a; cf. 85:3, where Enoch claims to have seen the vision of the white bull while "on my bed," which may also allude to a sleeping state. Tiller (225) connects this vision on the bed as a Jewish idiom for a dream vision, following recension [beta] in comparison with Daniel 4:10, 13, and 7:1). Unlike the first vision, however, the second contains an elaborate metaphorical drama cast onto the cosmic realm. Whereas the first vision was merely a dream of coming destruction or judgment, with the true emphasis falling on the prayer for the remnant, the second vision is more in keeping with the apocalyptic world view--at least with the role of visionary symbolism. We are confronted with "a lofty heaven" (thus a glimpse into an otherworldly realm--86:1), a "star [that] fell from heaven" and caused famine on the earth (thus an otherworldly being falling to the earthly realm and causing disaster for people; cf. Rev 12:7-17's fallen dragon--86:1), more "stars descending ... and pastured together with them [the earthly hems]" (a clear allusion to the fallen Watchers or the heavenly beings of Genesis 6:1-8; note the similar sexual activity of the stars with the earthly herds, producing violent beings that killed the cattle--86:3-6; Gen 6:4).

Two observations about these visions need to be made. First, the heavenly beings coming upon the earthly beings results in great hardship for the herds. As in the Flood Vision we are presented with angelic sinfulness; yet culpability, unlike in the Flood Vision, is limited exclusively to the fallen stars. The earthly beings are presented as suffering victims of cosmic interference. Second, this cosmic intrusion results not only in hardship but also in further zoomorphological changes, which seem to indicate a degradation in the purity of the earthly realm. Beginning with a "snow-white" bull, we are now faced with "big and dark cows" (86:2a) who not only pasture with the other cattle, but also affect "their calves" (86:2b). After Enoch has his further vision of the other stars falling upon the earth, we find this sexual allusion made explicit with a rape scene of the heifers and bovids (86:4).

Resultant of the sexual domination by the fallen stars (now in the form of animals themselves) the earthly cattle give birth to "elephants, camels, and donkeys" (86:4b). Conflict and fear follow this new animal production, resulting finally in "the earth ... cry[ing] aloud" to end this particular sub-vision (87:1). Ethnic purity is compromised, the new animal offspring evidently being seen as monstrous productions. Improper sexual relations and deformed offspring are a common enough motif (note the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4; cf. 1 Enoch 6:1-2; and also the birth--literally "abortion"--of the demiurge in the Apocryphon of John), and likely this is what the symbolism of the animal changes here in the Animal Apocalypse are meant to convey. (We may also wish to consider the link being made between purity/impurity and unity/diversity, with diversity--tied into sinfulness of course--being causally linked to chaos, and unity being tied into order.) These two observations indicate that the Animal Apocalypse does not agree with the bipartite separation of humankind into two types of "flesh," nor is there a strong deterministic element tied into human culpability for sin. Rather, we are presented with a human falling away from protological purity, a deformity that is explicitly tied into the sinful activities of fallen otherworldly beings. Humans, at least at the outset of the Animal Apocalypse, are victims of cosmic intervention.

It is true, however, that even in the protological vision of the white bull and his offspring there are indications of a tarnishing of purity, as indicated perhaps in the color scheme--specifically, in the "dark and red" calves of the bull and the goring of the red by the black. This sinful act is obviously the author's presentation of the story of Cain killing Abel. What is interesting is that after this event the white bull comforts the heifer in her loss of the red calf. We are then given more "snow-white cows" as offspring. Noteworthy is the purity-regained motif of the conclusion of the protological vision (85:8-10), which may narratively encapsulate the theme of eschatological restoration and comfort toward which the Animal Apocalypse's overall narrative progression moves.

Following this cosmic intervention the apocalypse moves along an exclusively temporal plane of allegorical history. It is possible that 87:3 contains an otherworldly journey. Even if we grant this motif, what Enoch sees in his ascended location is primarily of the temporal progression of history. History is grounded within the earthly, albeit allegorical, and more specifically the history of Israel up to the period of the Maccabean revolt. (The usage of ex eventu prophecy in the Animal Apocalypse results in a rough dating of the mid-second century BCE prior to the conclusion of the Maccabean revolt, perhaps just prior to the revolt or in anticipation of victory.)

The narrative progression is not unfamiliar to those exposed to the Hebrew Bible's national histories (e.g., Genesis-Exodus, Joshua, 1-4 Kings; 1-2 Chronicles), and likely second-century BCE Palestinian Judean readers would have clearly been able to decode the allegorical portrayals. Perhaps the use of such allegory could have been intended to psychologically affect the recipients in two (non-exclusive) ways. First, the recipients could have seen the dehumanization of their opponents as monstrous beasts. If the author wished to encourage the recipients to engage in a holy war, then to view one's enemy as an evil non-human would have helped to reinforce such a militant religious ideology. Second, the presentation of the events as coded allegories that (supposedly) only insiders could decipher, would have reinforced the special insider status of the recipients.

Along with the Animal Apocalypse's insider-outsider mentality, however, which may be encoded into the very allegorical technique used, insiders, being in need of transformation and/or liberation, are also called upon to move toward purity. We find, for example, the transformation of certain key figures even beyond the purity of being snow-white bulls. The first is the bull representing Noah, who is said to have "become a man ... together with three cows" (89:9b; was one of the snow-white bulls of 89:1 and also called a "snow-white bull" at 89:9a). This stunning transformation of Noah from animal form to human form follows the liberation accomplished by the flood of the snow-white cattle (insiders) and a purging of the entire earth. (See especially the wiping out of the camels, donkeys, and elephants at 89:6.) The second key figure to be transformed "into a man" is the sheep, who is the leader of the other sheep, representing Moses (89:36). In this Enochian exodus passage (89:15-40) the enemies of the sheep (the sheep representing the Israelites) are wolves (= the Egyptians). As in the deluge account, so also here is water used to destroy the enemies of God's elect (89:23-27), again connecting purification, liberation, and judgment. We should also note the change from cows to sheep, following the post-deluge period (in which we find again the manifestation of wild animals and now also wild birds; 89:10-12, with Abraham being a snow-white bull in conflict with the wild beasts). Jacob is the first sheep to enter the Animal Apocalypse's narrative, and he is described as "snow-white" and placed in contrast with Esau the "black wild boar" (89:12). A similar contrast precedes the snow-white sheep and the black wild boar, i.e., a snow-white bull (= Isaac) and a wild ass (= Ishmael). Charlesworth, 65n, indicates that this may have been translated "zebra." But Tiller, 274, indicates that this reference to Ishmael fits the biblical characterization of him as "a wild ass of a man" (Gen 16:12). Tiller does not think that the Ethiopic term 'adg was intended to parallel, the "third class of giants, the asses (= Elioud)."

Again we have a dichotomy of the good and the evil (or the pure and the impure). The sheep, however, are no longer called cows. This may merely fit into the common usage of "sheep" and flocks to represent Israel (Jer 23:1; Ezek 34; Ps 23:1, 74:1, 79:13, 100; Pss. Sol. 8:28; and Jn 10:1); these are the references given by Tiller, 276, as examples. He places special emphasis upon Ezekiel 34, noting the parallel with the Animal Apocalypse's shepherds mistreating the flock of sheep. I would also make the same motif connection (not necessarily direct literary connection) with John 10, especially in light of John 9 (See Tite 1996). So also is such a protective shepherd role presented in the admonitions of 1 Peter 5:1-5; cf the danger of 1 Peter 5:8: "Your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour." But it is also possible that the shift from cows to sheep may indicate the degradation of even the insiders to the status of being more vulnerable as prey. This second alternative, which need not be accepted in exclusion of the first, nor should it, would nicely fit in with the contrast with the wild animals (the predators), who take on a new, more predatory form, and whose violence against the sheep seems to increase in intensity. By raising the degree of danger and the degree of vulnerability, the author of the Animal Apocalypse heightens the tension in the narrative. In so intensifying the narrative, however, he also presents the insiders as somewhat lesser than they were as cows.

Not only do animal morphological transformations indicate the degrees of purity within the Animal Apocalypse, but also the theme of seeing things brings out the theme of moving from insider to outsider status. Degrees of visual ability are first mentioned during the wandering in the desert at 89:28 (see Num 14:20-25; Deut 1:19-45 with Deut 2 beginning the retelling of the desert wandering). At the conclusion of the sheep's time of punishment, we are told that "they began to open their eyes and see" (89:28), followed with the Lord leading them to pastures full of grass and water (= the land of promise). The journey of the sheep to the promised grazing lands is interrupted with the leader (= Moses) twice ascending a summit (= Sinai). The sheep become "dim-sighted" and, like real sheep, begin to ignorantly wander along the wrong path (89:32). As a result of this straying, the sheep are then "blinded ... and gone astray" (89:33b). Fear falls on those still with sight ("those who saw him became afraid," 89:34). A demarcation between those who see and those who are blind, the latter representing those who had gone astray while the former are those who remain insiders, is a key motif in this account (89:28-40). Whereas judgment falls on the blind, that very judgment is intended to instill a submissive fear in the other members of the community. The consequences of apostasy become a foundational element for maintaining community cohesion (so also in Acts 4:32-5:11), specifically in the social power of fear (see 89:33, and especially 89:35).

Interesting, however, is that the demarcation between those who are blind and are killed (89:35b) and those who fear what they have seen is not a simple insider-outsider separation. Those who fear are not actually "seeing ones" but rather still remain under the "dim-sighted" category of 89:32. The narrator explicitly indicates that those who are afraid had gone astray and through the fear instilled by the slaying of those rebellious sheep are restored to their master: "He, that sheep [= Moses], thus caused [resultant of the judgment] those sheep which went astray to return" (89:35b). Not only are these returning sheep described as having been "astray," but also those sheep who had been killed (89:35a). The symmetry between these two groups of sheep does not indicate a sense of privileged insiders and damned outsiders (such as we find in the Flood Vision, a motif also present in Revelation), but rather a warning to those of the dim-sighted sheep who have not yet rebelled to return to God. Not to return from their astray status would result, it is implied by this parallelism, in death falling upon the remaining sheep. At the end of this account, when the sheep have finally arrived in the promised land ("a very pleasant place and in a land beautiful and glorious," 89:40a), we find them finally with their eyes fully open ("... by which their eyes become open," 89:40b). The "house" that is instrumental in the opening of the eyes may, as Tiller suggests, be the tabernacle of Joshua 18:1. If this identification is correct--the house is obviously not the Temple of Solomon, as we may expect, for the Temple is the building for the house at 89:50--then we are seeing the linking of community worship with (spiritual) sight.

Such an identification may indeed have had rhetorical effect if the Animal Apocalypse was written sometime during the Maccabean revolt. For our purposes, the recognition of a falling away and restoration is most significant. We observe a descent-ascent falling and restoration motif of different degrees of seeing/not-seeing. Such a progression can be outlined as follows:

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

What is evident in this outline is the progression, and implications, of falling away and restoration. The author's narrative characterization portrays the insiders as outsiders, but outsiders in degrees of separation from purity (or, to draw upon a common Jewish theme, a separation of covenantal relationship with their god resulting in spiritual pollution). The bipartite separation of the "dim-sighted" into those who become blind and those who stand in fear rhetorically challenges the recipients to choose not to become one of the "blinded" but rather to return to a restored state of having their "eyes ... opened." Such restoration of sight is closely connected to the worship of Israel's god (89:40b), thereby undergirding the importance of purity through sacrificial worship.

Our author continues working with the theme of seeing/not-seeing throughout the historical sketch of Israel's development. The period of the judges, for example, immediately presents us with the sheep becoming "dim-sighted" once more, with their eyes being "opened" when another leader sheep arises (evidently sent by God to his flock--89:41). The threat that the young tribal federation faced from her neighbors--those neighboring nations, especially the Philistines, are again portrayed as beastly figures of prey--result in the raising of two rams (Saul and David). The climax of the 89:41-50 section is the building of the Temple, a place for the "house" already mentioned in the previous section (89:40b), along with a closing sacramental reference to the Temple's function (89:50b). (I am using the opening dim-sightedness of 89:41 and going astray of 89:51 to mark these narrative units. The closing with the Temple cult to end this section [89:50] and the opening with the abandoning of the Temple [89:51] help to function as transitional units to link the two sections together; see also the closing of the preceding section at 89:40.) A connection between protection and worship may be implied with the reference to a "tall and great tower" for the "house"--with the tower (= Temple) being exalted in contrast to the lowness of the house (= tabernacle). A tower as military fortification makes sense given the preceding military threat by the predator figures against which the rams war to protect the sheep. As in the preceding section we find an opening dim-sightedness with a closing sacramental cultus: the sheep once again with open eyes.

The opening of the next section links the Temple cult with going "astray ... in diverse ways" (89:51); and this abandoning of the Temple cult is then the cause of "their eyes [becoming] blindfolded" (89:54). The reference to "house" from this point on refers to the Temple and not the tabernacle, following the historical memory of Israel; a shift indicated by reading 89:50 as the replacement of the house by the tower but not at the expense of eliminating the house. Rather, the house becomes the tower (so also Black: 269). Destruction and death follow the astray status of the sheep, who are now blindfolded (= blind as above). They are handed over to "lions, leopards, and wolves, hyenas, as well as in the hands of the foxes and to all the wild beasts," all of whom commence to savagely devour the sheep (89:55-56). This earthly destruction is also complemented with a cosmic judgment of seventy shepherds as well as a group of shepherds to keep account of the other, first, group of shepherds, making sure they note how many are killed by the first group beyond the allotted number permitted by God (89:61). Although the first group of shepherds likely refers to the nations used by God to bring judgment upon Israel the reference to "seventy" alone indicates the nations of the world--the second group likely refers to an angelic or cosmic group of shepherds who keep records for future judgment. Davidson (104), however, holds that even the seventy shepherds are angelic beings set up by God to bring destruction to Israel. I am taking a slightly more cautious position, relating these shepherds to the nations of the world, an identification which is plausible given the number seventy. But the motif of angels standing over nations who war against one another should not be discounted (cf. Dan 10:10-14), and thus perhaps these seventy shepherds fit both Davidson's angelic connection and my political connection.

Two aspects of not-seeing emerge from this section. First, we notice that the seventy shepherds stand in ignorance of God's oversight. They are, in a sense, blind to the fact that they are being watched and will eventually be judged for excessiveness in executing divine wrath (89:64 explicitly states this point). Second, we are introduced to a deterministic theme. As in the Flood Vision we find that the events surrounding the narrative are totally in divine control. Although the appointed seventy stand unaware of their future judgment, God is not. He even knows that these seventy will be excessive and that they will face judgment at his hand. Unlike the Flood Vision, however, this determinism is not imposed upon the fate of humankind--there is no sharp dichotomy of insiders and outsiders with eschatological consequences. Rather, the determinism of the Animal Apocalypse is located on the cosmic (or national) sphere, and seems to be intended to place emphasis upon the controlling hand of Israel's god. Yet even here on the cosmic level, just as on the human level of the flock itself, we find not-seeing closely connected to standing outside the will of God.

The seeing/not-seeing motif continues throughout the Animal Apocalypse, and is used with even greater intensity as we near the climactic eschatological finale of this apocalypse. In 90:2 we find that not only do the sheep go blind once more, but the birds of prey actually "dig out their eyes" (evidently in reference to the Persian and Hellenistic period prior to the Maccabean revolt). We also find that after their eyes are opened once again (90:6), the sheep not only become "exceedingly dim-sighted" (a motif to which we have become accustomed by now), but are also "exceedingly deafened" (90:7). The pairing of blindness with other physical deficiencies is not uncommon in Jewish (and later in Christian) sources. The humorous parable of two men, one blind and one lame, working together to avenge the shame brought on them due to not being invited to a feast, is a good example of such pairing--the so-called Apocryphon of Ezekiel, which has survived in variant form in Epiphanus' Against Heresies 64.70, 5-17; and Sanhedrin 91a, b, Leviticus Rabbah 4:5, and the Mekhilta on Exodus 15:1. These references are for fragment 1. Fragment 2 appears in various places, including 1 Clement 8:3, Exegesis on the Soul, and Clement of Alexandria. Fragment 3 appears in differing versions in Tertullian, De Came Christi 23; Epiphanius, Panorion Haeresies 30.30.3; Gregory of Nyssa, Against the Jews 3; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:16; Acts of Peter 24. Fragment 4 is preserved in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 47. And fragment 5 is preserved in Clement of Alexandria's Paedogogues 1:9. The date of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel has been proposed as first century BCE to first century CE (see the introduction by J. R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson in Charlesworth: 487-90). The rabbinic evidence and especially fragment 2 in 1 Clement would seem to point to at least a first century CE date. If related to the New Testament gospel traditions, then we could be looking at a pre-70 CE dating, perhaps even into the first century BCE. For our purposes, only fragment 1 is important, and its existence in two distinct versions indicates a wide and fluid tradition history (even if these two sources are late).

We also find in the Lukan version of the parable of the great feast a command to "Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame" (Luke 14:21b NRSV; cf. the parallel in Matt 22:1-14). Whereas Matthew has a general reference to "everyone" who is found, the Lukan version of this Q parable places a special emphasis upon the ingathering of the lowest of society. Matthew has two healings sequentially placed in which two blind men are healed and then a mute is healed (Matt 9:27-31; 9:32-34)--which is then followed by an eschatological harvesting saying (9:35-38; cf. 10:1). We also find in the Fourth Gospel a similar pairing of a blind man and a lame man in chapters 5 and 9 (these two pericopae stand separate from one another, but are two narratives that have been linked within the broader narrative context of the Gospel). A recent study of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel in comparison with Matthew 22:1-14 has been recently published by Bauckham: 471-88. On the narrative link between John 5 and 9 as a Johannine pairing, see Tite 1996. A restorational theme undergirds much of the usage of such pairing, as we find in the Q account of Jesus' response to John the Baptist (Matt 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23). As we have noticed in the Animal Apocalypse, seeing/not-seeing has also carried a restorational nuance, and so also it would seem does the pairing in 1 Enoch 90:6-8, though the pairing in this Enochian tradition highlights the problem for which restorational healing is necessary. A similar usage of seeing and hearing, or more precisely not-seeing and not-hearing, is presented in Isaiah 6:9-10 (also picked up by the Lukan author to close his second volume, Acts 28:26-27). In the Animal Apocalypse the pairing seems to intensify the depth of horror that the sheep face, an intensity also brought forth with the action of the birds of prey to blind the sheep (90:2).

Blindness and restoration or judgment play a key role in the eschatological climax of the Animal Apocalypse, and such an important role was likely grounded in the sociopolitical conflict that the author was addressing during the Maccabean revolt. The sheep who grows a horn, likely Judas Maccabeus, takes on a reformer's role in bringing sight to the other sheep with him (90:9). Tiller, who identifies this figure with Judas Maccabeus, observes two social groups among the sheep:

      The description of this sheep and his effects on the other sheep
   distinguish him from the sighted lambs. The most important difference is
   that he is associated with the sheep that are still blind; the lambs were
   already able to see in vs 6, but in vs 9, when the horn grew, "their eyes
   were opened." This could only mean that the other sheep, which were still
   blind in vss 6-7, now received their sight along with this sheep which grew
   a great horn.

      Thus, there are two social groups described in vss 6-9: (1) the sighted
   lambs, an unsuccessful minority, religious reform group; and (2) a larger
   group, centered around a single individual, that successfully appealed to a
   larger number (vs 10, "they all ran to it"), including the sighted, homed
   lambs.... This larger group doubtless represents a coalition of those who
   fought with Judas in support of their traditional way of life [355].

If Tiller's interpretation of the allegorical figures in 90:6-10 is correct, we are seeing the very conflict that the entire allegorical history was written to address. Specifically, the author may be positing degrees of seeing/not-seeing along with groups of those who come to see (Tiller's observation), in order to encourage the Judean revolutionaries (or reformers) to continue their fight for a purified Israel. The author recognizes that defection is a real possibility, and thus does not work within an absolute sectarian dichotomy between insiders and outsiders: insiders can become, and have become, outsiders; and outsiders can become, and have become, insiders. The recipients are to be careful as to where they stand in the reform movement. Care is necessary because of the author's eschatological judgment motif--the sealed books of 90:20-21 leads us into the divine reckoning of 90:22-27, where the "blinded sheep" (90:26b) are thrown into the "fiery abyss" (90:26c), where the seventy shepherds had been thrown (90:25), as well as the fallen stars (90:24).

To those who remain insiders (i.e., those who continue to be seeing sheep), a full restorational eschatology is awarded. A diaspora (or exilic) world view is brought out by the reference to "all those which have been destroyed and dispersed, and all the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky were gathered together in that Muse" (90:33, emphasis mine). The key words highlighted (destroyed, dispersed, gathered, and house) are buzz words for a diaspora world view, in which dispersal/destruction reflects the current journey of the recipients and the gathering, especially with mention of the Temple (oikos is an important restoration image in Second Temple Judaism), indicating the healing, rest, and glorification awaiting those who persevere during the time of suffering and struggle. As with the earlier restoration of sight, so also here at the ultimate restoration we find worship in the Temple cult signaled by our author. Indeed, the description of the Temple given in 90:30-37 presents this eschatological Temple as even greater than anything preceding it--in a sense we see a progression of greatness moving from the tabernacle to Solomon's Temple to this eschatological Temple; and coupled with this a growing sense of restoration. VanderKam (1997:91) has recently offered another "diaspora" reading of the Animal Apocalypse. He identifies three types of usage of "exile" as a motif in Jewish apocalypses for reconstructing Jewish history: (1) exile as a specific, limited event much as related in the Hebrew Bible, (2) exile as a continuous process encompassing the author's own time and extended towards final eschatological judgment; and (3) exile as motif for rethinking "its causes, its place in the divine economy, and the divine justice (or lack of it) expressed through it." VanderKam identifies the Animal Apocalypse as fitting into type 2 (1997: 96-100). In linking this apocalypse with Daniel 9, VanderKam uses the seventy shepherds as key to this type identification, the shepherds being successive stages of exile, of which the historical (Babylonian) exile was merely the beginning, which will conclude in a near eschatological final judgment (esp. 1997: 100).

A parallel, perhaps an antecedent tradition upon which the Animal Apocalypse drew, can be found in Jeremiah 31:2-9. We find an ingathering (31:3, 8a; referred to as a "remnant" in v 7b), an end to the weeping of the broken people of God who have been dispersed (31:13b) and are referred to as the blind and the lame (31:8b). We may also wish to note the usage of the shepherd-sheep metaphor in Jeremiah 31:10, where God is the shepherd and Israel his flock. There are also other aspects of shalom present, such as the bounty of 31:12b, 14. Peace and agricultural plenty are common enough motifs in ancient Jewish and Greek notions of peace (see Tite 1995 for a helpful discussion of some ancient concepts of peace). Worship of God and joy in such worship dominate this Jeremiah passage, and, like the Animal Apocalypse, there is punishment for the nations who preyed upon the Israelites. For the recipients of the Animal Apocalypse, if indeed a Maccabean connection is accepted (which I think plausible given the ex eventu prophecy technique employed in this apocalypse), the non-deterministic anthropology would fit a rhetorical call for the reformers to continue along their path of purifying Israel. The determinism of the Flood Vision would not have contributed to such a socio-political situation, and would better fit a sectarian than a revolutionary communal self-definition.

Redactional Activity in the Book of Dreams

The disparate world views of both the Flood Vision and the Animal Apocalypse would obviously raise difficulties for an editor attempting to bring these two texts together in one document, assuming of course that such a redactor would desire some level of coherence in the final, composite product. One option for a redactor to create coherence is to rewrite the incorporated traditions, drawing them together in such a way that the sources utilized are subsumed within the internal textual fabric of the new literary product. We find such redactional activity, for example, in the production of the Fourth Gospel, where there are internal clues of underlying sources (e.g., the number of particular signs, indicating a possible signs source/gospel; a double ending; and narrative inconsistencies), yet despite extensive scholarly efforts, notably by such form critics as Rudolf Bultmann and Robert Fortna, yet also within the redactional history offered by Raymond Brown, we are left with so extensive a reworking of sources that the traditions incorporated can be seen only indirectly through small glimmers here and there in the Fourth Gospel.

A similar situation may underlie the source question in 1 Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah (see Hall; and on 1 Peter see Tite 1997, esp. 1-34). Another option that a redactor may follow is to allow the traditions to stand relatively unmolested within the composite work, with perhaps transitional links between sources in order to move the recipient towards a particular interpretation of the sources presented. Such an option undergirds the preservation of the works of Valentinus, where especially Clement of Alexandra and Hippolytus selectively present fragments of Valentinus' works (now lost). (The most ground-breaking work on these fragments, largely in contrast to the work by Layton [217-64], is that of Markschies.) Some redactional activities are difficult to determine, however, as is the case with the divergent accounts of Socrates in Plato and Xenophon, or with the various traditions from Second Temple Judaism incorporated into the Mishnah. (Notable regarding the difficulties facing Mishnaic studies is Neusner's work, especially 5-20.) The redactor of the Book of Dreams, however, seems to avoid the former option (of rewriting his source materials) and instead follows the latter option.

Indications of this second redactional approach are given at the three redactional links offered at 83.1-2, 85.1-2, and 90.41-42. Given the independence of the Animal Apocalypse and the Flood Vision, the redactor's introductory comments (83.1-2) highlight for us that he does not wish to conceal his sources. Rather, we are told by the implied author (Enoch) that "I will show you the visions which I saw.... I saw two [visions] before I got married and neither one of them resembles the other" (emphasis mine). The redactor openly indicates, not only that we are given two visions (i.e., he is not attempting to conflate the two sources into one visionary account), but also that they are very different from one another. This latter point highlights the likelihood that our redactor has not tampered with his two sources, or at least not extensively.

The second redactional unit in the Book of Dreams is the transitional link between the Flood Vision and the opening of the Animal Apocalypse. A shift in voice occurs at 85.1-2 from first person to third person and then back to first person. Throughout the Book of Dreams, including the opening redactional addition, we have been in first-person narrative. This transitional unit also opens in first-person voice ('After this, I saw another dream; and I will show you everything, my son"--85.1), and we would expect the narrative to continue in this voice. At least we are not given any indication of voice change in the text, such as a shift to or from a sea narrative. (On voice shifts in sea narratives see Robbins, Plumarcher, and the criticism raised by Praeder.) A shift to first person occurs, however, at 85.2a ("Then Enoch responded and said to his son, Methuselah"). The function of 85.2a is to introduce the discourse beginning in 85.2b, which shifts back to first person. There are two difficulties with this transitional unit. First, the function of 85.2a is already accomplished by 85.1. The redundant 85.2a does not seem to offer anything to the discourse. Second, the shift in voice is unnecessary, and indeed adds to the awkwardness of 85.1-2.

This shift in voice, along with the awkwardness caused by 85.2b, is a likely indication of a redactional hand at work, and a fairly sloppy hand at that. Not only do the shifts indicate redactional intrusion; they also reinforce the independent nature of the two Enochian traditions incorporated into the Book of Dreams. As far as the redactional function of 85.1-2 is concerned, it is difficult to determine whether 85.2b stands, even in part, with the opening of the Animal Apocalypse or as part of the redactional addition. It does not seem to offer any interpretive function at all to the Book of Dreams. Rather, 85.1-2a merely serves as a transitional bridge between the two Enochian traditions. The brevity of this unit further highlights the non-intrusive nature of the redactor in composing his work. The first two redactional units function less as interpretive entities than as simple introductory and transitional links between the two traditions. In effect, our redactor has not yet played his hand as an author, but has acted merely as a source collector.

The final redactional unit in the Book of Dreams (90.41-42) not only concludes the book, but also gives us a small glimpse of our redactor as author. In finishing the Book of Dreams with 90.41-42, the redactor has introduced several awkward inconsistencies into his book. The Animal Apocalypse itself nicely concludes with 90.40: Enoch has awakened from his dream (90.39b), a waking followed by a summary statement: "This is the vision which I saw while I was sleeping" (90.40a). With the visionary experience proper finished, we are finally given an appropriate response to the zoomorphic vision: "Then I woke up and blessed the Lord of righteousness and gave him glory" (90.40b). A functional redundancy is present in this conclusion. Unlike the redundancy of 85.1-2 (which is redactional), the redundancy of "I woke up" (90.39b), "while I was sleeping" (90.40a), and "then I woke up" (90.40b) serve the purpose of tying the visionary accounts into the response of 90.40b. (On functional redundancy see Witherup 1992; 1993.) The purpose of the Animal Apocalypse's closing is to foreground the glory of God and to exhort, through Enoch as a narrative exemplar, the recipients to respond in glorifying the God of Israel's history. Such a glorification theme offers a climactic finale for the Animal Apocalypse and nicely fits in with the narrative progression toward eschatological restoration in this apocalypse.

The compositional arrangements offered by both Tiller and Frolich highlight such a narrative progression. Tiller divides the Animal Apocalypse into three historical stages and places emphasis upon the beginning of each stage (a "new Adam" figure presented by a "white bull" figure): the remote past, the present, and the ideal future (Tiller, passim, but especially 15-20). The first age begins with 85.3 and takes us from Adam (the "white bull") up to the flood of Noah (89.1-9). The second age begins with 89.9's presentation of Noah as a "white bull" and moves us through Israel's history to the period of the eschaton, including the final battle and the restoration. The third age is the briefest account given, running from 90.37 to 90.38. This final age is one that "describes the second stage of the restoration and marks the beginning of the ideal future, which corresponds to the primordial past [the first age]" (Tiller: 383). The Adamic figure given in the third age is the ambiguous "snow-white cow" of 90.37a. The function of this cow is difficult to ascertain. Charles held that this figure serves no soteriological function (including any function in judgment), which is true (and Tiller agrees with him on this point). Klijn saw this figure as a second Seth, while Pedersen and Milik read the cow as a second, and greater, Adam (Charles: 215; Klijn: 158; Milik: 45; Pedersen: 419; and Tiller's overview of these various positions: 384). For Tiller's compositional breakdown of this apocalypse, this cow functions simply as a new Adam figure, the third in a typological presentation of each new age: Adam-Noah-New Adam (Tiller: 384). I would add to the discussion that this figure seems also to function to instill a submissive fear into the recipients' allegorical enemies: "all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the sky feared him and made petition to him all the time" (90.37b). Added to the idyllic restoration theme of the closing of the apocalypse, the qualification of "all" the beasts and birds renders a complete and thus (implied at the very least) final subjugation of all opponents. Submission in 90.37b may give way to transformation in 90.38. If the antecedent of the third person possessive pronoun ("all their kindred") is the beasts and birds of 90.37, then the eschatology of the Animal Apocalypse could be inclusive of both insiders and outsiders. Such a reading of 90.38 would fit in nicely with the restorational theme of 90.28-39, and would follow upon the "petitions" of 90.37b. An inclusive eschatology could, however, contradict the judgment motif of 90.20-27. A possible solution to the inconsistency of the judgment of outsiders and then the transformation of the outsiders into insiders in the Animal Apocalypse could be to see the transformation as a follow-up restoration to the divine punishment. Such a solution, which makes sense within the texture of the narrative, would necessitate reading the eschatological judgment of this apocalypse as non-eternal punishment, a reading which is radically different from that of Revelation 20-22. Frolich's compositional arrangement differs from Tiller's, yet also moves us toward a climax of restoration and glorification.

Frolich divides the apocalypse into four periods: First Period (85.3[?]-86.3)--symbol of the bull; second period (86.4-89.9) fallen angels and the flood; third period (89.10-58)--Jacob and his twelve sons (Elijah denotes the end of this period); and fourth period (89.59-90.6[?])m four sub-periods climaxing with the Maccabean period. A Messianic Age follows the fourth period and completes the restoration. (The exact ending of the fourth period, climaxing with the Maccabean period, and the beginning of the Messianic Age, beginning with the judgment, is not precisely given by Frolich.) The strength of Frolich's arrangement is its emphasis upon imagery, primarily in relation to an intertextual connection with Daniel. The main strength of Tiller's arrangement is the significance it places upon the imagery of the bulls. Both, however, move us through the Animal Apocalypse in such a way as to high light the progression from primordial establishment, through a period or periods of corruption/falling away, to a climactic restoration including glorification and divine judgment. This progressive movement toward glorification is further supported by the restorational motifs in 90.28-39: the gathering into the (greater) house (90.29a, 35), a full restoration of "all the sheep" (90.29b), ascension and whiteness (90.31), the ability of all to see (90.35-36), and most importantly the presence of "great joy" of the "Lord of the house" due to the restoration (90.33).

Given this rejoicing/glorification motif, the awakened Enoch's glorification of God (90.40) is a logical response to conclude the Animal Apocalypse. But the redactional addition of 90.41 makes little sense, given the apocalypse's climactic finale. Rather than giving "glory," we find Enoch weeping over what he had just seen; but "wept" seems incongruous with what has preceded: viz., glory, rejoicing, and victory. Although Charlesworth translates the sentence "on account of what I had seen until everything should be fulfilled" (emphasis mine), he notes a textual variant in A, B, and C of "because" instead of "until" (Charlesworth: 71). If we follow his translation, then Enoch's weeping would be ended with the fulfillment of "everything," i.e., the restorational eschaton just given in the Animal Apocalypse. This reading would help to offset the inconsistency of the "glory-wept" shift in the redactional addition; yet it would not necessarily fit in with the temporal progression of the vision preceding this shift. Specifically, the fulfillment of "everything" would have been accomplished, at least narratively, and thus a slight inconsistency still lingers. Charlesworth's translation, therefore, serves the Book of Dreams well by increasing its coherence with the Animal Apocalypse, but not necessarily the ending of the Animal Apocalypse. The variant "because" reading, however, would render the fulfillment clause a resultant clause, which would make sense in regard to the weeping much better than the temporal connotation of the alternative reading. The redactional problem of weeping and glory still remains, and this problem may give us some insight into the redactor as author.

Our redactor-as-author's concluding redactional addition functions to bring the two Enochian traditions together. In 90.42b he makes an explicit reference back to the "first vision," which is followed by another functional redundancy of weeping. Similar to the Animal Apocalypse's functional redundancy of sleep, which we noted, the redundancy of weeping in this redactional unit functions to emphasize the main point of the narrative unit. Whereas 90.39-40's redundancy places stress upon the glory motif (a positive outlook being brought forth), the redactor's redundancy of weeping in 90:41-42 emphasizes the troubling nature of the visionary experience for Enoch (a negative outlook being brought forth). One possible solution to the contradiction present in the sequence from the Animal Apocalypse and the redactional conclusion is to see the redactional unit referring back to the Flood Vision. An explicit indication that the redactional unit also has the Flood Vision under consideration is the reference to the "first vision" (90.42a). If anything is accomplished by the redactor by the qualification "first," it is surely the admission that he has several visions, i.e., Enochian traditions, under consideration. Given the similar indication in the first redactional unit of more than one visionary account, 90.42a is probably a redactional reference to the Flood Vision.

The Flood Vision's narrative progression explicates the thematic link with this final redactional unit. (The following compositional arrangement is my own reading of the Flood Vision.) After the redactional introduction, we have four major units, the first three being preparatory for the fourth.

The first unit is the Vision/Dream of Enoch (83.3-5). This serves both to set forth the subject under discussion (the vision proper) as well as the attitude of reception by which to interpret the text. Specifically, the attitude of reception is one of utter horror at the destruction within the vision: "Thereupon [i.e., after seeing the great destruction of the dream] a word fell into my mouth; and I began crying aloud, saying, `The earth is being destroyed'" (83.5). The reaction of horror ("crying aloud") at 83.5 nicely parallels the reaction of weeping at 90.41-42, both being negative reactions following a visionary account of negative events.

The second unit is the Post-Dream Discourse with Mahalalel (83.6-8). This unit continues the negative reaction with an exhortation for Enoch to pray for the survival of a remnant (note the lamenting of Enoch and the reaction of Mahalalel to the recounted vision).

The third unit is the Transition into the Prayer (83.9-11). This unit also continues the reaction of horror, restating that there will be "a great destruction upon the earth" (83.9b), with the young Enoch entering into prayer, making "a petition, and begged" (83.10a). We are not given the prayer, but rather are told that Enoch began to record "all the prayers of the generations of the world" (83.10b). In 83.11 the older Enoch, the one talking to his son Methuselah, recounts in summary form his insights into the glory of God. This verse links Enoch's horrified reaction and prayers with God's great glory, a glory which is explicitly linked with the divine role in creation and maintaining the stability of the universe. (It is possible that this unit has a reflection back to Book 3, the Book of Heavenly Luminaries, though whether this reflection is a direct source/tradition dependency one way or the other or merely an indirect intertextual relationship cannot be determined with precision.) This connection between human horror and divine authority sets up the text for the fourth unit.

The fourth unit is the actual Prayer of Enoch (84). This unit further divides into three subunits: Blessing (84.2-3) here the absoluteness of God is put forth, giving us a basis for the determinism of the prayer; Sin of Angels (84.4)--the crisis itself; and the Petition for the Flesh of Righteousness (84.5-6)--where, as we have already noted, there is a sharp duality of two types of flesh. The petition is founded upon the opening blessing, which therefore ties together the glory and greatness of divine authority with the human horror of the insiders. Everything in the Flood Vision leads into the prayer (the fourth unit), and the prayer for "a generation" (84.5b) recalls the "remnant" of 83.8; the sovereignty of God in 84.2-3 with that of 83.11; and the general destruction of 84.5c ("and empty the earth [so that] there shall be eternal destruction") fits in, of course, with the "earth being swallowed up into the great abyss" (83.4 and the general destruction throughout the Flood Vision).

This arrangement of the text allows us to see the Enochian author's linking of human horror and divine authority within a judgment scenario, with the giving of glory in the Blessing subunit being the proper reaction to the divine act. By recognizing the link in the Flood Vision between lamentation and glorification, and in accepting a redactional reference back to the Flood Vision as the "first vision" at 90.42, we are able to perceive the seemingly contradictory symmetry in the final redactional unit between glory and weeping. Rather than being merely a reference back to the Animal Apocalypse, 90.41-42 also draws the reader's attention back to the "first vision," i.e., the Flood Vision.

Two other difficulties should be briefly mentioned in regard to the final redactional unit. First, there is a reference to the "deeds of the people also shown to" Enoch (90.41b). The difficulty is determining the point of reference for this revelation of "deeds of the people": Are we faced with a third vision, which has not been recounted for us (the use of also may indicate a separate vision), or is this revelation in reference either to the Animal Apocalypse or the Flood Vision, or perhaps both visions? If90.41b refers to one of the preceding visions, then (given the reference to recalling the "first vision" in 90.42) such reference would likely be to the Animal Apocalypse. If 90.41 refers to an unknown third vision, then either the redactor has eliminated a source or has failed to incorporate further material. In other words, the Book of Dreams may have been planned to include three Enochian traditions rather than the two that were incorporated in the final stages of composition. The reference to the "deeds of the people" could be a simple literary technique, such as we find in John 20:30, a technique in which revelation is not limited to the recorded events/visions but rather is beyond human limitation of producing literature. In effect, the text points outside itself and thereby enhances its own importance as a sliver of a much vaster revelatory dynamic. Second, there is the difficulty of Enoch's restlessness due to "that vision" (90.42b). Since these are the closing words of the Book of Dreams, we are left with the question, which vision? The antecedent could be the Animal Apocalypse. It is unlikely that it refers to the "deeds of the people" vision, even if a third vision. The opening of 90.42 implies some degree of separation between the "deeds" vision and the "first vision" remembered. We are probably dealing with the redactor's use of the Flood Vision to tie together the entire Book of Dreams, and thus the reference is probably to both the Flood Vision and the Animal Apocalypse.

To summarize the redactional function of 90.41-42, the redactor constructs a closing section to pull together interpretively the two Enochian traditions drawn upon in the construction of the Book of Dreams. He accomplishes this goal by creating a loose allusion to the prayer of 1 Enoch 84. Such an allusion recalls the Flood Vision's link. age between glorification and horror, thereby altering the sense of the Animal Apocalypse's ending. Rather than ending on a purely positive note of eschatological restoration (a motif absent from the Flood Vision), with an inclusive eschatology following the divine judgment, the redactor nuances the Animal Apocalypse's ending with the sense given in the Flood Vision: in effect, the Animal Apocalypse is to be read through the interpretive lens of the Flood Vision, primarily drawing out a glory-horror theme.

The implications of such a nuance, unfortunately, remain elusive. Did the redactor wish to negate the non-deterministic soteriology of the Animal Apocalypse with the strong insider-outsider demarcation of the Flood Vision? Did he wish to complement the temporal apocalyptic axis dominant in the Animal Apocalypse with the spatial axis of the Flood Vision? Was the redactor conflating, or ignoring, the modern demarcation between prophetic and apocalyptic visionary experiences by using one form to interpret the other in a composite work largely free from redactional activity? The answers to these questions are, alas, not directly accessible given the low degree of redactional activity in the Book of Dreams. Our redactor has seemingly not engaged in deeper redactional work within either vision, thereby depriving us of greater insights into his motivation for constructing the Book of Dreams as he has.

Yet, despite this drawback, we are offered some insights into the redactor of this book. He does not seem to have wished to change the Enochian traditions available to (or selected by) him, and therefore for the most part does not take on the role of author. The redactor does, however, take on the role of author at the very conclusion of the book, though obviously (to our dismay, perhaps) not as a very ambitious author. Redaction is closely tied into social and historical contexts in which sources are reinterpreted according to shifts in the context of reception. The historical background for not only the Book of Dreams but also the Flood Vision and the Animal Apocalypse remains elusive. We lack specific internal indications of a social location for any of these texts, and we lack external evidence to support any given hypothetical context.

Still, given the distinctiveness of each text and the likely Maccabean context of the Animal Apocalypse, a tentative proposal can be offered. The Flood Vision is the earliest of the three texts. Its strict insider-outsider world view, coupled with its theme of determined judgment and prayer for the righteous remnant, could place this text prior to the Maccabean revolt during the intense hellenization of the Judeans in Palestine. Rather than seeing a hopeful restoration, or the opposite position of open acceptance of assimilation/acculturalization, the Flood Vision presents cultural accommodation as a dangerous (external) threat that can be solved only through a divine act of absolute devastation of the wicked outsiders. The Animal Apocalypse, given the historical location of the eschatological climax, addresses a slightly later period when the Maccabean revolt was nearing victory. The necessity of countering defection and encouraging "outsiders" to join the "insiders" may underlie the symbolic shifts between insider and outsider status. An enthusiastic portrait of victory over the Greeks as eschatological restoration would nicely serve as the propaganda needed to fuel a religiously motivated revolt. Our redactor may have prepared his work long after the revolt had succeeded and the immediate excitement over the emergence of the Hasmonean dynasty had waned. Looking back upon the victory achieved, the author of the Book of Dreams may have approved of the revolt, but not of the utopian outcome proposed by the Animal Apocalypse. Perhaps he felt that the revolution had not been complete, or that the victors had failed to live up to the ideals of the revolution. Another alternative context for the Book of Dreams could be shortly after the revolt, when people may have reflected upon the cost of victory. Horror in glory, therefore, becomes a critique on the realistic costs of any military conflict, even when the cause is still seen as valid.

Regardless of the exact post-victory context of our redactor, the lack of precision in locating this text does not deter the author's usage of the Flood Vision to reinterpret the Animal Apocalypse's utopian eschatological viewpoint. Given this lack of precision, however, our redactor could be dated anywhere within a century following the Maccabean revolt.

What emerges from our study of the redactional aspects of the Book of Dreams is an example of how redactor can function as author, as much perhaps as an author can function as redactor. Rhetorical conventions in the Greco-Roman world highlighted the importance of drawing upon sources in the construction of literary works, especially for persuasively arguing a particular position. A rhetorical appreciation for source incorporation, as part of the rhetorical stage of invention, differs sharply from source-critical approaches in biblical and classical studies. Rather than reading a text as a conglomerate of incorporated sources, perhaps even within complex stratification theories, or (the opposite procedure) of ignoring source incorporation for the sake of foregrounding literary integrity, rhetorical criticism would allow us to see both literary integrity and source analysis as non-contradictory methods by enabling us to appreciate the rhetorical incorporation of sources into the production of a unified text.

Redactors and authors, consequently, need not be seen as playing opposite roles. What the Book of Dreams helps to highlight for us is the diverse degrees in which a redactor can play the role of author. Our particular redactor leaves his sources (the Flood Vision and the Animal Apocalypse) largely intact as they evidently came to him, and enters the role of author by constructing a short redactional conclusion in which his interpretive perspective on his composite text takes hold. We can therefore say that the Book of Dreams has a slightly different message than the independent Flood Vision and Animal Apocalypse, and thus the redactor has in fact created a new text by means of his redactional additions. Unlike the authors of some other ancient texts, such as the Gospels, our redactor-as-author has not rewritten and fully integrated his sources into the new text.

In extending the lesson given us through our redactor-as-author to other texts, we can hope to avoid treating certain texts only diachronically or synchronically. In studying the Gospel of Thomas, for example, we are faced with a scholarly trend in which the text is treated mainly as a "sayings gospel" without much consideration being given to its literary integrity as a text unto itself, with its own message and internal logic. (For the most part this tendency in scholarship is tied into the need to use the Gospel of Thomas as an extant example of a signs gospel to argue for the plausibility of the hypothetical Q signs gospel. Stratification theory of both, as well as in parallel analysis, is not uncommon and substantiates such a presentation of much Q/Fhomas scholarship; see, e.g., the detailed study by Arnal.)

The Book of Dreams allows us to appreciate a continuum of authoring and redacting, with diachronic and synchronic interpretive perspectives being non-exclusive of one another. Our own redactor has done little, it would seem, as author; but he has still produced a new text with a slightly new meaning, or interpretive lens, worked into the fabric of this new text for his readers to engage the old traditions drawn upon.

Works Cited

Arnal, William E. 1995. The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels. HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 88:471-94.

Bauckham, Richard. 1996. The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the Parable of the Lame Man and the Blind Man (Apocryphon of Ezekiel). JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 115: 471-88.

Black, Matthew. 1985. THE BOOKS OF ENOCH OR 1 ENOCH: A NEW EDITION. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Charles, R. H. 1912. THE BOOKS OR ENOCH OR 1 ENOCH. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

Charlesworth, James H. 1983. THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, Volume 1: APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND TESTAMENTS. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Davidson, Maxwell J. 1992. ANGELS AT QUMRAN: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF 1 ENOCH 1-36, 72-108 AND SECTARIAN WRITINGS FROM QUMRAN. JSPSuppl. Series 11. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

Frolich, Ida. 1990. The Symbolical Language of the Animal Apocalypse of Enoch (1 Enoch 85-90). REVUE QUMRAN 14:629-36.

Hall, Robert G. 1994. Isaiah's Ascent to See the Beloved: An Ancient Jewish Source for the Ascension of Isaiah. JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 113:463-84.

Klijn, A. E J. 1978. From Creation to Noah in the Second Dream-Vision of the Ethiopic Enoch. Pp. 147-59 in MISCELLANEA NEOTESTAMENTICA. Volume 1. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Layton, Bentley. 1987. THE GNOSTIC SCRIPTURES. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Markschies, Christoph. 1992. VALENTINUS GNOSTICUS? UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR VALENTINAINISCHEN GNOSIS MIT EINEM KOMMENTAR ZU DEN FRAGMENTEN VALENTINUS. WUNT 64. Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Milik, J. T. 1976. THE BOOKS OF ENOCH: ARAMAIC FRAGMENTS FROM QUMRAN CAVE 4. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press.

Murphy, Larry. 1988. THE CONCEPT OF THE TWELVE IN LUKE-ACTS AS A KEY TO THE LUKAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL. Ph.D. dissertation. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Neusner, Jacob. 1980. FORM-ANALYSIS AND EXEGESIS: A FRESH APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF MISHNAH, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MISHNAH-TRACTATE MAKHSHIRIN. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Pedersen, Johs. 1926. Zur Erklarung der eschatologischen Visionen Henochs. ISLAMICA 2:416-29.

Plumarcher, E. 1977. Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas: Erwagungen zu den Wir-Stucken der Apostelgeschichte. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR DIE NEUTESTAMENTLICHE WISSENSCHAFT 68: 2-22.

Praeder, Susan Marie. 1987. The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM 29: 193-218.

Robbins, Vernon K. 1975. The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages. BIBLICAL SEMINAR 20: 5-18.

Tiller, Patrick A. 1993. A COMMENTARY ON THE ANIMAL APOCALYPSE OF 1 ENOCH. SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 4. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Tite, Philip L. 1997. COMPOSITIONAL TRANSITIONS IN 1 PETER: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LETTER-OPENING. San Francisco, CA: International Scholars Publications.

1996. A Community in Conflict: A Literary and Historical Reading of John 9. RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND THEOLGY 15: 77-100. 1995. Pax, Peace, and the New Testament. RELIGIOLOGIQUES 11: 301-24.

VanderKam, James C. 1997. Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Pp. 89-109 in EXILE: OLD TESTAMENT, JEWISH, AND CHRISTIAN CONCEPTIONS, edited by James M. Scott. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

1984. ENOCH AND THE GROWTH OF AN APOCALYPTIC TRADITION. CBQMS 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America.

Witherup, Ronald D. 1993. Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: A Case Study. JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 49: 45-66.

1992. Functional Redundancy in the Acts of the Apostles: A Case Study. JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 48: 67-86.

Philip L. Tite, Ph.D. cand. (McGill University) is the author of COMPOSITIONAL TRANSITIONS IN 1 PETER (International Scholars Publications, 1997) and several articles including Categorical Designations and Methodological Reductionism: Gnosticism as Case Study, in METHOD AND THEORY IN STUDY OF RELIGION (forthcoming, 2001), and is a contributor to EERDMANS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE (2000). His e-mail address is ptite2po-box.mcgill.ca. Appreciation is offered to Donna Runnalls for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.