Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee

Nickelsburg, George W. E.

doi:10.2307/3266120

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, it is helpful to consider the arguments of Perrin and Machiela alongside an extensive scholarship on the affinities and points of contact between various pairs and clusters of Aramaic compositions from Qumran. Some of these studies are in explicit dialogue with the work of Dimant, Machiela, etc., while others predate or are otherwise independent of the above-cited research on the Aramaic Scrolls as corpus: the Books of Watchers and the Aramaic Levi Document (Nickelsburg 1981; Stone 1988; Wright 1997); the Astronomical Book and the Aramaic Levi Document (Drawnel 2006a; Ben-Dov 2008a); the early Enoch literature and Tobit (Nickelsburg 1996; 2003); the Aramaic Levi Document, the Testament of Qahat, and the Visions of Amram (Milik 1972; Drawnel 2006b; Tervanotko 2014; Hama 2022; Perrin 2022b); the Genesis Apocryphon and the Aramaic Levi Document (Machiela and Jones 2023); the Genesis Apocryphon and the Book of Giants (Machiela and Perrin 2011); the Genesis Apocryphon and Tobit (Machiela and Perrin 2014); the Visions of Amram and Tobit (Goldman 2013); the Visions of Amram and Four Kingdoms (Machiela 2021b); the Book of Giants and Daniel 4 (Angel 2016); the Book of Watchers, the Book of Giants, and Daniel 7 (Stokes 2008; Trotter 2012; Angel 2014a; 2014b; Davis Bledsoe 2016; cf. Holmes 2019); Pseudo-Daniel and the early Enoch literature (Stuckenbruck 2001); Four Kingdoms and Daniel chapters 2 and 7 (Hogeterp 2010; Perrin 2015b), Tobit and various other Qumran Aramaic traditions (Perrin 2015a; Dimant 2017); the canonical Daniel court tales and other Aramaic Daniel traditions (Perrin 2019).…”

Section: Common Literary Features and Shared Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

Jones

2023

Currents in Biblical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls have attracted increasing scholarly attention since their official publication was completed in 2009. These manuscripts, representing about thirty distinct compositions, attest to the existence of a previously unknown Jewish Aramaic scribal culture that flourished in the early Hellenistic period (ca. late fourth to mid-second centuries BCE). The Aramaic Scrolls thus have the potential to illuminate an otherwise poorly understood period of Jewish history. In this article, I discuss the various scholarly approaches to their language, literary content, and social location, with a special emphasis on trends in the secondary literature since the late 2000s. This article will also provide interested students and scholars with an overview of the major themes and concerns found throughout the Aramaic Scrolls.

show abstract

Section: Common Literary Features and Shared Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

Jones

2023

Currents in Biblical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…52 Nor does it appear demonstrable that the Markan passion sayings predate Mark's gospel; in fact, it seems unlikely that 'a form of [Mk 8:31] ever circulated independently'. 53 Furthermore, as noted by a number of scholars, the first passion prediction is probably situated by Mark in the vicinity of Mount Hermon, 54 an ancient cultic locale which also served as the locus of the Enochic tradition. Placed in that region, Peter's confession of Jesus as ὁ χριστός (Mk 8:29), as well as his subsequent rebuke of Jesus (Mk 8:32), indicate that a certain messianic expectation perceived by Mark as connected specifically to the phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου was contradicted by Jesus' prediction of the Son of Man's suffering.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The Background of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Light of Recent Research

Andrejevs

2019

The Expository Times

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the philological and tradition-historical background of the Son of Man phrase and the mythological figure that it describes in light of recent research. While many studies for well over a century have interpreted the New Testament's ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου phrase and its Aramaic equivalent ‫אנשא‬ ‫בר‬ through the prism of Late Aramaic texts, as at least occasionally a non-titular circumlocution, this study engages the research of a number of Aramaic specialists to suggest that such an approach is diachronically incorrect. An argument is therefore made for a consistently titular deployment of the phrase in all stages of the New Testament tradition. Additionally, we suggest the influence of Enochic apocalyptic speculation, especially the book of Parables, on the possible deployment of the phrase by the historical Jesus of Nazareth or his earliest followers.

show abstract

“…45:5) through Simon, in contrast to the authors of 1 Enoch and the Aramaic Levi Document, who were inclined to mantic forms of wisdom and so represented the marginalised priests, and linked the wisdom tradition with such biblical figures as Enoch and Levi (see Goering 2009;Horsley 2005;Mermelstein 2014;Nickelsburg 1981;Stone 1988;Wright 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creation retold: Use of Scripture and tradition in Sirach 16:24�17:14

Ramantswana

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the use of Scripture and tradition in Sirach 16:24�17:14, which is a retelling of the creation stories. Ben Sira as an interpreter of Scripture utilised interpretive traditions or exegetical motifs that were in circulation during his time to provide instruction for his generation. His indebtedness to Scripture is evident from the quotations from Scripture and his use of scriptural language. In his retelling of the creation stories, he made use of the exegetical motifs that were in circulation, adapting them within the wisdom interpretive framework. He also rejected the tendency to blame evil on external agencies such as fallen angels and downplayed the gap between the creation process and the giving of the law at Sinai.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The article is an exegetical inquiry of the extra-biblical text of Ben Sira in dialogue with Scripture and with other exegetical traditions which were in circulation in the Second Temple period. The article highlights the indebtedness of Ben Sira to both Scripture and tradition, and also noting Ben Sira�s own creativity in the use of Scripture and tradition in his retelling of creation story

show abstract

Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

A History of Research on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls

The Background of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Light of Recent Research

Creation retold: Use of Scripture and tradition in Sirach 16:24�17:14

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About