On , , Melchizedek, and Eve*

Daphna Arbel

Introduction

A number of studies have illuminated key aspects related to the fig- ures of Adam, Enoch, and Melchizedek as depicted in 2 Enoch. Primary attention has been directed to issues such as their various roles, the relations between the representation of these figures in 2 Enoch and in other sources, their shared features as divine mediators, as well as the variety of polemic appropriations of Noachic, Mosaic, and Adamic tradi- tions that are associated with these three figures.1 In this paper I address a less prominent, yet highly intriguing aspect and examine the presence and significance of traditions associated with the figure of Eve that echo throughout 2 Enoch’s depiction of Adam, Enoch and Melchizedek, in vari- ous degrees of clarity. Evidently, it is impossible to link the figure of Eve with a single tradi- tion or with a single set of cultural symbols or signifiers. Eve is a mul- tidimensional, constructed figure and is represented by a spectrum of traditions arising in a variety of contexts and sources.2 2 Enoch, I suggest, subtly alludes to what could be identified as a series of distinct “Eve tra- ditions,” which are indirectly associated with the mediatorial figures of

* I thank James Davila, the respondent of this paper at the Fifth Enoch Seminar, for his constructive observations that helped me to sharpen the focus and tighten the argument throughout this paper. 1 On 2 Enoch see discussions and references in F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalyse of ) Enoch,” OTP 1:91–100; C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch. WUNT 2:50 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992); Das slavishe Henoch- buch, JSHRZ V/7 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996); G. Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom And Inaugurated Eschatology In Ancient And Early , JSJSup 115 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 196–227; A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition, TSAJ 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 148–206; A. Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” JJS 15 (1962): 1–21. 2 While Adamic traditions obviously include traditions related to Eve, the latter seems to embody a distinct subject matter, which has been explored in a wide range of scholarly studies. The literature is vast. See references in K. Kvam, L. Shearing, and C. Ziegler, eds., Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender (Blooming- ton, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999). 432 daphna arbel

Adam, Enoch, and Melchizedek. This occurs, in particular, in the longer recension. To be clear, these so-called Eve traditions do not play a critical role in 2 Enoch. That is, they do not advance the various narrative plots in 2 Enoch and do not introduce any direct exegetical interpretations into its framework. Nonetheless, I posit that select interpretive traditions asso- ciated with Eve resonate in several narrative scenes in 2 Enoch. These representations are not random, but rather evoke intriguing intertextual connotations that, in turn, contribute to and emphasize the ideological representation of Adam, Enoch, and Melchizedek in 2 Enoch. Before I develop my argument further, it is important to emphasize that of these allusions to Eve traditions, two sets are found only in the long recension of 2 Enoch (in 2 En 30:17, 31:4–6), while the third set of allu- sions appears in both the long and short recensions of the Melchizedek section (in 2 En 71). Therefore, since questions related to the priority of the short and long recension and the relationship between them are still being debated at this stage of the research, it is difficult to assert with cer- tainty if these allusions represent original material (if the longer recension is primary), or if they represent latter additions that were integrated into 2 Enoch during the text’s long transmission into Slavonic circles (if the shorter recension is primary).3 Since the complex recensional question is beyond my expertise, I will not take a strong stand on this critical issue.4 Rather, at this point in the study of 2 Enoch’s manuscripts and recen- sions, my primary aim will be to identify aspects related to the ­ideological

3 I am grateful to James Davila’s important comments about the significant implica- tions arising from this point. 4 On the priority of the longer and shorter recensions see the valuable discussion and references in Grant Macaskill’s paper for this conference: G. Macaskill, “2 Enoch: - scripts, Recensions, and Original Language.” In this paper Macaskill argues for the priority of the short recension. The new discovery of the Coptic manuscript of 2 Enoch by Joost Hagen may support this view. It is also important to note more complicated questions related 2 Enoch’s recensions, pointed out by Gabriele Boccaccini in his closing address of the fifth Enoch seminar in Naples, and paraphrased by James Davila: “We must resist the temptation to place [the short and long recensions] in binary opposition as though one is ‘original’ and the other ‘secondary.’ The truth may be far more complicated. To take just one scenario as an illustration (many more are possible) they could share a common original archetype that each has distorted in its own way. The short recension may have cut parts of the original but preserved the rest of it relatively well. The long recension may have added considerably to the archetype without any (or with much less) cutting. The result would be that the short recension is missing original material while the long recension includes both secondary and original material not in the short recension. And still more complicated scenarios are possible . . .” See J. Davila, “2 Enoch: All Your Base Are Belong To Us.” Cited: Saturday, June 20, 2009. No Pages. Online: http://paleojudaica .blogspot.com/2009_06_14_archive.html.