REVIEW OF BOOKS

Randall A. ARGALL,1 Enoch and Sirach:A ComparativeLiterary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themesof Revelation,Creation and Judgment (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 8), Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia 1995, xiii and 304 pp., paper, n. pr. ISBN 0-7885-0176-3.

When 1 Enoch and the Book of Ben Sira are respectively labeled as "apocalyptic" and "wisdom" literature, one is absolutely not thrilled to investi- gate whether these two compositions share significant themes and literary features. In a doctoral dissertation accepted at the University of Iowa in 1992, of which a slightly revised version has now been published, Randall A. Argall has temporarily set aside those "apocalyptic" and "wisdom" labels and has so proven beyond doubt that a wealth of comparative material emerges from these two books. As a result, 1 Enoch and the Book of Ben Sira have been brought much closer together on the literary and conceptual spectrum. For "there is evidence to suggest that ben Sira and the authors of 1 Enoch were aware of one another and that their respective views were formulated, at least in part, over against one another".... "In simple terms, ben Sira may be described as an advocate for the status quo, while the authors of 1 Enoch antici- pate the collapse of the status quo" (8). A. has investigated three major themes both in 1 Enoch and in the Book of Ben Sira by comparative method: revelation, creation and judgment. It ap- pears that these themes were subjects of learned inquiry in the late-third and early-second centuries B.C.E. In Part I (pp. 15-98) A. shows that revelation has essentially the same formal structure in both works. Wisdom originates in heaven with God and is brought from heaven to a designated community by a revealer figure (Enoch and personified Wisdom). Wisdom becomes to be identified with a book or books (in conflict with others) and these books promise life. It is not the formal character, then, but the content of revela- tion that sets 1 Enoch and Sirach apart. This is tracked down by a thorough investigation of the two major subjects of revealed wisdom: creation and judg- ment. The conceptual framework for treating creation (Part II, pp. 99-164) is remarkably similar in both works. "God's works throughout creation, whether observable or hidden, teach the importance of obedience. Authors from each tradition have enlisted the created order to lend confirmation to their own beliefs and practices. The constitution and maintenance of creation guarantees that judgment will fall on those who disobey and deviate from the tradition. 322

Moreover, there are indications that each tradition views the other among the disobedient..." (164). Part III (pp. 165-247) consists of a survey of pas- sages in 1 Enoch and Sirach that exhibit the theme of the coming judgment, which is presented through identical genres and literary forms. These include the Divine Warrior Hymn, the Disputation Speech and the Woe-oracle. The investigation of A. concentrates on adaptions of literary traits insofar as these changes assist a discovery of how the judgment theme is conceptualized in 1 Enoch and Sirach. Here one can ascertain that both works are heavily adapting the common literary forms to fit their respective concepts. At the same time, however, the authors demonstrate a critical awareness of the con- ception of judgment in the other tradition. Ben Sira dismisses the notion that eschatological judgment is accompanied by cosmic catastrophe. The author of the Epistle of Enoch disagrees with the idea that judgment is certain in his lifetime or at the moment of death. Such critical awareness lends further support to the suggestion that one tradition regards the other among its rivals. In the summer of 1996, during the "First International Ben Sira Confer- ence" which has been organized by myself in the Netherlands, Dr. Benjamin G. Wright has demonstrated that 1 Enoch can be a very helpful tool to solve certain problems relating to the central theme of the Jerusalem priesthood as reflected in the Book of Ben Sira. His presentation appeared solid proof that Argall's approach is valid and can pave the way for further and fruitful inves- tigations in this field of intertextuality between 1 Enoch and Ben Sira. It was a real pleasure, both from the methodological and the conceptual point of view, to read this monograph. Allow me to mention some minor points of criticism.

(1) Referring to Ben Sira's contribution to the theodicy debate (pp. 135-142), A. only mentions von Rad's Wisdom in Israel (1972) 251-254 and Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism( 1974) I, 144-145. One looks in vain for a bibliographi- cal reference to the very important monograph by G.L. Prato, Il problemadella eodicea in Ben Sira (AnBib 65), Rome 1975. When, further on in his book (pp. 226-232), A. is discussing and commenting Sir 15,11-16,23, the very exten- sive analysis by Prato (pp. 209-261) is mentioned neither. (2) I have some doubts relating to A's designation of the prayer in Sir 36, 1-22 as "eschatological battle" and his ascribing of this passage to the genre of the "Divine Warrior Hymn," the more so since A. shows that in this Ben Sira text several traditional images of this genre are missing: "the descent of the Warrior, the role of fire and storm in the combat, and the renewal of creation after victory" (219). (3) In his analysis of Sir 5,1-8 which is listed as "Disputation Speech," I dis- agree with A. as far as his exegesis of Sir 5,4b is concerned. A. attributes this sentence ("for the Lord is slow to anger") to Ben Sira. As I have demonstrated earlier however (P.C. Beentjes, "Ben Sira 5,1-8: A Literary and Rhetorical Analysis," in: E.G. Schrijver. N.A. van Uchelen & I.W. Zwiep (eds.), The