Lukan Eschatology and Genealogy in Light of Enochic Tradition

Lukan Eschatology and Genealogy in Light of Enochic Tradition Isaac W. Oliver Bradley University The genealogy in Luke 3:23–38, which traces Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, has often been read as an attempt, in light of Luke’s Hellenistic and Diasporan background, to emphasize the universal dimension of Jesus’ messiahship as the savior of all humans. I employ the name “Luke” out of convenience and convention to describe the final author of Luke and Acts without assuming Luke actually wrote these two works. In contrast to Matthew’s supposedly more “Jewish” genealogy (Matt 1:1–17), which only goes back to Abraham and emphasizes Jesus’ Davidic roots, Luke’s genealogy would stress that Jesus is the savior of all of Adam’s children, not just the Jews. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2011), 143: “Luke’s genealogy does not so much stress Jesus’ Jewishness, as one descended from the father of the Jews, or his messiahship, as the Son of David. Jesus’ human lineage goes far beyond both of these figures who are so important for the history of Judaism, back to the man responsible for the human race itself, Adam. Thus, if Matthew’s genealogy was important in showing that Jesus belonged to the Jews, Luke is important in showing that he belongs to all people, both Jews and Gentiles.” Positing a dichotomy between Matthew and Luke in such terms, however, can be misleading. In my book, Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts (WUNT 2.355; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), I argue that Luke and Acts are just as Jewish as the Gospel of Matthew. First, the Abrahamic pedigree of Matthew’s genealogy can also be read along universal lines. Luis Sánchez Navarro, “La Escritura para las naciones. Acerca del universalismo en Mateo,” in Palabra de Dios, Sagrada Escritura, Iglesia (eds. Vicente Balaguer and Juan Luis Caballero; Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 2008), 187–203. Moreover, casting Judaism as a particularistic religion over against the supposed universalism of Christianity (as allegedly embedded in Luke) misrepresents early Jewish thought – which interacted with the non-Jewish world in diverse ways. The Jewish texture of the Lukan genealogy, particularly its potential Enochic features, has been neglected, even though it can shed light on Luke’s understanding of eschatology and Jewish-Gentile relations. 1 Enoch is an important source for comparative analysis of Luke and Acts, given the universal concerns embedded throughout this composite Jewish document as well as its wide circulation in antiquity among Christians. See George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 1: “The sheer size, as well as the contents, historical contexts, and ongoing influence, of this collection make it arguably the most important text in the corpus of Jewish literature from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.” See further Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 71–108, for a survey of the textual evidence of 1 Enoch in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and Ethiopic as well as the usage of Enochic traditions in early Jewish and Christian texts (e.g., 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Pseudo-Barnabas, etc.). On the parallels between the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the Epistle of Enoch, see S. Aalen, “St Luke’s Gospel and the Last Chapters of 1 Enoch,” NTS 13 (1966): 1–13; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Riches, the Rich, and God’s Judgment in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel according to Luke,” NTS 25 (1978–79): 324–44. On the usage of Enochic tradition in the Petrine literature, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee,” JBL 100 (1981): 575–600; Chad Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ. 1 Peter 3:18–22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in early Jewish and Christian Literature (WUNT 2.305; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). On the Revelation of John and Enochic literature, see Loren Stuckenbruck and Mark D. Mathews, “The Apocalypse of John, 1 Enoch, and the Question of Influence,” in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte, Konzepte, Wirkungen (ed. Jörg Frey; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 191–234. On Matthew and Enoch, see Amy E. Richter, Enoch and the Gospel of Matthew (Princeton Theological Monograph Series 183; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick, 2012); Leslie W. Walck, The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew (Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 9; London: T&T Clark, 2011). 1 Enoch repeatedly announces the future salvation of Gentiles even while holding onto a particular conceptualization of Israel’s election. 1 En. 10:21; 50:2–3; 90:30, 38; 91:9; 91:14; 100:6, and so on. In fact, the orientation of 1 Enoch toward other Jews and Gentiles is not entirely unlike that of the early Jesus movement. Nickelsburg comments: The Enochic authors believed that they were members of the eschatological community of the chosen constituted by revelation. This revelation, although it was the possession of a select group of Israelites, was to be proclaimed to “all the sons of the earth,” in the hope that they too would be saved at the time of judgment. The early church was governed by a similar idea. They were the chosen of the end time, commissioned to proclaim to all the Gentiles the eschatological salvation that emanated from Israel. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 86. Most interesting is the usage of the term “congregation of the righteous” in the Book of the Parables (e.g., 1 En. 38:1; 46:8; 53:6; 62:8) to denote the eschatological community of God’s people whose existence is intimately tied with the appearance of the Son of Man (see especially 1 En. 38:1–2). Further comparative research of the concept of “congregation” in 1 Enoch and ekklesia in Acts is a desideratum. It is 1 Enoch – an apocalyptic Jewish work – that especially presents a messianic figure meant to benefit both Jews and Gentiles at the end of times. Concerning the Son of Man, the Book of the Parables states: “He will be the light to the nations, and he will be a hope for those who grieve in their hearts. All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship before him” (1 En. 48:4–5). All translations of 1 Enoch are taken from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). The Animal Apocalypse, as we shall see, also envisions a day when a messiah-like figure will appear and bring salvation to many Gentiles (1 En. 90:37–38). These universal themes were not the exclusive property of Luke and “Gentile Christianity” or even of “Hellenistic Jews” from the Diaspora influenced by universal values stemming from their Greco-Roman surroundings. I suppose that the Enochic literature has been neglected in studies on Luke and Acts partly because of persistent presuppositions governing how such literature should be read. Has it not been common to perceive Luke and Acts as works written by a Gentile Christian mainly preoccupied with a Gentile audience divorced from Judaism living in a Greco-Roman world? Bart J. Koet, Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts (SNTA 14; Leuven: University Press, 1989), 22: “The communis opinio is that the theology of Luke-Acts is clearly Gentile Christian and that Luke-Acts has been written for a predominantly Gentile audience.” How can Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch be implemented into Lukan studies with such hermeneutical presuppositions? Setting this conventional approach aside, we will read Luke’s genealogy and the eschatology embedded within it by consulting 1 Enoch, especially the Animal Apocalypse (chs. 85–90), the Apocalypse of Weeks (93:1–10 + 91:11–17), and the Book of the Parables (chs. 37–71). These works in the Enochic literary corpus reveal affinities and differences with the perspective on eschatology and Jewish-Gentile relations outlined in Luke and Acts. The Eschatology in Luke’s Genealogy in Light of Enochic Tradition Luke’s genealogy seems to contain a heptadic structure: from Adam to Enoch there are seven generations (Luke 3:37–38); thereafter until the time of Jesus, seventy generations (3:23–27). The heptadic division of history was widespread in early Judaism. See Christoph Berner, Jahre, Jahrwochen, und Jubiläen: Heptadische Geschichtskonzeptionen im Antiken Judentum (BZAW 363; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), for a detailed analysis of this concept in various Jewish sources. One may further qualify Luke’s heptadic genealogy with some caution as “Enochic” in so far as it seems to structure history around the figure of Enoch. Cf. Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 315–64, who argues with great insight the presence of Enochic elements within the Lukan genealogy. James M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees (SNTSMS 113; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 46–50, includes an extensive critique of Bauckham’s analysis of the Lukan genealogy, favoring instead a dependence by Luke on Jubilees and a Lukan genealogy that originally comprised seventy-two rather than seventy-seven generations (New Testament manuscripts differ on the numbering and names). Ultimately, we are dealing roughly with variation in heptadic structuring, whatever the original computation may have been (seventy-two, seventy-five, seventy-seven, etc.) that can be understood in eschatological terms. I find it less likely that the genealogy originally read seventy-two, as this number assumes significance in the commission of the seventy-two disciples (Luke 10:1–11). On the reading of seventy vs. seventy-two in Luke 10:1–11 and the usage of these numbers in Jewish and Christian sources, see Oliver, Torah Praxis after 70 CE, 309–12. It is not a mere coincidence that Jesus appears on the historical scene according to the Lukan genealogy seventy generations after Enoch. Luke, in turn, situates Enoch seven generations from Adam, following Genesis 5:18–24. The Apocalypse of Weeks, which organizes human history according to ten periods of “weeks,” also locates Enoch during the seventh generation of humankind: “I [i.e., Enoch] was born the seventh in the first week” (1 En. 93:3). Likewise, the author of the letter of Jude, who viewed the Enochic traditions contained in the Book of the Watchers as authoritative, states: “It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying…..” (Jude 14; cf. Jub. 7:39) All translations of biblical passages are taken from the New Revised Standard Version. “Jude” not only cites 1 En. 2:9 verbatim but also draws from the story of the watchers’ rebellion, which he accepts as authoritative along with other biblical stories (see Jude 6). Finally, the opening of the Book of the Parables signals Enoch’s appearance during the seventh generation of humankind by enumerating all of his ancestors: The vision of wisdom that Enoch saw—the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam (1 En. 37:1). As Nickelsburg notes concerning this passage, “Enoch’s genealogy reflects the Sethite genealogy in Gen 5:4–19, which is presumed in 93:3 (‘the seventh from Adam’). Prophetic incipits normally list only the father. Exceptions are Zeph 1:1 (four generations) and Zech 1:1 (two generations).” Stated in George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 86. Enoch’s position within the seventh generation since Adam (repeated again in 1 En. 60:8: “the seventh from Adam”) held special significance for the authors of the writings now contained in 1 Enoch. According to the Enochic understanding, the timing of Enoch’s appearance, marked by the symbolic number seven, signaled an important phase in human history that was supposed to mirror the events preceding the end of time. Thus, the oracles Enoch delivers in 1 Enoch also concern the last generation living before the final judgment: just as Enoch foresaw the impending flood that would punish human and angelic sinners, the Enochic writers anticipated a final judgment preceded by similar circumstances (1 En. 1:1; 37:2; 92:1, etc.). It is noteworthy that both the Book of the Parables (chs. 65–66; cf. 53–57; 60–63) and the gospel of Luke (17:26) liken the age of Noah with the days of the Son of Man. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2, 62 (cf. p. 279): “[T]he Q text that compares ‘the days of the Son of Man’ with ‘the days of Noah’ (Matt 24:26–27, 37–39 | | Luke 17:22–37) indicates knowledge of an Enochic context, and possibly even of the Parables within their Noachic interpolations.” The typology between the days of Noah and the final judgment appears elsewhere in the Enochic corpus. 1 En. 10; 85–90; 91:5–9; 93:1–10; 91:11–17; 106–7. As noted, Luke’s genealogy locates Jesus seventy generations after Enoch. The eschatological significance of this placement, which invites comparing the days of Enoch with the time of Jesus and his subsequent followers , would not have gone unnoticed to those readers familiar with Enochic tradition. Nevertheless, the Lukan schematization of history, as encoded in Jesus’ genealogy, does not perfectly conform to the periodization of history in the Apocalypse of Weeks, since the latter apparently posits that only nine “periods of weeks” (i.e., sixty-three generations) would follow after Enoch before the final judgment. The total periodization in Luke’s genealogy from Adam to Jesus contains seventy-seven generations, one “period of weeks” more than the seventy generations included in the Apocalypse of Weeks. Nonetheless, the periodization of history in the Lukan genealogy does correspond to the span of earthly history found in another section of 1 Enoch, namely, the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10:11–12): Go Michael, bind Shemihazah and the others with him, who have mated with the daughters of men…. And when their sons perish and they see the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, until the day of their judgment and consummation, until the everlasting judgment is consummated (emphasis mine). According to this passage, the rebellious angels will remain bound for seventy generations after Enoch until the final judgment. This periodization of history into seventy-seven generations, seven generations from Adam to Enoch, followed by seventy generations from the binding of the watchers to the end of time, differs from the schematization of seventy generations found in the Apocalypse of Weeks but corresponds to Luke’s organization of history from Adam to Jesus. In Luke’s day, the Parousia and final crystallization of God’s kingdom had not occurred, a sobering reality Luke was well aware of (cf. Acts 1:6–8). The heptadic division of history in Luke’s genealogy, however, suggests that those originally responsible for its composition did view Jesus as the harbinger of a new eschatological age. With Bauckham I find it unlikely that Luke created this genealogy with all of its specific names and heptadic-Enochic structure without referring to a Vorlage that should probably be attributed to Jewish followers of Jesus, possibly from Palestine. The genealogy originally expressed the eschatological hopes of some of Jesus’ early followers who claimed Jesus as the catalyst of a new age they believed was unfolding since the seventy-seventh generation of humankind. Cf. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 325–26. The end, however, did not occur. This disappointing reality may account for the unique direction in which Luke’s genealogy runs: unlike Matthew’s genealogy, which starts from Abraham and ends in the time of Jesus, Luke begins his genealogy with Jesus and works his way backwards into time all the way to Adam. This chronological reversal may be redactional. Concerned about excessive eschatological excitement and speculation concerning the exact timing of the inauguration of God’s kingdom on earth (Luke 17:20–37; Acts 1:6), Luke may have reversed the flow of the genealogy, encouraging his readers to consider what Jesus, a Second Adam as it were, was already doing for all humans, both Jewish and Gentile. For a brief comparison between the Animal Apocalypse and Paul’s concept of the Second Adam, see Daniel C. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch: “All Nations Shall Be Blessed” (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 242–43. Since Luke was an admirer (though not a blind one) of Paul, it is likely that he knew about Paul’s concept of Christ as the Second Adam. This is one possible reading that underscores Lukan compositional creativity. It is equally possible that the genealogy in Luke already pointed back to Adam in its traditional stages before Luke inserted it into his gospel. After all, the genealogy of Enoch in the opening of the Book of the Parables also points back to Adam, and we need not posit that its author did so in order to dismiss eschatological expectations. Finally, according to the Lukan genealogy, Jesus is not only the seventy-seventh from Adam but also the “son of God” (3:38; cf. 22:69–70). The Lukan genealogy appears right after the pericope on Jesus’ baptism when he is proclaimed by a heavenly voice as God’s son (3:22). For a possible association between the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God,” see 1 En. 105:2 and 71:17 as well as Nickelsburg’s comments in 1 Enoch 2, 329–30. The Lukan Jesus already possesses an exalted status on earth before his ascension to heaven. As the Son of Man, Jesus already has authority on earth to forgive sins (5:24) and is the lord of the Sabbath (6:5) even before he assumes his heavenly position “seated at the right hand of the power of God” (22:69; Acts 7:56). According to the Book of the Parables, the Son of Man, though preexistent, will exercise similar authority only when he is revealed at the end of times. In the meantime, he remains hidden in heaven until the appointed time when he will execute the final judgment, with Enoch becoming the heavenly Son of Man only once he permanently departs from human civilization (70:1–3; 71:14). Chapter 71 of 1 Enoch, however, was probably composed as an appendix to the Book of Parables. See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2, 330–31. Before his final assumption, Enoch is simply the “seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created” (60:8). The Lukan Jesus, as the Son of Man, also only fulfills some of the prerogatives assigned to this office when he returns from heaven (Luke 17:22–30; 21:27, 36). In a certain way, Luke does not downplay eschatological expectations but prioritizes and even radicalizes the fulfillment of certain divine promises: whereas the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 90:6–38), the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 91:14), and the Book of Parables (48:4–5; 50:2–3) declare that the proclamation of truth to the Gentiles and their salvation would happen only after or simultaneously with the restoration of Israel, Luke maintains that this was to occur (and was already happening) beforehand as an integral part of the process leading to Israel’s liberation. In other words, a Jew from that time familiar with the eschatological schemes found in works such as the Animal Apocalypse or the Apocalypse of Weeks would have noticed the Lukan (re)organization and prioritization of certain events leading to ultimate eschatological restoration – the proclamation of the gospel to Jew and Gentile becoming the primary event necessary before the final eradication of all evil. The Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 90:19), like the Apocalypse of Weeks (91:12), asserts that a period of the “sword” will precede the salvation of the nations during which the righteous (i.e., the “Enochian Jews”) will execute violent punishment against all the wicked nations that oppress Israel. Prior to the salvation of those Gentiles remaining after this period of the “sword,” the “Enochian Jews,” “the chosen among the chosen” (1 En. 93:10; 90:6), will carry a reform program among the Jewish people. The Animal Apocalypse even posits that the evil angels will be judged and thrown into the fiery abyss prior to the full restoration of Israel and the salvation of the nations (1 En. 90:20–27). Only after the restoration of Israel and the punishment of the oppressing nations will there be a massive conversion of Gentiles (1 En. 90:37–38; 1 En. 91:14), although the Animal Apocalypse signals that the nations of the world will submit to Israel’s authority already during the process of its national restoration (1 En. 90:30, 33). Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 20, reads 1 En. 90:33 as including the return of the Gentiles to Zion. This reading is intriguing but seems unconvincing (more on this below). Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 403, suggests emending the text to mean that only the Jews in exile among the nations return to Zion. In any case, as Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 381, observes: “The author is thinking primarily of the restoration of Israel and secondarily of the Gentiles’ adherence to the eschatological theocracy.” Luke, on the other hand, places a greater emphasis on the inclusion of Gentiles into the ekklesia. Luke’s eschatological structure differs: a partially successful reformation has occurred among Jews (as reported in Acts); Gentiles convert even before the period of the “sword” and the judgment of all sinners, whether human or angel (cf. 1 En. 90:20–27). Jesus’ manifestation as well as the conversion of the Gentiles confirm that the end of time has drawn near, but Luke shies from speculating further about the exact timing of the end, though he retains the eschatological material about the events immediately preceding the return of the Son of Man (e.g., Luke ch. 21). The failure of the Jewish Revolt against Rome and the disappointment generated by misguided eschatological calculations about the specific timing of the end had taught Luke not to be led astray by apocalyptic fervor and pinpoint precise dates concerning the end of times. Instead, Luke points to fulfilled prophecy, emphasizing Jesus’ ongoing mission on behalf of Israel and the rest of humanity that eventually will effect the complete materialization of God’s kingdom on earth. In the meantime, Luke exhorts the followers of Jesus to remain faithful until the return of their king (Luke 12:37–40). This does not mean that Luke did not hope or even expect that Jesus would come back soon. A movement can continue to stress the imminence of the end even after decades of delay and disappointment. The modern cases of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah Witnesses speak for themselves. Luke’s Genealogy in Light of Enochic Tradition The manner in which the Animal Apocalypse recounts history is incredibly “genealogical.” According to this allegorical account, all humans descend from a white bull (Adam) and a heifer (Eve). The first two sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, are born as black and red bulls, respectively (1 En. 85:3). The various types of animals and their colors point to the different natures of individuals and nations, whether righteous or wicked. Accordingly, after Abel’s death, Adam and Eve engender another white bull, Seth, a righteous individual who in turn begets other white bulls (85:9). Cain, on the other hand, begets many other black cattle that look like him and follow in his footsteps (85:5). The fallen angels assume the form of bulls and copulate with women by letting out their “organs like horses” and conceiving impure animals such as elephants, camels, and asses. These impure animals represent the offspring of the giants that descend from angels and humans (86:4). These large animals, which are all intrinsically impure for Jewish consumption according to Lev 11 and Deut 14, commit acts of violence and terror, a reflection of their inherently immoral character (85:5–6). In the midst of the chaos created by the watchers and the giants, another white bull emerges, Noah (89:1). This depiction is appropriate, since Genesis presents Noah as “a righteous man, blameless in his generation” (6:9). Noah, however, like Adam and Eve, begets three bulls of different colors: white, red, and black. The white bull represents Shem and his lineage from which comes another righteous white bull, Abraham (89:10). The black and red bulls probably represent Ham and Japheth, respectively. See Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 76. Noah’s descendants then give birth to a variety of impure animals (lions, leopards, wolves, etc.) that symbolize nations hostile towards Israel. Abraham, for his part, begets a wild ass (Ishmael) and a white bull (Isaac). A similar pattern subsequently occurs when Isaac fathers two children: a black wild boar (Esau) and a white ram (Jacob). The representation of Jacob as a ram rather than a bull should be understood historically: Jacob is the first true “Israelite,” the father of all sheep that will constitute the nation of Israel. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 53–54; Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 275. Thereafter ensues a period of oppression against the sheep at the hands of various impure animals. Even the sheep often become blind and are led astray, showing that both Jew and Gentile can succumb to sin and commit evil. The Animal Apocalypse proclaims a most remarkable event to occur toward the end of time. As some lambs among the white sheep begin to open their eyes, they reach out to other sheep albeit with little success (90:6–7). After a series of events that are to be related to the Maccabean crisis, the Animal Apocalypse predicts the downfall of the wild beasts opposed to Israel: “all the beasts and all the birds of heaven fell (away) from among those sheep and sank in the earth, and it covered over them. And I saw until a large sword was given to those sheep, and the sheep went out against all the wild beasts to kill them” (90:18–19). The untrustworthy seventy shepherds are in turn judged and thrown into the fiery abyss along with the blinded sheep (90:25–27). After this judgment, Jerusalem is restored, and the nations submit to Israel (90:28–30). The story could have ended here but it goes on. Not only do the sheep undergo a transformation of their own—their wool becomes thick and pure—but the nations remaining after the judgment also change into white cattle thanks to the appearance of an intriguing eschatological figure, a white bull (90:32, 37–38). The intrusion of such a character at this point of the narrative is striking. It underscores the universal concern expressed several times throughout 1 Enoch to incorporate Gentiles within the parameters of eschatological salvation. Much discussion has centered on the identity of the final white bull. Its identification as a Second Adam of some sorts proves very attractive: the end brings humanity back to the beginning. Even more, unlike Adam, the last white bull creates only white cattle, not red and black ones. Humanity will not sin again—a theme that is repeated in virtually all layers of 1 Enoch. 1 En. 5:8–9; 10:16, 20–22; 92:5; 91:17. The Animal Apocalypse looks back to the first Adam but also views the Endzeit as surpassing the Urzeit. A thorny exegetical problem concerns the transformation of the animals in 90:38. Does this change imply a final eradication of all difference between Jews and Gentiles? In other words, does 90:38 refer to the transformation of all creatures, even the sheep in 90:32 that are already white, thick, and pure? Or does 90:38 refer more strictly to the transformation of the wild beasts, that is, Gentiles, into white bulls? Olson favors reading 90:38 in a comprehensive way to mean that the Animal Apocalypse looks forward to the day when all distinctions between Israel and the nations will disappear. He interprets 90:33, which refers to the return of the Jewish exiles to Israel, as also including a massive influx of Gentiles into Zion: And all that had been destroyed and dispersed <by> all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven were gathered in that house. And the Lord of the sheep rejoiced greatly because they were all good and had returned to that house. Nickelsburg has emended 90:33 by replacing the conjunction “and” with the preposition “by,” since it seems unnatural to refer to Gentiles returning to Zion. The Animal Apocalypse, after all, makes no mention about the nations originating from Zion. Olson, however, prefers to remain faithful to the textual evidence currently available, pointing to Psalm 87, which apparently claims that all peoples originated from Zion. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 21. The matter is complicated, but the Animal Apocalypse has focused up to 90:33 on the restoration of Israel. In 90:30, nations submit to Zion, but their nature is not transformed.. Jackson’s interpretation, therefore, of 90:37–38 as referring exclusively to the conversion of the wild beasts and the birds, that is, the Gentiles, and not the Jews who remain sheep (thick and pure) is more compelling. David Jackson, Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars (Library of Second Temple Studies 49; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 39. Cf. Terence Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007), 89. Olson finds this interpretation unlikely, since the Gentiles end up more like Adam, and even more akin to Abraham, than the Jews ever will: “To say the least, this would be a peculiar way to conclude a vision that supposedly concerns itself primarily with the salvation of Israel!” Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 20. But depicting the Israelites as sheep who remain sheep makes sense if the author of the Animal Apocalypse wishes to retain Israel’s distinctive identity. The fact that the sheep are already white, thick, and pure before the arrival of the mysterious white bull at the end of the vision would make their conversion into white bulls superfluous. Olson, A New Reading of the Animal Apocalypse, 54, maintains that the ethno-nationalization of Israel, the Jewish/Gentile divide, is regarded as a negative aspect of history in the Animal Apocalypse. This is an overstatement. Israel is portrayed as sheep who suffer at the hands of oppressive shepherds and wild animals. The author(s) of the Animal Apocalypse does not lament the corporate existence of Israel but its victimization. Furthermore, the “Lord of the sheep,” as the Animal Apocalypse emphasizes, keeps records of the oppressive acts committed against the sheep until the final judgment. God is not indifferent to the suffering of the sheep; God is the Lord of the sheep andallows, for the time being, the cup of the shepherds and the nations to be filled so they can undergo punishment at the end of time. How might the genealogy of Jews and Gentiles of the Animal Apocalypse elucidate Luke’s own perspective on such matters in light of his belief that Jesus had initiated a new phase in Jewish-Gentile relations? As noted earlier, the eschatological scheme of Luke-Acts does not perfectly align itself with those found in the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks, particularly the unexpected death and resurrection of the Son of Man as well as the prioritization of the conversion of the Gentiles before the final judgment. But like those Jews responsible for the composition of the Animal Apocalypse, Luke maintains that Jews and Gentiles share the same origins: From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For “In him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we too are his offspring.” Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals (Acts 17:26–29). Despite the emphasis on common origins voiced in the Animal Apocalypse and Acts, distinct boundaries between Jews and Gentiles still exist for the authors of both texts. Thus, Jewish followers of Jesus in Acts, especially Paul, continue to observe their ancestral customs in toto. Luke is careful to show that Paul did not oppose in any way the perpetuation of Jewish identity within the ekklesia (cf. Acts 21:21). By contrast, Luke signals how Gentile followers of Jesus must undergo a radical process of moral purification and sanctification of their inner beings in order to become members of the ekklesia. Quite interestingly, he uses animal imagery to describe this eschatological and moral metamorphosis when relating Peter’s vision and the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius (Acts chs. 10–11:18). For a comparison of the Animal Apocalypse with Peter’s vision in Acts, see Matthew Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), especially pp. 93–94 and 136–37. Peter’s apocalypse in Acts does not represent the complete eradication of difference between Jew and Gentile, let alone the abrogation of kashrut for Jewish followers of Jesus, any more than the Animal Apocalypse announces the end of Israel’s distinctive existence even as it expands the soteriological boundaries to include the nations of the world. Cf. Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 137: “Just as the Animal Apocalypse portrays Gentiles as impure animals, so too Luke, by his use of purity language in relation to Cornelius’s conversion, implies that Gentiles are genealogically distinct from Jews. That such a belief in the genealogical distance between Jew and Gentile can coexist with Luke’s stress on the Adamic origin of all humanity (Luke 3:38) should be no surprise. After all, the Animal Apocalypse also describes the Adamic origins of all humanity yet portrays the distinctions which God created in humanity throughout history, distinctions that even the eschaton does not efface.” The impure animals Peter sees in his vision represent Gentiles who sympathize with Judaism and embrace Jesus as their master and savior. Their confession allows them to undergo a moral purification that recalls the transformation of the wild beasts and birds into white bulls in 1 En. 90:37–38. Differences, for Luke, however, continue to remain in the interim period between Jesus’ resurrection and return. This is no clearer than in the promulgation of the so-called Apostolic Decree: Gentile followers of Jesus observe the so-called Apostolic Decree without undergoing circumcision in order to become Jews (Acts 15); Jewish followers of Jesus continue to maintain their Jewish identity by observing their customs, including circumcision (Acts 16:1–4). In the words of the Animal Apocalypse, we might say that, for Luke, sheep continue to be sheep even when wild beasts transform into white cattle.