British New Testament Society

It is well known that there is a close relationship between Enoch and Noah in the extra-canonical Jewish literature of the late Second Temple period. Indeed, the occasional references to Noah in the New Testament (Matt. 24:37, 38; Luke 3:36; 17:26, 27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5) are themselves best understood against the background of the Enoch tradition, especially, though not exclusively, the references to Noah in the tradition complex known as 1 Enoch (1 En. 10:1-3; 65:1-68:1; 89:1; 93:4; 106:18; 107:3). The recent efflorescence of scholarly interest in the Enoch tradition, evidenced, for example, in the recent works of Bhayro (2005), Boccaccini (1998; ed., 2005), Fletcher-Louis (1997; 2002), Jackson (2004), Nickelsburg (2001), Nickelsburg & VanderKam (2004), Olson (2004), Orlov (2005), Puech (2001), and Stuckenbruck (1997), suggests that the time is ripe for a re-evaluation of Enochic intertextuality in the New Testament. This paper will examine the New Testament references to Noah as a first step towards such a re-evaluation, focusing on the following questions. Does Enochic intertextuality in the New Testament imply a relationship in the first century CE between Jewish followers of Jesus and a hypothetical "Enochic Judaism"? Alternatively, are we simply dealing with relationships between texts? Finally, in light of Orlov's work, can we discern an anti-Enoch polemic behind the texts of the New Testament, related to early christological developments?

Occasionally, the similarity between 1 Peter and Jewish letters to the Diaspora has not gone unnoticed. However, a major obstacle for classifying 1 Peter as "Diaspora letter" has been the assumption that such letters needed to be (allegedly) issued from Jerusalem, whereas 1 Peter implies that the letter is sent from "Babylon" (1 Pet 5.13). Moreover, a thoroughly metaphorical understanding of "Diaspora" in 1 Pet 1.1 has prevented some from attributing significance to the Diaspora reference in Jewish letters. This paper argues that a reconsideration of Jewish "Diaspora letters" (including some underestimated [Par. Jer.; Bar] and merely recently available evidence [from 4QApocrJer C]) shows that such letters could also have been issued from places other than Jerusalem; that "Diaspora" in 1 Peter is considerably related to connotations in early Judaism; and that 1 Peter (like James) can be classified as a Christian "Diaspora letter" - with the despatch from "Babylon" to the "Diaspora" in Asia Minor perfectly serving the paraenetical aims of the letter and befitting, as well as contributing to, the image of its pseudonymous addressor, Peter.

The calendrical system of 2 Enoch may be of great significance in establishing the date of this work. In the past, it has been used to support both early and late dates, a fact made possible by the amount of secondary material within it and by the rather messy textual evidence. This paper will attempt a systematic study of the calendar, seeking to put this evidence into some kind of order, establishing which material is secondary and seeking to ascertain whether there are polemical concerns at work. If there are such concerns, the paper will also ask what the range of possible contexts for these might be. In doing so, it is hoped that we may move closer to establishing a provenance for the work.