The Apocalypse of Weeks: Periodization and Tradition-Historical Context

Abstract

The organization of time was undoubtedly a central concern in the Apocalypse of Weeks (hereafter, aw). This work is preserved among Enochic writings most fully collected in the Geʿez Mäṣḥafä Henok, or 1 Enoch. As is well known, aw is split up in the Geʿez text tradition into two parts that are out of sequence, with the first part in 1 En. 93:1–10 and the second prior to it, in 91:10–17. While the original order was long apparent on source-critical grounds, it was confirmed with the publication of Dead Sea fragments to the text in Aramaic from 4Q212, a manuscript datable to the first century bce.1 Though contiguous to (4Q212) and within (so the Geʿez) two other works composed just before the mid-second century bce (the Epistle of Enoch, 1 En. 92:1–5 + 93:11–105:2 and Exhortation at 91:1–10 + 91:18–19), both the setting and date of aw are by no means secondary; indeed, it may have been composed just prior to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt (i.e., before 167 bce) in the wake of the growing socio-political and religious conflict with the Seleucids and Hellenistic reforms taking place in Jerusalem.2 If this date holds, then aw, which antedates both the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90) and the Book of Daniel (chs. 7–12), is one of the earliest, if not the earliest “historical” apocalypse of Jewish tradition. As such, and in the context of the present volume’s focus on the four kingdoms, it merits a closer look. While the four beasts in Daniel 7 focus on powers that dominated the Levant from the early-sixth century to the first half of the second century bce, aw, as the Animal Apocalypse considered history more widely, from the beginning of humankind all the way to the eschaton and even beyond. If one were to imagine how Danielic traditions, whether the book itself or related literature (e.g., the so-called “Pseudo Daniel” texts in 4Q243–245), located themselves within