.
Not all scholars of Judaism's influence on early Christianity agree with Gruenwald, Couliano and Frankfurter's analysis of Enoch's minimal influence on Revelation. For instance, James C. Vanderkam and Edward Babinksi attribute the Revelation of John as being directly modeled upon 1 Enoch; Babinski goes so far as to say that "The Revelation to John is primarily based on borrowing passages from Enoch.and other Jewish apocalyptic literature.and combining them in imaginative ways"6. However, a careful analysis of Revelation in light of the structure and theological emphasis on redemption in Enoch will show that, though borrowing may indeed exist, The Revelation to John presents a distinctive vision of the Christian afterlife. Babinksi writes that "Enoch's influence in Revelation is very difficult to deny.though this view was once assailed by Kostlin, it is clear that the portrayal of the Messiah in Enoch lays the groundwork for the revelation of Christ's second ministry in John." Babinski seems to conflate the Son of Man in Enoch 46:1 with Christ, which other scholars (particularly Emil G. Hirsch, in his article "In Contrast to Deity7") deny as being a mis-reading of the Hebrew words "Ben Adam." Moreover, the role of Ben Adam in Enoch is very minor when compared to the role of Christ in John's Revelation. James C. Vanderkam is perhaps the most creditable scholar who attributes to Revelation a significant Enochian influence. He writes "The New Testament itself gives eloquent witness to the influence from Jewish apocalypticism.witness the heavy influence of it on the Revelation to John. (Vanderkam p.xi-xii.) However, Vanderkam upholds the theological originality of the Revelation to John, pointing out that it is in fact theologically innovative in some ways. (Vanderkam p.2) As this next series of arguments will show, the influence of Enoch on Revelation may be exaggerated by Vanderkam, Charles and Babinksi due to several important thematic and theological differences between the two texts.
