Methods in biblical scholarship
mc2499 at mclink.it
Tue Dec 28 23:19:21 EST 1999
At 22.38 28/12/99 -0500, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>At 04:16 AM 12/29/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>Doesn't Gen5:21-24 and 6:1-4 rely on the (unstated) Enoch tradition (given
>>the Gen text's *cryptic* form which doesn't state enough to make itself
>Maybe you have it backwards. Genesis was clearly accepted as authoritative,
>Enoch cannot be proved.
Gen presupposes information that is not stated in each case above. The
statement is found in the Enochic books. This is also recognized in Jubilees.
>>What about Jubilees' usage of the same Enoch material in a clearer manner?
>>Or Jubilees' knowledge of Enoch's Astronomical book?
>What makes you think that it goes Enoch -> Jubilees and not Jubilees ->
>Enoch or possibly X ->J/X->E? Youi have no data to support any view. A
>possible support of J -> E is that Jubilees is 'authoritative' in the DSS
for thus I have found it written in the books of my forefathers, and in the
words of Enoch, and in the words of Noah
Jubilees acknowledges an Enoch literature (and interestingly enough a Noah
lliterature as well, which Milik draws into the Enochic pentateuch).
More information about the b-hebrew