Methods in biblical scholarship (Moshe)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Wed Dec 29 00:31:29 EST 1999
At 00.16 29/12/99 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>At 06:11 AM 12/29/99 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>At 00.02 29/12/99 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>>At 05:53 AM 12/29/99 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>>>But the obscurity of the Genesis citations (5:21-24, 6:1-4)
>>>>tells you that the Enoch literature was around and used.
>>>This does not follow. The obscurity of these citations could
>>>just as well have motivated the speculation we see in the Enoch
>>Then you will have to seek elsewhere for the substance to the Gen
>>citations, for they imply such substance that is not stated. Yet we have a
>>written tradition in Enoch that is acknowledged elsewhere.
>They don't necessarily imply "such substance," but, even so, the
>substance could derive from oral tradition. After all, literacy
>levels were very low.
This has little weight given that texts were usually read aloud anyway --
think of the Ezra account of the reading of the law.
>Because of this, the inference that these
>citations must derive from the extant Enoch literature is not
>justified. There are too many other possibilities here.
If there weren't acknowlegements of the Enoch tradition in Jubilees and CD
you might have a stronger gripe.
The interesting question has been asked before: why has Genesis obfuscated
regarding the Enoch material?
More information about the b-hebrew