Methods in biblical scholarship

Moshe Shulman mshulman at
Wed Dec 29 10:36:09 EST 1999

At 05:19 AM 12/29/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>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.

Or Enoch is an exposition of a known text. Works both ways.

>>>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
>Jub 21:10
>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).

This assumes that the book of Enoch, is that work. That is as fauty as
assume the work Sefer HaYashir, as being the work mentioned in the Biblical
text and not a collection of Midrashic traditions of later origin. (BTW I
find that you accept the words in Enoch as being more truthful then those
in Exodus. Is there any objective reason for that?)

moshe shulman mshulman at    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh  
Outreach Judaism             
ICQ# 52009254

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list