Peter, the calendar and Enoch

peter_kirk at peter_kirk at
Mon Jun 28 10:53:40 EDT 1999

Dear Ian,

Give me the chance to read the book first! And then let me put it this 
way: All parts of the book of Enoch were (according to most scholars) 
written some time after the date of completion (according to most 
scholars) of the whole of the Hebrew Bible except (perhaps) for 
Daniel. Your view of dating of the Hebrew Bible is still the minority 
and needs to be demontsrated. Unfortunately, by your own methods you 
are unable to demonstrate your late dating, only to invalidate others' 
demonstrations of earlier dating. I only said "very probably". The 
most you can possibly say is "probably not".

As for the "late" dating of Chronicles, the number of generations 
after Zerubbabel doesn't help your argument much. In the Hebrew of 1 
Chronicles 3:17-24, we have 
Zerubbabel-Hananiah-Shecaniah-Neariah-Elioenai-Hodaviah. If Zerubbabel 
was governor in 520 (Haggai 1:1), he was probably already an older man 
and his sons may have been born 20 years earlier. So, allowing 25 
years per generation, we have Hananiah born c.540, Shecaniah c.515, 
Neariah c.490, Elioenai c.465, and Hodaviah and his brothers 
c.440-435. So Chronicles does not need to be any later than 435, the 
traditional time of Ezra; indeed it probably cannot be much later as 
this genealogy of the "royal family" would have been continued beyond 
the seven current royal children. Or you could interpret 3:21, 
following LXX, to add another four generations, just one more century 
and still before Alexander. Suddenly you are calling that late!

Peter Kirk

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list