Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Peter, the calendar and Enoch

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Peter, the calendar and Enoch
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:53:40 -0400


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page