Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Methods in biblical scholarship (Solomon)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Numberup AT worldnet.att.net
  • To: Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Methods in biblical scholarship (Solomon)
  • Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:24:44 -0800


Representative of what? "Normative Judaism" is for the most part the
descendant of
the Pharisaic school of thought, as the rabbis are the inheritors of the
Pharisees.
Though 1 Enoch and other apocalyptic works were valued by the Covenant
Community
["Essenes"] of Qumran, so far as I can determine, they have not been a part
of any
know canon of the Pharisaic sages, i.e., rabbinic Judaism. That, I thought,
was the
question.

Solomon Landers
Memra Institute for Biblical Research
http://www.memrain.org


Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> Solomon Landers write:
> >Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch ...
> >... was not a part of any known canon of the Hebrew or Jewish Bible,
> though it
> >appears to have been in use by sectarians or adherents of alternative
> "Judaisms."
>
> As the text appeared abundantly at Qumran along with all the major OT/HB
> works and is cited in CD as having value, it would seem to be
> representative, unless you for some reason consider the people who were
> responsible for the Qumran deposit as being 'sectarians or adherents of
> alternative "Judaisms."' If this is the case, how do you justify the
> position?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page