Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

We are dealing with different questions.  In my original reply, I was 
responding to
Peter Kirk's question:

<In the late first century or early second century CE Jewish canon, was Enoch
included?>

Therefore, my replies are in light of that question, which concerns the "late 
first
century or early second century CE Jewish canon."  It would appear that we are
considering the canon of nascent rabbinic Judaism here, not the canon of the 
Essenes
or other apocalyptic groups.  And for me, "canon" means canon of the Tanach. 
Or, so I
understood the question.

I am sure that the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic writings were considered 
as sacred
or "canonical" by various sects or schools of thought among first century 
Jews.  But
in my estimation, an "early second century CE Jewish canon" stems from the 
work of
authorities such as Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai at Yavneh, and beyond.

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

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> At 23.24 27/12/99 -0800, Numberup AT worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >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,
>
> There are *so many assumptions* in the above, my mind boggles.
>
> What was normative Judaism at the time of the production of most of the
> scrolls?
>
> What community? (The scrolls were clearly not produced at Qumran and there
> is no justifiable archaeological evidence for a "community" at the site. If
> you are attempting to make the scrolls represent some non-standard
> position, are you able to bring any contemporary evidence to bear on the
> matter? What has eventually come down to us filtered through the Pharisaic
> tradition does not of course represent normative Judaism of the second
> century BCE.) <snip>
>