Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

You conveniently fail to point out that there also appeared abundantly 
at Qumran various books which have never been counted by anyone as on 
a par with scripture, including some which are undoubtedly sectarian 
in character and were certainly not generally accepted. So this means 
that abundant appearance at Qumran does not imply any sort of general 
acceptance as scripture among mainstream Judaism.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Methods in biblical scholarship (Solomon)
Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    28/12/1999 03:43


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


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.