Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

At 00.16 29/12/99 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>At 06:11 AM 12/29/99 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>At 00.02 29/12/99 -0500, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>>>At 05:53 AM 12/29/99 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>>>But the obscurity of the Genesis citations (5:21-24, 6:1-4)
>>>>tells you that the Enoch literature was around and used.
>>>
>>>This does not follow.  The obscurity of these citations could
>>>just as well have motivated the speculation we see in the Enoch
>>>literature.
>>
>>Then you will have to seek elsewhere for the substance to the Gen
>>citations, for they imply such substance that is not stated. Yet we have a
>>written tradition in Enoch that is acknowledged elsewhere. 
>
>They don't necessarily imply "such substance," but, even so, the
>substance could derive from oral tradition.  After all, literacy
>levels were very low.  

This has little weight given that texts were usually read aloud anyway --
think of the Ezra account of the reading of the law.

>Because of this, the inference that these
>citations must derive from the extant Enoch literature is not
>justified.  There are too many other possibilities here.

If there weren't acknowlegements of the Enoch tradition in Jubilees and CD
you might have a stronger gripe.

The interesting question has been asked before: why has Genesis obfuscated
regarding the Enoch material?


Cheers,


Ian