| 
 I doubt it.  Ramban woul have 
adhered to the Rabbinical dictum as set forth inTalmud Bavli, Bava Batra 
14b-15a. 
Jonathan D. Safren Chairman Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl 
College 44905 Israel        
  ----- Original Message -----  
  
  
  Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:29 
  AM 
  Subject: Enoch and the Canon; was: Re: 
  Nachmanides - Scapegoat 
  
  In a message dated 
  6/12/01 10:00:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  info AT valediction.com writes: 
   
  So, long story short, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ramban 
    considered Enoch  part of the Holy Writ as 
  well. 
  It is inconceivable that Ramban (Nachmanides) 
  considered Enoch to be part of  the canon in opposition to mainstream 
  rabbinic practice.  Why should anyone  think that because he quotes 
  from a book there is an implication of  canonicity?  He quotes Rashi 
  also, and no one suggests that he considered  Rashi to be part of the 
  canon.  But of course, by "Holy Writ" you may not be referring to the canon 
  as such  but simply as writings inspired by G-d, in which case I can agree 
  that it's  possible he considered Enoch to have some degree of divine 
  inspiration.  But  it is equally possible that he considered Enoch to 
  be secular but reliable.    Just as The Book of the Wars of Y-HWH etc. 
  were quoted in the Torah but were  not considered holy. 
  This 
  quotation is from _Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their True Meaning  for 
  Judaism and Christianity_ by Lawrence H. Schiffman (p. 162):  Although it 
  is widely held that soon after the destruction of the Temple the  Rabbis 
  held a canonical convention at the rabbinical academy at Yavneh  (Jamnia), 
  on the coast south of what is today Tel Aviv, the textual evidence  does 
  not support that claim.  In fact, the final catalog of the biblical 
   collection was fixed except for those few books of the Writings, the late 
   date of which left them in question.  Thus, the Rabbis debated only 
  about a  few books, namely, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, and perhaps 
  Esther.    Because mishnaic Judaism had already inherited a tradition, 
  predating the  Yavnean period and ordaining which books were part of the 
  biblical canon, the  Rabbis at Yavneh had only to makes a few final rulings 
  to complete the  corpus.  And even for this rather limited agenda 
  there is no evidence that  any such meeting ever took place at Yavneh. 
   /end quotation 
  From the same book (pp. 167-168) regarding Qumran 
  specifically:  We can also attack the issue of canonicity from another 
  direction.  Much  ancient and medieval Jewish literature was composed 
  by the reuse of materials  found in the canonical Scriptures. ... 
   Only texts accorded such canonical  status served as the raw material 
  for new sacred compositions. ...  At Qumran  all the biblical books, 
  that is, those in our canon of the Hebrew Bibles, are  used in this way, 
  but such is not the case with any other books.  Therefore,  it is 
  highly probable that the biblical canon at Qumran was the same as that  of 
  the later Rabbis."  /end quotation  Schiffman discusses Enoch texts from 
  Qumran at length on pages 182-185.  --- You are currently 
  subscribed to b-hebrew as: [yonsaf AT beitberl.ac.il] To unsubscribe, forward 
  this message to $subst('Email.Unsub') To subscribe, 
  send an email to 
join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
  
 |