To: "'b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Methods in biblical scholarship
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:28:39 -0500
At 10:55 AM 12/27/1999 +0100, Niels Peter Lemche wrote:
>> Niels I think you are fudge=ing here. Jubelees is the only work where
>> there
>> is apossibility of a claim to 'canon' status as it is the only
>> non-Biblical
>> work quoted in sectarian works. But this is not a proof. The reason being
>> that there are commentaries on Biblical works from the Torah, prophets and
>> Psalms, but NONE on Jubelees. This means that at best a claim of 'special'
>> status can be made for Jubilees, below that of the Bible. (BTW certainly
>> in
>> later Jewish tradition it is clear that non-canon works are considered in
>> a
>> special status. I would consider the mishnah as an example.)
> [Niels Peter Lemche]
> Nice argument. In that case, do we have pesherim for any part of the
>ketuvim except the Psalms? So if not, what was the status of these parts
I think 4Q184 would be an example of exposition on Proverbs. I recall
something about Job, but I would have to look for it.
>around 100 BCE? And again, does it say that it is canonical literature, or
>are we witnessing the initial (or 2nd or 3rd) steps in the direction of a
>canonization? And did the HB ever reach the sate of canonization that was
>valid for Christian communities?
I think the concept of 'canon' is one that is more Christian oriented.
Judiasm seems to have a different view of 'sacred liturature' then does
Christianity. For example Ben Sirach can be quoted and interpreted in the
talmud at the same time it is being banned.