Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch by Paul Heger

By Paul Heger

A few literary expressions within the lifeless Sea Scrolls led students to allege that their authors professed a dualistic and deterministic worldview of Zoroastrian starting place and that the omission of Moses and Sinai from the Enoch writings evinces phase in Jewish society marginalized the Torah, adopting Enoch s prophecies as its moral guide. This examine demanding situations those allegations as completely conflicting with crucial biblical doctrines and the unequivocal ideals and expectancies of Qumran s Torah-centered society, arguing that students allegations are erroneously in line with reading historical texts with a latest mind-set and motivated via the interpreter s own cultural historical past. The examine translates the appropriate texts in a way suitable with the presumed doctrines of historical Jewish authors and readers.

Show description

Read Online or Download Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues PDF

Similar bible study books

Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible (JSOT Supplement)

Are early Irish tales prompted by way of the Bible or transcriptions of pre-Christian Celtic lore? Layzer explores the sensible and theoretical problems of identifying 'influence' in historic writing, and the dating among the oral and the written, literacy and literature and the disciplines of Irish experiences and bible study.

The Bible on the question of homosexuality

The Bible at the query of Homosexuality addresses the hotly debated subject of no matter if the Bible condemns homosexuality via an in depth studying of the biblical texts with no taboo or prejudice, with out own or church interpretation.

Originally released as "Clarifications sur l'homosexualité dans l. a. Bible" (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, © 2007).

Extra info for Challenges to Conventional Opinions on Qumran and Enoch Issues

Example text

15 Rashi uses two main literary styles in making his distinction between the two interpretation systems. ” A different style we encounter, for example, in Rashi’s comments on the sentence íôàá éë ùéà åâøä “they have killed a man (in singular mode) in their anger” (Gen :). Rashi writes, “[the term man, in singular mode] refers to Hamor and the people of Shechem, [but Scripture uses the single mode, because] ‘they are all worth the same as one person’; . . ” 16 George J. Brooke, “Q as Early Jewish Commentary,” RevQ , – (): –  at .

However, they employ midrashic methods to interpret this verse for other deductions. ”64 The midrash uses both ad majorem and éåáéø “extension/enlargement” methods to deduce something that seems logically obvious, a conclusion that does not require any particular interpretive method to attain. On the other hand, Qumran does not harmonize by a hekesh-type comparison commands relating to issues with similar but not identical characteristics, as we shall see below in a parallel example. Lev : commands, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves.

At the same time, however, we cannot escape defining the term midrash as the general “fruits” of the interpretive activity, as Kugel writes, classified into its different types. 13 David Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before  C. E. B. Mohr, ), . ”16 The Thirteen Middot, the technical rules of rabbinic exegesis, are introduced by the term ùøã; the introduction states that there are “thirteen Middot for the exegesis of the Torah,” demonstrating that the term ùøãî is to be understood as an interpretation founded on these thirteen techniques;17 it is distinct from term àø÷î, which describes the simple, literal interpretation of the Torah.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.78 of 5 – based on 39 votes