Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Parables (review)

The Parables (review) was included in an Enochic pentateuch at least by the late first century B.C.E. However, with Dimant the author questions Milik's classification of the Book of Giants as a pseudepigraphon written in the name of Enoch (as the other sections of 1 Enoch), as Enoch is neither mentioned as narrator nor portrayed as recipient of revelation. It is not easy to pass over Dimanfs critical questions, which should have lead the author to be more reserved on this issue: Was the Book of Giants ever an integral part of an Enochic tetrateuchal scroll (with the then longer Astronomical Book as scroll number 2), or was it rather regarded as a separate work? If the Book of Giants is a radical reworking of the Book of Watchers with a different literary frame, how easy would early scribal interpreters join these two books together as consecutive sections of an Enochic pentateuch? A note on lQ23 9/14/15 3 ]tunl'::l ii~, nOI "was great on the earth["-perhaps reconstruct nlillD'lO "his (man's) [wickedn]ess was great on the earth". Neither Milik nor Stuckenbruch have noticed the allusion of this line to Gen 6:5 rlO c-Ms, ruM i1::l, ':;' (cf. also 1 Enoch 8:2; 9:1; http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Hebrew Studies National Association of Professors of Hebrew

The Parables (review)

Frilingos, Chris.
Hebrew Studies , Volume 41 (1) – Oct 5, 2000
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/national-association-of-professors-of-hebrew/the-parables-review-auXTYosNRV

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
National Association of Professors of Hebrew
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Professors of Hebrew
ISSN
2158-1681
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

was included in an Enochic pentateuch at least by the late first century B.C.E. However, with Dimant the author questions Milik's classification of the Book of Giants as a pseudepigraphon written in the name of Enoch (as the other sections of 1 Enoch), as Enoch is neither mentioned as narrator nor portrayed as recipient of revelation. It is not easy to pass over Dimanfs critical questions, which should have lead the author to be more reserved on this issue: Was the Book of Giants ever an integral part of an Enochic tetrateuchal scroll (with the then longer Astronomical Book as scroll number 2), or was it rather regarded as a separate work? If the Book of Giants is a radical reworking of the Book of Watchers with a different literary frame, how easy would early scribal interpreters join these two books together as consecutive sections of an Enochic pentateuch? A note on lQ23 9/14/15 3 ]tunl'::l ii~, nOI "was great on the earth["-perhaps reconstruct nlillD'lO "his (man's) [wickedn]ess was great on the earth". Neither Milik nor Stuckenbruch have noticed the allusion of this line to Gen 6:5 rlO c-Ms, ruM i1::l, ':;' (cf. also 1 Enoch 8:2; 9:1;

Journal

Hebrew Studies – National Association of Professors of Hebrew

Published: Oct 5, 2000

There are no references for this article.