[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Judaism in the Third
>So, David's suggestion is interesting. Would you really put the
>Cainite material in Gen as late as this? I have always regarded
>Book of Watchers and another, alternative, aetiology of evil.
>
>So much for now,
>
>Michael Stone
>
I am quite sympathetic to the idea that we are dealing with priests. Who
else can write and is interested in religious questions. after all? There
are, perhaps 'sages' but I am not sure when and how this emerges as a class
entirely distinct from the priesthood, or at least separate from the Temple
which appears to have been the centre of Judean administratrion (I mean
economic as well as religious). So: preists, yes, or at least those
connected to th priesthood: and obviously so.
On my reasons for thinking Cain is late: well, Enoch's version is not a
late one: it explains the scapegoat ritual rather nicely, for a start.
Maybe that ritd by Martin & Davies. I'd be interested in
reactions, if anyone has read it.
The exciting thing about the Scrolls is how they may overlap with the
scriptural wirtings. These scrkptural wriitngs are also mostly priestly
too, aren't they? And if we have the 364-day calendar in Genesis 6-9
(Jaubert said so, I agree), then how's that for more overlaps between Q
contents and Genesis? Maybe Genesis is rather a late book?
Philip R Davies
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield