| Abstract
|
:
|
The lack of explicit reference to the Sinaitic revelation in 1 Enoch led scholars to posit a dissident group of Enochic Judaism that abandoned the Torah, preferring Enoch’s revelation. However, the absence of Sinai was imperative for upholding 1 Enoch’s fictitious primeval origin, while implicit references to Sinai abound. Moreover, omission is not proof of non-existence, since many “normative” texts do not mention the Mosaic Torah either. The opinion that so-called Enochians fostered natural law against Torah is untenable, because it does not explain the ritual rules acknowledged by all of Israel. Also there is no evidence for either a split in Jewish society by this purported Enochian group or existence of theological disputes. The lack of explicit reference to the Sinaitic revelation in 1 Enoch led scholars to posit a dissident group of Enochic Judaism that abandoned the Torah, preferring Enoch’s revelation. However, the absence of Sinai was imperative for upholding 1 Enoch’s fictitious primeval origin, while implicit references to Sinai abound. Moreover, omission is not proof of non-existence, since many “normative” texts do not mention the Mosaic Torah either. The opinion that so-called Enochians fostered natural law against Torah is untenable, because it does not explain the ritual rules acknowledged by all of Israel. Also there is no evidence for either a split in Jewish society by this purported Enochian group or existence of theological disputes.
|