LEADER 03377nam  2200649 a 450 
001 9910781941103321
005 20220912173102.0
010   $a1-283-36607-X
010   $a9786613366078
010   $a90-04-21882-3
024 7 $a10.1163/9789004218826
035   $a(CKB)2550000000075867
035   $a(EBL)1010613
035   $a(OCoLC)774290469
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000554478
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)11336502
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000554478
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10517201
035   $a(PQKB)10887959
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1010613
035   $a(nllekb)BRILL9789004218826
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1010613
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10518827
035   $a(CaONFJC)MIL336607
035   $a(PPN)170736237
035   $a(EXLCZ)992550000000075867
100   $a20110908d2012      uy             0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|n|---|||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aChallenges to conventional opinions on Qumran and Enoch issues$b[electronic resource] /$fby Paul Heger
210   $aLeiden ;$aBoston $cBrill$d2012
215   $a1 online resource (429 p.)
225 1 $aStudies on the texts of the desert of Judah,$x0169-9962 ;$vv. 100
300   $aDescription based upon print version of record.
311   $a90-04-21722-3 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references and indexes.
327   $aPreliminary Material -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Rabbinic and Qumran Interpretation Systems -- 3.The Attribution ofModern Concepts to Authors and Readers of Ancient Texts -- 4. Enoch: Complementary or Alternative toMosaic Torah? -- 5. Jubilees and theMosaic Torah -- 6. Another Look at Dualism in QumranWritings -- 7. Against aTheory of Dual Determinism in 1QS and 1QHa -- 8. Epilogue -- Bibliography -- Index of Citations -- Index of Subjects.
330   $aSome literary expressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls led scholars to allege that their authors professed a dualistic and deterministic worldview of Zoroastrian origin and that the omission of Moses and Sinai from the Enoch writings evinces that a segment in Jewish society marginalized the Torah, adopting Enoch?s prophecies as its ethical guideline. This study challenges these allegations as utterly conflicting with essential biblical doctrines and the unequivocal beliefs and expectations of Qumran?s Torah-centered society, arguing that scholars? allegations are erroneously based on interpreting ancient texts with a modern mindset and influenced by the interpreter?s personal cultural background. The study interprets the relevant texts in a manner compatible with the presumed doctrines of ancient Jewish authors and readers.
410  0$aStudies on the texts of the desert of Judah ;$vv. 100.
606   $aRabbinical literature$xHistory and criticism
606   $aDualism (Religion)$xJudaism
606   $aJudaism$xHistory$yPost-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D
615  0$aRabbinical literature$xHistory and criticism.
615  0$aDualism (Religion)$xJudaism.
615  0$aJudaism$xHistory
676   $a296.1/55
700   $aHeger$b Paul$f1924-$0852859
801  0$bMiAaPQ
801  1$bMiAaPQ
801  2$bMiAaPQ
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910781941103321
996   $aChallenges to conventional opinions on Qumran and Enoch issues$93724323
997   $aUNINA