Hi
@dybmh and
@Vouthon
I did not find any complete electronic forms of chapter 48. There are other chapters, but not 48 that I found. I suppose a diligent search of google could bring one up in Greek.
My Charlesworth volumes do make note of important differences between main versions of enoch, but there are several versions.
I assume you both know the importance of the Enochian literature. An enoch remains in the eastern Canon even nowadays and, as Bruce tells us, was inside the Abyssinian Canon (standing immediately before the book of Job) and he brought home three copies of Ethiopian Enochs during his six years in Abyssinia.
It was popular to early Christians as well and the New Testament writers used it to quote from. Jude for example quotes enoch by name, but the other New Testament authors refer to enochian themes quite often. My Lawrence version notes over 128 references to enoch in the Ethiopian text. It was very popular in the Dead Sea Scroll library since early on, there were at least 11 copies found which represents its popularity . Outside of the Pentateuch, only psalms was present in double digits (13 copies) besides enoch.
You both have spoken of the Dead sea scrolls a fair amount. In the 50s Time magazine had an article on the Dead Sea Scrolls and touted them as the greatest religious discovery of that generation. However, once the secular texts became translated, the Jews did not like the "Christianity" within the text. For example, the community was led by twelve, had a presidency of three, celebrated a eucharistic type of "thank meal", engaged in a "baptism" of ceremonial washing, etc. (In fact, Teichner claimed the texts were indeed planted by Christians...).
Interestingly, many modern Christians did not like this discovery because it didn’t fit their pre-concieved notions that "Christianity" didn't exist before Christ.
The only ones who seemed to like it were historians and restorationists since it fit many of their theories perfectly well.
Having said this, Early Christians would, I think have been perfectly able to use much of it as they saw themselves as a restoration of a true form of original Judaism.
For example, the apostolic Father Ignatius tells the Magnesians that
“It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” Ignatius to the Magnesians 10:3.
It is inside such a lens that Jesus came, not to destroy the actual “real” laws of God, but to restore the true meaning to the laws, which, in their eyes, was Christianity, as a true form of Judaism. It has even been suggested that Acts 6:7 had reference to priests of Qumran
“So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.”
The reason to make these points is that the early Jews that adopted Christianity did not see themselves as leaving Judaism. Instead, they were joining a movement that represented the true form of Judaism. They were perfectly able to use their prior scriptures, looking at them through the Christian "jewish" lens. For example, though I Enoch started out as a “Jewish” document, it was certainly adopted and used by the Christians more than the later rabbinic Judaism.
Once rabbinic Judaism issued its prohibition against any study of pre-creation themes, then much of the early knowledge and traditions (and literature) having to do with conditions prior to creation, would have been lost among orthodox rabbinic judaism within one generation. Enochian literature would certainly fall under this prohibition since much of its themes have to do with conditions and happening that took place prior to creation of the earth.
It's late and I will stop here. I will have to review some of your last posts to bring myself up to speed to understand your discussion. Good luck.
Clear
ειτζνεφυω
