Should I Enoch be part of the Bible?

[gnostic]

Since the 2 books of Enoch are clearly pseudapigraphic, they should remain so as non-canoical pseudapigrapha. Nevertheless, they are both interesting reading.

The 2 Enoch was clearly influenced by Zoroastrianism, because of the complex angelology and demonology heirarchies.

 

[No*s]

Since the 2 books of Enoch are clearly pseudapigraphic, they should remain so as non-canoical pseudapigrapha. Nevertheless, they are both interesting reading.

The whole purpose of the thread was a thinly-veiled criticism of the principle of Sola Scriptura and the attending theologies. I propose canonizing I Enoch on the basis of Scripture and wait for the counter-claims to come which are extra-biblical :devil:. The issue of pseudapigrapha is a rather extra-biblical one, and pseudaphigrapha was once a fairly acceptable practice, even if it isn't today.

I doubt, though, that you have much invested in the canon, since it was partially oppose Gnosticism, from which it appears you draw some inspiration from .

The 2 Enoch was clearly influenced by Zoroastrianism, because of the complex angelology and demonology heirarchies.

Yes, there is indeed a clear borrowing of ideas (doesn't mean I don't accept some of them lol). Zoroastrianism had a lot of influence on Judaism and Christianity after it. I've considered learning Old Iranian so that I could read some of their oldest material...but I'm too lazy at the moment and have my hands full .

 

[gnostic]

Yes, there is indeed a clear borrowing of ideas (doesn't mean I don't accept some of them lol). Zoroastrianism had a lot of influence on Judaism and Christianity after it.

Actually, I think Zoroastrianism had also influenced Gnosticism, perhaps indirectly from Judaism and early Christianity.

I doubt, though, that you have much invested in the canon, since it was partially oppose Gnosticism, from which it appears you draw some inspiration from

Actually, it matter little to me if it was canonise or not. I am not against it, because I take every sources as they are.

As an amateur mythologist, I have worked on many different sources in my involvement in Greek, Norse and Celtic mythology. I may across different versions of say, the birth of Aphrodite. Aphrodite is given different parentages or different manners of her birth, so I must be willing to accept any text in regarding to her birth, regardless if they are the norms or unconventional.

I was very interested in the brief description of Enoch's mysterious disappearance in the Genesis, enough to investigate further and find the 2 books of Enoch to read. I did so because of my curiosity as an amateur scholar/researcher. I can accept that the Enoch are non-canonised, just as I accept the difference between canonised Bible and the Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi. To me all texts are relevant in their different spheres.

 

[No*s]

Actually, I think Zoroastrianism had also influenced Gnosticism, perhaps indirectly from Judaism and early Christianity.

Zoroastrianism influenced a wide number of things, and Gnosticism was pretty eclectic, so it's a safe bet there were direct influences. Gnostics seeking to look like Christians or Jews would inevitably inherit some Gnostic tendencies anyway.

Actually, it matter little to me if it was canonise or not. I am not against it, because I take every sources as they are.

As an amateur mythologist, I have worked on many different sources in my involvement in Greek, Norse and Celtic mythology. I may across different versions of say, the birth of Aphrodite. Aphrodite is given different parentages or different manners of her birth, so I must be willing to accept any text in regarding to her birth, regardless if they are the norms or unconventional.

I was very interested in the brief description of Enoch's mysterious disappearance in the Genesis, enough to investigate further and find the 2 books of Enoch to read. I did so because of my curiosity as an amateur scholar/researcher. I can accept that the Enoch are non-canonised, just as I accept the difference between canonised Bible and the Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi. To me all texts are relevant in their different spheres.

Well, that settles the canon issue in regard to our discussing it . There's no vested interest either way.

 

[gnostic]

The thing is, I am willing to chase down obscure texts, or even obscure passage until I find the source.

I was quite happy to find and read the Enoch 1 and Enoch 2 as pseudapigraphic literature. Similarly I did know anything about Gnosticism a few years ago, and though I did hear of Gospel of Thomas a while back, I didn't know it was connected to Gnosticism. But a couple of years ago, I found some translation of Gnostic texts, and was interested in learning more, regardless if the texts were canonised or not. I now have a copy of the Nag Hammadi Library in my bookself.

I am looking for a copy of the books of Enoch, but so far I can't find them. (I just preferred to do my reading in book format instead of in front of the computer screen.)

For a researching scholar, it is far more interesting to pursue texts that are obscure or forbidden, like heretic or apocryphal literature of Judaeo-Christian religion. If you were to canonise the Enoch, it would lose their mysterious and forbidden values.

Have you read the Haggada, No*s?

I had to chase this text down, to read about Lilith and Adam. Part of the fun of researching is the chase or the journey, not just catching the prey or the arrival of destination.

But then again, not everyone feel the same way about chase or journey; I'd guess I am different in that sense, probably because I am naturally quirky.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Personally I feel that all books written about God or Christ in the time and area of Christ should be included in the Bible whether they follow "doctrine" or mainstream belief. In answer to one of the posts the Bible was actually "created" or decided upon in the Middle Ages... by church officials. There were literally hundreds of works that were being taught at the time and there was no ONE book to teach Christianity to the masses. The "Church" decided that many of the books such as the apocrypha were considered to be too "controversial" for the politics of the time to be included... works such as Adam and Eve... Enoch... and the Gospel of Mary. The fact that the church removed these texts to me shows that the Bible as a whole should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt, because all of the books which were intended to be included were not.

Who were they truly benefiting by their actions? Themselves and the politicians... not the masses. How did this happen and why was it permitted? Because at the time the general population could not read... only scribes, scholars, and priests could and therefore could get by with saying "this is the real word... not that one" and nobody would have been the wiser. :tsk:

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

*SoliDeoGloria heard the rumors and first said to himself "this can't be true.". He counted the rumors he heard as mythical legend and tried to ignore them. Then he walked by the room he once knew and counted as dead. He noticed something different about it and had to investigate further. As he walkes into the thread room he counted as dead, he trembles and rememberes the hard sweat and labor he gave to this thread before. He browses over No*s new response to this thread and screams "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO". He then states "How can this be?! It was supposed to be dead!!!" SoliDeoGloria then frantically runs to his small library, grabs his reffrence books and other books and begins to go to work.*

*...(No*s) sprinkles a few limbs, eyes of a newt, and reads some ancient incantations, and *poof has used thread necromancy to restore breath to a corpse. *

I had this feeling that there was more to you than meets the eye No*s.
(Clarification) After further study of this subject matter, I have come to reconcile my reservations about the book of Jude and it's quotations of pseudepigraphical writings.

I'll have to google for that again. It's been a long time, but he added "alone" before "faith" in his German translation. Later editions removed it, and it has no bearing on today's Protestant Bibles; it's just a revealing detail lol.

Unforunately, there are a few unpleasant things that are revealing about Mr. Luther. Take for instance, his antisemitism in his later years. As embarassing as these things are, they do not take away from the good things he contributed to Christian theology. As far as our current subject matter goes, what speaks even louder in favor of the creedo "Sola Scriptura" is how, despite Luther's reservations for the book of James and Romans, As you have confirmed, no permanent damage was done to either of these books, and even Luther came to feel better about these books later on in life.

There were at least two separate canons. The Palestinian Canon and the Alexandrian Canon. The Palestinian Canon was similar to the modern Jewish canon and eventually became that. The Alexandrian Canon was the LXX. The latter, with the NT, became the universal Bible of Christians (until the Reformation) and the former the Bible of the Jews.

(J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines" [59-60]) "The first official document which prescribes the 27 books of our NT as alone canonical is Athanasius's Easter letter for the year 367, but the process was not everywhere complete until at least a century and a half later."
(Norman Geisler, "Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" [84]) "Communication and transportation were slow, so it took longer for believers in the West to become fully aware of the evidence for books that had circulated first in the East and vice versa. Prior to 313 the Church faced frequent persecution that did not allow leisure for research, reflection, and recognition. As soon as that was possible it was only a short time before there was a general recognition of all cannonical books by the regional councils of Hippo(393) and Carthage(397). There was no great need for precision until a dispute arose. Marcion published his gnostic cannon, with only Luke and ten of Paul's Epistles, in the middle of the second century. Spurious Gospels and Epistles Appeared throughout the second and third centuries. Since those books claimed Divine authroity, the Universal Church had to define the limits of God's authentic, inspired cannon that already was known."

The Dead Sea Scrolls intermix several different books with the OT books. Who is to say they didn't consider them canon?

From what we know about the Essene's, even after taking into consideration what your stance is on this subject matter, I would have to ask why it mattered at all if they did indeed consider them cannon? There was a reason why the Essenes chose to live outside of the known society at the time. They were not considered by different measures to be the most orthodox of Jewish sects at the time.

Simply the existence of the apocryphal books in a pre-Christian canon gives weight to the idea that there was no set canon at that time yet.

The fact that non of the Apocryphal books were quoted by Jesus in the cannonical Gospels gives weight to their removal from the Protestant cannon and even reservation by some in the Catholic Church. Paul's quotaion of the gospel of Luke as "Scripture" (1 Tim. 5:18), Peter's collection and recognition of Paul's letter's as "Scripture" (2 Peter 3:16), and the Apostle's own exhortation that their letters be read and circulated among the churches (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27, Rev 1:3) gives weight to the fact that despite there being no authoritative written document specifically defining what was cannonical and what was not, for historically logical reasons, there was clear authoritative recognition of what was considered authoritative. On top of that, John 21:25 and Luke 1:1 speaks of a profusion of religious literature in not the most positive light and 2 Thess 2:2's recognition of false epistles gives weight to the fact that just because something claimed authority or was written in a religious fashion, that does not give it Godly authority or should be considered cannon. I would be suprised to find out that Paul, who was a well studied Jew, would consider the Bereans "more noble-minded" for studying scripture that was not perspicuitive with what he was speaking to "see whether these things were so" (Acts. 17:11)

This oversimplifies things more than a little bit. If, for instance, the RCC had widely accepted the Apocrypha long before the Reformers, then Trent was a clarification in light of the Reformers' rejection of the books, and by extension, several doctrines connected with it (it was a long-lasting council).
The problem, however, arises in that this is the post-schism Roman Catholic Church. It and Orthodoxy have already gone separate ways. Orthodoxy, though, still maintained the Deuterocanonicals. Interestingly, the division of the principle OT and secondary OT predates Trent, and even our NT is arranged along that principle (this is why Revelation is at the end, Hebrews immediately after the other Pauline epistles, etc. It is a hierarchy). This did not need an infallible proclamation; it was already the accepted practice of the Church before the Schism, making Trent a later clarification for the RCs.

Given the historical facts, this point does not make the Council at Trent any less suspicious. It even gives more fuel to the reformers aguement by recognizing and distinguishing the difference between the apocryphal books and other connonical books of the Bible for good reasons.

(continued in the next post)

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

There are two fundamental problems with this. First, what about those who were still determining the books of Scripture? Why accept 3 John over the Didache? In fact, heretics like Marcion even had authoritative documents like "Paul's" letters they used to establish their doctrines. Since there was yet no canon, they could not even begin to use the principle you cited.

The biggest reason for this is, as I stated above, is that unlike today, information traveled a lot slower. Just because there were groups that had different beleifs does not give validation to their beliefs. All it gives validation to is that there were people with charisma who were able to influence others to beleive what they believed probably largley due to a lack of personal study(2Tim.2:15) on the follower's part which isn't so uncommon even today. It does not take away from the fact that there was a recognition of what was and wasn't scripture (refer to verses noted above) and that there was and is a perspicuity to scripture.

The second one is that most heresies, who would rid themselves of one book or another, bristle with Scriptural quotations; they invariably believe themselves to be Bible-based, and those difficult books that contradict their beliefs (like sacrifice for the dead in 2 Maccabees) could simply be excised or ignored. In their mind, they have biblical basis, and one just as clear as the Reformers.

Boy, with the connotations of that statement it would be hard for me to address it without getting really sidetracked. But I will state this much, It is a dangerous two sided sword to mess with that issue being as how I have seen and heard many people accuse all christians of doing the same thing which makes it even more important to recognize what is scripture and what isn't.

His problem, though, was his theology and his reading of the book of James (faith and works are another issue altogether; obviously I subscribe to neither Sola you mentioned). He was still justifying his exclusion of James on the basis of his personal theology. I would even argue that Luthor was reading the book correctly (it does say blatantly that a man is "justified by works and not faith only" Ja. 2.24). The process of omitting books, even if Luthor had misread it, was created by theology, a belief that James contradicted it, and the belief that his understanding was right and not the book of Scripture's. It maintains itself as a breach of Sola Scriptura (I have often joked that Sola Scriptura for Luthor was "I believe in Sola Scriptura...so long as I pick the books).

(LOL) You almost had me "hook, line, & sinker" on this one. I reserve my response to this one for our upcoming debate over Calvinism that I am looking foward to.

That I have to grant you. One or more of its sources was concerned with that...but with some restraint. As you say, it is indeed an amalgamation of several men, and well, what one interpolation to the text says does not necessarily have much bearing on another. This has occurred in Daniel, for isntance. There are Hebrew portions, some small Aramaic portions, and Greek portions. No doubt in not accepting the Deuterocanonicals, you reject the Greek additions, but it is still an amalgam piece written two languages still. One interpolation is good, two aren't. Enoch can still stand if some of the interpolations do not.

That would almost be like comparing it to the other writings of Solomon and Ecclesiastes which was written by Koheleth. The difference lies in that while Koheleth may have written autobiographically as though he were Solomon, there was not a moral deception in pretending to be Solomon in order to gain acceptance of his own ideas. 1 & 2 Enoch fail this standard with not only a much greater span of time between the actual life of Enoch and the writtings but directly contradicting Deut. 13:1-3 with "The Book of Celestial Physics", therefore making it unperspicuitive to the rest of the recognized Scriptures.

*blinks*
You do realize what this does, right? It elevates the Bible, partly a creation of men, to the status of God. If the Bible is the Logos, then God is partly the product of the human imagination. As divinely inspired as the Bible is, it always uses the vocabulary of its authors, their worldview, etc.
I don't know how to put it mildly, so I'll put it bluntly. That theology is idolatrous. It places a book where God alone belongs. The Word in John is not the Bible, but the preexistant and uncreated Reason and Revelation of God, the Christ.
The Scriptures were created as holy men were moved by the Holy Spirit, but they were still created, and the Bible is a product of this union of the Spirit with men. The Church thus predates the NT writings. It made them. Its bishops told its congregations which ones were binding and which weren't, which would be read in services and which weren't, and this process ended with the closed canon. This isn't discovery, it is creation.

Recognizing the authority of scripture no more deifies it than recognizing the authority of the church. If we follow the standard you have given, we may as well state that there are only two choices in this matter, either the deification of scripture or the church. I have done niether. Being as how you have taken away any authority the scripture's may have and given it to the church, the question still remains as to how you define the church? Last time I checked, we do not have Jesus Christ still walking this planet defining who or what his church is and isn't. You may as well open the door wide open for anybody who wants to call themselves the church (which people attempt to do anyways) and to call whatever they want Biblical cannon.
I am curious as to how you would defend your position against something like this: (taken from http://www.equip.org/free/DM807-1.htm )
"In an 1897 conference speech, Woodruff recounted how he was present at a meeting in Kirtland, Ohio, when a leading man in the church had admonished his contemporaries to confine their revelations to the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants.3 Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith responded by asking Brigham Young, who later became the second LDS prophet, to give his position on the matter. The story continues:
Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now, said he, when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.4"

Nowhere in Christian recognized Biblical scripture is the church recognized as the magistrate, regulator, judge, or master of scripture. Only God gets those positions. The church is, however, the minister of scripture. With what you have done, we may as well take 2 Tim.3:16 out of the Bible or at least replace the word "scripture" with "the church". In conclusion, to take your position to heart is to leave the Biblical scripture's without any real definition, authority, and defense, and place those things into the hands of fallible human beings and I don't even trust myself enough to take that position.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[robtex]

For those of us ignorant to theories behind cannonzation of books, what is the conditions or elements neccessary to include a book in the bible ? That will help me, and hopefully others understand the issues in validify or qualifing what should and could go igoes in and what does not and than apply it to the book of Enoch

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

For those of us ignorant to theories behind cannonzation of books, what is the conditions or elements neccessary to include a book in the bible ? That will help me, and hopefully others understand the issues in validify or qualifing what should and could go igoes in and what does not and than apply it to the book of Enoch

The Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Norman Geisler) Gives five basic principles that were used in determining cannonization.
1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
3. Does the message tell the truth about God?
4. Did it come with the power of God?
5. Was it accepted by the poeple of God?

Now, I am sure that these need further explaination which ofcourse the book mentioned above gives. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time right now to give one myself being as how I have to leave for work in a half of an hour. I apologize if this response just leaves you with more questions. I will do my best to answer further questions later on.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Radiant_Light]

of course it should be part of the bible. but because it was written in ethiopias language it is deemed as not canoon as the other inspired books.

 

[James the Persian]

of course it should be part of the bible. but because it was written in ethiopias language it is deemed as not canoon as the other inspired books.

Enoch was not written in Amharic, that is a translation. It is part of the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and as such is part of a valid Scriptural canon, just not the most commonly used one. It is also referred to in the New Testament of every Biblical canon.

There never was a single authoritative canon in any case. Prior to the non-Chalcedonian Schism (when the OOs, including the Ethiopians, parted ways with us), there were at least three perfectly valid canons used within the Church: the Ethiopian, ours (which is the same as most OOs use) and the RC canon. They are all slightly different but all valid and caused no concerns in the undivided Church at all.

It is only Protestants who insist on a single, authoritative canon and they, ironically, hold to a fourth, and reduced, canon which was unknown before the Reformation.

James

 

[gnostic]

of course it should be part of the bible. but because it was written in ethiopias language it is deemed as not canoon as the other inspired books.

There are fragments of the 1st book of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where it was written in Aramaic, the language used at that time. Fragments were also found in Greek.

As James said, the Ethiopic copy is merely a translation of possibly the original Aramaic text (or possibly from Greek).

The extant 2nd book of Enoch is found in Slavonic manuscript, is also obvious translation of the original writing.

 

[Daukaulotu]

Im kinda surprised to see a debate of this sort. Pretty much all christians would say the bible is infaulible. I did some study about how the bible was compiled, and all it was religious leaders basically voted on what books should be cannon and what books shouldn't. Now I'm not questioning the bible, I believe every word thats in it, But if it were men, not prophets or apostles, wouldn't that create the possibility of some kind of fallibility within the bible? Did God give permission to these men to compile an errorless book? What if some of the "left out books were really scripture, and some of the cannonized books really weren't scripture?

 

[Daukaulotu]

Im kinda surprised to see a debate of this sort. Pretty much all christians would say the bible is infaulible. I did some study about how the bible was compiled, and all it was religious leaders basically voted on what books should be cannon and what books shouldn't. Now I'm not questioning the bible, I believe every word thats in it, But if it were men, not prophets or apostles, wouldn't that create the possibility of some kind of fallibility within the bible? Did God give permission to these men to compile an errorless book? What if some of the "left out books were really scripture, and some of the cannonized books really weren't scripture?

 

[Bick]

I can only give my views. When it comes to the what is "Canon" , i.e. complete scriptures, let us not forget the power of God. Once the letters of the NT were written, they were copied and sent to the many Christian churches being established in that part of the world. These copies weren't kept by "bishops" or other church hierarchy to interpret to the laity, for, as we can read in Paul's letters, they would be read to the whole congregation. And, then, more copies would be sent to churches farther away. And eventually thousands of copies were made and sent out to all the known world.

The important thing to remember is what we read in Heb. 4:12, "For the word of God is quick (alive) and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword..."
And in 2 Tim.3:16, among others, "All scripture is inspired by God..."

I believe that over the years, particularly in the early centuries after Christ, when all the present books of the NT, and many other letters were circulated, that the Spirit of God would lay it on the hearts and minds of the believers which should be part of the "Canon".

There is no doubt in my mind, that the Bible, with it's 66 books, is the complete canon.

A good book to read is "The Origin of the Bible", Edited by Phillip Wesley Comfort.

Bick

 

[Bick]

I didn't answer the question on my earlier post. NO, I do not believe 1 Enoch should be in the Bible.

It is true that Jude 14 reads, "It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgement on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." RSV.

It is my opinion that the Spirit of God inspired Jude to write this, for Enoch lived centuries ago before the flood.

And look at verse 9, "But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses,....said, 'The Lord rebuke you'..." Certainly, it could only have been God's Spirit that led him to write that, for who, but the Spirit knew what Michael said to the devil?

I skimmed through 1 Enoch and found too many statements that are not Biblical.

Bick

 

[gnostic]

I think the Enochic literature have heavy influences on Christianity. A lot of Christian views are based on it.

The view of heaven and hell, angels and demons, etc, like from gospels, letters and the book of Revelation, seemed to be based on it, but on more mad scale. The first time, the "Son of Man" being used, is not in the NT, but in the 1 Enoch (Book 2, Parables, in chapters 46, 48, 60, 62, 63, 69, 71), but in this case, it is Enoch who is the "Son of Man". This section is called the Book of Parables, where parables are used is quite extensively.