Canonicity of Enoch/other books

triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Canonicity of Enoch/other books

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:
Why did they reject it? They used their own judgement? How do we know they were correct?

I haven't followed the entire process for HOT. The biggest problem I have heard for the book of Enoch is that no one believed it was written by Enoch. That is a big strike against it.

So popularity? No one else believes it, so you don't?

nedbrek wrote:

For New Testament books, there must be authorship by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.

How do you know that the other books were written by apostles?

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:
Well, you said the authorities rejected it, so of course it would not have been protected by the church. Just because it wasn't as popular, it wasn't inspired? How do you know Satan wasn't trying to trick people into rejecting this inspired work?

The Bible says it is protected by the Holy Spirit. This is directly evidenced by the protection of verses which refute teachings of the Catholic Church. It is also implied by the lack of verses to support other teachings which should have Biblical support.

So because the bible says it is protected, and books are protected by being in the bible, and an "unprotected" book won't be included in the bible, but a book that is not in the bible won't be protected... does that seem a bit circular or am I missing something?

Does a teaching have to be re-iterated multiple times in the bible to have biblical support?

I'm curious about teachings that fit into those categories. Can you name some of them?

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:
But you wouldn't consider it as word-of-god-y as the rest of the bible?

No, it doesn't read like other books of the Bible. But, as I said, I think it would be interesting to dig into if I was in that line of research.

(quote kept for completeness-ish's sake)

-Triften


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
(Sorry for the delay, hope

(Sorry for the delay, hope you had a good Thanksgiving!)

triften wrote:
nedbrek wrote:

I haven't followed the entire process for HOT. The biggest problem I have heard for the book of Enoch is that no one believed it was written by Enoch. That is a big strike against it.

So popularity? No one else believes it, so you don't?

They were a lot closer to the subject. Existing scraps are in Greek, the complete text is in Ethiopic. Enoch would of written in the original language (maybe Hebrew or something similar). Those are more strikes against. As I mention at the end, it doesn't read like a Bible book (the book of Mormon at least tries to sound like an OT book...)

triften wrote:
nedbrek wrote:

For New Testament books, there must be authorship by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.

How do you know that the other books were written by apostles?

The people of the time believed it. The earliest canon lists were compiled because a guy a named Marcion (140 CE) tried to get rid of the OT and reduce the NT. That's only a few generations after the deaths of the apostles. Other "gospels" claiming the names of apostles were not written until about 300 CE (Judas, Thomas, etc.).

triften wrote:
So because the bible says it is protected, and books are protected by being in the bible, and an "unprotected" book won't be included in the bible, but a book that is not in the bible won't be protected... does that seem a bit circular or am I missing something?

The question is, "Protected from what?" I would argue that the Bible needs protection from meddling by the Catholic Church. A politically powerful Church could protect the Bible, but would they protect it from themselves? Given their penchant for doing their idea of "what's best" for people?

triften wrote:
Does a teaching have to be re-iterated multiple times in the bible to have biblical support?

No, once is enough. But it does depend on where its mentioned (who were the audience - many OT teachings no longer apply), and whether the teaching is clear (the clear informs us on the less clear).

triften wrote:
I'm curious about teachings that fit into those categories. Can you name some of them?

An easy one is the celibate priest class. The Bible clearly teaches that all Christians are priests. Leadership in the church is in the form of "elders/presbyters" and "bishops" (which are job descriptions for the same group of people). These leaders are to be "one woman" men (either chaste and unmarried, or faithfully married). Also, there is no Biblical support for elders of one church having authority over another group of elders (i.e. the Papacy).

Another is the Mass as a sacrificial ceremony. This gets into more heady theology, but is in danger of violating Hebrew 6:6 (crucifying Jesus again).

There is also the worship ("veneration" ) of Mary. The Bible makes it clear that Mary was a sinner like everyone else. She was the first "Christian", but her "specialness" ends there.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: (Sorry for

nedbrek wrote:

(Sorry for the delay, hope you had a good Thanksgiving!)

I did! Spent it with some friends and their family and a good time was had by all. Hope yours was well as well.

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:

So popularity? No one else believes it, so you don't?

They were a lot closer to the subject. Existing scraps are in Greek, the complete text is in Ethiopic. Enoch would of written in the original language (maybe Hebrew or something similar). Those are more strikes against. As I mention at the end, it doesn't read like a Bible book (the book of Mormon at least tries to sound like an OT book...)

What if the Book of Enoch has been translated and the original Hebrew has been lost?

Why does it have to sound like the other books? Are you dictating the way god is supposed to inspire authors?

(The Book of Mormon sounds like someone desperately trying to sound like an OT book. There are a number of issues with the phraseology used.)

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:

How do you know that the other books were written by apostles?

The people of the time believed it.

So popularity? They believe it, so you do?

nedbrek wrote:

The earliest canon lists were compiled because a guy a named Marcion (140 CE) tried to get rid of the OT and reduce the NT. That's only a few generations after the deaths of the apostles. Other "gospels" claiming the names of apostles were not written until about 300 CE (Judas, Thomas, etc.).

The late date estimates I'm looking at for Apocrypha don't seem to be any later than 200 CE. Where are you getting your estimates from?

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:
So because the bible says it is protected, and books are protected by being in the bible, and an "unprotected" book won't be included in the bible, but a book that is not in the bible won't be protected... does that seem a bit circular or am I missing something?

The question is, "Protected from what?" I would argue that the Bible needs protection from meddling by the Catholic Church. A politically powerful Church could protect the Bible, but would they protect it from themselves? Given their penchant for doing their idea of "what's best" for people?

?? I'm a little confused by this line. You said that books are considered canonical if they are "protected".

nedbrek wrote:

Given the protection we've seen of other Scripture, it is safe to assume that is not inspired.

Now you are bringing up the idea that they need protection. So do they have protection already or do they need protection?

nedbrek wrote:

triften wrote:
Does a teaching have to be re-iterated multiple times in the bible to have biblical support?

No, once is enough. But it does depend on where its mentioned (who were the audience - many OT teachings no longer apply), and whether the teaching is clear (the clear informs us on the less clear).

Which rules of the OT don't apply?

So a teaching having biblical support depends on whether or not someone understands it?

-Triften


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Enoch

The book of Enoch was not accepted as canon by Jews because it was part of a collection of writings during the Intertestamental(b/w Old and New) period known as the pseudipigrapha (false writings).  Jews believed that authoritative words from God had ceased after Malachi.  That is why none of the pseudipigraphal writings are considered canonical.  It however does not mean they weren't useful because they served as practical daily writings as to how to live as a Jew in their current situation.  They would be like books at a Christian bookstore today.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote: The book of

spumoni wrote:
The book of Enoch was not accepted as canon by Jews because it was part of a collection of writings during the Intertestamental(b/w Old and New) period known as the pseudipigrapha (false writings). Jews believed that authoritative words from God had ceased after Malachi. That is why none of the pseudipigraphal writings are considered canonical. It however does not mean they weren't useful because they served as practical daily writings as to how to live as a Jew in their current situation. They would be like books at a Christian bookstore today.

Yep. Can't have God giving practical advice on living day by day, can we?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ravenmoon
Posts: 5
Joined: 2008-01-31
User is offlineOffline
RE: Enoch

Enoch was one of several texts that were designated as pseudepigrapha, as another commenter stated. However, the idea that the revelation from God stopped after Malachi is not quite accurate, for two reasons. One, Jews still believe in revelation through Midrash, responsa, and other forms of Torah commentary. But more importantly, that rationale was applied in retropsect in the (off the top of my head) mid 2nd century, when the canon was closed. (though some debate this timeframe)

Actually, a lot of what was tossed in the inter-testamental period was suppressed by the Rabbis (sages) of the period, due to a significant rift in Judaism between the priests and the rabbis. Even before the destruction of the temple (70 C.E.) the rabbis had gained a lot of prominence in Judaism, as not everyone had access to the temple as was required in order to sacrifice. One huge point of debate was over the solar calendar cycles and the tradition of Jewish mysticism known as the merkevah, much of which is closely tied to the book of Enoch and to Enoch himself.

The rabbis, on the other hand, were in favor of a lunar calendar, and did not hold with the mysticism of the priestly tradition. Consequently, many texts that dealt with the merkevah and with Enoch and Metatron were suppressed.

If you want to read more about it, check out The Three Temples by Rachel Elior. She deals with a number of pseudepigraphical works and their histories. It's fascinating stuff!

_________________________________________________________

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."