Jude and 1 Enoch

by Leolaia 40 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  onacruse

  Leolaia, as usual, your post provides such a plethora of evidence...why am I experiencing a degree of cross-eyedness? LOL

  A friend of mine suggested that I read a book by Peeples (I think it was titled "The Historical Approach to the Bible"...or something like that).

  (I really need to unpack my books! )

  Anyway, that, in conjunction with other things, like the Catholic "acceptance" of apocryphal writings, The Lost Books of Eden, etc--gave me a perspective on the history and sociology of religion that ran counter to everything the WTS presented to me.

  How could the WORD OF THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE !!!!! depend on unincorporated works? Works that even the Bible itself identifies, but which are now non-extant?

  As I've said in other threads: this "God" has a very strange and obtuse way of communicating with his children.
• 

  IP_SEC

  Holy freekin crap, so the great jude quotes from the demon inspired book of enoch? LOL. *steps out to pick up a copy of the apocrypha*

  Would you have some good recommendations on books that discribe how the 66 were canonized?

  IPSec
• 

  Shakita

  Hey Leo,

  Thanks so much for that information on Jude and Enoch. It is amazing to find out that the book of Enoch, which is considered apochryphal by the Society, is the very source for the book of Jude. That certainly says alot about the alleged inspiration of the scriptures. Do you have any information about who determined the canonicity of the scriptures? Who determines what is supposedly inspired and what is the words of men? Thanks again for your hard work Leo.

  Mr. Shakita
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you very much Leolaia for this comprehensive study, which is definitely a keeper.

  I find it all the more interesting that the author of 2 Peter, who was concerned with "Scripture" (3:14f), felt the need to erase any explicit reference to Enoch in his "rewriting" of Jude -- while at the same time including much more pagan Greek references (e.g. the mythological tartaros, but also the stoic conflagration in chapter 3, or the development on "divine nature" and "virtue" in chapter 1).
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Another good example is how 2 Peter 2:11 obliterates Jude 9's explicit reference to the burial of Moses as related in the Testament of Moses and/or the Assumption of Moses. Baukham shows that in most cases, the Enochic allusions in Jude are obscured in 2 Peter.

  IP_SEC, Shakita....I'm sure there is an introductory level book on the subject. Right now the best and most up-to-date scholarly work on the subject is The Canon Debate (copyright 2002), edited by LH McDonald and JA Sanders. Chapters include "The Notion and Definition of Canon," "The Formation of the Hebrew Bible Canon: Isaiah as a Test Case," "The Septuagint: The Bible of Hellenistic Judaism," "Questions of Canon As Viewed Through the Dead Sea Scrolls," "Origins of a tripartite Old Testament Canon," Jamnia Revisited," "The Rabbi's Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Rabbis", "The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers", "The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today," "The Pseudegrapha in the Early Church", "The Codex and Canon Consciousness", "The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process", "The New Testament Canon: Recent Research", "Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon", "Marcion Revisted", "Gnosticism and the Christian Bible", "Evidence For an Early Christian Canon", "The New Testament Canon of Eusebius", "The Muratonian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament", "Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church", "The Problem of Pseudenymity in Biblical Literature", and so forth. It looks like a very comprehensive book, tho advanced, with contributions by many important scholars including Philip R. Davies, Joseph Blenkinsopp, James VanderKam, Emanuel Tov, William Farmer, and so forth. It's one of the books I plan to get, once I have enough money.

  onacruse....I think it comes back down to the old question of what the Bible is supposed to represent. Is it to be identified with the "Word of God", is it meditations on God and morality, a combination of both, or ????.
• 

  the_classicist

  Leolaia... Personally, I believe in the 73 book canon, but I'm also open to the traditional Orthodox Church canon as being something of value. I also read in a bible commentary that use of the Book of Enoch by Jude just shows how much debate there was in the Early Church about what should be in the canon, although they said it in a much more elequent way than I have just paraphrased.

  PS. You might want to check out The Apostolic Fathers (in two volumes) published by the Loeb Classical Library. It includes the Shepard of Hermas, which was a interesting, slightly esoteric (in the sense that some meanings are obscure) writing which includes visions, parables, and commandments.
• 

  Carmel

  you should post this over at e-watchman.. there'd be a big fight over whether or not you are trying to overthrow their "prophet"!

  carmel
• 

  euripides

  a glitch, see below
• 

  euripides

  At the risk of sounding gratuitous, Leolaia, it's evident where you put your heart and soul...and I personally want to thank you for investing the energy and time into producing these essays and posting them here. I know how much time these things take, and they often seem a thankless task...which is why I'm thanking you.

  I had a similar 'moment of truth' when I found out 1 Corinthians 15:33 was in fact directly taken from Menander's Thais, 218. Imagine Roman/pagan wisdom being constantly parroted by WT when they are so proud of it being the 'word of God.' Incredible, isn't it?

  Euripides

  ps Happy Valentine's Day to all of you out there...
• 

  peacefulpete

  Nice work Leolaia. I thought it rather funny the 82WT suggestion that Jesus may have quoted Enoch (assuming first hand knowlede)and this was orally retained in the early church. If that were so, how did the author of 1 Enoch hear of these things? Had Jesus wispered a private message to him as well a couple hundred years earlier? So silly. They need to ignore the obvious and even create new myths to retain a narrow fundementalist view.