nephillium

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Unlike Enoch's book which is referred to multiple times by pre-1st-century writers, post-1st-century writers and was kept preserved for millenia in Ehtiopia and later corroborated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know and have been able to understand, the Book of Jasher has nothing similar to a documented trail for its existence.

The Book of Jasher that is in circulation and which seems to be unquestionably accepted by those who do accept it is referred to in Joshua and Samuel and then never again until it shows up in the 1700's.

If one were to accept this book as the same book referred to in the Bible, how would they go about justifying this?

Then, how would one go about justifying the Biblical Jasher as a book inspired by God?
 
Upvote 0

~GodsMouthpiece~

Senior Member
May 18, 2006
3,234
3,219
✟30,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wow, GMP, you keep missing the point, don't you?

You criticise me for not thoroughly reading posts then proceed to do the same!

My point has always been there is a heirarchy that is ill-defined in scripture therefore we should not be dogmatic about its structure.

To my knowledge, no one on this thread has ever posted there is no angelic heirarchy.

My apologies SC if I sounded like I was attacking to you..I was speaking "generally" and not at you personally.

I think a hierarchy is defined enough in scripture for me, for the word archangel is enough solid ground for such thought.


The word "archangel" is from the Greek "archangelos" meaning "chief angels..." It is a Scriptural concept, for I Thessalonian s 4:16 speaks of the "voice of the archangel..." Jude 9 refers to "Michael, the archangel..."

Gabriel is mentioned in the Bible, and he came and appeared as a man a number of times in the Bible... He spoke to Joseph and Mary at the incarnation of Jesus... Daniel also had dealings with Gabriel... (Daniel 9:21, 8:15).

Michael is called "the great prince who standeth for the children of Thy people..." (Daniel 12:1). Michael is called "one of the chief princes..." (Daniel 10:13).

Another archangel is referred to in Tobit 12:5, where one called "Raphael" is "one of the holy angels who present the prayers of the saints" to God...

In Revelation 8:2, we find that there are 7 such archangels..
"And I saw the seven angels who stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets..."

These archangels blow the seven trumpets judgments during the tribulation...


Enoch 20:1-8 tells us the names of these archangels:


URIEL, RAPHAEL, RAGUEL, MICHAEL, SARAQAEL,
GABRIEL, PHANUEL.(AKA, WATCHERS)
 
Upvote 0

~GodsMouthpiece~

Senior Member
May 18, 2006
3,234
3,219
✟30,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Unlike Enoch's book which is referred to multiple times by pre-1st-century writers, post-1st-century writers and was kept preserved for millenia in Ehtiopia and later corroborated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know and have been able to understand, the Book of Jasher has nothing similar to a documented trail for its existence.

The Book of Jasher that is in circulation and which seems to be unquestionably accepted by those who do accept it is referred to in Joshua and Samuel and then never again until it shows up in the 1700's.

If one were to accept this book as the same book referred to in the Bible, how would they go about justifying this?

Then, how would one go about justifying the Biblical Jasher as a book inspired by God?

Who accepts Jasher as "inspired"?..Isn't it more of a historical account of the wanderings in the Sinai leading up to the conquest of the promised land?
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
My apologies SC if I sounded like I was attacking to you..I was speaking "generally" and not at you personally.

I think a hierarchy is defined enough in scripture for me, for the word archangel is enough solid ground for such thought.


The word "archangel" is from the Greek "archangelos" meaning "chief angels..." It is a Scriptural concept, for I Thessalonian s 4:16 speaks of the "voice of the archangel..." Jude 9 refers to "Michael, the archangel..."

Gabriel is mentioned in the Bible, and he came and appeared as a man a number of times in the Bible... He spoke to Joseph and Mary at the incarnation of Jesus... Daniel also had dealings with Gabriel... (Daniel 9:21, 8:15).

Michael is called "the great prince who standeth for the children of Thy people..." (Daniel 12:1). Michael is called "one of the chief princes..." (Daniel 10:13).

Another archangel is referred to in Tobit 12:5, where one called "Raphael" is "one of the holy angels who present the prayers of the saints" to God...

In Revelation 8:2, we find that there are 7 such archangels..
"And I saw the seven angels who stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets..."

These archangels blow the seven trumpets judgments during the tribulation...


Enoch 20:1-8 tells us the names of these archangels:


URIEL, RAPHAEL, RAGUEL, MICHAEL, SARAQAEL,
GABRIEL, PHANUEL.(AKA, WATCHERS)

Okay, gotcha.

We're on the same page then on those points.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Who accepts Jasher as "inspired"?..Isn't it more of a historical account of the wanderings in the Sinai leading up to the conquest of the promised land?
I know some do.

Your question seems to imply even if its not inspired it could still be accurate. But since it potrays Moses getting the Law through his father-in-law Jethro, I'd say its inspiration needs to be proved or else its accuracy is also questionable.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
<snip>While I find that it is plausible that the book may have been preserved on the ark, or that Noah may have rewritten for the Scribe of Righteousness, serving as his faithful copyist and/or biographer, the ommission in both the MT and LXX of any reference to an Enoch corpus makes me believe that both the oral and the written tradition began around 200 BC.<snip>

I would like to postulate another theory in this regard. What if the Book of Enoch had experieinced other times before the documented one during the last 2,000 years in which it fell into relative disuse. Not so much disuse as to pass away and that all its copies fell apart, but just enough that it was rarely read and only copied enough to preserve it.

Now suppose further, as the expectation in Messiah grew to fever pitch during the "intertestamental period" (a misnomer, I know), the book came back into attention and active use and research. What would the effect of such a revival of this book have been.

1. Well, there would be a resurgence of copying and multiplied copies of the book would be created so folks could study its contents simultaneously.

2. There would be those who would doubt its provenance and authority and others who would accept it becasue of their desire for Messiah.

3. Add to this the fact the Book of Enoch really has almost nothing to say about either the Old or the New Covenant, then the book could be seen as falling into relative disuse even in some of Israel's best times. As Torah study grew, the Book of Enoch may have seemed to become irrelevant in the eyes of many. Then as the study of the end times grew, it would have again come into prominence just in time for the advent of Jesus.

In this way, you would have a situation in which despite the book ascending in popularity before Christ, you would not have enough time to have anything akin to its being accepted on a par with other O.T. books by all.

Consider this, the BOE seems to have been very popular as evidenced by it being represeted by more copies than any other O.T. book except Isaiah, Psalms and Deuteronomy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and it seems to be alluded to throughout the N.T. (if you know what to look for).

I would suggest, the evidence we are confronted with concening the BOE seems to indicate just this sort of pendulum effect in Enochan studies. So as Chiliasm fell into direpute in the 4th century so did Enoch. As Eschatology has had a pheomenal rise of interest in our day, so too, the BOE is making a kind of comeback these days.
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Who accepts Jasher as "inspired"?..Isn't it more of a historical account of the wanderings in the Sinai leading up to the conquest of the promised land?

I did a commentary on the book of Jasher...
and do not find it 'inspired' as a Bible book is...
but found it to be a history book,
similar to Josephus of the early church period is a
history book..

I use Josephus,
but do not feel he was inspired by God,
but he was reasonably accurate,
moreso than most modern day historians...

Joshua and Samuel trusted the historical record
of Jasher to read and quote that history book,
and both had the books of Moses too...

but they found additional facts of interest
in the historical book of Jasher...

the 'Bible only' people should not read a
newspaper, definitely not read the forums,
blogs, web pages of the internet...

LOL

if anything is far from inspired ...
it is the multitudinous ideas found on the internet...

yet, many come here and attack Jasher's historical
book, and swallow info on the internet....

by the way,
I found much verifiable info in Jasher...
only one fact did I question therein,
and it may have been an addition
put in later,
or... it could be explainable too,
but not enough evidence to be adamant
on either position....

I wish I could say that I have found
only one possibly errant fact in newspapers,
teleision and radio commentators,
and in the forums such as this...

but I can't say that...

yet, many will never read Jasher,
for they might get 'tainted'...

real consistent, huh????
 
Upvote 0

The_Joker

Active Member
Sep 14, 2008
74
13
✟245.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
similar to Josephus of the early church period is a
history book..


Josephus related history as he knew it, unlike that "non-inspired" book which pretends to be Holy writ and history.
Joshua and Samuel trusted the historical record
of Jasher to read and quote that history book,

That they might name the book of Jasher, does not prove the authenticity of every book named Jasher.
the 'Bible only' people should not read a
newspaper, definitely not read the forums,
blogs, web pages of the internet...


The Bible is the only book in this world we should trust. To encourage people that they may look outside of it freely is highly dangerous. The safest place of knowledge is found in those heavenly inspired pages, not in the wilderness of Jasher and Enoch where no one can agree, and where many may be pushing strange and deceitful doctrines. No reference to you, of course, though your Belial and Nimrod stuff lacks substance IMO.

if anything is far from inspired ...
it is the multitudinous ideas found on the internet...

Yea, like in this forum, maybe even in this thread!
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
[/b]

[/b]
Yea, like in this forum, maybe even in this thread!

yup...
in this forum,
you cannot even trust who people say
they are...
sock puppets, some call them,
I sense reason for some 'sock puppets'...

Jasher is a historical book...
it needs tested just as Josephus needs tested...

some say Josephus was added to...
some will say the same of Jasher...

I tested Jasher,
and found it quite trustworthy...
with more evidence of accuracy than Josephus...
and I also trust Josephus...
to the degree to which I found him accurate...

they are historical books,
and were they added to???
that is for study to prove...

some claim the Bible was added to...
and we need to test it too...
I have...
some have not...
I find it to be Scripture..
and those who have not done that
research to agree on Scripture,
I do not think I could ever prove
anything to them on Enoch, Jasher, etc...

I tested and researched Enoch....
and found it to be accurate as Scripture,
found that many still consider it Scripture,
and even if it is not Scripture,
I found that it is proven to agree with Scripture...

others have not done any testing,
and
some do not read the study that I did,
so I understand their 'questions' yet...

that is fine...

they should question...
they should also discuss with those
who have done the research,
if they are going to not do their own research...

some question...
and
do not even present their own name...
and want to hide it...

while they decide who their are,
it is best for them to discuss with those
to whom they can be honest on the subject of who
they are... first...

anyone who is confused on 'who' they are
does not need to get into the deeper
questions of Jasher, Enoch, nephilim,
etc... in my opinion...

sometimes, people hide their identity,
for they would have
apologies, and explanations,
if they did not...
I will await those
before
I will go into deep discussion
with those who need to first make amends
before that deeper kind of discussion goes on...

I really doubt if there will be any
amends attempted...
I do not sense any conviction in some...

so... before attacks become personal against
me...
it is better just to limit discussion
to being with those who are
not bearing ill in their hearts...

private messages can be sent here
in this forum...
and those with personal, spiritual issues,
should discuss there...
and prayer is also a good idea before
certain discussion should be done here...

my commentary on Jasher is
over 600 pages long,
mine on Enoch is over 400...
so,
the research was extensive,
and I can share if some want to discuss...

if there is reason for the 'masks'
private mail can handle any amends
that some may need to make...

if none is done,
then those issues
would hinder any true discussion

I have much work to be doing...
will check back later
to see if discussion is where we are headed
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
[/b]

The Bible is the only book in this world we should trust. To encourage people that they may look outside of it freely is highly dangerous. The safest place of knowledge is found in those heavenly inspired pages, not in the wilderness of Jasher and Enoch where no one can agree, and where many may be pushing strange and deceitful doctrines.

I passed your opinion on to
Jude who started all this with his
quote from Enoch,
and his quote from
'The Testament of Moses'

and I also passed a message
to Joshua and Samuel,
that if they had not mentioned Jasher,
some of us would not have
questioned what book they had been
reading...

some have but one book in their
library, i.e. the Bible...
do not even trust a 'Strong's concordance'...
(by the way, there are mistakes in
it ((Strong's))..)
that is fine...

here, some of us who want
to test what Jude, Joshua, Samuel,
and others were reading
will go on with the discussion...

if I were a vegetarian,
I would find little reason to shop
in a butcher shop...
I am a carnivore, so I do
love to shop in a butcher shop...
LOL

excuse me while I step by
those who came in just to
tell me why I should not eat meat...

lol
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We have a plethora of literature from the period of 2nd temple Judaism which refer to The Book of Enoch. Personally, I find it incredible that a book should exist from before the time of Jude which people knew of and referred to and then Jude comes later and writes a quote which matches that book but is not from that book but from some other source?
I agree there is literature on Enoch from that period as well as much other apocalyptic literature. I'm just not sure Jude was quoting from 1 Enoch even though the text is close or the same. I think he may have been quoting Jesus, as may have been those writing in Qumran as they added to their corpus of Enoch by appending a first chapter to a scroll they already had. While that possibility may seem like a dodge against Enoch's canonicity, actually it is a solution to the problem of inerrancy due to notion of Jude's belief that Enoch actually wrote the book. Your explanations don't satisfy my discomfort with the notable absence of reference to Enoch (the book of) in all Jewish literature prior to 200 B.C., which authorship by Enoch of the 7th generation requires.


There is no difference between "the authority of the Jews" and "the authority of the canonical Jewish Scriptures", since the Jewish canon arose from Jewish authority. The canon of the Hebrew scriptures was not solidified until a generation after Christ simultaneous with the time when Judaism introduced its most far-reaching innovations decades after the destruction of the temple.
I do not see the canon as growing from Jewish authority, but from inspiration that was self-evident to the church. The Jews were given divine oracles but not because of any authority they inherantly possess. The authority belongs to the Lord. That is why I am open to the LXX and possible other writings over the Hebrew canon. There is no such thing as Jewish authority - just Jewish inheritance. If the Jews had authority the Talmud would be inspired. It is not.

Further, the canon of the Hebrew scriptures or any canon for that matter, does not ONLY have significance in what it embraces, it also has significance in what it rejects. The Hebrew canon anathematised the Christian scriptures. If one is to have integrity in claiming they accept only the Jewish canon, they of necessity must leave out Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the rest.
That is correct. Again, the Jews have no authority to determine canon. Never did. They were simply a peculiar people God used for his own purposes and will restore at the end of this age in repentance.


I will begrudgingly give you the MT on this point for now, but not the LXX. Is it accurate to say the LXX leaves off reference to the Enochan corpus while embracing its story arc? There are multiple references to the saga of the Nephilim in the Greek Septuagint. I do not have my refences handy, but later tonight I will if you still need them...
I'm not sure what you mean by "story arc" but I get the idea you are saying that there are similar themes but no specific reference to a parallel work. References to the saga of the Nephilim are just as easily references back to Genesis 5 as to any Enoch corpus. The Jews, including those who used the LXX, would have been more familiar with Genesis, as it was part of the Torah, the first and most impressionable part at that, than they would have been to Enoch, particularly if it was relatively hidden, as you say. So my guess is that most of the thematic similarities stem from Genesis, not Enoch.

But then why wouldn't Jude disabuse his readers of the misconcenption they were likely to get that he was quoting the book that was circulating under Enoch's name at that time? If what you're posing is believable he would have needed to say something like, "I know y'all been reading that Enoch book, and I know y'all'r gonna think Ima quoting it now, but I ain't! I got this here quote of Enoch directly from the Lord who met with Enoch in heaven. I say this even though I know that book y'all been reading has the exact same quote in it!"
This is a very good point. I'm tempted to leave it at that but need to point out that IMO stylistically, Jude would not have thrown that in without doubling the length of his letter and it would be a mismatch if he did. As it is he doesn't quote his source, but rather says "Enoch" which infers that the book is not simply acceptable for quoting but actually authored by Enoch. The two possibities are that both Jude and an editor of the book of Enoch quote from Jesus, or Jesus and Jude both quote from the book of Enoch. When people don't provide sources all anyone can do is guess.


That is factually incorrect. Again, when I get home, I will post the DSS fragment designation so you can independently check.
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48645933&postcount=96
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48645933&postcount=96

This link was very helpful as it made subsequent Google searches more useful. I was not able to find it on my own. This adds significantly to the three fragments from Q7 I was able to find and it shows at least two partial copies in cave 4.

4Q201 4QEn^a^ ar (1.1-6, 2.1-5.6, 6.4-8.1, 8.3-9.3, 10.3-4, 10.21-11.1)
4Q202 4QEn^b^ ar (5.9-6.4, 6.7-8.1, 8.2-9.4, 1-.8-12, 14.4-6)
4Q204 4QEn^c^ ar (1.9-5.1, 6.7, 10.13-19, 12.3, 13.6-14.16, 18.8-12,
30.1-32.1, 35 (poss.), 36.1-4, 89.31-36, 104.13-106.2, 106.13-107.2)
4Q205 4QEn^d^ ar (22.13-24.1, 25.7-27.1, 89.11-14, 89.29-31, 89.43-44)
4Q206 4QEn^e^ ar (22.3-7, 28.3-29.2, 31.2-32.3, 32.3-6, 33.3-34.1,
88.3-89.6, 89.7-16, 89.27-30)
4Q207 4QEn^f^ ar (86.1-3)
4Q212 4QEn^g^ ar (91.18-92.2, 92.5-93.4, 93.9-10, 91.11-17, 93.11-94.2)

If you or anyone know of any more cave finds I would like to know about them. I am seeing on the internet "multiple copies." Now I see about two, maybe three. Before I go saying "multiple" I'd like to see a few more, but this certainly helps.

It is in place in all the Ethiopian copies. It is in place in the Aramaic copy found in the DSS as I mentioned above. I cannot speak about other copies.
If the Ethiopian copies are translations from Aramaic or Greek then it follows that the later copies would include the whole of the earlier. What has not been fully addressed is the fact that the Dead Sea community had a continued existence beyond the time of Christ. If all the copies in several countries translate the same, great. But what is most important is the common source text. If that text had a first chapter added to it, even at Qumran, because Jesus quoted directly from Enoch, making that one passage inspired, and that passage was appended to their then current corpus, then all of the subsequent copies would include this in their first chapters. No surprise.

I'll leave the ECF's to you for now. I know Nickelsburg covers that exhaustively in his Enoch commentary. I'll have to revisit that part of his book later tonight. For now I will state his conclusion was the earlier ECFs were more amenable to Enoch, but a gradual disenchantment arose among the ECFs culminating in the book's removal from the corpus of acceptable reading for Christians in the 4th century. Nickelsburg is hardly a "beleiver" in The Book of Enoch, I daresay.
My review of references to Enoch in the ECFs was the best I could do in a short period of time. Barnabas was certainly amenable. Jude seems to have been. Tertullian definitely was. I didn't find this to be the case in any others, which would put the total at less than 10% - not the general acceptance that a "gradual disenchantment" requires. The book is $67.27. Way out of my budget. I've already been proven wrong here. No problem. Like I said, I'm here to learn.

You can miss Enochan references in the ECFs if they refer or allude to the Watcher/Nephilim saga without mentioning Enoch by name though.
True. But again, how do we know that those references aren't to Genesis instead? Why can we not also chalk up thematic similarities to inspiration? Why do we have to assume it is due to familiarity with specific texts from Enoch?

I scanned the article you sent. It reads like medieval scholasticism. I don't have a lot of patience with Medieval scholasticism admittedly. I balk at teachings which seek to show the "27 steps to..." or the "15 discoplines of..." or the "Seven levels of..." A lot of that sort of stuff hits me as very contrived and uniquely Western in orientation.
You and I are similar in that regard. When it comes to angels I have very little to say. I don't know what they are. And I don't know whether to believe what I read. They seem to take the attention off of the Lord and we are warned about angels of light. I did have a very peculiar image show up in a picture of my son's baptism. Things I have seen myself make a difference. For him, and me sometimes, it can be an encouragement to consider this photo. It isn't necessarily a distraction from the Lord but a comforting sign.

Since I did not thoroughly read the article you linked to, I will say this in my opinion... yes, The Book of Enoch is in conflict with that construct. Enoch speaks briefly, in passing about the Seraphim, Cherubim and Ophannim. The Ophannim are the wheels with eyes that support the chariot-throne of God. Citation later...
OK. As far as the opinion goes, it is just a recounting of what is already in the Bible, so I don't think it is wrong. I'm not sure that nine choirs of angels is a limit or what. Doesn't matter. Someone here was asking about hierarchies. I can see adding to the list if there is more to be found, but not taking away from it without good reason. I'm not sure why it is structured from hight to low as it is though. That part seems arbitrary.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
<snip>The safest place of knowledge is found in those heavenly inspired pages, not in the wilderness of Jasher and Enoch where no one can agree, and where many may be pushing strange and deceitful doctrines.<snip>

I sure am glad we can all agree on the true interpretation of the heavenly inspired pages! :p
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
yup...
in this forum,
you cannot even trust who people say
they are...
sock puppets, some call them,

I sense reason for some 'sock puppets'...<snip>
You know what's the problem with vaguely sarcastic comments? They're vague enough that almost any reader might conclude they are directed at them.

Speaking of sock puppets, it was the enigmatic Murjahel who warned me not to go posting my identity in posts because of "wackos" out there.

Btw, when people get indignant and wax sarcastic because another disagrees with them, it does not shine well upon them.​


some question...
and
do not even present their own name...
and want to hide it...


"Murjahel", it was you who told me you do not like to post your name on your threads because in the past you've been attacked by people who searched you out. But now "not posting your name" is a bad thing? Wisdom is justified by her children, I guess.

Bob Burns
San Francisco
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ajax 777

God is the Truth, not an opinion.
Supporter
Jun 6, 2005
16,814
5,677
53
✟117,368.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You know what's the problem with vaguely sarcastic comments? They're vague enough that almost any reader might conclude they are directed at them.

Speaking of sock puppets, it was the enigmatic Murjahel who warned me not to go posting my identity in posts because of "wackos" out there.

Btw, when people get indignant and wax sarcastic because another disagrees with them, it does not shine well upon them.​




"Murjahel", it was you who told me you do not like to post your name on your threads because in the past you've been attacked by people who searched you out. But now "not posting your name" is a bad thing? Wisdom is justified by her children, I guess.

Bob Burns
San Francisco

Summa, I think he was only referring to the practice of posting at a forum under an alter ego account,
wherein an already-established individual (under whichever moniker they have registered when they joined)
deliberately does this to seem to be two different people, presumably so that any appearance of evil
in their actions or words during a particular endeavor and the stigma thereof will not remain with them afterwards.

Some might argue it is dishonest and cowardly...
and it gives the appearance of genuine discussion
not being the intent of the one using the sock.

To wit, I think Murjahel feels like the one who herein is using a "sock"
is doing so because they DELIBERATELY are in the thread to argue,
and have no desire for a greater revelation of the truth,
instead only wanting to engage in personal attacks...

And it certainly seems the case to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If you or anyone know of any more cave finds I would like to know about them. I am seeing on the internet "multiple copies." Now I see about two, maybe three. Before I go saying "multiple" I'd like to see a few more, but this certainly helps.

This is from the directory tree on The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition CD-ROM available from Logos.com:

4Q201 (4QEna ar)4 QEnoch a ar
Col.i (=1 Enoch 1:1-6)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 2:1-5:6; 4Q204 i)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 6:4-8:1; 4Q202 ii; 4Q204 i)
Col.iv (=1 Enoch 8:3-9:3,6-8; 4Q202 iii)
Col.v (=1 Enoch 10:3-4)
Col.vi (=1 Enoch 10:21-11:1)

4Q202 (4QEnb ar)4 QEnoch b ar
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 5:9-6:4+6:7-8:1; 4Q201 iii; 4Q204 ii)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 8:2-9:4; 4Q201 iv)
Col.iv(= 1 Enoch 10:8-12)
Col.vi(= 1 Enoch 14:4-6; 4Q204 vi)

4Q204 (4QEnc ar)4 QEnoch c ar
Col.i (=1 Enoch 1:9-5:1; 4Q201 i)
Col.ii (=1 Enoch 6:7; 4Q201 ii; 4Q202 i)
Col.v (=1 Enoch 10:13-19+12:3)
Col.vi(= 1 Enoch 13:6-14:16; 4Q202 vi)
Col.viii (=1 Enoch 18:8-12)
Col.xii (=1 Enoch 30:1-32:1; 4Q206 3)
Col.xiii (=1 Enoch 35:?)+36:1-4)
Frag.4 (=1 Enoch 89:31-36; 4Q205 2 i)
Frag.5 col .i (=1 Enoch 104:13-106 2)
Frag.5 col .ii (=1 Enoch 106:13-107:2)

4Q205 (4 QEnd ar) 4QEnoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i (=1 Enoch 22:13-24:1)
Frag.1 col. ii(= 1 Enoch 25:7-27:1)
Frag.2 col. i (=1 Enoch 89:11-14; 4Q206 5 i)
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:29 31; 4Q206 5 ii; 4Q204 4)
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:43-44)

4Q206 (4 QEne ar) 4QEnoch e ar
Frag.2 col. ii (=1 Enoch 22:3-7)
Frag.3 (=1 Enoch 28:3-29:2+31 2-32:3; 4Q204 xii)
Frag.4 (=1 Enoch 32:3-6+33:3-34:1)
Frag.5 col. i (=1 Enoch 88:3-89:6)
Frag.5 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:7-16; 4Q205 2 i)
Frag.5 col. ii (=1 Enoch 89:27-30; 4Q205 2 i)

4Q207 (4 QEnf ar)4 QEnoch f ar
Frag.1 (=1 Enoch 86:1-3) [...Again I was]

4Q208 (4 QEnastra ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch a ar
Frag.15

4Q209 (4 QEnastrb ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch b ar
Frag.1
Frag.2
Frag.5
Frag.6
Frag.7 col. ii
Frag.7 col. iii
Frag.23 (cf. 1 Enoch 76:13-77 4)
Frag.25 (cf. 1 Enoch 74:1-2 or 78:9-12 ?)
Frag.26 (cf. 1 Enoch 79:2-5)
Frag.28 (cf. 1 Enoch 82:9-13)

4Q210 (4 QEnastrc ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch c ar
Frag.1 col. ii(cf. 1 Enoch 76:3 10)
Frag.1 col. ii(cf. 1 Enoch 78:6-8)

4Q211 (4 QEnastrd ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i
Frag.1 col. ii
Frag.1 col. iii

4Q211 4 QEnastrd ar)4 QAstronomical Enoch d ar
Frag.1 col. i
Frag.1 col. ii
Frag.1 col. iii

4Q212 4 QEng ar) 4QEnoch g ar
Col .ii (=1 Enoch 91 18-92:2)
Col .iii (=1 Enoch 92:5-93 4)
Col .iv (=1 Enoch 93:9 10+91:11-17)
Col .v (= 1 Enoch 93:11-94 2)

7Q4, 8, 11-14 (7QpapEn gr) 7QEnoch
Frag.1+7Q12+7Q14 (cf. 1 Enoch 103:3-4)

I believe this is everything. But i would not be surprised if there were fragments which have not surfaced.

There are other "Enochan" books on the disk, such as the Book of the Giants and The Genesis apocryphon.

I think your objections are certainly reasonable. The one about us not being sure if we have the book from which Jude quotes is a bit of a stretch though. Just read a bit more from scroll scholars who are not Enoch apologists and I think that objection will disolve, no doubt others will sprout though. ;)

In any case, this objection may go away permanently in our lifetime...

Avi Katzman, in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, on p. 262, reports a complete copy of Enoch in Aramaic has already been found, "Regarding the scrolls, [John] Strugnell claims at least four other scrolls have been found that have not yet come to light: 'I've seen, with my own eyes, two.' One of the two is a complete copy of the book of Enoch. According to Strugnell, Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin is the reason these scrolls have still not come into scholarly hands. After the Six-Day War, Yadin confiscated the famous Temple Scroll from a Bethlehem antiquities dealer known as Kando. Yadin paid Kando $250,000, according to Strugnell (according to Yadin, the sum was $105,000), to encourage anyone else with scroll materials to come forward. But this was not enough, says Strugnell: 'Yadin gave Kando two hundred fifty thousand dollars where we'd offered Kando one million five weeks earlier. When the owners of the manuscripts heard that, they just crossed the Jordan River.' These scrolls, like the Temple Scroll, came from Cave 11 at Qumran, according to Strugnell. The manuscripts are now 'somewhere in Jordan. Various people own them. Several of them have been sold to big bankers. They're investments for these people. There's no point in forcing a sale. If they really need cash—as one seems to now—I have the money.'

"As for the other two scrolls—the ones Strugnell has not seen— '[Lankester] Harding [the director of Jordan's Department of Antiquities] on his death bed told me he'd seen three, only one of which I've seen—so that makes four.'

"Strugnell is not concerned that the scrolls may deteriorate before scholars can look at them: 'They're all being kept very carefully; no one need worry about them. They're a better investment than anything on the Israeli or the New York stock exchanges,' he added."

In this light consider the following from Michael Wise, in A New Translation - The Dead Sead Scrolls, p. 279, "No trace of the Parables of Enoch has been discovered at Qumran, and it is widely considered today to be a composition of the later first century C.E. If a pre-Christian copy of the Parables were ever discovered, it would create a sensation, since it is the only text besides the Christian Gospels that uses the title 'Son of Man' for the heavenly Savior of Israel."

Stated another way, here are the parts of Enoch that are attested to in the DSS:

1:1-6
1:9-5:6
5:9-9:4
9:6-8
10:3-4
10:8-19
10:21-11:1
12:3
13:6-14:16
18:8-12
22:13-24:1
25:7-27:1
28:3-29:2
30:1-32:6
33:3-34:1
35(?)
36:1-4
74:1-2 or 78:9-12?
76:3-77:4
78:6-8
79:2-5
82:9-13
86:1-3
88:3-89:6
89:7-16
89:27-36
89:43-44
91:11-92:2
92:5-93:4
93:9-94:2
103:3-4
104:13-106:2
106:13-107:2


Here is the translation of 1:9 from the scrolls [brackets consist of reconstruction]:

4Q204 (4QEnc ar) 4QEnochc ar Col. i (Enoch 1:9)
Line 15 [when he comes with the myri]ads of [his] holy ones [to carry out the sentence against everyone; and he will destroy all the wicked]
Line 16 [and he will accuse all fl]esh for [all their wicked] deed[s which they have committed by word and by deed]
Line 17 [and for all their] arrogant and wicked [words which wicked sinners have directed against him.]

For me, despite the fragmentary nature of this portion (they're not all as bad as this) of the scroll, I find it persuasive when taken with the rest of the fragments that we are able to corroborate that we have a complete copy of the Book of Enoch in Ethiopic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You know what's the problem with vaguely sarcastic comments? They're vague enough that almost any reader might conclude they are directed at them.

Speaking of sock puppets, it was the enigmatic Murjahel who warned me not to go posting my identity in posts because of "wackos" out there.

Btw, when people get indignant and wax sarcastic because another disagrees with them, it does not shine well upon them.​





"Murjahel", it was you who told me you do not like to post your name on your threads because in the past you've been attacked by people who searched you out. But now "not posting your name" is a bad thing? Wisdom is justified by her children, I guess.

Bob Burns
San Francisco

I do not want to know your name...
'summa scripture is fine for me...
a sock puppet would be if you cam on as another name...
not summa scripture to hide that it was you.....

joker is not just 'joker' but another who posts regularly...
there is reason for the 'hiding' their other identity...

you are not discerning here...
and that is fine...

you will understand down the road...
do not fret....
God will reveal shortly what is happening....

some are worried that I am 'back'...
and they do not want me 'back'...

I am not back... so they can relax....

you can relax too...
 
Upvote 0

murjahel

Senior Veteran
Oct 31, 2005
8,768
1,066
✟29,367.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Summa, I think he was only referring to the practice of posting at a forum under an alter ego account,
wherein an already-established individual (under whichever moniker they have registered when they joined)
deliberately does this to seem to be two different people, presumably so that any appearance of evil
in their actions or words during a particular endeavor and the stigma thereof will not remain with them afterwards.

Some might argue it is dishonest and cowardly...
and it gives the appearance of genuine discussion
not being the intent of the one using the sock.

To wit, I think Murjahel feels like the one who herein is using a "sock"
is doing so because they DELIBERATELY are in the thread to argue,
and have no desire for a greater revelation of the truth,
instead only wanting to engage in personal attacks...

And it certainly seems the case to me.

Ajax... I stopped by
here a few weeks ago,
for you and summa were being
unfairly dismissed in your comments..
I spoke out in defense...
and now some want to debate and attack...

everyone knows what 'sock puppets are,
and I still do not recommend using real
names here...
and have not changed my mind or teaching
on that...

thank you, ajax,
for your defense now for me...
God will be blessing you for your defense...
and eyes will soon be opened as to situations...

I will be going now...
I did not come here for endless argument,
nor to scare some who hoped they had seen the last of me...
LOL
I cannot answer that request for them...
for the Lord has plans and things for me to do....

the good news for them is
the Lord's work for me is not centered
on this forum...
this was just a short visit...

I thank you, Ajax, with your discernent,
herein shown, for your kindness
...
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Summa, I think he was only referring to the practice of posting at a forum under an alter ego account,
wherein an already-established individual (under whichever moniker they have registered when they joined)
deliberately does this to seem to be two different people, presumably so that any appearance of evil
in their actions or words during a particular endeavor and the stigma thereof will not remain with them afterwards.

Some might argue it is dishonest and cowardly...
and it gives the appearance of genuine discussion
not being the intent of the one using the sock.

To wit, I think Murjahel feels like the one who herein is using a "sock"
is doing so because they DELIBERATELY are in the thread to argue,
and have no desire for a greater revelation of the truth,
instead only wanting to engage in personal attacks...

And it certainly seems the case to me.

[withdrawn]
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I agree there is literature on Enoch from that period as well as much other apocalyptic literature. I'm just not sure Jude was quoting from 1 Enoch even though the text is close or the same. I think he may have been quoting Jesus, as may have been those writing in Qumran as they added to their corpus of Enoch by appending a first chapter to a scroll they already had. While that possibility may seem like a dodge against Enoch's canonicity, actually it is a solution to the problem of inerrancy due to notion of Jude's belief that Enoch actually wrote the book. Your explanations don't satisfy my discomfort with the notable absence of reference to Enoch (the book of) in all Jewish literature prior to 200 B.C., which authorship by Enoch of the 7th generation requires.
Even though Genesis 6 references it? ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even though Genesis 6 references it? ;)
No, the other way around. Genesis 6 is referenced by Enoch. There was no Enoch to reference at the time Genesis was written.

But I suppose that's a wink to say that thee possibility exists that Genesis was referencing Enoch and not the other way around.

All that would be fine, but has anyone answered for me why the Jews did not accept Enoch into their canon knowing that it was written by Enoch? This appears to have been Augustine's objection too. They did not ever have any compelling reason to believe it was written by Enoch - that or they absolutely had no knowledge of it because it did not exists until 200 BC.

I'm learning a lot. Please help me meet these objections.
 
Upvote 0