Does Jesus quote 1 Enoch?

SeventyOne said:

Well, Jesus used the word 'scripture'. Jude used the word 'prophecy' and we are told by Peter that all prophecy originates with God. Ignore it. Don't ignore it. It's all up to each of you. Personally, I won't be ignoring scripture because somebody tells me to do so. To each his own, I suppose.

Click to expand...

I agree...

JSRG said:

Oral tradition was very much a thing, and both Jude and the "Book of Enoch" could have been simply drawing on that. There is also the possibility of an earlier written source that both made use of but is no longer available to us, much like "the book of the annals of the kings of Israel" and "the book of the annals of the kings of Judah", which are referred to repeatedly in the Book of Kings as being a more in-depth history of the kings, but are now lost.

Click to expand...

Certainly the book called "1 Enoch" today did not exist in the time of Jesus. It's not even in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin.

HARK! said:

1 Enoch 25

Click to expand...

Those are not "scrolls," they are small fragments, like this (and there were not 25 of them): https://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/enoch.html

Some of the Qumran fragments disagree with the Ethiopian text of 1 Enoch, and parts of the Ethiopian text were clearly composed well after the time of Jesus.

There are no grounds for treating the modern 1 Enoch as Scripture.

DamianWarS said:

his audience were the Sadducees who accepted only the Pentateuch as scripture.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source on that?

The Liturgist said:

Do you have a source on that?

Click to expand...

sadducees - Google Search

Google tells me this right away. But I wasn't referencing a direct source, just from prior knowledge.

DamianWarS said:

sadducees - Google Search

Google tells me this right away. But I wasn't referencing a direct source, just from prior knowledge.

Click to expand...

Umm no, you’ve got it wrong; the Sadducees rejected the oral interpretation of the Torah promulgated by the Pharisees, which after the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and the former province of Judaea after the failed Bar Kochba revolt in 130, began to be compiled into the Mishnah. The Rabinnical Jews inherited the oral traditions of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees, Hellenic Jews, Essenes and Zealots became extinct. The Mishnah itself was then compiled into the Babylonian Talmud (which is considered authoritative by Orthodox Jews at present) and the Jerusalem Talmud, by the Jews living in Seleucia-Cstesiphon and the former province of Judaea respectively, based on the prevailing traditions in their respective countries.

The Karaites arose as a separate faction which rejected the Mishnah and the Talmud, and they are likened to the Sadducees by many historic Rabinnical Jewish figured, but there is no historical connection between the two.

The Sadducees, like the Karaites, did not have a problem with the other books of the Tanakh; rather, they simply regarded the five books of the Torah as the sole extent of the Law, rejecting the oral traditions of the Pharisees regarding the correct interpretation of the Law. They differed from the Karaites in that they did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead.

It should be noted by the way, that it is a common error some Protestants make, which is derived from a misinterpretation of Martin Luther’s Law and Gospel dichotomy* to think of the Old Testament entire as “the Law.” Our Lord Himself distinguishes between the Law and Prophets. So you have in the Tanakh, which we call the Old Testament the Pentateuch, or Torah, and then the books of history like Joshua, Judges, Kingdoms, Samuel, and so on, and then the Psalms, and the Wisdom writing of Solomon (Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ecclessiastes), and then the Prophets. The Jews group five books together, including some of the books of Solomon, Esther, Ruth and Lamentations, in the Megillot, or “Five Scrolls” which are chanted in a distinct way. Then you have the Deuterocanonical books, rejected by the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabinnical Jews, and the Karaites, but not the other Jews of the second temple period. including the Beta Israel - the Ethiopian Jews, or rather, at the time, simply the Ethiopians, as Ethiopia was ruled by Hebraic monarchs of the House of Solomon and was effectively a Jewish state, until it converted to Christianity in the early fourth century. Indeed, the Sadducees accepted some Deuterocanonical works, such as The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), as documented here: Sadducees, Zadokites, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Beta Israel, together with the Pharisees, the Samaritans, the followers of John the Baptist who eventually intermarried with Mesopotamian Gnostics and survive as the Mandaeans, and the Jewish converts to Christianity, who to this day comprise a large portion of the Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, the Palestinian members of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the St. Thomas Christians or Nasranis of Kerala, Malankara and the Malabar Coast, were the only major surviving Hebraic ethnoreligious groups after the Bar Kochba revolt of 130 AD.

The only Hebraic group at the time of our Lord that only accepted the five books of the Law, the Torah or Pentateuch, was the Samaritans, and their version of the Torah is corrupted with interpolations commanding worship at Mount Gerizim. They also at some point produced their own Book of Joshua, but like the Jews, do not regard it as being part of the Law per se.

Now, the Sadducees were themselves named for Zadok the Priest, from whom several were descended; the majority of priests in the Second Temple, and much of the Sanhedrin, was comprised of Sadducees. They were enthusiastic supporters of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduced the reading of the Torah on the Sabbath in synagogues; before Second Temple Judaism, during the Kingdom, the majority of Hebrews only heard the Torah annually during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths, in which the people of Israel assembled in Jerusalem in tabernacles to hear certain parts of the Torah found in the book Deuteronomy read to them by the King.

Given that the Sadducees accepted Sirach, a book rejected by the Pharisees, it seems to me entirely likely that they would accept 1 Enoch, as this book is known to have been part of the scriptures in use by the broader Jewish community during the Second Temple period, and indeed, it has always been used by the Ethiopian Jews and the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christians. And since the Ethiopian Jews still have their priests perform animal sacrifices, it seems entirely possible there is a connection between them and the Sadducees.

* If interpreted in an extremely literal way, Luther’s Law and Gospel model would be a false dichotomy, but its rather more of a concept Luther used to explain the Pauline epistles in preaching the doctrine of Sola Fide, and also before he began teaching Sola Fide, in preaching against a certain crypto-Pelagianism in the Roman Catholic Church which had begun to form after the schism with the Orthodox, and which was subsequently rectified in the internal reforms associated with the Council of Trent, the Counter Reformation and Pope Pius V. Much of what Luther said would indeed be erroneous if taken literally, for example, his remark about sinning boldly.

Radagast said:

Certainly the book called "1 Enoch" today did not exist in the time of Jesus. It's not even in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin.

Click to expand...

That’s not true - the consensus among scholars is that 1 Enoch was composed between 300 and 100 BC. There are Greek, Latin and Aramaic fragments, but the fact that it is extant in its entirety only in Ge’ez is seriously not a valid criticism of it, because a great deal of ancient literature was preserved only in Ge’ez. Indeed, the writings of the Greek philosophers were largely preserved only in Syriac and then were translated into Arabic by Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian monks at the request of Islamic philosophers, and then from Arabic to Latin at the dawn of the Renaissance.

It must be remembered that Ethiopia was a Jewish country at the time of Christ, and for several centuries before, that Ge’ez is a Semitic language similiar to Hebrew and Aramaic, that Ethiopians in Judaea were among the early converts to Christianity, and that the House of Solomon which ruled Ethiopia from the time of Queen Kandake until Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown by the Derg Communists in the 1970s, embraced Judaism as a result of the meeting and affair between Queen Kandake and King Solomon (which is referred to euphemistically in Scripture), and converted along with most of the Ethiopian people to Christianity shortly after Constantine and the royal families and people of Armenia and the city state of Edessa in the early fourth century (making Ethiopia the second Empire, the third Country, and the fourth Monarchy to convert to Christianity; they were followed a few decades later by Georgia, which was evangelized by an Armenian princess, Nino).

A vast amount of Hebraic material survives intact only in the Ge’ez language, because only the Ethiopian Jews were unmolested by the Romans following the Bar Kochba revolt, but the fragments existing in other languages basically authenticate the Ge’ez translations. So its very similiar to Syriac, Coptic, Classical Arabic, Classical Armenian, Classical Georgian, Church Slavonic, Greek, and Latin in that respect (in that a number of texts that would otherwise be lost have been preserved in those languages, largely by monks in different monasteries). These languages, aside from Arabic, are the languages of those nationalities which were the first to convert to Christianity.

The Liturgist said:

That’s not true - the consensus among scholars is that 1 Enoch was composed between 300 and 100 BC.

Click to expand...

Well, SOMETHING was composed during that time. The manuscript evidence doesn't exist to assert that that "something" was identical to the extant Ge’ez document.

In fact, what few Aramaic fragments we have are not entirely consistent with the extant Ge’ez document, so the "something" was clearly NOT identical to it.

The Liturgist said:

Umm no, you’ve got it wrong; the Sadducees rejected the oral interpretation of the Torah promulgated by the Pharisees, which after the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and the former province of Judaea after the failed Bar Kochba revolt in 130, began to be compiled into the Mishnah. The Rabinnical Jews inherited the oral traditions of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees, Hellenic Jews, Essenes and Zealots became extinct. The Mishnah itself was then compiled into the Babylonian Talmud (which is considered authoritative by Orthodox Jews at present) and the Jerusalem Talmud, by the Jews living in Seleucia-Cstesiphon and the former province of Judaea respectively, based on the prevailing traditions in their respective countries.

The Karaites arose as a separate faction which rejected the Mishnah and the Talmud, and they are likened to the Sadducees by many historic Rabinnical Jewish figured, but there is no historical connection between the two.

The Sadducees, like the Karaites, did not have a problem with the other books of the Tanakh; rather, they simply regarded the five books of the Torah as the sole extent of the Law, rejecting the oral traditions of the Pharisees regarding the correct interpretation of the Law. They differed from the Karaites in that they did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead.

It should be noted by the way, that it is a common error some Protestants make, which is derived from a misinterpretation of Martin Luther’s Law and Gospel dichotomy* to think of the Old Testament entire as “the Law.” Our Lord Himself distinguishes between the Law and Prophets. So you have in the Tanakh, which we call the Old Testament the Pentateuch, or Torah, and then the books of history like Joshua, Judges, Kingdoms, Samuel, and so on, and then the Psalms, and the Wisdom writing of Solomon (Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ecclessiastes), and then the Prophets. The Jews group five books together, including some of the books of Solomon, Esther, Ruth and Lamentations, in the Megillot, or “Five Scrolls” which are chanted in a distinct way. Then you have the Deuterocanonical books, rejected by the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabinnical Jews, and the Karaites, but not the other Jews of the second temple period. including the Beta Israel - the Ethiopian Jews, or rather, at the time, simply the Ethiopians, as Ethiopia was ruled by Hebraic monarchs of the House of Solomon and was effectively a Jewish state, until it converted to Christianity in the early fourth century. Indeed, the Sadducees accepted some Deuterocanonical works, such as The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), as documented here: Sadducees, Zadokites, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Beta Israel, together with the Pharisees, the Samaritans, the followers of John the Baptist who eventually intermarried with Mesopotamian Gnostics and survive as the Mandaeans, and the Jewish converts to Christianity, who to this day comprise a large portion of the Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, the Palestinian members of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the St. Thomas Christians or Nasranis of Kerala, Malankara and the Malabar Coast, were the only major surviving Hebraic ethnoreligious groups after the Bar Kochba revolt of 130 AD.

The only Hebraic group at the time of our Lord that only accepted the five books of the Law, the Torah or Pentateuch, was the Samaritans, and their version of the Torah is corrupted with interpolations commanding worship at Mount Gerizim. They also at some point produced their own Book of Joshua, but like the Jews, do not regard it as being part of the Law per se.

Now, the Sadducees were themselves named for Zadok the Priest, from whom several were descended; the majority of priests in the Second Temple, and much of the Sanhedrin, was comprised of Sadducees. They were enthusiastic supporters of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduced the reading of the Torah on the Sabbath in synagogues; before Second Temple Judaism, during the Kingdom, the majority of Hebrews only heard the Torah annually during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths, in which the people of Israel assembled in Jerusalem in tabernacles to hear certain parts of the Torah found in the book Deuteronomy read to them by the King.

Given that the Sadducees accepted Sirach, a book rejected by the Pharisees, it seems to me entirely likely that they would accept 1 Enoch, as this book is known to have been part of the scriptures in use by the broader Jewish community during the Second Temple period, and indeed, it has always been used by the Ethiopian Jews and the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christians. And since the Ethiopian Jews still have their priests perform animal sacrifices, it seems entirely possible there is a connection between them and the Sadducees.

* If interpreted in an extremely literal way, Luther’s Law and Gospel model would be a false dichotomy, but its rather more of a concept Luther used to explain the Pauline epistles in preaching the doctrine of Sola Fide, and also before he began teaching Sola Fide, in preaching against a certain crypto-Pelagianism in the Roman Catholic Church which had begun to form after the schism with the Orthodox, and which was subsequently rectified in the internal reforms associated with the Council of Trent, the Counter Reformation and Pope Pius V. Much of what Luther said would indeed be erroneous if taken literally, for example, his remark about sinning boldly.

Click to expand...

What are your sources? They may accept outside the Torah but from what I understand not when it comes to doctrine.

There are far easier verses Jesus could have quoted to establish the resurrection, but he chooses instead to use the Torah in a very creative way. If Christ was free to quote the entire Tanakh why does he choose this unconventional quote from the Torah?

The Liturgist said:

The Rabinnical Jews inherited the oral traditions of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees, Hellenic Jews, Essenes and Zealots became extinct.

Click to expand...

It's no. Modern Judaism was revived not before like 250 AD or so. There's almost no way for the self-proclaimed rabbis to keep anything orally from the authenticated Pharisees who went extinct right after AD 70. All sects are basically gone after AD70, including the elite Pharisees. Some, such as Josephus, may exist but not necessarily those cored Pharisees who have a seat inside the Great Sanhedrin.

Today's Judaism with all can be referred to as Rabbinical studies, including Talmud itself are much later products long after the disappearing of the 1st century Jewish sects. It is formed by rabbis coming from no where with their authority in doubt. "Delivered from Pharisees" is no more than a self authentication. There is no formal authentication (especially from God) with a large gap of 200 years after AD 70 and before the rabbis can take over.

This can be told by the behavior of today's Judaism. Today's Jews adapt more of a Sadducee stance instead of Pharisaic stance in terms of the concepts of eternal hell, lake of fire, immortal soul and so on. They don't embrace such concepts to a similar extent as the Pharisees did. Those concepts are fundamental to the Pharisees. The softness reflects a huge difference between the Pharisees and those rabbis revived Judaism in the 4th century and after.

The Liturgist said:

Umm no, you’ve got it wrong; the Sadducees rejected the oral interpretation of the Torah promulgated by the Pharisees, which after the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem and the former province of Judaea after the failed Bar Kochba revolt in 130, began to be compiled into the Mishnah. The Rabinnical Jews inherited the oral traditions of the Pharisees, while the Sadducees, Hellenic Jews, Essenes and Zealots became extinct. The Mishnah itself was then compiled into the Babylonian Talmud (which is considered authoritative by Orthodox Jews at present) and the Jerusalem Talmud, by the Jews living in Seleucia-Cstesiphon and the former province of Judaea respectively, based on the prevailing traditions in their respective countries.

The Karaites arose as a separate faction which rejected the Mishnah and the Talmud, and they are likened to the Sadducees by many historic Rabinnical Jewish figured, but there is no historical connection between the two.

The Sadducees, like the Karaites, did not have a problem with the other books of the Tanakh; rather, they simply regarded the five books of the Torah as the sole extent of the Law, rejecting the oral traditions of the Pharisees regarding the correct interpretation of the Law. They differed from the Karaites in that they did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead.

It should be noted by the way, that it is a common error some Protestants make, which is derived from a misinterpretation of Martin Luther’s Law and Gospel dichotomy* to think of the Old Testament entire as “the Law.” Our Lord Himself distinguishes between the Law and Prophets. So you have in the Tanakh, which we call the Old Testament the Pentateuch, or Torah, and then the books of history like Joshua, Judges, Kingdoms, Samuel, and so on, and then the Psalms, and the Wisdom writing of Solomon (Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Ecclessiastes), and then the Prophets. The Jews group five books together, including some of the books of Solomon, Esther, Ruth and Lamentations, in the Megillot, or “Five Scrolls” which are chanted in a distinct way. Then you have the Deuterocanonical books, rejected by the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabinnical Jews, and the Karaites, but not the other Jews of the second temple period. including the Beta Israel - the Ethiopian Jews, or rather, at the time, simply the Ethiopians, as Ethiopia was ruled by Hebraic monarchs of the House of Solomon and was effectively a Jewish state, until it converted to Christianity in the early fourth century. Indeed, the Sadducees accepted some Deuterocanonical works, such as The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), as documented here: Sadducees, Zadokites, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira

The Beta Israel, together with the Pharisees, the Samaritans, the followers of John the Baptist who eventually intermarried with Mesopotamian Gnostics and survive as the Mandaeans, and the Jewish converts to Christianity, who to this day comprise a large portion of the Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, the Palestinian members of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the St. Thomas Christians or Nasranis of Kerala, Malankara and the Malabar Coast, were the only major surviving Hebraic ethnoreligious groups after the Bar Kochba revolt of 130 AD.

The only Hebraic group at the time of our Lord that only accepted the five books of the Law, the Torah or Pentateuch, was the Samaritans, and their version of the Torah is corrupted with interpolations commanding worship at Mount Gerizim. They also at some point produced their own Book of Joshua, but like the Jews, do not regard it as being part of the Law per se.

Now, the Sadducees were themselves named for Zadok the Priest, from whom several were descended; the majority of priests in the Second Temple, and much of the Sanhedrin, was comprised of Sadducees. They were enthusiastic supporters of the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, who introduced the reading of the Torah on the Sabbath in synagogues; before Second Temple Judaism, during the Kingdom, the majority of Hebrews only heard the Torah annually during Sukkot, the Festival of Booths, in which the people of Israel assembled in Jerusalem in tabernacles to hear certain parts of the Torah found in the book Deuteronomy read to them by the King.

Given that the Sadducees accepted Sirach, a book rejected by the Pharisees, it seems to me entirely likely that they would accept 1 Enoch, as this book is known to have been part of the scriptures in use by the broader Jewish community during the Second Temple period, and indeed, it has always been used by the Ethiopian Jews and the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christians. And since the Ethiopian Jews still have their priests perform animal sacrifices, it seems entirely possible there is a connection between them and the Sadducees.

* If interpreted in an extremely literal way, Luther’s Law and Gospel model would be a false dichotomy, but its rather more of a concept Luther used to explain the Pauline epistles in preaching the doctrine of Sola Fide, and also before he began teaching Sola Fide, in preaching against a certain crypto-Pelagianism in the Roman Catholic Church which had begun to form after the schism with the Orthodox, and which was subsequently rectified in the internal reforms associated with the Council of Trent, the Counter Reformation and Pope Pius V. Much of what Luther said would indeed be erroneous if taken literally, for example, his remark about sinning boldly.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this insight... good information.

The Liturgist said:

That’s not true - the consensus among scholars is that 1 Enoch was composed between 300 and 100 BC. There are Greek, Latin and Aramaic fragments, but the fact that it is extant in its entirety only in Ge’ez is seriously not a valid criticism of it, because a great deal of ancient literature was preserved only in Ge’ez. Indeed, the writings of the Greek philosophers were largely preserved only in Syriac and then were translated into Arabic by Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian monks at the request of Islamic philosophers, and then from Arabic to Latin at the dawn of the Renaissance.

It must be remembered that Ethiopia was a Jewish country at the time of Christ, and for several centuries before, that Ge’ez is a Semitic language similiar to Hebrew and Aramaic, that Ethiopians in Judaea were among the early converts to Christianity, and that the House of Solomon which ruled Ethiopia from the time of Queen Kandake until Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown by the Derg Communists in the 1970s, embraced Judaism as a result of the meeting and affair between Queen Kandake and King Solomon (which is referred to euphemistically in Scripture), and converted along with most of the Ethiopian people to Christianity shortly after Constantine and the royal families and people of Armenia and the city state of Edessa in the early fourth century (making Ethiopia the second Empire, the third Country, and the fourth Monarchy to convert to Christianity; they were followed a few decades later by Georgia, which was evangelized by an Armenian princess, Nino).

A vast amount of Hebraic material survives intact only in the Ge’ez language, because only the Ethiopian Jews were unmolested by the Romans following the Bar Kochba revolt, but the fragments existing in other languages basically authenticate the Ge’ez translations. So its very similiar to Syriac, Coptic, Classical Arabic, Classical Armenian, Classical Georgian, Church Slavonic, Greek, and Latin in that respect (in that a number of texts that would otherwise be lost have been preserved in those languages, largely by monks in different monasteries). These languages, aside from Arabic, are the languages of those nationalities which were the first to convert to Christianity.

Click to expand...

Thanks again for you input... nice post

Hawkins said:

It's no. Modern Judaism was revived not before like 250 AD or so. There's almost no way for the self-proclaimed rabbis to keep anything orally from the authenticated Pharisees who went extinct right after AD 70. All sects are basically gone after AD70, including the elite Pharisees. Some, such as Josephus, may exist but not necessarily those cored Pharisees who have a seat inside the Great Sanhedrin.

Today's Judaism with all can be referred to as Rabbinical studies, including Talmud itself are much later products long after the disappearing of the 1st century Jewish sects. It is formed by rabbis coming from no where with their authority in doubt. "Delivered from Pharisees" is no more than a self authentication. There is no formal authentication (especially from God) with a large gap of 200 years after AD 70 and before the rabbis can take over.

This can be told by the behavior of today's Judaism. Today's Jews adapt more of a Sadducee stance instead of Pharisaic stance in terms of the concepts of eternal hell, lake of fire, immortal soul and so on. They don't embrace such concepts to a similar extent as the Pharisees did. Those concepts are fundamental to the Pharisees. The softness reflects a huge difference between the Pharisees and those rabbis revived Judaism in the 4th century and after.

Click to expand...

This is completely wrong, except with regards to Reform Jews, whose theology is not greatly different from Unitarian Universalism, albeit with a nominal Judaic component and some interest in the Kabalah.

Orthodox Rabinnical Jews absolutely believe in Gehenna (Hell, as referred to by the Jews and many Patristic Christians), a lake of fire, and the Resurrection. One of the best articles on the Orthodox Rabinnical Jewish conception of Gehenna is found in the superb 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I would also note that the Mount of Olives is now a crowded cemetary, filled with the graves of pious Charedi and Chassidic Orthodox Rabinnical Jews who, when the general resurrection happens, want to be as close as possible to the Temple Mount, where the Third Temple will happen.

Also, the Sadducees did not lack a belief in the immortality of the soul per se; rather, they did not believe in the resurrection, instead believing the souls of the deceased would wind up in the forlorn abode of Sheol, which is something vaguely like the Greek concept of Hades.

You really ought to brush up on Jewish Eschatology, and a good, recent article on the subject can be found here: Eschatology

DamianWarS said:

What are your sources?

Click to expand...

“Google and prior knowledge.”

They may accept outside the Torah but from what I understand not when it comes to doctrine.

Click to expand...

That is correct as far, but only as far, as the legal interpretation of the Torah is concerned. Eschatological doctrine is not legal doctrine, and therefore the Sadducees could well have used books other than the Torah for it, such as 1 Enoch.

There are far easier verses Jesus could have quoted to establish the resurrection, but he chooses instead to use the Torah in a very creative way. If Christ was free to quote the entire Tanakh why does he choose this unconventional quote from the Torah?

Click to expand...

He is apparently not quoting the Torah but rather 1 Enoch according to the arguments put forward in this thread.

Jermayn said:

I believe the Book of Enoch states that Enoch is the messiah, which would make it far from canon.

Click to expand...

No it does NOT!
ETHIOPIAN Enoch is verified by all the passages in all the portions of Enoch found in the DSS
Canon is man made lists. The lists have changed because of the politics of power played by leaders of churches down through the church age.

yeshuasavedme said:

ETHIOPIAN Enoch is verified by all the passages in all the portions of Enoch found in the DSS

Click to expand...

That is not true.

Radagast said:

That is not true.

Click to expand...

I have 3 different translated copies of the DSS and I have several copies of Enoch translated from the Ethiopian Enoch brought back to England in the late 1700's from Ethiopia. I find them in agreement as to content.

yeshuasavedme said:

I have 3 different translated copies of the DSS and I have several copies of Enoch translated from the Ethiopian Enoch brought back to England in the late 1700's from Ethiopia. I find them in agreement as to content.

Click to expand...

I understand that some of the Cave 4 fragments don't match the Ethiopic text.

Radagast said:

I understand that some of the Cave 4 fragments don't match the Ethiopic text.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "match"?