Enoch

[Elias]

1 Enoch:

For Sola Scriptura practitioners: why would Jude quote 1 Enoch when he had so many OT verses about the coming Judgment from which to choose?

If you are going to try to understand certain difficult passages in Jude and 2 Peter, 1 Enoch decides the argument, since it is a source document for these NT epistles.

(Just ask the Ethiopians...)

2 Enoch:

Has echos of the Sermon on the Mount, as well as Daniel/Revelation.

Any thoughts from Protestant brethren on the relationship of these books to the NT?

 

[Singleman]

The usual answer is that God can inspire words, sentences, or parts of a book without inspiring the whole work. Paul quotes pagan writers, for example, but no one assumes that these authors' works were divinely inspired. So, the writings of Enoch can contain true prophetic insight without being on a par with canonical books.

 

[Elias]

The usual answer is that God can inspire words, sentences, or parts of a book without inspiring the whole work. Paul quotes pagan writers, for example, but no one assumes that these authors' works were divinely inspired. So, the writings of Enoch can contain true prophetic insight without being on a par with canonical books.

Yeah, I guess that's the only way to look at it. Have you ever read the Enochs? Pretty fascinating stuff! The Church Fathers were familiar with them, too, and assigned a high degree of authority to them, as well.

I never wondered too much about them until I read them. VERY Christian sounding...Especially 1 Enoch...I can see why they referred to it. I was talking to our Deacon yesterday about the Deuterocanonical books, since he will teach an upcoming SS class about it. He remarked that at one time it was included in the Septuagint, but was taken out somewhere along the line. This is why the Ethiopians consider it canonical - because the Septuagint of the Apostles would have included it. He said that he has yet to find evidence of WHEN it was removed. I would bet that the Jewish authorities became quite uncomfortable with it, since it was from their community that the Enoch literature sprang, and with which the Christian message so easily dovetailed.

Will anyone who has read either one mind sharing their thoughts on the subject? I would be very interested...

Peace!

 

[Peter]

He remarked that at one time it was included in the Septuagint, but was taken out somewhere along the line.

The books were, and are, part of the Septuagint (LXX). They remain as part of the canon of scripture.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, non-christian Jewish leaders held a council at Jamnia. These leaders, rabbis called Masoretes, decided that the scriptures needed to be re-translated back into Hebrew from the Greek LXX. When this work was done, the deuterocanonical books were excluded. These texts, all in Hebrew but post Christ, are called the Masoretic texts.

Please note that this exclusion was the work of those who DID NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

The LXX remained the canonical (OT) books for the church through the NT canonization in the 4th century. Important: no OT texts were removed by the church, the only change was the addition of the 27 NT books.

In the christian west, Jerome translated the LXX into Latin. When the Reformers were looking for a text for their OT translations, they chose the
the Masoretic texts.

This is why there is a difference between the RC/Orthodox/and Protestant Bibles.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Elias]

The books were, and are, part of the Septuagint (LXX). They remain as part of the canon of scripture.

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, non-christian Jewish leaders held a council at Jamnia. These leaders, rabbis called Masoretes, decided that the scriptures needed to be re-translated back into Hebrew from the Greek LXX. When this work was done, the deuterocanonical books were excluded. These texts, all in Hebrew but post Christ, are called the Masoretic texts.

Please note that this exclusion was the work of those who DID NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

The LXX remained the canonical (OT) books for the church through the NT canonization in the 4th century. Important: no OT texts were removed by the church, the only change was the addition of the 27 NT books.

Peace.

Peter

Greetings Peter.

Christ is among us.

I was not aware that we Orthodox consider the Books of Enoch as part of the OT Canon. I was under the impression that the Ethiopians were the only ones to consider them an official part of the Canon. I thought that we considered what are commonly called by Protestants "Apocrypha" as being canonical (with a few "extra" books than the West - such as 3rd & 4th Maccabees)....but not specifically the Enochs. And none of these Deutercanonical works to be read aloud in the Services (though we sing the hymn of Manassah during Holy Week).

In either case, 1st & 2nd Enoch did seem to fall into general disuse by the Church...except, I am assuming, by the Ethiopians.

Any further thoughts?

 

[Philip]

To my knowledge, the Orthodox Church has not spoken concerning the canocity of either Enoch or Jubilees (another book accepted in Ethiopia). The Orthodox are free to read/study them so long as it is done from an Orthodox mindset.

Why did Enoch was into disuse? It may be that all the copies outside of Ethiopia were destroyed during Roman persecution. It may be that the Fathers saw no use for it -- that other texts contained what they needed. I just don't know.

We must also remember that we are not limited to the Protestant binary view of inspiration. In the West, the opinion is often "Either this book is inspired or it is not". This is a false dilemma. We, as Orthodox, must keep in mind relative inspiration. Enoch may be inspired, but to a lesser extent than the Gospel of St John.

 

[Peter]

Sorry for the confusion. The phrase "the books" was a reference to the Deuterocanonical books only, and not to Enoch. My appologies. I should have been more careful.

Peace.

Peter

 

[eschaton]

Hi,

In the April or June issue of Bible Review there is an intresting comparison between Adam's great-great-great-great-grandson Enoch, as found in the books of Enoch, and Jesus.

1. Both were "born of a woman."

2. Both Enoch's and Jesus' careers begin with a vision of heaven.
This vision gives them the divine authority needed for their work and
teaching.

3. A special feature of Enoch's adventures as related in 1 Enoch is
his close relationship with the angels. Jesus, too, is depicted as
having a close relationship with angels.

4. Once Enoch and Jesus receive their divine commissions, they preach
remarkably similar messages

5. Both Enoch and Jesus are presented as wise men, or sages.

6. Both Enoch and Jesus undergo a transfiguration, which makes them
as radiant as heavenly beings.

7. Both Enoch and Jesus are called the "Son of Man," in terminology
borrowed from the Book of Daniel.

8. Both men offer "testaments" to their followers.

9. Finally, both Enoch and Jesus become divine rulers of heaven.

Just thought this was intresting.

Thanks,
Alan