Canons exist for one reason only, to limit the number of books accepted as authority to the community. Since the purpose of the canon of the Jews was to exclude the writings of the new Christian movement, in what sense do you accept the canon of the Jews? That's why this claim of us Protestants is sophistry. We're just not being honest.
Hi SS,
While I agree, somewhat, with your understanding of the purpose of establishing a canon, my complaint is in your reasoning as to 'why' there was a canon established for the old covenant writings and, apparently based on why you believe that, when the canon of the old covenant writings was established.
As explained earlier, we apparently don't agree on 'why' God gave unto mankind the Scriptures. The old covenant and the new covenant work hand in hand in revealing to us the whole of God's work. Let's assume for a moment, that your idea is correct. The Jews established the canon of the old covenant sometime in the early centuries after the Messiach arrived. Why would that mean that we shouldn't trust them? Up until the point that they tell us about, is it your position that they may not be true because once Jesus came they wanted to lock out anything about him?
Is it your position that because the Jews made an attempt to close the canon after Jesus came so as to keep him out of their writings, that all the things that had been written prior to his coming then became untrue or untrustworthy? What we have are two canons. One of the old covenant writings of inspired Scripture telling us all that God has done in this realm of His creating from the creation of all things in this realm until three or four hundred years before Jesus came. Another that continues from the point of Jesus coming and carrying through to the end of days and the final judgment of that same God who created all things in the beginning.
They can both be good and correct and trusted by those who love God.
It would seem, based on your having an icon of the book of Enoch as a part of your posts, that your disagreement may rest on you thinking that there are some other writings that you think should have been included in the canon. That's fine and a canon doesn't really mean that such writings are the only writings that apply to a subject, but that they are the generally recognized writings that
do apply to the subject.
I've read a smattering of the book of Enoch and there are some clarifications and some support for things we read in some of the canon of the old covenant. Enoch does give us a somewhat clearer picture of some of the events written of in the old covenant writings, but it doesn't tell us anything particularly new that isn't in the present canon.
I think that one of the reasons that Enoch was never considered to be a part of the old covenant canon is the lack of verification of authorship. Jude does make a reference to the writings of Enoch, but Jude was a new covenant writer who had apparently read the book of Enoch. However, for whatever reason, the Jews decided not to include the writings attributed to Enoch in their canon. But that certainly doesn't mean that christians today can't read and appreciate the book of Enoch as containing the truth of God. Apparently Jude had read the book of Enoch and despite it not being a part of the canon when he read it, he wrote of a truth contained in the writings of Enoch.
So, I would encourage you to read the writings and take to heart what the words say to you. However, this idea that you have of the canon of the old covenant being established after Jesus' coming to keep out what the Jews believed to be spurious writings concerning Jesus, wouldn't even matter as regards the writings of Enoch. Enoch is supposed to have been written by a man the seventh generation from Adam before there ever was a Jewish people. So, he wasn't separated out because he wrote of Jesus any more than Daniel or Isaiah would have been separated out for what they wrote about the coming Messiah.
Here's a quote from a source that discusses the book of Enoch:
There was one passage which particularly impressed him, a passage in which this term "Son of Man" appeared. The writer of this so-called Book of Enoch went on to tell about this Son of Man, describing the work he would do on earth and explaining that this Son of Man, before coming down on this earth to bring salvation to mankind, had walked through the courts of heavenly glory with his Father, the Father of all; and that he had turned his back upon all this grandeur and glory to come down on earth to proclaim salvation to needy mortals.
www.world-destiny.org/jesusboe.htm
This same term of 'Son of Man' is also found in the old covenant canon, so it doesn't seem that the Jews would have disallowed it as a part of the canon based on that. Isaiah wrote of some of the work that he would do that even Jesus quoted when he first arrived, as a man, in the synagogue.
So, I have no problem with anyone reading and accepting the writings of Enoch as truth, but I don't find that such a reason would mean that the established old covenant canon is wrong in any way, or shouldn't be trusted by those whose promise is held in the new covenant.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
