The Protestant Bible is flawed

[an anarchist]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

 

[Lain]

Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.

How does that follow? Firstly, St. Jude may simply be quoting Enoch, and another work is separately quoting him. Secondly, even if he is quoting that work it does not follow that it should be canon, for St. Paul quoted pagan poets and they are not canon. Quoting a work doesn't make it inspired or worthy to be read in the Liturgy. How does it follow that it does?

 

[an anarchist]

How does that follow? Firstly, St. Jude may simply be quoting Enoch, and another work is separately quoting him. Secondly, even if he is quoting that work it does not follow that it should be canon, for St. Paul quoted pagan poets and they are not canon. Quoting a work doesn't make it inspired or worthy to be read in the Liturgy. How does it follow that it does?

Because Jude declares that Enoch prophesied the quotation. The implication being that Enoch 1 is a legitimate prophetic text. Right?
14 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying,

 

[Lain]

Because Jude declares that Enoch prophesied the quotation. The implication being that Enoch 1 is a legitimate prophetic text. Right?
14 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying,

Is not the implication just that it's a true prophecy? Could it not simply be that a false text preserved something true? As far as I know the 1 Enoch we have was interpolated by Israelite heretics who disagreed with the Mosaic Calendar put forward in the Torah (for some reason that seems to have been a common theme, the one Moses wrote seems perfectly fine to me but apparently it was controversial among some), so the whole of it can't be true.

 

[exchemist]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

But hang on, if you don't feel the need to take every bit literally, why is it such a big deal whether one particular obscure book is put in or left out? Surely that is unlikely to affect the key messages the bible conveys, isn't it?

 

[an anarchist]

Is not the implication just that it's a true prophecy? Could it not simply be that a false text preserved something true? As far as I know the 1 Enoch we have was interpolated by Israelite heretics who disagreed with the Mosaic Calendar put forward in the Torah (for some reason that seems to have been a common theme, the one Moses wrote seems perfectly fine to me but apparently it was controversial among some), so the whole of it can't be true.

Well I still feel a literalist interpretation of Jude should relay that 1 Enoch is prophetic. As the verse says Enoch himself said it.
Scholars have theories about the authorship of every single book of the Bible that goes against Catholic and Protestant traditional views of authorship. It just seems like contradictory logic to me to discount 1 Enoch, if you are a Biblical literalist.

 

[an anarchist]

But hang on, if you don't feel the need to take every bit literally, why is it such a big deal whether one particular obscure book is put in or left out? Surely that is unlikely to affect the key messages the bible conveys, isn't it?

That’s the issue I’m having. All my life I have felt the need to take every bit of the Bible literally. Now I’m beginning to reconsider if it’s possible or logical.

 

[exchemist]

That’s the issue I’m having. All my life I have felt the need to take every bit of the Bible literally. Now I’m beginning to reconsider if it’s possible or logical.

Well if you know any science the answer to that should be obvious.

But many of the stories in the OT were seen, at least by some theologians, as allegorical rather than literal, right back in 200AD, e.g. Origen. So the issue is far from a new one - and not intrinsically to do with science.

 

[Lain]

That’s the issue I’m having. All my life I have felt the need to take every bit of the Bible literally. Now I’m beginning to reconsider if it’s possible or logical.

This post on Biblical Literalism I have found helpful (helpful enough to bookmark, a rare feat for any site). I personally have a hard time pinning down what people mean by literal, but this may help you also. It is by a Catholic but many Protestants I've discussed with (mainly Anglicans and Lutherans) share the same views as he does on this, so it isn't just a Catholic thing. The short: I do not think it is possible or logical, and I don't think anyone actually does it even if they claim to.

 

[an anarchist]

This post on Biblical Literalism I have found helpful (helpful enough to bookmark, a rare feat for any site). I personally have a hard time pinning down what people mean by literal, but this may help you also. It is by a Catholic but many Protestants I've discussed with (mainly Anglicans and Lutherans) share the same views as he does on this, so it isn't just a Catholic thing. The short: I do not think it is possible or logical, and I don't think anyone actually does it even if they claim to.

I guess I always figured that it was logical to take the whole Bible literally because I can’t figure out where to draw the line. For example, one might not take the creation story literally, but rather allegorically. This hypothetical person will perhaps take the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus literally, however. Where do you draw the line and decide what’s to be taken literally and what isn’t? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don’t take the story of Jesus literally?

 

[Lain]

I guess I always figured that it was logical to take the whole Bible literally because I can’t figure out where to draw the line. For example, one might not take the creation story literally, but rather allegorically. This hypothetical person will perhaps take the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus literally, however. Where do you draw the line and decide what’s to be taken literally and what isn’t? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don’t take the story of Jesus literally?

One looks at the different texts and judges them as they should be judged according to their genre. My preferred method of this is deferring to and inferring from the Church Fathers who I hold to be divinely inspired. People have various hermeneutics they use to discern how each text should be read, it simply takes longer to study.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

Just because it quotes Enoch doesn't mean Enoch should by canonized. I don't see the problem.

 

[an anarchist]

Just because it quotes Enoch doesn't mean Enoch should by canonized. I don't see the problem.

Then do you admit that Jude is incorrect when he states that the “prophet Enoch, seventh from Adam” himself said that quotation?

 

[F1fan]

That’s the issue I’m having. All my life I have felt the need to take every bit of the Bible literally. Now I’m beginning to reconsider if it’s possible or logical.

From what I observers it is a matter of: take the Bible literally, via my interpretation.

That's the crux. Who is saying what is literal? And how is it being interpreted, and by which fallible people?

 

[exchemist]

One looks at the different texts and judges them as they should be judged according to their genre. My preferred method of this is deferring to and inferring from the Church Fathers who I hold to be divinely inspired. People have various hermeneutics they use to discern how each text should be read, it simply takes longer to study.

Here you put your finger on a key point of difference between the older branches of Christianity, such as Catholic and Orthodox, and the newer Protestant branches that started at the Reformation. The older branches believe that God continues to speak authoritatively through the priesthood, as well as through the words of scripture. So for them, interpretation of the bible has always been a thing and the "correct" interpretations were something that the church supervised and authorised.

At the Reformation, due to the corruption in the church at the time, the Protestants understandably distrusted the priesthood and decided to go back to sola scriptura. However the snag with that is someone still needs to do the job of explaining what scriptura means, because there is no getting away from the need to interpret scripture. Even biblical literalists spend time arguing about what exactly given bits of the bible mean, because some of it just is not obvious, or appears to conflict with itself. In the older churches this is the job of the priesthood and the tradition developed by the theologians. Among the Protestants, inevitably, they come to rely on ministers or pastors to do this. (In those denominations with no church hierarchy, this can be rather a homespun version, so there can be a risk of reinventing the wheel, badly.)

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then do you admit that Jude is incorrect when he states that the “prophet Enoch, seventh from Adam” himself said that quotation?

I was under the impression that there were more than one book of Enoch and it's possible the quote isn't from the one that was preserved. But I wouldn't worry about it either way.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I grew up in Protestant churches that taught Biblical literalism. Churches also teach that the canon of the Bible and the Bible’s present form is perfect, thanks to divine guidance.
Gotquestions is a good reflection of the Protestant sentiment I have encountered in real life, so I’ll use them for an example
How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? | GotQuestions.org
From the link
The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible... Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.
Biblical literalism is a popular teaching in Protestant circles, even if online it is not so much popular.
Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org
Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally.
Well, if you take the Bible with 100% literalness, then you come across the problem. Jude 1:14-15 quotes Enoch 1, claiming that it is the words of the prophet Enoch himself. So, a literal interpretation says that Enoch 1 should be canon in the Bible.
What do Protestants say about this?
What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch... The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch... But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible... It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible.
hmm... I wonder if scholars feel like Moses wrote the Torah? Of course not! Yet...
What is the JEDP Theory? | GotQuestions.org
suddenly scholarship is ridiculous and baseless theory.
I’ve come to possible two conclusions, from my Biblical literalist POV.
1. The canon of the Protestant Bible is incorrect. If 1 Enoch is missing from the canon, then that means there may be other books missing from canon. If books are missing from canon, then doesn’t that mean that some books that are considered canon could possibly not be truly inspired?
2. If the canon is correct, as in the way GOD Himself sees canon, then you cannot take the Bible with 100% literalness.
Either way, I’ve believed in the infallibility of the Protestant Bible for all of my life, and now I’m beginning to question if that’s a reasonable position. Obviously not, right?

Jews do not accept Enoch as canon. Protestants do not accept Enoch as canon. Catholics don't. Eastern Orthodox don't. In fact, the only group that incorporates Enoch is the Orthodox Tehawedo Chruch of Ethiopia, which really has an entirely different defintiion of what canon means.

In short, Enoch is a worthless book, unless you are simply reading it for intellectual curiosity. Sure, Jude quotes from it, but then again, Paul also quotes from Pagan poets. Are you going to include pagan writings in your canon simply because Paul quoted them?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That’s the issue I’m having. All my life I have felt the need to take every bit of the Bible literally. Now I’m beginning to reconsider if it’s possible or logical.

I don’t think anything that is shown to be forgeries should be canon. I also have mixed feelings about how literal to take it because there are multiple genres.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don’t think anything that is shown to be forgeries should be canon. I also have mixed feelings about how literal to take it because there are multiple genres.

We know that a great many books in the Bible are not written by the people we have assumed in the past to have written them -- lots and lots of pseudepigraphal books. It doesn't stop them from being canon.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Xavier Graham SA

I do not think you are alone in your ponderings about scriptures and literality and what form they may have taken historically as opposed to the later versions.

Specifically : Regarding your observation that Enoch was quoted as scripture by the writer of Jude :

I notice that the type of responses to specific religious questions are profoundly affected by the religious persuasion of the person giving the answer. It is, usually, the non-historian religionists to whom the early Judeo-Christian literature is a mystery and disorienting.

1) Enoch was scripture to the New Testament writers who referenced it and quoted from it.
While Enoch is no longer in the western Canon, it is correct that the eastern (Ethiopian) canon still includes an Enoch.
Certainly the New Testament writers were quite familiar with it, else they would not quote themes from Enoch so often if they has not been familiar with it.

Your example from Jude comes from 1 Enoch (of approx. 300 b.c.), and the fact that Jude quotes from the "prophet enoch" does indicate that this text was in the personal Canon of the writer of New Testament Jude (approx 1-2nd century A.D.). The New Testament book quotes from earlier Enoch :
"...Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (jude 1:14 NIV)

The writer of Jude is simply quoting from the earlier Enoch text which reads :
“Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

While this is the most obvious borrowing from Enoth, Lawrence found more than 127 references to Enochian themes in the New Testament.
When one reads the New Testament, we are often reading references to earlier texts, whether we are aware of it or not.
The assumption that these texts have no relationship to the New Testament text is, historically, naïve.

First Enoch (eth E) is an extremely important text historically, since this text influenced so many other important Judeo-Christian texts such as The New Testament itself, Adam and Eve texts, Apoc of Moses, De Montibus, Apoc of Paul, St. Augustines writings, the Sibylline Oracles, Irenaeus’ writings, origen, Clement of Alex. writings, Asc of Isaiah, New Testament Epistle of Barnabas, Testaments of 12 the Patriarchs, etc. Many textual connections and relationships between many, many early texts relate to; come from; or are influenced by Enoch. Ethiopian enoch (eth en) was written between 2nd c. B.C. and 1st c. A.D. (charlesworth).

Charlesworth as an example :

Charlesworth is one of the greatest examples of Jewish pseudoepigraphs (more than 2000 pages of it) but even this represents only the most popular of the early religious literature, and only the Jewish literature, and only that which has been discovered, and only that which has been translated into English.
His 2000 page effort represents a drop in the bucket of early Judeo-Christian literature.


The increasing importance of pseudographia as a genre of literature

Charlesworth and his scholars propose that biblical exegesis is part of the same process involved in forming the pseudepigraphia.
He and other apocryphologists form this view partly because pseudepigraphia predates the Maccabean rebellion and the close intertwining of certain pseudepigrapha with canonical text (e.g. enoch, jubilees, etc.)

As part of this evolving scholars worldview, he points out “the early Jewish pseudepigrapha were fashioned in Early Judaism” and importantly, he clarifies and declares that “The crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was Torah interpretation”. This is an extremely important point since it means these epigraphs are interpretive and they indicate what meanings the Torah held for the Jews that produced them.


For example : Charlesworth himself declared that “the adjective ‘Septuagintal’ must no longer be used only to refer to Greek variants, but may also refer to very early Hebrew traditions that are not reflected in the biblia Hebraica”. This “totally new era in the study of biblical exegesis in Early Judaism” of charlesworths description included pseudepigrapha as the changing scholars opinions of Charlesworth and other epigraphic scholars show.

Contrary to the typical “Sunday school Christian” who usually is unaware of much textual history, apocryphologists are increasingly aware that epigraphs had a great deal more theological import than was known initially.


Thus, Charlesworth began to teach regarding the exegesis / epigraph relationship that “Some pseudepigrapha probably did rival and replace canonical works in some communities, for example in the groups that produced the Books of Enoch (c.f. also 11QTemple and 1QpHab); but the pseudepigrapha should not be portrayed as rivals of canon. They are supporters of it.”

He says that “It is now widely recognized that the Jewish pseudepigrapha that antedate c.135 represent a chapter in early Jewish biblical exegesis.” This is partly because they are in fact closer to the commencement of Jewish exegesis than post-70 jewish rabbinic works.

The vast Genre of early Judeo-Christian writings helps historians understand what the early orthodox looked like. This changes the nature of religious history since certain doctrines used to be seen as “fringe” theology, while theology that existed in large geographical areas, over large spaces of time can tell us much about what was seen as “normative” Judaism or “orthodox Christianity”.

However, many scholars now teach that “The pseudepigrapha were not important only in some groups, but were significant in many groups, and are essential sources for any attempt to portray early Jewish life and theology.” His underlying working premise is that “If we wish to understand the pseudepigraph, we must dismiss any residue left by the once dominant contention that they were insignificant products of Jewish groups on the fringes of a Normative Judaism.”

His logic also underlies his description is that “The Qumran group, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and virtually every group in Early Judaism of which we have any knowledge, thought of themselves as ‘Israelites’.
Each would have described their own peculiar thoughts as the only right belief.
Still, They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as representing a common orthodoxy.”

Many, many other scholars express this view as well.
Regarding Judaism for example, it is increasing suggested that the use of the terms “normative” and “orthodox” are “to be dismissed from scholarly works” and Charlesworth takes McEleney to task for even using this term (in 1973 in McEleneys book on “Orthodoxy” in Judaism).

Charlesworths own description is similar to Morton Smiths observation that “If there was any such thing, then, as an “orthodox Judaism”, it must have been that which is now almost unknown to us, the religion of the average “people of the land”. But the different parts of the country were so different, such gulfs of feeling and practice separated Idumea, Judea, Caesarea, and Galilee, that even on this level there was probably no more agreement between them than between any one of the and a similar area in the Diaspora.”

The vast amount of references to pseudoepigraphic texts are themselves, wonderful evidence that the canon (or personal “canon” of those writers such as New Testament Jude) was not yet closed.

Long ago, Rost noted that the sacred script (inter alia) is used to copy both the Tanach AND many writings NOT in the Tanach (Sirach, Enoch, Jubilees, etc.). He points to the claim that the Holy Spirit continued to be alive in the Qumran community (partly as a indication of their regard for the Torah).

In the very same vein, the Dead Sea scroll literature demonstrated this pattern was present : “The so-called ‘new’ laws and ordinances were considered ancient….The new was an exegesis of the old.”


POST ONE OF TWO