The Uncanonized Books

[Ellen Brown]

In Protestant Circles I don't think the Book of Enoch made the cut in the bible, though I don't know if the Catholics or Mormons accept it? There are just lots of books that were contemporary with the Authors of the Bible. For example, there is one work that describes the Christian version of the day Jesus was Crucified, and there is another that does the Muslim version. So, yes, the Muslims did have a reason for taking the stance they did.

Most people know that the Jews disavow the whole thing, and I don't care.

I may have read the Book of Enoch years ago and don't remember anything so I'll have to do it again.

"They" don't want you reading the books not in the Bible. Hmmmm.

 

[Firemorphic]

The book(s) of Enoch is awesome in it's own way (so are various books from Gnostic sects, although I don't hold objective validity to them), Enoch is far more important then Revelation imo.


(As a non-Jew and non-Christian, I'll sit myself out of theological/doctrinal/metaphysical implications though)

 

[Ellen Brown]

The book(s) of Enoch is awesome in it's own way (so are various books from Gnostic sects, although I don't hold objective validity to them), Enoch is far more important then Revelation imo.


(As a non-Jew and non-Christian, I'll sit myself out of theological/doctrinal/metaphysical implications though)

I seem to be moving into seeing spirituality from the point of view of an Archeologist or a Sociologist perhaps. And it is likely that those who wrote the various documents believed they had value, and were true or had good object lessons. It is not worth trying to dispute their value to me. It gets discouraging trying to deal with the various factions. Muslims will kill you if you say anything bad about Muhammad PBUH. Christians are just plain upsetting to me. Jews? What ???

 

[Firemorphic]

I seem to be moving into seeing spirituality from the point of view of an Archeologist or a Sociologist perhaps. And it is likely that those who wrote the various documents believed they had value, and were true or had good object lessons. It is not worth trying to dispute their value to me.

Put aside culture and look at the object, stick to the path that makes sense to you.

It gets discouraging trying to deal with the various factions.

I've dealt with the same before. Happens to me often but I don't take it personally.

Muslims will kill you if you say anything bad about Muhammad PBUH.

I haven't. (though I'd be dead in the hands of a Wahhabi in minutes cause I wouldn't take their ****)

Christians are just plain upsetting to me. Jews? What ???

Always depends on the "denomination" I think. I'd advise to read the texts, read commentaries and participate in the traditions, don't rely on others to make an impression on you when it's between you and God (or "The One" or "The All" or "Allah" or "Brahman" whatever you wish to call IT). Everything else is distraction if you don't keep yourself grounded.

Peace

 

[PruePhillip]

In Protestant Circles I don't think the Book of Enoch made the cut in the bible, though I don't know if the Catholics or Mormons accept it? There are just lots of books that were contemporary with the Authors of the Bible. For example, there is one work that describes the Christian version of the day Jesus was Crucified, and there is another that does the Muslim version. So, yes, the Muslims did have a reason for taking the stance they did.

Most people know that the Jews disavow the whole thing, and I don't care.

I may have read the Book of Enoch years ago and don't remember anything so I'll have to do it again.

"They" don't want you reading the books not in the Bible. Hmmmm.

"They" are happy for you to read these books.
Some are irrelevant (Maccabees) and some are just plain wrong (Gospel of Thomas)
No conspiracy. Sorry.

 

[Ellen Brown]

"They" are happy for you to read these books.
Some are irrelevant (Maccabees) and some are just plain wrong (Gospel of Thomas)
No conspiracy. Sorry.

Interesting that Thomas is strongly said to have gone to India and started a church but was later murdered. I may have read his book but can't remember.

I did just pop over to Goodle and looked him up. Yes, he did go there and was murdered there.

 

[PruePhillip]

Interesting that Thomas is strongly said to have gone to India and started a church but was later murdered. I may have read his book but can't remember.

I did just pop over to Goodle and looked him up. Yes, he did go there and was murdered there.

I suspect many of these, what I call "martyr narratives", are contrived.
Can't imagine a Jew just happening to appear in India.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, Enoch is not part of the Catholic canon.

 

[Shiranui117]

In Protestant Circles I don't think the Book of Enoch made the cut in the bible, though I don't know if the Catholics or Mormons accept it?

It is accepted as Scripture by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, a Church in the Oriental Orthodox communion.

For example, there is one work that describes the Christian version of the day Jesus was Crucified,

Are you referring to the Gospel of Nicodemus, by any chance?

 

[sooda]

The book(s) of Enoch is awesome in it's own way (so are various books from Gnostic sects, although I don't hold objective validity to them), Enoch is far more important then Revelation imo.


(As a non-Jew and non-Christian, I'll sit myself out of theological/doctrinal/metaphysical implications though)

..The older sections of Enoch (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) of the text are estimated to date from about 300 BCE - 200 BCE, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the 100 BCE.

And it is not accepted by Jews or Christian.

Its NOT prophecy .. Its someone's version of history.

Some think its very bad and mocks religion.

The Book Of Enoch EXPOSED! - Jesus-is-Savior.com
jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm
Don't be fooled friend, the Book of Enoch is occult material that will lead you into the senseless mysticism of pagan religion.

The fact that it's being paraded to the public nowadays on Walt Disney's History Station as a SHOCKING revelation, should be a clear warning sign where this is all headed.

 

[sooda]

No, Enoch is not part of the Catholic canon.

1 Enoch

 

[Firemorphic]

And it is not accepted by Jews or Christian.

Kinda complex when it comes to the Jewish position (despite not being in the Tanakh). It's accepted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christian denominations though, which include it in their canons.

Considering that you take your Bible very lightly, I would hardly find much reason for you to care if it's 'accepted' or not.

Again though, I'm not a Christian or Jew, so there isn't much point telling me if it is or isn't canonical to the Bible or not. However you where slightly incorrect.

Also, why did you like Jesusissavior? that site is a meme, like one that would embarrass any serious Christian.....

 

[sooda]

Kinda complex when it comes to the Jewish position (despite not being in the Tanakh). It's accepted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christian denominations though, which include it in their canons.

Considering that you take your Bible very lightly, I would hardly find much reason for you to care if it's 'accepted' or not.

Again though, I'm not a Christian or Jew, so there isn't much point telling me if it is or isn't canonical to the Bible or not. However you where slightly incorrect.

Also, why did you like Jesusissavior? that site is a meme, like one that would embarrass any serious Christian.....

According to what I have read, they didn't find the book of Enoch until 1838..


Enoch is a problem for Christians who think the book is old (600 BC) and prophecy. Its neither,

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

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 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.

For example, 1 Enoch (of approx. 300 b.c.) was in the personal Canon of the writer of New Testament Jude (approx 1-2nd century A.D.) and in fact his 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.”

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 is one of the greatest examples of Jewish pseudoepigraphs (more than 2000 pages of it) but even this only represents the most popular of the early religious literature, only the Jewish literature, only that which has been discovered, and only that which has been translated into English.


2) The increasing importance of pseudographia as a genre of literature

Charlesworth proposes that biblical exegesis is part of the same process involved in forming the pseudepigraphia. He is converted to this view partly because the pseudepigraph 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 claims “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” that charlesworth 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. 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, Charlesworth and other 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. They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as representing a common orthodoxy.”


Many, many other scholars are starting to be converted to 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 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. They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as representing a common orthodoxy.”

Morton Smiths early observation was: “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, Qumran demonstrated the pattern was present : “The so-called ‘new’ laws and ordinances were considered ancient….The new was an exegesis of the old.”


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

The historical world of religion is changing significantly because of the vast early religious texts. For example, Solomon Zeitlin contended many years ago, that much of the pseudepigrapha were written “in opposition to normative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as destructive.” (in “Jewish apoc Lit, 1974). This is similar to Christians who claimed only the Heretics wrote testimonies and produced early Judeo-Christian literature (since so much of it disagreed with their theology). This was part of the motivation for gathering pseudoepigraphic material by Charles and Charlesworth who created the 1st and 2nd great volumes of Jewish Pseudoepigraphs. That is, the need to demonstrate to non-historians what the historians had long claimed, i.e. that the pseudepigrapha were not anti-canonical works partly by pointing out the “close intertwining of pseudepigraphic and earliest rabbinic thought in pre-70 CE Judaism.”

This changed the nature of worldviews regarding BOTH Christianity AND Judaism. For example, the earliest scholars went through a period when they initially felt that both were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas. The vast literature discovered in the 19th century (and are still being discovered) provides evidence that it was an old myth to believe that there were no foreign influences in “so-called official Judaism”. Much of what was seen as “foreign”, was indeed “jewish” and “old” but critics were simply unaware OF their providence as authentic jewish concepts.

Part of this error was due to the initial tendency for scholars to “emphasize too much the visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha” to the point of systematically neglecting the pseudepigraphical writings.


The changes in the attitudes of scholars feels like the texts are funneling scholarly conclusion in parallel historical directions. It feels like a “silent revolution” is going on surrounding the changing nature of discussions regarding early Judeo-Christian doctrine. MANY great Scholars of early texts are making this shift.

For example, Michael Heiser phD is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software accomplished his PhD (a version is available on line) on the theme of henotheism in early Israel. If you look at the list of scholars Dr. Heiser uses for support of his thesis (many of whom are developing theses along very similar lines and for similar reasons using similar texts…), it is quite long and includes many notable names such as Frank Moore Cross, David Noel Freedman, N. Habel, Nathan McDonald, P. Sanders, Yair Hoffman, J.T.A.M. van Ruiten, in fact, both B. Metzger and H.H. Rowley moved independently toward the idea of “uniqueness” as a designation for a God.

The point is that Enoch, which was in the early Canons is retained in early Judeo Christian literature and was quite popular (it was the ONLY book outside of the Pentateuch and psalms to be found in double digits in the Qumran/Dead Sea Scroll library…). I think part of it’s decline in popularity was the Jewish prohibition of discussion of pre-creation themes. There are other reasons, of course, but this prohibition would have affected MUCH of early Judeo-Christian literature in the same ways as it would have affected enoch since one cannot READ early Judeo-Christian literature without coming face to face with pre-creation history of what was happening before God created the heaven and the earth and what his plan was.


Clear
δρακφυω

 

[sooda]

Kinda complex when it comes to the Jewish position (despite not being in the Tanakh). It's accepted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Christian denominations though, which include it in their canons.

Considering that you take your Bible very lightly, I would hardly find much reason for you to care if it's 'accepted' or not.

Again though, I'm not a Christian or Jew, so there isn't much point telling me if it is or isn't canonical to the Bible or not. However you where slightly incorrect.

Also, why did you like Jesusissavior? that site is a meme, like one that would embarrass any serious Christian.....

Chill out.. I posted that to show that NOT all Christians accept the book of Enoch and have their reasons. In any case the writing dates from 300 BC or slightly later so the claim that it is ancient is just silly.

 

[Firemorphic]

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 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.

This very point itself is something I forgot to mention earlier in the thread. It is indeed absurd for Christians (especially) to pass it off as invalid when it was indeed a very popular text with the NT writers.
All three books of Enoch likewise have importance in Jewish mysticism but aren't as obvious towards Judaism as it is obvious to the NT.

 

[sooda]

This very point itself is something I forgot to mention earlier in the thread. It is indeed absurd for Christians (especially) to pass it off as invalid when it was indeed a very popular text with the NT writers.
All three books of Enoch likewise have importance in Jewish mysticism but aren't as obvious towards Judaism as it is obvious to the NT.

1 Enoch - Early Jewish Writings
www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html

If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century A.D.

The original language of 1 Enoch appears to be Aramaic, except for the Noah traditions, which were probably composed in Hebrew.

 

[Clear]

This very point itself is something I forgot to mention earlier in the thread. It is indeed absurd for Christians (especially) to pass it off as invalid when it was indeed a very popular text with the NT writers. All three books of Enoch likewise have importance in Jewish mysticism but aren't as obvious towards Judaism as it is obvious to the NT.

Hi @Firemorphic


While Jewish Enoch was extremely popular as evidenced by the number of copies found in the Qumran library - (11 copies were found, and, outside the Pentateuch, only psalms was evident in more numbers). However popular Jewish Enoch was in the various early Judaisms and their various canons, later rabbinic Judaism would have eschewed it for various reasons. For example, it would fall prey to the later rabbinic prohibition regarding questions and study surrounding the pre-creation time periods.

Deuteronomy 4:32 in Hebrew Masoretic translation reads : “For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when God created man on the earth and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven:...”

The rabbinic Jews interpreted this scripture as a prohibition of inquiry regarding periods of time BEFORE God created the earth. In Gen Rabba, the rabbis teach the Jews : "IT is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.–(Gen. Rabba 1)

Such prohibitions against inquiring and learning about conditions that existed in heaven before the creation create barriers to learning many, many of the earlier doctrines concerning God; concerning his plan and his motives and conditions that allow mortality to make much more sense.

All orthodox Jews who obeyed this prohibition would have lost knowledge of and had eschewed literature describing these early doctrines. It is no wonder then that the earliest textual traditions that discuss and describe conditions before creation are relatively unknown among later Jews who inherited such prohibitions to knowledge about such themes (as well as among some of the later Christians). It is just such prohibitions to knowledge that reminds me of Jesus’ trying to teach the Jews regarding conditions leading to ignorance of God.


Jesus said : "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:52
This same tradition existed in other Christian traditions : The Gospel of Thomas also refers to this same condemnation of Jewish leaders, saying : “Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to….” THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 39;

Messianic Jews themselves were aware of this systematic problem regarding prohibition of certain areas of knowledge and describe it in almost the same words : “They hold back the drink of knowledge from those that thirst, and for their thirst they give them vinegar to drink, that they might observe their error, behaving madly at their festivals and getting caught in their nets.” Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q Col. 12:10-11

While Sunday School type Christians often view the collection of their modern, western, protestant “canon” as a selection of books based on a scale of “authenticity”, the actual, historical process was much more complicated. All such early literature (including the New Testament) are pseudoepigraphic to the extent that we cannot prove who wrote any of them. It was a bit of a hodge-podge of literature.

Even @sooda s' point is well taken. Initially Jewish Enoch is just that, it is "Jewish", but then as it becomes popular among the christians, they also add their commentary and text to it. Thus it becomes a syncretic document that is used among the early Christians as well.

Since it was part of the early Canon for Christians such as the writer of New Testament Jude, the O.P should say "The Uncanonized books of the MODERN, WESTERN, bible." since many of the pseudoepigraphs were considered scripture by early Christians, even into the middle ages.

In any case, i hope your journeys are good.

Clear
φιτωτωω

 

[The Anointed]

Interesting that Thomas is strongly said to have gone to India and started a church but was later murdered. I may have read his book but can't remember.

I did just pop over to Goodle and looked him up. Yes, he did go there and was murdered there.

It was not uncommon for men of Galilee in those days to carry three names, one in Hebrew, one in Greek, and one in Aramaic. The son of Mark Anthony, ‘Alexander Helios,’ who sired Joseph the biological father of Jesus, would have been seen as a father of renowned. Alpheaus and Cleophas, in Young’ s Analytical Concordance Subject Guide, are said to be one and the same person: From the Subject Guide; “Cleophas, husband of Mary, also called Alpheaus.”

Joseph, the biological father of Jesus, was the son of Alexander Helios/Heli a father of renowned who was murdered by Herod the Great in 13 BC. Cleophas, the Masculine form of Cleopatra, is the Greek, meaning: “Of a renowned father,” and Alpheaus, is the Aramaic of the same meaning: “Of a renowned father.”

Thomas=Tau’ma, the Aramiac for twin, is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for twin, he is Thomas/twin, Didymus/twin, Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, as he was not born of the same womb as Jesus, but shared a common father, and Thomas Jude was the son of the carpenter.

A local tradition of eastern Syria identifies the Apostle Jude with Jude Thomas who was called ‘The Twin’ also known as Thomas (Aramaic), Didymus (Greek), and Jude (Hebrew.)

Knowing that in ART, Thomas Didymus Jude, the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas, is depicted with a, carpenters rule and square. In "The Acts of Thomas, sometimes called by its full name, "The Acts of Judas Thomas," 2nd-3rd century CE, "The Apostles cast lots as to where they should go, and to Thomas, brother to Jesus fell India. Thomas was taken to King Goddophares the ruler of Indo-Pathian Kingdom as an architect and carpenter by Habban.”