Book of Enoch

[thereselittleflower]

 

Dear Joe, thank you for that post.

 

In it you said

 

Who decided what went into the Bible? The short answer to that question is no one. Or maybe a better answer is God did. When scholars talk about how a book qualified to be called Scripture, they list five characteristics called the laws of canonicity. But these characteristics are recognized in hindsight; they weren’t developed by a particular group at a particular time in history.

 

How were these 5 characteristics discovered?  And by whom?

 

You also said:

 

In A.D. 144, the church of Rome excommunicated Marcion and continued the sifting process on what was Scripture and what wasn’t. The Montanus controversy pushed the church to ask further questions of their Scriptures.

 

Specifically, was God bringing further revelation? Could that revelation be true if it contradicted things taught by Jesus and the apostles? Could new truth change or add to the basic teachings the church had been feeding on for the past century? The answer was no. From this the church concluded that the canon of Scripture was closed.

 

Where do you find evidence for these statements regarding the type of questions your post alleges in the quote above?

 

Where do you find evidence that the Church concluded the canon was closed in or around AD 144?

 

Where did the guidelines you outline come from and where is that evidenced?

 

You said

 

The inner witness of the Spirit was equally important. A key question these early Christians asked was, When we read this, is there an inner sense from God that what is written is right and true?

 

Where do you find evidence this was the approach of those very early Christians around this time period?

 

~

 

Beloved,

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Taken from The Bible Questions by Hal Seed. Copyright© 2012 by Hal Seed. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com  http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-st

 

~

The rejection of the Apocrypha by Josephus and Philo is not only significant because they both were Jews who knew their own canon but also because they were both familiar with the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament). Philo himself was from Alexandria where the Septuagint originated. Roman Catholic apologists often claim that the Jewish Septuagint contained the Apocrypha, and since the Septuagint was the Bible used by Jesus and the apostles, the Apocrypha should therefore be considered Scripture. But William Webster explains why this reasoning is false:

 

Josephus not only gave the precise number of the canonical books but stated that the Jewish nation recognized these twenty-two alone as canonical. What is important about his testimony is that he used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Thus, even though he used the Greek version, he cited the limited canon of the Hebrews. And as mentioned earlier, Philo also used the Septuagint and did not include the Apocrypha as authoritative canonical Scripture. These cases demonstrate that it does not follow that those who used the Septuagint accepted an expanded canon, in particular, Jesus and the apostles.

 

The listing of the Hebrew Bible at only 22 or 24 books not only tells us that the Jews knew which books belonged in the canon but also that it necessarily excluded the Apocrypha. One reason the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha is because they recognized that an exact succession of their own prophetic line ended around the fourth century B.C. The Apocrypha was written after this point, therefore making it non-canonical. Josephus comments on this as well: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/

 

 

 

So let's examine this.

 

As I gather my information I'll continue to post  But to address the claim Philo rejected the Septuagint:

 

At the time when the Septuagint was gaining favor among the Hellenied Jews, Philo testifies toan already more advanced state of the legend (Life of Moses, 2,26-44).

 

For Philo as for Aristeas, the initiative for the translation did not come from Jewish circles, but from the elite among the Hellenits; and for him this is primary evidence of divine action. But the decisive sign of the inspiration, in his eyes, was the miraculous accord among the translators.  The religions resepct that this translation inspried among connoiseurs prmpts him to speak of them as men inspired of God, that is, His spokesmen.  The institution of an annual celebration to commemorate the tranlsation is a confirmation of the faith and the inspiration of the Greek version that prevailed among the Hellenized Jews of this period.

 

Josephus, the Bible, and History, The Letter of Aristeas and The Septuagint,  edited by Louis H. Feldman, Gåohei Hata pg 109

 

 

Doesn't sound at all like Philo rejected the Septuagint, but rather regarded it as divinely inspired translation.

 

 

 

Regarding Josephus:

 

Using his position at the imperial court as an opportunity to acquaint the cultivated public with the history of his nation - which, after the fall of Jerusalem, was in peril of sinking into oblivion - Josephus composed a work in which he intended to present Judaism in the most favorable light:  the Jewish Antiquities. For this purpose he made use of various collections of selected works all more or less directly concerned with his nation's relations with other peoples.  Here we shall consider that portion of this work in which he had recourse successively to two texts with which he had extensive knowledge:  The Bible and the Letter of Aristeas.

 

We know that after the fall of Jerusalem Josephus received from Titus copies of the "holy books," that is, scrolls of the Torah and the prophetic writings that had been carried off as plunder during the sack of Jerusalem.  Thus he had at his disposal at least these texts in Hebrew.  Throughout the period when these books were serving him as written sources, he gave preference to the Hebrew over the Greek translation, first, by virtue of his familiarity from childhood with the Hebrew text, as is evidenced in his naive boast, "The High Priests and leaders of the city would come constantly to see me and hear my explanation of such and such a law."

 

Furthermore, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were those that every Jew heard most often read aloud, at teh synagogue on the Sabbath.

 

With regard to the remainder of the history of his people, he has recourse more extensively to the Greek Bible, adopting its divisions into twenty-two books, as opposed to the traditional twenty-four of the Hebrew.

 

 

Josephus, the Bible, and History, The Letter of Aristeas and The Septuagint, edited by Louis H. Feldman, Gåohei Hata pg 97

 

Doesn't at all sound like a rejection of the Septuagiint either.

[gdemoss]

You cannot tell someone who believes that they hold the absolute truth something different and expect them to believe it. I too once knew everything but by the grace of God I was given enough pain to become teachable.

My experience was that I could no more see what I was doing in all the envy, debate, deceit and error than could Saul on the road to Damascus.

May the Lord be so kind as to continue to pour out his compassion upon those who like me were led astray by pride and ego that we might join the ranks of men like Saul who is also called Paul and in humility of mind lead the blind to sight.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul refers to Luke as "scripture"  in I Timothy 5:18.   Luke followed and borrowed from Mark and Matthew.   So if Luke was considered Scripture, it follows that Matthew and Mark were considered Scripture as well given that they were the basis of over 1/3 of what is contained in Luke.

 

Peter also referred to Paul's epistles as Scripture in II Peter 3:16.

 

 

I did not say that all 66 books were considered Scripture, but that we see the canon being recognized in the first century.   Obviously, there were epistles that were written after Paul and Peter as they both died around the same time in the late 60s.   The epistles and Gospel of John and the book of Revelation had not been written until nearly  30 years later.

 

The point I am making is that the notion that the canon was decided in the fourth century is simply false.   Even in the NT times, before the canon was even full written, the Gospels and the writings of Paul were already recognized as Scripture.  So that canon of NT was being discovered much earlier than most people are fully aware.

 

There is a very strong early church tradition that a young bishop that served under Paul and assisted him in ministry, is responsible for preserving the letters of Paul that are in our canon today.  That bishop's name was Onesimus and he may have been the Onesimus mentioned in the book of Philemon.

[Sister]

So far not one person here has tested the Book of Enoch.

I have chosen a random chapter and tested it.  This is what I have found.

Don't forget this was written in the old world before the flood, so very old.

 

I want to show how to test something, to try and find fault or merit instead of arguing amongst ourselves.  Look at what's written is all.  If there's one single contradiction, then this book is false.

 

Please note: Some verses are missing, and seem to start in the middle of a sentence, and for some reason I can't make this all uniform.

Words in Red are mine.

You judge, I may of interpreted some things wrong, and need correction.

 

The book of Enoch

Chapter 89

 

 

1.  And on of those four went to that white bull (NOAH) and instructed him in a secret, without his being terrified; he was born a bull and became a man, (NOAH – GOD FEARING) and built for himself a great vessel (THE ARK) and dwelt thereon;

 

2.  ....and three bulls (SHEM, HAM & JAPETH)dwelt with him in that vessel and they were covered in.   And again I raised mine eyes towards heaven and saw a loft roof, with even torrents (FAST STREAM OF WATER) thereon, and those torrents

 

3.  ...flow with much water into an enclosure (EARTH).  And I saw again, and behold fountains were opened on the surface of that great enclosure, and that water began to swell and rise upon the surface,

 

4.  ...and I saw that enclosure till all its surface was covered with water.  And the water, the darkness, and the mist increased upon it; and as I looked at the height of that water, that water had risen above the height of that enclosure, and was streaming over that enclosure, and it stood upon the earth.

 

5.  And all the cattle of that enclosure were gathered together until I Saw how they sank and were

 

6.  ...swallowed up and perished in that water.  (THE FLOOD) But that vessel (THE ARK) floated on the water, while all the oxen and elephants and camels and asses sank to the bottom with all the animals, so that I could no longer see them, and they were not able to escape, (but) perished and sank into the depths.  And again I saw in the vision till those water torrents were removed from that high roof, and the chasms

 

7.....verse missing.....

 

8.  ...of the earth were leveled up and other abysses were opened.  Then the water began to run down into these, till the earth became visible; but that vessel settled on the earth, and the darkness (FLOOD SUBSIDES)

 

9.  ...retired and light appeared.  But that white bull (NOAH) which had become a man came out of that vessel, and the three bulls (SHEM, HAM & JAPHETH) with him, and one of those three was white like that bull (SHEM), and one of them was red as blood, (JAPETH) and one black: (HAM) and that white bull (NOAH?) departed from them. (DIED)

 

 

10.  And they began to bring forth beasts of the field and birds, so that there arose different genera; lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, hyenas, wild boars foxes, squirrels, swine, falcons, vultures, kites, eagles, and ravens; and among them was born a white bull (Abraham)  And they began to bite one another; but that white bull (Abraham) which was amongst them begat a wild ass (ISHMAEL) and a white bull (ISAAC) with it, and

 

11...verse missing....

 

 

 12.   The wild asses multiplied (ISHMAEL’S TRIBE) But that bull ( ISAAC ) which was born from him (ABRAHAM) begat a black wild boar  (ESAU) and a white

 

13.  ...  sheep (JACOB) ; and the former (ISHMAEL) begat many boars, but that sheep (JACOB) begat 12 sheep (12 sons of Jacob)  .  And when those twelve sheep had grown, they gave up one of them (JOSEPH) to the asses (MIDIANITES/ ISHMAEL’S OFFSPRING) , and those asses (ISHMAEL’S OFFSPRING) again gave up that sheep (JOSEPH) to the wolves (EGYPTIANS), and that sheep (JOSEPH) grew up among the wolves (EGYPT) . And the Lord brought the eleven sheep (JOSEPH’S BROTHERS) to live with it and to pasture with it among the wolves (EGYPTIANS): and they multiplied and became many and to pasture with it among the wolves: and they multiplied and became many flocks of sheep.  And the wolves began to fear them, and they oppressed them until they destroyed their little ones, (PHAROAH COMMANDED ALL HEBREW BOYS BORN TO BE THROWN INTO THE RIVER)and they cast their young into a river of much water: but those sheep (ISRAELITES) began to

 

14.  ...verse missing (could be in the above but not marked)

15.  ...verse missing.

 

16.  ...cry aloud on account of their little ones, and to complain unto their Lord.  And a sheep (MOSES) which had been saved from the wolves fled and escaped to the wild asses (MOSES FLED TO MIDIAN -ISHMAEL'S OFFSPRING) - ; and I saw the sheep (HEBREWS) how they lamented and cried, and besought their Lord with all their might, till that Lord of the sheep descended at the voice of the sheep from a lofty abode (HEAVEN), and came to them and pastured them (FED THEM).  And he called that sheep which had escaped the wolves, and spake with it And He called that sheep which had escaped the wolves, and spake with it concerning the wolves that it should

 

17.  ...verse not noted....

 

18.  Admonish them (EGYPTIANS) not to touch the sheep (HEBREWS).  And the sheep went to the wolves according to the Word of the Lord, and another sheep (AARON?) met it and went with it, and the two (MOSES AND AARON) went and entered together into the assembly of those wolves (EGYPTIANS), and spake with them and admonished them not to touch the

 

19.  ...sheep (HEBREWS) from henceforth.  And thereupon I saw the wolves, and how they oppressed the sheep

 

20.  ...exceedingly with all their power; and the sheep cried aloud.  And the Lord came to the sheep and they began to smite those wolves (PLAGUES): and the wolves began to make lamentation; but the sheep became

 

21.  ...quiet and forthwith ceased to cry out (THEY SAW GOD'S POWER).  And I saw the sheep till they departed from amongst the wolves (LET OUT OF EGYPT); but the eyes of the wolves were blinded, and those wolves departed in pursuit of the sheep.(EGYPTIAN ARMY WENT AFTER THEM)

 

22.  ...with all their power.  And the Lord of the sheep went with them, as their leader, and all His sheep

 

23.  ...followed Him: and his face was dazzling and glorious and terrible to behold. (NO MAN CAN SEE GOD'S FACE AND LIVE)  But the wolves

 

24.  ..began to pursue those sheep till they reached a sea of water (RED SEA).  And that sea (RED SEA) was divided, and the water stood on this side and on that before their face, and their Lord led them and placed Himself between

 

25.  ..them and the wolves (GOD BECAME THE HEBREWS SHIELD).  And as those wolves did not yet see the sheep, they proceeded into the midst of that sea, and the wolves followed the sheep, and (those wolves) ran after them into that sea.

 

26.  And when they (EGYPTIANS) saw the Lord of the sheep (SAW HE WAS STOPPING THEM), they turned to flee before His face, but that sea gathered itself together, and became as it had been created, and the water swelled and rose till it covered

 

27.  ..those wolves (CLOSED IN AND DROWNED THEM) .  And I saw till all the wolves who pursued those sheep perished and were drowned.

 

28.  But the sheep escaped from that water and went forth into a wilderness (DESERT), where there was no water and no grass; and they began to open their eyes and to see; and I saw the Lord of the sheep

 

29.  ..pasturing them and giving them water and grass, and that sheep going and leading them.  And that

 

30.  ..sheep ascended to the summit of that lofty rock (MOUNT SINAI), and the Lord of the sheep sent it to them.  After that I saw the Lord of the sheep who stood before them, and His appearance was great and

 

31.  ..terrible and majestic, and all those sheep saw him and were afraid before his face.  And they all feared and trembled because of Him, and they cried to that sheep (MOSES) with them (which was amongst

 

32.  ..them):  We are not able to stand before our Lord or to behold Him.  And that sheep (MOSES) which led them again ascended to the summit of that rock, but the sheep began to be blinded and to wander

 

33.  ..from the way which he had showed them,(THEY BUILT A CALF OUT OF GOLD) but that sheep wot not thereof (MOSES WAS NOT THERE TO SEE?).  And the Lord of the sheep was wrathful exceedingly against them, and that sheep discovered it, and went down from the summit of the rock, and came to the sheep, and found the greatest part of them blinded and fallen

 

34.  ..away.  (SAW THE CALF) And when they saw it they feared and trembled at it's presence, and desired to return to their

 

35.  ..folds.  And that sheep (MOSES) took  other sheep (SONS OF LEVI) with it and came to those sheep which had fallen away, and began to slay them (MOSES COMMANDED THE SONS OF LEVI TO SLAY THEM)

 

 

 

We are looking for contradictions and merits.  This is only part of a chapter of a very big book.  Can you imagine carrying this book of Enoch around in one book combined with the accepted books?

We would need a trolley.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Sister
White bull is Shem not Japeth. Shem represents Jews, and Japeth went on to become the European race.

[thereselittleflower]

The books of the bible were not carried around in one big book.   The bible is a collection of books, which may be carried individually or in groups.   They did not have access to the printing press back then and everything was hand written.   This made copies of scripture scarce compared to today.

[Sister]

The books of the bible were not carried around in one big book.   The bible is a collection of books, which may be carried individually or in groups.   They did not have access to the printing press back then and everything was hand written.   This made copies of scripture scarce compared to today.

therese

 

Correct they were not all in one big book,

.....but God planned and decided for his Word to be contained in one book when he sent his word out to the gentiles, so that we can find him easy without running all over the place.

We seek in the NT first, then go to the OT for the history and prophecies, and compare that both books testify of each other and harmonise.

 

The reason why the Book of Enoch is left out of the canon is because God did not want it included in there, simple, it's not man's doing...but God's doing.

....not because it's a false account, but because it would only cause more confusion than what we have today.

 

To put it bluntly, the book of Enoch is only for the mature reader who has been weaned off the milk and given all solids.  Without having all this they could not possibly compare, nor begin to understand. .....but let not anyone call the book false without first testing it, and I suggest learn the holy bible first before even attempting because it's not given to those in nappies still, and those that are will call it false only because they don't understand what he's talking about.

[other one]

 

The books of the bible were not carried around in one big book.   The bible is a collection of books, which may be carried individually or in groups.   They did not have access to the printing press back then and everything was hand written.   This made copies of scripture scarce compared to today.

therese

 

Correct they were not all in one big book,

.....but God planned and decided for his Word to be contained in one book when he sent his word out to the gentiles, so that we can find him easy without running all over the place.

We seek in the NT first, then go to the OT for the history and prophecies, and compare that both books testify of each other and harmonise.

 

The reason why the Book of Enoch is left out of the canon is because God did not want it included in there, simple, it's not man's doing...but God's doing.

....not because it's a false account, but because it would only cause more confusion than what we have today.

 

To put it bluntly, the book of Enoch is only for the mature reader who has been weaned off the milk and given all solids.  Without having all this they could not possibly compare, nor begin to understand. .....but let not anyone call the book false without first testing it, and I suggest learn the holy bible first before even attempting because it's not given to those in nappies still, and those that are will call it false only because they don't understand what he's talking about.

 

finally...   someone who understands.....

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

The books of the bible were not carried around in one big book.   The bible is a collection of books, which may be carried individually or in groups.   They did not have access to the printing press back then and everything was hand written.   This made copies of scripture scarce compared to today.

therese

 

Correct they were not all in one big book,

.....but God planned and decided for his Word to be contained in one book when he sent his word out to the gentiles, so that we can find him easy without running all over the place.

We seek in the NT first, then go to the OT for the history and prophecies, and compare that both books testify of each other and harmonise.

 

The reason why the Book of Enoch is left out of the canon is because God did not want it included in there, simple, it's not man's doing...but God's doing.

....not because it's a false account, but because it would only cause more confusion than what we have today.

 

To put it bluntly, the book of Enoch is only for the mature reader who has been weaned off the milk and given all solids.  Without having all this they could not possibly compare, nor begin to understand. .....but let not anyone call the book false without first testing it, and I suggest learn the holy bible first before even attempting because it's not given to those in nappies still, and those that are will call it false only because they don't understand what he's talking about.

 

finally...   someone who understands.....

 

 

 

I agree with you regarding why the book of Enoch was not included in the canon.

 

I agree it was God's doing.  

 

I also believe God works through human agents, and worked through the men in the ancient Councils who gave us the canon of New Testament scripture.

 

We call it The "Canon" of Scripture -  and I want to bring attention to the word  "CANON."   

 

By calling it the "Canon" of scripture we are assenting to the "Canon" from each of these Councils, for otherwise there is no reason to call it "the canon of scripture."

 

The word "Canon" designates a decision by these councils.    By calling it the "canon," we say their decision was right, and because of their decision we have this canon and know what is New Testament scripture.

 

We cannot divorce the '"canon" (decision) of scripture' from the Councils who gave their "canon"  - their "decision" of what is to be allowed to be read as scripture during the Liturgy.

 

To divorce it would be entirely nonsensical.    

[FresnoJoe]

Doesn't at all sound like a rejection of the Septuagint either.

 

?

 

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalms 119:89

 

If It Is History You Want

Why Reject The Historians

 

Josephus not only gave the precise number of the canonical books but stated that the Jewish nation recognized these twenty-two alone as canonical. What is important about his testimony is that he used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

 

Thus, even though he used the Greek version, he cited the limited canon of the Hebrews.

 

And as mentioned earlier, Philo also used the Septuagint and did not include the Apocrypha as authoritative canonical Scripture.

 

These cases demonstrate that it does not follow that those who used the Septuagint accepted an expanded canon, in particular, Jesus and the apostles.

 

The listing of the Hebrew Bible at only 22 or 24 books not only tells us that the Jews knew which books belonged in the canon but also that it necessarily excluded the Apocrypha.

 

One reason the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha is because they recognized that an exact succession of their own prophetic line ended around the fourth century B.C.

 

The Apocrypha was written after this point, therefore making it non-canonical. Josephus comments on this as well: http://pleaseconvinc...ypha-scripture/

[other one]

 

 

 

The books of the bible were not carried around in one big book.   The bible is a collection of books, which may be carried individually or in groups.   They did not have access to the printing press back then and everything was hand written.   This made copies of scripture scarce compared to today.

therese

 

Correct they were not all in one big book,

.....but God planned and decided for his Word to be contained in one book when he sent his word out to the gentiles, so that we can find him easy without running all over the place.

We seek in the NT first, then go to the OT for the history and prophecies, and compare that both books testify of each other and harmonise.

 

The reason why the Book of Enoch is left out of the canon is because God did not want it included in there, simple, it's not man's doing...but God's doing.

....not because it's a false account, but because it would only cause more confusion than what we have today.

 

To put it bluntly, the book of Enoch is only for the mature reader who has been weaned off the milk and given all solids.  Without having all this they could not possibly compare, nor begin to understand. .....but let not anyone call the book false without first testing it, and I suggest learn the holy bible first before even attempting because it's not given to those in nappies still, and those that are will call it false only because they don't understand what he's talking about.

 

finally...   someone who understands.....

 

 

 

I agree with you regarding why the book of Enoch was not included in the canon.

 

I agree it was God's doing.  

 

I also believe God works through human agents, and worked through the men in the ancient Councils who gave us the canon of New Testament scripture.

 

We call it The "Canon" of Scripture -  and I want to bring attention to the word  "CANON."   

 

By calling it the "Canon" of scripture we are assenting to the "Canon" from each of these Councils, for otherwise there is no reason to call it "the canon of scripture."

 

The word "Canon" designates a decision by these councils.    By calling it the "canon," we say their decision was right, and because of their decision we have this canon and know what is New Testament scripture.

 

We cannot divorce the '"canon" (decision) of scripture' from the Councils who gave their "canon"  - their "decision" of what is to be allowed to be read as scripture during the Liturgy.

 

To divorce it would be entirely nonsensical.    

 

My computer has 7 different translations of what is called the Canon on it and has access through the internet of a dozen or so more.......     and those Bibles don't all say the same things.....    so I personally am not hung up on that "Canon" thing.   We call the canon the inspired word of God, but they don't all say the same thing......   so why do people fight so hard that every word has to be from the lips of God himself to be usable......   if that is our standard, we need to change our reading material concerning the canon....   none of them are valid.  The one time we are told that Jesus himself read Scripture in the synagogue, the text he read followed the LXX (see Luke 4:1619).

 

So, personally, I'm tired of all the canon talk...