/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

useful

but not binding

>>856182

i'm not a native english speaker, what do you mean with binding?

i googled it and can mean different things in this context

>>856190

'not binding' means the info in those books doesnt have to be taken as truth.

>>856316

I found a decent english translation online:

https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L025N.pdf

>>856316

>Reading through Jubilees now and it's interesting but I don't know yet if it's canon

It's a retelling of the Torah (or narrative parts of the Torah rather), and useful for gleaning what other thoughts were floating around about the Torah in pre-Christian, pre-Rabbinic Judaism, but all in all, it's kind of a private polemic. The author's main goal is to try to convince the usefulness of a new (364 day, lunar based) calendar system revolving around a cycle of Jubilee years. None of this even got adopted by Jews, let alone Christians. It's not scripture.

But like I said, it's still useful for getting extra snippets of Jewish thought.

For example, it implies that Cain and Abel married their sisters (who are mentioned by name as Awan and Azura). It also expands the story of a younger Abraham destroying his father's idols and burning the local temple as the reason for him fleeing Ur. The Quran had something similar, and it shows where they got it from: the book of Jubilees.

The most interesting insight that reverberates to this day is that it said that the Levitical Priesthood would end and a new high priest and kingdom would spring from Judah. It also implies something more or less similar to Post-Millenialism. That this Priesthood and Kingdom of Judah would be gradually realized on earth, not in a huge conquest as some Jews taught, but by influence of the Kingdom of Judah and the gradual ethical transformation of man, where in the end, the Kingdom of God would be realized on earth.

>>856323

I should add that while Jubilees wasn't offered up much for debate on being authoritative, Enoch is a whole other issue since the epistle of Jude apparently quotes it. And writers as early as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (mid to late 100s) quoted it as authoritative. Justin, in particular, angered a Jew for even mentioning it (in his debate with "Trypho the Jew"), as rabbinic Jews by that time apparently thought it was blasphemous to say that angels had sinned (which kind of shows how different even rabbinic Jews were from the likes of old Judaism that wrote Enoch, or places like the Qumran community. None of these old communities ever put angels on a pedestal of absolute holiness like this Trypho guy did). I only mention this as a warning to never listen to rabbis (not that most here would anyways). They're not even Judaism by ancient standards. They reinvented themselves after the fall of the Temple and bare little resemblance to what came before. They have completely different ideas on worship, the Angel of the Lord, the Memra/Logos as another theophany of the Lord, completely different angelology or demonology, complete ignorance of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, and deliberately ignore the title "Son of Man" which was constantly used as a Messianic title in both the Bible and apocryphal texts. I think Messianic Jews especially need to know how wrong rabbinic teachings are, as they are the ones most inclined to glean a little "wisdom" here and there from talmudic and medieval rabbinic writings. This is a huge mistake. I appreciate that many Jews have come to know Jesus, but mingling post-temple rabbinic Judaism with Christianity is way off. They need to go further back if they're trying to find a purer strain of Judaism.

That aside, back to the Church: Irenaeus and Justin are almost as early as it gets as far as patristic writers go, and were only a couple generations remove from the apostles (both were students of Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John himself), so it's a strange thing that by Augustine and Ephraim's time, they disregarded Enoch and started offering an alternate teaching on Genesis 6 where the "sons of God" were merely the line of Seth, while the "daughters of men" were from the lineage of Cain (but they still somehow maintained that this mingling of Cain and Seth magically produced giants. They never explain how mere men could produce giants and it makes little sense). And it isn't because they weren't familiar with Enoch. They simply ignored it. Ambrose, who was Augustine's own teacher, taught that they were fallen angels. So obviously Augustine heard of it. But Augustine's view won out, and the "Seth/Cain" interpretation is what we see in many commentaries well into the modern era, from both Catholics and Protestants alike. But I think even implicitly using Genesis 6 and not even mentioning Enoch will show that there was something far more cataclysmic going on than mere race mixing. That isn't going to cause a deluge or make God so grieved that it says he "regretted" even creating the world.

>>856337

>If Enoch were hypothetically found

I understand the concerns that you opened up with. For the most part, I tend to suggest people only get acquainted with apocryphal writings merely to get a background view of the Jewish world. To give it "color", if you will, and understand what was in the air. But it's not required. The scriptures can also be understood without any of this. It's just useful, that's all.

That said, Enoch was found. Multiple copies have been found at Qumran at caves 4, 7, and 11. This predates Christianity. More interestingly, it was found in Aramaic fragments, which was a previously unknown form (older versions that the world knew of were from Ethiopic and Coptic). And based on it's own language, to me it seems to be more of a post Exile work. It doesn't really have an "awareness" of later streams of Jewish life like Christianity or Rabbinicism or even groups before those like Maccabean/Hellenic culture from Alexander's era (which the book of Maccabees was concerned with). Usually with these forgeries, there are giveaways in the form of polemics against specific groups and concerns and using old biblical figures to refute them. Whoever Enoch was, it doesn't engage any later groups that way. To me, it's "polemics" seem to be against Babylon itself, which is why I say it could be a post-Exile work (at least parts of it could be. I'll get back to this). And it was old enough to have already been preserved among the Qumran community multiple times. Only the most compelling writings went through multiple translations and multiple scriptoriums.

Also, if it helps, it seems to be a collection of works, that were compiled together, and not necessarily written by one single author. Perhaps some of it is worthy of reading and some of it is bunk, and therefore, what Jude quoted (which is the opening chapter) is about the only thing that one could truly approve of.

As for whether any of it is based on the real Enoch's words, I could see that the broad strokes could be part of an older oral tradition, but we can never know that. But either way, I still think it's important. I'll tell you why.

To get back to what I said earlier about the Exile: The main polemic, if you will, is against the pagan world of Babylon and their myths surrounding divine figures in the creation of the world and in dispensing knowledge to humans. Whoever wrote it knew of the Babylonian myths, and refutes them by saying those people were actually serving fallen angels. I think it must have been pretty early after the Exile period if a Jew had Babylonian myths on their mind to this extent, to even want to actively refute it. Perhaps he used Gen 6 and some oral tradition as his springboard, and then got a little… creative.

To use a solidly canonical example of what I mean by internal polemics, scholars of the 19th and early 20th century used to smugly relegate the book of Daniel to the 200s or even 100s BC. Mostly because they were degenerates who didn't believe the prophecies that Daniel mentioned of coming empires (of Greece and Rome). This has all been thrown in the garbage however, since copies of Daniel were at Qumran too, and they date well before these later dates that scholars used to ascribe to it. And implicitly speaking, like I said with Enoch, the writer of Daniel has a bone to pick with Babylon. It's own internal evidence gives away that it's from that era. He doesn't directly engage Alexander the Great or Caesar, even if he prophesied of their empires. He doesn't know anything specific about them. He engages Babylon.

This is the kind of argument I'm suggesting for Enoch, but perhaps from a post-Exile viewpoint, when Babylonian influences had already seeped into Jewish life (for example, Jews, even to this day, borrow the calendar system from Babylon after the Exile. And some dabbled with astrology. Among other things).

And this is where it gets more interesting. Babylon isn't simply Babylon. Babylon is the child and successor to Sumer. From there, all myths arise. From there, Hittites and Egyptians and even Indians borrowed gods. From Hittites and Egyptians, Greeks and other Europeans. All roads don't lead to Rome. All roads lead to Sumer. Abraham himself, of course, was from ancient Sumer. But unlike others, he smashed idols and followed a mysterious revelation of the true God's voice, and created a breakaway civilization. The one man to buck the system. And whoever the writer of Enoch was, I think he has to be appreciated at least for this: he remembers the role his people played. He remembers Abraham. And the themes of Enoch end up having wider application than simply post-exile Judaism. Because Sumer and the opposing myths to the one true God affects everyone.

>>856341

>That said, Enoch was found. Multiple copies have been found at Qumran at caves 4, 7, and 11.

If you trust that. I personally happen to place more trust in God than anything, and for me, my faith is not based on what somebody claims to have found in modern Israel. And I know many others who are the same on this.

>This predates Christianity.

Does it predate Genesis 3:15? Seems unlikely.

>More interestingly, it was found in Aramaic fragments,

So were they copies or fragments, anon? You said multiple copies at first, but many of these findings actually seem to be just fragments of something that may have later influenced what we have today. I'm not saying not to be interested in scientific inquiry, but I also do not need to base my faith on the idea that God somehow allowed his word to be lost until 1947 or whenever they found this stuff.

There also happens to be an excellent scroll of the book of Isaiah that is very close to the source text we use in our received Bible translations today (specifically, the "Bomberg 1525 text" of the Hebrew and Old Syriac Old Testament, as typeset by Daniel Bomberg at Venice). So while these are interesting, they do not bear any weight on the truth, God's word, which the church believes continually. These findings do not make me any more certain than I already was that what God said is true or about the content of what God said.

>And it was old enough to have already been preserved among the Qumran community multiple times.

What's interesting about Qumran to me is the evidence among the manuscripts there, that whoever was behind the creation of these works, or at least some of them, seems to have been actively contributing to the authorship of an altered text of some parts of the Old Testament. We see this by comparison of some of the different partially-written manuscripts found there that clearly deviate from the originals that we know about, (which they also seem to have had). In particular, I remember reading about how certain of the Qumran manuscripts were being intentionally written, apparently by the Qumran authors, in a deliberately "archaic" style, that was actually technically inaccurate (by comparison to authentically archaic pieces), and was non-characteristic of the era the manuscripts themselves were written in or meant to represent. So it seems like these individuals were in the trade of making altered texts that seemed older than they really were. An interesting trade, if one thinks about it.

>I could see that the broad strokes could be part of an older oral tradition, but we can never know that.

What I find crucial to this discussion is what Paul wrote in Galatians 1:11-12. He said, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

This passage clearly shows the doctrine, that what the apostles preached was written down by "revelation of Jesus Christ," and was therefore given by inspiration (like Paul says in 2 Timothy 3) just as were the words spoken by the prophets (as Peter noted in 2 Peter 1:20-21, also in Titus 1:2-3). For holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This means that we can be assured of the inspiration and factual truthfulness of what everyone wrote in the New Testament, including Jude.

>Perhaps he used Gen 6 and some oral tradition as his springboard, and then got a little… creative.

That could be. What I find insightful is the fact that later Manichaeans took this whole narrative a step further with the so-called "book of Giants," one of the books written by the false prophect Mani. Clearly also this book had a precursor, because it was also found among the Qumran fragments, again, if those findings are genuine. Gnosticism is an error that is very old, and perhaps going back to that time; and it later influenced the Marcionites, Manichaeans and others. We also know from comparative literature that gnostic traditions like this book of Giants - as well as originally Zoroastrian concepts like dualism, purgatory and reincarnation - influenced the later Pharisees who were writing the "Babylonian talmud" in the early middle ages, which has come to haunt us as a false religion today, in the various forms of kabbalism. Thus, not exactly a tradition aligning with the Bible - which is the written word of God - or Christianity in any substantial aspect.

>>856346

>If you trust that. I personally happen to place more trust in God than anything, and for me, my faith is not based on what somebody claims to have found in modern Israel. And I know many others who are the same on this.

If you're just going to treat the Dead Sea Scrolls as a conspiracy, then why even talk to me.. or anyone… about this at all? You acted fairly normal in your first post, but now you're starting off with an extreme stance about the field of archaeology that just kills conversation. Why…? I was hoping I had a brother to talk to, and even disagree with at times (I really don't mind that. I like a healthy debate), but this level of paranoia doesn't go anywhere. We can't even have a decent conversation at step 1. It's simply dead on arrival. And to top it off, you don't even state a clear case why others also should distrust things to the extent that you do. You just want others to embrace this kind of claim arbitrarily. You state that God is the reason that you have this view by saying that you only trust God. But God never told you or me one way or another about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wish he did, but to say you have special revelation here isn't very convincing.

>>856346

>So were they copies or fragments, anon? You said multiple copies at first, but many of these findings actually seem to be just fragments of something that may have later influenced what we have today.

There are fragments, and one cave had a more complete scroll. I already had to slim my post because of word count. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. I apologize for not being more clear.

Anyways, I guess we're done. Good day.

>apocrypha

I consider the KJV Bible with the Deuterocanonical books to be the ideal bible. These books were read by the Church Fathers, included in even protestant bibles until the 19th century, and even today the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Communion has readings from these books.

Ordinariate Catholics recently put out an edition of the KJV with the Protocannon and Deuterocanon in Catholic Order.

>Enoch, Jubelees, ect.

Good to study to get a grasp on what the early church believed and the theology many converts from judaism took with them, but aren't good sources for doctrine (for instance, does Enoch becoming Metatron in 3 Enoch mean that we should believe our spirits will become angels when we die/are translated). It's also noteworthy, and indeed is a point that could be used against the Deuterocanon, that before Luther, Trent and Jerusalem, the books found in bibles could very wildly, especially in the East where the psalms you mentioned and even the Psalms of Solomon could be found appended. The Ethiopian Miaphysite's canon of 100+ books in some instances are a modern day hold over from that.

>>856349

>If you're just going to treat the Dead Sea Scrolls as a conspiracy, then why even talk to me.. or anyone… about this at all?

Very good question. I am only interested in whether or not something is true, not about "conspiracy" or whatever. I have no idea what that's referring to. What I am and what we should actually be interested in is whether or not something is true.

I don't want to go off on a tangent here any more than is necessary to develop the conversation, but people who claim a lot of false things these days seem to think that, just by calling their opponents "conspiracy," it serves as an effective way to voice disagreement, while avoiding any obligation at all of having to prove a claim. It is a way for people to object to something they are confronted with, but are not able to actually say is wrong. So let's not talk about "conspiracy" anymore. That's just not constructive. Let us simply talk about whether the things that were said are accurate or not.

I think everything I said was accurate.

I'd like to see if you had anything of substance to respond with, but maybe you do not. That is perfectly okay with me. I think the above point in my other post makes sense in context to the average reader.

>We can't even have a decent conversation at step 1. It's simply dead on arrival.

If you say so. I raised some pretty salient points about the Qumran discoveries.

>And to top it off, you don't even state a clear case why others also should distrust things to the extent that you do.

Again, if you say it's unclear maybe I did a bad job of contextualizing what I said to you specifically. If so, my bad. Most of my post is above in case anyone wants to read it and see what I had to say about the content of the discoveries.

>I wish he did, but to say you have special revelation here isn't very convincing.

To the extent that we have God's word in the Bible, we have special revelation. To claim anything beyond that, like to know with certainty that certain things happened a certain way, would indeed be to claim a sort of special revelation to oneself, apart from that found in the Scripture. Have a good day, anon.

If they are books like gospel of judas/barnabas

than they are completely false and forged centuries later especially by butthurt mudslimes or other people and are non canon for a reason.