The first time we have references to Paul's letters are around 140 not 30.
JWs don’t use the apocryphal, yet source them
by Anony Mous 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Veritas1
It is likely that the Book of Enoch was written in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek, Latin and Ge'ez (an Ethiopian language). Unfortunately it became lost in Europe and it was only known about from the Letter of Jude and scattered references in the writings of the early Church Fathers. It was not until 1773 that a translation in Ge'ez was discovered by a Scottish traveller called James Bruce. For a long time it was thought that it had been written in the second century BC. Then fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and scholars realised it was an earlier document, dating from the third century BC or possibly earlier than that.
There were actually two people named Enoch in the Book of Genesis. One was from the line of Cain (4:17-18) and the other from the line of Seth (5:18-24). Which Enoch was Jude referring to? The seventh in line from Adam (Jude verse 14), which would be the descendant from Seth. This Enoch was the great-grandfather of Noah, his own father was Jared, and he was 65 years old when he became the father of Methuselah, after which he lived for another 300 years (Genesis 5:23). Other patriarchs lived much longer, and Methuselah lived longer than anyone else, and died at the age of 969. The numerical patterns in the ages of the patriarchs has been studied and related to astronomical phenomena, showing their greatness by this link to the cosmos.
I wonder why Enoch had such a comparatively short life? Certainly not because he was a sinner, for Enoch 'walked with God' (Genesis 5:24). And he certainly did not write the Book of Enoch, nor the other two Enochian books among the pseudepigrapha.
Why such interest in the Book of Enoch? It began to impact biblical studies because it shed light on many passages in scripture, both Hebrew and Greek, Old and New Testaments. And yet it is not considered to have been written under divine inspiration.
What does Jude write about Enoch?
'Yes, the seventh one [in line] from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding them, when he said: 'Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads, to execute judgement against all, and to convict all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him' (Jude 14-15).
Jude was reading and quoting from the Book of Enoch, where we read in verse 9 that 'Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied'. Does this not indicate divine inspiration? Is this reference to prophecy not proof of divine inspiration, and does it not suggest the Book of Enoch is the product of divine revelation? Should it not have the status as Scripture? The Ethiopian Orthodox Church counts the Book of Enoch as Scripture. An interesting question.
-
HowTheBibleWasCreated
Enoch is not from the third century BCE. The dead sea scrolls date between 150bce and 70ce. The core of the book assumes the persucution under antiocus iv. Also a chunk of the book of Enoch is either second or third century ce a Christian interpolation.
-
Sea Breeze
Christians usually accept many ancient writings as history books, but not inspired as infallible scripture. But, even as history books, they may contain legitimate prophecies that were given to various people of God.... all the way back to Adam.
From the beginning, Christians used the New Testament as their ONLY guide. Even the OT, while viewed as the word of God with valuable background information, was not in the same class as NT apostolic writings. Why? Simple. Christianity is a single event faith. Jesus rose from the dead. And that supersedes everything else.
Books like Enoch were viewed as history books by the early church leaders and worthy of study, but were generally not viewed as the infallible word of God. - Just a good history book for reference.Here is a brief discussion of the book of Enoch from scholar Ken Johnson that is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaDfq3nEp9Y&t=371s&ab_channel=ProphecyWatchers
-
truth_b_known
From the beginning, Christians used the New Testament as their ONLY guide. Even the OT, while viewed as the word of God with valuable background information, was not in the same class as NT apostolic writings. Why? Simple. Christianity is a single event faith. Jesus rose from the dead. And that supersedes everything else.
The first book that would eventually become the New Testament would be one of the letters Paul wrote to one of the Christian congregations. That puts around 50 CE (1 Thessalonians was written around 51 CE). That's about 18 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Keep in mind that only the intended person/congregation who Paul was writing to had immediate access to Paul's letters. The Gospels were written around 68 - 110 CE. So that's a minimum of 35 years after the death and resurrection.
So we are not at 18 years after Jesus' resurrection that any scripture in the modern Bible was written. It was 35 years after Jesus' resurrection that the Gospels are written. That means for the first 18 years of Christianity only the Old Testament an Apocrypha were available. The "single event faith" that supersedes the Old Testament, written scripture, would simply be oral history - aka "story" or "gossip".
That is interesting as Paul writes Timothy in 2 Timothy chapter and tells him that "all scripture is inspired." The only scripture at that point was the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Paul continues that scripture is useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". No mention of the word-of-mouth story of Jesus by Paul.
It is starting to seem to me that the entire New Testament is nothing more than some letters from Paul which are nothing more than him trying to steer the religion the way he wants it. Then a minimum of 35 years after Jesus' life, ministry, death, and resurrection someone decides it might be useful to write those events down. Paul even writes in 2 Timothy 2:8 "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel..."
So, I guess I agree - the resurrection of Jesus is the single faith event of Christianity. It is just that it not Jesus' Gospel. It is Paul's.
-
Sea Breeze
You are certainly welcome to your view. But it is not in line with modern scholarship which views the resurrection as one of the most well attested to events in history.
The NT contains several ancient creeds that even atheist scholars agree were formed within months, or a couple years at most from the Cross. These "verbal scriptures" served as doctrinal aids, since most people didn't read or write. The creeds and the writings themselves, are all well within the lifetimes of the eye-witnesses, and could have easily challenged them as nonsense or fake by people who were all still alive at the time. That didn't happen.Creed Examples:
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Vindicated in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.I Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
-
truth_b_known
You are certainly welcome to your view. But it is not in line with modern scholarship which views the resurrection as one of the most well attested to events in history.
There is no evidence of a historical resurrection of Jesus. Who are "modern scholars"? Dr. Francesca Stavrakapoulou is a modern Bible scholar at the University of Exeter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aUYUK9WXiA
I have looked into the Gary Habermas "Minimal Facts Approach" for attempting to prove the historical resurrection of Jesus. After examining it and cross examining it I found it to be a fine example of Apologetics - it sounds reasonable, but there is still no evidence. It is just logical argument.
I also like this guy's informative statement of "Biblical scholars -
As for modern biblical scholars, that term encompasses several disciplines, including theology, archaeology, history, paleography, and literature. It is probably safe to say that most, but certainly not all, theologians believe that the resurrection actually occurred. I believe that is a safe bet because the largest Christian denominations typically require their clergy to hold an advanced degree in theology or some related discipline.
Outside of the theologians, many of which are Christian clergy, it is virtually impossible to speculate on the percentage of biblical scholars who believe in the resurrection, because they are forbidden by their respective disciplines from publishing their personal religious beliefs in academic publications. When it comes to history, scholars are explicitly required to assume in all academic works that there is no such thing as a miracle. It doesn't matter whether a historian personally believes that the resurrection occurred, they are not allowed by their discipline to claim (in an academic publication) that it occurred. So, unless a scholar goes out of their way to publish their personal beliefs in a non-academic venue of some sort, we have no way to know their thoughts on the subject. - David Lake, Senior Analyst, BA Mathematics -
Sea Breeze
After examining it and cross examining it I found it to be a fine example of Apologetics - it sounds reasonable, but there is still no evidence. It is just logical argument.
The above represent the minimum facts that the most skeptic scholars who publish in this area concede to. Can you give plausible explanations for these facts that do not include a resurrection?
Especially 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11,12
-
Anony Mous
@Sea Breeze: there is no scientific evidence for any of those “facts”. They are simply articles of faith. That list is simply paraphrasing portions of the gospels and the Pauline epistles that Christians have to accept without questioning.
But as you know many of the gospels, as well as the apocrypha have large variations of the events surrounding Jesus’ supposed death, it is very much devoid of a historically accurate and verifiable story and every single story, even in the canon, has differences that are hard to ignore both during the passion (see here: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/sites/partners/cbaa_seminar/Passion_Narratives.htm) and the ressurection (how many angels, men or Jesus himself were in the tomb, which belies at least one of the “facts” you mentioned, the tomb was not empty in any account, how many did he appear to and who first etc etc)
As far as the lack of historicity, Pontius Pilate for example in the Biblical story is written as a kind but weak willed person, allowing the Jews to carry out their own judicial proceedings, however historical records like that of Philon and Josephus describe him as a cruel, stubborn and merciless person that oppressed the Jews and would never allow any sort of self-governance.
-
Sea Breeze
They are simply articles of faith.
@ Anony Mous
There are contradictory (or complimentary) accounts of how the Titanic sank. But, none of those belie the fact that it sank. Testimonies often present facts in a fragmentary way. In spite of this, or perhaps party because of it, scholars agree the tomb was empty of Jesus' body. That is only one of the facts that scholars agree on.I believe you have seen this presentation before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOW7k3hQ-vE&ab_channel=FallenEmbers
They are simply articles of faith.
No. Critical Scholarship, not faith, produces the12 facts above.
So, if this is what even atheist/skeptic scholars agree are the minimum facts surrounding the Resurrection, then there is a basis other than faith to deal with the implications of these facts, since they are rooted in evidence. And if the evidence produces these facts, then there is a logical reason to attempt to explain the facts without a Resurrection. The evidence is good enough to require a verdict.
Hand waving is easy, especially if you are biased and your faith (bias) wants these facts to simply go away. But, if you are honest, you will come to the conclusion that these facts a very difficult to explain away, in spite of some variance without the Resurrection.
We have to keep in mind that this man (Jesus) radically altered the course of world history and the whole planet counts time by his life. Which are more reasons why hand-waving isn't warranted, as if the topic is so insignificant that it is not even worthy of the slightest consideration.
