Replies

Solution - Cage match Charlesworth v Milik Live PPV

Interesting methodology Isaac uses. However, it is interesting that though the DSS MS were “consulted” they were not ‘preferred’ This is rather odd, since the DSS is around 1400 years older than the Ethiopian MS. I believe that the reason was that the DSS MS had differing versions of the same books present. That is to say equivalent passages had differing verbage, and Isaac didn't want to weed through it and made a simplifying assumption to use the 14th century material.

Too bad that there isn't a parallel of Isaac translation available electronically, it would be nice to review the commentary/translational portions next to the text.

Regarding the greek in 62:7, I don't see how it rules out the association of Enoch to the son of man in Ch 71? The context of 62 reads like the final judgement, but what also seems to be overlooked is the phrase "For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden" or "for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret", depending upon the translation. If this is the context of the final judgement, then the work of Christ on the cross is completely overlooked. It does say he is revealed to the elect, but when compared to Revelation, the saved there at the end of the tribulation were clearly saved by their faith in Christ's sacrifice and Christ returns with the evidence of the cruxifiction on his body. Interesting apocrypha writing, but the parallels 'miss' at key levels. IMHO (of course!)

Solution - Cage match Charlesworth v Milik Live PPV

LOLOL! Still, I’d take Charlesworth by 3 touchdowns because his is a consensus. That part about Milik ignoring ‘wings’ being added after the fourteenth century was rather telling.

On Isaac, his comment was that he consulted the Aramaic DSS but that it did not influence his work. I read that to mean what was found in the Aramaic fragments was consistent with the fourteenth century manuscript he was using for the base line. His footnotes are exhaustive and do include references to DSS fragments as well as references to the other originals and sources.

The only reason I included the footnote out of chapter 62 was to sate your interest in the two Ethiopian terms, why the Isaac translation is different from the old translations.

In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

Concerning your earlier post, and the value of Enoch to us – and what happened to it over the years, here are a few points:

The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:

More important, however, is the light it throws upon early Essene theology and upon earliest Christianity. It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f) At any rate, it is clear that Enochic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including the Gospels and Revelation.

I Enoch played a significant role in the early Church; it was used by the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and a number of apologetic works. Many Church Fathers, including Justing Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Clement of Alexandria either knew I Enoch or were inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with I Enoch, Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it. But, beginning in the fourth century, the book came to be regarded with disfavor and received negative reviews from Augustine, Hilary, and Jerome. Thereafter, with the exception of a few extracts made by Georgius Syncellus, a learned monk of the eighth century, and the Greek fragments found in a Christian grave in Egypt (c. AD 800), I Enoch ceased to be appreciated except in Ethiopia. The relegation of I Enoch to virtual oblivion by medieval minds should not diminish its significance for Christian origins; few other apocryphal books so indelibly marked the religious history and thought of the time of Jesus.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church did in fact go through a “book burning” phase – probably starting with Philastrius (who hated Enoch) in the late 300’s.

The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.

”These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistu, Donatus, Eustatius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom the one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.”

It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was "burned?" Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.