Naphtali Jones

Actually that's Matthew (or rather the author of the gospel attributed to Matthew). Throughout the book he tries to have Jesus fulfilling every possible messianic prophecy he can think of (including some which obviously aren't) and he actually makes several rather glaring and unintentionally funny errors. The one you're referring to is Matthew 27:9-10: Judas returning the thirty pieces of silver. He makes a sorry mess out of this one by mixing up two unrelated and irrelevant scriptures: one from Jeremiah 32:6-9 and one from Zechariah 11:12-13.

~Nap

Sheshbazzar

I encourage anyone who has an interest in the development of the NT text, and is in a sincere search for truth, to take the time for at least a quick read-through of the so-called "Deuterocanonicals", a 'search' using this term will provide a wealth of information.

Most of the posts on this forum come from those whom were brought up in a predominately Protestant cultural background, and thus have unknowingly had their views of the Scriptures obscured by the limited Protestant paradigms.

Those that took, or that will take the time, to read through "The Book of Enoch", the subject of Nap's thread here, will come away with information that most Protestants and Fundamentalist will either be unaware of, or having a knowledge of, deliberately ignore (be ignore-ant of) and attempt to conceal, least the embarrassment of their errors of doctrine be made manifest.

I also highly recommend that Bible students, critics and Atheists read and become familiar with the contents of the Books of Maccabees, as these will contribute to, and help all honest men in gaining insight into those cultural divisions that led to the development of "Christianity", and to a better comprehension of the significance of present day ideas, practices and customs.
As one familiarizes with these texts, a lot of the 'connections' will reveal themselves, any insights gained will be your own, not imposed upon you by others.

Notsri

I guess what I’m getting at, Naphtali—and I’m sure you realize this—is that I don’t think the substance of Matt. 22:30 derives from 1Enoch, much less any of our current canonical scripture. I think that when Jesus says in v. 29, "You [Sadducees] are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," he has in mind not the problem of their question but their unbelief in the resurrection, which was of course the impetus for their inquiry. For if the words, "You are mistaken, not understanding the scriptures" refer back directly to the Sadducees' question in v. 28, then to what does "nor the power of God" refer? Certainly not their question. What significance does the power of God have to the issue of levirate marriage in the afterlife? None directly, I think. Instead, I would say, again, that when Jesus makes that statement he strikes at the root and reason for the exchange: as to the resurrection, they have neither understood the scriptures nor the power of God, that both attest to the plausibility and indeed the certainty that such an event will occur at the eschaton. But then, in v. 30, he briefly digresses; he answers their actual question: "since you bring it up," as it were, "there will be no marriage in the world to come." Then, once again, in v. 31, he returns to the more urgent matter, their disbelief. And so he offers a biblical verse to mitigate against their ignorance as he perceives it, to clarify matters, that they might then have a greater understanding. (Now of course I don’t presume to address the question of historicity here. For the sake of this argument, obviously, I speak as though it happened, and I just mean to approach the text as it stands within the context of the NT.) In any event I would add, finally, that I think the Sadducees are silenced (v. 34), and don't ask, "Where in the scriptures does it say that," as you point out, because, simply, they're embarrassed and have no ready response. They had hoped to make their true point by indirection and equivocation, yet Jesus had perceived that, and accordingly had responded to that with a verse from scripture. And they didn't know what to say.

Regards,
Notsri

Roger Pearse

You have not explained why you are certain that Jesus had read 1 Enoch.

I think your argument relies on the idea that any reference to material not in scripture must involve the idea that that material is believed by the referent to be inspired; since modern people disagree, that proves the scripture wrong.

In my very humble view, almost every clause of that is littered with fallacies. Paul quotes Menander, you know. Did he consider Menander inspired?

And, can you give me a definition and test for inspiration that make sense? If not, are you quite sure that your logic is well-founded?

These are not specially issues I am interested in, but since you asked for a fundamentalist response... :Cheeky:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Naphtali Jones

Dude, have you even been reading this thread?

My argument is that Jesus specifically referenced the Book of Enoch as scripture. On top of that, it seems certain that a lot of his messianic rhetoric is based on it.

Have you read the Book of Enoch? Trying doing that and then tell me whether you think it is inspired.

I don't think any writings are actually inspired as I don't believe in God. I can only point out what writings are definitely not inspired by an all-knowing god: those filled with absurdities, logical inconsistencies and a complete lack of knowledge about the workings of the universe.

I did ask and thank you for taking the time to reply.

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

Good point! I am convinced from the overwhelming mountains of evidence that it comes from the Book of Enoch, but I could be wrong. Which book do you think he got it from?

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

I do realize what you are getting at and I think you make a valid point. It is not entirely clear in the text and there is room for interpretation both ways. However, it seems to me that Jesus sets it up as an argument from scripture and then states as straight out fact that angels do not marry. There is no question on this point. It is given as a known fact on which they were all agreed. He then interjects with "But, concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read...". this part comes off as an afterthought. He has already defeated the Sadducees question with scripture but he then decides to go on and tackle the underlying argument which everyone knew was their motivation for asking the question in the first place.

~Nap

Chris Weimer

Wouldn't that include quite a bit of books already in the bible?

Sheshbazzar

Roger, it is evident that you have not yet taken the time to do a 'search' on "Deuterocanonicals", else you would be embarrassed to be found using such a phrase as "material not in scripture" with reference to The Book of Enoch.
Of course your definition of "scripture" is limited to those few books that are 'accepted' by Protestant fundamentalists.
It may be news to you, but outside of Protestantism, "The Book of Enoch" IS accounted as "Scripture" as it has been for well over 2000 years, and is quoted as such in The New Testament, and by all of the early Christian Fathers.
It is highly unlikely that HE would not be well acquainted with every verse, which as a believer I am certain that He is.


That HE employed it to establish a point, needs not rest on it fitting into some latter Protestant conceived religious ideas of what the term 'inspired' means, but that HE accepted its premise as valid and of truth, the same is true with Paul in citing from Meander.
On that basis alone any literature that is so alluded to and respected by HIM, or the writers of The New Testament, is worthy of preservation, and remains profitable for our learning and edification.

Roger Pearse

I am unsure what sort of 'search' you have in mind; since I have copies of the OT apocrypha here and have always more or less known about them, I'm not sure what you think I should know.

But your comments suggest that you didn't follow my point. Have another read!

Is it really? Well I don't pretend to have looked up every patristic reference to Enoch, but I do know that Tertullian in De Cultu Feminarum I, 3, has to defend it against charges that it is not. Tertullian does not routinely treat it as canonical, but uses it only incidentally.

I think we are at cross-purposes. I was asking for *evidence* of knowledge of 1 Enoch, not reiteration.

All the best,

Roger Pearse