Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Faid · 08-13-2007, 03:26 AM

So, is Enoch part of Biblical Canon? It seems that it is only considered so in the Eastern Orthodox church.

08-13-2007, 03:37 AM

Wouldn't any book not in the official canon be effectively regarded as apocryphal, even if it was in a collection not usually termed "The Apocrypha"?

Jude quotes, as an authoritative source, a book which is not part of the canon.

Faid · 08-13-2007, 04:25 AM

Doesn't matter- it's still not called apocrypha, so there!

You know, like how in the Walt thread, a "debate" is not a "discussion"?

08-13-2007, 05:03 AM

Sorta just like, in the Walt thread, I didn't accuse Dave of dishonesty.

Magdlyn · 08-13-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Did you not read Dr. Jim's post which, if correct, made the "error" not an error after all?

Dr Jim is wrong and so are your Geisler and Nix.

Didn't you see my post?

Quote:

In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. Given that different denominations have different ideas about what constitutes canonical scripture, there are several different versions of the apocrypha.

DrJim · 08-13-2007, 07:00 AM

Faid,
Certainly NOT the Eastern Orthodox canon! That has the OT, NT and an apocrypha almost identical to the Catholic one: only a few little changes (the Eastern Orthodox churches show some variety there).
The Ethiopic church is not part of the E. Ortho. tradition.

Magdlyn, In some respects you are correct, but there is a difference in specificity between how the noun "the Apocrypha" is used and the adjective "apocryphal". The noun is very often used of the set of books that some western churches and Eastern Orthodox traditions keep as highly authoritative alongside the OT and NT. Typically this excludes Enoch. That is how I was using it above.
On the other hand, "apocryphal" speakes to an evaluation of a book's origins, thus can be used of a wider range of literature.

For example, I can't imagine anyone at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting claiming that Enoch is part of the Apocrypha, but it probably would not turn any heads to say that the ascription of the Psalms to David is apocryphal.

Anyway, that is my sense of how the terms are used in academic circles.

A question for whoever:
I don't know the NT very well, so I'm wondering if the idea of the resurrection of the dead in some places in the NT has more to do with the beliefs expressed in 2 Maccabees than the OT.

Constant Mews · 08-13-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Magdlyn, In some respects you are correct, but there is a difference in specificity between how the noun "the Apocrypha" is used and the adjective "apocryphal". The noun is very often used of the set of books that some western churches and Eastern Orthodox traditions keep as highly authoritative alongside the OT and NT. Typically this excludes Enoch. That is how I was using it above.
On the other hand, "apocryphal" speakes to an evaluation of a book's origins, thus can be used of a wider range of literature.

But Magdyln explicitly used the term 'apocrypha', not 'apocryphal'. I fail to understand your comment.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2007, 03:26 AM	#371
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	So, is Enoch part of Biblical Canon? It seems that it is only considered so in the Eastern Orthodox church.

08-13-2007, 03:37 AM	#372
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Wouldn't any book not in the official canon be effectively regarded as apocryphal, even if it was in a collection not usually termed "The Apocrypha"? Jude quotes, as an authoritative source, a book which is not part of the canon.

08-13-2007, 04:25 AM	#373
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	Doesn't matter- it's still not called apocrypha, so there! You know, like how in the Walt thread, a "debate" is not a "discussion"?

08-13-2007, 05:03 AM	#374
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Sorta just like, in the Walt thread, I didn't accuse Dave of dishonesty.

08-13-2007, 07:00 AM	#376
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Faid, Certainly NOT the Eastern Orthodox canon! That has the OT, NT and an apocrypha almost identical to the Catholic one: only a few little changes (the Eastern Orthodox churches show some variety there). The Ethiopic church is not part of the E. Ortho. tradition. Magdlyn, In some respects you are correct, but there is a difference in specificity between how the noun "the Apocrypha" is used and the adjective "apocryphal". The noun is very often used of the set of books that some western churches and Eastern Orthodox traditions keep as highly authoritative alongside the OT and NT. Typically this excludes Enoch. That is how I was using it above. On the other hand, "apocryphal" speakes to an evaluation of a book's origins, thus can be used of a wider range of literature. For example, I can't imagine anyone at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting claiming that Enoch is part of the Apocrypha, but it probably would not turn any heads to say that the ascription of the Psalms to David is apocryphal. Anyway, that is my sense of how the terms are used in academic circles. A question for whoever: I don't know the NT very well, so I'm wondering if the idea of the resurrection of the dead in some places in the NT has more to do with the beliefs expressed in 2 Maccabees than the OT.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.