GakuseiDon

Well, let's not ignore it then. But I've read through the Books of Enoch, and I don't know what you are referring to, "obvious conclusion" or no. Can you expand more on this? What makes you think that Paul's character is based off Enoch's?

Rick Sumner

The doxology (11.33-36) makes no sense outside of the promises to Israel (Rom.9) and Israel's rejection of Jesus (Rom.10-11). It's not about a "doctrine of strict monotheism," it's about the salvation of Israel, and how God will go about it. Whether that's redaction or not, it's not Catholic except by a stretch of the most active imagination.

I'm not quite sure how you get from "The Book of Similitudes is later than Christianity" to "a literary dependence between. . ." but it misses the point. The theology in 1Enoch's book of similitudes is eerily similar to Christianity, a point raised by both you and the post I was initially replying to. Since the Boook of Similitudes is post Christian, the most "prudent" answer is to suggest that the latter influenced the former.

That this is the case is evident in the simple fact that when the roles are reversed, with the assumption that 1Enoch is the earlier tradition, the immediate response is to suggest that influence flows in that direction. It's the same reasoning that inspired spamandham's comment in the first place.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

As a general theme, compare Enoch' trip to heaven in his vision with Paul's trip to heaven in his vision.

Some specific similarities:

The righteous will dwell forever with the Son

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

1 Enoch 61:17-18
And with this Son of man shall they dwell, eat, lie down, and rise up, for ever and ever

The saints and the elect have arisen from the earth, have left off to depress their countenances, and have been clothed with the garment of life. That garment of life is with the Lord of spirits, in whose presence your garment shall not wax old, nor shall your glory diminish.

Jesus/The Ancient One were there in the beginning

2 Timoth 1:9 (pseudo pauline)
who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

1 Enoch 48:3
3Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits.

Secret wisdom revealed to the elect

Romans 16:25-27
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Ephesians 3:4-5
The mystery about Christ, which in former generations was not revealed to men [not even by Jesus himself, apparently], is now disclosed to dedicated apostles and prophets through the Spirit.

1 Enoch 48:6
In his presence he existed, and has revealed to the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and rejected this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the name of the Lord of spirits.

GakuseiDon

:huh: Those are similarities. I know further similarities between Paul's Jesus and Philo's Moses. How do you go from similarities to "Paul's character is based on Enoch's"?

spamandham

The similarities become important, IMHO, if we can reasonably conclude Paul would have been familiar with Enoch.

Enoch was considered scripture by 1st century Jews. Surely you agree Paul would be familiar with it?

Unless Paul came out and said "my christ thingy is based off of Enoch's Son of Man thingy", we are stuck with comparing similarities to try to make a determination.

jakejonesiv

The catholic doctrine of monotheism (God, the Father of Jesus is identical to the Creator) was opposed to Marcionite dualism; that the creator was another lesser God, the Demiurge. This doxology puts in the pen of Paul an effective refutation to Marcion.

The author of chapters 9-11 never refers to Jews at all, but only to Israel. This is exactly the opposite practice before chapter 9. This is an indication that chapters 9-11 are not the work of the same author (Van Manen, Price). See "The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)" Robert M. Price, page 412, footnote i.

Chapter 12 continues "In view of this ...". This is a continuation of of the arguement in chapter 8. See "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" Robert M. Price, page 414, footnote t.

The allusions to the fall of the temple (11:3,9) and its altar ("tables") are anachronistic given the usual dates of Paul. ibid, page 413, note m.

The disputed section starts off with a denial of lying, a claim of the text to not being a forgery. "I swear before Christ, I am telling the truth!" 9.1. He doth protest too much.

These are inidications that chapters 9-11 are a post-Marcionite catholic redaction.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Christianity arguably arose in the second century. It cannot be merely assumed that the Similitudes are later.

The prudent position is that 1 Enoch 62-63, and Matthew 25:31-46 are independant developments from a common Son of Man tradition that started with Daniel.

Rick, you on the other hand seem to be demanding a linear development where the Similitudes are derived from the New Testament texts and/or traditions directly. Is that right? If so, please provide the evidence. I have an open mind on the subject.

Jake Jones

Jayrok

Ephesians 2:14-17 -- 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near.

How is verse 17 in this passage explained from the mythicist view? Does Doherty equate this preaching in the spiritual realm where Christ was crucified?

Niall Armstrong

I'm surprised this hasn't been answered already. Perhaps others have discussed it to death previously....It seems actually to be a rather easy reading from the mythicist viewpoint. Here's the Greek:

kai elqwn euhggelisato eirhnhn umin toiV makran kai eirhnhn toiV egguV:

(from http://www.greekbible.com/)
Note that what is translated as "preached" in English is strictly "evangelized", proclaimed the good news, in Greek. This is, as far as I know, the term normally used in the Epistles for teaching about Jesus Christ.
"Euhggelisato" is also in the aorist tense, which has been much discussed in these pages. It seemingly denotes an activity in the past, which is not necessarily over yet (but please correct me, anyone). In that case the spreading of the good news of peace may still be going on, even amongst the Ephesians that are addressed to. And, well-what-do-you-know, the verse goes on to say that that is exactly what is going on. This makes more sense of the passage than the orthodox interpretation...
So the mythicist take on this is might be that the evangelizing, wherever it first took place (sub-lunar sphere or vision) is still taking place, even amonst the Ephesians.

spamandham

I don't recall if Doherty addresses Ephesians, but Ephesians is not generally accepted as an authentic Pauline writing.