Naphtali Jones

An interesting side note to this tale is the story of how the Book of Enoch was rediscovered. The church didn't just decide to ignore the Book of Enoch: they decided to obliterate it. For centuries scholars were tantalized with passing references to the work in other writings but no intact copies survived the purges of imperial christianity. However, when British explorers started going into Ethiopia in the 1700's they were amazed to find a living Ethiopian Orthodox church which had been isolated and then forgotten by the european wing of the church for a millenium and a half. Much to their surprise, when Scottish explorer James Bruce opened up a copy of the Ethiopian bible in 1773, he found that the Book of Enoch was included as a part of their scriptures. This lends credence to the theory that it was indeed considered scriptural by the entire church at one time and was only cut out of the european bible after Ethiopia's isolation.

Most scholars assumed that the writings were of christian origin because so much of it seemed to copy the terminology and the ideas of the New Testament, particularily the words of Jesus. However, the discovery of fragments of the Book of Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that the work pre-existed christian times and was likely to have been familiar to those living in 1st century Judea.

~Nap

Notsri

Naphtali, hello.

So with regard to the issue of Matthew 22:29f. (and parallels), I would say, respectfully, that I think you may have missed the context there, that you're misinterpreting the text. Go back, first, to v. 23: the author informs us that the narrative will center on (1) the Sadducees, who (2) disbelieved in the resurrection, and (3) their all too brief debate with Jesus. And so these few points set the stage for everything that follows, up to basically v. 33.

The Sadducees, for their part, seem curious to know the views of Jesus on the resurrection (vv. 24-28). But I would also contend—and of course there's the possibility I'm wrong on this—that their question (v. 28), and indeed everything leading up to it, is in fact a pretext for presenting something like an apologia on behalf of their own unbelief in the resurrection. Having first quoted Deut. 25:5 on the law of levirate marriage (v. 24), the Sadducees relate the account of a group of seven brothers, each of whom, in submission to that law, had married the wife of their deceased brother, the wife eventually having been married to all seven men (vv. 25-6). And then comes the Sadducees' question (v. 28): "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had (married) her." They assume here, for the moment, to be true (there will be a resurrection) what in actuality conflicts with their de facto doctrine (there will not be a resurrection). If it is in fact true, if their will be resurrection, then the upshot (as they see it) is simple: the integrity of the very Written Torah of God would become doubtful (else, it would have provided information suitable to questions of marriage in the world to come). But, to the Sadducees, such a notion is preposterous (after all, in their view, there is no complementary oral law, such as the Pharisees have; the Torah is complete in itself). Therefore, since the Torah never speaks plainly of the resurrection, the only reasonable stance is to deny the resurrection; to do the opposite would be absurd and unreasonable, casting doubt as it would on the completeness of scripture, in at least such matters of (future) law.

Jesus, for his part, meets them head on: in the resurrection there will be no marriage (v. 30). Thus, their concern for such practical matters as marriage in the resurrection, is unwarranted. But he also responds to the subtext, to their at this point tacit rejection of a future resurrection as the logical consequence of reasoning from a reductio ad absurdum: "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but the living" (vv. 31-2) –i.e. there will indeed be a resurrection, as even now men live on, after death, contrary to their doctrine: "He is not the God of the dead but the living." So the Sadducees had missed the scriptural view of the resurrection, and, as a result, had drawn false conclusions and (now) asked fallacious questions. Thus—to get to the point—in v. 29, when Jesus says, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," he has in view both what they've said plainly, and what lies beneath the surface, their ulterior reasons for asking the question. And the scripture he adduces in defense of his views, is not 1Enoch but, quite simply, Exodus (3:6). The Sadducees had used the Torah (Deut. 25:5) to cast doubt on the doctrine of the resurrection, while Jesus used the same (Ex. 3:6) to bolster the doctrine.

Regards,
Notsri

Sheshbazzar

The question that comes to my mind regarding the Book of Enoch, is how extensively was it altered and interpolated over the years, i.e., Do the contents of the text as presented within the 'discovered' Ethiopian copies read as the Book was originally penned and read by its original supporters?
And secondarily, how can we even be sure that the Dead Sea Scroll fragments found accurately reflect the contents of the particular textual tradition that is being referenced within the NT?
Without a copy of that actual text that was considered to be Scripture by the Teacher, and the early leaders in the Way, there is really no valid way to ascertain what, or how much from the present text was actually known or employed by these, beyond what their few scant references reveal.
Those "fantastic" and "ridiculous" sections may not have even been any part of the original mss. Likewise large portions of the authentic text may have also been deliberately expunged and omitted.
Really it doesn't seem ethical to ridicule or judge The Rabbi or His disciples on the basis of the present contents of a Book that quite possibly at this time retains less than ten percent of its original content.
I as a believer have no difficulty in accepting that the original and authentic Book of Enoch was Scripture, along with such others as "The Book of Jasher", "The Book of Jehu", "The Book of Gad", The Books of Ahias", and "The Vision of Iddo".
I do not hold the doctrine of a "miraculous preservation of the inspired text",
Looking at my list, I presently account 84 original "Books" as being Scripture.

Naphtali Jones

I understood the context and I agree with your analysis of the situation that Jesus was facing. I just don't agree that the context makes my argument invalid.

The point I am making is, where did Jesus obtain this information about what would happen to marriages after the resurrection? He tells the Sadducees that they haven't considered the scriptures, that they will be like the angels which "neither marry nor are given in marriage". The Sadducees (who are experts at arguing) don't turn to Jesus and say; "Where in the scriptures does it say that?" Instead they meekly accept his explanation. This shows that Jesus provided an argument from a writing that they all considered scriptural.

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

According to the Wikipedia entry on the Book of Enoch:

This backs up my claim that the Book of Enoch was indeed considered scriptural in 1st Century Judea.

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

Nobody can really say for sure, but the present text lines up quite well with the references to it in the New testament and other writings, enough to know that the part Jesus refers to existed.

It is possible that they might not have been but it seems unlikely. The parts regarding the movement of the Sun are in accordance with the scientific thought of that time period and it is doubtful that such passages would have been added later, especially as they add nothing to the story. Still it is a possibility.

Not many believers feel the way you do. This argument is designed to appeal more to a standard fundamentalist mentality.

You are definitely not a Fundamentalist.

~Nap

NOGO

I think that this is probably the weakest point of your argument.
How do you know that Jesus got it from the book of Enoch and not another book? A direct quote (like the one in Jude) would have been a lot more convincing.

On another level ...
If Jesus is God then what he says is scriptures, is scriptures.

Boomeister

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Jesus misattribute one scripture as coming from Zechariah instead of Jeremiah (or vice versa)?

Boomeister

Sheshbazzar

Because this thread is dealing with the subject of the 'rejected' "Book of Enoch" actually being accounted as "Scripture" within the NT writings,
I plead your pardon at this juncture, that we might inform those readers who might not otherwise be aware of the fact, that these Sadducees were drawing their 'example story' of the "seven brothers" (Matt.22:25, Mk.12:20, Lu.20:29) directly from "The Book of Tobit" (3:8, 7:11) a fact of which most Protestants and Fundamentalists remain ignorant on account of having also excluded that book from their Bibles.
WHOOSH! That's the sound of The Wind blowing right over their heads, they hear the sound, but do not perceive what It is, nor from what direction it came, nor in what direction it is going.

Naphtali Jones

Yup! As an ex-fundamentalist (even a well read one) I had no idea.

~Nap