Ante and Post diluvial
Posted this on the Christian Board. It may be that the Jewish board could be the place to discuss early Christianity (or even Chistianity up to the Founding of American TV special Gnostical Christianity)
I have always assumed that the (non-Canonical/pseudoepigraphical) Book of Enoch ( see
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/enoch.htm ) was helpful in imagining how some of the Second Temple time period saw this particular part of Sacred History.
More on Enoch (caution: a mixed bag, some of the information is sensationalistic and not very scholarly and there are quite a lot of misleading items):
This looks better:
His servent for life
Enoch is mentioned in the OT Ge 5:18-24, Heb 11:5, in the Apocrypha Sir 44:16 and NT Jude 14 but centuries of deliberation did not include him in the recognized Scripture as an actual book.
My OT studies are in the direction of Anglican Ordination and as much of these non-Canonical/pseudoepigraphical books might make an interesting read some cold winter night in the rectory they are low on my list. I'm trying to do this phase of the OT trying to not be influenced by Christianity. I find most OT conflict to be very violent.
Old and New are both part of the service, A reading from each, a Psalm and the Gospel but sometimes I need to divorce all that to understand the context of the OT.
Last edited by Anonymous Traveler; 10-05-2007 at 06:24 PM.
Well...the pseudoepigraphia are later than the OT. They are more like the context of the NT.
Originally Posted by Anonymous Traveler
I've read the book of Enoch, and I can see why it would be influential to certain theological ideas of both Christians and Jews. However, it was never deemed canonical by Jews, Protestants, OR Catholics, and so it is certainly low on my list of priorities.
The more I read non-canonical books, the more I am convinced of the wisdoms of the Rabbis and church fathers in choosing the books they chose for the cannon. Of course, they didn't so much "choose" them as solidify what was already in wide use.
There's no such thing, really, as Gnostic Christianity. "Gnostic" is just a catch-all word used to describe a variety of non-Orthodox ideas and attitudes, and Gnostic strains can be found among early Jews, Christians, and pagans. It's not like there were a group of people running around calling themselves "Gnostic Christians." At any rate, the gnositc strains lost the battle of ideas, and the modern re-birth of gnosticism is nothing much like the gnosticism of the first four centuries.
I was thinking more of a joke among some religious (though not in the American sense of being strenuously involved with getting right with Jesus at all times) people that I know. The joke is to reflect on some obscure Gnostical point along the lines of the idea that knowing one secret cosmic thing is enough to get you out of this Evil World and then say, "But isn't that what most Christians are being taught?"
Originally Posted by skylarburris
It's kind of twisted, but it can cause a bit of a harsh laugh from a modern Theologian type person.
I thought I had read somewhere that Enoch was included in some bibles at one time and that it is still a part of some Orthodox bibles. Am I confused? I'm hardly an expert, just some reading up for research that I did, so I'd like to have my facts straight if you can give me a hand. thanks
Originally Posted by skylarburris
“You write how you write. If I were a calculating careerist, I would not be a novelist.” Justin Cronin
"I'd rather shoot myself in the face than have another discussion about the difference between one category of literature and another." Colson Whitehead
First Enoch is a canonical book in the Eithiopian Bible, but it wasn't in the Septuagint and so it didn't get very far in the West (which in this case includes all the Eastern Orthodox traditions). There are more "Books of Enoch" among them a "Book of the Giants" sacred to the Manicheans.
Originally Posted by Voyager