Thread: Peter Enns, A Blog

"Andrew: The point being that Jude, most likely (see Nathan’s last comment), saw 1 Enoch 1.9 as an actual prophesy.

But we know that it wasn’t (aka, it was not inspired).

So, how does the fact that a Biblical author, who wrote while being inspired by the Spirit of God, mistakes a pseudoprophesy for an actual prophesy and quotes it in his inspired letter affect our understanding of Scripture?

In other words, does this affect our doctrine of Scripture?"




Hmmm....what IS the relationship between true prophecy and inspiration?

Here is my thinking.

1. Jude is inspired.
2. The quote is inspired and accurate passed on since Enoch.
3. The Book of Enoch is not inspired but has at least that much true inspiration
4. Therefore we can hold on to the Book of Jude but cannot adhere to the Book of Enoch where it deviated from inspired Scripture.

Go to the blog and comment there on this, see how they respond.

So what would Peter Enns say (WWPES?)

Go to the blog and comment there on this, see how they respond.

I was going to but read the posts. I don't believe I could add much to the discussion. People are already taking a strong biblical-inerrancy, closed-canon, 66-books-are-inspired, view. In fact, I was going to compare Paul's quotation of pagan poets as an example of a non-inspired text suddenly becoming part of the God-breathed Scripture.

The only question is: "How did it get from Enoch to us?" Verbally, or did the Holy Spirit reveal it to Jude personally which happens to match the book of Enoch?

We have parts of Enoch still intact don't we?

Originally Posted by Pergamum

We have parts of Enoch still intact don't we?

Apparently, we have all of it, but it is all in Ethiopic with large sections from various manuscripts in Greek. There are also parts of other spurious books included with it that are not Enoch, the Book of Astronomy does not seem to belong, and the work has never been modernized into readable chapters and verses. The book was lost to the West for hundreds of years until rediscovered around the turn of the 19th c. It was considered an important discovery since some earliest church fathers (70 AD - 250 AD) used it extensively and claimed it was inspired Scripture that was removed by Jews because it prophesied too explicitly of the coming of Christ.

We do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

And then, as Bryan notes above, even if he were quoting the apocryphal (non-canonical) Book of Enoch, that in no way validates the remainder of the book, for Paul also quotes or alludes to non-Biblical writers (cf Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12) without authenticating their works.

In my view, it is doubtful Jude was quoting the book, so filled with rubbish as it is.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

We do not know he was quoting the Book of Enoch. Calvin and Gill are of the opinion that Jude was quoting from a saying perserved in ancient tradition as an authentic saying of Enoch, held in high regard by the Jews of his day. Note Jude does not say, "Enoch wrote...", but "Enoch...prophesied..."

We have Enoch. (It reappeared after the Reformation, meaning that the Reformers had no access to it.) The quote in Jude is found precisely in Enoch. I don't think that much is debated. There are a number of translations of the whole thing in English online, including the parts belonging to other books, for examination and criticism. It seems the debate on Jude 14 turns around whether "prophesied" is a formula on a par with "it is written."

Ah, I thought I saw Enoch on the web. Anybody got a link to the text?

1 Enoch

I would say that the author of the Book of Enoch quoted the same ancient saying Jude did. There is no basis upon which to assert Jude quoted from the BOE.

Note also the similar saying in Deut 33:2.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

I would say that the author of the Book of Enoch quoted the same ancient saying Jude did. There is no basis upon which to assert Jude quoted from the BOE.

Note also the similar saying in Deut 33:2.

If there were another source, the problem grows bigger since we do not know what that source would be. Someone could say that some unknown "lost" book might have been part of the Septuagint or that some forgotten "oral tradition" might have been divinely inspired. I don't think we want that.

Hello Peter, good to be discussing this with you.

It is not a problem to me that we don't know where the inspired author, Jude, got this quote from. Why would that be a problem? What we do know is that the Epistle of Jude, and all therein, is the word of God. He was moved by the Holy Spirit to write what he did. We can be assured the saying is genuinely Enoch's. Is it of great significance to know the source of the saying? Or put the other way, is it of great significance that we do not know the (intermediate) source?

When you suggest, "Someone could say that some unknown 'lost' book might have been part of the Septuagint or that some forgotten 'oral tradition' might have been divinely inspired. I don't think we want that", I'm not clear what you're getting at. The canons for both the OT and NT are closed.

New manuscript discoveries are very valuable and significant, though I cannot see anything being added to the canon of Scripture. Hypothetically, if an unknown epistle of Paul's were alleged to be found, I'm not sure what the repercussions of that would be. I do not believe the NT would be modified to now have 28 books in it.

Steve

Can the uninspired be used in an inspired text and therefore, in that context only, become inspired? Of course, but the discussion seems to stem around the belief by some that it cannot, unless that other uninspired text becomes inspired as well.

Hi Andrew,

When the author of Job quoted the remarks of Satan to the LORD, the historical record of that conversation is inspired and infallible, though we know that Satan's words are not from God. When Paul quotes the poets he does he used them in an inspired manner to make his points; this does not mean the quotes themselves are then -- in and of themselves -- considered products of divine inspiration.

I agree with Steve on this, at least partially. When the Bible records any sin or any false statement by anyone, for instance, we have the same issue. The Bible does not necessarily condone the sin or the false statement. In my opinion, it does not matter whether the quotation came from the book of Enoch or from oral tradition: the way Jude is using it in its context is inspired by God, whatever way that is. It then becomes the realm of interpretation to find out how Jude is using it. We have the same issue with Paul on Mars Hill in Acts 17, where he quotes one of the heathen poets, probably Epimenides. What is inspired there is Paul's saying to the Athenians that even their own poets recognize something about God, as being stamped with the image of God. Everyone knows who God is.