Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a book of the Bible that was thought lost by both the Eastern and Western orthodox Churches. It was a old testament book, not a part of the Tanakh, called the Book of Enoch. It existed in Ethiopia, were the Ethiopian Jews took it with them when they fled Isreal, and is considered canon by the Ethiopian church.
It was not part of the Canon bibles for the SOLE REASON that no one in Europe or the near east had a copy, BUT, all the early orthodox Christian fathers, Iranaeus, Justin, Clement, all said that it was indeed a inspired work...if only they could find a copy
So, it was lost, until the early part of the 1600s, when traders from Europe finally managed to get through the muslim-territory boundary between Christian Europe and Christian Ethiopia and get a couple of copies, but by then, it was too late, because the Nicene bible was done and no one wanted to include any new works.
Thing is...the book of Enoch IS REFERENCED TO IN THE CANONICAL NEW TESTAMENT! In the epistle of Jude, 14, it quotes directly from the book of Enoch.
So, here's a question to all of you who follow the Nicene Bible*...
Do you A, say "well, the Epistle of Jude quotes it, so it must be cannon!" and except it and go get a copy (at any Barnes and Noble under the Bible apocrypha section) and crazy glue it in the OT. Or, do you say B, "well, if the Epistle of Jude quotes a non-canon book, than the Epistle of Jude can't be canon!" and exacto knife it out of the NT?
Sorry...but how could you not do one or the other?
* by "Nicene Bible" I mean the protestant and caholic versions of the bible and those that except the Nicene creed.
So, it was lost, until the early part of the 1600s, when traders from Europe finally managed to get through the muslim-territory boundary between Christian Europe and Christian Ethiopia
Hold on. You're saying that the big reason the book of Enoch was not included in the canon was because "Christian Europe" was cut off from "Christian Ethiopia" by Muslim territory? Am I understanding you correctly?
The Council of Nicaea was in the year 325 in what is now Turkey. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, wasn't even born until around 570. So how could Muslims have "cut off" Christian Europe from Christian Africa over 200 years before Islam was founded?
The canonization of the Christian Bible had a lot of considerations, but the Ethiopian Church being cut off from Europe (which it wasn't in 325) and possessing "lost" or "secret" books had nothing to do with it.
By 325 the Roman Empire was certainly starting to have lots of problems, but the churches of Africa were not "cut off" from Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Thing is...the book of Enoch IS REFERENCED TO IN THE CANONICAL NEW TESTAMENT!
St. Paul quoted the Greek poet Aratus. Doesn't make the poems of Aratus canon.
Hold on. You're saying that the big reason the book of Enoch was not included in the canon was because "Christian Europe" was cut off from "Christian Ethiopia" by Muslim territory? Am I understanding you correctly?
No, you are misunderstanding what was said. And your knowledge of history is a bit lacking. Middle-age Europeans were excluded from Muslim lands, although there was actually quite a bit of traffic between Europe and the middle east, most of the tribal leaders were devoutly Muslim, and most Christians interested in such things tended to wear their religion on their sleeves, so they were not particularly welcome.
The Ethiopian Jews were isolated by the Romans. At the time of the diaspora the Jews were scattered across the world. Once Constantine ordered a canon produced and the "Official Church" divided into the three churches, the Jewish sects became even more isolated from each other and mainstream society. The wars between the official churches and the various non-sanctioned believers (such as the Gnostics) extended for several hundred years during which time Jews in general and Ethiopian Jews in particular faded into irrelevancy.
By and large, it was not Christians in general that the Muslims objected to, but European Christians. The Crusades did a lot of damage to their credibility. the Orthodox Christian was generally accepted by the Muslims due to the Orthodox monks offering Mohamed sanctuary at a time when he was being pursued by enemies.
For the most part, though, Christians of all denominations did not consider Jews to be anything but killers of Jesus. Seeking out a sect 2000 miles away was not a biggie on their agenda.....it was far more important to wage war in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Whether the Book of Enoch should be canon, or not, is likely to be an ongoing arguement for forever. I don't think we're going to see a new Bible that includes the "Book of Enoch" anytime soon...
However, anyone that wants to include it as a valid inspired work can simply download it off the internet and read it at their leisure...
That said, my question would be this: how do we know whether the Book of Enoch that is available on the internet is the same as the one referred to in the NT? How do we know it hasn't been changed, or edited, over the centuries? For that matter, how do we even know whether or not someone has simply dreamed up a new Book of Enoch, and is alleging that it is the original?
Do you A, say "well, the Epistle of Jude quotes it, so it must be cannon!" and except it and go get a copy (at any Barnes and Noble under the Bible apocrypha section) and crazy glue it in the OT. Or, do you say B, "well, if the Epistle of Jude quotes a non-canon book, than the Epistle of Jude can't be canon!" and exacto knife it out of the NT?
Sorry...but how could you not do one or the other?
* by "Nicene Bible" I mean the protestant and caholic versions of the bible and those that except the Nicene creed. [/quote]Hello victorianpunk....I say that is very interesting! I think I also say, run and get a copy of it and read it! I will! ...Love.
The book of Enoch is just a longer version of the books of Daniel and Revelation. Same wild imagery and shock content. Some people either don't know or overlook the fact that the book of Revelation was doubted in Eastern Christianity and not generally accepted into the New Testament until AD 508. Some ancient Christian branches still do not include it in their Bibles. In fact, it was dismissed by the Reformer Martin Luther, John Calvin failed to mention it in his commentaries and Jerome did not want to include it in his Latin Vulgate. The book was, in part, rejected by some, for the same reasons the book of Enoh was rejected. Go figure.
As opposed to the other books of the Bible, which don't have a single solitary inaccuracy?
Anyway, it was quoted as canon so hence, it should either be considered canon, or the canon book that quoted it (Jude) should be striken from the canon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..I say that is very interesting! I think I also say, run and get a copy of it and read it! I will! 
