Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[zerinus]

It might be pertinent to make a couple of observations: When Yahweh and two angelic companions come to Abraham and are fed by him, corporeality seems involved (as we have discussed elsewhere on this Board).

While it is true that Jehovah is mentioned in that passage, it does not necessarily follow that the personage so addressed was the pre-mortal Jesus. There are several instances in the Bible where an angel assumes that role (e.g. the angel who appeared to Abraham when he was about to sacrifice his son, the angel who led the Israelites in the wilderness, and the one who appeared to John). All three personages who appeared to Abraham could have been resurrected personages, and the deity could have even been the Father Himself.

Second, LDS theology maintains that spiritual beings are composed of fine material, i.e., that they are not immaterial, even if not embodied.

That again is misleading, because spirit-bodies are not corporeal in that sense, and are not tangible to man.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree that both 2 Peter and Jude appear to be quoting scriptural material not found in our existing canon; but what makes you so sure that the material that they were quoting from was the same as the apocryphal Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch) that is currently known by that name? I think what the Lord has told us about the Apocrypha in general in D&C 91 is equally applicable to the Book of Enoch, and even more so.

That is not true. It was never accepted as part of the canon either by the Jews or the Christians.

I don't agree. The mere fact that 2 Peter and Jude appear to be quoting scripture not found in the biblical canon, with similarities to the content of the (existing) Book of Enoch, does not provide overwhelming evidence that that is what they were quoting from .

Actually, the Book of Enoch was an official part of the Jewish Canon and parts of it have been found at Qumran in Aramaic from centuries before Jesus (both Ethiopian Jews and Christians still have Enoch as part of their canon). It was very influential with early Christian writers and only began to be held in disrepute beginning in the 4th century A.D.

Charlesworth discusses all that, along with the various lost books of the Bible, in his Introduction to his Old Testament Pseudepigrapha volume I, and observes that our modern notions of "orthodoxy" and canonicity are virtually all post 1st century A.D. at least.

As Mormons, we need to be particularly aware of the concept of an open canon, with many books being restored in our day, and with many books which have yet to come forth. The Book of Mormon itself quotes from otherwise unknown prophets such as Zenos and Zenoch. We also have our own book of Enoch (within the Book of Moses), which has strong parallels with the so-called pseudepigraphic Enoch tradition (see Nibley, Enoch the Prophet). Non-Mormon scholar and renowned expert on Enoch, Matthew Black, was frankly astonished at the content of the Joseph Smith book of Enoch, and could only explain the parallels by imagining that Joseph got his information from a subterranean Jewish or other sectarian European group which had kept the tradition alive for millennia.

Moreover, the NT is shot through with frequent quotations from just such non-canonical sources. How does one explain that?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Enoch The Prophet

[maklelan]

That is not true. It was never accepted as part of the canon either by the Jews or the Christians.

This is inaccurate on a couple levels. First, it absolutely was considered authoritative scripture by the early Jews and Christians. There were more copies of Enoch discovered at Qumran than any other biblical books except Psalms and Deuteronomy. Jude directly quotes Enoch and calls it a prophecy of Enoch. The identification of the Son of Man as a messiah figure is also mediated between Daniel and the New Testament by Enoch. The book is still a part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

Next, the notion of a canon itself did not actually develop until after Enoch had been left by the wayside. Prior to the second century CE there was no such thing as a canon, just authoritative scripture. The notion that there was a specific list that had to be accepted and that only books on that list could be accepted developed later. The Hebrew Bible divisions and descriptions from the second century BCE to the first century CE are never perfectly clear and are more incidental than intentional.

[diglot]

This is inaccurate on a couple levels. First, it absolutely was considered authoritative scripture by the early Jews and Christians. There were more copies of Enoch discovered at Qumran than any other biblical books except Psalms and Deuteronomy. Jude directly quotes Enoch and calls it a prophecy of Enoch. The identification of the Son of Man as a messiah figure is also mediated between Daniel and the New Testament by Enoch. The book is still a part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

Next, the notion of a canon itself did not actually develop until after Enoch had been left by the wayside. Prior to the second century CE there was no such thing as a canon, just authoritative scripture. The notion that there was a specific list that had to be accepted and that only books on that list could be accepted developed later. The Hebrew Bible divisions and descriptions from the second century BCE to the first century CE are never perfectly clear and are more incidental than intentional.

I concur with what Daniel has said. This difference between "canonical" and "authoritative" needs to be kept in mind when discussing such matters.

[William Schryver]

This is inaccurate on a couple levels. First, it absolutely was considered authoritative scripture by the early Jews and Christians. There were more copies of Enoch discovered at Qumran than any other biblical books except Psalms and Deuteronomy. Jude directly quotes Enoch and calls it a prophecy of Enoch. The identification of the Son of Man as a messiah figure is also mediated between Daniel and the New Testament by Enoch. The book is still a part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon.

Next, the notion of a canon itself did not actually develop until after Enoch had been left by the wayside. Prior to the second century CE there was no such thing as a canon, just authoritative scripture. The notion that there was a specific list that had to be accepted and that only books on that list could be accepted developed later. The Hebrew Bible divisions and descriptions from the second century BCE to the first century CE are never perfectly clear and are more incidental than intentional.

I have fond memories of sitting in a 10th floor apartment in Messina, Sicily, in June of 1980, gazing out large windows that looked out over the straits of Messina (Between the Scylla and Charybdis), with my good friends Cam Carson and Dallin Oaks, reading Nibley's Ensign series A Strange Thing in the Land - The Return of the Book of Enoch. Great days, those. Nibley's article opened my eyes to a whole new world of thought.

Edited October 30, 2011 by William Schryver

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

You wrote:

The problem here is that both 2 Peter and Jude are directly quoting from Scripture. In their day, I Enoch was official Scripture, and still is in some branches of Christianity, e.g., Ethiopic.

To whom was 1 Enoch "official Scripture" in the time period of 2 Peter and Jude? CFR that this was the case. We'll also need to know approximately when you think 2 Peter and Jude were written. Copies of 1 Enoch at Qumran do not establish that the community regarded it as Scripture. Nor does a quotation from 1 Enoch in Jude.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[zerinus]

Actually, the Book of Enoch was an official part of the Jewish Canon . . .

There is no evidence for this:

Although evidently widely known at the time of the development of the Jewish Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the typical canon of the Septuagint and therefore, also the writings known today as the Apocrypha. Source.

As Mormons, we need to be particularly aware of the concept of an open canon, with many books being restored in our day, and with many books which have yet to come forth. The Book of Mormon itself quotes from otherwise unknown prophets such as Zenos and Zenoch. We also have our own book of Enoch (within the Book of Moses), which has strong parallels with the so-called pseudepigraphic Enoch tradition (see Nibley, Enoch the Prophet). Non-Mormon scholar and renowned expert on Enoch, Matthew Black, was frankly astonished at the content of the Joseph Smith book of Enoch, and could only explain the parallels by imagining that Joseph got his information from a subterranean Jewish or other sectarian European group which had kept the tradition alive for millennia.

Moreover, the NT is shot through with frequent quotations from just such non-canonical sources. How does one explain that?

Nobody denies the Mormon belief in the existence of scriptural material (to be revealed) outside of the existing scriptural canon of the LDS Church; but to jump from that to the conclusion that the so called Book of Enoch as we have it today is one such a text, is a very big leap. The LDS Church does not recognize this material as scripture, and I am willing to put my faith on the line that it never will.

I am equally convinced that neither 2 Peter nor Jude had quoted directly form this book, nor regarded it as scripture. The similarities can be explained in other ways, such as that they were quoting from a genuine scriptural account of Enoch which they had access to, of which the existing "Book of Enoch" is just a corrupted and interpolated version.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

Copies of 1 Enoch at Qumran do not establish that the community regarded it as Scripture. Nor does a quotation from 1 Enoch in Jude.

While we can not know for certain as to whether the author of Jude considered 1 Enoch as Scripture, I think it is more than likely that he did.

I think this for two reasons:

(1) Jude evidently believed that the ascribed antediluvian Enoch actually penned that prophecy. Thus, if Jude thought it was genuinely written by Enoch, then he probably thought of it as authoritative.

(2) Jude sandwiches a quotation of 1 Enoch (1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14-15) between his authoritative use of Old Testament texts and apostolic prophecy (vv. 17-18). I think the default view of this is that Jude placed 1 Enoch on the same authoritative level as he did the Old Testament and the Apostles.

If I recall correctly, two recent commentaries on Jude, by conservative Christian scholars, agreed that Jude probably did consider 1 Enoch as authoritative scripture. (Gene Green, Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT; Peter Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC).

Edited October 30, 2011 by diglot

[zerinus]

While we can not know for certain as to whether the author of Jude considered 1 Enoch as Scripture, I think it is more than likely that he did.

It is even more likely that Jude had not been quoting from 1 Enoch at all, but from another more authoritative text of which 1 Enoch is but a corrupted and interpolated version.

I think this for two reasons:

(1) Jude evidently believed that the ascribed antediluvian Enoch actually penned that prophecy. Thus, if Jude thought it was genuinely written by Enoch, then he probably thought of it as authoritative.

Not if he had not been using that particular book as his source in the first place, as stated above.

(2) Jude sandwiches a quotation of 1 Enoch (1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14-15) between his authoritative use of Old Testament texts and apostolic prophecy (vv. 17-18). I think the default view of this is that Jude placed 1 Enoch on the same authoritative level as he did the Old Testament and the Apostles.

That argument is still dependent on the assumption that Jude was quoting form the 1 Enoch as we have it today, which need not be the case.

If I recall correctly, two recent commentaries on Jude, by conservative Christian scholars, agreed that Jude probably did consider 1 Enoch as authoritative scripture. (Gene Green, Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT; Peter Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC).

Probabilities are not certainties. It is bad scholarship to make definitive assertions on the basis of probabilities.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zerinus

[diglot]

It is even more likely that Jude had not been quoting from 1 Enoch at all, but from another more authoritative text of which 1 Enoch is but a corrupted and interpolated version.

No it is definitely not more likely.

Not if he had not been using that particular book as his source in the first place, as stated above.

I don't understand what you are saying.

That argument is still dependent on the assumption that Jude was quoting form the 1 Enoch as we have it today, which need not be the case.

Whether Jude possessed all the literary works that make up 1 Enoch is irrelevant. But he did possess (and quote from) the Book of Watchers portion of 1 Enoch.

It is bad scholarship to make definitive assertions on the basis of probabilities.

lol says the one who conjectures Jude wasn't quoting from 1 Enoch, but rather was referring to some other missing authoritative text.

You are simply wrong. Jude quotes 1 Enoch in his epistle. This isn't really a debatable issue.

Edited October 30, 2011 by diglot

[maklelan]

There is no evidence for this:

Although evidently widely known at the time of the development of the Jewish Bible canon, 1 Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the typical canon of the Septuagint and therefore, also the writings known today as the Apocrypha. Source.

This assertion has nothing to do with the situation in the first century. There was no "formal canon of the Tanakh" at any point prior to the second century CE at the earliest, and our earliest Septuagint manuscript that is actually a collection of books is from even later. The fact that the Ethiopic church includes it shows that it was a part of scripture at the time that community broke off from the larger Jewish community. The assumption that they would have separated themselves and then inserted 1 Enoch into their scriptures is not supported by anything. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that 1 Enoch was not considered authoritative scripture. All the evidence that suggests that comes from centuries later (although if you read the rest of your Wikipedia article, you'll see Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian suggested 1 Enoch was rejected as scripture by Jews only because it prophesied of Christ).

On the other hand, all the information we do have from the second century BCE to the first century CE suggests 1 Enoch was very much considered authoritative scripture for early Jews and Christians. Jude quotes it directly as actual prophecy without qualification or hesitation, and between other Old Testament scriptures. There's no indication anywhere that any New Testament authors actually distinguished between "canonical" and "non-canonical" scripture. Not only do Enochic manuscripts appear at Qumran, but they appear more than all other biblical books except the Psalms and Deuteronomy. Enoch is represented more than Isaiah and Genesis. 1 Enoch is quoted repeatedly throughout the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, often alongside Isaiah and Deuteronomy. There is simply nothing anywhere that suggests 1 Enoch was not considered authoritative scripture in the first century CE.

[zerinus]

No it is definitely not more likely.

From our point of view it is more likely, because we have additional revelation which gives that added perspective. But I cannot blame you for not accepting that because it is a matter of faith. We accept the Book of Mormon for example to be scripture, which I don't suppose you do.

[Rob Bowman]

So, if 1 Enoch was scripture, and it is extant today, why doesn't the LDS Church include it among its "standard works"?

[mfbukowski]

How does one distinguish between true and false revelations?

Let me guess.

If it corresponds to Evangelical theology it is "true", and if it does not, it is "false". Right?

Now that Rob is back, I didn't want him to forget this question I had.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

How does one distinguish between true and false revelations?

Let me guess.

If it corresponds to Evangelical theology it is "true", and if it does not, it is "false". Right?

How did I know?

Wrong.

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

[maklelan]

So, if 1 Enoch was scripture, and it is extant today, why doesn't the LDS Church include it among its "standard works"?

I would say D&C 91 is applicable here. Just because it was once considered scripture doesn't mean we need it in the canon.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I would say D&C 91 is applicable here. Just because it was once considered scripture doesn't mean we need it in the canon.

So, what is the point of arguing that it ever was scripture? Why do Mormons constantly trot out lists of "lost books of the Bible" (and they typically include 1 Enoch in those lists)?

[maklelan]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Wrong.

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

Evangelicals must be quite selective in applying this test, then, because numerous, numerous portions of the Bible are in conflict with earlier portions of the Bible. For instance, the book of Chronicles completely changes several portions of the much earlier book of Kings just to align it with contemporary concerns vis-à-vis priesthood and the Davidic line. Additionally, we have the problem of Acts 15 completely changing what Amos 9 said because it was using a Greek mistranslation and filling in the blanks the translation left. James stated that what he was quoting was "the words of the prophets." It clearly wasn't. You seemed to suggest that it was a kind of authorized manipulation of the text. Does this mean there are exceptions to the test you describe above, or just that your test is not applicable to the Bible, and we must unilaterally accept the Bible as is?

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

So, what is the point of arguing that it ever was scripture?

To correct those who say it was never considered scripture. I've stated many times over that my concern is not for Latter-day Saint ideology, but for defending what the evidence can show.

Why do Mormons constantly trot out lists of "lost books of the Bible" (and they typically include 1 Enoch in those lists)?

Mainly to combat the dogma that a formal, well-defined, and limited canon has been normative throughout the history of Christianity and Judaism.

[Pahoran]

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

So let's see if I understand this correctly.

You earlier said it was a complete straw man to suggest that any EV anywhere had ever given the Bible priority over God.

And now, when it comes down to an actual case, you clearly give the Bible priority over God.

A Bible, a Bible, you have got a Bible, and you need no more Bible.

We get it. We always got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

Here, let me fix that for you.

If a purported revelation contradicts the Evangelical interpretation of earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

[zerinus]

Why do Mormons constantly trot out lists of "lost books of the Bible" (and they typically include 1 Enoch in those lists)?

There is a genuine "book of Enoch" mentioned in the D&C, which is promised to be revealed at a future date (D&C 107:57); but it is not the same as the Book of Enoch that goes by that name today.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Wrong.

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

Sigh.

This whole line of questioning developed to see how we knew the Bible was "true revelation" in the first place.

Around and around we go.

"There's a hole in the bucket dear Lisa, dear Lisa,......"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_Hole_in_My_Bucket

Edited October 31, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Wrong.

If a purported revelation contradicts the earlier revelations given in the Bible, then the new revelation is false. That is the primary test. I bet you already knew that.

Many of Pauls writings would fail this test.

Ezekiel would fail too.

Leviticus 18:21

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

Ezekiel 20

23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries;

24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.

25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb,

that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Zakuska