In 2001 and 2002 I explored the notion that there were books missing from the Bible by way of studying Genesis 6:4 which says:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
I was intrigued by who the "Nephilim" were/are. The King James Version translates the word as "Giants". In Hebrew "Nephilim" mean "fallen one" or "to fall". The Bible connects the Nephilim to men who are described as nearly monstrously tall and large, also called . Men like Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4) - whom David slew, the man described in 2 Samuel 21:20 and 1 Chronicles 20:6, men who were sometimes referred to as Anakites (Numbers 13:33, Joshua 11:22; Deuteronomy 1:28), Og king of Bashan (who was an Rephaites - Deuteronomy 3:11), and others. Using this information, 2 separate explanations as to who the Nephilim are have been proposed...both are Orthodox...and they hinge on the identities of the "son of God".
Some people use Job 1:6 which in the KJV refers to angels as "sons of God". this would mean that angels fathered children by human women. Then it doesn't take much imagination that children of angels would be bigger and stronger then pure humans. This idea is bolstered by the Book of Enoch which emphatically states that this is what happened. However, not everyone agrees that this is the correct understanding of who the Nephilim are because of two reasons. First, "sons of God" elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to human beings and second, because Jesus said angels do no marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) and therefore we conclude that angels cannot have sex or procreate.
I am not leaning toward the interpretation that "sons of God in Genesis 6 is not referring to angles because it cannot be corroborated with the rest of the 65 books that I know are scripture. However when I was flirting with the idea that the Book of Enoch was truly inspired, I researched how we go the copy we have today and looked at if the 1st Century church used the Book of Enoch as scripture. What I found out was that the oldest copies we have are more than 2000 years old, dating back to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don't have any Hebrew copies nor do we know what original language it was written in. The copy I have is translated from a Coptic copy. If it was really written by the real Enoch, it would have to be extremely old. Enoch was first mentioned in Genesis 5:19 - seven generations from Adam. This make me doubt that he wrote it. However the rub is that the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 1:14,15 which we know the book of Jude is divinely inspired. The passage says:
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."
The question I was asking was: If a book is quoted in scripture, does that mean the book is also scripture? Going back to the first canonicity post I wrote, I have to apply the criteria scripture gives. Under that criteria I have to conclude that no the Book of Enoch is not scripture. Don't believe me? Read it yourself:
Okay, I know what you're asking. The same question I asked upon reaching this conclusion: Does this mean that Jude is not inspired either? Jude is inspired according to the criteria scripture sets up. Obviously, first century Jews and Christians had access to the Book of Enoch but we know it was not part of the Jewish canon. I think that the fact that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch because it was a common piece of literature his readers were familiar with and illustrated the points he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make. Here is an illustration: if a preacher quotes a movie or a book...does that make the movie or book scripture, even if the point being made is true? No. I often wonder if there be a confusion 2000 years from now about what Christians today consider scripture with all the different texts and denominations floating around today. I wonder because some of us are more familiar with the Left Behind books than we are with scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment