7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Why is it often claimed that the so-called "Book of Enoch" was written earlier than was Jude's epistle?
Why is it often claimed that Jude, in verse 14 of his God-breathed epistle, was quoting from the so-called "Book of Enoch"?
Indeed, in Jude 14 KJV, it is written:
I, for one, don't see, in this (nor in anything else), any necessary implication that Jude had to be quoting from a written document, nor that what Enoch had prophesied had to have been written down (whether by Enoch, himself, or by anyone else) prior to Jude's writing it.
I've wondered about this off and on over the years, but have never yet really looked too extensively into the question. I thought that it might be interesting to pose the question to anybody who might think they have something somewhat definitive and satisfactory to say to it. Anybody, that is, who might be capable of giving me a succinct account of exactly why the common view of the book's origin as pre-Jude's epistle is supposed to be the only rational view. For, as far as I can tell, the common view is simply taken for granted.
I've never read the so-called "Book of Enoch" in its entirety, but my own personal feeling toward it, from what I have read in it, is that it is little more than a worthless dung heap written by some miscreant, damnable forger, who knows when? I'm inclined to think that, if the whole of it was not written after Jude's epistle, at least some of it was written only after Jude wrote his epistle, and that the direction of quoting was the other way around from what is commonly assumed; not Jude quoting from the "Book of Enoch", but the forger or redactor of the "Book of Enoch" quoting from Jude's epistle. What, if anything, debars this view from being correct?
Why is it often claimed that Jude, in verse 14 of his God-breathed epistle, was quoting from the so-called "Book of Enoch"?
Indeed, in Jude 14 KJV, it is written:
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints...
I, for one, don't see, in this (nor in anything else), any necessary implication that Jude had to be quoting from a written document, nor that what Enoch had prophesied had to have been written down (whether by Enoch, himself, or by anyone else) prior to Jude's writing it.
I've wondered about this off and on over the years, but have never yet really looked too extensively into the question. I thought that it might be interesting to pose the question to anybody who might think they have something somewhat definitive and satisfactory to say to it. Anybody, that is, who might be capable of giving me a succinct account of exactly why the common view of the book's origin as pre-Jude's epistle is supposed to be the only rational view. For, as far as I can tell, the common view is simply taken for granted.
I've never read the so-called "Book of Enoch" in its entirety, but my own personal feeling toward it, from what I have read in it, is that it is little more than a worthless dung heap written by some miscreant, damnable forger, who knows when? I'm inclined to think that, if the whole of it was not written after Jude's epistle, at least some of it was written only after Jude wrote his epistle, and that the direction of quoting was the other way around from what is commonly assumed; not Jude quoting from the "Book of Enoch", but the forger or redactor of the "Book of Enoch" quoting from Jude's epistle. What, if anything, debars this view from being correct?