The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Stuart » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:05 am

The consensus reconstruction of Marcionite Galatians excludes verses 1:18-24, and most also verse 1:17. The entire first visit to Jerusalem is missing. All mention of Barnabas is missing. There are many other verses and phrases (parts of verses) missing, as there are throughout the corpus. Linguistic studies by a few scholars show a consistency in the vocabulary within the attested text and other different vocabulary missing (e.g., certain words, some with little or no theological meaning, are consistently missing in the Marcionite text).

Although not much mentioned, there are other large "lacunae" worth noting:
1 Corinthians 7:12-24 (later additions), possibly more of chapter 7
1 Corinthians 8:7-9:6
1 Corinthians chapter 16 (maybe starts at 15:58), except part of verse 16:23 (*)
2 Corinthians 5:18-11:1 (excepting a fragment from verse 7:1)
2 Corinthians 11:16-12:6, 12:10-21
2 Corinthians 13:3-9, 11-12 (*)
Philippians 4:1-22 (*)
Ephesians/Laodiceans 3:13-4:4 , also 4:9-24
Colossians 3:11-4:17 (*)


Note: (*) all the salutations are missing in the Marcionite versions. I am of the opinion these were regarded by the earliest Pauline writers as part of a system of rank and privilege they rejected (e.g., Galatians 2:6, Luke 10:4, 11:43, 20:46) and associated with their opponents (whom they likened to Jews ... called the Judaizers, et al, as Stephen HUller points out). It is of note also that lack of acceptance of bishops and elders is a major complaint of the Church Fathers (reflected in Hebrews 13:17 directly, and calling for obedience of the gentiles in Roman 1:5, 15:18, and several calling for obedience in general)

Colossians mention of Mark and Luke in DA 1:5 is by the Catholic champion Adamantius, quoting from the Catholic text. The sequence of responses by the debaters seems to have been altered. Megethius' response to this "proof" by Adamantius was almost certainly "I do not except your spurious Apostolikon", which was placed before Admantius' claim by the Dialogue's author to give the Catholic the final word. (DA's author only worked from prior works and the Catholic text he knew.)

********************

Stephen, kudos for this thread. You had a great intro and let others respond. I was surprised to see how much you have come to converge with my views on certain points. There are still some differences, as you still accept more of the legends associated with the Church Fathers supposed lives, and do not yet critically evaluate the seams and inconsistencies in their writings (e.g., AH 1.22-31 being an abrupt change in style and type of argument, becoming a "list" form ... the problem you see caused with AH 1.26 being from an early layer is easily resolved by acknowledging this passage in Irenaeus is much later interpolation)
Last edited by Stuart on Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9644
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Secret Alias » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:32 pm

I can't get over that statement at the beginning of Book 5 where essentially Tertullian says the Marcionites and their literary materials make no reference to the 'origin' of Paul:
Nothing is without an origin except God alone. In as much as of all things as they exist the origin comes first, so must it of necessity come first in the discussion of them. Only so can there be agreement about what they are: for it is impossible for you to discern what the quality of a thing is unless you are first assured whether itself exists: and you can only know that by knowing where it comes from. As then I have now in the ordering
of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle
This statement as well as those that appear in Irenaeus Book 3 make clear that the Catholic story of 'the origin of Paul' is not shared by the Marcionites. All of the evidence suggests that the differences weren't minor - like Paul was here as opposed to there on this date - but a fundamental difference of identity.
Denique audiens postea eum a domino allectum, iam in caelis quiescente, quasi inprovidentiam existimo si non ante scivit illum sibi necessarium Christus, sed iam ordinato officio apostolatus et in sua opera dimisso, ex incursu, non ex prospectu, adiciendum existimavit, necessitate, ut ita dixerim, non voluntate

So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ
did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design
While Holmes connects "ex incursu, non ex prospectu" with the vision on the road to Damascus Evans does not seem to agree. This is our only clue for the Marcionite version of events. But surely it has to be recognized that the Catholic story (based on Galatians 1:9 - 2:11 and Acts) was not shared by the Marcionites.

It does sound like Tertullian was schooled in Aristotelian philosophy - 'Everything has an origin or is an origin' (Physics 203b6) Aristotle also argued that a god is intellect (nous) without passion (pathe). Also this:
Has any one noticed a curious affinity between Tertullian's famous paradox and a passage in Aristotle's Rhetoric?

In arguing against the docetism of Marcion, Tertullian (de Carne Christi 5) flashes out into the following epigrams : 'Natus est Dei Filius: non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est Dei Filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.' This is one of the most defiant paradoxes in Tertullian, one of the quick, telling sentences in which he does not hesitate to wreck the sense of words in order to make his point. He deliberately exaggerates, in order to call attention to the truth he has to convey. The phrase is often misquoted, and more often it is supposed to crystallize an irrational prejudice in his mind, as if he scorned and spurned the intelligence in religion----a supposition which will not survive any first-hand acquaintance with the writings of the African father. The odd thing is, however, that consciously or unconsciously he was following in the footsteps of that cool philosopher Aristotle. In the second book of the Rhetoric (23. 22) we find the following sentences in a discussion of the various kinds of demonstrative proof: ἄλλος ἐκ τῶν δοκούντων μὲν γίγνεσθαι ἀπίστων δέ, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἔδοξαν εἰ μὴ ἦν ἢ ἐγγὺς ἦν. καὶ ὅτι μᾶλλον· ἢ γὰρ τὰ ὄντα ἢ τὰ εἰκότα ὑπολαμβάνουσιν· εἰ οὖν ἄπιστον καὶ μὴ εἰκός, ἀληθὲς ἂν εἴν· οὐ γὰρ διά γε τὸ εἰκὸς καὶ πιθανὸν δοκεῖ οὕτως. It is not difficult to see how this line of argument would justify Tertullian's 'credibile quia ineptum, certum quia impossibile '.

Aristotle's point is that, with regard to incredible events which are supposed and asserted to have taken place, you may argue that they would never have been believed at all, unless they had actually occurred; such statements must be true or almost true (εἰ μὴ ἦν ἢ· ἐγγὺς ἦν). Still further. You may argue that such incredible events are all the more likely to be true, on the ground that men believe either in (a) actual facts or in (b) probabilities; hence, if a certain statement cannot be classified under (b), i. e. if it is incredible and not probable, it must represent an actual fact. The assumption is that all objects of belief are either facts or probabilities, and this disjunctive judgement involves the paradoxical conclusion that if a given assertion is ἄπιστον καὶ μὴ εἰκός, or, as Tertullian would say, impossibile, it is all the more likely to belong to the class of τὰ ὄντα.

We demur, especially in these days of war-rumours, to Aristotle's argument about this class of demonstrative enthymemes. Common |171 sense suggests that if a given statement is extremely improbable, it need not therefore be true. But Aristotle ignores the fact that the sheer incredibility of a thing is not the best proof of its reality, and the result is what Gomperz calls a disconcerting piece of dialectical audacity. We are invited to believe that if some statement is wildly improbable (a!piston, incredibile), it is more improbable still that any one should have invented it; in other words, that it would never have been made or credited, unless there had been some evidence for it, and consequently that such evidence must be strong!

Tertullian knew his Aristotle, but he was perfectly capable of striking out a similar paradox on his own account. The passage from the Rhetoric may be no more than a parallel; possibly the argument it conveys may have been current among rhetoricians. Still, I think it is not uninteresting to note how Aristotle, in a sober discussion of the topics proper to forensic debate, could for the moment take a line which the jurist Tertullian took in the glow of theological controversy. Even if it is only a curious coincidence, it serves to modify some of the sweeping inferences drawn from the De Carne Christi by some modern critics who tend to exaggerate the psychological idiosyncrasies of the author. The paradox of the certum quia impossibile remains as pointed as ever, but it should be read in the light of the fact that this African father of the Church was not the first to defy what seems to us to be an obvious axiom of historical proof.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

iskander
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by iskander » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:55 pm

"Collection of Paul Criticisms at St. Lawrence University Blog
Did you ever ask the question... St. Lawrence University Blog
--------------------------It is not a new/modern concept to question Paul.------------------------ **********From Tertullian to President Jefferson********** This is a chronological collection of quotes and examination of Paul throughout history:...
https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/29 ... cisms.html
In 207 A.D., Tertullian in Against Marcion…made the following sobering points about Paul: • Jesus never made Paul an apostle from the records that we can read. • Paul's claim to apostleship solely relies upon Paul's veracity."



The 'pillars' never accepted the apostle Paul.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:57 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:15 am

I have I hope pointed out that both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra are Jewish works and are unlikely to have been influenced by Christianity. My conclusion is that in the first century CE within Jewish thought there was the idea of the Son of Man as a heavenly apocalyptic figure and Jesus was influenced by this thought as he is influenced by other Jewish thoughts of that time.
Cheers. I had been unsure if the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra had been influenced by Christianity as others have speculated, but my lack of certainty was more due to not looking into them: I had not yet delved into them or other likely intertestamental texts with respect to 'son of man of 'the Son of Man'. There are a number of commentators accounts about the role of Christianity in 1 Enoch (or not), and about excerpts of 1 Enoch in Qumran Dead Sea Scroll texts -

James Charlesworth writes: "This pseudepigraph has evoked divergent opinions; but today there is a consensus that the book is a composite, portions of which are clearly pre-Christian as demonstrated by the discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments from four of the five sections of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls ... The main question concerns the date of the second section, chapters 37-71, which contains the Son of Man sayings. J. T. Milik (esp. no. 755) has shown that this section, which is not represented among the early fragments, is probably a later addition to 1 Enoch; but his contention that it was composed around A.D. 270 (no. 755, p. 377) is very speculative. If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century A.D. The original language of 1 Enoch appears to be Aramaic, except for the Noah traditions, which were probably composed in Hebrew. The earliest portions display impressive parallels with the nascent thoughts of the Jewish sect which eventually settled at Qumran." (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 98)

Michael A. Knibb writes: "The pentateuchal (five-part) structure ... refers to the book in its present (Ethiopic) form; the Qumran discoveries have made it clear that these traditions originally had a different shape. Fragments of eleven manuscripts of Enoch in Aramaic were discovered amongst the Qumran scrolls, and these fragments confirmed the view that 1 Enoch was composed in Aramaic ... the fragments from...four manuscripts belong to a book of Astronomy which at Qumran circulated separately from the other Enochic writings; the third section of the Ethiopic book (chapters 72-82) is based on the Qumran book of Astronomy, but is much shorter and differs quite substantially. No fragments were discovered corresponding to the second section of the Ethiopic book (chapters 37-71), the Parables." (Outside the Old Testament, p. 27)

James C. VanderKam writes of 1 Enoch 1-36: ".. The Book of the Watchers (BW) is best known for introducing the strange story (or stories) about the angels who sinned by marrying women and fathering giants. The story in various forms became a major theme in the Enoch tradition and in a surprisingly large number of other works both Jewish and Christian." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 91)

James C. VanderKam writes of 1 Enoch 37-71: "...In this work Enoch is termed a 'son of man,' and he is deeply involved in the final judgment of the wicked and reward of the righteous." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 110)

Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71)

Michael A. Knibb writes: "The concern with the Son of Man has led to the Parables being considered in relation to the traditions in the gospels about the Son of Man. Some scholars have thought that the Parables are Christian, but this is very unlikely because the Parables lack any reference to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; here the difference from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work Jewish in origin but clearly Christian in its present form, is particularly significant. In fact the Parables are a Jewish work and are rooted firmly in traditions stemming from the Old Testament; they build upon what is said about the 'one like a man' of Dan. 7, but also draw upon traditions relating to the Davidic Messiah (cp. Isa. 11) and to God's servant (cp. Isa. 49). It is a matter of debate whether the Parables, a Jewish work, might have exercised some limited influence on the gospel traditions; but their real importance—in the writer's opinion from towards the end of that century. It should be noted that for this section of Enoch we have available only an Ethiopic text." (['The Ethiopian Book of Enoch'] in Outside the Old Testament, p. 44)


http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html
Interestingly, the initial uses of 'son' in 1 Enoch are as 'sons of men' (with the odd 'sons of heaven' or 'sons of the Earth') before

Enoch 37:1
The vision which he saw, the second vision of wisdom, which Enoch saw, the son of Jared, the son of Malaleel, the son of Canan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam. This is the commencement of the word of wisdom, which I received to declare and tell to those who dwell upon earth.

Then a few more sons of men before 'the/my Elect One' in chap. 45 is declared "This is the Son of Man" [italics mine]

Enoch 45:2 Heaven they shall not ascend, nor shall they come on the earth. This shall be the portion of sinners, who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and who are thus reserved for the day of punishment and of affliction.

Enoch 45:3 In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory; and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations, while their spirits within them shall be strengthened, when they behold my Elect One, for those who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name.

Enoch 45:4 In that day I will cause my Elect One to dwell in the midst of them; will change the face of heaven; will bless it, and illuminate it for ever.

Enoch 45:5 I will also change the face of the earth, will bless it; and cause those whom I have elected to dwell upon it. But those who have committed sin and iniquity shall not inhabit it, for I have marked their proceedings. My righteous ones will I satisfy with peace, placing them before me; but the condemnation of sinners shall draw near, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth.

Enoch Chapter 46
Enoch 46:1 There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man. His countenance was full of grace, like that of one of the holy angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who he was; whence he was and why he accompanied the Ancient of days.

Enoch 46:2 He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.

Enoch 46:3 This Son of man, whom you behold, shall raise up kings and the mighty from their dwelling places, and the powerful from their thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the teeth of sinners.

Enoch 46:4 He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their dominions; because they will not exalt and praise him, nor humble themselves before him, by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits.

Enoch 46:5 They shall condemn the stars of heaven, shall lift up their hands against the Most High, shall tread upon and inhabit the earth, exhibiting all their acts of iniquity, even their works of iniquity. Their strength shall be in their riches, and their faith in the gods whom they have formed with their own hands. They shall deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and shall expel him from the temples, in which they assemble;

Enoch 46:6 And with him the faithful, who suffer in the name of the Lord of spirits


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

and thereafter 'son' is mostly this or the Son of Man, but there is one 'Son of woman', a 'sons [slain] with their fathers', some more 'sons of men', a couple of 'sons of the holy angels' [Enoch chaps. 68 & 70], some 'my son Mathusala', and 'my son' as in Enoch 64:10 -

Enoch 64:10: They have discovered secrets, and they are those who have been judged; but not you my son. The Lord of spirits knows that you are pure and good, free from the reproach of discovering secrets. http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html




MrMacSon wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:17 am
Michael BG wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:14 am
Another point I was making was that the title “Anointed” (Christ) came from Judaism and was not used in Roman or Greek culture as a title. The first record we have of someone other than a Jew being anointed as a king was Clovis in 493.
Christ would have been a term used in the LXX.
Michael Bird, in Are You the One Who Is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question, Baker Academic, pp. 34-7, ties 'anointed [one]' to the Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ, which Google Translate gives as messiah. And Bird refers to Joseph Fitzmyer tying messianic texts in the OT [to] that term 'in connection with teaching about a continuing Davidc dynasty'. Bird later uses מָשְׁחָהיו for annointed which Strongs gives as a variant of the original word for mishchah / messiah http://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/4888.htm
I don’t understand what point you are making here. It seems to support what I wrote, “’Anointed’ (Christ) came from Judaism and was not used in Roman or Greek culture as a title”.
Yes, I am supporting what you wrote and also making the point that messiah and anointed one were or might have been interchangeable.

I assume you are not claiming that the LXX was part of pagan Greek culture.
No, I'm not
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by Michael BG » Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:24 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:57 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:15 am

I have I hope pointed out that both the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra are Jewish works and are unlikely to have been influenced by Christianity. My conclusion is that in the first century CE within Jewish thought there was the idea of the Son of Man as a heavenly apocalyptic figure and Jesus was influenced by this thought as he is influenced by other Jewish thoughts of that time.
Cheers. I had been unsure if the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra had been influenced by Christianity as others have speculated, but my lack of certainty was more due to not looking into them: I had not yet delved into them or other likely intertestamental texts with respect to 'son of man of 'the Son of Man'. There are a number of commentators accounts about the role of Christianity in 1 Enoch (or not), and about - excerpts of 1 Enoch in Qumran Dead Sea Scroll texts -
James Charlesworth writes: "… If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century A.D. The original language of 1 Enoch appears to be Aramaic, except for the Noah traditions, which were probably composed in Hebrew. The earliest portions display impressive parallels with the nascent thoughts of the Jewish sect which eventually settled at Qumran." (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 98)

James C. VanderKam writes of 1 Enoch 37-71: "...In this work Enoch is termed a 'son of man,' and he is deeply involved in the final judgment of the wicked and reward of the righteous." (An Introduction to Early Judaism, p. 110)

Martin McNamara writes: "No fragment of any part of Parables has been found in Qumran. For this, and for other reasons besides, some scholars doubt its pre-Christian and Jewish character. J. T. Milik maintains that it was composed in the second or third century of our era. However, contemporary scholarship tends to reckon the parables Jewish, and to assign their composition to the first century of the Christian era." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 71)

Michael A. Knibb writes: "The concern with the Son of Man has led to the Parables being considered in relation to the traditions in the gospels about the Son of Man. Some scholars have thought that the Parables are Christian, but this is very unlikely because the Parables lack any reference to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; here the difference from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work Jewish in origin but clearly Christian in its present form, is particularly significant. In fact the Parables are a Jewish work and are rooted firmly in traditions stemming from the Old Testament; they build upon what is said about the 'one like a man' of Dan. 7, but also draw upon traditions relating to the Davidic Messiah (cp. Isa. 11) and to God's servant (cp. Isa. 49). It is a matter of debate whether the Parables, a Jewish work, might have exercised some limited influence on the gospel traditions; but their real importance—in the writer's opinion from towards the end of that century. It should be noted that for this section of Enoch we have available only an Ethiopic text." (['The Ethiopian Book of Enoch'] in Outside the Old Testament, p. 44)


http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html
It seems clear from your research that the majority opinion is that Similitudes of Enoch are Jewish and at the latest first century AD as Collins concluded. The interesting thing is that some see it as influencing Matthew as I quoted John J Collins writing.

You didn’t write if you had reached a conclusion yourself.
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:57 pm


Enoch 45:3 In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory; and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations, while their spirits within them shall be strengthened, when they behold my Elect One, for those who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name.

Enoch 46:2 He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

I assume verse 43:2 and equating the Son of Man with the Elect One is where people find the link to
Matt 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne
and Matt 25:31
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:57 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:14 am
I don’t understand what point you are making here. It seems to support what I wrote, “’Anointed’ (Christ) came from Judaism and was not used in Roman or Greek culture as a title”.
Yes, I am supporting what you wrote and also making the point that messiah and anointed one were or might have been interchangeable.
I assume you are not claiming that the LXX was part of pagan Greek culture.
No, I'm not
Thanks for clearing this up for me.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:54 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 4:24 pm

It seems clear from your research that the majority opinion is that Similitudes of Enoch are Jewish and at the latest first century AD as Collins concluded. The interesting thing is that some see it as influencing Matthew as I quoted John J Collins writing.


Enoch 45:3 In that day shall the Elect One sit upon a throne of glory; and shall choose their conditions and countless habitations, while their spirits within them shall be strengthened, when they behold my Elect One, for those who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name.

Enoch 46:2 He answered and said to me, This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness belongs; with whom righteousness has dwelt; and who will reveal all the treasures of that which is concealed: for the Lord of spirits has chosen him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in everlasting uprightness.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

I assume verse 43:2 and equating the Son of Man with the Elect One is where people find the link to

Matt 19:28 -
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne
and Matt 25:31 -
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne
Cheers. That elaborates on what you posted the other day -
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:58 pm

John J Collins in The Apocalyptic Imagination writes, “The present form of the Similitudes, which explicitly identifies Enoch as the ‘Son of Man,’ must be Jewish” (p 178). I assume this is because it is inconceivable that a Christian would give a title of Jesus to Enoch. He dates them to earlier than the gospels and especially earlier than Matthews gospel, as he wrote, “(Matt 19:28 and 25:31), which refer to the ‘glorious throne,’ seem to depend on the Similitudes” (p 178).

Another interesting point is reference to sin and sins in 1 Enoch, which relates to something you pointed out two yrs ago, viz. -
Michael BG wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:16 pm
John Collins suggests that in “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mk 2:10) the son of man probably is being used as a messianic title p 261-62 (I think he has been influenced by his wife – Yarbo Collins “the Origin of the Designation” p 146-51), but he doesn’t give any details why this might be.
'sin' and sins per se are first mentioned in 1 Enoch at Enoch 45:5, right between the first mention of the Elect One and the first declaration of the Son of man at/in Enoch 46:2: ("This is the Son of man"), though it's not in the context of forgiving sins as Mk 2:10 is -

Enoch 45:5 -
I will also change the face of the earth, will bless it; and cause those whom I have elected to dwell upon it. But those who have committed sin and iniquity shall not inhabit it, for I have marked their proceedings. My righteous ones will I satisfy with peace, placing them before me; but the condemnation of sinners shall draw near, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth.

(sinners is mentioned 10 times before this point, two of which refer to sinners "who deny the name of the Lord ..", and 56/7 times after)

So Jesus in Mk 2, and the rest of the NT, could be an evolution from Enoch's Son of man who, once invoked in 46.2, is quickly invoked in 46.3 as one who shall "break in pieces the teeth of sinners" and asserts that "the condemnation of sinners shall draw near, that I may destroy them from the face of the earth."

Then Enoch 49:2 has "In the day of trouble evil shall be heaped up upon sinners; but the righteous shall triumph in the name of the Lord of spirits."

Enoch 62:1: "In those days the kings who possess the earth shall be punished by the angels of his wrath, wheresoever they shall be delivered up, that he may give rest for a short period; and that they may fall down and worship before the Lord of spirits, confessing their sins before him."

etc.

You didn’t write if you had reached a conclusion yourself [regarding whether the Similitudes of Enoch are Jewish or Christian].
I'm leaning towards them being Jewish.

Post Reply