Questions about stuff I came accross studying Biblical History

Hello Thinkingstuff and welcome to BB,

I think your questions are interesting, but the answer will lie in you struggling over the canon. One recent Protestant work that gives some interesting thoughts is in John Webster's Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. If you are really interested in a quite thorough treatment of the canon, I highly recommend Lee Martin McDonald's The Biblical Canon. A helpful Eastern Orthodox approach that interacts with both Josh McDowell and some of the books you mentioned can be found here: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon.aspx

Discussions of the canon intersect with the relationship between Scripture and the church. Protestants typically argue that Scripture constitutes the church while Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox affirm the opposite. I tend to side with the latter, but that is most likely a minority position among people here.

My view of passages like the one in Jude that refers to Enoch is that Jude knew the book himself, knew that his audience knew the book, and knew that at least the audience (and most likely Jude too) considered the book to be important and maybe even authoritative. Jude used Enoch at a crucial point to bolster his argument with his audience. I don't think we can turn this around and now consider it a liability hundreds of years later.

 

Hello again Thinkinstuff,

I think it's very common for people who grew up Protestant with a belief in sola scriptura to wrestle at one time or another with the issue of the canon. This is a good thing to go through. My advice is to embrace the difficulty and use this as an opportunity to learn more about the church of which you are a part. Stating that Enoch is blatantly fictitious is perhaps a little off. It was pseudonymous, but its genre is apocalyptic if I recall. Its genre should drive some of what we can and cannot say about its meaning.

Anyhow, if you delve into the formation of the canon you will see that it took some time for the church to agree, and even then the Reformation opened up the issue once again. There's a reason why the early church found some books helpful that did and did not make it into the canon. There's also a reason why other branches of Christianity continue to find some books useful that aren't part of the Protestant canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes Enoch in its canon).

It's wise to look into these to see what we can learn from them. Perhaps from there you will look into the Apostolic Fathers and some of the writings of the Church Fathers. Sola scriptura, at least according to the magisterial reformers, was never intended to dispense with the analogy of faith or the place of tradition altogether. It was utilized to correct a neglect of Scripture when the church strayed from its own apostolicity. This is some of the richness of Protestant reflection on the place of Scripture.

One other resource I recommend is Jobes and Silva's Invitation to the Septuagint. However, if you have no seminary training, then you may find some basice New Testament introductions to be more helpful. Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament is accessible and quite good (though it does not represent conservative evangelical thought). For an evangelical introduction, there is Carson, Morris, and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament, which is widely used in conservative seminaries. If I recall, there is a chapter on the canon in both books.

Feel free to e-mail or PM me if you have further questions.
Blessings,
BJ

 

Gleason L. Archer, Jr.'s extremely helpful book, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [(c) 1982, Zondervan], summarizes Jude's use of the Enoch quotations [v. 9 & 14] this way:

"....This by no means demonstrates that everything in the Book of Enoch is historically accurate or theologically valid. Much of Enoch may be quite fictional. But there is no good ground for condemning everything that is written therein as false simply because the book is noncanonical. Even a pagan work could contain items of truth, as is attested to by Paul when he quoted Aratus's Phaenomena 5 to his Athenian audience (Acts 17:28)." [p. 430]

 

I believe Paul also used pagan poetry and made references to pagan athletic contests to make some of his points.

Just because something isn't inspired doesn't mean there can't be some truth contained within it.

 

Thinkingstuff:

Had you quoted the rest of the sentence in Archer's book, that might have explained your quandry:

"... and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were perfectly able to report such occurrences in connection with their teaching ministry." [Emphasis mine.]

Maybe I've misunderstood what sola scriptura means, but if the Holy Spirit guided the Biblical writers, then certainly He would not have allowed them to make a statement that is obviously erroneous.

 

Thinkingstuff,

Thanks for your reply.

It's my understanding [which is ALWAYS subject to correction!] that sola scriptura does not mean that the Biblical writers' source materials must be solely confined to prior Biblical writings.

If that were the case, then Paul would have to have been guilty of the same thing [if not worse] when he quoted the work of a pagan author in Acts 17:28.