Timothy Jay Schwab of the God Culture has finally published one of his most anticipated books, The First Book of Enoch. Published on March 1, 2022 this book is one that Tim has been promising his audience for the past year. The comment section of his videos is full of viewers asking for such a commentary. Let's take a look at this book.
 |
| The First Book of Enoch: The Oldest Book In History |
Just like his previous edition of Jubilees this book is not an original translation but an amended translation from R. H. Charles. That means Tim has defaced the text by inserting Yahuah every time God or Lord appears. In this review I shall not consider the annotated text of Enoch itself but only Tim's introduction. As I have shown in past reviews of Tim's books and videos he is extremely ignorant, ill-informed, and uneducated about these ancient texts. He attributes things to them that are simply not true such as 2 Esdras being found among the scrolls at Qumran and Jubilees being in use in the Church until the 14th century.
Foreward
In this section Tim lays bare his methodology in assessing this book. Enoch was written by Enoch because Jubilees says so and Jubilees is scripture. Jubilees was also written by Moses thus Moses gives witness to Enoch. Of course Jubilees does not agree with two books Moses did write, Genesis and Exodus, by adding all kinds of superfluous and contradictory material which proves Moses did not write Jubilees. But I have written about that elsewhere showing how Tim's analysis of Jubilees is shallow and dishonest.
Pages 11-12 are a long harangue against scholars.
How inept a scholar would have to be to think in such a ridiculous manner of scoffing.
p. 11
It's almost like Tim is Dr. Seuss but terrible. I mean what is up with his atrocious grammar!? Once again the scholars who have spent their entire careers studying the Dead Sea Scrolls and the community at Qumran are:
...not honest men seeking the truth, they are liars not Bible scholars.
p. 12
It's a wonder how Tim can say they are not Bible scholars when the Bible is the book they study. One may not like their conclusions but no matter how one slices it even a man like Bart Ehrman is a Bible scholar. Tim goes on to claim that Enoch's intended audience is we who are living in the last days. That means his book has no meaning at all for his contemporaries. So, why did they preserve it!??
Enoch composed this masterwork before the Flood to an audience he says is the End Times remnant. That is us today. He wrote this so in the Last Days especially, we would have this knowledge restored in the midst of a strong delusion in which we were warned and it has been in place for centuries. We are bombarded with a culture who hates Yahuah and will march against Yahusha in the end including many in the church. They will unite for that singular purpose, not in Him, and this has been growing for thousands of years. This is why we are called the Remnant and there are not over one billion believers on the Earth today but very few in number proportionately as predicted by Messiah and the Prophets including Enoch. The way of Yahuah is foreign to this world including scholarship and the church. They generally do not know the Elohim of the Bible, His Son nor His Word. This book will expose this many times.
p. 12
Finally Tim says he will be creating maps from the ancient perspective of Enoch.
In this major work, we will not ignore Enoch's very obvious cosmology of the Earth including in most maps used, but we will embrace the ancient perspective in the shape of the Earth. Those who reject that will never understand this ancient text nor the Bible.
p. 14
That means the flat earth perspective. Thus Timothy Jay Schwab's rendering of Enoch's journey around the world looks like this:
 |
| p. 134-135 |
The Introduction begins on page 15 with a reprint of Tim's "Who lived in Qumran" section which also appears in Jubilees and 2 Esdras. There is no need to go over any of that. I have shown elsewhere how wrong Tim is about the Qumran community. What concerns us next is the "Torah Test" which begins on page 35.
This test is the same one Tim applied to Jubilees and 2 Esdras. There are four criteria which must be met. Three come from the Blue Letter Bible website and one Tim made up.
1. Prophetic Authorship
Tim's argument for the author of Enochian authorship of Enoch is the same as his argument for the Mosaic authorship of Jubilees. Namely, the text says so therefore it is true.
The First Book of Enoch ascribes its authorship to the Prophet Enoch, the seventh from Adam many times, even written in the first person, and documented before and up to the Flood. This is affirmed by Noah in his writing in which we have fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Moses in the Book of Jubilees and by Jude which we will cover.
We will cover the Book of Jubilees written by Moses as well as Jude both ascribe Enoch as the author of this First Book of Enoch. They not only identify him as author but quote it. We can find this throughout history in a historicity that is indisputable.
p. 36
In between those passages there is long harangue against R.H. Charles and James Vanderkamp (it's actually spelled Vanderkam) for suggesting there might be multiple authors. Did Tim forget that there is a whole section in Enoch attributed to Noah!? Tim launches into an emotional argument saying they are defaming the Temple Priests who kept the true canon at Qumran. What he does not do is give an argument that Enoch was written before the flood by Enoch. He simply states it as a fact based on the authority of Enoch, Moses, Noah, and Jude. It is circular and depends on his paradigm that Jubilees is scripture and I do not grant him that. He has not shown Jubilees to be scripture at all though he thinks he has. In fact he has actually lied about its usage in the early church. The issue of Jude's citation is a different matter. He then says he will discuss this later. Why not do it now in this section? This brief section is totally worthless.
2. Witness of the Spirit: The Historical Process, Quoted as Doctrine in Scripture
This is a really long section broken into several smaller sections. Here Tim will show that Enoch has been in use since before the flood and long afterwards.
Before the Flood
This section relies on Jubilees being scripture. Jubilees says Enoch wrote before the flood and that it was by reading his parables that Noah learned of the coming flood approximately 200 years before it came.
However, Noah first learned of the Flood from reading Enoch’s book according to Noah.
The 500th year of Enoch would be about 1022 A.M. and that is very appropriate as Noah, almost 300 years old at that time, would have learned about the coming Flood that year not long after Adam died in 930 A.M. as a new era had begun. This is before Noah’s 3 sons are born from 1207-1212 A.M. in time to prepare and by that point, Noah is fully aware of the task at hand. Their ages would also fit the time in which they would be able to assist in building the ark. He builds the ark by 1307 A.M. and the Flood began 1308 A.M.
Just by reading 8 chapters later, Noah affirms he learned of the coming Flood in the First Book of Enoch specifically from the Book of Parables and later that day Michael spoke to him as well.
p. 38-39
Tim's proof that Enoch was in use before the flood is because the Book of Enoch says so! That is fallacious circular reasoning. The story of Noah in Enoch does not line up with the story in Genesis at all. In Genesis 6 we are told that God informed Noah of the coming flood when he was more than 500 years old.
Not until verses 13 and 14 does God speak to Noah about the Ark and coming Flood. Then in verses 17 and 18, God said, “and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you” (Genesis 6:18). Notice that Noah had sons who already had wives. Noah didn’t have his first son of record until he was 500 years old, and the Flood came 100 years later (Genesis 7:6). Allowing 25–30 years for the sons to grow up and get married, we’re left with perhaps 70 years to build the Ark.
In Genesis God tells Noah to build an ark but in Enoch God tells Noah angels are building the ark.
Enoch 67:2-3 And now the angels are making a wooden (building), and when they have completed that task I will place My hand upon it and preserve it, and there shall come forth from it the seed of life, and a change shall set in so that the earth will not remain without inhabitant.
Tim's commentary on this passage contradicts its plain words.
Noah had the assistance of the angels. Perhaps they built the frame but we know Noah and his sons built the ark as well.
p. 170
Does Tim actually believe what Enoch plainly says?
After the Flood; Time of Abraham
These two sections rely on the testimony of Jubilees which is no testimony as Jubilees is not scripture written by Moses.
Time of Moses
In this section Tim claims Deuteronomy 33:2 is a quotation of Enoch 1:3-4. However, Deuteronomy is talking about the giving of the law while Enoch is declaring the judgment of God on the earth. The passages are different and do not even remotely concern the same subject.
He then compares Genesis 6:1-2 with Enoch 6:1-2.
Genesis 6:1-2And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw: the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.1 Enoch 6:1-2And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters, And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’
These passages are indeed very similar. It is likely that whoever wrote Enoch was quoting from Genesis. Tim has it all backwards. He certainly has not offered any proof that Enoch wrote Enoch.
Time of Moses' Jubilees
This section shows all the times the author of Jubilees cites Enoch. Because Tim claims Jubilees was written by Moses this shows that Enoch is both scripture and was written by Enoch. Again it is more circular reasoning requiring a belief that Jubilees is scripture. It is not scripture and contradicts both the Old and New Testaments therefore Jubilees is not a reliable witness.
Prophet Isaiah
Here Tim claims Isaiah 66:1 is quoting Enoch 84:2 when he writes, "The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool." But given the late date of Enoch it is most certainly the other way around. The author of Enoch was citing Isaiah. Again Tim has not offered any real proof that Enoch the seventh from Adam wrote his titular book.
The next sections include:
Prophets Daniel and Ezekiel
Prophet Ezra's Book of 2nd Esdras
Dead Sea Scrolls
These sections all serve to prove that these prophets and the Dead Sea community cited Enoch as scripture. For the Dead Sea scrolls that is a no-brainer. As for 2nd Esdras that is likely since that book was written after the fall of Jerusalem and Enoch had not yet been lost. As for Daniel and Ezekiel it could be that the author of Enoch cited from them.
Tim next relates a story about a supposedly lost complete Aramaic translation of 1 Enoch. Allegedly it was sold to a collector but a microfilm exists somewhere. Tim claims if this is true it is nefarious and proof that the book is being willingly suppressed.
We are told in the Qumran Scrolls only fragments of the First Book of Enoch were found. In fact, the only surviving complete copy was found in Ethiopia. Any scholar who has an issue with Yahuah preserving this text in the Ge’ez language is not following the Bible which never says Yahuah will preserve specifically in the original Hebrew language. That is just not there nor do they apply that in modern Canon texts necessarily so it is inconsistent and not a true measure. They make it up adding to the Word and apply it as a litmus test to discount obvious scripture because they do not wish to accept it. They ignore an awful lot and it sets a paradigm of stupid.
However, in the case of the First Book of Enoch, what appears a complete manuscript in Aramaic is reported to have been found in Qumran by the Chief Editor even. It was sold off to a private collector in secret with no information available to the public. Some even attempt to deny this yet this was the Chief Editor not some busy body spreading rumors. If true, this appears nefarious. Former Chief Editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls, John Strugnell, granted two interviews to Biblical Archaeology Review where he claimed he witnessed a complete copy of the Book of Enoch from Cave 11. In a follow up interview, he also claimed he saw it on microfilm as well. This has not been made available to the public. Why?
If in fact, this book was recorded on microfilm, that is wonderful except where is it? Why is this not public? If a private collector has it, who is that and more so, where is the information? This is not some antique or rare book, it is scripture and if true, how dare anyone allow that to be stolen away from the public eye. The good news is we have enough which survives to understand the First Book of Enoch in the Ethiopic Ge’ez supported by the other, though incomplete, Qumran scrolls we have. Whether one dates these fragments to 300-150 B.C. is of no consequence as they are copies and such dating is not actually based on science and ignores the scribal tradition no scholar would apply in discussing Genesis thus a false paradigm.
p. 50-51
What does it matter if there is an Aramaic text of Enoch hidden away in a collector's cabinet when Tim says the book was fully preserved in Ge'ez? Does he think there might be some important textual variations that would shine light on the Ethiopic? If so he is acting like one of those Bible scholars he so continually maligns. Well, it turns out he does think that an Aramaic copy found in the caves of Qumran would show proof that the parables of Enoch, that would be chapters 37-71, are genuine.
The Supposed "Missing Section" of First Enoch
These chapters were not found at Qumran and are also absent from the Greek translation. That means they were added at a later date. Tim says such kind of thinking is that of an "intellectual toddler." His solution is that the Book of Parables was known at Qumran because they are referenced in Jubilees and 2 Esdras and both of those books were found at Qumran.
The supposed missing Second Section titled the Parables of Enoch are comprised of Chapters 37-71. They are not missing in the first century B.C. as the Parables of Enoch from the Second Section are quoted and preserved in date by 2nd Esdras 6 times even. 2nd Esdras is also quoted in the Dead Sea Scrolls in about 100 B.C. thus the connection is not difficult to assess. These are not scholars but scoffers bellowing ridicule in ignorance. In 2nd Esdras 6:49-32, the Prophet Ezra takes First Enoch 60:7-9 and expands on it even. That is a Parable in First Enoch from the supposed missing section about Leviathan and Behemoth being quoted in 100 B.C, or so at the very latest. Also, 2nd Esdras 7:32-33 cites | Enoch 51:1 and 3, 2 Esdras 7:37 quotes 1 Enoch 62:1 and 60:6, and 2nd Esdras 7:36 derives from 1 Enoch 48:9-10 and 27:3 even according to R.H. Charles/introduction) in 1912. There has never been a point to this criticism yet many believe they should ignore these 40 plus Chapters of scripture documented in use in the first century B.C. because illiterate scoffers are only capable of textual criticism or scoffing without follow through in research. This is called gross negligence and any scholar who has maintained this position is no scholar and hates Yahusha.
Finally, when the Book of Jubilees 7:38 also affirms Noah reading from the First Book of Enoch affirming these two fragments; 7:39 affirms Noah keeping the Law of Enoch from this same writing; 10:17 confirms Enoch’s office of Prophet and Scribe including Enoch’s written testimony of the ages all the way to the Day of Judgment; and 21:10-11 documents where even Abraham read the First Book of Enoch as did his fathers which would include Noah and Enoch who tell us that included the Book of Parables precisely even, then, there is no point here. There is no missing section from First Enoch period.
p. 52-53
2 Esdras does not date before 70 AD and was never found at Qumran. That Tim continues to insist that it was reveals how adamant he remains in his ignorance. His proof from Jubilees is likewise inadequate. Yes, Jubilees says Noah read from the writings of Enoch but Jubilees does not cite from the Parable section. That is a very long section of 34 chapters. For instance Jubilees makes no reference to Noah learning of the flood 200 years before the event from reading Enoch. Nor does Jubilees tells us that angels built the ark as Enoch 67:2-3 says. Why would that be if Jubilees is supposed to be a witness to 1 Enoch?
Before moving on the most controversial section of these parables is 56:5.
And in those days the angels shall return And hurl themselves to the east upon the Parthians and Medes:
It is the mention of the Parthians and Medes by name that has caused many to date this section much later than the rest of Enoch. Incidentally Tim has no notes on this verse in his commentary.
 |
| pg. 156 |
The New Testament
Everything in these next three sections concerns the testimony of the Church and because Timothy considers the Church to be the Synagogue of Satan it should really be trashed. Why does he care about the testimony of the Synagogue of Satan? He cannot even appeal to the New Testament because the Church chose which books and which texts of those books to accept. With his criteria for what makes scripture, that a book must have been found at Qumran because those schismatics kept the true canon, Timothy Jay Schwab has no epistemic right to the New Testament.
This is a very lengthy section where Tim shows every place in the New Testament where Enoch was quoted. It is rather common knowledge that Jude cites Enoch by name. He is the only New Testament author to do so. That is not to say that other authors do not cite Enoch but it is to say they never refer to him directly by name.
This is a direct quote from the written First Book of Enoch. The notion that Jude was a sucker who fell for a fraud created 200 years earlier is stupidity not to mention Messiah and the rest of the Apostles who quote First Enoch. He is quoting the ancient scroll of Enoch from the first chapter of Enoch even pretty closely and credits it as such. Jude knew the Temple Priests at Qumran/Bethabara did not manufacture scripture under false pretenses and he uses this passage and others as scripture. Why do we allow inept modern scholars to accuse Jude of being a fool and the true Levite Temple Priests as being frauds? They were not, Pharisees are. This is not a quote from any other book but the First Book of Enoch period and certainly not the opposite.
p. 55
He then goes through a host of scriptures, citing only the English translations, to show us that the New Testament is imbued with the thought of 1 Enoch. Sadly, his puerile invective against scholars and any thing he finds disagreeable ruins what is otherwise a very interesting and I dare say compelling section of his introduction. If the New Testament references a book surely it is Sacred Scripture, right?
Quoted by "Early Church Fathers"
This entire list is obviously taken from R.H. Charles' footnotes and has not been translated or made intelligible in any way.
 |
| p. 68 |
If Tim cared about his readers at all he would have cited the authors and the works in modern language and not just leave it looking like that. Take a look at Irenaeus. What work is being cited and which passages are being referred to? I know it's Against Heresies but which books and sections? There is no way Tim has read any of these Early Church Fathers. It would be interesting to actually take a look at a few of these references but Tim simply posts this list and moves on. After this list he writes the following two odd paragraphs.
When one reviews the objections of so-called “early church fathers” of the false church, it is no surprise they did not like First Enoch especially when the tide turned to change the Bible and they went along. These were a cursed lot as you do not change what the true Temple Priests already kept as Bible Canon. They do not like Yahuah and did not actually serve Him which is obvious in their church foundation. Certainly, one can read of Origen’s (200 A.D.) or Augustine’s (400 A.D.) hatred of the book. They did not prefer the truth but the lies of their false church who demonstrated a preference for occult roots instead which they would replace. Enoch exposes them. A false church who abandoned the practice of the Apostles and persecuted the true ekklesias in Turkey is the wrong measure to assess what is inspired scripture. They are not even an inspired church nor entire system. They are the men (Jude 1:4) warned crept in unawares before launching into several quotes from the First Book of Enoch.
Thus, it is useless to then follow this false church to see what it did or did not change in scripture. The point is they dared to change it and never had authority. They are illegitimate and their changes void. Even with that said, they still continued to use First Enoch until at least 380 A.D. with latter references still proving they knew the Temple practice of keeping Enoch as scripture which they abandon not Messiah nor any Apostle. They are caught and exposed as they are guilty of continuing the Pharisee Bible over the Temple Priests further proving they are not the ekklesia of Messiah. They don’t know Him, especially not His ways and they do not represent Him thus they do not get an opinion.
p. 69-70
First of all Augustine did not hate the Book of Enoch. He thought it was a genuine production of the Biblical patriarch.
We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission.
Tim has not read Augustine and has no idea what he is talking about.
Second of all, why bother to cite the Early Church as a witness if it is useless because they are a false and illegitimate church? Tim's method really makes no sense.
Simply because a book was cited in the Old or New Testament does not make it scripture. If that is the measure of canonicity then what shall we do with all the other books NOT cited at all but which form the canon?
The third is that citations in the New Testament cannot serve as a definitive yardstick for canonicity, since it contains none from certain books whose canonicity was disputed even among the Jews (Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs), two from the book of Wisdom (2, 13 in Matthew 27, 43 and 7, 26 in Hebrews 1, 3), and an explicit citation from the indisputably apocryphal Book of Enoch. (Jude, 14-15)
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2017/01/the-apocrypha-and-liturgy.html
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church
In this section Tim says the Ethiopian eunuch Philip converted in Acts 8 brought back the traditions of the New Testament church. This includes the use of 1 Enoch as scripture.
Remember, in Acts 8:25-40, essentially the Treasurer of the nation of Ethiopia met Philip. He was already reading Isaiah without understanding it. Philip explained to this man the story of Messiah and the man accepted Yahusha that day. He would return to his country knowing the traditions at least in part of the ekklesia of Messiah. It is there we find the continuation of the First Book of Enoch as Bible Canon.
Somehow, and no one truly documents how, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church included the First Book of Enoch and The Book of Jubilees in it’s Bible Canon around 300 A.D. until today. One must wonder if the true origin of this decision might really be that Treasurer that day who learned some from Philip and likely many others before leaving to return to his country with a message in which he would have amassed a following.
p. 70-71
How would the Ethiopian eunuch know any of the traditions of the church when his meeting with Philip was a one-off while he was on his way home? Let's not forget that the Ethiopian Church was founded in the 4th century.
Though no written history truly appears to identify this firmly, we believe they continued that tradition especially regarding First Enoch and Jubilees directly from the Apostles and exiled Temple Priests not from any other church and certainly not from Pharisees who practice differently. Around 300 A.D., the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church was established and chose to continue these two books as Bible Canon which does not match any other Bible Canons really except that of the Apostles and Temple Priests in regards to these two books. We are not addressing their entire Canon. We know this because we find the Apostles quoting Jubilees and Enoch as inspired scripture many times. This continues in their Bible to this day.
p. 71
The Holy Scriptures are one of the two great foundations of the faith and here is what our church holds and teaches concerning it. The word of God is not contained in the Bible alone, it is to be found in tradition as well. The Sacred Scriptures are the written word of God who is the author of the Old and New Testaments containing nothing but perfect truth in faith and morals. But God’s word is not contained only in them, there is an unwritten word of God also, which we call apostolic tradition. We receive the one and other with equal veneration.
This and a host of other doctrines such as the Trinity puts the Ethiopian church firmly in the Synagogue of Satan according to Tim. So, why does he even bother with their witness? He is not consistent at all.
3. Acceptance
This, of course, means that the Church has accepted the book. But has the Church accepted 1 Enoch as scripture? The answer is an unequivocal "No." Contrary to what Tim claimed above Origen did not "hate" the book of Enoch. But he is a witness that the book was not accepted in the Church as divine as early as the 200's.
...for he does not appear to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine...
This is the premier Bible textual scholar before Jerome and a man whose teachings influenced many telling us that Enoch was not considered scripture in the Church in his day. That is a very important testimony which should not be discounted.
While Enoch is an important book for understanding 2nd Temple Judaism as well the apocalyptic tradition in much of the early Church the fact is the Church rejected it. Why? According to Tim the answer, which he never proves and is not provable, is that the book was willingly suppressed by those in power because they wished to conceal the truths it contains.
The fact is we must listen to what Jesus says:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
We cannot deny that the Church has been led all this time by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. This includes deciding the contents of the canon. Paul tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. If we deny that then we have no foundation to believe anything. We are then left all alone as atomistic individuals who must determine what is and what is not truth. But God has given us the Church, His body here on earth. God speaks and acts through her alone.
Tim's insistence that we need Enoch to properly understand the Bible and the times we live in is completely faithless and atheistic. Such a stance is to reject that God has preserved his word through the Church for the past 2,000 years.
As demonstrated in Part 2 of this Torah Test, the First Book of Enoch agrees with the whole tone and tenor of the Old and New Testaments serving as the foundational basis in several parts we have identified. In this publishing, we will address the recent movement of those who believe in a Flat Earth as Enoch most certainly did write from such perspective but anyone saying the rest of scripture is not, is clueless and cannot read. We have seen several such dunderhead responses claiming that a circle is sphere or ball when very clearly Bible writers knew the difference and when they use circle they mean a 2-dimensional shape not a ball. Those scholars are simply not honest.
p. 72
There you have it. Timothy Jay Schwab is a flat-earther 100%. Here is another of the many flat earth maps to be found in this book.
 |
| p. 128 |
The Philippines is northeast of the Indian Ocean!
For Tim agreement with the whole of scripture means that Enoch agrees in tone and tenor with the Old and New Testaments. Don't let a contradiction like Noah being told about the flood 200 years before Genesis has it or the angels building the ark put you off. That's just small potatoes to Tim. "Even the Gospels have minor details to iron out," he says. Yeah try reconciling all the crucifixion and resurrection stories! (That is not to say I am not a believer but it is to acknowledge that Tim has no idea what he is talking about.)
That is the whole of the introduction. It's pretty bad. There are a host of bad arguments and straight up lies in what Tim has to say about Enoch. That Enoch says Enoch wrote the book is no proof he did. Likewise his appeals to Jubilees fall short because Jubilees is not an ancient book. Its substantial disagreement with Genesis in many places including the timeline is proof positive that Moses is not its author thus it is not a reliable witness to Enoch.
Tim's appeal to the Early Church especially with him saying a few paragraphs later that their testimony does not matter should cancel out any appeals to the Church. Likewise his appeal to the New Testament for the canonicity of Enoch is also wrongheaded because it is the Church which compiled those books. Tim has no New Testament. His only canon, as he admits, is what is found at Qumran and he has no sound epistemic basis for that claim either.
What was discovered in and around Qumran cannot be affirmed to be a complete library of what was actually stored there, for the residents made no list of what they stored, and we do not know if one day another cave will be discovered with many more ancient manuscripts. Therefore, a certain amount of caution is necessary before making strong statements about the contents of the Qumran library. And because of this uncertainty, it is wise to soften conclusions about what was not found there.
Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pg. 131
The next part of this review will take a look at Tim's apparatus for Enoch. There are colorful maps and charts aplenty as well as many notes. Since this is a blog about the Philippines I will especially examine the references to this nation in Tim's book. Believe it or not the Philippines plays a huge role in 1 Enoch.
No comments:
Post a Comment