Why is The Book of Enoch not devinely inspired?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MACADAMIANUTS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MACADAMIANUTS

Guest
It’s in the Ethiopia Catholic Bible. There is no problem with that. So why would what would then have to be “Word of God” not be devinely inspired?
 
MACADAMIANUTS said:
It’s in the Ethiopia Catholic Bible. There is no problem with that. So why would what would then have to be “Word of God” not be devinely inspired?
Click to expand...
This one for now: the fact that only the Ethiopians include it in their canon should tell you something. In other words, they’re in the minority.
 
I don’t know if everything you said was correct. I don’t know if there’s an Ethiopian Catholic
Church, it wouldn’t surprise me, but if there in fact was, it’s Bible would not have Enoch.

I think you are getting Ethiopia Catholic confused with Ethiopia Orthodox which doesn’t
acknowledge the authority in Rome, I don’t think anyway, they have their own canon.

The Book of Enoch was written too late to have been written by Enoch himself, I hear
that it doesn’t quite coincide with the rest of Scripture, that’s about as much as I know
about why Enoch is not acceptable Holy Writ.

I do believe, however, that there was Sacred Oral Tradition from the Jews that did creep
it’s way into the book possibly, since St. Jude does quote a small part of it in his letter.

Doesn’t make the WHOLE book Scripture, but let me add also that it is LOADED with
demonic names, which makes it a dangerous text also, for names do have power, and
that uttering them can put people in spiritual peril.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I think you are getting Ethiopia Catholic confused with Ethiopia Orthodox which doesn’t
acknowledge the authority in Rome, I don’t think anyway, they have their own canon.
Click to expand...
I think that’s what the OP was talking about The Book of Enoch is part of Eastern Orthodox Tewahedo Church cannon
 
Catholics need only concern themselves with the Catholic canon.
The Orthodox for example, have more OT books, the Protestants and Jews have less OT books. That the Copts have a different canon may be no surprise either.
 
patrick457 said:
This one for now: the fact that only the Ethiopians include it in their canon should tell you something. In other words, they’re in the minority.
Click to expand...
Do the non-Latin sui iuris Churches have their own canons of Scripture? Were they required to repudiate their former canons of Scripture when they (re)entered into communion with Rome?
 
Novocastrian said:
Do the non-Latin sui iuris Churches have their own canons of Scripture? Were they required to repudiate their former canons of Scripture when they (re)entered into communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia: (bolding added)
“…Other distinctions between the Orthodox and Catholic Ethiopian Churches include certain points of doctrine regarding the sacraments, the use of the Catholic canon of Scripture, and the Catholic rejection of miaphysite theology…”

Not sure if this is reliable, or a relevant response to the question.
 
Actually in the beginning that book inspired me on how the fallen angels have fallen, but I remembered what JESUS said that angels do not marry, so I got confused!
 
Check out this chart from the Oxford Annotated Bible that lists the books included in various churches. It might help give some context to what is being discussed here: bombaxo.com/blog/?page_id=2120

I’ve seen similar charts before, but never one of this much detail. I did not know that the Eastern and Western Syriac canons differ from one another, for instance (all the other charts I’ve seen seemed to lump the two Syriac traditions together, as far as I can remember). Neat.

The Book of Enoch is not canonical in the Coptic Orthodox Church (or any other churches outside of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo), but I did read it once a while ago, because I’ve known and communed with many Tewahedo Christians since becoming Coptic Orthodox, and their faith is awe-inspiring to me. It’s a fascinating book. Anyone who is interested in reading it themselves may do so here.
 
MACADAMIANUTS said:
It’s in the Ethiopia Catholic Bible. There is no problem with that. So why would what would then have to be “Word of God” not be devinely inspired?
Click to expand...
It is not divinely inspired because the Holy Catholic Church did not list it among those that were inspired. End of story.
 
CutlerB said:
It is not divinely inspired because the Holy Catholic Church did not list it among those that were inspired. End of story.
Click to expand...
Then how is it, and why is it OK that Ethiopian Catholics use it? Why on earth would the Vatican allow them to put it then the Bible they use? Anyhing in the Bible, whether it’s Ethiopian or the Bible most of us Catholic are used to has to be divinely inspired. Word of God is Word of God. We 're a Universal Church. It has many Rites with many different customs but, our core beliefs are Universal. The Church would not permit one of it’s Rites to teach something as Word of God that isn’t. Not game over. Honestly, I’m beginning to hope an Ethiopian Catholic priest reads this thread, and can put some light to this question. I’m seeing way too much conflicting information on the subject.
 
MACADAMIANUTS said:
Then how is it, and why is it OK that Ethiopian Catholics use it? Why on earth would the Vatican allow them to put it then the Bible they use? Anyhing in the Bible, whether it’s Ethiopian or the Bible most of us Catholic are used to has to be divinely inspired. Word of God is Word of God. We 're a Universal Church. It has many Rites with many different customs but, our core beliefs are Universal. The Church would not permit one of it’s Rites to teach something as Word of God that isn’t. Not game over. Honestly, I’m beginning to hope an Ethiopian Catholic priest reads this thread, and can put some light to this question. I’m seeing way too much conflicting information on the subject.
Click to expand...
If you can find an Ethiopian Catholic priest, he’s probably got better things to do. The Ethiopian Catholic Church is tiny, and mostly concentrated in Ethiopia (well, Eritrea; Catholicism is much more popular in Eritrea than Ethiopia, though I’m not sure that the RCC distinguishes between the two at an ecclesiastical level; it does not seem that they do). Any Ethiopian or Eritrean Catholics you’d find in the USA are under the jurisdiction of the local Latin ordinary within the (Latin) diocese in which they reside, since they’re too few to have their own canonical jurisdiction. Not that any of this actually relates to the topic at hand.

The Habesha (Ethiopian and Eritrean) Christians, many many centuries before there was any Catholic presence in their lands, received the Bible in the same as any other particular church did: As a collection of books, not codified or in any particular order that would likely be recognizable to us today. In its ‘pre-canonized’ state, various books existed that would later fall into disuse in the major centers of Christianity (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), or perhaps were never accepted by the Church in a given place. Some of these books survived in Ethiopia due to its relative isolation, or were primarily identified with Ethiopian traditions and transmitted and preserved only in their classical language (Ge’ez). As such, it makes sense that the Ethiopians developed the unique and wide canon that they did, as many of these books are only preserved in their language, which others cannot read. Their associated traditions, many of them with roots that predate the New Testament itself (the uniquely ‘Judaic’ character of the EOTC testifies to this), reinforce this wider OT canon, as the books are preserved liturgically in the worship of the Church. I will not speculate as to the acceptability of all this to Roman Catholics, but it is important to understand their tradition in order to understand why it is that their Bible looks so different than yours (and even different than ours in the Coptic Orthodox Church, even though the churches in Ethiopia and Eritrea are our daughters). It really has nothing to do with what Rome would hypothetically find acceptable, and everything to do with the unique history, culture, and circumstances of their Church, which Rome played no part in until very recent times (e.g., the Portuguese and later Jesuit incursions in the 15th century and afterward), long after their canon was established via liturgical use of books unique to their tradition.
 
MACADAMIANUTS said:
Then how is it, and why is it OK that Ethiopian Catholics use it? Why on earth would the Vatican allow them to put it then the Bible they use? Anyhing in the Bible, whether it’s Ethiopian or the Bible most of us Catholic are used to has to be divinely inspired. Word of God is Word of God. We 're a Universal Church. It has many Rites with many different customs but, our core beliefs are Universal. The Church would not permit one of it’s Rites to teach something as Word of God that isn’t. Not game over. Honestly, I’m beginning to hope an Ethiopian Catholic priest reads this thread, and can put some light to this question. I’m seeing way too much conflicting information on the subject.
Click to expand...
Ask the Vatican, but it is just as true that the book of Enoch was not included among the list of inspired books. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top