On the Prophesy of Enoch and how it relates to books in the biblical canon, I think he does good critical study of the Bible's texts. Or at least asks the right questions.
The Book of Enoch isn't part of the canon of Protestants, Roman Catholics or the standard Eastern Orthodox; it is part of the canon of "the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church."
In canonical books, Enoch is mentioned as a character in general in a few places. The controversy -- which persisted from the days of the early church, throughout the ages -- is that in one, arguably two or more places in the canon, Enoch's prophesy that derives from the Book of Enoch is quoted as though what was being quoted is true (as sacred scripture).
So Enoch mentioned as a character by name in Genesis in a manner otherwise unrelated to the Book of Enoch isn't controversial. Enoch quoted in Jude, on the other hand, IS controversial because Jude invokes the Prophesy of Enoch which the Book of Enoch speaks of in more detail.
Of course, for those who want to thread the needle as to why there is good reason to accept the canon but exclude Enoch, there is an argument which we need not get into here. Another way of threading the needle is to conclude the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches got it right and that the Book of Enoch belongs in the canon.
John Adams didn't just reject the Book of Enoch, he also rejected the Prophesy of Enoch. (Hat tip to Bill Fortenberry for the reference.) As Adams wrote to F. Van der Kemp, Jan. 4, 1814:
That this Prophecy of Enoch was as gross a Forgery as the Gospell of the Infancy, which Some ascribed to St. Mathew and Some to St Thomas; or as the Acts of Paul and Thecle, I have no doubt. To call Such impious and execrable forgeries by the pious Epithet Apocryphal, is abominable.But if not just the Book but the Prophesy of Enoch is false, what then of when this fake prophesy is invoked in books of the accepted canon as though it were true. In Jude and in the 2nd Peter, the Prophesy of Enoch is so mentioned.
So Adams asks his son John Quincy, who at that time was supposedly more orthodox in that he professed Calvinism, about whether he thought Jude (along with Song of Solomon and Apocalypse (Book of Revelation)) properly belonged in the canon. (The younger Adams basically confessed agnosticism on the matter.)
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated December 25, 1813, Adams asks:
Do you know any thing of the prophecy of Enoch ? Can you give me a comment on the 6th, the 9th, the 14th verses of the epistle of Jude?And in a later letter to Jefferson, from February 1814, Adams reveals more when he mentions Priestley's treatment of the issue. There Adams faults Priestley for not tracing "the Prophecy of Enoch [to] India in which the fallen Angels make Such a figure."
As Adams quotes Priestley's treatment of the matter:
In his remarks on Mr Dupuis. p. 342. Priestley Says, “The History of the fallen Angels is another Circumstance, on which Mr Dupuis lays much Stress. ‘According to the Christians,’ he says, Vol. 1. p. 336, ‘there was from the beginning, a division among the Angels; Some remaining faithful to the light, and others taking the part of Darkness’ &c.17 But this Supposed history is not found in the Scriptures. It has only been inferred, from a wrong interpretation of one passage in the 2d Epistle of Peter, and a corresponding one in that of Jude, as has been Shewn by judicious Writers. That there is such a Person as The Devil is no part of my Faith, nor that of many other Christians; nor am I sure that it was the belief of any of the christian Writers. Neither do I believe the doctrine of demoniacal possessions, whether it was believed by the Sacred Writers or not; and yet my unbelief18 in these Articles does not affect my faith in the great facts of which the Evangelists were eye and ear Witnesses. They might not be competent Judges, in the one case, tho perfectly So, with respect to the other.”(Again, the words in quotations are Priestley's not Adams'.)
Adams then discusses his opinion of Priestley's treatment:
I will19 ask Priestley, when I See him, Do you believe those Passages in Peter and Jude to be interpolations? If so; by whom made? and when? and where? and for what End? Was it to Support, or found the doctrine of The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the universal Corruption depravation and guilt of human nature and mankind; and the Subsequent Incarnation of God to make Attonement and Redemption!—Or do you think that Peter and Jude believed the Book of Enoch to have been written, by the 7th from Adam, and one of the Sacred cannonical Books of the Hebrew Prophets? Peter, 2. Ep. c. 2. v. 4, Says “For if God Spared not the Angels that Sinned, but cast them down to Hell and delivered them into chains of Darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment.” Jude v. 6th Says “And the Angels which kept not their first Estate, but left their own habitations, he hath reserved in everlasting Chains under darkness, unto the Judgment of the great day.”20 v. 14th “And Enoch also, the 7th from Adam, prophesied of these Saying, behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute Judgment upon all &c” Priestley Says “a wrong Interpretation” has been given to these Texts. I wish he had favoured Us with his right interpretation of them.(Keep in mind Joseph Priestley died in 1804; this letter was written in 1814. Adams expects to see Priestley in the afterlife and discuss these issues with him.)
Again, Adams rejects both the Prophesy and Book of Enoch and there are at least two logical conclusions that flow therefrom: 1. the entire Books of Jude and Peter which reference the Prophesy are not inspired; or 2. those passages in Jude and Peter are "interpolations."
Given his premises, Adams asks the right questions. Priestley, alas didn't give Adams answers that satisfied him.
17 comments:
. Adams expects to see Priestley in the afterlife and discuss these issues with him
Is this as stupid as it sounds? You can just ask God.
Thank God for the Council of Trent.
Jon, you claimed that "John Adams didn't just reject the Book of Enoch, he also rejected the Prophesy of Enoch." This is based on the assumption that Adams could only have used the phrase "Prophecy of Enoch" in reference to the prophecy recorded in Jude and not as a reference to the Book of Enoch. Let me present a few counter examples which prove your assumption to be invalid.
In 1816, the Encyclopedia Perthensis article on "The Prophecy of Enoch" begins by identifying this prophecy as "an apocryphal book, ascribed to Enoch" and concludes with the statement that: "Upon the writings of these eastern authors, the book called the prophecy of Enoch was probably fabricated." This is remarkably similar to the way in which John Adams used the phrase "the Prophecy of Enoch," and yet this article is clearly referring to the Book of Enoch by the use of this phrase and not to the quotation in Jude.
Additionally, Thoomas Pell Platt's 1823 Catalogue of the Ethiopic Biblical Manuscripts references "An original MS. of the above work, which was once supposed to contain the book called The Prophecy of Enoch." Platt supports this reference by citing Hiob Ludolf's Commentary on the History of Ethiopia which was written in 1691. Thus, the usage of the phrase "The Prophecy of Enoch" as a reference to what we now call the Book of Enoch dates at least as far back as the late 17th century.
And as a third counter example, let me present a statement from Henry Cogswell Knight's 1831 publication of a sermon on Jude. In that sermon, Knight said:
The Epistle was doubted, because Saint Jude is thought to have quoted Apocryphal books; to wit, the book called the Assumption of Moses; and the book called the Prophecy of Enoch.
Knight didn't reference his sources, but at the very least, his sermon provides an additional counter example to your assumption that the phrase "The Prophecy of Enoch" could not be a reference to the Book of Enoch.
Your position, if I understand it properly, rests on the assumption that John Adams only attacked the Book of Enoch without attacking the Prophesy of Enoch, referenced in the standard canon.
But that's false. You simply can read what has been quoted in Adams' letters to see he clearly attacks the Prophecy of Enoch that's referenced in the canon. And then questions why this what he sees as ridiculously false prophesy that derives from a book rejected as non-canonical is found quoted as though it were true in both Jude and Peter.
What you quoted:
"The Epistle was doubted, because Saint Jude is thought to have quoted Apocryphal books; to wit, the book called the Assumption of Moses; and the book called the Prophecy of Enoch."
Yes, this is exactly what Adams is doing.
The position that I presented can be laid out in a simple logical syllogism:
1. John Adams claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
2. It is possible for the phrase "the Prophecy of Enoch" to be used as the title of the Book of Enoch.
Therefore: It is possible that John Adams was speaking of the Book of Enoch when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
This is what I presented and proved in the previous comment. Your position can also be laid out in syllogistic form:
1. John Adams claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
2. The phrase "the Prophecy of Enoch" can only be a reference to the text of Jude 14-15.
Therefore: John Adams was speaking of Jude 14-15 when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
The evidence from the three sources that I identified proves that my syllogism is true and that your syllogism is false by supporting my second premise and contradicting your second premise.
I could present another syllogism that strengthens my position even further:
1. John Adams was speaking either of the Book of Enoch or of the verses in Jude when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
2. The Book of Enoch has been given the label of Apocryphal.
3. The verses in Jude were never given the label of Apocryphal.
4. John Adams was referring to something that had been given the label of Apocryphal.
Therefore: John Adams was referring to the Book of Enoch when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
My first syllogism proved that it was possible that Adams was referring to the Book of Enoch when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery. This second syllogism goes further and demonstrates that what was previously shown to be possible was actually factual. John Adams was referring to the Book of Enoch and not Jude 14-15 when he claimed that the Prophecy of Enoch was a forgery.
I could go still further and point out that nearly the lengthy paragraph preceding the paragraph in which Adams calls the Prophecy of Enoch a forgery consisted almost entirely of quotes from two sources. The first is from pages 459-460 of John Brown's 1807 Dictionary of the Bible. The second is from page 668 of the Encyclopaedia printed in Philadelphia in 1798. Both of these sources maintain that the Book of Enoch is a forgery while Jude 14-15 is not. Furthermore, the Encyclopaedia specifically refers to the Book of Enoch as an apocryphal book and does not use that description of the Epistle of Jude.
All of the actual evidence surrounding Adams' claim points to the fact that Adams was condemning the Book of Enoch as a forgery and not Jude 14-15.
The problem here Bill is that you are engaging in sophistry and not trying to get at the real truth/heart of the matter.
In the context of condemning "The Prophesy of Enoch," Adams immediately jumps into questions about Jude and Peter which reference that prophesy Adams rejects as false.
If there are answers as to why it's kosher for believers to accept Jude while rejecting The Book of Enoch as apocryphal, Adams seems either a. to be unaware of them or b. not satisfied by them.
Regardless of the way you phrase "syllogisms" (that I don't accept) Adams was troubled that canonical books quoted a Prophesy that he rejected as ridiculously false. That's what his words say and your words can't explain that away.
That's kinda funny, Jon. "Syllogisms" are the language of deductive reasoning, and their validity is completely independent of whether you "accept" them or consider them to be mere "sophistry."
You said that:
In the context of condemning "The Prophesy of Enoch," Adams immediately jumps into questions about Jude and Peter which reference that prophesy Adams rejects as false.
Can you point out exactly where this happened? Where in his letters did Adams begin a section by condemning the Prophecy of Enoch and then immediately jump to questions about Jude and Peter?
The problem isn't with the concept of "Syllogism"; the problem is with your loading and constructing.
As to your question: Here is one example in my original post!
"Do you know any thing of the prophecy of Enoch ? Can you give me a comment on the 6th, the 9th, the 14th verses of the epistle of Jude?"
Adams goes right from the prophesy he rejects to Jude.
Even though I think you know I'm right, I don't expect you to admit it. But for more evidence, how's this for "syllogism"?
Joseph Priestley rejected the plenary inspiration of the canon. But he also accepted and defended the concept of "revelation." One of John Adams' criticisms of Priestley seems the content of what made it into Priestley's Bible cut. It is surprising that a man who would cut from the canon would believe in the Book of Revelation (albeit give it a strange reading).
Notice Priestley never rejects the authenticity of ANY of the texts of Jude and Peter. And this is something Adams criticizes him for!
Adams states he wishes to interrogate Priestley and presents two loaded questions on the matter:
1. "Do you believe those Passages in Peter and Jude to be interpolations? If so; by whom made? and when? and where? and for what End? Was it to Support, or found the doctrine of The Fall of Man, Original Sin, the universal Corruption depravation and guilt of human nature and mankind; and the Subsequent Incarnation of God to make Attonement and Redemption!—"
2. "Or do you think that Peter and Jude believed the Book of Enoch to have been written, by the 7th from Adam, and one of the Sacred cannonical Books of the Hebrew Prophets? Peter, 2. Ep. c. 2. v. 4, Says “For if God Spared not the Angels that Sinned, but cast them down to Hell and delivered them into chains of Darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment.” Jude v. 6th Says “And the Angels which kept not their first Estate, but left their own habitations, he hath reserved in everlasting Chains under darkness, unto the Judgment of the great day.”20 v. 14th “And Enoch also, the 7th from Adam, prophesied of these Saying, behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute Judgment upon all &c” Priestley Says “a wrong Interpretation” has been given to these Texts. I wish he had favoured Us with his right interpretation of them."
The bold is mine.
Notice the term OR. Adams presents the two questions in an either or choice. He may have been wrong, as a theologian, in so framing the issue; but that's how he viewed it.
In the second choice, Adams comes with the premise that the Book of Enoch is not inspired and doesn't belong in the canon. So he rejects the possibility that Jude and Peter could write inspired texts if they believed what was an error.
That means he necessarily endorsed either the first choice of "interpolations" in Jude and Peter. Or the possibility that those entire books aren't inspired and don't belong in the canon.
Likewise this is another example of Adams rejecting "The Prophesy of Enoch" and then going right into Jude and Peter.
In the letter to Jefferson, Adams did not make any condemnation of the prophecy of Enoch. He asked a question about the prophecy of Enoch, and then he asked a question about the Epistle of Jude. There is nothing in the context which reveals Adams' opinion of either topic. The most that can be said about these two questions is that Adams wanted to hear Jefferson's opinion on them.
The same is true of the questions that Adams desired to ask Priestley. Adams desired to know Priestley's opinion of Jude and II Peter as well as his opinion on the Book of Enoch. The bare fact that Adams desired to know Priestley's opinion does not give us any information on Adams' opinion of these books.
And the fact that Adams' presented his question to Priestley as an either ... or question does not imply that the two options stated were the only possibilities that Adams was willing to consider. It could be that those were the only two options that Adams saw as possible for Priestley.
If you were to tell me that you believe the earth to be flat and not spherical, I might ask you if you think that all the pilots and mariners in the world have been conspiring to lie to us for centuries OR if you think that they have all been guilty of misinterpreting their perceptions. The bare fact that I would ask you this either ... or question would not in any way prove that I agreed with either option. I could ask you these questions out of recognition that they are the only options for someone in your position while still holding to a completely different opinion myself.
This part of your argument is just purely subjective assumptions about how Adams might have answered some of the questions that he asked other men.
By the way, I think that it's important to keep in mind how Adams concluded his series of comments on Priestley's responses to Dupuis:
I Shall never be a Disciple of Priestley. He is as absurd inconsistent, credulous and incomprehensible as Athanasius. Read his Letter to The Jews in this Volume. Could a rational Creature write it? Aye! Such rational Creatures as Rochefaucault and Condorsett and John Taylor in Politicks, and Towers’s, Jurieus and French Prophets in Theology.
Nope. You have committed a logical fallacy. There is something known as a "loaded question." J. Adams here clearly loads premises into his questions. The premise is that the prophesy of Enoch quoted in Jude and James is fabricated.
That's why this statement of yours:
"There is nothing in the context which reveals Adams' opinion of either topic"
is demonstrably and demonstrated to be false.
And quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded why you are pursuing this. We've seen Adams speak of errors and amendments in the Bible, applaud Thomas Jefferson's bible cut and mention that if he were up to it, he would do the same and root out the "intermixtures" in the Bible's text, and scream of how horribly corrupted the King James Bible is.
I'm not even sure what it is you are defending about Adams.
"I think that it's important to keep in mind how Adams concluded his series of comments on Priestley's ..."
Yes and as noted one of the criticisms Adams had of Priestley is that the parts of Jude and Peter that invoke Enoch's prophesy made his Bible cut.
Here is something else for you to think about Mr. F. In your comment made February 16, 2017 at 6:34 AM you note the two sources that Adams quotes from to describe Enoch as apocryphal "does not use that description of the Epistle of Jude."
You then use that as a leap to impute "context" or as you put it "evidence surrounding Adams' claim" to conclude "Adams was condemning the Book of Enoch as a forgery and not Jude 14-15."
Note: You are imputing to Adams something which his own words do not claim, but rather something from another source.
Yet, Adams' OWN WORDS claim he thought there was "Error or Amendment" that could have taken place when "the Book of Deuteronomy was compiled, during or after the Babilonian Captivity, ..."
True, he was restating the thesis of a book. But it was done in the context of a positive inquiry on a book whose thesis he seems sympathetic towards. You then, with your words, not Adams', attempt to hand waive away Adams' words as merely restating someone else's position. When according to your own standards as it relates to the two outside sources Adams referenced on Enoch, it is proper, for the sake of "context," of examining "evidence surrounding" the claim to impute the position to Adams of the sources he positively referenced.
Double standards. Confirmation bias. In short, Mr. F., you are not playing straight with us. You are engaging in sophistry.
Will you concede this for us please?
Tell me then, exactly how did Adams load premises into his question? Can you point me to some words that he wrote prior to asking the question and say "Here are the words that John Adams used to load a premise into his question about the prophecy of Enoch and the Epistle of Jude"?
I've already answered your claim about Adams' view of the Book of Deuteronomy.
As for your claim that Adams wanted to root out the "intermixtures" in the Bible, I think that you are remembering the event incorrectly. Adams did not say that he would like to root out the intermixtures of the biblical text. What he actually said was:
I admire your Employment, in Selecting the Philosophy and Divinity of Jesus and Seperating it from all intermixtures. If I had Eyes and Nerves, I would go through both Testaments and mark all that I understand.
Notice that Adams did not say that Jefferson was separating the true biblical text from external additions. That is what Jefferson thought that he was doing, but that is not what Adams said here. What Adams said was that Jefferson was attempting to isolate "the Philosophy and Divinity of Jesus." The fact that Christians have almost univocally praised Jefferson's Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth demonstrates that it is possible to appreciate the result of Jefferson's efforts without agreeing with his philosophical motivations. Adams was particularly adept at this type of appreciation as we can see in the opening paragraph of his Dec. 25, 1813, letter to Jefferson.
The fundamental principle of all philosophy and all Christianity is, "Rejoice always in all things." "Be thankful at all times for all good, and all that we call evil." Will it not follow, that I ought to rejoice and be thankful that Priestley has lived ? Aye, that Voltaire has lived ? I should have given my reason for rejoicing in Voltaire, &c. It is because I believe they have done more than even Luther or Calvin to lower the tone of that proud hierarchy that shot itself up above the clouds, and more to propagate religious liberty than Calvin, or Luther, or even Locke. That Gibbon has lived? That Hume has lived, though a conceited Scotchman? That Bolingbroke has lived, though a haughty, arrogant, supercilious dogmatist? That Burke and Johnson have lived, though superstitious slaves, or self-deceiving hypocrites both?
It is important to note, by the way, that this paragraph provides us with one of several examples of Adams placing Priestley in the same category as Voltaire, but that's a discussion for another day.
A second thing that we should notice about Adams comment regarding intermixtures is that Adams did not (as you claim) express a desire to conduct his own effort at removing intermixtures from the Bible. What he actually said was that he would like to make a list of all that he understood from both Testaments. This is especially important in light of the fact that Adams would add barely a month later that:
the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and Such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future Investigation.
There is no record of Adams ever saying that he rejected the parts of the Bible which he did not understand or could not reconcile with his philsophy. He only claimed that he set those portions aside for future investigation. This appears to be the primary difference between Adams' approach to the Bible and the approach taken by Jefferson.
As for my supposed double standard and confirmation bias, let me point out two important details. First, and most importantly, my inclusion of the evidence from Adams sources was only provided as further confirmation of a point that I had already proven through the application of a simple logical syllogism to Adams's own words. Second, the primary difference between the two sources (Brown's Dictionary of the Bible and the Encyclopaedia)which I included and the source to which you are referring (Goethe's Schriften) is that Adams had actually read the first two while he had never read the latter.
By the way, Goethe eventually rejected his own Ritual Decalogue theory as illogical. He claimed that it was the product of his own youthful folly. (He had developed the theory as a young student.) It's possible that the elder Adams would have also identified the errors in Goethe's theory and rejected it if he had had opportunity to read Goethe's Schriften.
The legacy of Goethe's theory lives on today as a foundational tenet of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis.
Post a Comment