Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Just to make things messy... Tertullian's thoughts sort of sum up the most ancient of those "elders" who all seem to have accepted the authenticity of the Book of Enoch:
Later Fathers such as Jerome questioned the canonicity of not only Enoch but also of the NT epistles that most obviously quoted it - Jude and 2 Peter. It all seems to have to do with the rather "fantastical" behavior of the angels that fell.
It is my opinion that this is an important intersection between the Judeo-Christian literature of antiquity and the writings of just about every other culture. Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.
|
Based upon what Tertullian suggests through his writing, then how can anyone ascertain the legitimacy of the stories that happened before the great deluge that was mentioned in the book of Genesis? Somebody had to hand down some information from somewhere before the flood in order for us to get the account of Genesis. We give so much credibility to Genesis; why is it a problem if we believe Enoch or the "Book of the Upright"?
Threaded Mode
