Yeh. epistle of barnabas 100 ad calls 1 enoch a prophet and scripture so up until 100 ad all christians that knew of it believed it was written pre flood
Greetings again samaus. Thank you for you time and patience. May we both find the wisdom of God in our conversations.
You seem to make an unreasonable jump in logic, imo. You say...
(1) The epistle of Barnabas calls 1 enoch a prophet and scripture
(2) Therefore
(3) All Christians that knew of it
(4) believed it was written pre flood.
I hope you see my objection of the logic used.
First, clearly the epistle of Barnabas calls the book of Enoch scripture (
Epistle of Barnabas (4:3)). However, the Epistle of Barnabas, which is different from the Gospel of Barnabas, was not written by Barnabas of the Bible. In other words, not only is it part of the apocrypha (not in the Bible), it is also part of the pseudepigraphic works, which are works claiming to be written by some famous name in history but are actually written by unknown authors. I understand you accept all these works, or at least it appears you do. But in my mind, it should give one great pause that the author wrote under some other famous name to hid his own name.
Second, the logic you used basically asserts...if anyone knew of this book they then therefore believed it. This
logic is clearly false. At best you have shown that there were some in the day of when the epistle of Barnabas was written that thought the book of Enoch was scripture. It doesn't show that all who knew about it believed what it said regarding it being holy scripture.
A side note, there are writings of the day that indicate to us that many Christian leaders considered some things Scripture (big S) and other things scripture (little s). In other words, this means that there was that Scripture that was inspired and scripture that was only "readings".
Augustine of Hippo, the supposed villain of the Book of Enoch and its removal (which is fake news), called apocryphal writings "scripture" but he in no way considered it Scripture (big S).
Augustine of Hippo
“Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted…”
Also, here is a quote (around 170 AD) that shows that there were disputes between the Christian leaders regarding what was taken in as "scripture" or "Scripture" and if it was taken in....would it even be used by all because of the dispute.
"We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church (73)."
Ludovico Antonio Muratori, ed., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, v. 3 (ex typographia Societatis palatinæ, Mediolani, 1740). Reprinted in Bologna, 1965. (#72-73)
For further info... here is a quote from the same discovery (170 AD) that shows that even as early as 170AD, Christian leaders were eliminating writings what were written by unknown authors and those that wrote under another name.
"There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)"
Ludovico Antonio Muratori, ed., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, v. 3 (ex typographia Societatis palatinæ, Mediolani, 1740). Reprinted in Bologna, 1965. (#64-67)
Peace to you brother