St.Jerome+St.Augustine disagree about Enoch?

[AliOgg]

God Bless You

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I put it here, Am I correct in thinking that St.Jerome accepted 1Enoch as valid and St.Augustine did not, if so, how can 2 Saints disagree on such a thing?

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Metanoia02]

God Bless You

I wasn't sure where to put this, so I put it here, Am I correct in thinking that St.Jerome accepted 1Enoch as valid and St.Augustine did not, if so, how can 2 Saints disagree on such a thing?

And God Bless All His Peoples.

Sure they can disagree. Being a Saint doesn't mean you are infallible.

 

[AliOgg]

Sure they can disagree. Being a Saint doesn't mean you are infallible.

God Bless You

thank you

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[BigNorsk]

Jerome accepting 1 Enoch as valid? What evidence of that is there? I'm not sure what exactly you mean by valid, but I didn't think 1 Enoch was ever a part of Jerome's translation, the Vulgate. I would have thought it to be more accurate to say he rejected it.

Marv

 

[AliOgg]

Jerome accepting 1 Enoch as valid? What evidence of that is there? I'm not sure what exactly you mean by valid, but I didn't think 1 Enoch was ever a part of Jerome's translation, the Vulgate. I would have thought it to be more accurate to say he rejected it.

Marv

It would appear that information I was given, I didn't study in depth at the time and looking back these seem to be muddier waters than I first thought, on second glance it seems to appear that Jerome accepts Jude who quotes from Enoch and Augustine accepts Enoch then rejects it but doesn't say whether he accepts Jude or not, so as I try to make some sense of this for myself and attempt to study these things more I would appreciate any links or other sources of reference that anyone has

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[BigNorsk]

Welcome to the study of the early fathers. Muddier water you are unlikely to find.

I'll do some hunting for references. Jerome has quit good documentation on him and the canon. He accepted the Jewish Old Testament Canon, and the New Testament just as we have it. His original Vulgate did not have the Apochryphal books. He was talked into including them but evidence seems to me to be fairly strong that he never put them on the level of scripture, at least not the level of the other books.

In one of those quirky things of history, his inclusion of them at all probably guaranteed their eventual acceptance as scripture in the Catholic church. The Vulgate after all was really the Bible of the Catholics for over 1500 years (I include the time where the approved translations were simply translations of the Vulgate).

Martin Luther actually pretty well was identical to Jerome on canon.
I think when you take what either said about individual books and how ever people want to spin it. They both left a legacy in their translations and that's really where the rubber meets the road. For instance you often hear Luther quoted by Catholics as evidence he removed James from the Bible. Know where the most common quote such as the "epistle of straw" comes from. Well, it was from his preface to the book of James, in his German Translation, sitting right there as scripture in the New Testament.

So it's a difficult area of study because so many people read things and really seem to almost desire to cloud things up. So good luck.

Marv

 

[AliOgg]

an interesting begining(for me, although this began a long time ago), have I bitten off more than I can chew?, I hope not, I thank you, deeply, for your words of guidance, it seems I have a long way to go but such is always the way at the start of things, I only hope I can finnish the race

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Blackguard_]

Know where the most common quote such as the "epistle of straw" comes from. Well, it was from his preface to the book of James, in his German Translation, sitting right there as scripture in the New Testament.

"Preface to the New Testament" actually. The full quotation is:

"In a word St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter's first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were to never see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore, St. Jame's epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces"

But yeah, still in the New Testamnent.

or instance you often hear Luther quoted by Catholics as evidence he removed James from the Bible.

While I'm on the subject...

"I almost feel like throwing Jimmy in the stove" is another "anti-James" Luther quotation, but that was said after he had reconciled James and Paul, and was out of frustration at Catholics quoting James 2 at him all the time as if it was the only verse on the matter.

 

[fuzzyh]

Boy you think it's weird about what Augustine and Jerome said about Enoch, you should look at Tertullian.

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels,

is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either.
I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things.
If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity.
Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
​

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.

By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive.
​

To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

 

[AliOgg]

"Preface to the New Testament" actually. The full quotation is:

But yeah, still in the New Testamnent.
While I'm on the subject...

"I almost feel like throwing Jimmy in the stove" is another "anti-James" Luther quotation, but that was said after he had reconciled James and Paul, and was out of frustration at Catholics quoting James 2 at him all the time as if it was the only verse on the matter.

we all make mistakes I guess, I make loads

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[AliOgg]

Boy you think it's weird about what Augustine and Jerome said about Enoch, you should look at Tertullian.

why not just take the books on the Arc?

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[BigNorsk]

Was that Tertullian quote from his time as an early church father or was it after he bacame a Montanist and was declared a heretic?

That's the "fun" thing about early church fathers, you kind of need a scorecard to figure out what they wrote when. And Tertullian isn't the only person often quoted as a father that is also condemned as a heretic.

I have come to a conclusion that in most cases what happened is still happening today. That is, that authors, in this case early church fathers, were really normed by others in comparing them to standards, I would suspect the Bible was at least the major norm. And so the early people were sorted through basically in saying that this person is orthodox and can be pretty well trusted and this person wasn't. It's very much the same today when people find an author and they start buying all his books and using him as a guide.

The danger in both systems is when the basically trustworthy author strays, and people follow because they have come to trust him. And that's what I see as the source for a lot of things that one sees in the Tradition based Christian faiths.

Now let me note that Tradition based Christian faiths are in no ways limited to Catholics and Orthodox. They are all over, maybe you get someone today who is basically a disciple of Chuck Swindoll, now I think he is basically okay, that's why I use him. A lot of people read Swindoll and have basically come to trust him. Now lets say Swindoll gets some out to lunch idea and starts putting it in his books and sermons. A lot of people would accept it, because they trust him, especially if it was in some area that isn't too clear in scripture, or at least not clear to a lot of people.

People would start teaching it as truth because their early church father, Chuck Swindoll, taught it and it would be off to the races.

It's a pattern that just happens over and over. The Pharisees were one such group mentioned in the Bible.

So anyway, that is one of the major difficulties in studying early fathers because, they fundamentally are not trustworthy. They are people, prone to error, and even if the person is right on one thing, it does not follow that he is right on the next. So you have Tertullian, who wrote some pretty good things, quoted as an authority and yet we know Tertullian became a full blown Montanist.

Marv

 

[AliOgg]

Was that Tertullian quote from his time as an early church father or was it after he bacame a Montanist and was declared a heretic?

That's the "fun" thing about early church fathers, you kind of need a scorecard to figure out what they wrote when. And Tertullian isn't the only person often quoted as a father that is also condemned as a heretic.

I have come to a conclusion that in most cases what happened is still happening today. That is, that authors, in this case early church fathers, were really normed by others in comparing them to standards, I would suspect the Bible was at least the major norm. And so the early people were sorted through basically in saying that this person is orthodox and can be pretty well trusted and this person wasn't. It's very much the same today when people find an author and they start buying all his books and using him as a guide.

The danger in both systems is when the basically trustworthy author strays, and people follow because they have come to trust him. And that's what I see as the source for a lot of things that one sees in the Tradition based Christian faiths.

Now let me note that Tradition based Christian faiths are in no ways limited to Catholics and Orthodox. They are all over, maybe you get someone today who is basically a disciple of Chuck Swindoll, now I think he is basically okay, that's why I use him. A lot of people read Swindoll and have basically come to trust him. Now lets say Swindoll gets some out to lunch idea and starts putting it in his books and sermons. A lot of people would accept it, because they trust him, especially if it was in some area that isn't too clear in scripture, or at least not clear to a lot of people.

People would start teaching it as truth because their early church father, Chuck Swindoll, taught it and it would be off to the races.

It's a pattern that just happens over and over. The Pharisees were one such group mentioned in the Bible.

So anyway, that is one of the major difficulties in studying early fathers because, they fundamentally are not trustworthy. They are people, prone to error, and even if the person is right on one thing, it does not follow that he is right on the next. So you have Tertullian, who wrote some pretty good things, quoted as an authority and yet we know Tertullian became a full blown Montanist.

Marv

God Gless You

this is why I want to look at these things myself and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me

And God Bless All His Peoples.