Wess is better informed than a lot of the people Dan replies to, so you can get more into the nuances of where claims fall short. It's a nice to have an occasional break from debunks on claims like "see how this random photo of a wheel on the sea floor proves the exodus was real!"
@@marv-n-24 It is more interesting because Wes is a scholar, he "just" superimposes a layer of apologetics over his scholarship. He legitimately studies the subjects, but never allows his reasearch to lead him anywhere else but to his faith.
Is this guy like the a rising star within Christian apologetics? He seems to have come out of nowhere but is everywhere now Edit: I looked into him and he is a Director of an apologetics institute.... He's working on his PhD but he does not consider himself a scholar either at least according to his website.
Uh-huh. And he's popular because his extreme confidence really helps reassure Christians of their dogmas- not because he is a great and insightful scholar.
It seems Huff's scholarly background is very attractive to Christian apologists who want to counter McClellan and similar biblical scholars who they perceive as progressive. Many apologists are supposedly biblical experts but not scholars.
I knew nothing about the Book of Enoch until about a year ago. I am surprised at how much of our ideas of heaven, hell, angels, Satan, etc., comes from it yet so many Christians have never heard of it.
@@B4Africa Sorry, did you watch the video? If so, I recommend watching it again, especially the part where the author of the Letter of Jude explicitly quotes from 1 Enoch while calling it prophecy.
Quoting to particular audience does.. Here is Jude appealing to who? 1¶Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,👉 To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: Who did Paul speak to? Believers? No, I instead to a crowd of unbelievers who were endeared to spiritual belief.. Acts 17:28, “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'” Among other quotes to male the point for unbelievers and those who rebel.
I once heard an apologist say something like “Jude is quoting an actual prophecy given by Enoch, not the book of Enoch. The book contains some genuine prophecies/accurate accounts, but isn’t itself a genuine account.” So that they could defend the quotes and references to the literature while still rejecting the literature as a whole and I’m surprised this isn’t a more popular claim, because it’s a claim that’s impossible to disprove, unlike the one provided by Huff here.
Yeah, I've heard that, too. It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to not accept the inconvenient facts in front of them. It is special pleading at its finest.
It quotes the book of Enoch, just as it uses other Jewish books, church fathers also used that book as scripture and admit the author of Jude quoted that book. The book of Enoch is used many times in the Nt. Its ideas shaped Xtianity.
The jew's of Jesus day aren't a monolith group, they didn't have one belief system, there are many variations of their religion and what was prophetic and Authoritative. Zealots, Sadducee's, pharisee's, essenes so to lump the "jews of Jesus time" into one thing is odd. The data shows that some obviously held 1 enoch in high regard while other probably didn't.
Also, there was probably no such thing as an explicit canon at the time. There were books that people read and quoted, and the list surely varied from place to place and from time to time, except for a few "classics" whom everybody used (things like the Pentateuch).
I wonder how modern Christianity would be if Catholic and Protestant sects considered it Scripture. Note: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers Enoch 1 Scripture.
Lee Martin MacDonald covers this in some interviews on YT a bit. From memory its in the Ethiopian bible but not included in liturgy.as they are aware it doesnt gel perfectly with other church teachings. The strict binary of the modern canon is not necessarily reflective of early church attitudes to texts.
@@MrVeryfrost Enoch contains a very strong condemnation of religious leaders who are described as shepherds who destroy many of the sheep they are supposed to be looking after. These are probably the "contradictions" that resulted in the book being lost until it was rediscovered in Ethiopia.
"Hey Jude, you're quite a lad. Took a verse from Enoch and made it better. Remember to let it into your heart, Then you can start to write your letter." (With apologies to Lennon and McCartney)
The Epistle of Barnabas twice quotes 1 Enoch as Scripture. St. Justin Martyr cites the Book of Watchers (part of 1 Enoch). St. Irenaeus ascribes its teaching to the prophets. St. Athenagoras of Athens describes Enoch as a prophet and uses 1 Enoch’s description of Heaven. Origen said he used to think 1 Enoch was Scripture but others convinced him to change his view.
@@germanboy14 Yes. He at least thought it was authoritative. He said the Jews got rid of it after Jesus because it has so many prophesies of Jesus Christ. The Book of Parables especially emphasized the Messiah/Christ as a divine figure, eternal with the most High God, and identified as YHWH.
Remember when Jesus said the Jews “err not knowing the scriptures” because they didn’t know the resurrection (which makes one like angels) is without marriage? That’s from 1 Enoch.
Of course we have no idea what Jesus said; we only have gospel authors putting their opinions in his mouth to lend them authority, starting with 'Mark' putting Paul's opinions there. So, you have to say which gospel author wrote it.
If anyone thinks that "oh Jude might have quoted it but how much did it really influence the core of the new testament?" I suggest that you compare the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19ff and 1 Enoch 22. The similarity between the vision of the afterlife and the division of the dead into the the righteous and the unrighteous is uncanny, and to my knowledge you do not find this spelt out this way in any other pre-Christian texts.
The justifications for excluding Enoch while keeping Jude are totally ridiculous, especially given how fundamental Enoch was in establishing Christian ideas about the spirit world. As a corollary - a lot of early Patristic writing has more cause for inclusion than much of the canonical NT, and a lot of second-century apocryphal stuff has about the same case for inclusion in the canon as, say, 2 Peter does.
I had a friend make some of these claims, and I couldn’t figure out where he was hearing it from. Of course he’s a Wes Huff fan from before he blew up.
What I find ironic is that this is Christians claiming that it wasn't taken his sacred scripture. Don't tell the Ethiopian orthodox that Enoch wasn't taken as authoritative. Don't tell the Catholics or eastern orthodox about any of the Septuagint variant readings not being legit
If we had a modern day moses it would clarify so much. A living God would always talk to His children would He not? Perhaps there is something to the Jews not believing in a closed canon. They definitely thought God would never stop speaking to us.
Not really no. I just finished reading chapters 8 and 9 of Barton's history of the Bible and scholars largely believe that the modern Hebrew Bible canon was basically the same set of books that were considered scripture in the first century at the latest. This means that these books were considered scripture (though canon isn't the best term to describe it) for a very long time. Dan is correct to criticize the use of the term canon to describe the sets of books of scripture in the first century.
@@wraithwrecker_ there was no Hebrew canon in the first century. All those books you reject today were used by Jews in the first century and weee written by Hebrews
@@germanboy14 We're literally saying the same thing. Also please don't presume to know what I reject and what I accept. You don't even know what my beliefs are lmao. That's not even relevant to what I'm saying anyway. What I said was that what is now the Hebrew "canon" was largely the same set of books that were considered scripture by Jews in the first century at the latest (at least, this is according to Barton, whose book is recommended by Dan). There was no Hebrew canon, because a canon is a closed set; Hebrew scriptures in those days sometimes had new books added to the scriptures, so it was not a closed set. My point is that what is NOW the "canon" (because Jews largely consider the Hebrew Bible to BE a canon nowadays) is largely very similar to what was at the time the set of books considered holy scripture in the first century. If you actually take issue with what I'm saying, then read chapters 9-10 of A History of the Bible by John Barton and take it up with him. Also, you're saying "all those books" that I supposedly reject (I don't) were written by Jews; You know, there likely isn't a single book in the New Testament that wasn't written by Jews anyway so how is this even a gotcha? lol
Loren Stuckenbruck - “The Significance of Ethiopic Witnesses for the Text Tradition of 1 Enoch: Problems and Prospects,” - Congress Volume Aberdeen 2019 - Brill
Great clip! Jesus quotes it when he said "you error, not knowing the scriptues." The apostles quote it. The old testment quotes it. It is quoted in the extrabiblical writings. There are 19 different (very different) versions of it. Mahujah and Mahijah are known in more than one. We may not underatand it all... but it was originally scripture, often purged. Including by European authorities after Jesus and even possiblynthe Deuteronomists who were trying to reform during an apostasy. Usually it is taken away when people misuse it. Thenreason they make a statement about not to add or contract... is because it happened. Some speculate that the deuteronomists may have modified the Bible and merged a couple accounts into one and also... maybe removed some things (a hypothesis some scholars have). Margaret Barker has some interesting ideas. Hugh Nibley has some deep insights about the source docs of Enoch. Lots of good stuff out there. I'll add this to those. 😊
It would be awesome to do a deeper dive into this. I'm very interested in this topic. I feel like this book would help connect the dots on some things for some people
The problem is, most likely, none of these facts and data will slow the rapid ascent of their new golden boy. By no means should people STOP correcting outright fabrications, but to adjust a popular phrase, their feelings are immune to facts. If nothing else, we can hope to at least keep new people from being duped.
I like how Dan’s videos give quick rebuttals. It’s great to respond until they reject Dan for being biased because he’s atheist/Mormon/liberal/demonic or whatever else they choose.
Wes was beating his chest over the Billy Carson thing and as soon as I heard his apologetic bias with regard to the Bible, I just waited for Dan to catch wind of Wes & when it happened I sat here with the biggest grin. Gotcha 😂
Dan, how do you come up with this research so quickly? What software or website are you using to find information on the said topic to be able to quote a response?
I think Dan just knows a lot of this stuff through his studies and he knows what the relevant experts are on key topics, and if he doesn't he will be in contact with people who do
In Ethiopia the Jews actively used it and as Christianity spread they held to whatever Old Testament works were traditionally held as the scripture by the regional Jews. Enoch has historically always been cannon amongst the Jews there.
Enoch is very present in Jude and Peter letters. But generally absent in Pauline corpus. Is it possible that Enoch is a part of what Paul consider "Old Wives' tales"?
Biblical inerrancy is fascinating. On the one hand, I can see how the lay Christian can assume the Bible is inerrant, because they never dip further than surface level understanding of history, but the evangelical biblical scholars that profess inerrancy are either sipping their own koolaid, or are being deliberately misleading.
The essences were a breakaway sect and just as they died away so too have their breakaway ideas within the Jewish canon. The Pharisees who exist even today as orthodox jewery did not accept first Enoch as scripture.
Would an Aramaic copyist scribe a copy of 1st Enoch on parchment unless it were inspired? The earliest extant copy of 1st Enoch is written on parchment. Some later copies on papyrus. A later Ge'ez copy on paper.
Wes Huff needs to decide if he's just gooing to LARP as a scholar, or actually become one. I suspect he'll choose the first option as it is compatable with this apologetics work, which I strongly suspect is his driving motivation.
I think what makes Dan's debunking of Wes my favourite videos atm, is that theres such an obvious contrast between the stupidity and dishonesty of someones brain on apologetics vs that of a critical scholar. 😂
Rather interesting there are some Jews today that still accept 1 Enoch as scripture. The Jews of Ethiopia, known as Beta Israel include it in their cannon, as well as Jubilees, and some other popular second temple texts, such The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as some unique books, like the books of Meqabyan
It is fascinating to me how even Christians that are doing scholarly study of the Bible are so insistent that we somehow academically know that our current Bible as we have it today is the "correct" set of canon documents and always has been. I feel like it must trace back in some way to wanting a feeling of certainty about salvation, which means being certain Jesus got salvation right, which means he must be infallible. Logically you could achieve the same thing by believing Jesus was infallible about salvation, but was not omniscient and got some things wrong about details like whether 1 Enoch is scripture. Or just assert that while the Jews of the time considered it scripture, and some Christians as well, Jesus wouldn't have since you know he is infallible. There's so many possibilities that dont require you to wrongly assert that the evidence indicates Jews didn't consider 1 Enoch scripture during Jesus' time!
The inerrancy doctrine is why this is a thing. Believing that it is unchanged or the messages throughout history point to Jesus was always a blunder. All religious texts have their variants and what different denominations value differently. Inerrancy was the problem.
@baonemogomotsi7138 After looking into it more, I see that Wes has only attended educational institutions with statements of faith that either require belief in inerrancy, or seem to heavily lean in that direction. That makes a lot more sense of where his stance currently is, I had thought at least his PhD was at a more academic institution that didn't require a pre commitment to that view of the Bible.
This is it. It's a trivial exercise to come to some theological position on any given issue without inerrancy, eg 'Jude was wrong, but his statement contains useful truth'. Even more trivial still to start with inerrancy and blindly assert whatever statements of faith a person may want to hold. Eg 'The holy spirit through Jude is ensuring we kept the one part of 1 Enoch that was inspired' Importantly, both of those are theological positions, and whatever theology you want to do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business. What boggles my mind is the project of trying to assert an historical certainty or probability to what amount to theological statements. Eg 'The Jews of the 1st century CE Levant held the same theological position as me as regards to 1 Enoch'. It's playing on the wrong field. When it's demonstrably wrong it undermines your theology, and ultimately it's not necessary. Theologians should leave history to the historians, and theist historians shouldn't pander with their history. It makes them look foolish from both directions.
only some Christians - at my secular university I took a paper a year or so ago taught by an ordained Anglican, the content of which included basically the same thing as Dan's saying here, and we went over the texts of Jubilees, Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, Aramaic Levi and the like. Most Christians have no problem with this stuff, it's only the ones who hold to very strict ideas of inerrancy, and very, very conservative positions. This position forces people to defend the indefensible, and therefore asserts that there are things that are "problems for Christians" that fundamentally threaten religious belief that actually don't - thus undermining religious belief rather than defending it. It's pretty terrible, I think, setting people up to fail.
@4:26 onward. An ALL powerful and ALL future knowing deity would anticipate that future potential converts to Christianity would discover this ---- Why even would this ALL powerful deity cause so much confusion regarding what religion is the " ONLY true Belief ® ? It's almost like the bible author's viewpoint was written by pre science men, who believed that Joshua 10:12-13 was actually, even possible....
I don't think the number of copies found correlates to how important those books were to the people. Maybe they were the least important, and they took what was important with them when they abandoned the caves.
I had never heard of Weds Huff 4 weeks ago, now I see him everywhere. How did he get his big break on Joe Rogan? Was he invited on because he has big muscles?
One of my friends who's a Christian said he considers Enoch as scripture. Isn't there a denomination, IIRC Ethiopian Orthodoxy, that includes it in their canon?
@@Mrrubbaduck They still use cannons in Ethiopia? Wow, I thought they'd've modernized by now. Yes I know you meant canon, ignore my dry sense of humour.
The gospel and revelation do not share authors. The author of revelation writes pretty poor Greek with frequent grammatical mistakes. John is written in a pretty sophisticated Greek. At least that's what ive heard from scholars on the new testament
@@Agryphos to follow on from you, I believe Revelation is simply attributed to someone that is named John, but as you've rightly pointed out, there's good reason to believe these aren't the same two authors - and it's very likely that neither of John/Revelation were written by the Apostle John
Question: Does this mean that "scripture" was more fluid and debated in Roman Occupied Judah much like how there are many sects of Christianity today? Isn't the whole narrative thrust of the Pharisees and Sadducees supposed to be that they are adhering as strictly as possible to a canonical set of law? (Understanding also the Bible's bias towards the Pharisees and Sadducees)
This is one of the few times that Dan has introduced something I was already familiar with but brought up some things I had not considered, the problem is his claims are really not agnostic on this point and I think he’s ignoring some specific pieces of “data” that contradict what he’s claiming like the Septuagint or the “limits” Jesus gives to the canon or how rare it is even today to find anyone who believes Enoch is scripture, I think (I’m probably wrong) the Ethiopians are the only church that ever considered it scripture. There are reasons to think it wasn’t regarded as scripture, and to me that’s what makes Jude’s use of it interesting…though I don’t really see how Dan is getting his interpretation of Jude claiming it’s prophecy…but as usual I think he’s fudging things against Christianity probably for homophilic reasons and speaking with certainty about things that he even admits aren’t certain. Utter nonsense 🤣 come on that’s not fair.
I don't understand why books like Daniel and Enoch are categorised by many scholars to be pseudepigrapha (according to Wikipedia) like some of the letters of "Paul" towards the end of the Bible? I dont see where in the text those books claim to be written by Daniel or Enoch, and they are talking about those characters in third person (so at best it seems they could be claiming to be biographies written by scribes who were Daniel/Enoch fans, not autobiographies). So that should put them in the same category as most of the gospels (authorship was assigned out of tradition, not because the archeological data or written text itself clearly proposed a particular author). From what I've read scholars think that Enoch was written by a variety of authors in late BC, and therefore should be treated like the first five books - recording a specific combination of traditional legends of what one branch of people think Enoch said and did. So at best a biography and at worst unconfirmed folktales, but definitely not presented as an autobiography where the main character it talks about also identifies as the writer of the story (but I guess unlike most autobiographical stories decided to write about themselves in third person). Which verses in Daniel and Enoch texts claim those two individuals are the actual writer of each story? I guess I think the term pseudepigrapha should be reserved for books that falsely claim an author, and these two books dont appear to claim an author, so at worst Enoch should be considered apocrypha. In fact the only reason I think Enoch doesn't even deserve to be in the apocrypha is that Jude is considered pseudepigraphic and therefore a book vouched for by someone lying about their identity is not really a great endorsement.
Daniel 10.1-3 shows that it's both In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a message was revealed to Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar). The message was trustworthy and concerned a great conflict. He understood it and had insight concerning the vision. 2 “At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three straight weeks. 3 I ate no fancy foods-neither meat nor wine entered my mouth. Furthermore, I didn’t use any ointment until the end of the entire three weeks. The final edition of Daniel was put together by a third person editor and the stories about Daniel and friends in 1-6 are in the third person but all the visions in 7-12 involve him speaking in the first person about what he saw how he didnt understand how he got sick and carried on with the king's business and told nobody, etc etc
@Greyz174 I guess what confused me in Enoch is that in verse 2 in the same sentence the author both uses the word "I" and also talks about a guy named Enoch. So a plain reading of that would suggest there is Enoch who experienced the vision, and the author who had been shown by angels what Enoch's vision was (which to me suggests the author is saying "you can trust that my words are correct when I tell you about Enoch's vision because even though I am not him, the angels showed me what he had seen so I can verify his claims"). I don't yet see where in the text people think the author is claiming to be Enoch, unless it is normal in ancient texts to swap between third person and first person in the space of the same sentence when talking about yourself. Your explanation of Daniel makes sense though, I can see how trying to collate various writings into a single overarching narrative book could result in one section in third person followed by one section in first person. Unfortunately I don't know if I can apply that reasoning to also help me understand why it appears people think the first-person-pronoun and third-person-name in the same sentence in Verse 2 of Enoch are referring to the same person as that would require scribes splitting and recombining sentences into something that risks giving the confusing impression there are two separate people in the sentence, rather than just pasting paragraphs from two different writings one after another where the change from third person to first person is clear because it's happening on a new line not mid sentence.
@@floriaaemilia52 hmm yeah i dont know, there is plenty of first person Enoch talk within the books though in the Dream Visions and the Astronomical section. Id have to look at the whole structure of everything and see what parts are clearly editorial string togetherings and which parts are Enoch speaking directly and if those are claim to be written by Enoch or are just the narrator/editor saying Enoch said these things, its a bit easier to see with Daniel being 12 chapters instead of over 80. I guess it also depends what counts as pseudepigrapha like if the Little Apocalypse in the synoptics would count as pseudepigrapha, if Jesus didnt say those things, even though the whole gospel would definitely be considered written by someone other than Jesus directly
@Greyz174 or I'm guessing it's classed as pseudepigrapha because like Daniel there are probably sections further along that are both first person and that also claim it's Enoch himself writing. And therefore the initial section might not be claiming to be written by Enoch but later sections that scribes added that I haven't gotten up to reading yet might make that claim. And so because it's all been collected into one text, rather than claiming "this section is apocrypha because it doesn't identify the author, whereas that later section is pseudepigrapha because it claims to be written by Enoch not just stories about Enoch" instead it just becomes "the book is pseudepigrapha because one or more sections of it claim to be written by Enoch". I'm used to seeing authors of the New Testament introduce themselves in the very first sentence/paragraph of their writings if they plan to identify themselves at all, so I incorrectly assumed that any claims of the writer's identity should appear first thing. But obviously collated books like Daniel and Enoch can have the title character not claim themselves as the author until much later on in the writings.
This is older so probably not the best example of Huff, but he has a problem. He’s perfectly fine until he gets into evangelical apologetics. Then he begins making claims he shouldn’t.
The Jews at Jesus' time or before then didn't use it because it was never in the Tanakh and it's a different Enoch. It clearly contradicts Genesis and is full of fables. Jews still reject it today for that reason. Dan should know this. There is no data to support the Jews in the Bible used the Book of Enoch. No one knows who even wrote it. Dan had to find certain people that did believe it. None of which are named in the Bible. Dan should also know that Jude isn't quoting 1 Enoch. The writing style shows Jude is quoting Enoch the man as they had strong oral traditions. Torah Enoch is a different Enoch than the book of. Dan should know that. Wes is correct here. Dan is misleading.
Wow, every time Wes opens his mouth, he just can't help himself and either appears to be totally misinformed or, do I dare say, is just plainly dishonest!!😮
The more I watch Dr Dan, Dr Kipp and Dr Josh etc, the more convinced I am that Wes Huff is not only full of himself, but also full of.......well, you know
at the end of the day, when everyone is at comfort filming these videos means nothing. we need to see wes huff vs you in 1 vs 1 debate. It might be the new billy carson debate of wes or you would win against him, thus granting you more fame. If wes really wants to prove that what he's saying is right, he needs to debate the final bosses of atheism. pretty sure that most people watching these videos of wes alex and you are just normal people seeking truth and not bible scholars.
@@germanboy14 still, we don't really hear a lot from wes. So it still doesn't feel fair to me. Coming face to face and hearing from both sides is what should happen in my opinion. The bible scholars are both atheist and theist as well and both have their own reasonings for what they believe in. 1 v 1 debate is the best way to prove if someone is as good as they say they are.
@@germanboy14 still, we don't really hear a lot from wes. So it still doesn't feel fair to me. Coming face to face and hearing from both sides is what should happen in my opinion. The bible scholars are both atheist and theist as well and both have their own reasonings for what they believe in. 1 v 1 debate is the best way to prove if someone is as good as they say they are.
I'm very fond of the Enoch character, having mostly encountered him in fiction. But I'm pretty attached to evidence as far as what shapes planetary bodies might be.
The Book of Enoch in the Ethiopian Bible was first! Ethiopian Acts 8:27-40 Altar and Pillar Isaiah 19:19 Revelation 5:5 Jesus is the Lion King of the Tribe of Judah! The Greeks call it a Sphinx! John 7:35 Jude 14 Revelation 17:14 Ethiopia had the Book of Enoch first! The Ethiopian calendar is currently several years behind the Gregorian calendar due to different calculations regarding the birth of Jesus. Our calendar was reset for Jerusalem to be destroyed in 70 AD! Daniel 9:2 It matches the Enoch Calendar or Mayan! 2012 Transit of Venus Rev.22:16 is the End of the Age! Matthew 13:39-43 Counting forward 18 years is the Hidden Day of Matthew 24:36 is the Feast of Trumpets! Revelation 17:17
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh wow, horizontal video! Great stuff as usual.
I’m learning!
My two favorite religion channels in one place!
The videos correcting Wes Huff's "expertise" have quickly become some of my favorites.
Yeppppp
Wess is better informed than a lot of the people Dan replies to, so you can get more into the nuances of where claims fall short. It's a nice to have an occasional break from debunks on claims like "see how this random photo of a wheel on the sea floor proves the exodus was real!"
@@marv-n-24 It is more interesting because Wes is a scholar, he "just" superimposes a layer of apologetics over his scholarship. He legitimately studies the subjects, but never allows his reasearch to lead him anywhere else but to his faith.
Yass!
Wes problem is that he tries very hard to justify the protestant OT canon and giving a "reason based" justification for it.
Wes got that Trust me Bro confidence.
The Joe Rogan audience specialty
Is this guy like the a rising star within Christian apologetics? He seems to have come out of nowhere but is everywhere now
Edit: I looked into him and he is a Director of an apologetics institute.... He's working on his PhD but he does not consider himself a scholar either at least according to his website.
He's going to produce a ton of content for Dan to correct. His smug self-confidence (entirely misplaced) is very annoying.
Yeah, he used his time in JRE to spread apologetic misinformation so now Dan wants to debunk him (and get that green)
Uh-huh. And he's popular because his extreme confidence really helps reassure Christians of their dogmas- not because he is a great and insightful scholar.
It seems Huff's scholarly background is very attractive to Christian apologists who want to counter McClellan and similar biblical scholars who they perceive as progressive. Many apologists are supposedly biblical experts but not scholars.
@@baonemogomotsi7138this is the least offensive way I've ever seen the Bible used to get a bag.
This landscape mode is growing on me😊
It just handles better, for controls and interaction. At least for old RUclipsrs.
@@NWPaul72 Fits better onto desktop (and laptop) screens, too.
I thought he had just put on some weight.
And it's an easy crop away from being in the right format for Shorts and TikTok.
I knew nothing about the Book of Enoch until about a year ago. I am surprised at how much of our ideas of heaven, hell, angels, Satan, etc., comes from it yet so many Christians have never heard of it.
2 Enoch is more fun, over all.
Stupid isn’t it? So many christians have nothing like an education. Too bisy demonizing professors and universities.
For sure, you should read the jst for it
Hugh Nibley and Margaret Barker will blow your mind. Always compare to cannon but don't fear searching out more light.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Jude quotes Enoch and Paul quotes Jubilees. Fascinating stuff.
Stephen in Acts 7 and 2 Peter also reference Jubilees.
Paul qoutes greek poetry as well. Bit qouting doesn't mean endorsement of the whole thing.
@@B4Africa Sorry, did you watch the video? If so, I recommend watching it again, especially the part where the author of the Letter of Jude explicitly quotes from 1 Enoch while calling it prophecy.
Quoting to particular audience does..
Here is Jude appealing to who?
1¶Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,👉 To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:
Who did Paul speak to? Believers? No, I instead to a crowd of unbelievers who were endeared to spiritual belief..
Acts 17:28, “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'”
Among other quotes to male the point for unbelievers and those who rebel.
@@B4Africa Paul (mis)quoted the torah just like Jude quoted Enoch😂
Looking forward to reading your book!
I once heard an apologist say something like “Jude is quoting an actual prophecy given by Enoch, not the book of Enoch. The book contains some genuine prophecies/accurate accounts, but isn’t itself a genuine account.” So that they could defend the quotes and references to the literature while still rejecting the literature as a whole and I’m surprised this isn’t a more popular claim, because it’s a claim that’s impossible to disprove, unlike the one provided by Huff here.
Yeah, I've heard that, too. It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to not accept the inconvenient facts in front of them. It is special pleading at its finest.
It quotes the book of Enoch, just as it uses other Jewish books, church fathers also used that book as scripture and admit the author of Jude quoted that book. The book of Enoch is used many times in the Nt. Its ideas shaped Xtianity.
Why do they do not want to accept Book of Enoch as part of scripture?
The jew's of Jesus day aren't a monolith group, they didn't have one belief system, there are many variations of their religion and what was prophetic and Authoritative. Zealots, Sadducee's, pharisee's, essenes so to lump the "jews of Jesus time" into one thing is odd. The data shows that some obviously held 1 enoch in high regard while other probably didn't.
Also, there was probably no such thing as an explicit canon at the time. There were books that people read and quoted, and the list surely varied from place to place and from time to time, except for a few "classics" whom everybody used (things like the Pentateuch).
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!
I wonder how modern Christianity would be if Catholic and Protestant sects considered it Scripture. Note: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers Enoch 1 Scripture.
I heard there are too many contradictions. Therefore, it was removed from the inspired list.
Lee Martin MacDonald covers this in some interviews on YT a bit. From memory its in the Ethiopian bible but not included in liturgy.as they are aware it doesnt gel perfectly with other church teachings.
The strict binary of the modern canon is not necessarily reflective of early church attitudes to texts.
@@MrVeryfrost Enoch contains a very strong condemnation of religious leaders who are described as shepherds who destroy many of the sheep they are supposed to be looking after. These are probably the "contradictions" that resulted in the book being lost until it was rediscovered in Ethiopia.
"Hey Jude, you're quite a lad.
Took a verse from Enoch and made it better.
Remember to let it into your heart,
Then you can start to write your letter."
(With apologies to Lennon and McCartney)
The data do not support the notion that John Lennon had anything to do with the writing of Hey Jude.
@@billcook4768 Scholars say "Nah, nahhh, na na na nahhh"
The Epistle of Barnabas twice quotes 1 Enoch as Scripture. St. Justin Martyr cites the Book of Watchers (part of 1 Enoch). St. Irenaeus ascribes its teaching to the prophets. St. Athenagoras of Athens describes Enoch as a prophet and uses 1 Enoch’s description of Heaven. Origen said he used to think 1 Enoch was Scripture but others convinced him to change his view.
Interesting!
Others also used it as scripture. I believe Tertullian is one of them
Luke also probably has 1 Enoch 22 in mind in Luke 16:19-31, or something very like it.
@@germanboy14 Yes. He at least thought it was authoritative. He said the Jews got rid of it after Jesus because it has so many prophesies of Jesus Christ. The Book of Parables especially emphasized the Messiah/Christ as a divine figure, eternal with the most High God, and identified as YHWH.
Dan just patiently advances his pawn, keeping steady pressure on the opponent.
Thanks again for interesting and informative content!!!
Almost like religion is a human social construct with exactly the importance the people of the time assign it.
Remember when Jesus said the Jews “err not knowing the scriptures” because they didn’t know the resurrection (which makes one like angels) is without marriage? That’s from 1 Enoch.
Of course we have no idea what Jesus said; we only have gospel authors putting their opinions in his mouth to lend them authority, starting with 'Mark' putting Paul's opinions there. So, you have to say which gospel author wrote it.
Amen, these are just facts
Excellent discussion. Hellboy, Thor and Ironman, all my favorite comics. 👍🏻
The Nt quotes the book of Enoch. So the apologist refutes his own books😂😂
1:36 even I understood, like a decade ago, that many jews consider 1st of Enoch to be actual prophesy when I understood what Jude was quoting there.
That's good, keep setting this Christian 'hero' straight !
I have heard Wes referred to as "Skippy the Christian" 😁😁😁
Excellent 👍
If anyone thinks that "oh Jude might have quoted it but how much did it really influence the core of the new testament?" I suggest that you compare the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19ff and 1 Enoch 22. The similarity between the vision of the afterlife and the division of the dead into the the righteous and the unrighteous is uncanny, and to my knowledge you do not find this spelt out this way in any other pre-Christian texts.
I been waiting for this 😂😂😂😂
I love your username lol
@ 😂😂 thank you
This figure of 400 years between Malachi and Matthew is a really common.. Thank you Dan for explaining!
And here we GOOOO
The justifications for excluding Enoch while keeping Jude are totally ridiculous, especially given how fundamental Enoch was in establishing Christian ideas about the spirit world.
As a corollary - a lot of early Patristic writing has more cause for inclusion than much of the canonical NT, and a lot of second-century apocryphal stuff has about the same case for inclusion in the canon as, say, 2 Peter does.
Dear Jebus, please deliver us from apologists😇
I am surprised by how apologists will avoid stating the obvious.
I had a friend make some of these claims, and I couldn’t figure out where he was hearing it from. Of course he’s a Wes Huff fan from before he blew up.
What I find ironic is that this is Christians claiming that it wasn't taken his sacred scripture.
Don't tell the Ethiopian orthodox that Enoch wasn't taken as authoritative.
Don't tell the Catholics or eastern orthodox about any of the Septuagint variant readings not being legit
If we had a modern day moses it would clarify so much. A living God would always talk to His children would He not? Perhaps there is something to the Jews not believing in a closed canon. They definitely thought God would never stop speaking to us.
Wes probably thinks that when Paul mentions “all Scripture”, he is referring to the NT also.
"The Book of Enoch is interesting..."
"Okay, let's see it"
😂😂
Incredible how growing up an Orthodox Jew I had no clue this book even existed.
What jewish folks in the 1st century? Didn't different groups adhere to different writings and prophets?
Not really no. I just finished reading chapters 8 and 9 of Barton's history of the Bible and scholars largely believe that the modern Hebrew Bible canon was basically the same set of books that were considered scripture in the first century at the latest. This means that these books were considered scripture (though canon isn't the best term to describe it) for a very long time. Dan is correct to criticize the use of the term canon to describe the sets of books of scripture in the first century.
@@wraithwrecker_ there was no Hebrew canon in the first century. All those books you reject today were used by Jews in the first century and weee written by Hebrews
@@germanboy14 We're literally saying the same thing. Also please don't presume to know what I reject and what I accept. You don't even know what my beliefs are lmao. That's not even relevant to what I'm saying anyway. What I said was that what is now the Hebrew "canon" was largely the same set of books that were considered scripture by Jews in the first century at the latest (at least, this is according to Barton, whose book is recommended by Dan). There was no Hebrew canon, because a canon is a closed set; Hebrew scriptures in those days sometimes had new books added to the scriptures, so it was not a closed set. My point is that what is NOW the "canon" (because Jews largely consider the Hebrew Bible to BE a canon nowadays) is largely very similar to what was at the time the set of books considered holy scripture in the first century.
If you actually take issue with what I'm saying, then read chapters 9-10 of A History of the Bible by John Barton and take it up with him. Also, you're saying "all those books" that I supposedly reject (I don't) were written by Jews; You know, there likely isn't a single book in the New Testament that wasn't written by Jews anyway so how is this even a gotcha? lol
Loren Stuckenbruck - “The Significance of Ethiopic Witnesses for the Text Tradition of 1 Enoch: Problems and Prospects,” - Congress Volume Aberdeen 2019 - Brill
Boom!
Not only Jude treats First Enoch as scripture. Up to this day the Ethiopian Christian Church includes this book in their version of the Bible.
Church fathers too
Great clip!
Jesus quotes it when he said "you error, not knowing the scriptues." The apostles quote it. The old testment quotes it. It is quoted in the extrabiblical writings. There are 19 different (very different) versions of it. Mahujah and Mahijah are known in more than one. We may not underatand it all... but it was originally scripture, often purged. Including by European authorities after Jesus and even possiblynthe Deuteronomists who were trying to reform during an apostasy. Usually it is taken away when people misuse it. Thenreason they make a statement about not to add or contract... is because it happened. Some speculate that the deuteronomists may have modified the Bible and merged a couple accounts into one and also... maybe removed some things (a hypothesis some scholars have). Margaret Barker has some interesting ideas. Hugh Nibley has some deep insights about the source docs of Enoch. Lots of good stuff out there. I'll add this to those. 😊
+1 for based Hellboy shirt.
It would be awesome to do a deeper dive into this. I'm very interested in this topic. I feel like this book would help connect the dots on some things for some people
He did a longer form video on Enoch.
ruclips.net/video/zghJE1-ZCQw/видео.htmlsi=aRaZXDFVxSFQQUZr
@ DOPE thanks!!
A great follow-up would be a breakdown of 1st Enoch to see what it inspired Jews of that time period, and upcoming Christianity as well.
Luther disputed Jude as inspired. This illustrates the question: inspired, says who? And, define inspired.
The problem is, most likely, none of these facts and data will slow the rapid ascent of their new golden boy.
By no means should people STOP correcting outright fabrications, but to adjust a popular phrase, their feelings are immune to facts.
If nothing else, we can hope to at least keep new people from being duped.
Let them believe their own lies. The Nt authors did it first, Paul before them and today it continues
I like how Dan’s videos give quick rebuttals. It’s great to respond until they reject Dan for being biased because he’s atheist/Mormon/liberal/demonic or whatever else they choose.
Wes was beating his chest over the Billy Carson thing and as soon as I heard his apologetic bias with regard to the Bible, I just waited for Dan to catch wind of Wes & when it happened I sat here with the biggest grin. Gotcha 😂
I like that the focus on RUclips instead of TikTok has lead to more thorough explanations and arguments from Dan.
Dan, how do you come up with this research so quickly? What software or website are you using to find information on the said topic to be able to quote a response?
I think Dan just knows a lot of this stuff through his studies and he knows what the relevant experts are on key topics, and if he doesn't he will be in contact with people who do
Poor Wes is on everyone's radar
1 Enoch is a very interesting book and it would have been lost if the Ethiopian Church had not kept it.
In Ethiopia the Jews actively used it and as Christianity spread they held to whatever Old Testament works were traditionally held as the scripture by the regional Jews. Enoch has historically always been cannon amongst the Jews there.
I heard there are about 100 quotations from Enoch in NT alone, in comparison to 60 quotes from Isaiah
Enoch is very present in Jude and Peter letters. But generally absent in Pauline corpus. Is it possible that Enoch is a part of what Paul consider "Old Wives' tales"?
My uncle Leonard reads the Bible on edibles
Biblical inerrancy is fascinating. On the one hand, I can see how the lay Christian can assume the Bible is inerrant, because they never dip further than surface level understanding of history, but the evangelical biblical scholars that profess inerrancy are either sipping their own koolaid, or are being deliberately misleading.
I have been led to believe that Jesus quotes the Ethiopic book of Enoch in Luke 6:24. Is this true?
The essences were a breakaway sect and just as they died away so too have their breakaway ideas within the Jewish canon. The Pharisees who exist even today as orthodox jewery did not accept first Enoch as scripture.
Would an Aramaic copyist scribe a copy of 1st Enoch on parchment unless it were inspired?
The earliest extant copy of 1st Enoch is written on parchment. Some later copies on papyrus. A later Ge'ez copy on paper.
Wes Huff needs to decide if he's just gooing to LARP as a scholar, or actually become one. I suspect he'll choose the first option as it is compatable with this apologetics work, which I strongly suspect is his driving motivation.
I think what makes Dan's debunking of Wes my favourite videos atm, is that theres such an obvious contrast between the stupidity and dishonesty of someones brain on apologetics vs that of a critical scholar. 😂
Rather interesting there are some Jews today that still accept 1 Enoch as scripture. The Jews of Ethiopia, known as Beta Israel include it in their cannon, as well as Jubilees, and some other popular second temple texts, such The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as some unique books, like the books of Meqabyan
Dan, could you comment on the apparent similarity between Jesus' words in Matthew 11:28-29 and Sirach 51? Was Jesus paraphrasing this text?
Yes. Or the Nt authors used that book just like church fathers.
Well since Alex mentioned Dan, Dan got some Validation. Now he goes in for more points.
It is fascinating to me how even Christians that are doing scholarly study of the Bible are so insistent that we somehow academically know that our current Bible as we have it today is the "correct" set of canon documents and always has been. I feel like it must trace back in some way to wanting a feeling of certainty about salvation, which means being certain Jesus got salvation right, which means he must be infallible. Logically you could achieve the same thing by believing Jesus was infallible about salvation, but was not omniscient and got some things wrong about details like whether 1 Enoch is scripture. Or just assert that while the Jews of the time considered it scripture, and some Christians as well, Jesus wouldn't have since you know he is infallible. There's so many possibilities that dont require you to wrongly assert that the evidence indicates Jews didn't consider 1 Enoch scripture during Jesus' time!
The inerrancy doctrine is why this is a thing. Believing that it is unchanged or the messages throughout history point to Jesus was always a blunder.
All religious texts have their variants and what different denominations value differently. Inerrancy was the problem.
@baonemogomotsi7138 After looking into it more, I see that Wes has only attended educational institutions with statements of faith that either require belief in inerrancy, or seem to heavily lean in that direction. That makes a lot more sense of where his stance currently is, I had thought at least his PhD was at a more academic institution that didn't require a pre commitment to that view of the Bible.
This is it. It's a trivial exercise to come to some theological position on any given issue without inerrancy, eg 'Jude was wrong, but his statement contains useful truth'. Even more trivial still to start with inerrancy and blindly assert whatever statements of faith a person may want to hold. Eg 'The holy spirit through Jude is ensuring we kept the one part of 1 Enoch that was inspired'
Importantly, both of those are theological positions, and whatever theology you want to do in the privacy of your own home is none of my business.
What boggles my mind is the project of trying to assert an historical certainty or probability to what amount to theological statements. Eg 'The Jews of the 1st century CE Levant held the same theological position as me as regards to 1 Enoch'. It's playing on the wrong field. When it's demonstrably wrong it undermines your theology, and ultimately it's not necessary. Theologians should leave history to the historians, and theist historians shouldn't pander with their history. It makes them look foolish from both directions.
only some Christians - at my secular university I took a paper a year or so ago taught by an ordained Anglican, the content of which included basically the same thing as Dan's saying here, and we went over the texts of Jubilees, Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, Aramaic Levi and the like. Most Christians have no problem with this stuff, it's only the ones who hold to very strict ideas of inerrancy, and very, very conservative positions. This position forces people to defend the indefensible, and therefore asserts that there are things that are "problems for Christians" that fundamentally threaten religious belief that actually don't - thus undermining religious belief rather than defending it. It's pretty terrible, I think, setting people up to fail.
@4:26 onward. An ALL powerful and ALL future knowing deity would anticipate that future potential converts to Christianity would discover this
---- Why even would this ALL powerful deity cause so much confusion regarding what religion is the " ONLY true Belief ® ?
It's almost like the bible author's viewpoint was written by pre science men, who believed that Joshua 10:12-13 was actually, even possible....
I don't think the number of copies found correlates to how important those books were to the people. Maybe they were the least important, and they took what was important with them when they abandoned the caves.
Step onefor making a point should be defining the terms. As stated,Scripture is a loaded and ambiguous term. Ut a good buzzword for the algorithm.
Watch - Loren Stuckenbruck lecture, RIAB meeting March 2 2017
I had never heard of Weds Huff 4 weeks ago, now I see him everywhere. How did he get his big break on Joe Rogan? Was he invited on because he has big muscles?
Who knew that that weirdo Billy Carson would get recognition? Strange times we live in.
Would Christianity even be a thing if there had been no 1 Enoch?
interesting question
Probably in some form at least.
Are there any Midrash or mishna that reference Enoch? If not that is evidence.
Wes loves to say JEWS.
I give up. I'm not going to say anything about him. 🤣
One of my friends who's a Christian said he considers Enoch as scripture. Isn't there a denomination, IIRC Ethiopian Orthodoxy, that includes it in their canon?
The Ethiopian Orthodox Christians include it in their cannon as do the Ethiopian Jews.
@@Mrrubbaduck They still use cannons in Ethiopia? Wow, I thought they'd've modernized by now.
Yes I know you meant canon, ignore my dry sense of humour.
@@MusicalRaichu LOL, I do love dry humor.
Why was Enoch not made canon in the Christian Bible?
Nobody knows
It was according to many early Christians.
@@germanboy14 and still is in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Because Christianity isn't Judaism
huh. haven't heard people saying Pentateuch in a long time. Everyone I know just says Torah, simce it is a Jewish book collection.
I’m only aware of Wes from a comment in Prof Ehrman’s videos. It was skeptic toward Wes
Was Revelation written by John the Apostle / the author of the Gospel of John?
The gospel and revelation do not share authors. The author of revelation writes pretty poor Greek with frequent grammatical mistakes. John is written in a pretty sophisticated Greek.
At least that's what ive heard from scholars on the new testament
@@Agryphos to follow on from you, I believe Revelation is simply attributed to someone that is named John, but as you've rightly pointed out, there's good reason to believe these aren't the same two authors - and it's very likely that neither of John/Revelation were written by the Apostle John
you have to hand it to Wes. Never has one man inspired so much criticism in such a short amount of time.
The more Wes talks, the more sceptically inclined Christians will hear rebuff and facts over dogma.
" pure and utter nonsense." Tell us what you REALLY think, Dan 😂
Can anyone tell me (briefly) what is the significance of Enoch being scripture or not?
Being canon would give it much more consideration in the religion.
What is the focus on Wes Huff recently? Did he just explode on the scene or something?
*Enoch’s lasting influence*
2 Enoch was written in the first? C CE and 3 Enoch in the 2nd C, with redactions for a few more centuries.
Question: Does this mean that "scripture" was more fluid and debated in Roman Occupied Judah much like how there are many sects of Christianity today? Isn't the whole narrative thrust of the Pharisees and Sadducees supposed to be that they are adhering as strictly as possible to a canonical set of law? (Understanding also the Bible's bias towards the Pharisees and Sadducees)
The representation of the Pharisees and Saducees in the NT is not accurate. Yes, scripture is fluid.
A lot more flavors pre Vespasian and Titus
Wes should take the blank out his own eye before pointing at the prickle in Billy Carson’s eye.
Realy, it's not hard if you follow the evidence. It only becomes hard when you try to mold stuff around your pre-existing beliefs and agendas.
This is one of the few times that Dan has introduced something I was already familiar with but brought up some things I had not considered, the problem is his claims are really not agnostic on this point and I think he’s ignoring some specific pieces of “data” that contradict what he’s claiming like the Septuagint or the “limits” Jesus gives to the canon or how rare it is even today to find anyone who believes Enoch is scripture, I think (I’m probably wrong) the Ethiopians are the only church that ever considered it scripture. There are reasons to think it wasn’t regarded as scripture, and to me that’s what makes Jude’s use of it interesting…though I don’t really see how Dan is getting his interpretation of Jude claiming it’s prophecy…but as usual I think he’s fudging things against Christianity probably for homophilic reasons and speaking with certainty about things that he even admits aren’t certain. Utter nonsense 🤣 come on that’s not fair.
I don't understand why books like Daniel and Enoch are categorised by many scholars to be pseudepigrapha (according to Wikipedia) like some of the letters of "Paul" towards the end of the Bible? I dont see where in the text those books claim to be written by Daniel or Enoch, and they are talking about those characters in third person (so at best it seems they could be claiming to be biographies written by scribes who were Daniel/Enoch fans, not autobiographies). So that should put them in the same category as most of the gospels (authorship was assigned out of tradition, not because the archeological data or written text itself clearly proposed a particular author).
From what I've read scholars think that Enoch was written by a variety of authors in late BC, and therefore should be treated like the first five books - recording a specific combination of traditional legends of what one branch of people think Enoch said and did. So at best a biography and at worst unconfirmed folktales, but definitely not presented as an autobiography where the main character it talks about also identifies as the writer of the story (but I guess unlike most autobiographical stories decided to write about themselves in third person).
Which verses in Daniel and Enoch texts claim those two individuals are the actual writer of each story? I guess I think the term pseudepigrapha should be reserved for books that falsely claim an author, and these two books dont appear to claim an author, so at worst Enoch should be considered apocrypha. In fact the only reason I think Enoch doesn't even deserve to be in the apocrypha is that Jude is considered pseudepigraphic and therefore a book vouched for by someone lying about their identity is not really a great endorsement.
Daniel 10.1-3 shows that it's both
In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a message was revealed to Daniel (also known as Belteshazzar). The message was trustworthy and concerned a great conflict. He understood it and had insight concerning the vision.
2 “At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three straight weeks. 3 I ate no fancy foods-neither meat nor wine entered my mouth. Furthermore, I didn’t use any ointment until the end of the entire three weeks.
The final edition of Daniel was put together by a third person editor and the stories about Daniel and friends in 1-6 are in the third person but all the visions in 7-12 involve him speaking in the first person about what he saw how he didnt understand how he got sick and carried on with the king's business and told nobody, etc etc
@Greyz174 I guess what confused me in Enoch is that in verse 2 in the same sentence the author both uses the word "I" and also talks about a guy named Enoch. So a plain reading of that would suggest there is Enoch who experienced the vision, and the author who had been shown by angels what Enoch's vision was (which to me suggests the author is saying "you can trust that my words are correct when I tell you about Enoch's vision because even though I am not him, the angels showed me what he had seen so I can verify his claims"). I don't yet see where in the text people think the author is claiming to be Enoch, unless it is normal in ancient texts to swap between third person and first person in the space of the same sentence when talking about yourself.
Your explanation of Daniel makes sense though, I can see how trying to collate various writings into a single overarching narrative book could result in one section in third person followed by one section in first person. Unfortunately I don't know if I can apply that reasoning to also help me understand why it appears people think the first-person-pronoun and third-person-name in the same sentence in Verse 2 of Enoch are referring to the same person as that would require scribes splitting and recombining sentences into something that risks giving the confusing impression there are two separate people in the sentence, rather than just pasting paragraphs from two different writings one after another where the change from third person to first person is clear because it's happening on a new line not mid sentence.
@@floriaaemilia52 hmm yeah i dont know, there is plenty of first person Enoch talk within the books though in the Dream Visions and the Astronomical section. Id have to look at the whole structure of everything and see what parts are clearly editorial string togetherings and which parts are Enoch speaking directly and if those are claim to be written by Enoch or are just the narrator/editor saying Enoch said these things, its a bit easier to see with Daniel being 12 chapters instead of over 80. I guess it also depends what counts as pseudepigrapha like if the Little Apocalypse in the synoptics would count as pseudepigrapha, if Jesus didnt say those things, even though the whole gospel would definitely be considered written by someone other than Jesus directly
@Greyz174 or I'm guessing it's classed as pseudepigrapha because like Daniel there are probably sections further along that are both first person and that also claim it's Enoch himself writing. And therefore the initial section might not be claiming to be written by Enoch but later sections that scribes added that I haven't gotten up to reading yet might make that claim. And so because it's all been collected into one text, rather than claiming "this section is apocrypha because it doesn't identify the author, whereas that later section is pseudepigrapha because it claims to be written by Enoch not just stories about Enoch" instead it just becomes "the book is pseudepigrapha because one or more sections of it claim to be written by Enoch". I'm used to seeing authors of the New Testament introduce themselves in the very first sentence/paragraph of their writings if they plan to identify themselves at all, so I incorrectly assumed that any claims of the writer's identity should appear first thing. But obviously collated books like Daniel and Enoch can have the title character not claim themselves as the author until much later on in the writings.
I’m so glad that you’re distributing the Same critical love he gave Billy Carson.
This is older so probably not the best example of Huff, but he has a problem. He’s perfectly fine until he gets into evangelical apologetics. Then he begins making claims he shouldn’t.
The Jews at Jesus' time or before then didn't use it because it was never in the Tanakh and it's a different Enoch. It clearly contradicts Genesis and is full of fables. Jews still reject it today for that reason. Dan should know this. There is no data to support the Jews in the Bible used the Book of Enoch. No one knows who even wrote it. Dan had to find certain people that did believe it. None of which are named in the Bible.
Dan should also know that Jude isn't quoting 1 Enoch. The writing style shows Jude is quoting Enoch the man as they had strong oral traditions. Torah Enoch is a different Enoch than the book of. Dan should know that. Wes is correct here. Dan is misleading.
Wow, every time Wes opens his mouth, he just can't help himself and either appears to be totally misinformed or, do I dare say, is just plainly dishonest!!😮
The more I watch Dr Dan, Dr Kipp and Dr Josh etc, the more convinced I am that Wes Huff is not only full of himself, but also full of.......well, you know
I thought Enoch was a Sleestak.
Wes just isn't strong enough on the canon developent in general and 1 Enoch in particular. He just doesn't know enough.
Jesus refers to 1 Enoch (Jude 14) in Matthew 25:31 - apparently
at the end of the day, when everyone is at comfort filming these videos means nothing. we need to see wes huff vs you in 1 vs 1 debate. It might be the new billy carson debate of wes or you would win against him, thus granting you more fame. If wes really wants to prove that what he's saying is right, he needs to debate the final bosses of atheism. pretty sure that most people watching these videos of wes alex and you are just normal people seeking truth and not bible scholars.
The consensus of scholarship refuted Wes already. Billy Carson was never a scholar in the first place, just like Wes is an apologist.
@@germanboy14 still, we don't really hear a lot from wes. So it still doesn't feel fair to me. Coming face to face and hearing from both sides is what should happen in my opinion. The bible scholars are both atheist and theist as well and both have their own reasonings for what they believe in. 1 v 1 debate is the best way to prove if someone is as good as they say they are.
@@germanboy14 still, we don't really hear a lot from wes. So it still doesn't feel fair to me. Coming face to face and hearing from both sides is what should happen in my opinion. The bible scholars are both atheist and theist as well and both have their own reasonings for what they believe in. 1 v 1 debate is the best way to prove if someone is as good as they say they are.
Flat earthers love Enoch
I'm very fond of the Enoch character, having mostly encountered him in fiction. But I'm pretty attached to evidence as far as what shapes planetary bodies might be.
We need a mcklellan vs huff debate asap lol
The Book of Enoch in the Ethiopian Bible was first! Ethiopian Acts 8:27-40
Altar and Pillar Isaiah 19:19
Revelation 5:5 Jesus is the Lion King of the Tribe of Judah! The Greeks call it a Sphinx!
John 7:35 Jude 14 Revelation 17:14
Ethiopia had the Book of Enoch first! The Ethiopian calendar is currently several years behind the Gregorian calendar due to different calculations regarding the birth of Jesus. Our calendar was reset for Jerusalem to be destroyed in 70 AD! Daniel 9:2 It matches the Enoch Calendar or Mayan! 2012 Transit of Venus Rev.22:16 is the End of the Age! Matthew 13:39-43 Counting forward 18 years is the Hidden Day of Matthew 24:36 is the Feast of Trumpets! Revelation 17:17