EFC Newsletter 8/22/2020
Dear EFC subscribers:
Repent, Return, Restore, Rebuild
We want to announce a new class that will be taught by Dr. John Oakes live starting Saturday Sept 5 9:00-10:45 AM Pacific time. The class will run for five consecutive Saturdays. The class will cover the post-exile books of the Old Testament–Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. The theme will God restoring his people to a relationship with him. There will be much about the Kingdom of God in this class. The class will be available live. It can be accessed either at www.bakersfieldchurchofchrist.com or on zoom at 342 225 5971 pswd 857096 We hope to see you there.
New Material at EFC
Dr. John Oakes just finished a 17-part series of sermons from the Book of Matthew. Notes, power points and audio are available at the web site in the article titled “Sermons in Bakersfield.” The videos of the sermons are available here: https://www.youtube.com/user/bakersfieldcoc/videos
There is a new class by Dr. Oakes on the Stone Campbell Movement. This is the story of the development of the back-to-the-Bible unity movement which led to the creation of the Churches of Christ, the ICOC, the Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ. You will find the notes and power point at the web site.
There are new classes at the web site on History, Archaeology and the Bible as well as The Reliability of the Bible. Both can be found in the article “Sermons in Bakersfield.”
Last, but not least, there is a new 12-hour class on Church History that Dr. Oakes taught for campus interns. Here is the article: https://evidenceforchristianity.org/class-on-church-history-for-interns-in-bakersfield/
Q & A
Here are a couple of recent questions and answers from the web site.
Question:
Answer:
The answer is that the Book of Enoch, also known as 1st Enoch, certainly has not been lost, and neither has it been forgotten. It was not taken out of the Old Testament because it was never part of the Old Testament. Anyone who likes can read the translated text any time they like. Here is a link to the text of the Book of Enoch: http://scriptural-truth.com/images/BookOfEnoch.pdf
In fact, the Ethiopian Coptic Church still has the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament canon. This is the only significant Christian group which includes Enoch. It has been in their canon from ancient times, so the book has never been “lost.” It was “lost” to Europe from the early Medieval period until the late 1700’s when a Scottish explorer James Bruce brought three manuscripts to the UK, from which it was translated into English in the nineteenth century.
So, what is the Book of Enoch, when was it written, by whom, and why is it not in the Christian Bible (except for the Ethiopic church, in which case, the question might be why is it included in theirs)? The Book of Enoch is a pseudepigraphal Jewish text of the second or third century BC. Whether the original language was Hebrew or Aramaic is not clear, as the oldest text of the Book of Enoch is actually in the language Ge’ez, which is the ancient Ethiopic language. The book is said to be pseudepigraphal because the book is ascribed to the same Enoch who was seventh from Adam. Obviously, that Enoch did not write this book, so it is falsely attributed to him, which is the meaning of pseudepigraphal (falsely signed). To modern minds it is deceptive and unethical to falsely attribute something we would write to a more famous person, but in the ancient Near East this was considered an acceptable practice. 1st Enoch is written in apocalyptic style, with visions and symbols, as, for example, Revelation or Zechariah. The book was known to the Jews in the first century BC, as is proved by their quotes from Enoch, by its having been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as from the fact that the New Testament book of Jude (Jude 1:14-15) mentions the story in the Book of Enoch. Whether Jude is simply using a common story to make an illustration or he is attributing inspiration to the book is not clear from how it is used in Jude. Early church fathers also mention Enoch and occasionally quote from it in Greek translation. Origen, Tertullian and other early church fathers mentioned and used the Book of Enoch, and there is good evidence that it influenced their thinking about the Old Testament. For obscure reasons, the church in Ethiopia was particularly fond of the Book of Enoch; so much so that they included it as part of what we know of as the Old Testament Apocrypha. Some in the Ethiopian church go so far as to claim that it was originally written in Ge’ez, which is almost certainly not true.
As for the content of the Book of Enoch, it includes Jewish stories which provide added details to Old Testament texts. For example, in 1 Enoch we learn that demons are fallen angels and that such fallen angelic beings had sexual relationships with human women, giving birth to the nephilim. It contains descriptions of Sheol and the “underworld,” it names the seven archangels (only Michael and Gabriel are named in the Bible). Enoch also contains descriptions of the heavenly objects and their paths. It uses a solar rather than a lunar year, which is an interesting curiosity. Enoch is divided into five parts, including the Book of Watchers, the Book of Parables, the Astronomical Book, the Epistle of Enoch and the Names of the Fallen Angels. The text is rather long. You can see in the link above that the text in that format is nearly 150 pages long!
Although 1 Enoch was popular in the early phases of the Essenes at Qumran, and although some Jews clearly read and valued the book, it was never received into the Jewish canon. The situation is similar in Christianity. It is clear that the early church highly valued the Book of Enoch, enough to quote from it and to have their understanding of the Old Testament be influenced by it. However, there is no evidence that it was seriously considered to be included in the Old Testament canon by either Western or Eastern Christianity.
Is there any chance that some of the knowledge found in 1 Enoch, particularly about the archangels and the source of the nephilim is in fact true? It is hard to judge, as the inspiration of this collection of writings is very dubious. I would say that it is best to read the Book of Enoch, understand its role in forming Jewish and even Christian thought, and to leave it at that. We should not do what the early church did, which is to allow it to influence our view of God.
John Oakes
Question:
Answer:
There is no contradiction at all in the accounts of the arrest of Jesus. The details in each of the gospels complement rather than contradict one another. Ally can say what he wants, but unless he can show an actual contradiction (he cannot) this is mere rhetoric. In all accounts, Judas led the one arresting Jesus. In all accounts Jesus willingly submitted himself to being arrested. In all accounts, he was taken by force. In some of the accounts (Matthew, Mark) the apostles fled and abandoned Jesus. Some accounts (Matthew, Luke, John) report Peter cutting off the ear of the soldier, while others (Luke, John) report Jesus healing that ear. Where is the contradiction? It is in the mind of Shabir Ally. This is quite simply a bogus claim. As for carrying the cross, the solution is quite simple and people ought simply to stop making this obviously false claim of a contradiction. Jesus carried the cross-beam a certain distance, but due to the weight of the beam, and due to exhaustion from his beating, he could not carry on, so a man named Simon from Cyrene took it the rest of the way. Seriously, this is supposed to be a contradiction? The next contradiction is also only in the mind of Shabir Ally. Jesus told his disciples and us that he would suffer and die for our sins. He also said in John that he willingly did this. A contradiction? Again, only in the mind of Mr. Ally. Shabir says that in Acts Jesus appears to Paul as a spirit but not as a physical body. I just read the account in Acts 9. It does not say this. Did Ally make this up? Where did he get this idea? It certainly was not from the Bible. He tells us that Jesus appeared to his disciples as a spirit. When and where? This is in the mind of Shabir Ally, but not in the Bible. By now you ought to be recognizing that Shabir Ally is not a reliable source on these questions. His bias is so obvious, you ought to begin to doubt all he says.
Do we have sources outside the Bible that Jesus was crucified by the Romans? Yes we do, but even if we did not, there are hundreds of eye-witnesses, as mentioned in the Bible. Is Shabir Ally proposing that they are all liars? Did they all die for a conspiracy theory? Is this a reasonable proposition? I do not think so. But we do have outside reports of his crucifixion, specifically from Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian and from Josephus, a Jewish historian. Of course, neither of these were eye-witnesses, but both report that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem under the authority of Rome. The crucifixion of Jesus is about as historical an event from the ancient world as we have. Even Muslims agree that a crucifixion happened–they just claim that they crucified the wrong person. Can any reasonable person believe this nonsense?
As for the deaths of the apostles, we do not have reliable accounts for most of them. The means and place of death of Paul, Peter and John are well-documented, whereas the information on the other apostles is not well-documented. But how is this important? Why do we need to know how Andrew or Thomas died? Why does that matter to Christianity? It does not. The fact is that at least two of them were killed for their faith–Paul and Peter–and it is likely that several others were as well, giving us strong evidence that they believed their own testimony about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but we do not happen to have strong evidence one way or another.
Mark does report the resurrection in Mark 16:1-8. What are these people trying to say? It is true, that Mark 16:9-20 are likely not to have been part of the original Mark. True, but this is just a smoke screen. Mark, like all the other gospel writers, tells us that Jesus was raised from the dead. The fact that the exact ending of Mark is not certain does nothing to this and claims that this makes the resurrection uncertain is a red herring argument. These critics are saying that Mark did not report the resurrection. Read Mark 16:1-8 for yourself. They they say that the later gospels fabricated the story. Luke was written in about AD 63 or 64. This was just a few years later. Matthew was also written in either the 50s or 60s AD. Again, just a few years later. Are Muslims proposing that these two made up the story of the resurrection, only 20-30 years after it happened, when most of those in Jerusalem at the time were still alive, and the Christian church was duped into believing a concocted story, when most of the 500 eye-witnesses were still alive? This has got to be the most outlandish theory ever concocted. Again, we see the sheer desperation behind this argument.
Let me give you a summary. Absolutely yes, you can trust the Bible. The utter weakness of these arguments, showing how desperate these critics are to discredit the Bible is evidence in themselves of the reliability of the Old and New Testaments. These are the very Word of God, passed on reliably through thousands of texts. You should not be intimidate by these weak and deceptive arguments.
John Oakes
[Editor’s note: The questioner is from India and is attempting to respond to unsubstantiated claims that Judaism and/or Christianity have ideas substantially borrowed from Hinduism]Question:
Answer:
On the first question, the simple answer is no, this is not true! This is wishful thinking on the part of Hindus who are trying to prove, without evidence, that Hinduism affected Judaism. The problem with this is that there simply is NO EVIDENCE to support this claim. None. It is true that the Phoenicians were great sailors who sailed great distances. The sailed throughout the Mediterranean, even entering into the Atlantic, certainly to Spain and even to the British Isles. Their peak of power and influence was from about 1000 t0 400 BC–long after the Jewish religion was created. What there is not any evidence for is that they sailed in the Indian Ocean. I have seen no evidence for this and, unless someone can present actual evidence for this claim, you should simply dismiss it as wishful thinking.
On the second question, let me say that you are not asking an expert on linguistics. However, if I understand correctly from my limited study, Sanskrit is a language which finds its roots in Central Asia. It is part of the Indo-Aryan language group. In other words, it is related to Farsi (Persia, Afghanistan today), but it is not a Semitic language. The evidence is that the migration was from Western Asia into India, not from India toward Western Asia. The source of Sanskrit is north and west of India, and the source of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is certainly NOT the Indian subcontinent. There is probably a common source for the Greek language and Sanskrit, but there is no evidence that Sanskrit influenced any of these languages. The idea is not supported by evidence and is further evidence of wishful thinking on the part of Hindus who understand that Christianity is a highly respected religion and want some sort of “credit” as a source of Judaism and Christianity. The big problem for this theory is that there is no evidence supporting it, which ought to be the death knell for any theory.
John Oakes
