Dear Friends,

This is my twelfth post of direct commentary on How Jesus Became God, by Dr. Bart Ehrman. Check here for my introductory comments.

.

Dr. Ehrman adds more evidence today that the early Christians believed Jesus was merely an angel in human form. As I see it, Dr. Ehrman is trying to reach the moon by riding his bike really fast up a ramp*.     

II Enoch: Another reject on the pile

This is yet another non-canonical book that Ehrman is using to try to chip away at Christianity.

What I’ve gleaned from reading up on this osbcure book about Enoch (yes, THAT Enoch) is that, much like the other non-canonical texts that Ehrman brings up in this part of his book (48-51 of 302), we have zero copies of it in the original language, and zero citations of it until ~150 years after the death of Paul (perhaps the most important early Christian that Ehrman has in view). Our oldest version of it is a Slavonic translation from the 7th century (i.e., not very old), and to make matters worse, it was lost for several centuries until being rediscovered in the nineteenth century (1)(2).

As I mentioned in earlier posts, a pedigree like this makes me question how influential this text really was, way back when Paul was writing his (far more popular, far better preserved) epistles. And if it wasn’t very influential, then I’m not convinced it gives us that much insight into what early Christians thought about Jesus.

So why is Dr. Ehrman specifically interested in II Enoch?

Because Ehrman wants to convince us that the earliest Christians did not believe that Jesus was God Himself made flesh (he claims that the very earliest disciples believed that the risen Jesus was flesh-made-God, and that Paul believed Jesus was an angel made flesh).

Ehrman uses II Enoch to build his case because it teaches that Enoch was made indistinguishable from an angel after he went to heaven. Below is a sample (53 of 321) of Ehrman’s direct quote from the book of Enoch:

“And I looked at myself and I had become like one of his glorious ones, and there was no observable difference.”

I.E., says Ehrman, “…he became identical to an angel.” 

The upshot?

“…if humans could be angels (and angels humans), and if angels could be gods, and if in fact the chief angel could be the Lord himself–then to make Jesus divine, one simply needs to think of him as an angel in human form.” (51 of 302).

See what he did there?

10 feet of progress, only 1,260,999,990 to go…

As I mentioned earlier, this text has a very poor pedigree compared to New Testament manuscripts, and thus serves as an unreliable lens through which to analyze the Bible itself. It seems much more logical to me to use the Bible to interpret the Bible, i.e, using canonical texts to interpret other canonical texts, rather than resorting to this motley crew of also-rans.

Speaking of the heavy hitters, here is a relevant quote from the Gospel of Luke that I want to mention for completeness:

[Luk 20:35-36 KJV] 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for THEY ARE EQUAL UNTO THE ANGELS; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

You can also look up verses talking about Jesus wearing white shining clothes (Mark 9:3), angels wearing white (Matthew 28:3), and the saints in heaven wearing white robes (Revelation 6:11).

My point with these passages is that the Bible does mention SOME commonality between angels and humans in heaven. But, in context, it never says that humans and angels look exactly the same.

So, I’ll concede to Ehrman 10 feet of progress as he rides his bike up the ramp.

He only has a billion feet to go!

God bless,

TFOTF

* This comparison was originally used by a critic of macro-evolutionary arguments, but I can’t remember who it was

Links:

1. II Enoch on Britannica
2. II Enoch 2nd on Wikipedia

God bless,

TFOTF