Talk:Reception of the Book of Enoch in premodernity

Cleanup required

So, the "cleanup" template is not working the way I remembered it (I haven't edited in ten years), but I can't find a more appropriate alternative, so I'll start here.

An article on the reception of Enoch in antiquity needs to comprehensively cover all the ancient views on Enoch. This is just a survey of authors who held a high view of Enoch. Enoch was ultimately rejected from both Jewish and Christian canons, so an article on its reception ought to be able to come up with some examples of scholarly analysis of the cross-talk on the subject.

Also, the line in Melito's section bothers me. The citation is to a primary source which simply gives the Jewish canon as it appears today, lacking Esther (which is common as Esther was not always well received, e.g. its non-presence in the DSS). Melito doesn't mention Enoch either positively or negatively. The commentary "except Esther, thus leaving a gap for Enoch", as I initially read it, appeared to be saying that there's some unexplained gap in Melito which Enoch resolves, but that's not really what it's saying. Instead, it seems to be plastering over an argument from silence - sure, Melito's canon doesn't have Enoch in it, but it doesn't have Esther in it, so Enoch is not necessarily not in the canon on the basis of Melito. That sounds tacitly polemical, since modern scholarship doesn't debate which books are "actually" canon; that's not our interest. If an ancient source made that polemic, let's cite it as such, else, revisit what Melito is actually adding to this article. 75.168.196.139 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Melito is absolutely no place here. The argument is OR, filling a supposed gap in the list the bishop of Sardes gives. But let's quote him:

14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.

When I count these books (counting Kings and Chronicles only as one book each) I come up to 22. If I counted each of the four books of Kings (=1/2 and 1/2 Kings) and the two books of Chronicles separately I come up to 26. To specify the former counter:

1. Genesis, 2. Exodus, 3. Numbers, 4. Leviticus, 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Jesus Nave, 7. Judges, 8. Ruth. 9. Kings, 10. Chronicles, 11. Psalms of David, 12. Proverbs of Solomon, 13. Wisdom*, 14. Ecclesiastes, 15. Song of Songs, 16. Job; 17. Isaiah, 18. Jeremiah, 19. twelve prophets, 20. Daniel, 21. Ezekiel, 22. Esdras.

Yes, Esther is not mentioned. Either Melito slipped up here or he didn't recognize it. But since he gives no total of either 22 or 23 or 27 books, there is no indication of a gap that needs to be filled with anything. If so, the first candidate would not be 1 Enoch but that missing book, Esther.

Nor can an argument be based on Jewish canons (e.g. Josephus) listing 22 books. According to my count, Melito also lists 22 books.- The Jewish canon differs from Melito not only concerning Esther but also by including Ruth among Judges (Melito lists Ruth separately) and listing 1/2 Samuel as a separate book (Melito includes them among the Books of Kings)

Note, I counted that reference to Wisdom (# 13 above, marked by an asterik) separetely. About this entry Philipp Schaff [1] notes:

This phrase (παν€ρετος σοφία) was very frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. lvii.) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word παν€ρετος is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, by Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. §4) and others. Among the Fathers the Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all bore the common title σοφία, “Wisdom,” which well defines the character of each of them; and this simple title is commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this passage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below). For further particulars, see especially Lightfoot’s edition of the epistles of Clement of Rome, p. 164.

So this "Wisdom" could be either the Book of Jesus Sirach, or the Wisdom of Solomon or a part of Proverbs counted separately.

IF (and that's a big IF) the latter, the count would reduce to 21 books. But as Melito gives no total of 22, there is no problem. Either he accepted only 21 OT books or he just gave the Josephus canon and slipped up when not mentioning Esther. No Enoch needed for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments and use by Early Christians

You can find many uses and quotes of the Book of Enoch by Early Christians here at PDF p. 121 to 137. Veverve (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Reception of 1 Enoch antemodern" and disruptive behaviour

@Ad17minstral: why have you created the page Reception of 1 Enoch antemodern? And, morevover, why are you, under IP, attempting to replace links leading here (proofs: 1, 2, 3)? @Ermenrich: was right in reverting one of your edits.
Also, please stop your disruptive behaviour. No, @Str1977: is not my sockpuppet as you claim. And there is a consensus currently that the version of this page you keep restoring is unacceptable. Veverve (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ad17minstral: you also removed the warning I gave you from your talk page. Could you please justify your behaviour? Veverve (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The newly created article is definitely what's described here. Such articles go against WP policy.

Instead, if there is any merit to the claims that I removed as unsourced, then provide the sources. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Str1977: he has now redirected both the article page and the talk to his article and its talk page, i.e. Reception of 1 Enoch antemodern. I think we need the help of an admin as soon as possible. Veverve (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the AC repairman was here, and it's dinner prep time, so I couldn't do more than just revert and block. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Veverve and sockpuppet Str1977 is blanking content, prolifically deleting blocks of cited content, and harrassing Wikipedians. Please behave.Ad17minstral (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: since you have witnessed Ad17minstral's behaviour, could you take the measures required to end his/her vandalism? Veverve (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reported this at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Sorry, I didn't see your ping to Drmies before submitting. Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tacyarg: I had already reported Ad17minstral along with the IP at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Still, thanks! Veverve (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken my report off. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks a lot for having taken care of the vandal! I have one last request, still: could you move the article back to Reception of the book of Enoch before modern times? Veverve (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ververve, I'm not done yet. But, one thing: editors are perfectly welcome to remove warnings such as yours from their own talk page, OK? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree. However, the user removed the warning right away with no justification, and I saw the context, so it was my belief that he/she wanted to appear clean to avoid any block. Thanks again for your work. Veverve (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No no no, don't do that--admins can read article histories too. Just leave all that to us. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

He had one point though. The current title is both unwieldy and a bit vague (when do modern times start). Of course, his alternatives were even worse. How about renaming the article "Pre-modern reception of the book of Enoch" (that would solve the first issue, though not the second) or "Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity". That would solve both issues but would be a bit inaccurate. Then again, the reception is basically one in Antiquity. Only Bede and George Syncellus are medieval writers. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Str1977: The title was previously Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity and Middle Ages before he moved it to the current title. I am in favour of returning to "Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity and Middle Ages". Veverve (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not in favour of this as this is even more unwieldy. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: What my two proposed titles? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Str1977: I disagree. "Pre-modern reception of the book of Enoch" is more vague than the current title. "Reception of the book of Enoch in antiquity" does not indicate the content of the article.

"Reception of the book of Enoch before the early modern period" would be better, I think, and also has a more precise timeframe. Veverve (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Str1977: so, what do you think about my latest proposal? Veverve (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's too long and complicated. "before the early-modern period" is not actually more precise than "pre-modern" because everything that happened before the "modern period" automatically also happened before the "early-modern period". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)