Actually much of the Book of Enoch was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Almost no one doubts it is older than the book of Jude and that Jude quoted from it, believing it to be scripture, or at the very least, having a deep regard for it. So much so that he includes it in his letter as an exhortation.
But this still does not address the synoptic problem. Matthew and Luke are not eye-witness accounts, but were constructed accounts taken from other written sources, Mark being one of those sources, Q being another. Papias also says that Mark is not an eye-witness account, but was written by Mark who got his account from Peter. However, there are problems with that theory as well. The gospel seems to use several of the stories as it would symbolism. For example, the story of John the Baptist's beheading (as a symbol of Jesus own arrest and crucifixion) and the story that portrays Jesus needing to try more than once to heal a blind man (as a symbol of his disciples inability to see though he tries and tries).
The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Peter are both testaments to the existence of "other" source material at or near the time of the writing of the gospels we have preserved today.
Jude was not quoting anything from Enoch. No one knows really when the fragments of Enoch were written. They could be from 2nd century b.c. to 1st century A.D. And the fragments found at the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the verses in Jude. Thus Jude is not supporting Enoch as Scripture. And he is not giving it a deep regard. As I said, Jude is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
There is no synoptic problem unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture. There is no need for Q, unless one wants to doubt the inspiration of Scripture.
So, Pharmboy, do you believe the Bible is the Word of God and inspired by His Holy Spirit? Do you believe the Holy Spirit gave the writers what they wrote?
Stranger
Last edited: