David Wilber

I write books and make videos about the Bible and theology. CEO of @PronomianLLC. Buy my books:

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

Boom! My verse-by-verse commentary on 1 Peter is now available from Pronomian Publishing! It's the 1st volume in the new Messianic Jewish Application Commentary Series (MJAC), edited by Dr. Igal German. Praying it blesses the body of Messiah. Learn more: https://t.co/vF7Xmno4qU

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@GavinMRitchie Great book!

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

I would be very interested in participating in a formal debate on this topic.

Proposed resolution: "Do the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) teach that Enoch is the Son of Man?"

I would argue in the affirmative.

Is anyone interested in taking the opposing position?

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@servantofyh You are just repeating yourself. This was already addressed in the video. The text says what it says. We should just accept the text for what it says instead of inventing reasons for why the text is not allowed to say what it says.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

"There are 41 direct references to Enoch in BP [Book of Parables]. As was already pointed out above, one of these references is an explicit identification of Enoch with the Son of Man at 1 En. 71:14, which reveals Enoch to be the messiah figure."

—James A. Waddell, The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios, p. 52

[AnAmerican Homestead @HomesteadAmeric]

@DavidWilberBlog I have yet to ever see any scholar say yes, I Enoch promotes Enoch as the future Messiah. Find me one scholar that says that. We're not debating "Son of Man" we are debating "MESSIAH"

Find me just one. You're on an island by yourself.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@servantofyh It's not an interpolation. It is what the text explicitly says. And it does not contradict the earlier passages, as the video explains.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

So you're not going to admit that you were wrong? Fine.

Regarding the influence that the Enochic traditions had on NT writers, this isn't a problem once you recognize that 1 Enoch is a collection of various writings that were compiled over centuries and that first-century Jews and Christians would not necessarily have known or had access to the work in its complete form as we have it today. As James C. VanderKam writes, “It should be kept in mind that early readers of Enochic literature may have had available only a single part of it, not the full collection that is now designated 1 Enoch” (“1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” p. 34n13).

So alluding to traditions that we find preserved in 1 Enoch is not the same as alluding to 1 Enoch. The NT authors knew of the Enochic traditions, but they likely did not know or have access to the entirety of what we now know as 1 Enoch. Also, in my opinion, the Parables were probably written toward the end of the first century AD (see Bauckham's book "Son of Man").

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@HomesteadAmeric @TorahRight Zach, you can read his words directly. And the sentence I quoted refutes your false claim that no scholars say that 1 Enoch identifies Enoch as the Messiah. Why not just admit you were clearly wrong here? What’s the big deal? Who cares that the scholars disagree with you?

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@servantofyh You are just repeating the very objection that I've already refuted in the video: https://t.co/xJsZYBb0Sr

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

How this exchange has went:

Zach: “Where does Walck say Enoch is identified as the Son of Man?”

Me: *Provides quotes from Walck explicitly stating that Enoch is the Son of Man in 71:14*

Zach: “Okay but give me a quote from a scholar explicitly stating that Enoch is identified as the Messiah in 1 Enoch!”

Me: *Provides quote from scholar explicitly stating that Enoch is identified as the Messiah in 1 Enoch.”

Zach: “I’m going to ignore that quote and falsely claim that this scholar agrees with me instead because of an Amazon review.”

Like…dude, just admit you were wrong. It’s not a big deal. It’s okay that the scholars disagree with you; you can just say that they’re wrong (they’re not, but at least you wouldn’t be making the false claim that they’re on your side anymore).

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@rebecca09478433 https://t.co/xJsZYBb0Sr

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

Did you read the quotations from Walck above? The Son of Man IS the Messinaic figure described throughout the visions. But like I said, read VanderKam's paper. That's literally his thesis.

"Son of Man" is one of the terms that the Parables of Enoch uses for the Messiah, building off Daniel 7. VanderKam argues that the four "messianic terms" used throughout the Parables of Enoch (righteous one, messiah, chosen one, and son of man) "very clearly refer to the same being" (p. 185).

I guess your objection is that the scholars I cite don't explicitly say Enoch is identified as the "Messiah" (even though they DO say Enoch is identified as the Son of Man from the visions, who everyone agrees is a Messiah figure)? If that is the case, here's another quote from the scholar James A. Waddell who says it explicitly:

"There are 41 direct references to Enoch in BP [Book of Parables]. As was already pointed out above, one of these references is an explicit identification of Enoch with the Son of Man at 1 En. 71:14, which reveals Enoch to be the messiah figure." (The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios, p. 52)

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

You do understand that he is correcting Charles's mistranslation of 71:14 in which Charles identified the Son of Man as someone other than Enoch, right? Walck's whole point is that Charles is wrong and the text is correct when it identifies Enoch as this figure.

But anyway, here is a more explicit quote: "1 Enoch 71:14 identifies the Son of Man with Enoch. This means, then, that throughout Par. En. he sees the Son of Man but does not recognize himself as the Son of Man. Only at the end is this identification revealed to him." (Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew, p. 5)

And another: "The whole flow of the narrative points to Enoch’s dramatic identification as the Son of Man. The attributes with which he is spoken of here [in 71:14] cohere extremely well with the Son of Man of the visions...These attributes all tend to underscore Enoch’s identification as the Son of Man, not merely as one of the righteous humans who are already in heaven. For the reader, the identification of Enoch and the Son of Man is dramatic, but it has been prepared for" (p. 7)

You can disagree with Walck if you want, but the point remains that your claim that no scholar agrees with me is demonstrably false. My interpretation is the majority interpretation among scholars.

Do you want me to provide more explicit quotes from Nickelsburg and VanderKam as well? Or are you satisfied now? In any case, enjoy your crow.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@HomesteadAmeric In that quote, Walck is confirming that what you keep claiming is false. He says that Charles changed the text in 71:14 and that the text indeed identifies Enoch as the Son of Man. It's literally right there. All you have to do is read it lol.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@RQ_Spartan @HomesteadAmeric As I've already explained, chapter 46 does not contradict or undermine what chapter 71 explicitly states. It is better to just take the text for what it plainly says instead of inventing reasons for why it is not allowed to say what it says.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

Timothy Alberino claims that the “Son of Man” passages in the Book of Enoch are prophecies about Jesus and takes this as proof that the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired. However, there is a major problem with that idea: the Book of Enoch explicitly identifies Enoch himself—not Jesus—as the Son of Man, which directly contradicts the New Testament. Watch here: https://t.co/yRM150dHdH

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

The fact remains that 1 Enoch 71:14 says what it says and ch 46 does not necessarily contradict it. You are essentially arguing that 71:14 is not allowed to say what it says because of chapter 46, but that is not persuasive since there are plausible options for harmonizing the two passages. The text says what it says.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

Walck argues it in his book "The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and in Matthew"; VanderKam in his paper, "Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71"; Nickelsburg in his commentary on 1 Enoch. I can get you access to these resources if you want, just email me. VanderKam's paper is especially relevant.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@HomesteadAmeric I already pointed this out to you here, btw. Merely repeating a false claim that has already been refuted is not interesting or persuasive:

https://t.co/qDAbDW91qI

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@HomesteadAmeric Actually, you are wrong. The vast majority of scholars agree with me, including the scholars in that book. Nickelsburg, VanderKam, and Walck—who each contributed essays to that book—all agree with my interpretation. Literally all you have to do is read their work.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@thetiki71 Yes, but unlike Ezekiel, the term in 1 Enoch is referring to a divine messianic figure (cf. Daniel 7). That is how it is consistently understood. Context determines the meaning of the term. Watch the video to learn more.

[David Wilber @DavidWilberBlog]

@RQ_Spartan Actually that passage confirms that it is Enoch. Watch the video to learn more.