Editing Openai/6856bb95-a01c-8005-996a-38d198c9a499 (section)

===== 1. New Discoveries May Arise - Archaeology is an evolving field. New manuscript finds (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) have transformed understanding of Second Temple Judaism. If more texts surface that corroborate 1 Enoch’s historical claims, scholarly views might shift. =====
# Worldview Bias - Most contemporary biblical scholars operate from a naturalistic framework—meaning they assume supernatural beings don’t intervene in history. This can bias them against taking texts like 1 Enoch literally, regardless of internal consistency.
# Canon Politics - It's true that theological and political motives played roles in shaping biblical canons. What’s considered “orthodox” was sometimes settled by authority rather than pure textual merit. Scholars who underplay that could be overlooking meaningful content.
# Underestimation of Literary Purpose - Some scholars assume 1 Enoch is only symbolic or didactic. But in the ancient world, the boundary between myth, theology, and historiography was not as rigid. What if the authors believed they were recording real events?