# When “Extraordinary” Is Just Modern Bias

## Introduction

The phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is often treated as a neutral principle of rational inquiry. It sounds cautious, even wise. But in practice, it frequently functions as a gatekeeping mechanism—one that excludes certain kinds of claims before they are seriously evaluated.

This becomes especially relevant when readers encounter texts like 1 Enoch.

---

## The Hidden Assumption

The slogan is commonly traced to David Hume, who argued that miracle claims should be rejected unless their evidence outweighs the uniform experience of natural law. But this framework depends on a crucial assumption:

> that the world operates as a closed system in which such events do not normally occur.

That assumption is not neutral. It is a philosophical position.

Modern philosophy has not universally settled in Hume’s favor on this issue. His argument remains influential, but contested. That matters, because it means the standard derived from his reasoning is not a universally binding rule of evidence—it is a perspective.

---

## The Problem of “Extraordinary”

A claim is only “extraordinary” relative to a worldview.

If one assumes:
- no divine action
- no spiritual beings
- no prophetic revelation

then texts describing such things will appear inherently implausible.

But if Scripture itself presents a world in which:
- heavenly beings act
- rebellion occurs beyond the human level
- divine judgment is executed across cosmic domains

then those same claims are no longer extraordinary in the relevant sense.

They are expected.

---

## Selective Skepticism

There is also an asymmetry in how the standard is applied.

Scholars often accept:
- complex reconstructions of textual dependence
- hypothetical communities
- redactional layers inferred from minimal evidence

These are significant claims, sometimes built on indirect reasoning.

Yet when a text presents:
- angelic rebellion
- divine judgment
- visionary disclosure

the evidential bar suddenly becomes much higher.

This is not neutral method. It is selective skepticism.

---

## Bringing the Issue to Enoch

1 Enoch is frequently dismissed because it contains what modern readers consider “incredible” elements:
- descending heavenly beings
- cosmic corruption
- imprisoned spirits
- apocalyptic judgment

But these elements are not alien to Scripture.

The New Testament itself assumes:
- imprisoned rebellious beings (2 Peter, Jude)
- final judgment scenes
- prophetic visions of divine intervention

Most importantly, Jude explicitly attributes prophecy to Enoch and uses that material as part of his argument.

The issue, then, is not whether Enoch sounds strange.

The issue is whether modern readers are imposing a philosophical filter that Scripture itself does not share.

---

## Not All External Texts Are Equal

At this point, a common response is to say:
“If Enoch is allowed, then so must be all ancient texts—Baal myths, Greek poets, and so on.”

But this collapses important distinctions.

- Greek poets, as used by Paul, function as rhetorical borrowings.
- The Baal Cycle functions as comparative background material.
- 1 Enoch, however, appears as an internal Jewish textual witness,
  preserved alongside other Second Temple works and explicitly used in Jude.

These are not equivalent categories.

---

## The Real Question

The real question is not:

> “Does Enoch make extraordinary claims?”

The real question is:

> “Does Enoch preserve traditions that help explain claims already present in Scripture?”

Once that question is asked, the burden shifts.

We are no longer evaluating Enoch against modern expectations.
We are evaluating whether it fits within the world Scripture itself assumes.

---

## Conclusion

The phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is not a neutral tool. It is a philosophical inheritance, often applied without reflection.

When brought to texts like 1 Enoch, it can function less as a method of inquiry and more as a barrier to understanding.

If Scripture itself presents a world of divine action, heavenly rebellion, and cosmic judgment, then the content of Enoch is not extraordinary in that world.

The problem is not that Enoch is too incredible.

The problem is that modern readers may be using the wrong standard to evaluate it.
