Book of Enoch

[mindlight]

The book of Enoch is quite an edifying read. It is regarded as canonical in Ethiopia and Eritrean Christian traditions. But it was not accepted for inclusion in the main Christian churches as canonical scripture. However the book of Jude 1:14-15 quotes from it directly.

1) Why was it rejected?

2) How useful do you think it could be and how reliable should we regard what it says?

3) Was it a write up of an original work by Enoch from before the flood? Or was it a later fabrication?

4) Do its prophecies about Jesus lend it extra authority

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/bookenoch.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

There you go OP:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-book-of-enoch.8022611/page-23

 

[HTacianas]

The book of Enoch is quite an edifying read. It is regarded as canonical in Ethiopia and Eritrean Christian traditions. But it was not accepted for inclusion in the main Christian churches as canonical scripture. However the book of Jude 1:14-15 quotes from it directly.

1) Why was it rejected?

2) How useful do you think it could be and how reliable should we regard what it says?

3) Was it a write up of an original work by Enoch from before the flood? Or was it a later fabrication?

4) Do its prophecies about Jesus lend it extra authority

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/bookenoch.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

The problem with the book of Enoch is that it isn't a single book. It's a compilation of several books. No one knows where each of them begin or end, if they are complete, etc.

Jude may quote from Enoch, but no one knows which book he considered worth quoting from. But he also may be simply quoting something he had heard and was considered common knowledge of the time. If we read someone who quotes some proverb of Benjamin Franklin, it doesn't necessarily mean he has ever read Franklin, as Franklin's sayings are well known.

But Enoch, as it exists today, is a great read.

 

[Dan the deacon]

The problem with the book of Enoch is that it isn't a single book. It's a compilation of several books. No one knows where each of them begin or end, if they are complete, etc.

Jude may quote from Enoch, but no one knows which book he considered worth quoting from. But he also may be simply quoting something he had heard and was considered common knowledge of the time. If we read someone who quotes some proverb of Benjamin Franklin, it doesn't necessarily mean he has ever read Franklin, as Franklin's sayings are well known.

But Enoch, as it exists today, is a great read.

But it is not scripture. Just a book with good sayings.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

But it is not scripture. Just a book with good sayings.

It IS for This Ancient Apostolic and Oriental Orthodox Church: The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

.

 

[HTacianas]

But it is not scripture. Just a book with good sayings.

That it is not scripture doesn't mean it isn't a good read. There are any number of books that aren't scripture, but serve to give some insights into the beliefs of some Jews of the time and especially the early church.

Depending on its dating, the Assumption of Mary can at least tell how early the belief in her assumption is. It does not serve to validate the belief, it only helps to attach a time frame to it .

Some others, the Shepherd of Hermes for example, also show some of the beliefs of early Christians, but it, like many others, contain some beliefs later denounced as heresy.

 

[jhwatts]

But it is not scripture. Just a book with good sayings.

Its content is in scripture.

For example. Romans 1: (18-32)

The ones at the creation of the world, "they", the ones who corrupted the image of God ( Genesis 1:26) into an image like beast.

The scripture in Romans 1 describes how it was done and it is in the way it is described in the Book of Enoch.

 

[dreadnought]

The book of Enoch is quite an edifying read. It is regarded as canonical in Ethiopia and Eritrean Christian traditions. But it was not accepted for inclusion in the main Christian churches as canonical scripture. However the book of Jude 1:14-15 quotes from it directly.

1) Why was it rejected?

2) How useful do you think it could be and how reliable should we regard what it says?

3) Was it a write up of an original work by Enoch from before the flood? Or was it a later fabrication?

4) Do its prophecies about Jesus lend it extra authority

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/bookenoch.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

People are always arguing that we should add this book or add that book to the Bible. It's pretty long already, though, don't you think? Does Enoch tell us anything that we need to know, that isn't already included in the Bible?

 

[jhwatts]

People are always arguing that we should add this book or add that book to the Bible. It's pretty long already, though, don't you think? Does Enoch tell us anything that we need to know, that isn't already included in the Bible?

I am of the camp, it belongs. In short, if it is part of Gods word it should be there. I do however believe with many of the popular versions of the book, many have had details added to them that are not in the original. I have translations of the fragments from the dead sea scrolls of the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants and both have very little content. In terms of size I think the original text are much thinner the original.

 

[mindlight]

There you go OP:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-book-of-enoch.8022611/page-23

There is nothing new under the sun!

I completely missed that thread but am reading through it now.

 

[mindlight]

The problem with the book of Enoch is that it isn't a single book. It's a compilation of several books. No one knows where each of them begin or end, if they are complete, etc.

Jude may quote from Enoch, but no one knows which book he considered worth quoting from. But he also may be simply quoting something he had heard and was considered common knowledge of the time. If we read someone who quotes some proverb of Benjamin Franklin, it doesn't necessarily mean he has ever read Franklin, as Franklin's sayings are well known.

But Enoch, as it exists today, is a great read.

Jude says:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

That is both a messianic prophecy and an affirmation of its source as reliable and trustworthy, not least cause the prophecy came true. It says that prophecies by Enoch were available to the Jews and had been passed down as words of note. It adds some insight into the second coming also.

 

[mindlight]

But it is not scripture. Just a book with good sayings.

Not all churches agree on that. The Ethiopian and Eritrean churches for instance.

 

[mindlight]

The problem with the book of Enoch is that it isn't a single book. It's a compilation of several books. No one knows where each of them begin or end, if they are complete, etc.

This seems to be the major issue here and reading through the other thread also. The uncertainty about which bits we can accept and which not. There are a lot of questions about when the Massoretic text got finalised. If they were finalised later than the life of Jesus then a book with clear messianic prophecies would not have been popular with the Rabbis. However why Christians excluded it is less clear. It probably carried the same controversy as Revelation which was eventually included.

 

[mindlight]

That it is not scripture doesn't mean it isn't a good read. There are any number of books that aren't scripture, but serve to give some insights into the beliefs of some Jews of the time and especially the early church.

Depending on its dating, the Assumption of Mary can at least tell how early the belief in her assumption is. It does not serve to validate the belief, it only helps to attach a time frame to it .

Some others, the Shepherd of Hermes for example, also show some of the beliefs of early Christians, but it, like many others, contain some beliefs later denounced as heresy.

I was reading a post by Sanoy on the other thread that suggested that the teaching in Enoch is actually quite helpful in the modern age. The incredible advances of human technology in the last century pointing to the possibility of an angelic intervention in our own age. Does the book of Enoch describe something that occurred before the flood that was also a type of the things to come in our own age.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-book-of-enoch.8022611/#post-71647536

 

[mindlight]

Its content is in scripture.

For example. Romans 1: (18-32)

The ones at the creation of the world, "they", the ones who corrupted the image of God ( Genesis 1:26) into an image like beast.

The scripture in Romans 1 describes how it was done and it is in the way it is described in the Book of Enoch.

I cannot see much that really contradicts church teaching or scripture. BUt there is a lot that adds extra insight for example into why the preflood world fell apart.

 

[mindlight]

People are always arguing that we should add this book or add that book to the Bible. It's pretty long already, though, don't you think? Does Enoch tell us anything that we need to know, that isn't already included in the Bible?

About the preflood world yes. Whether that qualifies it for Canonicity may be the key issue though

 

[mindlight]

I am of the camp, it belongs. In short, if it is part of Gods word it should be there. I do however believe with many of the popular versions of the book, many have had details added to them that are not in the original. I have translations of the fragments from the dead sea scrolls of the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants and both have very little content. In terms of size I think the original text are much thinner the original.

An original version from the Dead Sea Scrolls or earlier would be really useful. This is my biggest worry with the book. We do not know which bits we can trust and which not.

 

[mindlight]

Reading through the other thread from last year reveals a lot of debatable content in the book. For example that there were giant men 450 feet high (not sure I can believe that). But apparently there is a discussion about whether or the Greek/Ethiopian or Aramaic texts are more reliable. As with the Septuagint and the generations after Adam the Greeks seem quite irresponsible with numbers.

The book overall does seem to exaggerate the role of angels and underplay that it was the sin of Adam and Eve that brought the fall. Maybe this reflects Enochs own experience as one who walked in righteousness before the Lord and was translated up to be with him (never dying) rather than the general experience of mankind where sin was endemic. The chatter in angel heaven may well have laid more blame on the angels that fell and underplayed mankinds own responsibility and capability also. But so also Enoch does not contradict the view no flesh is righteous before God.

The book was not included in the canon and the bible as it is is sufficient for salvation. BUt there is extra insight here which is valuable and especially about angels and the preflood era.

 

[dreadnought]

I am of the camp, it belongs. In short, if it is part of Gods word it should be there. I do however believe with many of the popular versions of the book, many have had details added to them that are not in the original. I have translations of the fragments from the dead sea scrolls of the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants and both have very little content. In terms of size I think the original text are much thinner the original.

Would you stop there or would you add other books? If the Bible were 10,000 pages, would anybody open it?

 

[ewq1938]

Would you stop there or would you add other books? If the Bible were 10,000 pages, would anybody open it?

As much as they do now.