As I was told on it when another mentioned it to me, you either believe it or you don't...
Glad it's a part of the Ethiopian Old Testaments.
If I may say,
Others may disagree - but There have been many good debates on that paticular issue, especially as it concerns how the early Jewish Church once accepted Enoch as scripture....with other camps in Christendom (such as the Ethopian Orthodox) still accepting it and having good reason for doing so. For the book is referenced in Jude 1:14 when the author of scripture notes "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones." Many Christians thought that Enoch was quoting Jude until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. 3 Enoch was not written until later and Jude seems to be quoting from 1 Enoch of which multiple copies were found at Qumran (Dead Sea). The approx .date of Jude was prior to A.D. 68 (as said by the Archaeological Study Bible )....whereas the approx. date for 1st Enoch was 200 B.C, to A.D. 50 (seen in ancient texts for N.T. Studies- Craig Evans ). Thus, there is a small window if Enoch quoted Jude. I think it should be kept in mind that one does not even have to read a person's book in order to still come up with the same idea or words and not be quoting the other person. All truth is God's truth...and many times, an inspired thought one felt was for them alone was already shared spiritually with others.
In addition to using a pseudonym, the first chapter of the book of Enoch also makes use of a famous statement made by the real Enoch who lived millennia before the oldest known copies of the book of Enoch came into existence. A similar (albeit not exact) quotation of Enoch exists in the New Testament book of Jude in verses 14-15. I agree with others who have no doubt that the real Enoch of Genesis 5 spoke these words and that they had been passed on by tradition from his time. However, the commonality of Jude 14-15 with 1 Enoch 1:9 does not make the rest of the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch "God-inspired" any more than Paul's brief quotations of Aratus (Acts 17:28: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" ) and Epimenides (Titus 1:12: One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies") would sanctify the entirety of those authors' words.
The same dynamic of older Jewish apocryphal books being utilized is seen in Jude 1:9 with the story of Michael the Archangel wrestling with the Devil over the body of Moses. That story was something that one of the early church fathers (Origen ) mentioned in a book, called "the Assumption of Moses," (Αναληψις του Μωσεως Analēpsis tou Mōseōs,) as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account here. That book is now lost, sadly..but there is still extant a book in Hebrew, called פטירת משׁה paTiyret Mosheh - "the Death of Moses," which some have supposed to be the book referred to by Origen. Many scholars, based on the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin, and Didymus (Guthrie, 1962, p. 918; Earle, Blaney, and Hanson, 1955, p. 411), assume that Jude 9 is a reference to The Assumption of Moses. The fragment now known as The Assumption of Moses presents the account of Moses appointing of Joshua as his successor, and a description of the future of Israel during the conquest of the Promised Land.
According to Richard Lenksi, scholars believe that the missing portion of The Assumption included an elaboration of Deuteronomy 34:5, the biblical account of Moses death, showing how God used angels to bury Moses (1966, pp. 601-602). It is thought that The Assumption of Moses, at this point, used Zechariah 3:1-2 as its basis for the use of the phrase The Lord rebuke you! It has not been proven, however, that Jude intended to quote from The Assumption of Moses...but there's a significant possibility that it was intentional. If Jude intended to reference it, it cannot be determined 100% that Jude actually quoted the apocryphal book, because the material Jude allegedly quoted does not exist. If The Assumption of Moses did indeed contain material about Moses burial, then Jude independently wrote the same thing that the writer of The Assumption wrote. Thus, Jude confirmed that this particular portion of The Assumption is historical. That is very different from stating that any portion of The Assumption was inspired.
It may be that Jude simply intended to reference an oral tradition (which was true) that became the basis for The Assumption. Again, that book contains many fabulous stories about the death of Moses ....and the reference here, as well as that in Jde 1:14, to the prophecy of Enoch, is rightly considered to be derived from some apocryphal books existing in the time of Jude. For more on the issue, one can go online/investigate the following:
Though those books were considered by others to contain some concepts that were mere fables, the apostle appealed to them. The same dynamic is seen in the life of Christ when he often referenced the Talmud if it lined up with truth, as seen in how his story with the Good Samaritan is essentially in line with what early rabbinic teachers (such as the famous Hiliel) talked on. The same goes for when he referenced the Talmud in regards to Matthew 23 when denouncing the Pharisees/mentioning how they were...for the Talmud already spoke of several differing types of Pharisees, with Christ simply sharing on the corrupt kinds that the writings of the Pharisees had already warned against.
With the Book of Enoch, something else that has stood out to people is how the story of Genesis 6/rebellion of the sons of God lines up with the theme in Enoch when it comes to discussing the ways the angels rebelled against the Lord/corrupted mankind in epic ways. As Hershel Shanks ( founder of the Biblical Archaeology Society and the editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review ) revealed in his book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, these books were held in high esteem at the time the New Testament was written:
Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the apocryphal book of Enoch (more precisely, I Enoch) was known only in an Ethiopic translation. Now as many as twenty fragmentary copies of the Aramaic original have been found at Qumran, which suggests that Enoch and perhaps other books now considered apocryphal were regarded as authoritative Scripture at least by some groups. Allusions to Enoch occur at least fourteen times in the New Testament; the New Testament Letter of Jude quotes from Enoch as having the authority of inspired Scripture (Jude 14-15). In some copies of the Ethiopic Bible Enoch is included in the canon.
Jubilees, the so-called Rewritten Bible, was apparently considered authoritative at Qumran: At least fifteen copies of this book have been identified, an immediate indication of the importance the Qumran sectarians attached to it. To this day, it is considered canonical by the Abyssinian Church in Ethiopia. (pp. 160-161, The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
From 1 Enoch, we learn more about the sin of the Watchers (Dan. 4:17), angels charged with watching over mankind...and the ways they were bound up:
ENOCH 6:1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, R.H. Charles )
ENOCH 10:11 . . . And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves 12 with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is 13 for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and 14 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. . . .' (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, R.H. Charles)
It is clear from the book of Enoch that evil spirits are the giants who were born from the union of spirits and flesh. This passage sounds like it came from Greek mythology. But this should not surprise us because another name for evil spirits is demon, and the word "demon" comes from Greek mythology. E.W. Vines will confirm this. He writes concerning the Greek word daimon, which is translated demon in the New Testament as being derived "among pagan Greeks, an inferior deity..." [Vines, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words]. This word was used by the Greeks to describe their mythological gods, like Zeus and Hermes. Do you remember thats what the people of Lystra thought Paul and Barnabus were (Acts 14:12)? The Greeks worshipped many gods and most believed their gods were superhuman beings. Essentially, they believed that these gods came down to earth and intermingled with humans, thus were born their heroes. ....and I believe alongside others that this mythology is rooted in a real, dramatic event in the past, with this event, after centuries, being clouded in mystery while the Bible shares in detail what occurred according to Genesis 6....just as it is the case that in multiple cultures a global flood account is found and others have noted that they were all memories of the dramatic event that Genesis 6 records with the Flood.
Many Christians would agree with the concept of the sons of God in Genesis being fallen angels, although it's understandable when they question the conclusion about demons being the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim, even though the book of Enoch specifically declares this. They may disagree by saying, "You can't prove anything by the book of Enoch. You must prove it by the Bible." he same time, skeptics must understand that the book of Enoch was highly regarded by the Jews in Jesus day and by the apostles. The Apostle Jude, in fact, quotes from it, as seen plainly in Jude 1:14-15. How did Jude know what Enoch prophesied? After all, the Bible never mentions one word that Enoch spoke. The only reference to Enoch in the Old Testament is in Genesis 5:18-24. Read it and youll find no reference to this prophecy which Jude mentions. The Bible just mentions the fact that Enoch walked with God and was no more, because God took him away. Nothing is mentioned about his prophesying.
So again, how did Jude know that Enoch had prophesied these words? He knew it because the book of Enoch mentions it. The book of Enoch was widely known during the days of the Apostles, and they freely quoted from it thus giving the book credibility on certain levels. in Jude 1:14, where I Enoch 1:9 is referenced, it is possible that through God's providence some pseudepigrapha have preserved some genuine traditions and that Jude was able to discern the true from the false....
One place that's highly informative on the subject can be found here, if going online and looking up an article entitled "Angels and demons and egregores (book review) « Khanya" ( //khanya.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/angels-and-demons-and-egregores-book-review/ )
A lot of the battles seem to go right back to the reality of loving Scripture in a manner that Scripture NEVER claimed for us to love it. Someone else fell away from the Faith recently and when I saw their reasons for leaving, I was reminded on how one of my friends noted "This is what happens when you base Christianity on fundamentalistic bibliolatry...and then you get some more information." I felt saddened due to the fact that a lot of those reasons could have been easily addressed if encountering other Christians willing to be a bit controversial in actually acknowledging some of the more nuanced/difficult aspects of Christian history when seeing how much we've done a lot of the same mess as others. Some assume that it is only those within Liturgical circles who are willing to speak on the issue, although there are others in the Evangelical world who've done the same thing. In example, with LOGOS Bible Software, I am reminded of
Dr. Michael S. Heiser
A lot of the ways Sola Scriptura is blasted is done on the basis of not understanding what Sola Scriptura was actually about to begin with and it is something which many have said for years, including within Orthodoxy.
I was just discussing months ago with my older brother/teacher from my high school days (as he's Reformed) and he recommended to me an excellent book on the issue that I've really been thankful for. It's called
The Shape of Sola Scriptura
The other one is entitled "
Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First"
Orthodoxy has much in line with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura when seeing how it used to be described, from the perspective of
Prima Scriptura. As another noted best (on the book entitled...) for a
brief excerpt:
I Am re-reading Common Ground by Jordan Bajis for about the tenth time. This workbook is an excellent primer on Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism. This is the best easiest to read and well documented book with this purpose that I have found yet. Luther and Calvin, he shows, were well aware that to KNOW the Scriptures alone was not sufficient. For them, Sola Scriptura was not a call to see the Bible as the authority of the Church, but a call FOR THE CHURCH TO ONCE AGAIN INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES IN ACCORD WITH THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH (emphasis mine).
The first generation Reformers were not against true Tradition, they sought to recover it (from within the corrupt context of Rome, and other factors of the time RAS) by uncovering the Biblical message the fathers had faithfully defended. As a response to Rome (not to the Orthodox they were separated by geography and Islam and not involved in the conflict, although they fully would concur that Rome had departed from the genuine faith) the Reformers held up the Bible and the doctrine of sola scriptura as a SHIELD. Reformers of LATER generations reshaped this shield into a SWORD against Rome by proclaiming the Bible as the sole authority of the Church. It is clear that Zwingli, and the Anabaptists took this path to the extreme by rejecting all church history and history of theology, and we see the fruit of confusion, division (and in some cases plain nonsense) that this developed doctrine since the western reformation has in modern western Christendom today. The Orthodox would have no problem with the first generation of reformers view of the scriptures (especially in battling against Romes claims), although Prima Scriptura would probably be a more accurate phrase to clear up the confusion.
]
Seeing that and what others already noted when it comes to the issue of how Sola Scriptura (as advocated in the Protestant Reformation) was never what the Early Church focused on when it came to the scriptures, it seems rather plain that much of what the Protestant Reformation did was take a problem that was already solved - and then forgetting the formula that was used to fix the original problem when future generations (present to them, of course) ended up taking one part of the original formula and corrupting it....
As another said best elsewhere (
early church | becoming orthodox ):
Protestants in general take the view that the Bible is self-authenticating which to me personally seems like a pretty meaningless and contrived explanation. For the Orthodox Christian there is another way to address this question:
That said, Fr. Thomas Hopko did an excellent job discussing the ways that the Protestant Reformation
did indeed deserve to be called one of the most impactful periods of Church history on Orthodoxy, with the Orthodox being influenced by Roman Catholic and Protestant thinking. ..even though others still take issue with the ways
he has critiqued the Evangelical World when noting that speaking on scripture/celebrating it within the
Protestant culture still does not reflect scripture in the same way as the Church noted it in
light of the OT Practice (or the early Reformers like Luther who was not against Tradition,
counter to many Protestants who came after him since L
uther did not even agree with others saying that none of the traditions in which the Scriptures were interpreted were true - more noted in
Trinity, Eucharist, Tradition and the Challenge of Sola Scriptura | Eclectic Orthodoxy ).
Oral History was a key facet of Jewish culture, even before the 1st Century [/URL]...and
Liturgy itself in the Eastern tradition is FULL of scriptural focus due to following the oral tradition of Jewish culture) -
the idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible...and likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition...and thee Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition, but to set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. For that will always go back to the Scriptures being based solely on people's opinions - and that does not honor the scripture, more
pointed out here in
Sola Scriptura | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and here:
Scriptures developed in a context and were to be seen in a setting - the Church - and there has always been a way to see them. Even other Anglican Ministers such as N.T Wright have pointed out this simple reality - more shared in
How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright - and others have noted it as well when it comes to the concept of
PRIMA scriptural...
the model that the Early Church advocated
As
said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).
But anyone Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for
Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in
Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
When reaidng through the text of scripture as a whole, it seems difficult to say that it is truly inerrant since there are many examples of others quoting scriptures where there has been room given to others to say they were not fully accurate.
As I was told on it when another mentioned it to me, you either believe it or you don't...
