This omits the question of whether the few scraps of the Dead Sea Scrolls that match "The Book of Enoch" are fragments of "the book of Enoch" or the book now called "The Book of Enoch" was pieced together, at least in part, from the source material for these few scraps.
As an example "The Genesis Apocryphon is also called "The Book of Lamech," not "the Book of Enoch."
...
Hi Biblewriter.
The Geneses Apocryphon is not called "the book of Lamech"...where did you get that? At any rate, it is named by the modern finders, not by the Essenes=the sons of Zedek. It is compiled of copies of the writings of many of the patriarchal fathers, their very own writings...
In a section of it there is a copy of that which was written by Abraham, himself, where he tells the story of the dream he had going into Egypt and why he asked Sarai to say she was his sister....at the end of the time Sarai was with the Pharaoh, when the wise men of Pharaoh returned her to Abram, they asked him to teach them wisdom, values, and Truth, and so he read to them from the book of Enoch....
And why do you call it"a few scraps" when you have less "scraps" of many of the books of the Bible you accept? Isaiah of the DSS is pretty intact, but you just do not have copies of the accepted canon from that long ago, and as to the original books of anything we have in the "canon" of all denominations, there are none -no, not one.
Enoch has fragments from over thirty different copies in the DSS, which proves they srudied it as Scripture.
They also had the Book of Giants, and said Enoch wrote it, and so on and so forth...
The copies of Enoch we have have come from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which never cast aside Enoch and the Jews of Ethiopia had brought it with them from the first dispersion, I think it is.
The DSS fragments of copies of Enoch totally agrees with the Ethiopian Enoch, as ISaiah also does...
Also, I don't know where you got your information of the early Chrisitans rejecting Enoch for the reason you state. There is no ancient writing that proves that, but rather they did believe it was Scripture -Even Barnabas and many others wrote of it as established truth, and Scripture. I think you have been shown that by others on here, before, like SummaScriptura, who wrote a book on it being the same today as they had then....with many proofs.
The argument over it did not come until the Roman Church decided to tell men what to think and read....you know that, and that was in the third century, wasn't it? That's a longer period of time for the early Church scholars to have used and taught from Enoch than the US has been a nation.
The Ethiopians were never under Rome, nor were the sons of Zadok, the Essenes, ever under the Pharisees of Jerusalem, which Pharisees, themselves, cast out Enoch after Jesus rose from the dead....They did it to keep the Jews under them from the truth of the Messiah, for the same reason they killed Jesus.
I could believe that documentation.
