Books of Enoch

Lets first see what they say. Where can we see them??

The Book of Enoch is considered by all Christians to be pseudepigraphical (not really what it claims to be), written much, much after Enoch to Jews. The author's purpose in calling himself Enoch was to make sure he was taken more seriously than he would be if it was called, "The Book of Obed" or something. However, it's very interesting that Jude 1:14-15 is actually taken from the Book of Enoch. Very curious.

The Books of Enoch were NOT found with the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is a myth perpetrated by the authors of the books. There is no trace of these books existing prior to the 1960's. It is thought that they were originally written as a work of fiction which was then absorbed into literature posing as non-fiction.

Actually, how can Jude then reference to the Book of Enoch if the book of Jude was written prior to the 1960s?

I personally believe, by the evidence of its history, that the "Book of Enoch", or it's original relative, was part of a collection of books Noah saved on the ark and has been passed down as legendary titles. Other books and documents included would have been the history of the world prior to the Flood, namely, the account of Adam and Eve, of Cain and Abel. These stories would have been written down, or remembered in oral tradition, or both; and I can almost bet that the oldest known writing ever produced by mankind lies in the first chapter of Genesis.

Enoch would have been a tradition in Noah's family, if it were true. As such, the knowledge of the ledgend would have been around even when Moses compiled Gensis and wrote about little blurb that tells us about Enoch. So we can say with some assurances that there was knowledge and thus probably a story that went with the Enoch story found in Genesis and later Jude, a story perhaps credible enough to be considered in possible existence in book form on or shortly after the time of the ark.

Of course its scriptural content adds nothing to the bible other than an historical understanding of fallen angels and the reasons for the flood. And it is quite possible that since this book was not canonized by even the Jews, that revisions to the story (if there are) would go more unnoticed since not many people would be looking to it for spiritual answers, rather just legendary history.

But often, legend is founded on the historic. I personally believe Enoch is a good source for getting a "traditional" perspective on Enoch and the reasons for the flood, since this "tradition" was well known even in Jesus' time and probably even in Moses's time... and Moses is only 8-12? generations removed from Noah - the savior of what ever documents he choose to preserve through the Flood. Family histories, historical accounts of those histories, the Beginning, etc; whatever was in his possession as a family heir and descendent of the line mentioned from Adam to Enoch to Noah.

Josephus wrote

I personally believe, by the evidence of its history, that the "Book of Enoch", or it's original relative, was part of a collection of books Noah saved on the ark and has been passed down as legendary titles. Other books and documents included would have been the history of the world prior to the Flood, namely, the account of Adam and Eve, of Cain and Abel. These stories would have been written down, or remembered in oral tradition, or both; and I can almost bet that the oldest known writing ever produced by mankind lies in the first chapter of Genesis.

Click to expand...

No offense, but I think this is kind of extreme. This proposition is a little unnecessarily fantastical. I mean, what's wrong with Jude quoting a piece of non-sacred literature such as Paul did? Paul put a lot of stock in secular writing (quoting Euripides, et al), and I suspect Jude did, as well. I have never heard anyone argue what you're proposing, simply because even the Jews of Jude's time did not believe in 1 & 2 Enoch's historicity.

Oh dear... so is the book of enoch from God or not? If it is not, it might worsen our perception of God's words. But if it is God's words, why in the first place will it be lost?

Actually, how can Jude then reference to the Book of Enoch if the book of Jude was written prior to the 1960s?

Click to expand...

The books being published under the title The Books of Enoch are not the same book. They are not the ancient writings refered to in Jude. They were works of fiction that were written in modern times to simulate what those lost books might have been. The authors of the "Enoch books" have even stepped forward and said that they wrote them and never intended them to be taken as scripture, they were just trying to write and interesting version of what ancient literature might have been like. They said they didn't even try to follow scripture because neither of them was religious. They are both non-practicing Jews who were in their twenties back then, and looking for a way to jab or hoax the establishment. Lots of young people in the 60's did things like that. It was a time of rebellion against tradition and "the establishment." I can't remember their first names but their last names are Heisel and Friedman. This all came out about 20 or 30 years ago, but the younger generation is falling for the hoax all over again.

lambslove,

I don't know where you got that information, but it's spurious. I assure you that biblical scholars consider 1 and 2 Enoch to have already existed long before the twentieth century. Their existence has been known for an extremely long time. I don't doubt that Heisel and Friedman were involved in some hoax, but it wasn't this. Check your sources.

I re think about the whole situation and has a new consideration. Enoch is most proably 99.9999% not in the bible.
Why?
Because God is all powerful, isn't he?
An all powerful God will not let his words go missing for so many years. He wouldn't hve let all of us not know about this Enoch books if they were inspired by him. God is powerful. He will not have let his words gone missing at all.
Thus, Enoch is most proably not God-inspired books.

not to start another topic, but first off, what is the Word of God? It was invented by human canonists wishing to collect God-inspired writing to be used for teaching and for doctrine.

The word of God is not the book bound between two leather covers. Granted, His words are in there, but the real Word is written on the tablets of our hearts, and it is from there that the scripture we read when we read the canonized collection of writings resonates with our understanding the Truth of God as He has revealed to all men. In short, the bible is not God.

I always ruffle a few feathers when I say that, and it's because it takes a lot of people a second glance to reread what I just wrote to finally understand what I am saying.

Enoch, and other apochraphyl writings are very much susceptible to error since through the thousands of years we've had access to them, countless people have decided for themselves what is necessary for teaching and doctrine, and what makes for good 'traditional' reading. We need to take the whole picture into account, and not see God's words to us, and our history as written by others, through the narrow viewpoint of hundreds of opinions over thousands of years. The Truth is evident. It makes itself known. Jesus is truth, and I hope that last sentence now makes itself clear.

For the purposes of this discussion, I agree with didi on a few issues. Enoch and other books (praise God we live now in an information free society where these things are comming out of obscurity - perhaps for such a time as this?) were traditional histories, taken to be legendary, or true; but not helpful for accepted and proven doctrine. For example, Homer's Odessey is not included in the bible because although it is considered by many to be a historical legend somehow based on a fact, it does nothing to add to the known and proven truth of doctrine other works in the bible are in fact helpful in using to teach. Same with the book(s) of Enoch, though from my own study the second book of enoch and it's known revisions/additions lead me to conclude that it is gnostic in origin, however, I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater (if you know what I mean).

I find these discussions interesting. Please, let's see what else is there. If anything, I've found the apochrapha good 'background' reading in maybe shedding light on a few scriptures and stories I've always wondered about. If anything, at least we are getting a good idea of what some of the common traditional beliefs about these things have been throughout the millennia.

I assure you that biblical scholars consider 1 and 2 Enoch to have already existed long before the twentieth century.

Click to expand...

Not all "Biblical scholars" are reputable. Many are self-proclaimed "scholars" who have no trainging or education in ancient literature at all. Many are atheists or cultist hellbent on defaming Christ. Most "Biblical scholars" believe that the Bible contains no factual information and no words consistent with what they believe God would say. I expect that those are the ones proclaiming that these books are the the lost books of Enoch. But they aren't.

You can't trust someone just because they use the title, "Biblical scholar." Especially if they are claiming a well-known hoax to be true!

lambslove,

So who defines who is a biblical scholar? You? If you can, so can I. I have studied the Bible at a well-respected conservative Christian university among Christians who are both conservative and academic, who are demonstrably well-trained in ancient literature, and I've have been exposed to all kinds of bad scholarship and some great scholarship, and believe me, the difference is marked. I suggest you look on the internet for information about your hoax. It's not there. If it is, please let me know where! You are not evil, just mistaken. I believe TRULY Christian academia has something to offer, and surely you would not think that I'm mistaken about that.

This is very interesting stuff. So far, I have only read the first 14 chapters. At this point, I have no judgment. It appears to be describing the times in and about before the time of the flood. Very little is mentioned in the bible about the Nephilim (giants) so this makes for interesting reading. Also, I have often wondered why the bible contains 66 books. That is not a common number that God would use. I could see 70, or maybe 77. But 66 would seem to be incomplete. I will finish reading it later. Thanks for the sight Kathleen. I don't know what to think of it yet. I was looking to see if I could find anything that contradicts the word of God, but was unable to do so, so far that is.

Originally posted by lambslove


Not all "Biblical scholars" are reputable. Many are self-proclaimed "scholars" who have no training or education in ancient literature at all.

Click to expand...

While your statement is without a doubt the truth, you should apply it to the sources that are propogating such unprovable falsities as the "writing of these Books of Enoch in the 1960's." They are clearly of the camp you condemn. The fact is, that an ancient copy of the text was translated in the 1800's. The commentators of the later part of the 1800's can be checked (epsecially on the book of Jude) and you will see that many of them have knowledge of this text.

While many will endorse the Book of Enoch as Scripture because the book of Jude quotes from it. Others take exception to this and say that only this singular passage was inspired, or that none of it was inspired. I find the arguments interesting, but nothing that I will lose any sleep over. I have read most of it, but would not base any of my beliefs upon it.

Lambslove, I am not posting this as an attack against you, but whether you love or hate the "books of Enoch," we sould base our disagreement on the facts, and not on the basis of what some self-admitted liars from the 1960's claim to be true.

Candidus wrote:

While many will endorse the Book of Enoch as Scripture because the book of Jude quotes from it. Others take exception to this and say that only this singular passage was inspired, or that none of it was inspired. I find the arguments interesting, but nothing that I will lose any sleep over. I have read most of it, but would not base any of my beliefs upon it.

Click to expand...

Good post. I'm not certain many people actually endorse the book as canon, but just because it is not endorsed as canon does not invalidate what it might offer. After all, many seek extra-biblical information about Jesus Christ in the writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and even Josephus (to a lesser degree, granted).

While I am not endorsing the following to be true, the possibility of 1 Enoch actually quoting Jude exists. Apparently 1 Enoch was written by several authors dating from about 200 B.C. until the latter part of the 1st century. Jude is probably c. A.D. 65 to c. A.D. 80. This at least allows that 1 Enoch could actually be quoting from Jude. It should be noted that in Jude 14, he is quoting Enoch himself, not necessarily the Book of Enoch.

Like Josephus, I find it all fascinating.

I've been reading up on the Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Enoch was found among them:

Book of Enoch [4QEnAra (4Q201)]
Aramaic: Sefer Hanokh
One of 11 Aramaic fragments of a composite apocalypse previously known only in translation (Ethiopic, Greek) found in Cave 4 at Qumran. Other fragments were found in 3 other caves.
4 of the 5 sections of 1 Enoch are represented by Qumran fragments:
Book of Watchers [1 En 6-36]
Astronomical Book [1 En 72-82]
Dream Visions [1 Enoch 80-90], &
the Letter of Enoch [1 En 91-105].
But the absence of the Parables of Enoch [1 En 37-72] at Qumran indicates that this portion of Ethiopic Enoch was probably inserted in the text of the apocalypse somewhere else.

Click to expand...

From: http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/dss_3.html