A Reference to the Book of Enoch in the Wisdom of Sirach

[SummaScriptura]

In Sirach 44:16, there is a mention of the prophet Enoch in which there seems to me to be a reference to the Book of Enoch. The English Standard Version for Sirach 44:16, reads,

Enoch pleased the Lord, and was taken up;
he was an example of repentance to all generations. (Sirach 44:16, ESV)

In language taken from the Greek Septuagint version of Genesis 5:24, Sirach tells us that “Enoch pleased the Lord”. The Hebrew Masoretic text does not have this, instead, it reads, “Enoch walked with God”. The Hebrew text which lies behind the Septuagint had something closer to “Enoch pleased God”. You will remember that the writer of the Book of Hebrews, using the Septuagint for his Biblical references, also reads, “Enoch pleased God”.

That Enoch walked with God and was pleasing to God, is apparent.

So, when Jesus son of Sirach informs us, Enoch “was an example of repentance to all generations”, he cannot have been speaking of Enoch’s own repentance; Enoch is not an example of that. Rather, he must be speaking of Enoch having an influence upon future generations of mankind so as to lead them to repentance. This, however, presents a problem. How could the life of a man who is memorialized in 2 or 3 verses of the Bible become an example of repentance for future generations?

I would assert, Jesus ben Sirach, is in fact referring to the apocalyptic book which comes down to us as the Book of Enoch, (aka 1 Enoch and Ethiopic Enoch).

It has become apparent since the middle of the 20th century that the Book of Enoch was in wide circulation in the time of ben Sirach. It would have been a book with which a Jewish sage living in Jerusalem in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., would have been familiar.

And the message internal to the Book of Enoch was that these book(s) were written ostensibly by the Biblical Enoch, and were to be given to his son Methuselah and subsequently preserved and passed down for generations to come. In fact, the book’s preamble, found in Enoch 1:1-3 makes the astounding claim that the book will successfully be preserved and survive until the last generation just before the time of the consummation.

That these books were to become a token to all the generations of the world is a message we find throughout:

And now, my son Methuselah, all these things I am recounting to thee and writing down for thee, and I have revealed to thee everything, and given thee books concerning all these: so preserve, my son Methuselah, the books from thy father’s hand, and see that thou deliver them to the generations of the world. (Enoch 82:1, RHC)

There is a word in the Greek text of Sirach 44:16, that seems to puzzle translators as far as I can tell. The KJV, NAB, and NJ all translate it as “example”, as does the NRSV, “Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations.” But is the taking away of Enoch that is mentioned in passing fashion in Genesis an example of repentance? It seems to me that if the taking away of Enoch is to be an example of repentance, its not a very good one. I certainly have never taken it that way.

The Greek word translated “example” is ὑπόδειγμα. However, there is more than one connotation for the word “hupodeigma”, the word can be understood as “an exhibit for imitation or warning”. If we understand Sirach to be using the connotation of Enoch as an exhibit of warning for man's need of repentance, then the Book of Enoch fits the bill nicely. The Book of Enoch’s message is about sin and its consequences and does have a stark message of repentance and the final judgment.

So...

“Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, he is a warning sign to repentance to all generations.”

 

[laconicstudent]

Sirach is a beautiful book.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Thanks for the post, Ive been looking at his from another angle and you gave me something more to consider and work in.

I was more or less looking at Enoch "who pleased God (by an example of "faith" as shown) Given without faith its impossible to please God, so the two match up between them. Then I was looking at Enoch "not found" and again in relation to faith, "being found" (however) in him, not having a righteousness of our own but of Christ (in that respect). You brought in repentance, I hadnt considered that, but one verse I had dangling on the end of the study somehow appears to point that could work right into it maybe.

Heres a few verses that seem to mesh with the picture, highlights for comparing between verses.


The question and how its worded

Psalm 89:48 What man is he that liveth, and shall not **see death**? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave?

Jesus answer and how its worded...

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep **my saying**, he shall never **see death**.

Shown in Enoch and how its worded ...

Heb 11:10 **By faith** Enoch was translated that he should not **see death**; and was** not found**, because God had translated him: for **before** "his translation" he had this testimony, that he pleased God.


Enoch was not found, shown as the same principal here...

Phil 3:9 And be **found** in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God **by faith**

Without faith its impossible to please God

Heb 11:10 **By faith** Enoch was translated that he should not **see death**; and was** not found**, because God had translated him: for **before** "his translation" he had this testimony, that he pleased God.


Enoch ("dedicated", or taught of God by faith) "walked with God" in "the way" (even as this too relates no death as shown below)

Prov 12:28 In **the way** of righteousness" is life and in the pathway thereof there is **no death**.


John come to prepare the way (before the Lord)

Mat 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

I just snipped this out of a study and cut it to where you introduce repentance, you gave me something to consider and study further on.

Thanks

 

[Jpark]

Accepting the book of Enoch means:

-accepting that the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and humans
-accepting that demons are not fallen angels
-accepting what Enoch 58:7-8 says about the Leviathan and Behemoth

Now the first one is easily accepted by most people. But the second and third, do you have an explanation for those?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Accepting the book of Enoch means:

-accepting that the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and humans
-accepting that demons are not fallen angels
-accepting what Enoch 58:7-8 says about the Leviathan and Behemoth

Now the first one is easily accepted by most people. But the second and third, do you have an explanation for those?

You only have 3 hurdles with "acceptance" of the Book of Enoch? You're doing better than I. I have a lot of them still. However, I am convinced it is the authentic writing of the Biblical Enoch, son of Jared.

As to your second point, when I began to study the Bible in earnest in 1972, I soon took note of the curious fact that the origin of demons is missing from its pages. Oh yes, I was aware of the commonly accepted belief that one just assumes Revelation 12 explains it all. I could nver accept that. So, I resigned myself to the conviction that the origin of demons is a mystery not revealed in the Scriptures. That was my position for decades. When I read the Book of Enoch, and subsequently noted that Enoch's explanation is the only explanation one can find in any Jewish writing before AD 70, I accepted it quite easily.

As to your third point, I think you mean Enoch 60:7-8. Your obstacle is in accepting what it says. Before one can accept what anything says, they first need to know what anything means. Perhaps you know what it means. Could you tell me? I don't know, so I am unabel to accept what is at best a puzzle for me.

Much that is in the Book of Enoch are visionary explanations of things. That presents an interpretive hurdle.

I don't even know what the Book of Job means with the whole Behemoth/Leviathan thing. There are some who connect them in Job and Enoch with Revelation 13, where two beasts, one from the sea and one form the land rise up to cause tribulation to earth's dwellers in the last days. I just don't know.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Thanks for the post, Ive been looking at his from another angle and you gave me something more to consider and work in.<snip>

I like the direction you're taking this. I think you have the grist for a nice Bible study you could share some time.

You drew a connection with another verse of Scripture, which says in part "before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God".

I cannot not tell you how for many years this verse perplexed me. You see, I always understood the part of the phrase "he was commeded" to mean the writer of Hebrews is referring to a passage of Scripture in which Enoch was commended that he was pleasing to God. "He was commended" is a more subtle pointer to Scripture than the phrase "it is written", for sure, but nevertheless, I took it as referring to some Biblical reference. I could never find it. Try as I might. Every few years I would come back to this and search the Bible for some place where it was mentioned that Enoch pleased God.

Then in 2007, I received a copy of the Greek Septuagint and was amazed at the insights I could find in it. Then one day I had a thought, perhpas I could find Enoch pleasing God in its pages...

Sure enough!

"And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him." (Gen. 5:24, NETS)​

Compare with Hebrews:​

"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God." (Heb 11:5, ESV)​

And the Hebrew version of Genesis 5:24:​

"Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." (Gen. 5:24)​

Problem solved. The writer of Hebrews uses the Greek versions of the older Biblical books throughout Hebrews. Enoch was indeed "commended" in Scripture that before his translation he was pleasing to God. The writer of Hebrews is saying in effect, "In Genesis you can read how before his translation, Enoch was commended as pleasing God."​

 

[Fireinfolding]

I like the direction you're taking this. I think you have the grist for a nice Bible study you could share some time.

You drew a connection with another verse of Scripture, which says in part "before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God".

I cannot not tell you how for many years this verse perplexed me. You see, I always understood the part of the phrase "he was commeded" to mean the writer of Hebrews is referring to a passage of Scripture in which Enoch was commended that he was pleasing to God. "He was commended" is a more subtle pointer to Scripture than the phrase "it is written", for sure, but nevertheless, I took it as referring to some Biblical reference. I could never find it. Try as I might. Every few years I would come back to this and search the Bible for some place where it was mentioned that Enoch pleased God.

Then in 2007, I received a copy of the Greek Septuagint and was amazed at the insights I could find in it. Then one day I had a thought, perhpas I could find Enoch pleasing God in its pages...

Sure enough!

"And Henoch was well pleasing to God, and he was not found, because God transferred him." (Gen. 5:24, NETS)​

Compare with Hebrews:​

"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God." (Heb 11:5, ESV)​

And the Hebrew version of Genesis 5:24:​

"Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." (Gen. 5:24)​

Problem solved. The writer of Hebrews uses the Greek versions of the older Biblical books throughout Hebrews. Enoch was indeed "commended" in Scripture that before his translation he was pleasing to God. The writer of Hebrews is saying in effect, "In Genesis you can read how before his translation, Enoch was commended as pleasing God."​

Im sitting here thinking... "wow" I am lol

You appear to connect much like I do, its just how its worded, and then you dropped "the repentance" thing on me and a verse (I already had) wouldnt go forward because I was bouncing it off of "the faith" of Enoch alone (not yet seeing the connection)

I found the "found, and "not found" in repects to the righteousness of God and being "found in Him". Having BEFORE his translation (which means to PASS from one place to another) in respects to death, and is also mentioned in regards to the same. Even the NT speaks of being "translated" as well and the good report also is tied into it. I have been looking at this ALL morning because of your OP .. if you could see my notes you'd laugh, Im all over the place just throwing things up that speak to this with no heads or tails yet lol

Also, in respects to the "having THIS TESTIMONY" in correlation with John (until whom the law and prophets were) lands us again at repentance, and HAVING RECEIVED HIS TESTIMONY and even this in respects to the wording In THE WAY of righteousness there is no death (John come to show). As it speaks to his "preparing THE WAY before the LORD" (our righteousness) also. It landed me everywhere so much so that I have yet to order it up aright. Then it landed me to where it speaks of the pledge in respects to "the conscience" even as to THE TESTIMONY of the conscience and Enoch (before his translation) had THIS testimony, that he please God, and this too is connected to "faith" even "a good report" (same word there) And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

Its all there (just scrambled yet in my mind because I always took it from a "faith perspective" and not in combination (when looking at Enoch) from a "repentance" point and how the wording might fit.


I honestly cant fit in all I have been looking at since your post. And another place it took me (as I like to compare "contrasts") seems to show its opposite example is found in Esua (check the wording out) in HE FOUND NO PLACE which is also in respects to "repentance".

Ugh sorry, I have minutes before I need to start dinner and I have been sitting here all day with more then what I am even seeing here and not knowing quite where to start as it relates to all that was pouring into me.

I have to sit with this awhile before I can see it clearly and share it with some ounce of sense, but Im so glad you posted this!

Since Im a little jumbled (before this all comes together for me) when I have a moment to collect these things and put them down better. I will try to put down the pieces (even you have) because I think the same way when trying to compare them. And heck, maybe you can better show it being more familiar. And (ofcourse) knowing this was really bothering you means you have been really thinking on it alot and thats really a good primer. It would tell me these things will "fall" more easily "into place" since you have readied your mind toward it.

That works, seen it happen too many times

Might be later or tommorrow because I havent much taken my mind off your OP since you posted it, but I am sitting here going, Wow, wow wow!

Its like scrambled eggs right now lol I have a page before me where I dont even know where to begin at this point lol

Thanks so much for stirring my curiosity

 

[SummaScriptura]

Dinner huh? You must be East Coast, bon apetit!<snip>Since Im a little jumbled (before this all comes together for me) when I have a moment to collect these things and put them down better.<snip>

That's how it starts isn't it? Its through mulling it over the sense comes out...

Thanks so much for stirring my curiosity

I'm glad you liked it!

Now I gotta look further into this thing you posted above about their all having received a good report, sounds like its pointing some other places...

 

[BrendanMark]

Current scholarship places the first bits of Enoch at about 300BC and the Book of Parables about 100BC.

The Hebrew text most Bibles use is the Masoretic text that dates from about 1000AD. Many scholars think the Septuagint closer to the "original" texts.

It only matters, really, because the Epistle of Jude cites it.

The only complete text of Enoch is in the Ge'ez language of Ethopia. Only the Ethopian and Eritrean Churches consider it Scripture.

Just saying . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Current scholarship places the first bits of Enoch at about 300BC and the Book of Parables about 100BC.

The Hebrew text most Bibles use is the Masoretic text that dates from about 1000AD. Many scholars think the Septuagint closer to the "original" texts.

It only matters, really, because the Epistle of Jude cites it.

The only complete text of Enoch is in the Ge'ez language of Ethopia. Only the Ethopian and Eritrean Churches consider it Scripture.

Just saying . . .

There was an interesting thread awhile back on my bro Enoch


http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=55434315
Enoch and the 8 weeks

No, it was just never included in the literature considered canon. The stuff about "the Romanists took it out" is standard boilerplate for any writing that someone or other would like to be part of Scripture but isn't.

 

[Fireinfolding]

That's how it starts isn't it? Its through mulling it over the sense comes out...I'm glad you liked it!

Now I gotta look further into this thing you posted above about their all having received a good report, sounds like its pointing some other places...

Yeah its always how it starts for me too. Something will irk you then your mind (as you enquire after knowledge) somehow forms this readiness (better prepping you) in desire for understanding (when it comes). Whereas when you dont care one usually just "pit things" verses trying to recconciling them.

I had looked over Enoch a few times, I suppose warry because of (well) as posted by others concerning it but if you are seeking to reconcile the other scriptures as long as you keep it subject to them as it pertains to him, I can see the harm. Theres nothing wrong with testing a thing out I wouldnt think, just to see how it might work out (here and there).


Awhile back myself and a freind of mine were going through it once and we were finding some pretty kool stuff, however there were some places I couldnt get past and sorta confirmed in me that perhaps its off, no harm done. I suppose we could say the same when looking at the scriptures we already are looking at sometimes too.

However, if we just took the word "repentance and Enoch" and simply tried to connect "these two" in Him in accord with the wording in scripture as spoken of him... its just going in at him at a different angle, and I sure dont see the harm in that.

Worse case scenario you just added repentance to the faith of Enoch and if you can show it without the book of Enoch making more sense of it just the same, even better on ya is what I'd say

 

[lovernotafighter]

I think the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has it in their canon.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I just noticed, Sirach spends six chapters, 44-49 going over the heroes of the Old Testament in a fashion not tremendously different from Hebrews 11. Then in 49:14, we find these words, "No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth."

So at the outset of this long section Jesus the son of Sirach mentions Enoch, and then 6 chapters later, near the end of this section, Enoch is mentioned again. Enoch is kind of like the bookends at each end of this section in Son of Sirach. Son of Sirach does not mention any other Biblical persona twice to my knowledge. Its curious and I wonder what is the reason in the writer's mind this was done.