Did Jude quote from the Book of Enoch?

[Paleouss]

The main reason this is suppressed by many Christians, as it was by many church fathers, is that they are/were uncomfortable with the view that fallen angels could have sex with human women.

This statement is conjecture. Pure opinion without facts. I read this internet myth frequently, as it is spread without regard to proper research.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It is not clear to me that Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Although I would concede that it is most certianly possible. For it to be clear to anyone then the Book of Enoch must have (1) been written by Enoch himself (it was not) OR (2) been written by divine inspiration, visions, and a prophet during the time in which it was written in 300-100 BC (It could not have been do to God's proclamation that there would be no more prophets and visions until Elijah). Therefore it is unclear to me, and IMO should be unclear to everyone, on whether Jude qoutes the Book of Enoch. Although, again, it is possible.

Due to the facts above (1&2), the Book of Enoch would seem to be, if any part of it is true, (A) a recording of already known oral lore, legends, and myths put to scroll for the first time in which most Jews of the times, and Jude, whould have already known. In this case Jude quotes the oral tradition of Enoch, not the Book of Enoch. And the Book of Enoch records the quote of the oral tradition of Enoch as well . Thus the Book of Enoch records the same oral tradition that Jude quotes.

The other possibilities of how the Book of Enoch got its information, besides (A) above, is (B) the author receiving false visions (it claims itself to have received information from
"angels") or (C) the authors made it up.


I agree. No one thinks the source that Paul quotes should be considered inspired or canon. Paul quotes Aratus (315-245 BC) and Epimenides (6th centery BC). Both are pantheists and referring to Zeus in their writings.

Peace be with you my brother

The difference is that in the case of Enoch, Scripture refers to Him as a Prophet which implies that record of his proclamations are likely record of God's Word.

 

[Paleouss]

The difference is that in the case of Enoch, Scripture refers to Him as a Prophet

I agree that in Scripture Enoch is referred to as a prophet. In Jude for example, it says that "Enoch...prophesied" (Jude 1:14). This most certainly suggests he is a prophet. We agree. Good point.

which implies that record of his proclamations are likely record of God's Word.

Here is were I think we end up disagreeing. Not that the words of Enoch, whatever they are, are not God's word. I concede that they are. But your logic would seem to suggest we make an unreasonable jump.

You might be suggesting that...
(1) Enoch is considered a prophet thus his words are inspired.
(C) Therefore, Jude took the quote from the Book of Enoch.

This clearly does not logically follow. OR

(1) Enoch is considered a prophet thus his words are inspired.
(C) Therefore, all of the Book of Enoch is inspired.

This also does not follow.

The statment that would make both the conclusions follow, above, would be...
(2a) The actual Enoch, grandfather of Noah, wrote the Book of Enoch that we know today. But this is false. The Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch the prophet.

“there is no real evidence for the existence of Enoch prior to the 2nd Century B.C., the date generally assigned to the oldest portions of the Aramaic fragments recovered at Qumran.”
J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford, 1976.

"1 Enoch is clearly composite representing numerous periods and writers". And that the dating of the various sections spans from early pre-Maccabean (i.e. c. 200 BC) to AD 160”98 – Ephraim Isaac (Ethiopian scholar of ancient Ethiopian Semitic languages

The only other statement that would make the first two conclusions, above, follow would be...
(2b) Prophets during the time the Book of Enoch was written (300-100BC) where given visions by God and through his angels (The Book of Enoch reports that angels were the guides to some of its information).

But (2b) can also be confidently considered false. Why? Because God would cut off the Jewish people and as it is written, they “shall have night without vision” (Mic 3:6). In Amos, one can see God telling the Jewish people that there will be “a famine on the land” (Amos 8:11) and this famine is not one of food but a famine of “hearing the words of the LORD” (Amos 8:11). According to Micah “The sun shall go down on the prophets, And the day shall be dark for them” (Mic 3:6) for there will be “no answer from God.” (Mic 3:7). So there was to be no more prophets or visions until, according to Malichi (430 BC), the coming of Elijah.

This silent period is the exact period in which the Book of Enoch was written. God, through his Word, gives us a warning to not believe any news of prophets or visions or dreams during this period. God is specifically telling us through his prophets to... not believe what ever is coming during this silent period. For it is false. The only thing from Me, God is saying, is Elijah.

So even though the actual words of Enoch might be considered inspired due to the biblical text telling us Enoch prophisied. The "words of Enoch" can not logically be equated with the Book of Enoch. Therefore, the Book of Enoch ends up being just like the quotes Paul makes. If anything in the Book of Enoch is truth, it was simply a recording of already known information handed down through oral tradition. Which Jude might have already known.

I would like to make one additional point. Nothing really to do with what you said. We know through ancient writtings that the Essenes (who wrote the Book of Enoch) were claiming they recieved their information from "angels". Just as the author of the Book of Enoch claims. That is that the author received some information through angel guides. If God has cut off the Jewish people from prophets and visions...then who are these angels defying Gods proclimation and giving these Essenes information and visions? The answer appears clear, deceiving angels.

Paul even warned the people of the times in Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." It is reasonable to conclude that Paul knows that some are claiming inspiration from angels. For we see in the ancient writtings that the Essenes were claiming it (see R. Denova "Essenes"). And Paul is reenforcing the proclamation of the Old Testament that there will be no visions and prophets. Paul is telling us that God's word in this period is only about Christ. Not evil spirits, demons, or the names of the fallen. The only gospel that God is sending his people is ... Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you brother

 

[Carl Emerson]

I agree that in Scripture Enoch is referred to as a prophet. In Jude for example, it says that "Enoch...prophesied" (Jude 1:14). This most certainly suggests he is a prophet. We agree. Good point.


Here is were I think we end up disagreeing. Not that the words of Enoch, whatever they are, are not God's word. I concede that they are. But your logic would seem to suggest we make an unreasonable jump.

You might be suggesting that...
(1) Enoch is considered a prophet thus his words are inspired.
(C) Therefore, Jude took the quote from the Book of Enoch.

This clearly does not logically follow. OR

(1) Enoch is considered a prophet thus his words are inspired.
(C) Therefore, all of the Book of Enoch is inspired.

This also does not follow.

The statment that would make both the conclusions follow, above, would be...
(2a) The actual Enoch, grandfather of Noah, wrote the Book of Enoch that we know today. But this is false. The Book of Enoch was not written by Enoch the prophet.





The only other statement that would make the first two conclusions, above, follow would be...
(2b) Prophets during the time the Book of Enoch was written (300-100BC) where given visions by God and through his angels (The Book of Enoch reports that angels were the guides to some of its information).

But (2b) can also be confidently considered false. Why? Because God would cut off the Jewish people and as it is written, they “shall have night without vision” (Mic 3:6). In Amos, one can see God telling the Jewish people that there will be “a famine on the land” (Amos 8:11) and this famine is not one of food but a famine of “hearing the words of the LORD” (Amos 8:11). According to Micah “The sun shall go down on the prophets, And the day shall be dark for them” (Mic 3:6) for there will be “no answer from God.” (Mic 3:7). So there was to be no more prophets or visions until, according to Malichi (430 BC), the coming of Elijah.

This silent period is the exact period in which the Book of Enoch was written. God, through his Word, gives us a warning to not believe any news of prophets or visions or dreams during this period. God is specifically telling us through his prophets to... not believe what ever is coming during this silent period. For it is false. The only thing from Me, God is saying, is Elijah.

So even though the actual words of Enoch might be considered inspired due to the biblical text telling us Enoch prophisied. The "words of Enoch" can not logically be equated with the Book of Enoch. Therefore, the Book of Enoch ends up being just like the quotes Paul makes. If anything in the Book of Enoch is truth, it was simply a recording of already known information handed down through oral tradition. Which Jude might have already known.

I would like to make one additional point. Nothing really to do with what you said. We know through ancient writtings that the Essenes (who wrote the Book of Enoch) were claiming they recieved their information from "angels". Just as the author of the Book of Enoch claims. That is that the author received some information through angel guides. If God has cut off the Jewish people from prophets and visions...then who are these angels defying Gods proclimation and giving these Essenes information and visions? The answer appears clear, deceiving angels.

Paul even warned the people of the times in Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." It is reasonable to conclude that Paul knows that some are claiming inspiration from angels. For we see in the ancient writtings that the Essenes were claiming it (see R. Denova "Essenes"). And Paul is reenforcing the proclamation of the Old Testament that there will be no visions and prophets. Paul is telling us that God's word in this period is only about Christ. Not evil spirits, demons, or the names of the fallen. The only gospel that God is sending his people is ... Jesus Christ.

Peace be with you brother

Yes interesting conclusions.

So the evidence is the the book was written by the Essenes?

Did Jesus refer to The Book of Enoch as Scripture?
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Mat 5:5) pulled from “The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})” "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

My position is that Parts of Enoch are inspired among other parts that are inaccurate or here-say.

The Messianic prophesies are stunning.

Sounds like aural tradition compiled and written that is a mix of Tradition and God's inspiration that was received before the Silent Period and written during it.

It may be that an earlier book of Enoch was lost ?

 

[Paleouss]

My position is that Parts of Enoch are inspired among other parts that are inaccurate or here-say.

It would seem that we hold similar, but not exact, views.

I think that some of the information is truth, just not inspired. To say that the words within the Book of Enoch are inspired is to grant that God gave inspiration to the persons (plural) that wrote the Book of Enoch as we know it today. Not just to Enoch. And God did not. As I demonstrated in the other post. All prophets and visions had been cut off.

The offical position of the Christians and Jews is that it is not inspired. Otherwise it would be in their canon.

Now, did God give inspiration to a man named Enoch? During a time when Enoch lived before the flood. I would say, yes. And did the words of Enoch, that were inspired by God at the time before the flood, carry down through the ages to 300-100 BC. I think that some possibly did. Although I do grant that the Holy Spirit could have very well inspired the people within our Bible to know such information without the use of outside sources.

However, the Book of Enoch as we know it today, at best, put to scroll the historicity of those words. The writers of the Book of Enoch were not inspired to do so. Which leaves them open to error. Which might explain why most of the so-called quotes are not word for word (if they are taken from the Book of Enoch at all. I question many assertions). That is, the references in the Bible are correct. And where they don't match up exactly word for word in the Book of Enoch is the Book of Enoch being in error in its recordings of that same oral tradition. Because God did not give inspiration to the authors that wrote the Book of Enoch. But did give inspiration to ALL the words of the authors in the Bible.

Did Jesus refer to The Book of Enoch as Scripture?
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Mat 5:5) pulled from “The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth. (Enoch 5:7 {6:9})” "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

Well, he doesn't say he is quoting it. Nor is the verse word for word with Enoch 5:7. There needs to be a standard for the concept "quoted". Here in the US, if Enoch made a statement like Enoch 5:7 and I then wrote in a news article that he said what Matt 5:5 says. I would be sued. Because it is not a quote.

I would at least have to say, I'm paraphrasing Enoch. Even then it seems to me the basic message in the two passages are different. In Matthew the point in the lesson is that the meek are God's.

Sounds like aural tradition compiled and written that is a mix of Tradition and God's inspiration that was received before the Silent Period and written during it.

I'm with you somewhat, here. Yes, inspiration way before the silent period. However, the Book of Enoch and it's authors are not inspired, imo. Therefore the words within the Book of Enoch are not considered inspired. Even if the original words by Enoch were inspired. Again, it might be the reason that the quotes in the Bible are not the same word for word as they are in the Book of Enoch.

I do think that the Book of Enoch has some truth in it and the Essenes recorded some of that historosity. However, the other stuff is very concerning to me. It could be just made up, it could be here-say, it could be the mixing of outside beliefs as the Jewish culture was constantly being chastised within the biblical text about their false beliefs in evil spirits, demons and gods. And the worst of all, it could be devised lies from the enemy. The fallen themselves. The Essenes did claim to be given information from angels during the silent period.

Thus I take great caution with the Book of Enoch. It has a usefulness. But it is also potentially very dangerous, imo.

As a side note, I have often pondered who actually gave, and how did, the Book of Enoch get the names of some of the fallen angels. Clearly we see that God kept their names out of His testament to his people, i.e., the Bible. It seems very suspicions to me that these names are given in this Book of Enoch. And who would benifit the most by mankind knowing them? It seems to me, the fallen would benefit.

Keep chasing God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

 

[Carl Emerson]

It would seem that we hold similar, but not exact, views.

I think that some of the information is truth, just not inspired. To say that the words within the Book of Enoch are inspired is to grant that God gave inspiration to the persons (plural) that wrote the Book of Enoch as we know it today. Not just to Enoch. And God did not. As I demonstrated in the other post. All prophets and visions had been cut off.

The offical position of the Christians and Jews is that it is not inspired. Otherwise it would be in their canon.

Now, did God give inspiration to a man named Enoch? During a time when Enoch lived before the flood. I would say, yes. And did the words of Enoch, that were inspired by God at the time before the flood, carry down through the ages to 300-100 BC. I think that some possibly did. Although I do grant that the Holy Spirit could have very well inspired the people within our Bible to know such information without the use of outside sources.

However, the Book of Enoch as we know it today, at best, put to scroll the historicity of those words. The writers of the Book of Enoch were not inspired to do so. Which leaves them open to error. Which might explain why most of the so-called quotes are not word for word (if they are taken from the Book of Enoch at all. I question many assertions). That is, the references in the Bible are correct. And where they don't match up exactly word for word in the Book of Enoch is the Book of Enoch being in error in its recordings of that same oral tradition. Because God did not give inspiration to the authors that wrote the Book of Enoch. But did give inspiration to ALL the words of the authors in the Bible.


Well, he doesn't say he is quoting it. Nor is the verse word for word with Enoch 5:7. There needs to be a standard for the concept "quoted". Here in the US, if Enoch made a statement like Enoch 5:7 and I then wrote in a news article that he said what Matt 5:5 says. I would be sued. Because it is not a quote.

I would at least have to say, I'm paraphrasing Enoch. Even then it seems to me the basic message in the two passages are different. In Matthew the point in the lesson is that the meek are God's.

I'm with you somewhat, here. Yes, inspiration way before the silent period. However, the Book of Enoch and it's authors are not inspired, imo. Therefore the words within the Book of Enoch are not considered inspired. Even if the original words by Enoch were inspired. Again, it might be the reason that the quotes in the Bible are not the same word for word as they are in the Book of Enoch.

I do think that the Book of Enoch has some truth in it and the Essenes recorded some of that historosity. However, the other stuff is very concerning to me. It could be just made up, it could be here-say, it could be the mixing of outside beliefs as the Jewish culture was constantly being chastised within the biblical text about their false beliefs in evil spirits, demons and gods. And the worst of all, it could be devised lies from the enemy. The fallen themselves. The Essenes did claim to be given information from angels during the silent period.

Thus I take great caution with the Book of Enoch. It has a usefulness. But it is also potentially very dangerous, imo.

As a side note, I have often pondered who actually gave, and how did, the Book of Enoch get the names of some of the fallen angels. Clearly we see that God kept their names out of His testament to his people, i.e., the Bible. It seems very suspicions to me that these names are given in this Book of Enoch. And who would benifit the most by mankind knowing them? It seems to me, the fallen would benefit.

Keep chasing God's truth as if it were hidden treasure

Amen...

Can you comment on the messianic prophesies - should these have a ranking along with Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc...

 

[Paul4JC]

This statement is conjecture. Pure opinion without facts. I read this internet myth frequently, as it is spread without regard to proper research.

You again? Do we need another back-and-forth? Fallen Angels Sure, only you have the facts. Others who may have studied a subject for years, only have conjecture and opinions.