Enoch

[EPalinn]

The Book of Enoch influenced the New Testament, scholars date the First Book of Enoch back to sometime during the second century B.C.

When The First Book of Enoch was found in the 18th century, people thought that it was extremely influenced by writers Jude and Peter. And interesting is it that The Book of Enoch was written so long before the New Testament.

Jesus both alluded its doctrine and content, and not only did he quote Enoch on many occasions but so did many others in The New Testament.

Did you ever read the Books of Enoch and if you did, what do you think of them?

Blessings

 

[pshun2404]

There are two versions. One which has become known as the Ethiopian Book of Enoch which is the one found also among the DSS and the second is called the Slavonic Book of Enoch which is definitely pseudipigraphic.

The quote from Jude comes from the first book which goes back from before Christ's birth. I have never found one quote from Enoch in the mouth of Jesus (only Jude, which was called a spurious book along with what we call 2nd Peter by the early church for a couple of hundred years). The word Henoch (or Enoch) is not just a name but means "the seer" and perhaps much of the 1st Book of Enoch is a tradition collected and passed down but could also be a summation of the apocalyptic thought of the times...in either case this does not mean it is Holy Scripture and the ideas found therein are all indicated in earlier Biblical prophets...also I have never heard anyone say Enoch is influenced by Jude and 2nd Peter but always the other way around...

Just some thoughts

Paul

 

[EPalinn]

Before it was found that the Book of Enoch dated back to the second century B.C. It was believed that it was influenced by Jude and Peter, since it had quotes and concepts found in NT.

Also there are the 3. Enoch which is also know as The Hebrew Book of Enoch.

 

[EPalinn]

Jesus did quote Enoch. There are many places in the Bible where Jesus share phrases from Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was accepted by the Christians of the first century... Maybe the books are more holy than what we think.

 

[SilentShadow100]

The book of 1 Enoch is a heretical and blasphemous writing and was not composed by the prophet Enoch.

Read this: The Book of Enoch EXPOSED!

 

[EPalinn]

Yes I read that already.

I find it vague and written in anger by someone who clearly hasn't done his research properly.

It's known fact that this book was written a long time before the Bible and therefore cannot have copied anything from it.

 

[Knee V]

One of the main criteria for considering a book to be canonical was its general reception by the church. Regardless of what the content of the book may be (and it may have excellent content for all I know), it was never widely received by the church. Thus, while the church of Ethopia may have that book as part of its canon, the rest of the church never did. And one of the main reasons why any given Old Testament book was widely received by the church was because it was accepted by the Jews first, since all that the first Christians had was inherited from the Jews. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Jews before and during the time of Christ did not accept the book of Enoch, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of the first Christians did not accept it either.

 

[ViaCrucis]

One of the main criteria for considering a book to be canonical was its general reception by the church. Regardless of what the content of the book may be (and it may have excellent content for all I know), it was never widely received by the church. Thus, while the church of Ethopia may have that book as part of its canon, the rest of the church never did. And one of the main reasons why any given Old Testament book was widely received by the church was because it was accepted by the Jews first, since all that the first Christians had was inherited from the Jews. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Jews before and during the time of Christ did not accept the book of Enoch, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of the first Christians did not accept it either.

That's the long and short of it really.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[x141]

One of the main criteria for considering a book to be canonical was its general reception by the church. Regardless of what the content of the book may be (and it may have excellent content for all I know), it was never widely received by the church. Thus, while the church of Ethopia may have that book as part of its canon, the rest of the church never did. And one of the main reasons why any given Old Testament book was widely received by the church was because it was accepted by the Jews first, since all that the first Christians had was inherited from the Jews. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Jews before and during the time of Christ did not accept the book of Enoch, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of the first Christians did not accept it either.

They didn't accept Jesus either ... and the vast majority has never been the path that leads to righteousness, though I haven't read them, and neither do I care to.

 

[Knee V]

They didn't accept Jesus either ... and the vast majority has never been the path that leads to righteousness, though I haven't read them, and neither do I care to.

I'll rephrase: Enoch was not part of the continuity of the community of God's people, either before Christ or after Christ. I agree that post-Christ Christ-rejecting Jews should have no bearing on what we as Christians do. But before Christ, it was the Jews who constituted the bulk of God's covenant people.

 

[EPalinn]

The books of Enoch was accepted by both Jews and Christians.
Church fathers such as Justin Martyr even Athenagoras thought Enoch was a true prophet
and Tertullian even called it “Holy scripture”.

Perhaps the Books of Enoch simply isn't a part of the canon because it wasn't rediscovered at the time. History tells us that The Books of Enoch had to be copied into different languages to insure that it's survival when some theologians tried to dispose it instead of questioning their own beliefs.

 

[x141]

I'll rephrase: Enoch was not part of the continuity of the community of God's people, either before Christ or after Christ. I agree that post-Christ Christ-rejecting Jews should have no bearing on what we as Christians do. But before Christ, it was the Jews who constituted the bulk of God's covenant people.

This was not a slight on what you wrote, nor anything to do with any type of jewish or gentile, or even a church issue, before or after, makes no difference.

But it must be considered by the individual as much as the Bible does. If you consider Moses' words, as he was buried and not found, you must consider Enoch's, him walking with God and is not because God took him, which I don't believe is reffering to him disappearing from the planet, just as Moses in type was buried in Christ, God burying him, in the end being a picture of the fulfillment of the law by being the law, or the law of sin and death put to rest by being in Him.

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

Never read them before.

 

[floating axehead]

Did you ever read the Books of Enoch and if you did, what do you think of them?

Yes I have. The most accurate version is actually put together by a member here, Summa Scriptura. I read it 8 years ago.

Parts of it are great, parts of it are incredibly mysterious. I see why its not considered Canon (except for the Ethiopian Church) but it still has value.

 

[floating axehead]

The overwhelmingly vast majority of Jews before and during the time of Christ did not accept the book of Enoch

I challenge that assertion. By AD 100 this is true, but from 10 - 35 AD? Jesus referenced many aspects of the contents of the book of Enoch for some reason ... and there seems to have division among the Jews about these ideas. With Jesus solidly siding with Enoch.

 

[EPalinn]

Yes I have. The most accurate version is actually put together by a member here, Summa Scriptura. I read it 8 years ago.

Parts of it are great, parts of it are incredibly mysterious. I see why its not considered Canon (except for the Ethiopian Church) but it still has value.

I agree. I definitely have value. I myself couldn't see why it should be a part of the canon but I wouldn't call it heretic and I definitely think it's inspiring like many apostles did.

 

[pshun2404]

Jesus did quote Enoch. There are many places in the Bible where Jesus share phrases from Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was accepted by the Christians of the first century... Maybe the books are more holy than what we think.

Please show where Jesus quotes the book of Enoch. Sharing similar apocalyptic ideas long since taught in Israel is not the same thing. "quotes" please...Thanks

Also the Hebrew Book of Enoch though claiming to be a 2nd century B.C. work is full of Merkebah symbolism which makes it post-Zoharic. It is therefore a mystical work attributed by ancient Jews to a Rabbi Ishmael and was originally known as "The Book of Palaces" (a concept of the Qabbalists) and also "The Revelation of Metatron" another Zoharic reference. We cannot find any indication or reference to this work before the 5th Century A.D. as far as I can tell. Metatron is not an idea in any Jewish literature before the 2nd century A.D (not B.C.). And though I found the Zohar and the Sepher Yitzerah intriguing they are not Theopneustos Graphae...so that this book appears to be quoted (or to contain similar concepts taught by Jesus) is no wonder since it was devised long after the NT was available.

But seriously I am intrigued so please show me (comparatively if possible) where Jesus allegedly quotes this Book of Enoch...thanks...

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Hey sis, have you ever read 1 Enoch?

Paul

 

[shturt678]

When I eyeballed this long ago, I was always curious more with the "where" the writer of the "Book of Enoch" obtained Enoch's words, and not so much "whether" Jude had the "Book of Enoch" or some part of it in the original or in some version and quoted it, say from memory. Probably take this to my grave. Just ol' Jack. Thank you.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Simply saying Jesus quoted Enoch and alluded to it several times does nothing. Post examples. Show us all of there "several times."