nephillium

[~GodsMouthpiece~]

No, the other way around. Genesis 6 is referenced by Enoch. There was no Enoch to reference at the time Genesis was written.

Enoch was born way before Moses who wrote Genesis, or are you saying the "book" of Enoch?

 

[jamescarvin]

Enoch was born way before Moses who wrote Genesis, or are you saying the "book" of Enoch?

While I have never doubted that there were oral traditions the Hebrew Scriptures borrowed from as they were compiled slowly over time and can see how if Enoch said anything that might have faithfully been passed on verbally over thousands of years it might have found its way into those Scriptures, here I am referring to the book everyone is talking about that is said to have been written around 200 B.C.. I don't expect that any of that could have crept in.

The only answer I'm getting from this thread as to why the Jews did not accept the book is that parts of it may have crept in unofficially and unnoticed, as they are similar themes. But if it is oral traditions that crept in, it is oral traditions that comprise almost the whole of scripture as it was compiled and I already believe that. My question is who is quoting who and Genesis preceeds the book of Enoch. The proposition here is that we should take the Book of Watchers and Dreams, etc. as Scripture and notice how the books of the Bible, particularly the LXX, refer to them?

That's an anachronism. No? Unless, what is being said is that the written book predates 200 B.C. But if it did, then we are back to the question of why the Jews did not accept it as canon. And here again I am not referring to their authority, which I do not believe exists, but to their common sense.

Who would throw out a text that was thousands of years old and written by a person known to have been so holy that they ascended to heaven? Not even Moses, Abraham or Noah had such an honorary biography. The only way it could make any sense is if the Jews were completely unaware of it. But if they were unaware of it how would they have authenticated it? Suppose they rediscovered it in a cave somewhere, maybe hidden in a secret compartment inside the stone tablets of the ten commandments inside the ark. Now that might have done the trick. Then they hurriedly rehid the ark of the covenant so that even Indiana Jones couldn't find it because it would have been too dangerous to find except by any group of people as holy as the Essenes. Meantime, Enoch planned the whole thing from heaven.

Rock 'em Sock 'em. Is that what I'm hearing here? What's your explanation?

 

[SummaScriptura]

No, the other way around. Genesis 6 is referenced by Enoch. There was no Enoch to reference at the time Genesis was written.

That is a statement of faith on your part, just as if someone were to say Moses had the Book of Enoch is a statement of faith. No one was there so we're basing our beliefs on information that does not prove either conclusion.

But I suppose that's a wink to say that thee possibility exists that Genesis was referencing Enoch and not the other way around.

All that would be fine, but has anyone answered for me why the Jews did not accept Enoch into their canon knowing that it was written by Enoch?

I do not think there is unanimous opinion on how the Jewish canon developed. There are those who beleive the canon was already developed before the time of Christ. Personally, I feel that idea is seriously flawed. The picture I get is the Jews had not finalized the canon until after Christ at which time books were dropped in much the same way as occurred for the Church in the 4th century AD.

But also like the Church, the picture I get is there were multiple centers of canonical developement in world Jewry, Alexandria, Babylon and Jerusalem. I think the Jews in the Land before the destruction of the Temple accepted Enoch as holy writ.

Are you aware that scholarship on the scrolls found in the Dead Sea is tossing out the past theories posed that said the scrolls were the unique product of a sect of Essenes? Scholarship is rather moving in the following direction, 1. Qumran was not a religious settlement, 2. The scrolls in the caves were gathered from around Jerusalem and hidden there to protect them from the Romans in between the sieges of Jerusalem about 68 AD. Therefore, the DSS do not represent a narrow sliver of Judaism in the 1st c. but rahter a cross-section of jewish literature of the time.

So, the scrolls are religious, there are no secular records in the caves. Great care was expended to preserve not only Isaiah, but also Enoch.

Fact is, DSS studies are in their infancy. For 40 years a few old clerics had a monopoly on the scrolls we're talking about and controlled what theories were floated as to the scrolls' origin and purpose. Already, the picture that is emerging is that 1st century Judaism is not at all like impression we'd been given. There was a lot more going on of fundamantal importance than anyone expected.

This appears to have been Augustine's objection too. They did not ever have any compelling reason to believe it was written by Enoch - that or they absolutely had no knowledge of it because it did not exists until 200 BC.

I'm learning a lot. Please help me meet these objections.

Augustine's objection was multifaceted. He said it was not a part of the Jewish canon, (the one he knew of), that the book was too old to verify(!), and that angels could not do the things Enoch's book says they did. On all counts Augustine seems to have been wrong, to me.

About Genesis 6, for more than 30 years, I had always observed and had often discussed with others what seems to be a characteristic of the section of Genesis to which it belongs.

What I have often thought was Genesis 1-11, seems to ahve a composite nature; in other words, Moses seems to be referring to older works from which he derives excerpts which he epitomizes in short pithy summaries of critical juctures in salvation history. The Book of Enoch seems to be a likely candidate in this regard as one of Moses' sources.

Do you know where the theory the Book of Enoch's authorship is from the 3rd century B.C comes from? It comes from the fact the parchments upon which it is written are aged to then! That's wild! I guess Isaiah is also 3rd c. BC, because the oldest copies have been dated to then. The same people who say Isaiah was not written by Isaiah are those who late date Enoch and late-date all the other books! Do you know what they were saying before the DSS were discovered, it was the prevalent theory of scholars that the book was produced late in the Christian era.

Let me challenge you in this regard, where, oh where, internal to the Book of Enoch (rather than secondary sources) can you find anything that would palce its authorship to the 3rd century BC? The book's terminology seems truly ancient. There are no Mosaic references in it. Sabbath observance is nowhere enjoined.

There are some place names that are clearly later, but one also finds with the Hebrew scriptures where later copyists updateed place names, that's all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case you missed it:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48666105&postcount=116

 

[jamescarvin]

That is a statement of faith on your part... There are no Mosaic references in it. Sabbath observance is nowhere enjoined.

There are some place names that are clearly later, but one also finds with the Hebrew scriptures where later copyists updateed place names, that's all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In case you missed it:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=48666105&postcount=116

Thank you for that. I am growing in my opinion that 1 Enoch may be inspired and written by Enoch or a Noaic compiler set, but withhold judgment mostly pending a forthcoming study of the internal evidence of each of the extant documents.

I think I should point out that this thread started out as a question about the Nephilim. Then the topic shifted to Enoch, which is appropriate, given that the overarching Forum is Biblical Archeology and that brings us to Qumran, but did throw me off a little bit at first. As it seemed to me, rather suddenly someone posted some text from a book, which I was expected to have read. I came here to learn - not impose my ideas. And you have been very helpul. Your explanation is also quite good as I see it.

I do agree that the canonization process was more lucid both among Christian and Jewish communities and the notion that the DSS were a deliberate place for storing and preserving precious writings in times of persecution makes very good sense to me. Further, the dating of the papyri and the composition of the original works do not require simultanaity. Quite the contrary, normally works written specifically with the intention of preservation are preserved because of a preconceived value by more than one individual. After all, writing on animal skins is expensive and very time consuming. If Qumran is still a mystery, it was still not a writer's guild. That much I believe.

I have also always held the view that prophecy was not absent after Malachi as the Reformers hold as they exclude portions of the LXX to stick dogmatically with Jamnia and Jerome. The picture I am getting here is that true prophets became aware of a pending persecution and took time to copy their most sacred texts into a form that would last. It wasn't a random act during the fires of persecution itself, but one that was immersed in proximity to YHWH that looked ahead and knew to take precautions, much as it took time for Noah to build an ark.

That is the picture. I am not saying that is my conclusion. What I want to know is whether that picture is what the scholars you are referring to seem to be indicating, or whether what you are saying is that they have some compelling reason to believe these documents were more suddenly collected from around town, tossed into some jars and hidden in the caves.

In your opinion, from what you have read, which picture best fits the evidence?

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>I have also always held the view that prophecy was not absent after Malachi as the Reformers hold as they exclude portions of the LXX to stick dogmatically with Jamnia and Jerome.<snip>

I agree, but not so's I can let TBOE in.

If the Jews really believed prophecy was done, why would the High Priest prophecy as we are told he did in the gospel?

I'm in a bit of a rush this morning and will come back to the other issues you raised later today...

Take care.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>I have also always held the view that prophecy was not absent after Malachi as the Reformers hold as they exclude portions of the LXX to stick dogmatically with Jamnia and Jerome. The picture I am getting here is that true prophets became aware of a pending persecution and took time to copy their most sacred texts into a form that would last. It wasn't a random act during the fires of persecution itself, but one that was immersed in proximity to YHWH that looked ahead and knew to take precautions, much as it took time for Noah to build an ark.

That is the picture. I am not saying that is my conclusion. What I want to know is whether that picture is what the scholars you are referring to seem to be indicating, or whether what you are saying is that they have some compelling reason to believe these documents were more suddenly collected from around town, tossed into some jars and hidden in the caves.

In your opinion, from what you have read, which picture best fits the evidence?

I'm not entirely certain I understand the question you're posing. Scholars like to late-date all the books of the Bible it seems.

Here's how I see this practice... scholar x reads the Torah and sees where Moses predicts the Diaspora. The earliest Diaspora began in the 8th century B.C. and culminated with the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th, therefore scholar x places the "final form" of the Torah as sometime AFTER the Babylonian Captivity probably under the leadership of Ezra. This is because to schloar x, the idea that Moses some 4 to 7 centuries earlier could have written about the Diaspora by prophetic utterance is not acceptable so its possibility is not even to be considered. In the eyes of scholar x, the "prophecy" concerning the Diaspora and the regathering means the final form of the document was written after the return from Babylon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the DSS...

During the persecution of the Jews in their land under Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century B.C., there were incidents wherein the invaders defecated upon and had sex upon the scrolls of scripture while priests and people looked on. Destroying a scroll while the people looked on who had taken so much time and love to produce them became a form of persecution during that era. Adopting the practice of hiding scrolls from invaders can logically be assumed after that time.

The first seige of Jerusalem under Vespasian was abondoned for a period of 34 months during which time it can be surmised the Jews took advantage of the window of opportunity that presented itself to prepare themselves for the return of the Romans which occured in 70 A.D under the leadership of Titus.

The Qumran "community" is being redefined not as a religious community, but rather as an outpost in the desert. The graves of females buried there and the lack of sufficient numbers of inkwells at Qumran are a couple facts which seem to mitigate against the Essene hypothesis.

Personally, I think the writing of and preserving of texts among the Jews was in practice during the time of the patriarchs. I think the latter chapters of Genesis may be Mosaic redactions of more elaborate histories recorded on scrolls and passed down by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and others. I'm not big on orally preserved histories. To me oral histories are too unreliable for the perservation of salvation history.

 

[murjahel]

​

Some of the other books mentioned in the Bible, mention the nephilim. Enoch is one of them, that mentions these part angel, part human beings.

All of us have read books other than the Bible, most of us have probably read newspapers, and the fact that you are here shows you are reading web sites, ...

so to criticize Enoch's book due to its not being in the Bible is far from sufficient arguement.

Does it agree with the Bible is first decision... For that is how you are judging books by Billy Graham, and others today...

Many books are mentioned, or quoted, in the Bible which are not included in our Bible. These books include:

Book of Nathan​

II Chronicles 9:29​

Prophecy of Ahijah, the Shilonite​

II Chronicles 9:29​

Visions of Iddo, the Seer​

II Chronicles 9:29​

Book of Jehu​

II Chronicles 20:34​

Apocalypse of Isaiah​

​

​

II Chronicles 26:22, 32:32​

Book of Jasher​

II Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13​

Book of Gad​

I Chronicles 29:29​

Book of Shemaiah, the Prophet​

II Chronicles 12:15​

Book of the Wars of the Lord​

Numbers 21:14​

Book of Enoch​

Jude 14-15​

Testament of Moses​

​

​

Jude 9-10​

God did not have these books included in our canon of the Bible, but He allowed them to be honored by being mentioned, and parts of them included within the Bible.


In Jude 14-15, Jude quotes from ‘The Book of Enoch", and tells us of Enoch’s prophetic message of the Lord’s second coming. I was intrigued by that quote, and began a search, some years back, for a copy of such book. If the early church read and enjoyed this book by Enoch, and God had Jude quote some of it into the Bible, then I too wanted to read that book.


Soon, I learned that there were three books that purported to be ‘The Book of Enoch’. It was not uncommon in certain times for people to falsely claim their own writings to be written by one of the prophets.


One book that I found is now entitled Enoch III, and it did not have the quote in it that Jude used. It was an obvious fake.

Another book called ‘Enoch II’ also lacked such quote, and seemed to me to be a summary of other works. I consider it also to be a fake, a pseudo-pigrapha.


"Enoch I’ did have the quote, and over a period of seven years, I researched and studied this book. I was unable to find any fact that contradicts the Bible within it. The oldest manuscripts date to 200 to 300 years before Christ’s first coming, and yet, the book contains concepts not understood until the Christian era. Enoch’s description of the coming Messiah sound as though they were written by someone in the Christian era.


The book is found in many historical cultures, in the Dead Sea scrolls we find 17 copies, and we find it quoted in the early church writings, we find it is known in the O.T. period, and some writers of the O.T. show familiarity with it and its message.

For this reason, the early church, after the resurrection of Jesus, used the Book of Enoch very effectively in showing the Jewish people that Jesus did fit the role prophesied for the Messiah. The Jewish people lost interest in the Book of Enoch, because so many had converted to Christianity due to its influence.


A historical council of the Jewish faith, in Jamnia, in 90 A.D., fixed the canon of their Scriptures for the Jews. This followed the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. That event, and the inroads of Christianity converting many Jewish people to Jesus, made them exclude the Book of Enoch from their canon.


Quotations of Enoch’s book in the ‘Testaments of the Patriarchs’, and in the ‘Book of Jubilees’ show that the Book of Enoch had been considered inspired in 200 B.C.

Jude quotes it in the first century showing his belief in its authenticity. Barnabus, in a book written in that same era also quoted it. The early church, in its first 300 years, quoted it often, and often preached from its text.


Jude was one who heard Jessu expound from 'all the prophets' the things that concerned Him, and if He had not expounded from Enoch, then Jude would not have considered Enoch to be one of the prophets who spoke of Jesus...

The early church referred to the Book of Enoch.

Jude vv. 14-15
Barnabas 4:3, 16:15
Clement of Alexander
Origen
Tertullian
Anatolus of Laodicea
Ireneas
and Justin Martyr​

all referred to the Book of Enoch as inspired.


Obviously, from the Dead Sea scrolls, and the copies in Ethiopia, we find that they are the same book, and therefore the book referred to by Jude and the early church.

Nearly all the writers of the New Testament show they were familiar with the Book of Enoch, and were favorably influenced by it.


Yet, around the fourth century, after the book being given acceptance for centuries, a major part of the church removed the book, and added some ‘apocryphal’ books to the canon. It was due to the efforts of Jerome and Augustine that the Book of Enoch was rejected. They objected to it because of the story of the angels who co-habited with women in the days preceding and following the flood. This is recorded in the current canon also, but Enoch gave much more detail of such events, and Jerome and Augustine were not agreeable to its obvious and undeniable details. The current canon of the Bible is vague enough, that some today can still resist the acceptance of the race of giants that came from such improper union.


Jerome and Augustine failed in getting the council to vote that Enoch was uninspired... so they forced a vote to make the council to choose between the book of Revelation, and the Book of Enoch. The council voted for the book of Revelation. This is like having to choose between the gospels written by Matthew and Luke. The Book of Enoch was omitted entirely from the canon, and hidden away in the vatican library.


The Book of Enoch passed out of circulation, and later, when the Protestant reform came, the book was lost, and unable to be replaced in the canon. There were a few isolated areas, where the Catholic church never had control, that the book continued to be included in the canon of the Scriptures.


In 1768, James Bruce located a copy of the Book of Enoch in Ethiopia, and brought it back to England. In Ethiopia, the Coptic, and Abyssinian church has always accepted the book as inspired Scripture. They had protected it down through the ages. Though it had been lost to most of the Christian world for many centuries, it was still preserved there.


Fifty years after James Bruce brought it to England, Richard Laurence made a first modern translation. Later, R.H. Charles made another translation using some Greek excerpts, and more Ethiopian texts. Then recently, Michael A Knibb, using many texts, and partial texts, put together an ‘adequate’ translation.

Yet, all of these translations are rough, obscure, and confusing. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained many copies and partial copies of the Book of Enoch, second only to copies found of Isaiah book.

The Book of Enoch has much to say to the Christian community. A revival of interest in the book at the time of Jesus’ first coming aided greatly in the revival days of the early church. A revival of interest in the same book is occurring in these last days before the second coming of Jesus.


As you read the translation of your choice, mine or one of the former ones, you will find many ideas, concepts, and assumptions that the Christian community has, will be challenged. As an end result, you will find, I believe, that Enoch does not contradict any of the Word of God, but rather it confirms, explains, and stirs fresh interest in understanding the Bible.

Endless redition of all the ideas out there, is fine, if you choose to do it. There are countless challenges and attacks on Enoch, just as there is for the Bible. Many of the same ones who deny that Isaiah is a real legit book written by Isaiah, will attack Enoch. I have studied their attacks and found them errant in mission and fact.

Today, we have many authors, each writing books which the Christian community enjoys. Their books are not included in our canon of the Bible, but are enjoyed and honored in the degree to which they adhere to Biblical dogma. Those books by Christian authors are honored if we decide them to be Biblical, though they are not books contained in our canon. In the same way, we should honor books written in former eras, by men of God, if we find them to be Biblical. Therefore, test this Book of Enoch, by the Word of God, and if you find it to be Scriptural and true by such test, enjoy it.


Enoch’s first ministry was to a pre-flood judgment period.. He was raptured to heaven, as was Elijah, and will soon return to the days just preceding the second coming of Jesus. He will resume his prophetic ministry, along with Elijah, as one of the two witnesses of the tribulation period. Enoch was one of the first great prophets, and he will be also one of the last of the prophets.


Be prepared to be shocked, but test the message of Enoch, as the church at Berea tested the words of Paul the apostle. Search the Scriptures, and examine this Book of Enoch.

The subject of this thread is on the nephilim (part human part angel) beings... Enoch gives very clear description of how the angels came to earth, naming their leaders, how God objected to what they did here, the juegment that came on them.

It is quite important to understand the facts shown there, adn the N.T. and O.T. of the Bible confirm the angelic sins, and judgment to come on them for this sin. The flood of Noah's time was only the beginning of that judgment, and there is still more to come.

Enoch's book is oft attacked by some who would like the story of nephillim to have a different teaching... and the discussion of the nephilim needs accurate history to be of use in our time, to aid in our current work for the Lord, we need to understand properly the history of some of the enemy we are still battling in various ways today.

 

[murjahel]

One of the most interesting of vss in Enoch is 1:9 "For He will come with thousands of thousands of holy ones to execute His judgment, to destroy the wicked and ungodly, to execute vengeance for what the ungodly have said and done against Him."​

​

Jude 14-15 is a quote from the book written by Enoch.
"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which the ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.'"

This "Book of Enoch" was known to the early church. Not only did Jude quote from it(showing not only his validation of the book, but also that God validated it by including it into the Holy Word); but Origen and Tertullian and others in the early church mentioned this book by name.
For many centuries this book of Enoch was read and enjoyed; and now in these last days we can once again read the book Enoch wrote and the early church found most fascinating.

Enoch is one of the "two witnesses" mentioned in the Bible.


Revelation 11:3-12
"And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy 1260 days clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
And if any man will hurt them, fire proceeds out of their mouths and devours their enemies; and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all their plagues, so often as they will. And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the streets of that great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified. And they of the people, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations shall see their dead bodies 3 1/2 days and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and shall make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth. And after 3 1/2 days the Spirit of Life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet and great fear fell upon them who saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, 'Come up hither.' And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud and their enemies beheld them."


In the book of Zechariah of the Old Testament, these same two witnesses are seen:

Zechariah 4:11-14
"Then answered I, and said unto him, 'What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candle-stick and upon the left side thereof?' And I again and said unto him, 'What be these two olive branches which through the golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?'
And he answered me and said, 'Knowest thou not what these be?'
And I said, 'These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.'"


Nicodemus wrote a book that the early church enjoyed. Though it was not included in the Bible, it is a wonderful book.


In Nicodemus 20:2-4, we are told:
"Two very ancient men met them and were asked by the saints, 'Who are ye, who have not been with us in sheol, and have not had your bodies placed in paradise?'
One of them, answering said, 'I am Enoch. who was translated by the word of God, and this man who is with me, is Elijah, the Tishbite, who was translated in a fiery chariot.
Here we have hitherto been and have not tasted death, but are now about to return at the coming of the Antichrist, being armed with divine signs and miracles to engage with him in battle, and to be slain by him at Jerusalem and to be taken up alive again in the clouds after 3 1/2 days.'"


In "The Book of Enoch", Enoch describes the rapture of Elijah:

Enoch 90:31
"These three angels who had taken me up, also brought the ram (Elijah) who had come up to me; and put us in the middle of the sheep during the judgment time."

Enoch had seen Elijah as the "ram" in Enoch 89:52:
"One of them (rams) was not killed - but the Lord of the sheep saved it and brought it up to stay with me."
This "ram" was called his "son" since Elijah was a descendant of Enoch.

Enoch 105:2
"I and my son will join ourselves with these of the last days, and peace will come... Rejoice, you that are upright. AMEN."
​

Enoch prophesied long ago about his coming ministry. His book contains not only historical information, but also prophesied much about the last days.

The devil has attacked the book down through the ages...

There is much info in the book concerning the nephilim that we are discussing here. I will relate some of it...​

 

[murjahel]

There were several rebellions
of angels,
and several of these rebellions, at least, resulted in nephilim ...

Enoch 6:1 "As the sons of men multiplied upon the earth, fair and beautiful daughters were born.
6:2 The angels of heaven saw and desired them. They encouraged each other to "Come, let us take these daughters of men to beget children for us."
6:3 Semyaza, their leader, said, "If you do this deed, I alone will have to answer to God for it."
6:4 They all answered him and said, "Let us equally take any blame for this, and then carry out our plan."
6:5 They bound each other to curses to carry out their plan, and share blame for their actions."​

​

6:2 Some of the angels of heaven fell into sin, sins of fornication.
See Enoch 106:4, Genesis 6:1-4, II Peter 2:4, Jude 6-7, and I Peter 3:19.


Josephus, Antiq. Book V. ch. 2 it says:
"Many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust and despisers of all that was good... these men did what resembled the acts of those the Grecians called 'giants'."


The Ante-Nicene fathers refer to angels as falling "into impure love of virgins... and were begotten those who are called 'giants."' (Vol. 2, page 142, and vol. 8, pages 85, 273.


Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) says "But the angels transgressed... and begat children." (Vol. 2, page 190)​

​

Enoch 6:6 "The number that came down to earth to do this was more than 200. They arrived on earth at the summit of Mt. Hermon. They called this mountain Hermon, because it was there they bound one another to the sacred curses."​

6:6 ‘more than 200'
The number was actually 227.
There was Semyaza, 20 leaders of ten, 2 leaders of 100, and 4 leaders of 50, and the 200. This makes a total of 227.

These would end up in the abyss. There were already 7 there, when Enoch was first shown that place.
Enoch 21:3 "Seven fallen angels were already bound in that place."

Enoch 18:13
"There I saw a terrible thing, seven large burning masses, and I questioned in my mind about this place."

These seven were bound in the initial rebellion of Lucifer, and are released in Revelation 8:1. Revelation 8 & 9 show the future actions of these bound till that time. "Wormwood, Star, and Abaddon, and 4 bound in the Euphrates for a while, are there now, but soon to be freed. They are so evil, that until the Lord wants to allow that evil to happen, they are bound.

6:6 The name of Mt. Hermon means "sacred mountain.".
This is the second known fall of angels. Lucifer led the first rebellion, and the whole creation that he was to lead in worship to God, instead rebelled, and worshiped him instead.

Semyaza led the second rebellion.

There is a third rebellion after the flood, where some angels did again commit fornication with women of the earth.

In the O.T. and N.T., the existence of angels is assumed, not debated.

Angels were created.
Psalms 148:5
"...for He commanded, and they were created."
Colossians 1:16
"For by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible, and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by Him and for Him."

These angels were already created by the time of the creation of the earth.
Job 38:6-7
"Who laid the cornerstone thereof. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."

Lucifer was the first to sin and rebel.

Semyaza was the second rebellion.

After the flood, there is a third rebellion (Genesis 6:1).

So the total number of rebellions of the angels, is unknown.

The fall of the angels here, is recorded in the Word.

Geneis 6:1-4
"...the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair... took them wives... there were giants... when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men."

II Peter 2:4
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus), and delivered them into the chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment."

Jude 6
"For the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

​

 

[murjahel]

The sin of angels, that resulted in the nephilim...

Enoch 7:1 They each chose a woman, and were defiled with them. They taught charms, spells, and the making of medicines and ointments.

7:2 The women became pregnant and bore large giants who were extremely tall. The angels begot giants; the giants begot Nephilim; and the Nephilim begot Elioud.

7:3 These devoured all that men could grow, until there was not enough to sustain them.

7:4 The giants then began to devour men.

7:5 Then they began to devour all kinds of birds, animals, reptiles, fish, and finally each other's flesh, and even drank blood.

7:6 The earth regretted these evil ones.
​

​

7:2 The word for ‘giants’ is Raphah =
"a giant" (same as Rephaim)

The word Nephil means "a giant, a bully, a tyrant" (indicating a downward level in character)

Elioud means "repeated, duplicated by God"​

The last group shows repeated degenerating. The second law of thermodynamics says that everything progresses toward entropy, i.e. it runs down, degenerates, becomes more disordered.

For instance, cars rust, all life forms die, mutations always prove harmful, not beneficial.

7:3-6 This shows that from lust for the women, they went to cannibalism. Sin increases its grip, brings more and more degeneration to its victims. Sins grow stronger and worse, as they are tolerated and condoned. People get more and more evil, if they allow sin in their persons.
​

Enoch 8:1 Azazel taught men to make weapons, jewelry, and the art of using and making makeup.

8:2 This learning led to more ungodliness and fornication. Mankind went astray and their ways became more ungodly. The world became much different from how God intended.

8:3 Amezarak taught spells and cut roots. Armaros taught the release of spells. Baragiel and Kokabel and Tamiel taught astrology. Asradel taught the orbit of the moon.

8:4 Men began to decrease on the earth. The cries of these men reached heaven.


9:1 Michael, Gabriel, Suriel and Uriel observed from heaven and saw the murders of mankind and ungodliness on the earth.​

9:1 "Suriel" The root word is the Hebrew word ‘soor’combined with ‘El’ (a name for the Almighty God) meaning "the God Who turns off the curse.’

This is another of the names of Raphael, which means ‘the God Who heals’. So, the God Who turns off the curse, is also therefore, the God Who heals.

The naming of these three archangels here, shows us that angels of God are organized.

God has archangels that direct others.

Likewise, the spirit powers of Satan are also shown to consist of "principalities, powers, rulers of darkness of this world, spirit wicked ones in the heavenlies." (Eph. 6:12)

Enoch tells us the fallen angels have leaders of tens, fifties, and hundreds.

From the Bible we learn of two archangels, Michael, Gabriel.
A third angel, Lucifer, left his position and rebelled.

The names of other angels are given in the Bible, but sometimes, the translators were hesitant to translate the word as a name.

The sin of these fallen angels, involved bearing children with women of earth. The resulting nephilim
had several forms... and some of them, as inbreeding continued, were degenerated forms...

The former writing posted by Ajax, showed the part about 'bigfoot' being one of those degenerated forms of nephilim...​

 

[SummaScriptura]

Here is a fully HTML-enabled online version of Enoch.

http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm

This version corrects a few problems you may notice with other online copies...

You may discover in your studies of Enoch there are three public domain translations of the Book. One by Laurence, one by Schodde and the most common by Charles.

To complicate matters, none of the three translators utilized the same system of versification exactly. The most oddly numbered being the translation of Laurence. Laurence's version is so different because he re-ordered the text the way he thought it "should have been" in its original form. I have known people who came to think there are actually different versions of the The Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch) becasue when they attempt to look up a verse in one translation using the versification system from another the searched-for verse cannot be found. :o

Additionally, the Charles version online can be found with two slightly different versification systems! One divides the verses in logical locations the other in very odd illogical places.

I have corrected this problem in the above-referenced online version. The verses and chapters are where Charles intended them to be.

Since I started studying Enoch I thought what the book needs is all the same tools the books of the Bible has at its disposal, so, I made an online version of Enoch wherein every chapter and verse are linkable through internal HTML anchors.

Here's how you may cite and link to chapters and verses in this version. If you wish to send a link to a chapter, use the following convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#20

You see, the # sign tells the web browser to look for an internal link, the "20" tells the web browser the internal link name is "20" as in chapter 20. The above-referenced link will bring up chapter 20 in Enoch.

If you wish to send a link to a particlular verse, use the following convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#69:26
#69:26 after the regular URL tells the web browser to go to verse 26 in chapter 69 of Enoch.

Feel free to cite and link to this document. That is what it is for.

In addition, I hope the font size and layout makes the content more readable. I have set the book of Enoch to paragraph formatting much the same as you might see in a novel. This should help the reader to understand the relevant divisions and sections in the book.

Enjoy!

 

[murjahel]

The mss we translate from
do not have chapt and vs
divisions...

if you were transported back
to the first century,
and bumped into Paul and asked
him about Romans 8:26,
he would wonder what in the world
you were talking about..

mankind has added those things for
convenience to the Bible,
and to the book of Enoch too...

sometimes whole sections are
out of order in Enoch,
esp the sections where the
ten weeks are discussed...

in my translation,
I have rearranged that obvious
misarrangement...

I left the vss system numbers
as used by Charles,
so people can tell the order it was
found in, but to have several end weeks
described far before the first weeks
is very confusing..

and is a result of someone misarranging
the scrolls,
and some poor soul who was putting the
chapt and vs addition to them,
not reading before numbering...

I was tempted to completely renumber
the book....
it is very confusing the way
chapt and vss are done...

I think a first grader did the original
numbering...
oh, sorry, that was an insult to
first graders...
did not mean to offend any...
LOL
​

 

[SummaScriptura]

The mss we translate from
do not have chapt and vs
divisions...​

if you were transported back
to the first century,
and bumped into Paul and asked
him about Romans 8:26,
he would wonder what in the world
you were talking about..​

mankind has added those things for
convenience to the Bible,
and to the book of Enoch too...​

sometimes whole sections are
out of order in Enoch,
esp the sections where the
ten weeks are discussed...​

in my translation,
I have rearranged that obvious
misarrangement...​

I left the vss system numbers
as used by Charles,
so people can tell the order it was
found in, but to have several end weeks
described far before the first weeks
is very confusing..​

and is a result of someone misarranging
the scrolls,
and some poor soul who was putting the
chapt and vs addition to them,
not reading before numbering...​

I was tempted to completely renumber
the book....
it is very confusing the way
chapt and vss are done...​

I think a first grader did the original
numbering...
oh, sorry, that was an insult to
first graders...
did not mean to offend any...
LOL​

Yes, the verse numbering in Enoch at times is odd. Many chapters are 1 verse, other chapters are huge. Some parts of the Bible are divided up oddly as well. But the versification of the books has become a great boon to mankind. Chapter and verses divisions are an invaluable help in comparing notes, preparing topical studies, and quoting and citing in such a way that readers can verify our conclusions for themselves. To change or "correct" the versification of Enoch at this point in history would create additional unecessary confusion, I believe.

 

[jamescarvin]

The early church, in its first 300 years, quoted it often, and often preached from its text.


Jude was one who heard Jessu expound from 'all the prophets' the things that concerned Him, and if He had not expounded from Enoch, then Jude would not have considered Enoch to be one of the prophets who spoke of Jesus...

The early church referred to the Book of Enoch.

Jude vv. 14-15
Barnabas 4:3, 16:15
Clement of Alexander
Origen
Tertullian
Anatolus of Laodicea
Ireneas
and Justin Martyr​

all referred to the Book of Enoch as inspired.


Obviously, from the Dead Sea scrolls, and the copies in Ethiopia, we find that they are the same book, and therefore the book referred to by Jude and the early church.

Nearly all the writers of the New Testament show they were familiar with the Book of Enoch, and were favorably influenced by it.

Murjahel, I received a copy of your book yesterday and look forward to reading it.

I still have some questions unanswered. Maybe you can help.

1. You have said that Jerome and Augustine had a council? Which council was that? Are there any acts of this council? I have been pouring through all of the Councils - Hippo/Carthagenian and do not see any reference to a discussion where there is a toss up between Revelation/Enoch. Maybe some guidance woul speed my search?

2. You said that the early church during its first 300 years quoted Enoch "often." I have all of the writings of the early church here and posted my all of the references I could find and opions of the early fathers regarding Enoch's canonicity. Barnabas and Tertullian seem to be the only fathers who actually endorsed the book. I would like to get to the heart of this but again I need some guidance as it is like looking for a needle in a haystack. My findings are posted at http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48516708#post48516708

3. You say that "nearly all the NT writers were familiar with the book of Enoch and favorably infulenced by it." I have seen this in Jude. But I don't see it in the other NT writers. What are you referring to?

Thank you for your help!

 

[murjahel]

and do not see any reference to a discussion where there is a toss up between Revelation/Enoch. Maybe some guidance woul speed my search?

!

It is difficult to find details of
those councils...
much of the details are found in writings
of some of the attendees later about it...​

purposely, details were not written
in council writings...​

as for this one,
let me quote
Charles F. Potter
in "Liberty" magazine
of Dec 7, 1935​

"...it was long debated which
to include in the canon,
the Book of Revelation,
or the Book of Enoch,
which had been accepted as Scriptures by Jesus and Paul,
and the whole Christian church for several
centuries.
Revelation finally won out,
and became the last book of the Bible."​

The details of that debate are scattered
in the Greek, latin, writings of the church
at that time...
so it is hard to piecemeal them,
and would take some digging,
and re-translating on my part...​

but this alone should show that I am
not inventing a new idea,
and it is known by those who delve
into early church writings of this debate
over Rev. and Enoch...​

both were voted to be
'Scripture'...​

 

[murjahel]

3. You say that "nearly all the NT writers were familiar with the book of Enoch and favorably infulenced by it." I have seen this in Jude. But I don't see it in the other NT writers. What are you referring to?

Thank you for your help!

Of course there is "Jude' vss 6, 14-15​

then
John in Rev speaks of the 'two beasts'
and barely describes them,
for everyone of that day was familiar with Enoch's
explanation of two beasts to come...​

after you read Enoch
then read Rev.
2:7 the tree of life
4:6 the 'four living creatures'
7:1 angels of winds
14:9-10 tormented in the presence of the holy angels​

Paul refers to the various classes
of angels in Eph, Romans, Colossians​

Paul talks of the 'children of light', John speaks of the 'sons of light'
as does Enoch the generation of light (108:11)​

Luke calls Jesus the ''Righteous One'
as Enoch calls Him 'The Righteous and Elect One' (53:6)​

writer of Hebrews
talks of the translation of Enoch​

the list can go on and on...
this is attested to by most writers about Enoch...
check R.H. Charles notes on Enoch,
check Charlesworth notes, etc...
the list is far too long for here....​

after you get into my book
you will note that beinga commentary,
it is comparing the Bible with Enoch...​

and since Enoch predates the N.T. by far,
he was not quoting them,
they were quoting him...​

 

[murjahel]

2. You said that the early church during its first 300 years quoted Enoch "often." I have all of the writings of the early church here and posted my all of the references I could find and opions of the early fathers regarding Enoch's canonicity. Barnabas and Tertullian seem to be the only fathers who actually endorsed the book.
Thank you for your help!

check the Epistle of Barnabas (before 70 AD)
16:4 where he quotes Enoch 89:56​

Justin Martyr in
Apol 2:5 quotes Enoch 9:8-9 and 14:8-9​

Tatius (AD 160)
in Oratio adv Graecos8:2- quotes Enoch
8:3, 6:6, 14:8-9​

the list can go on with
Athenogoras,
Minucius felix,
Ireneas,
Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria,
Julius Africanus,
Origen,
Cyprian,
Hippolytus,
and many more...​

the two you found were two who spoke
out defending Enoch,
most did not feel the need to defend him then,
it was generally accepted that his book
was Scripture, so they just quoted it...​

I do not feel the need to defend John everytime
I quote from his gospel...
I just quote him...​

You see, the attacks on Enoch
are based on minute information of
an uninformed constituency...​

read the book of Enoch...
it will answer many questions....​

I do not need to defend on the partial
information that some reader's digest kind of
commentary has ...

religious writers have put
out skimpy info for this generation,.
regarding church history...
...​

if you read the writings of the early church,
they are full of quotes of Enoch,
refer to him oft,
preached from his book...​

two or three references is all most so called
'scholars' can find,
for most of them have not read writings of the
early church themselves...
and read what others who have not decided...​

 

[murjahel]

the posts a few back
are regarding the 'nephilim;
and what Enoch had to say about them...

this thread was started to talk about
the nephilim,
and yet, all want to discuss 'Enoch'...
who is not the main subject,
just one of the referring ones to the
nephilim...

I will leave now,
so the discussion can get back to the
nephilim...

I posted some of the main points in Enoch
about them...
so... that was meant to be my contribution,
I do not mean to be a distraction to the
main discussion...

carry on​

 

[SummaScriptura]

Scanned from here, but not proof-read:

​

6.3. Early Christianity
Among twentieth-century Christians, only the Ethiopian Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the Enochic writings to be authoritative.60 Otherwise, to the extent they are even known, they are viewed at best as a curiosity. The situation was altogether different in the early centuries of the Common Era. Because the early church arose in the circles of apocalyptic Judaism, the Enochic texts and traditions were known and significantly influenced early Christian thought. Sometimes the knowledge of specific texts was direct; in other cases influence was indirect. Enochic ideas about the Chosen One/Son of Man left their mark on first-century Christian escha-tology and christology. In the following two centuries various sectors of the Western church and their intellectual leaders alternatively embraced and distanced themselves from the Enochic tradition. Tertullian and Origen, in particular, turned to the primordial prophet as an authority to undergird their teaching. In time, however, the fortune of the Enochic traditions waned in catholic Christianity under the influence of Augustine, the church's increasing proclivity for philosophical theology, and the widespread use of the texts in heretical circles.

Two articles by H. J. Lawlor and James VanderKam&#8212; separated from one another by almost a century&#8212;have provided comprehensive treatments of the Christian usage of 1 Enoch.61 Editions of 1 Enoch since 1897 have mainly taken over Lawlor's list, prefacing it with a list of Jewish and NT texts that contain motifs or expressions found in 1 Enoch.62 In the present discussion of early Christian texts I confine my treatment of NT texts primarily to passages about the Son of Man, which are dependent on the tradition in the Book of Parables. I have written independently of VanderKam's article and drew most of my post-NT citations citations from Lawlor's article. The major additions to his compendious list come from the Nag Hammadi codices, unknown in 1897, and from Ethiopian sources, which Western editions of the book have almost uniformly ignored. The texts that I discuss include: quotations of 1 Enoch, whether or not the text identifies the Enochic source; material that derives ultimately from 1 Enoch, although this source is not identified; explicit references to Enochic writings that cannot be certainly located; passages that may depend on 1 Enoch. In addition to sketching a picture of the extent to which 1 Enoch and Enochic material was known and the regard and disregard in which it was held, in this section I consider the specific ways in which Christian authors used the Enochic materials.

6.3.1. New Testament and Early Gospel Tradition
Although Jude 14-15 is the only NT quotation of 1 Enoch, the influence of traditions from this collection is widespread. Most pervasive are the Son of Man chris-tologies that have influenced the Synoptic Gospels and their sources, the Fourth Gospel, the Pauline epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, perhaps the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Many of these texts attest the conflation of Son of Man, messianic, and Servant traditions that characterized 1 Enoch's portrait of the Chosen One/Son of Man and its recurrence in 4 Ezra.63

6.3.1.1. Early Son of Man Christology
The earliest explicit references to Jesus as Son of Man occur in Mark and in material derived from Q, the hyp( thetical sayings source that Matthew and Luke used along with Mark to create the major part of their Gospels. Mark 13:26 and 14:62 quote Dan 7:14 in their reference to the coming of the Son of Man. But the jud cial function of the Son of Man in these passages and ii Mark 8:38 and its Q parallel (Matt 10:32-331 |Luke 12:8 9) reflects the interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Parables of Enoch rather than simple dependence on Daniel 7, where the one like a son of man is enthroned after the judgment. The connection between 1 Enoch 62-63 anc Mark 8:38 par. is especially close; both portray the Son of Man as the heavenly vindicator of the persecuted righteous. Another indication of the influence of Enochic Son of Man traditions appears in the Q saying in Matt 24:26-27, 37-391 |Luke 17:22-37, where the day of the Son of Man are likened to the days of Noah. Th: typology of flood and final judgment is typical of the Enochic texts in general (see §4.2.4.4) and appears also in the Book of Parables (chaps. 53-57; 60-63).

6.3.1.2. Mark
Mark's christology is a complex conflation of Son of Man traditions and the notion that Jesus is the Son of God. The latter term in Mark denotes Jesus' status as a divine being. The ambiguous term "Son of Man" denotes the human being in whom the Son of God is incarnate but also suggests that this "son of man" will be the "Son of Man" who comes to judge. The two notions merge in 2:12, where "the son of man" already exercises "on earth" the authority that Dan 7:14 anticipates after his exaltation when he has come on the clouds of heaven. Similarly, in Mark 14:62, Jesus warns Caiaphas that he will see this human being as that Son of Man, who will judge him for rejectingjesus' claims to be Son of God and Messiah. The conflation of Son of Man terminology and Servant theology appears in Mark's passion predictions (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33-35, 45).

6.3.1.3. Matthew
Matthew supplemented the Son of Man tradition he received from Mark and Q by recourse to additional Enochic traditions.64 Especially important is the great judgment scene in Matt 25:31-46, which reflects the correspondence between the Chosen One and the chosen ones in 1 Enoch 62-63.65 In Matthew 25 people are judged on the basis of their positive or negative treatment of the Son of Man, which occurs when they respond to "the little ones," whose heavenly vindicator is the Son of Man. The reference to the Son of Man as "king" expresses the traditional conflation of Danielic and royal motifs. Matthew 10:32-33, a form of the saying attested in both Mark (8:38) and Q (cf. Luke 12:8-9), makes explicit the movement from an early tradition in which the Son of Man was to be Jesus' vindicator to the identification of Jesus as Son of Man and hence his own vindicator. This option, which differs from Matthew 25, corresponds more to the form of the tradition in Wisdom 2-5 (see §6.2.7) than its form in 1 Enoch 62-63. In addition to Matthew's use of Enochic Son of Man material, at 22:11-13 the evangelist may reflect knowledge of the Enochic myth of Asael.66

6.3.1.4. Luke-Acts
Although his eschatology seems to tone down the imminent expectation of the parousia in Mark, Luke continues to employ the eschatological Son of Man traditions received from Mark and Q. In one tradition found neither in Mark nor Matthew (Luke 18:1-8), ajudge's response to the plea of an importunate widow is a foil to the coming of the Son of Man, who will vindicate his chosen ones. As both Luke 22:69 and Acts 7:56 indicate, Luke has radicalized eschatology by positing the present, or imminent, heavenly enthronement of the Son of Man (cf. also Matt 26:64 and 28:16, where the risen Christ describes himself in Danielic language about the enthroned son of man). This viewpoint is close to that of the Parables of Enoch, which guarantees the vindication of the righteous and chosen by reporting events that are already taking place in heaven (cf. 1 Enoch 61:8; 62:2; and 49:2, where the son of man stands in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, as he does in Acts 7:56). Another possible connection between Luke and the Parables is Luke's use of the terms "Righteous One" and "Chosen One" with reference to Jesus.67 Finally, in addition to the use of Son of Man traditions, Luke's treatment of the topic of riches, the rich, and God's judgment indicates many similarities to the Epistle of Enoch, and he may well have known that text or read it at one time.68

6.3.1.5 John
John's use of "Son of Man" is integral to his many-faceted portrait of Jesus. The term is usually accompanied by elements familiar from Jewish traditions or the Synoptic Son of Man passages. It is associated with judgment (5:25-29, which echoes Dan 7:14; and John 9:35-39) = and with Jesus' humanity and his death. Most striking &#8226; are his uses of the verbs v\l/6a> (lift up, exalt, 3:13-16; 8:28), which John uses only in conjunction with "Son of Man," and6o£afco (glorify, 12:23-41; 13:31), which he apples to Jesus mainly in connection with his proper name or the term "Son of Man." Both terms denote a I status traditionally ascribed to the Son of Man in the 1 future, but both are also used of the Servant of the Lord in the LXX of Second Isaiah.69 This tendency to make the Son of Man the subject of verbs that Second Isaiah applies to the Servant parallels the Synoptic tradition, especially the passion predications. Thus in his use of the Jewish tradition attested in the Book of Parables and 4 Ezra, John employs the Enochic term "son of man" but with the nuance in Wisdom 2-5 that the exalted one is identical with the persecuted one.

6.3.1.6. The Epistles of Paul
Although the apostle Paul never uses the term "Son of Man" and never calls Jesus "the Chosen One," his statements about Jesus' parousia and his function as eschato-logical judge appear to have been influenced by Synoptic Son of Man christology and thus mediately by the Enochic tradition. His earliest extant epistle, 1 Thes-salonians, is stamped by the expectation of the imminent parousia and a concern that Christians be worthy to stand in Christ's presence (1:10; 2:19-20; 3:13). The description of the parousia in 4:13-18, attributed to "a word of the Lord," is related to the Markan apocalypse's description of the coming of the Son of Man (13:26-27), and 1 Thess 5:1-11 reflects the Q tradition in Matt 24:43-44| |Luke 12:39-40, while 1 Thess 5:17 recalls the conclusion of Luke's prediction of the future (Luke 21:34-36). The description of the parousia in 1 Thessalo-nians 4 is complemented by 1 Cor 15:23-28, which employs language from the royal Psalm 110 and from two biblical texts that speak of the "son of man" (Dan 7:14; Ps 8:6[5]). Psalm 8:6[5] seems to have been applied to the glorified Jesus by association with Daniel 7, and 1 Cor 15:24 reverses language from Dan 7:14, so that the parousia is the moment when Jesus "gives" back to God the "kingdom" that God "gives" to one like a son of man, according to Daniel 7. This happens after Jesus 1 defeated every "rule" and "power" (cf. Dan 7:14), whi< he does in his non-Danielic function as judge. The coi flation of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 mirrors Mark 14:62 and the term "father" (1 Cor 15:24) suggests, in addition, the title "Son of God" (e.g., Mark 8:38). The absence of the term "Son of Man" from the Pauline corpus can be ascribed to the expression's incomprehensibility to Paul's Gentile audience, where Kupi0£ (Lord) was both familiar and suitable to denot Jesus' glorified state. This raises an additional questio about the Aramaic expression Marana tha (Our Lord, come!). Does its reference to the Lord's coming imply Jesus' exaltation and his coming as judge, and do thes notions derive from a Son of Man tradition?

One final possible parallel between Paul and Enoc tradition is in the Animal Vision. In the latter, an escl tological figure is born as a white bull&#8212;as Adam was i this vision's allegory (90:37; cf. 85:1)&#8212;and all humanil is transformed into white bulls (90:30). This soteriolos cal notion parallels Paul's understanding of Jesus as tl second Adam, into whose image all believers (notably the Gentiles) will be transformed.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Scanned from here, but not proof-read:

​

6.3.1.7. Revelation
The best literary analogy to the Johannine Apocalypsi the Enochic Book of Parables. Both texts describe the seer's ascent to heaven (Rev 4:1-2; 1 Enoch 39:3) and record similar throne visions (Rev 4:2-11; 1 Enoch 40: 10), and both are dominated by heavenly and earthly visions of events relating to the judgment. John's knoi edge of Synoptic Son of Man traditions is evident in both Rev 1:7 and 3:3. Moreover, the Apocalypse conflates traditions about the Danielic Son of Man, the Davidic Messiah, and perhaps the Servant of Second Isaiah, thus indicating knowledge of a conflate traditi that parallels that attested in the Parables of Enoch ai the contemporary apocalypse, 4 Ezra (see above, n. 51 Knowledge of another part of 1 Enoch is attested in B 20:1-3, 10, where Satan is locked up in the pit for a thousand years (cf. 1 Enoch 10:12-13), later to be pitched into eternal fiery destruction.70

6.3.1.8. The Epistle of Jude
The author of the Epistle of Jude has an especially close relationship to Enochic and other noncanonical traditions. Verses 14-15 quote 1 Enoch 1:9 verbatim, describing it as a prophecy of Enoch the seventh from Adam. For Jude the epiphanic protagonist in 1 Enoch is identified as "the Lord, " that is, Jesus (cf. vv 17, 25). This identification is paralleled in 1 Enoch 52:6, where the appearance of God in 1:9 is interpreted with reference to the appearance of the Chosen One. In addition, the author knows the story of the watchers' rebellion and incarceration (Jude 6) and employs the tradition as an example of the divine punishment that will befall false teachers in the end time. This concern with false teachers is a feature of the Epistle of Enoch (see comm. on 98:4).71

6.3.1.9. 2 Peter and 1 Peter
Drawing on the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter employs the story of the watchers' rebellion and imprisonment for purposes similar to Jude (2:4-5) and embellishes it with motifs from Greek myth.72
The author of 1 Peter works from an apocalyptic worldview similar to that of 1 Enoch (see §4.1). The eschaton and the final judgment are imminent, and the reader can take comfort in the knowledge that, in spite of present tribulation, heaven holds a reward, as yet unseen, for the righteous (1:3-12). In addition, the author, alluding to the tradition about the watchers, attributes to Jesus a journey to the underworld that parallels Enoch's interaction with the rebel watchers (3:19-20), and compares baptism to the purifying effects of the flood (cf. 10:21).73 With its criticism of braiding hair, decoration of gold, and wearing fine clothing, 1 Pet 3:3 may also reflect the story of the watchers. 1 Enoch 8:1 includes gold ornamentation and dyes among the watchers' forbidden revelations. The ornamentation of hair, mentioned by Tertullian in a treatise heavily influenced by 1 Enoch (see §6.3.2.9), is also mentioned in a Jewish tradition that reflects 1 Enoch (Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 6:2; see above, §6.2.13).
Finally, striking parallels between 1 Peter and 1 Enoch 108 may indicate the Petrine author's knowledge of Enochic traditions (see Excursus: Parallels between 1 Enoch 108 and 1 Peter).

6.3.1.10. The Church as the Eschatological Community of the Chosen Constituted by Revelation
The Enochic authors believed that they were members of the eschatological community of the chosen constituted by revelation (see §4.2.5.7). This revelation, although it was the possession of a select group of Israelites, was to be proclaimed to "all of the sons of the earth," in the hope that they too would be saved at the time of the judgment. The early church was governed by a similar idea. They were the chosen of the end time, commissioned to proclaim to all the Gentiles the eschatological salvation that emanated from Israel. The authority for this mission is tied to a series of epiphanies in which the risen Lord appears for the purpose of commissioning apostles to the Gentiles (Matt 28:16-20; Luke 24; Gal 1:11-17), and the mandate reappears in the apocalyptic review of future history that Jesus recited on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:10 par.).

The parallels with the Enochic tradition should be noted with caution. The Enochic authors posited some sort of revealed law as the touchstone for salvation in the judgment. Nonetheless, the NT notion parallels 1 Enoch more closely than it does the Qumran community, where eschatological awareness did not involve a mission to the Gentiles. The structural similarities between the Enochic and NT notions of eschatology and proclamation deserve closer study.

6.3.2. Early Orthodox Tradition

6.3.2.1. 1 Clement 19-20
As part of his moral instruction, Clement of Rome (ca. 100 C.E.) cites the example of the obedience of the inanimate creation. The passage closely parallels 1 Enoch 2-5 and 101 and seems to reflect knowledge of either 1 Enoch or a Jewish instructional tradition on which 1 Enoch also drew (see Excursus: Traditions about Nature's Obedience and Humanity's Disobedience).

6.3.2.2. Papias
According to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 5.33.3) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 130), attributed to Jesus of Nazareth a saying about the fecundity of the earth that derived originally from 1 Enoch 10:19 (frg. I).74 The extent of Jesus' saying about the fertility of vine, seed, and oil exceeds even the proportions described in 2 Bar. 29:5, which itself multiplies astronomically the figures in 1 Enoch. Papias frg. 4 further indicates knowledge of the version of the watchers story that posits a divine commission that is violated (cf. Jub. 4:15; above, §6.2.3.2.1). "Papias says thus, word for word, 'But to some of them&#8212;clearly the holy angels of old&#8212;he gave authority to give order (SiaKOffjur/aew^) to the world, and he commanded them to exercise their authority well.' And he says immediately after that, 'But it happened that their order (rd^ig) came to nothing.'"

6.3.2.3. The Epistle of Barnabas
Writing ca. 135-38 C.E., probably in Egypt,75 the author of the Epistle of Barnabas paraphrases 1 Enoch 89:56, 60, 66-67 with reference to the destruction of the temple, introducing his source with the formula, "For Scripture says" (AeyeL yap i] ypoupr\, 16:5). To support the notion of a new temple, he quotes loosely I Enoch 91:13. aeain introducing it as Scripture ("For it is written," yeypairrai, yap, 16:6). In Barn. 4:3 the author quotes a text of uncertain origin, which describes the tribulations of the end time, introducing it with the words, "concerning which it is written, as Enoch says." Although the quotation may be spurious, the attribution to Enoch, alongside the genuine Enochic quotations, indicates that the author's community ascribed scriptural authority to the writings of Enoch the prophet.

6.3.2.4. The Apocalypse of Peter and The Gospel of Peter
Composed in the first half of the second century C.E., perhaps in Egypt,76 the Apocalypse of Peter, an account of his tour of hell, draws on the tradition of which the Book of the Watchers is a fountainhead.77 The author seems also to have known the Book of Parables. Chapter 4 parallels closely 1 Enoch 61:5, and Apocalypse of Peter 13 appears to paraphrase 1 Enoch 62:15-16; 63:1, 7-9. The motif of Jesus'journey to the underworld (see §6.3.1.9) recurs in the Gospel of Peter 39-42, where the object of his preaching is not "the spirits in prison" (i.e., the fallen angels), but "the dead" in general. The description of the two angels who accompany Jesus from the tomb is reminiscent of the two angels who accompany Enoch to heaven in 2 Enoch 1 and 3. The Gospel, composed in the second century, was known in Syria around 200 C.E. and in Egypt in the second or third century.78 An incomplete copy is preserved in the later Egyptian codex that also contains 1 Enoch 1-32 and the Apocalypse of Peter (which is also dependent on 1 Enoch, see §2.2.1).

6.3.2.5. Justin Martyr
In his Second Apology (5:2), written in Rome between 148 and 161 c.E.,79 Justin ascribes the origins of sin to the watchers, referring to the angels' assignment to look after humans and earthly things (6 $eog ... Tr\v n&#8364;v Civdpuirtijv Kal T&V into TOV ovpavbv irpovoictv ... irapedaKtv) (cf.Jub. 4:15; above, §6.2.3.2.1). His knowledge of the story in 1 Enoch is evident in the details of his account. The angels had intercourse with women, thus violating their order (raf (,£; cf. 1 Enoch 15:3-7), and they begat demons (1 Enoch 15:9-16:1). Moreover, they (the demons) revealed magic to humans (cf. 1 Enoch 7:1) and became the cause of all manner of sin (cf. 10:8). This focus on the havoc wreaked by the demonic progeny of the angels is consonant both with 1 Enoch 15:9&#8212;16:1 and the extension of the notion in Jubilees 10 (§6.2.3.2.5). Justin recognizes the parallel between the story of the watchers and Greek myths about the amours of the gods (see comm. on chaps. 6-11). Asserting the authority of the Jewish story, however, he claims that the Greek poets and mythmakers ascribed to the gods the deeds of the wicked angels.