The Book of Enoch?

[SummaScriptura]

I've been paying a little more attention to Enoch as of late and one issue I find inconsistent is that it has a very developed sense of Hell (Sheol, abyss, Tartarus, etc..) and much of it seems to be influenced by Greek mythology. Now one could say the greeks copied the book of Enoch not the other way around... perhaps but it's understanding of hell is well beyond any OT book and it demands the question why?

In the OT Sheol is a mysterious place of the dead where all pass through and no book offers any insight as to what this place is; it is a place of ignorance and mystery liken to death itself or metaphorically with depression. Than there is the Book of Enoch which apparently pre-dates any book of the bible but has a laser focus on Hell that is unparalleled to the rest of scripture. It's concept of Hell is simply far beyond its time and is vastly different than the Sheol presented in the OT.

The bible actually offers us very little knowledge of what Heaven and Hell is and I've always said this is because it is written for the living not the dead, it gives is broad strokes but not fine detail... well for Enoch it seems to flip this focus which is very counter-focus from the rest of scripture.

The question needs to be asked if this is a pre-flood text why did it have no apparent influence on OT authors especially with its highly developed sense of Hell. OT authors were very ignorant of the afterlife but why should they have been if they were exposed to the Book of Enoch? I think the weight of all this points to the book of Enoch as a hellenistic pseudepigrapha text heavily influenced by greek mythology and some sort of infatuation with the pre-flood myth-like accounts.

If we are to accept an Enochan authorship for the Book of Enoch, we'd have to conclude that later books were vague on the subject of heaven and hell due to the purpose for which those works were written.

Enoch is of the apocalyptic genre type. Other books in that genre are obviously Revelation, as well as Daniel and Zechariah. Isaiah and even Moses contain little apocalypses in their pages. Apocalypses are characterized by revelatory visions of things in the realm of the spirit. Common topics are the blessing after life for the righteous and the torment after life for the ungodly. Other topics are visions of the last judgement, the activities of angels, etc. An apocalypse is a peek behind the veil of the everyday world.

So, I agree, the rest of the Bible, except for Revelation, reveals very little about heaven and hell. But, in my opinion, its not because the writers knew very little about it, but because the subject matter did not have that sort of relevance to the purpose for which those writers were writing in other non-apocalyptic genres.

Also, imagine a corpus of books (since they had no bound Bibles) in which Enoch and some other missing works WERE included. There would not be much need to write on the subject of heaven and hell simply because they already had Enoch for that. To this point, have you ever had the impression when reading Moses in Gen. 6:1-4, that he seems to open a can of worms and pass over it waaaay to fast? Its as if Moses was thinking, 'I do not need to explain this one because people are already aware of the details of this story', or maybe, 'they have Enoch for that'.

Truth is, there is a long list of Bible topics which present puzzles (like the one referenced above) if we do not inject Enoch into the mix. If we do include Enoch, these puzzles disappear.

 

[SummaScriptura]

By the way, John's apocalypse says quite a bit about sheol and heaven and hell. We believe he does so by revelation from God, thru Jesus, thru an angel. We don't believe he wrote on these subjects due to Hellenism, right?

 

[SummaScriptura]

P.S. I still do believe in progressive revelation, its just not as straight a line as I used to assume.

 

[SummaScriptura]

deleted

 

[DamianWarS]

If we are to accept an Enochan authorship for the Book of Enoch, we'd have to conclude that later books were vague on the subject of heaven and hell due to the purpose for which those works were written.

this alone does not account for the vast lack of knowledge in the OT. I'm happy you like my post but I did not offer it for accolades I did so because I see serious inconsistencies presented as a pre-flood text. The rest of the OT simply does not support any knowledge of the book of Enoch and this is too important to pass off as a genre conflict especially when it is claimed to pre-date them all. It's not just Sheol either it's heaven as well. The righteous and the unrighteous indiscriminately go to Sheol when they die in the OT and it is not dichotomized into a good/bad heaven/hell type place. There is no concept of "going to heaven" after you die in the OT this is only revealed in the NT. Enoch's concepts of the afterlife are too close to greek mythology and too abstract for a pre-flood text, this is why it is a better fit around 300 BC then it is 3000 BC. It simply does not fit the OT worldview and especially not a pre-flood worldview.

(btw it is against CF rules to advertise things in your signature or point to other websites especially for selling a product. You should probably review your signature to see if it agrees with CF rules)

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Greeks got many ideas from the Jews. They believed they shared familial relations with them as well: The First Book of Maccabees (aka 1 Maccabees) The Book of Enoch, too, had a wide-ranging influence. Abram read from it to officials from Pharaoh's court, for example. That was long before the Greeks.

Here is a writer who does not refer to Enoch but sums up what I was trying to say quite well. Why are heaven, hell, etc not mentioned in the Old Testament?

 

[DamianWarS]

The Greeks got many ideas from the Jews. They believed they shared familial relations with them as well: The First Book of Maccabees (aka 1 Maccabees) The Book of Enoch, too, had a wide-ranging influence. Abram read from it to officials from Pharaoh's court, for example. That was long before the Greeks.

Here is a writer who does not refer to Enoch but sums up what I was trying to say quite well. Why are heaven, hell, etc not mentioned in the Old Testament?

I would say more accurately the Greeks were influenced by the Phoenicians not the Jews. Jewish diaspora pre-roman era did not reach all that far and Jews didn't have the ambition for conquest outside their own promise land so their spread of culture would have been limiting. Ancient Hebrew itself used Phoenician or Paleo-Hebrew for their characters but since the 8th century BC it has been using Aramaic square script so as Greeks were adopting Phoenician characters (greek letters are roughly the mirror image of Phoenician) at the same time the Hebrews were adopting a different script. This doesn't speak to wide influence but rather to the Hebrews withdrawing their culture from Greek.

The OT books don't go into doctrines of the afterlife and I agree it was not their point however if they had exposure to the book of Enoch you would expect their afterlife worldview to look more Enochan rather than a position essentially reflecting ignorance. This can be seen in examples such as 2 Peter and Jude that where "hell" is not the point they still had a Enochan developed ideas that came out in their text and you would expect the same sort of thing happening in the OT had they had similar exposure.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

...Than there is the Book of Enoch which apparently pre-dates any book of the bible but has a laser focus on Hell that is unparalleled to the rest of scripture. It's concept of Hell is simply far beyond its time and is vastly different than the Sheol presented in the OT... .

Why do you have the mindset that it was far beyond its time? It is the first book of eschatology and the first one that reveals the universe, heaven, the lake of fire, and Sheol. References to the facts of those things in any book after that are references back to that already laid foundation.
FYI: the word, "hades" is a coined word from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Check Genesis 14 on the reference to that place. When Moses recorded it, years after the event, he used the coined Hebrew word for that place, which is "holy", in an unclean sense; meaning like, "male temple prostitute", for that place of destruction. The Q, H, hard C and K are all gutterals and can interchange, in the tongues, since the confusion of the tongues at Babel (there are only seven sounds that all words are formed by, like the seven notes of all music -check out Isaac Moseson's "Edenics", on you tube): So Hebrew "quodesh" is Greek-to English "Hades".
As Jude said, they suffered the "example" of the everlasting fires, as a warning to others who would do the same.
So the Greeks came to be more than just shepherds after they began conquering other tribes, and they had no history other than being sheep herders until they began conquering other tribes and then nations. After that, they adopted the cultures of those whom they conquered, and adapted their own histories to suit themselves.
So, the Word "Hades" is from Hebrew, and the happening at Sodom and Gomorrah was a very good example of the everlasting fires that those who do such things will suffer.
Also, check history for yourself. Greece did not influence, but was influenced. Wherever they conquered, they adopted customs and gods, and turned them to their own.
Josephus wrote how Greeks were just shepherds in tents when Solomon influenced the whole world.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

...this alone does not account for the vast lack of knowledge in the OT... The rest of the OT simply does not support any knowledge of the book of Enoch and)

Au contraire, there is a vast amount of knowledge of Sheol in the OT, exactly as Enoch revealed it to be.
If you read Enoch, then the books that came after, even those in the DSS, and Moses and all we call "the Holy Bible", there is a vast amount of correlating facts on Sheol that anyone who studies can connect.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Why isn't the book of Enoch in the canon? It's referenced in the bible numerous times.

Because the book of Enoch isn't a Christian document. It reflects a particular brand of Jewish apocalyptic thinking of it's time, which is why you find similar concepts in Enoch and Christianity.

Additionally, surely quoting a work doesn't doesn't mean that the quoted work becomes scripture, otherwise we'll end up with Aratus, Epimenides, and Menader in the canon.

Example #1
Jude 1:14-15 - "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The book of Hanock (Enoch) 1:9 -
''And see! He comes with ten thousands of His qodeshim (dedicated ones, or "angels") to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh of
all the works of their wickedness which they have committed wickedly, and of all the harsh matters which wicked sinners have spoken against Him.

You have to assume that Jude and "Enoch" both mean the same thing, but I think if you consider the entirety of Enoch, then I seriously doubt that Jude and "Enoch" agree on what who are the "wicked."

Example #2
Matthew 5:5 -
Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.

Referencing Hanock (Enoch) 5:7 -
But for the elect there shall be light and joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.
8 ''And then there shall be given wisdom to the elect, and they shall all live and never again sin, either through wickedness or through pride, but they who are wise shall be humble.
9 ''And they shall not transgress again, nor shall they sin all the days of their hai (life), nor shall they die of anger or wrath, but they shall complete the number of the days of their hai (life). And their lives shall be increased in peace, and the years of their joy shall be multiplied, in eternal gladness and p6eace, all the days of their life.''

And again, you would have to assume that the "elect" in Enoch are the "meek" in Matthew or that "elect" in Enoch means the same thing as the "elect" in the New Testament. For example, "Enoch" could think and refer to it's particular sect as the "elect" at the exclusion of other Jewish sects, including Christianity. I seriously doubt that "Enoch" and Jesus (as quoted in Matthew) would have identified the "elect" as the same group.

I shared the extra two verses, because this is a book that is proven to have been around some 2000 years before Yeshua (Jesus),

Curious as to how you prove that.

It even explains why some of those civilizations just... up and disappeared. It explains a lot, and answers those questions as to why the flood took place, and what exactly those giants were in Genesis 6.

Why would an explanation be considered proof?

 

[DamianWarS]

Why do you have the mindset that it was far beyond its time? It is the first book of eschatology and the first one that reveals the universe, heaven, the lake of fire, and Sheol. References to the facts of those things in any book after that are references back to that already laid foundation.
FYI: the word, "hades" is a coined word from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Check Genesis 14 on the reference to that place. When Moses recorded it, years after the event, he used the coined Hebrew word for that place, which is "holy", in an unclean sense; meaning like, "male temple prostitute", for that place of destruction. The Q, H, hard C and K are all gutterals and can interchange, in the tongues, since the confusion of the tongues at Babel (there are only seven sounds that all words are formed by, like the seven notes of all music -check out Isaac Moseson's "Edenics", on you tube): So Hebrew "quodesh" is Greek-to English "Hades".
As Jude said, they suffered the "example" of the everlasting fires, as a warning to others who would do the same.
So the Greeks came to be more than just shepherds after they began conquering other tribes, and they had no history other than being sheep herders until they began conquering other tribes and then nations. After that, they adopted the cultures of those whom they conquered, and adapted their own histories to suit themselves.
So, the Word "Hades" is from Hebrew, and the happening at Sodom and Gomorrah was a very good example of the everlasting fires that those who do such things will suffer.
Also, check history for yourself. Greece did not influence, but was influenced. Wherever they conquered, they adopted customs and gods, and turned them to their own.
Josephus wrote how Greeks were just shepherds in tents when Solomon influenced the whole world.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas of qadesh = hades. if glottals are interchangeable then qadesh could be a whole pile of words in greek. If this term was coined from the event at S&G then why does it appear in the book of Enoch that would predate the event and a far more advanced perspective?

I don't have issue accepted qadesh as a root word for Hades as this is how myths develop from large events that get organically shaped to mean other things in different cultures but this would be in opposition to why Enoch had such an advanced view of the afterlife. If the greek mythology was form 700 BC and the event at S&G was circa 2000 BC this makes complete sense why it would be so drastically different. But if Enoch penned his words circa 3000 BC then a thousands years later a word is coined to shape Greek mythology this shows us S&G was the original event and Enoch is superficial and most likely written after the Greek mythology.

 

[DamianWarS]

Au contraire, there is a vast amount of knowledge of Sheol in the OT, exactly as Enoch revealed it to be.
If you read Enoch, then the books that came after, even those in the DSS, and Moses and all we call "the Holy Bible", there is a vast amount of correlating facts on Sheol that anyone who studies can connect.

if you compare all passages that have Sheol very quickly you see they had no idea what this place was. There is no verse in the OT that shows the Hebrews had knowledge of what Sheol was and it was more a word used to describe death itself. If you think otherwise you're going to have to give some examples

 

[dreadnought]

Why isn't the book of Enoch in the canon? It's referenced in the bible numerous times.

Example #1
Jude 1:14-15 - "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
"To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The book of Hanock (Enoch) 1:9 -
''And see! He comes with ten thousands of His qodeshim (dedicated ones, or "angels") to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh of
all the works of their wickedness which they have committed wickedly, and of all the harsh matters which wicked sinners have spoken against Him.

Example #2
Matthew 5:5 -
Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.

Referencing Hanock (Enoch) 5:7 -
But for the elect there shall be light and joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth.
8 ''And then there shall be given wisdom to the elect, and they shall all live and never again sin, either through wickedness or through pride, but they who are wise shall be humble.
9 ''And they shall not transgress again, nor shall they sin all the days of their hai (life), nor shall they die of anger or wrath, but they shall complete the number of the days of their hai (life). And their lives shall be increased in peace, and the years of their joy shall be multiplied, in eternal gladness and p6eace, all the days of their life.''

I shared the extra two verses, because this is a book that is proven to have been around some 2000 years before Yeshua (Jesus), and yet, he prophetically speaks on things only the prophets, and our Savior Himself knew of.

Example #3
John 12:35-36 -
35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going. 36 Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light.” When he had finished speaking, Jesus left and hid himself from them.

Hanok (Enoch) 108:11 -

''And now I will summon the spirits of the good who belong to the generation of light, and I will transform those who were born in darkness, who in the flesh were not recompensed with such honour as their trustworthiness deserved.

Here is the kicker...

Example #4 (Final Example)
John 5:22 -
22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

You ready for this?

Hanok (Enoch) 69:27-29 - For a tip, you can skip all of the text below, just be sure to read the red before you read the verse.

Some context, "Bĕn" means "Son", and Adam, quite literally is the Hebrew word and name, for Man. So, Bĕn of Adam, quite literally means "Son of Man". These passages from the book of enoch are taken from the Halleluyah Scriptures versions, which place special emphasis on giving literal word for word translations, and in places where pagan words have crept in, they choose to replace them with the originally intended hebrew/aramaic/greek words. In some cases, they even choose to introduce the original words because the words themselves have no equivalent in english that does the word complete justice. The context and content of the verses are exactly the same however, it's just a bit closer to the original. No verses are altered or doctored, or removed, only kept as closely to the original writings as possible. Also "יהוה" is the tetragrammaton, and is the name our Father told us to refer to him with for all of time. I'm not saying that these are terms you HAVE to use, I'm just giving context so everyone can understand the text below. Also, "Baruch" means "bless, or blessed" Much love, and enjoy!

24 And all these believe and give thanks before יהוה of hosts, and esteem (Him) with all their power, and their food is in every act of thanksgiving: they thank and esteem and exalt the Name of יהוה of hosts forever and ever.]

25 And this oath is mighty over them and through it [they are preserved and] their paths are preserved, and their course is not destroyed.

26 And there was great joy amongst them, and they baruch and esteemed and exalted because the Name of the Bĕn of Adam had been revealed unto them.

And He sat on the throne of his esteem, and the sum of judgment was given unto the Bĕn of Adam, and He caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth, and those who have led the world astray.

28 With chains shall they be bound, and in their assemblage-place of destruction shall they be imprisoned, and all their works vanish from the face of the earth.

29 And from hereon there shall be none corruptible; for the Bĕn of Adam has appeared, and has seated Himself on the throne of His esteem, and all evil shall pass away before His face, and the Word of the Bĕn of Adam shall go forth and be strong before יהוה of hosts. This is the Third Parable of Hanok.
----------------------------------------------------

They also replace the names in scripture with their literal Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek names, depending on who it is. Which is why Enoch is Hanok. Nonetheless. The book is definitely inspired. The book was proven to have been dated looooooong before the Son of Man, and is referenced throughout the NT and the OT. The Book of Jasher is also referenced often, but I'm not familiar with it. Nor am I familiar with the book of Hanok, I'm just posting this to get the views and opinions of others. What I have read of it, it seems to stay perfectly in line with scripture. That, and all of the ancient civilizations that had these beings come down and teach them technology that made them capable to create structures that baffle us today... The book of Hanok tells us about all of that. They weren't aliens, they were Nephilim. It even explains why some of those civilizations just... up and disappeared. It explains a lot, and answers those questions as to why the flood took place, and what exactly those giants were in Genesis 6.

There's a lot more, but I'd have to read more to be able to talk about it. It's a cool book, and it's referenced way too often to be ignored. Jude was alive thousands of years after Enoch, so it's not possible that that reference was talking about anything other than Enoch's book.

People long ago settled on a Canon, including books they thought belonged in the Canon. For every book included, there might be dozens that were left out. The Bible is long enough, isn't it?

 

[Devin P]

Because the book of Enoch isn't a Christian document. It reflects a particular brand of Jewish apocalyptic thinking of it's time, which is why you find similar concepts in Enoch and Christianity.

Additionally, surely quoting a work doesn't doesn't mean that the quoted work becomes scripture, otherwise we'll end up with Aratus, Epimenides, and Menader in the canon.



You have to assume that Jude and "Enoch" both mean the same thing, but I think if you consider the entirety of Enoch, then I seriously doubt that Jude and "Enoch" agree on what who are the "wicked."

Well, the entire book of Jude talks about ideas that literally are only found in the book of Enoch. As in, no where else are they written, aside from in the book of Enoch. Jude, the brother of Jesus, quoted an entire paragraph from the book of Enoch, described the writer as a prophet, and called him the 7th born from Adam, which is exactly what Enoch was - a prophet, the 7th born from Adam.

And again, you would have to assume that the "elect" in Enoch are the "meek" in Matthew or that "elect" in Enoch means the same thing as the "elect" in the New Testament. For example, "Enoch" could think and refer to it's particular sect as the "elect" at the exclusion of other Jewish sects, including Christianity. I seriously doubt that "Enoch" and Jesus (as quoted in Matthew) would have identified the "elect" as the same group.

Well, the meek, biblically, are literally the same exact group as the elect. Are not the chosen of God, or God's children, or God's sheep considered the elect? Yes. The bible has literally referred to both, meek, and elect, on different occasions, and they are in fact the same group of people.

Curious as to how you prove that.

The earliest they've found, was 200 years before the birth of Jesus. And it calls the savior of the world, the son of man - a phrase that up until Jesus, didn't exist anywhere. Then, it goes on to describe what Jesus would do, and that He again, would save the world. Nothing but the prophets had described something like this, and none of the prophets had ever described something so vividly as it was described in the book of Enoch. This is why Jesus called Himself the son of man. He was referencing the book of Enoch, just as He always referenced the prophets and the torah (the first five books of Moses).

 

[Yekcidmij]

Well, the entire book of Jude talks about ideas that literally are only found in the book of Enoch. As in, no where else are they written, aside from in the book of Enoch. Jude, the brother of Jesus, quoted an entire paragraph from the book of Enoch, described the writer as a prophet, and called him the 7th born from Adam, which is exactly what Enoch was - a prophet, the 7th born from Adam.

I'm not sure this addresses my issues. I don't recall disagreeing with the idea that Jude quoted from the book.

Well, the meek, biblically, are literally the same exact group as the elect. Are not the chosen of God, or God's children, or God's sheep considered the elect? Yes. The bible has literally referred to both, meek, and elect, on different occasions, and they are in fact the same group of people.

This is simply begging the question. The question is do the book of Enoch and the New Testament identify the same group as the "elect?"

The earliest they've found, was 200 years before the birth of Jesus.

Then by my math we're off about 1800 years from what the post that I was responding to has claimed. The previous post claimed it was around 2000 years before Jesus.

And while we're on it, do the DSS-Enoch fragments match the version of the book of Enoch that everyone is referring to? Or are they missing something like the chapters 37-71?

And it calls the savior of the world, the son of man - a phrase that up until Jesus, didn't exist anywhere.

What about Daniel 7?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I would say more accurately the Greeks were influenced by the Phoenicians not the Jews. Jewish diaspora pre-roman era did not reach all that far<snip>

The Jews of Ethiopia claim they came to Ethiopia after the destruction of Israel in 722 BC. That's pretty far, and early. I believe it.

 

[Devin P]

I'm not sure this addresses my issues. I don't recall disagreeing with the idea that Jude quoted from the book.

I don't understand why you don't consider it scripture then really. Jude implied that it was scripture, using it and quoting from it, claiming it to be prophesy.

This is simply begging the question. The question is do the book of Enoch and the New Testament identify the same group as the "elect?"

Those that place their faith in God to redeem them, and therefore are redeemed? Yes. It's the same group of people.

Then by my math we're off about 1800 years from what the post that I was responding to has claimed. The previous post claimed it was around 2000 years before Jesus.

There's been a misunderstanding here: The earliest book (as in the oldest one we have to this date found) dated back 200 years before Jesus was born. This doesn't mean that this is when the book was written. This means that we haven't found any that are older to this date. Jude quoting from it, and claiming it to be the written prophesy of the 7th born from Adam, Enoch, shows us that these writings were thought to have been written by Enoch, someone who was alive around 2000 years before Jesus was alive. This is what I was meaning. It's the book of Enoch, and Enoch was taken, around 2000 some odd years prior to Jesus being born in the flesh. Now, the oldest book discovered of this, is around 200 years older than Jesus, but again, this doesn't mean that there aren't any older, it just means we haven't found any.

And while we're on it, do the DSS-Enoch fragments match the version of the book of Enoch that everyone is referring to? Or are they missing something like the chapters 37-71?

There are a few different versions that have popped up since, but the ones people generally refer to match yeah. There's three main versions, the greek version isn't the one I'd read. The Ethiopian or the Aramaic ones are consistent, and hold up to scripture when held in comparison.


What about Daniel 7?[/QUOTE]

 

[DamianWarS]

The Jews of Ethiopia claim they came to Ethiopia after the destruction of Israel in 722 BC. That's pretty far, and early. I believe it.

"Ethiopia" is hardly the ancient greco world. Israel's exile periods more drove them east than west. I'm sure there were pockets that moved elsewhere but exceptions don't tend to have wide influence not to mention the Greeks never occupied Ethiopia during that time... you're thinking more of Alexander's time which is 300 BC not 700-800 BC. Also Tartarus appears in the Iliad and Theogony, works that are around 700 BC and their authors didn't live in Ethiopia they lived in Greece. I'm sure there was the odd Jew among the Greeks but Jews simply did not exile to Greece and these are not strong cases for that much influence. Exiles pushed the Jews to modern day Syria and Iraq mainly (not Greece). In Roman exile after the destruction of the temple Jews were dispersed all across the mediterranean but this of course is way to late for it to have anything to do with the Greeks. When we are talking about 700 BC geographically speaking your limited to what we know as the country of Greece today and nothing beyond that.

Your best argument is the Hebrews influenced the Phoenicians who then influenced the Greeks but this is simply too convoluted for the book of Enoch to look so much like Greek mythology. The Phoenicians also were not a single state they were more a collective of semitic peoples that would have originated from the same source as the Hebrews (namely Shem). "Phoenician" itself is a Greek term and a lot of them would have been enemies to Israel, basically Canaanites. They would have had analogous overlapping myths and certainly from the same source but not a unified myth shared between them, but certainly pre-flood myths would be a part of this.

It is conceivable that if a pre-flood text existed like the book of Enoch it would have been available to not just the Jews but to all in the semitic peoples and if the Greeks were then influenced by this it would have been through the Phoenicians but there's no evidence of such mirrored myths among the Phoenicians. There certainly are myths that have similarities but comparably none that are as close to Enoch and Greek which suggests a much closer relationship both in direct influence and time they were created.

If Enoch was actually written 300-200 BC this puts it right in the hellenisation sweet spot and highly probable that the Greek's influenced the Jews not the other way around. To me Enoch seems like a hellenized expansion of early Jewish accounts. Traditional tells us Enoch wrote it but Eastern thought works a bit differently than Western thought where what is literally true is less important than what can be considered orthodox so it is just placed in the spot where they think it works best simply because it fits so well. Have you ever listened to a song and thought that "x band" should have wrote this because it's a perfect song for them... well Eastern thinking would just declare it was written by them and it doesn't matter if it actually is true or not. What the value is the piece honors the person so well it must be ascribed to them and this would in turn honor the actual author and everyone would play along.

 

[Yekcidmij]

"Ethiopia" is hardly the ancient greco world. Israel's exile periods more drove them east than west. I'm sure there were pockets that moved elsewhere...

It does appear that Jeremiah and much of the leadership did flee to Egypt, though admitedly it seems to be the northeast corner of Egypt:

Jer 43:4 So Johanan son of Kareah, all the army officers, and all the rest of the people did not obey the Lord’s command to stay in the land. 43:5 Instead Johanan son of Kareah and all the army officers led off all the Judean remnant who had come back to live in the land of Judah from all the nations where they had been scattered. 43:6 They also led off all the men, women, children, and royal princesses that Nebuzaradan, the captain of the royal guard, had left with Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam and grandson of Shaphan. This included the prophet Jeremiah and Baruch son of Neriah. 43:7 They went on to Egypt because they refused to obey the Lord, and came to Tahpanhes. 43:8 At Tahpanhes the Lord spoke to Jeremiah

This doesn't prove anyone went to Ethiopia, but a significant portion fled west to Egypt.

 

[DamianWarS]

It does appear that Jeremiah and much of the leadership did flee to Egypt, though admitedly it seems to be the northeast corner of Egypt:

Still the wrong time. The Greeks were limited to Greece at this time, only by merchants would they have been influenced by Egypt or Israel which I suppose will be the theory now that I've said it. But even by merchants it's not convincing enough. Enoch still seems like it was influenced by Greek mythology, if the OT had more Enochan ideas of the afterlife then there would be something there but it simply does not.