Was the Book of Enoch written by the Biblical Enoch?

[Standing Up]

I'm not understanding, please clarify a bit more...

How old would the book/copies of Enoch be?

Today backward to year 1, 2000 years.

From there to when it was written pre-flood? another 5000 years?

How old is the book of Exodus from year 1ad? 2500 years?

How old is the book of Job from year 1? 3000 years?

What are the estimations?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Okay.

Believe me I do not consider myself competent in calendrical issues, nor do I hold to a young earth theory.

Here goes:
Orthodox Jews calculate the birth of Abraham at 1948 years after the creation of Adam.

If we guess-timate from Abraham to Jesus is about 2000 years, then we have about 4,000 years from Adam's creation to Jesus. That puts the creation of Adam to about 6,000 years ago, or about 4,000 BC.

Orthodox Jews calculate 987 years from the creation of Adam to the translation of Enoch.

If Enoch wrote his books during the year before his translation (as I think is indicated by the Book of Enoch) we should deduct 986 years from about 6,000 to calculate the date for the writing of the Books of Enoch, which is bout 3,000 BC, give or take a century or two. ;-)

BTW, Orthodox Judaism dates the death of Methuselah to 1656 years after the creation of Adam, the year of the flood of Noah's day. That makes the flood to have happened about 2,300 years B.C.

Bear in mind certain caveats:
1. I do not believe the earth is young, or 6,000 years old, even if the creation of Adam is from about 6,000 years ago


2. I don't even believe in the calcualtions I have here because:

• I think the calendars have changed enough over time to make this exercise problemaitc
• I am terrible at math and you may have be able to detect errors in my adding and subtracting here.
• I don't think the age of the Book of Enoch is critical, there are enough ways for God to have preserved it for it to be so.

3. I believe Enoch wrote it.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Book of Enoch was composed between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. It could not have be written by the biblical prophet Enoch.

That is right. There is absolutely no memory of the book in the centuries upons centuries that ensued from the time that Enoch was taken up into heaven and the time that there is a record of these writings.

It is Scripture for the Coptic Church though, is it not?

 

[SolomonVII]

When was writing invented in Phoenicia and the Middle East in general.
A quick look suggests 3200 BC.

 

[Standing Up]

The book would be incredibly old.

I don't know about the writing vs. pictograph issue.

However, one could always suggest that it was an oral tradition first given by Enoch and passed down from generation to generation, until someone took it upon himself to write it down.

If that's assumed, then the next question is does it contradict scripture, although as mentioned, OO evidently does think it on par with torah (scripture).

So, perhaps not written per se, but commnunicated. The problem of course is it just opens the door to all sorts of tradition. Where's the line drawn?

What about Jasher?

 

[SummaScriptura]

The book would be incredibly old.

I don't know about the writing vs. pictograph issue.

However, one could always suggest that it was an oral tradition first given by Enoch and passed down from generation to generation, until someone took it upon himself to write it down.

If that's assumed, then the next question is does it contradict scripture, although as mentioned, OO evidently does think it on par with torah (scripture).

So, perhaps not written per se, but commnunicated. The problem of course is it just opens the door to all sorts of tradition. Where's the line drawn?

What about Jasher?

Which traditions do you mean? Are you sure they're not ones we see in the Bible too?

About Jasher there is no comparison. I say this not because I "like" one and "don't like" the other. The problem with Jasher is there is no ancient attestation to the text. Enoch, on the other hand, has been referred to and described for more than 2 millenia in other ancient books and other not-so-ancient ones. Then there are the Aramaic copies from the Dead Sea, the media of which dated to 2-3 centuries before Christ.

Jasher comes down to us in the form of one complete manuscript "recovered" from an unknown provenance in the modern era. In order to preserve a text they have to be copied and re-copied at intervals over the centuries. Why are there no other copies? Its incredible from the start.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I'm skeptical but if someone could produce good evidence of it having been written by Enoch I would certainly listen (or read) what they had to say.

 

[Standing Up]

Which traditions do you mean? Are you sure they're not ones we see in the Bible too?

Oral traditions. IOW, perhaps Enoch spoke to Noah who spoke to his sons who handed down the tradition until it was written down. I have no idea. It's just that the book/tradition would be incredibly old, some 5000 years before Christ.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So, perhaps not written per se, but commnunicated. The problem of course is it just opens the door to all sorts of tradition. Where's the line drawn? What about Jasher?

Which traditions do you mean? Are you sure they're not ones we see in the Bible too?

Oral traditions. IOW, perhaps Enoch spoke to Noah who spoke to his sons who handed down the tradition until it was written down. I have no idea. It's just that the book/tradition would be incredibly old, some 5000 years before Christ.

Okay. I thought you were saying the Book of Enoch introduces questionable traditions.

Honestly, I don't have a problem pushing the craft of writing back further than paleo-anthropologists are currently willing to do. It stands for reason that if writing is indeed older than is currently thought, older exemplars would be harder to find due to their being destroyed by time and environment.

Honestly, I don't buy the thinking that first, people wrote in clay tablets, then people used parchments, lastly, people figured out how to make paper.

If all three of those media were in use from very ancient times, we wouldn't be finding many, if at all, but least of all the more ephemeral media, like paper.

So, we develop our evolution of writing theory based upon what we cannot find.

 

[SummaScriptura]

[c]

[/c]

 

[SummaScriptura]

[c]

[/c]
Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns All rights reserved
www.TheBookofEnoch.info

 

[Standing Up]

It's sorta like Job or perhaps Esther in certain respects (apart from its age).

 

[SummaScriptura]

[c]

[/c]
Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns All rights reserved
www.TheBookofEnoch.info

 

[SummaScriptura]

 

[3rdHeaven]

If the Biblical Enoch is the author of the book bearing his name, one might well expect the book’s contents to be consistent with the books of the Bible. Not only do we find the Book of Enoch to be consistent with the Bible, but as it turns out, familiarity with the contents of the book aids in understanding certain difficult passages of the Bible. Does this intriguing fact point to a familiarity with the Book of Enoch on the part of the writers of the Bible?

There are quite a number of subjects in the Old and New Testaments concerning which the Biblical writers seem to assume a certain level of prior knowledge on the part of their readers. It is the lack of this prior knowledge in our day that creates problems for us in understanding these texts. There are a surprising number of these passages of scripture which knowledge of the contents of the Book of Enoch resolves. Here are a few examples:

• The nature of the sin of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6
• The curious origin of the Old Testament giants
• The origin of demons nowhere expressly stated in the Bible
• The pervasive use by Christ of the term Son of Man
• The nature of the angels’ sin mentioned in Jude and 2 Peter 2
• The sending of the scapegoat to Azazel in Leviticus 16
• The identity of the seven angels in the books of Ezekiel and Revelation
• Jude’s classifying of Enoch as one of the prophets
• The Book of Revelation’s singular mention of a “bottomless pit”

If one is unfamiliar with the contents of the Book of Enoch each of the above-mentioned subjects poses questions which cannot be definitively answered from the 66 books of the Bible. If one is willing to refer to the Book of Enoch on these questions, however, none of these examples pose serious problems. Modern readers do well to bear in mind, by the time of Christ, the subject matter of the Book of Enoch was well-known and would have provided a well-spring of conceptual background for readers and hearers of the Scriptures in first century Israel.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns. All rights reserved.
The Book of Enoch: Messianic Prophecy Edition

And is quoted by Jude too! Indeed many consider the Book of Enoch to be inspired.

Another book dismissed is the Book of Wisdom! It is a wisdom book however contains prophetic references to Jesus mocking and death. The first 2 chapters of Wisdom is a wonder to read!

let's not forget that it took counsels of men to vote on which books to include and which books to exclude. And books like the gospel of John and Revelations almost didn't make it in the Canon. If one of them didn't we might very well be discussing the significance of them in another thread.

Most of the books that were not included I can easily see why. Some are border line, some that made it are border line too. I think we acknowledge they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but we rather not discuss how they were selected to be canon.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>Another book dismissed is the Book of Wisdom! It is a wisdom book however contains prophetic references to Jesus mocking and death. The first 2 chapters of Wisdom is a wonder to read!

I could not agree more.

let's not forget that it took counsels of men to vote on which books to include and which books to exclude.<snip>

On top of that, nowhere in Scripture is there the hint of a need of a canon, nor is there a doctrine of one which they could use to guide them in the process.

Most of the books that were not included I can easily see why.<snip>

Are you sure about this? The churches were already using all the books we have in our Bibles ad the others which some were using but others not, were not bad, they certainly were not heretical. The were no churches of orthodox (notice the small "o") persuasion using any gnostic books, for instance.

 

[Noxot]

SummaScriptura,

this will not seem strong to all but.

azazel, is he not numbered the number 10 angel? in I think chapter 68?

if so, the first number in greek for the name of jesus is the number 10.

remember there are 2 goats in the ot? azazel is a parable, because Jesus Christ is azazel. he became the way, not only for the worse human sinners, but also for fallen angels. this is hard to accept when you have a hard heart. but remember God made a pact with leviathan? and that leviathan is a female? and that the damsels play with leviathan? and who is behemoth? 1000 cattle on the hills on the east side of the garden of eden. Jesus Christ. and remember that Jesus Christ is the serpent on the cross? yeah he became a serpent to save serpents.

and what more proof do i need, knowing that behemoth and leviathan are one creature? because when you are married the 2 become one. but ofc ther eis more that is needed to learn better about who God is.

does behemoth drink the river jordan? there again we see a type of Christ and a mystery in it.

Job 40:19 (YLT)
(40:19) He is a beginning of the ways of God, His Maker bringeth nigh his sword;

this is about behemoth. notice that wisdom is also a beginning of the ways of God.

i doubt anyone believes me but, God made me go past the earth and the heaven and I saw that God is far past the ways of men. i saw people that are not even saved yet, as they were saved. but only in am image because we are made in the image of God. and so since God is past comprehending and we are his children, so also are his children past comprehending. and I remember that i wrote this already, but now I write it again.

and i know soon this place we are in, gets raised up and the transfiguration happens and then it gets raised up again.... because I can already speak about the things which are about to happen now. because I know who i am in him, but only in part. and I do nothing without God. this raising up is like darkness going to light. or maybe blinding light coming to light, as the eye gets used to the blinding light.

and god is always looking for those who sell everything they have to get the pearl, because God is worth more than all the knowledge. God has all the knowledge, but it is poo unless you have the pearl, because God is my husband, and really to be married to God is to have all things. but god only wants people to seek him until they have him. do not be satisfied with your life. with your soul. with anything... except God. so cry out to God and forsake everything, so that you can be with God as Wisdom. because to tell the truth, we already are with him, we just don't see it. and we are wisdom because Christ is wisdom. this is already an uncovering of the liberty of the sons of God... it is as if, i was only a shadow of myself before I knew that I should seek Gods face. I thought I knew Him, but compared to my past... it was like getting dunked in water... now I know him. now it is as if the fire is here. and there is always more, God can not be comprehended.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Another book dismissed is the Book of Wisdom! It is a wisdom book however contains prophetic references to Jesus mocking and death. The first 2 chapters of Wisdom is a wonder to read!

One of the bests books of the OT. Very elevated and spiritual in tone. Some of the strongest refernces to Christ too.

 

[Lysimachus]

It should be noted that often-times inspired authors derived inspired concepts from uninspired books.

While a book may be uninspired, certain phrases and expressions are in alignment with "inspired thought".

So it is no wonder that often the New Testament authors derived "inspired concepts" from books that were not inspired. In spite of the uninspired authors, even they had good things to say now and then, so the New Testament authors would "extract" only those phrases that were in alignment with inspiration, but they left out the rest.

This is the case with the book of Enoch.

The book of Enoch teaches falsifications, such as the Sons of God being angels, and intermarrying with the "daughters of men", which became giants. This is foolishness.

All this means is that the Sons of God were the righteous seed coming down from Seth's line--meaning, those who believed in God. The expression "Sons or Daughters of God" was an expression to mean those who served God, and the "Sons or Daughters of Men" was an expression to represent those who served "man", and not God. The wicked. God's people and Satan's people intermarried.

The book of Enoch is non-canonical, and uninspired. Did it have "inspired concepts"? Sure it did Did it have "inspired thoughts"? Sure it did. Did that make the book inerrant? No it didn't. Infallible? No it didn't.

Numerous men today embedd Biblical thoughts into their writings, but they themselves are not inspired.

 

[Noxot]

the book of wisdom is by far full of the Spirit of God, I can not tell why any man would not be able to see that. enoch has so many stumbling blocks for people that it is better that they are blind that it is from God, it gives less distortion to take place as the things enoch wrote about were very complex and seem like gibber jabber to most normal human beings.

it is no doubt a special grace of God that is given for people to believe that enoch is from God.