Was the Book of Enoch written by the Biblical Enoch?

[SummaScriptura]

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.
http://www.thebookofenoch.info/

 

[3 Angels Messages]

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....

It [so-called 'Book of Enoch' 1,2,3?] is not consistent, but rather an piece-meal, non-canonical, pseudopigraphic, apocryphal 'late' work, please see full response here:

Beginning with "Sons of God" [and extras]

 

[Pythons]

I'm guessing it wasn't - it was tradition passed down that was put into text.

 

[LaSpino3]

Summascripura, you wrote, "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”

Your questions are interesting. I have never read the book of Enoch, but I disagree with you in that the 66 books of the Bible cannot, or do not answer each and every one of your questions. With an open mind, a clear slate, and a willingness to understand in a Scriptural manner, each question can be answered. Each question would make a excellent tread.

I am going to download them, and work on them in my spare time.

Good post,

Phil LaSpino

 

[Jase]

Fallen Angels originate from the Watchers in the Book of Enoch (which in turn was most likely influenced by the Persians, seeing as Judaism had no set dualistic beliefs prior to the Babylonian Exile).

A lot of modern day Christian mythology could be attributed to the Book of Enoch and the Persians. It, however, is so ingrained in Christian doctrine that most people who haven't done their research think it's original.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I'm guessing it wasn't - it was tradition passed down that was put into text.

Is guessing the only recourse we have on this question?

 

[SummaScriptura]

It [so-called 'Book of Enoch' 1,2,3?] is not consistent, but rather an piece-meal, non-canonical, pseudopigraphic, apocryphal 'late' work, <snip>

I'd be interested in hearing from you your evidence for the above. Can you cite evidence from the book itself that it is a pseudepigraphon? or late?

There is a lot of confusion on the categories which are used for pseudepigrapha, apocrypha and the like. Those terms are inprecise at best. There are people in the world who call the Book of Enoch pseudepigrapha, others who call it apocrypha, still others who call it holy Scripture.

Cite your evidence from the Book of Enoch that it was written by someone other than Enoch, or that it was written late.

 

[Alan Hooker]

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

 

[3 Angels Messages]

I'd be interested in hearing from you your evidence for the above. Can you cite evidence from the book itself that it is a pseudepigraphon? or late?

...

Cite your evidence from the Book of Enoch that it was written by someone other than Enoch, or that it was written late.

I have, though it seems you have not read it, you simply removed it, by snipping it from my original, and thus from your reply [follow the link Sons Of God]

 

[SummaScriptura]

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

Besides merely repeating what textual scholars surmise, can you state any reasons you believe this to be true?

BTW, the same textual scholars do not believe Daniel wrote Daniel, Ezekiel wrote Ezekiel, Isaiah wrote Isaiah or Moses wrote Moses.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I have, though it seems you have not read it, you simply removed it, by snipping it from my original, and thus from your reply [follow the link Sons Of God]

Is this website your creation?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I have, though it seems you have not read it, you simply removed it, by snipping it from my original, and thus from your reply [follow the link Sons Of God]

This website is full of the same tired assertions I've read time and again. I assume its not your website. In any case posting a link to a website does not constitute a response on your part.

If you have a specific claim that you feel qualifies the Book of Enoch as a pseudpigraphon, or a late composition as you assert, post it and I will give you an answer.

 

[Christos Anesti]

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their canon or so I've read. It seems that certain of the early Church Fathers quoted it as Scripture including St Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and St Irenaeus but later it seemed to have fallen into disuse and other Church Fathers like Blessed Augustine questioned it. Whoever wrote the Epistle of Barnabas quoted it as Scripture as well.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes it in their canon or so I've read.<snip>

Let me throw this one out there for you to puzzle over...

I have recently befriended an Eritrean man by the name of Sirach. Sirach, however, is an evangelical and Protestant.

We got to talking about the different O.T. canons in use in the world today. He brought out his Bible which is in the language of "Tigrinya". He has a Bible published by the United Bible Societies. This is the Bible in use in his congregation. It has the Old Testament of the Hebrew Scriptures as one would expect. This is followed by a separate section between O.T. and N.T. called "Deuterocanonicals", not "Apocrypha". The list of books in this section is almost identical to what one sees in the West labeled "Apocrypha", there are only 2 books of Maccabees, for instance. But here's the kicker, at the end of that list after Bel and the Dragon, what do I see but The Book of Enoch! How's that for an odd setup? None of the other Ethiopian Orthodox singularities are included, only Enoch. This Bible has features which are uniquely Protestant, Catholic and Orhtodox all wrapped up in one.

Just in case you're wondering, I verified the 1 & 2 Maccabees in this Bible are the ones the rest of the world uses, not the Ethiopian Orthodox ones.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

I think that unless Noah had a spare copy on the ark, then how could we have a book of Enoch written by Enoch?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think that unless Noah had a spare copy on the ark, then how could we have a book of Enoch written by Enoch?

Obviously.

Noah, the great-grandson of Enoch, would have had to inherit it. Considering that Noah and Enoch's son, Methuselah were contemporaries, its not hard to conceive.

Methuselah died the very year the flood came.

 

[Standing Up]

Is guessing the only recourse we have on this question?

How old would the book be? A written record from one manuscript to the next over some 5000 years? Was there writing or pictographs? From prior to the flood? Are there other examples that suggest that is even possible? Job? How old is that?

 

[SummaScriptura]

How old would the book be? A written record from one manuscript to the next over some 5000 years? From prior to the flood? Are there other examples that suggest that is even possible? Job? How old is that?

Well, we have a copy of Enoch in the Ethiopic language with which to compare with a copy of Enoch in the Aramaic language. These two versions are separated from each other by about 17 centuries and 2 translations.

The translation path is:
Aramaic (3rd century BC) > Greek (Circa AD 100-+) > Ethiopic (???)

Modern textual scholars comparing the Ethiopic with the Aramaic have universally judged the Ethiopic to be a faithful formal rendition from the Aramaic.

Now how far back was the flood? How many languages would the book need to pass through? You think there is a point beyond which it is unreasonable in a book's preservation?

Bear in mind we have copies of texts of other books in existence today which are 2,000 years old, meaning they have never passed through a translation path in that amount of time. They largely are the same as ones we have of the same docs which DID indeed pass through that process over millennia. This permits the imagination to think of other methods of preservation by which a much later genertion could recover and reclaim more primitive docs.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm using year 1 as the dating point, not now.

So, would Enoch book make it some 5000 years to year 1? Another book made it 2000 years to year 1? How old is Moses' books, 2000 years to year 1?

 

[SummaScriptura]

I'm using year 1 as the dating point, not now.

So, would Enoch book make it some 5000 years to year 1? Another book made it 2000 years to year 1? How old is Moses' books, 2000 years to year 1?

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