• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Book of Enoch

lewismilton

New Member
Hello all.

Any thoughts about the book of enoch? I've just started reading - the angels who came to earth and procreated with human women are in big trouble and

I've just read pages and pages on the horrible punishment God has in store for them.

Does anyone have a good knowledge of this text? I'm getting through it but I'm still a bit lost.

Why did the angelic/human union produce giants -and why were they bent on destruction? Why was the punishment of the angels so severe?
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Hello all.

Any thoughts about the book of enoch? I've just started reading - the angels who came to earth and procreated with human women are in big trouble and

I've just read pages and pages on the horrible punishment God has in store for them.

Does anyone have a good knowledge of this text? I'm getting through it but I'm still a bit lost.

Why did the angelic/human union produce giants -and why were they bent on destruction? Why was the punishment of the angels so severe?
Well, it is around 50 years since I got a hold of the "Book of Enoch". Combined with the Old Testament, and Revelation, the demon spirits are the result of the "men of renown", the children of the heavenly watchers and the women of men. The "men of renown" eventually died, but their demon (unclean spirits) live on. Per Rev 16, the unclean spirits of the "false apostle" (Paul), the "beast" (5th head)(Caesar/dictators) will be revived and lead the rulers/kings of the nations/Gentiles into Har-Magedon, and their destruction. Whether in men, or pigs, the demon spirits require hosts. Men or women with lack of character provide good hosts material. Men and women such as Biden, Soros, Stalin, Pelosi, Clinton, all followers of Mammon, are good hosts material. According to Rev 16 & Zechariah 14, they will lead the nations/Gentiles to their doom. The men of renown, giants, were supposed to have been killed by the flood, but apparently, by skeletons found around the world, the job didn't get done. The ongoing attack on Jerusalem/Jews, is supported by the "woke", Godless, Progressive socialist, supported by the godless Progressive higher education system of America. The seeds planted by the Communist International (Comintern) of the early 20th century. It is a spiritual war fought in heaven as well as on earth. Once the "fruit" is ripe enough, either good or rotten, then comes the end. Matthew 7:13-18 & 13:30
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hello all.

Any thoughts about the book of enoch? I've just started reading - the angels who came to earth and procreated with human women are in big trouble and

I've just read pages and pages on the horrible punishment God has in store for them.

Does anyone have a good knowledge of this text? I'm getting through it but I'm still a bit lost.

Why did the angelic/human union produce giants -and why were they bent on destruction? Why was the punishment of the angels so severe?
I consider Enoch to be a perfectly worthless book, unless you are a historian studying the literature of that era. It is certainly not written by Enoch. It is not considered canon by either Jews or Christians. In addition, I just really hate the genre of apocalyptic literature.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I consider Enoch to be a perfectly worthless book, ...
It may lack the quality of Homer or Apollonius Rhodius, but to call it "perfectly worthless" seems more than a little pompous.

It is not considered canon by either Jews ...
For the most part, yes. However, see Enoch: Canonicity. Enoch was clearly deemed to be of significant value.

I guess the question becomes: "By what standard is the text "perfectly worthless"? Is it more or less so than, say, Exodus?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It may lack the quality of Homer or Apollonius Rhodius, but to call it "perfectly worthless" seems more than a little pompous.


For the most part, yes. However, see Enoch: Canonicity. Enoch was clearly deemed to be of significant value.

I guess the question becomes: "By what standard is the text "perfectly worthless"? Is it more or less so than, say, Exodus?
I consider the Book Enoch as fairly well documented, but not the provenance of known author, as part of the sacred literature of the time. It was rejected by the Church, but considered important. There were subtle objections concerning the theology of both Judaism and Christianity. I do not believe that it was apocalyptic literature was the reason for rejection.

As far as provenance of known author much if not most of the Torah and New Testament books lack provenance of known author.

Despite objections apocalyptic literature is part of the tradition of Judaism and Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Bthoth

*banned*
I consider Enoch to be a perfectly worthless book, unless you are a historian studying the literature of that era. It is certainly not written by Enoch. It is not considered canon by either Jews or Christians. In addition, I just really hate the genre of apocalyptic literature.
I agree. i stopped reading nostradomas for the very same reason.
 

Bthoth

*banned*
I consider the Book Enoch as fairly well documented as part of the sacred literature of time. It was rejected by the Church, but considered important. There were subtle objection concerning the theology of both Judaism and Christianity. I fo not believe that it was apocalyptic literature was the reason for rejection.

Despite objections apocalyptic literature is part of the tradition of Judaism and Christianity.
So is the book of thomas based on your measurement stick.

Lots of interpretations of each and every book.

for example, i see quran as an attempt to fulfill torahbible.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So is the book of thomas based on your measurement stick.

Lots of interpretations of each and every book.

for example, i see quran as an attempt to fulfill torahbible.
So is the book of thomas based on your measurement stick.
I try and avoid yardsticks from memories of the Roman Church College boot camp in Costa Rica.

I consider the Book of Thomas simply to be a selection of sayings of Jesus circulated at the time. A good read is The Complete Gospels edited by Miller. A good comparative read. I do not focus on what Judaism and Christianity consider "approved Books" to be sacred scripture,
Lots of interpretations of each and every book.
True, I try to understand them in the context of the culture and times they were written.
for example, i see quran as an attempt to fulfill torahbible.

I consider the Quran as the Quran. Equally the New Testament is an attempt to fulfill the Torah.

I consider the sacred texts of all the religions and philosophical works in history to be the evolving spiritual heritage of humanity.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The best argument for the Book of Enoch as sacred scripture is the copies known BCE particularly in the Dead Sea scrolls indicating the importance of the book at that time.


Based on the number of copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch was widely read during the Second Temple period. Today, the Ethiopic Beta Israel community of Haymanot Jews is the only Jewish group that accepts the Book of Enoch as canonical and still preserves it in its liturgical language of Geʽez, where it plays a central role in worship.[6] Apart from this community, the Book of Enoch was excluded from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the Septuagint and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon.[7][8]

The main reason for Jewish rejection of the book is that it is inconsistent with teachings of the Torah. From the standpoint of Rabbinic Judaism, the book is considered to be heretical. For example, in 1 Enoch 40:1-10, the angel Phanuel (who is not mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures) presides over those who repent of sin and are granted eternal life. Some claim that this refers to Jesus Christ, as "Phanuel" translates to “the Face of God”.[9]
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @lewismilton

I the importance of the Book of Enoch as part of early Judeo-Christian canon;


In response to ChristianCommando's claim that "Earlier church Leaders who came across this "Book" never accepted it into the "Canon of Scripture." Shammahbn replied :

It's not really true to say that "the Earlier church Leaders who came across this "Book" never accepted it into the Canon of Scripture."

I very much agree with Shammahbn that early Judao-Christian Enoch WAS viewed as scripture in many religious circles. It REMAINS scripture nowadays by some christians. For example: The Ethiopic orthodox has 45 million Christian members and they continue to revere a version of Enoch in their canon of scripture..

It is obvious that early Christian writers read the book of Enoch. The great apocryphologist R.H. charles reminds us that "nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction," and he reminds us further that "it is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude, and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. . . . With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book."

In his initial study of Jewish Enoch, Charles quotes no less than 128 places in the New Testament where it is either quoted or influences a quote. The Enochian influence is so great that Charles declares that "The influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books taken together." He further lists some thirty passages in early orthodox Jewish and Christian writings in which the book of Enoch is mentioned specifically, plus numerous citations from the book that are found in the important Jewish apocalyptic writings of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra, and quotations from Enoch found in more than thirty Christian Patristic writers.

To these we might add the tremendous and obvious wealth of Enoch lore contained in the Zohar. Even the Pistis Sophia, (an important literary link between sectaries in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Palestinian Christianity and Judaism, claims to contain important material taken from "the two Books of Jeu which Enoch has writtenAnother quote from Pistis : They should find the mysteries which are in the Book of Jeu which I caused Enoch to write in Paradise . . . [which I spake out of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life], and I caused him to place them in the rock of Ararad."

MANY of the testament of the Twelve Patriarchs contain the phrase " I read from the Book of Enoch...", (and then the Patriarch would relate what was read - usually it related to immoralities or disobedience the sons of the Patriarch would do that would cause their descendants misery...)

The ancient Christians got their enthusiasm for the book of Enoch as well as the book itself from the Jews. It was the Book of Enoch, Charles hailed as : "the most important pseudepigraph of the first two centuries B.C.". He had ample reason to make this claim: For examples :

Historians have pointed out that the Hasidic writings of the time as well as the later Cabalistic works show dependence on Enoch. Large parts of the lost Book of Enoch were included in the Pirke of Rabbi Eliezer and in the Hechalot (both highly respected works for scholars). Some of the oldest and most important fragments of Enoch have turned up among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and, in fact, there were more copies of Enoch discovered in this ancient library than any other book outside of the pentateuch and psalms!

I do not believe that a scholar of Early Christianity CAN understand the early Christian doctrines and the evolution of Christian doctrines without a study of Enoch as part of the library of texts which were popularly used among early Judao-Christian literature and “proto-christianity”. Nor do I believe that one can make full correlation of early Christian literature without referring to the various Enochs.


In the Enochian literature one finds many doctrines typical to the earliest forms of Christianity. Often in clearer form than the later literature.

I think there were many reasons that western Christianity abandoned Enoch as the early Christian doctrines evolved and changed into some of the more modern forms of Christian doctrines. For example, western developing Christianities came under greater roman influence than the various eastern Christianities.

For examples :

Western Christianities under increasing roman and other influences, became less comfortable with Judao-Christian literature that referenced the Christian “Godhead” as three separate individuals.

Western Christian doctrines evolved in ways that increasingly allegorized and spiritualized angels. Western Christianity became, I think, increasingly uncomfortable with the early doctrines of angels as material beings having similarities to men on earth, possessing (and abusing) their free will.

Western Christian doctrines evolved away from and became increasingly uncomfortable with the early material descriptions of heaven, it’s inhabitants, and their activities.

I think that for these and other reasons, Enoch became less popular among the various western Christianities.


Lewismilton, Good luck in your studies of the ancient Judeo-Christian literature. Initially it may seem somewhat disorienting in terms of idiom s(e.g. "Giants" become "great men" in different versions) and ancient ways of speaking ("God" becomes "the Lord of Spirits" or "The before time", etc). I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful.

Clear
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Any thoughts about the book of enoch?
My guess:

It has some things in common with the sermon of John the Baptist. It is a homiletic text aimed at persons of Jewish background and most likely is a fantastical imagining which comments upon the cycles of repentance and falling away that are the focus of many canonical scriptures. The people of Israel always fall away then repent in cycles as they are increasingly transformed into a better and better group of people. Its a theme in Isaiah and possibly other prophets. Enoch is both sacred and not literal in my first guess opinion. I am not certain is Jude is nonliteral, but its allusion to this text suggests it is.

Enoch is dealing with the cycle. What are the primary threats to Judaism mentioned in the canon which cause the cycle? 1. Not keeping the law 2. Not keeping the law well enough. Not keeping the law is a disaster represented by the destruction of the ground in the first chapter of Enoch as well as in John the Baptists sermon that quotes from. The cycle of repentance and falling away implies improvement over multiple generations such that at first there are large improvements, but small defects can create disaster in later generations. Scripture (not Christian scripture) puts a lot of the responsibility for sins upon the leadership. They are key to the cycle: hence to stability and the health of everyone. In stories it is always the leaders which make or break the situation: Abraham, Levi, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Saul, David etc. Their failures are the failure of all. They are the focus in Enoch as well.

The high places being nearer to heaven represent political elites and those who know what the law says, such as smart educated wealthy people. Both John the Baptist and the book of Enoch talk about these very people being brought low. It is a common theme in scripture, and you can see it in many, many of the bible stories. When leaders err they lead the people away from wisdom and practical application of principles. This is bad part of the cycle of repentance and falling away. This is primary threat to Judaism. Enoch is an exploration of this cycle or a warning perhaps, but it is a writing that has not been retained in canon.

Its like an old sermon someone has kept around. Where John the Baptist differs from Enoch is that John is talking about a complete reformat of everything including how knowledge is passed. Possibly John the Baptist preaches that leadership is at an end altogether, but whatever John is preaching about Enoch seems written about something else. Both allude to the cycles mentioned in Isaiah. Enoch is focused upon a renewal of leadership.

So if I were me (and I am me) I would avoid getting fascinated with descriptions of angels and fantastical battles with swords. Its actually a boring text for most of us who are not involved in discussions about torah. Learning how to understand all of the language in this text would be enough to drive me insane probably. I would be more concerned about modern laws and tangles of problems that have to do with us such as whether to legalize drugs or whether to have speed limits and who ought to be elected. I would try to understand Jude, since its in the canon and is required reading but would steer away from this other book as a rabbit trail.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @IndigoChild5559

@IndigoChild5559 said : "Enoch has never been a part of either Jewish or Christian canon, with the exception of the Ethiopian church, which has a very very different idea what the nature of canon is." (post #11)

1) A working definition of what constitutes an individuals' "canon"


For the purpose of this discussion, my current concept of what was at an individual level "canonical" and authoritative to an individual was that it was a source seen as authoritative and worthy as a source of study and belief. There have been and will continue to be many different texts considered "canonical" by various individuals.


2) The unusual claim that Enoch was never in a Christian Canon despite an Enoch being inside a Christian Canon
I would be very interested to see what your evidence is for this claim that Enoch was never a part of a Christian Canon when it obviously remains firmly inside the Ethiopian Canon and is quoted by the New Testament Author.

Of course early Christians used Enoch as part of their sacred texts else the writers of the New Testament would not have quote from Enoch in their text. When you read the New Testament texts, you are frequently reading principles first quoted in the enochian literature.


3) An example of a quote from 300 b.c. Enoch inside 1st century a.d. New Testament
For example, New Testament Jude of the first century writes :
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all...,” (New Testament Jude 1:14-15)“

Is the same text as 1 Enoch from at least 4 centuries before :
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them...” (Old Testament I Enoch ch 2)


4) What data does Indigochild5559 have to show the Historians of early Judeo-Christianity are wrong and his theory is correct

As I mentioned, the great apocryphologist R.H. charles reminds us that "nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction," and he reminds us further that "it is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude, and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. . . . With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book."

Can you provide historical data why you think R.H. Charles and Charlesworth, and the other historians who point out the same historical conclusion are wrong?

Clear
τωφυειω
υρ ειφυακω
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Hi @IndigoChild5559

@IndigoChild5559 said : "Enoch has never been a part of either Jewish or Christian canon, with the exception of the Ethiopian church, which has a very very different idea what the nature of canon is." (post #11)

For the purpose of this discussion, my current concept of what was at an individual level "canonical" and authoritative to an individual was that it was a source seen as authoritative and worthy as a source of study and belief. There have been and will continue to be many different texts considered "canonical" by various individuals.
Individuals do not have canons. Religions have canons. There is usually a time of dispute, when many different voices give their opinions on which books are suitable. For example, many Christians wanted various books such as the Didache and Shepherd of Hermes to be included in canon. But their individual voices did not make canon, because a person speaking alone is not authoritative. Canon has to be agreed upon by those in positions of authority. In the case of Christianity, canon was determined by the bishops of the church. In the case of Judaism, it is by the consensus of the rabbis. In both cases, Enoch was rejected.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF TWO

1) REGARDING INDIGOCHILD5559 THEORY THAT "INDIVIDUALS DO NOT HAVE CANONS"

C
lear asked : "What data does Indigochild5559 have to show the Historians of early Judeo-Christianity are wrong and his theory is correct

As I mentioned, the great apocryphologist R.H. charles reminds us that "nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction," and he reminds us further that "it is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude, and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. . . . With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book."

Can you provide historical data why you think R.H. Charles and Charlesworth, and the other historians who point out the same historical conclusion are wrong? (Post #13)



IndigoChild5559 responded : "Individuals do not have canons" (post #14)

Of course individuals have "canons".

My personal canon as a religious historian is certainly different than your personal canon as a non-historian of religion.

Individuals may accept or decline one of the various "canons" of various religious organizations, but individuals of faith definitely have their own individual beliefs regarding texts that are sacred and are a source of study and belief and those that are not.


2) DOES INDIGOCHILD5559 HAVE DATA TO SHOW ANCIENT CHRISTIANS DID NOT USE ENOCHIAN LITERATURE IN THEIR FAITH

My question remains.
Can you provide historical data why you think R.H. Charles and Charlesworth, and the other historians who point out the same historical conclusion are wrong?


3) TENTATIVE AND PRELIMINARY DATA FROM HISTORIANS AND SCHOLARS INDICATING ENOCH WAS A SOURCE OF RELIGIOUS DATA FOR EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIANS

Let me provide some preliminary data so as to help you understand the position of the religious historical schoalrs.


I understand you are not a religious historian (else you would not make the claims you make). Let me give you examples from actual religious historians as examples of the type of historical data you could try to counter in proving the scholars wrong.

For example

The great apocryphologist Charles noted that “nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and dictation,” and “….with earlier fathers and apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book.” (R.H. Charles Book of enoch 2:163),


Charles’ early study revealed no less than 128 places in the New Testament where the New Testament was influenced by Enoch (R.H. Charles Book of enoch pp xcv-ciii). THIS is why he said “ the influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudographical books taken together.” (R.H. Charles Book of enoch p. xcv)

He further lists 30 passages in the early Orthodox Jewish and Christian writings in which enoch is mentioned specifically. (plus Jubilees, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra and more than 30 christian Patristic writers. (R.H. Charles Book of enoch pp xii-xiii).

There are enochian traditions in the Zohar and the Pistis Sophia claims to contain material from “the two books of Jeu which enoch has written. “ (Carl Schmidt, Pistis Sophi, Leiden, 1978 p 247) “…They should find the mysteries which are in the Book of Jeu which I caused Enoch to write in Paradise…” (Carl Schmidt, Pistis Sophi, Leiden, 1978 p 349)

Enoch was popular among Christians and obtained versions of if from the Jews… “…the most important pseudepigraphic of the first two centuries b.c.” (R.H. Charles Book of enoch pp 19-20)

The Hasidic writings of the time shows dependence upon Enoch (so do the later Cabalistic works). “Large parts of the lost Book of enoch were included in the Pirke of Rabbi Eleaser and in the Hechalot,” both important and respected historical works. (Adolf jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash – 6 vols 2:xxx – hereafter BHM).

There were more copies of Enochian literature found among the dead sea Scroll library than any other scripture outside of the first five books of Moses other than psalms. As I already pointed out, A Book of Enoch still, to this day, remains firmly INSIDE the Ethiopian Old Testament (Ethiopian Orthodox – 45 million members)

In James Bruce’ scriptures he brought home from Abyssinia he brought home three priceless Ethiopian enoch texts. He wrote “ …Another is amongst the books of Scripture which I brought home, standing immediately before the Book of Job, which is its proper place in the Abyssinian Canon; and a third copy I have presented to the Bodleian Library at Oxford.” (McClintock, “Book of Enoch,” 3:225).
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF TWO
C. Bonner reminded us in 1937 that “…no part of the original writings, Hebrew of Aramaic, which entered into the composite work, has survived in the original Language. The Greek version, in which the church read enoch , also disappeared.” (Campbell Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek, p3) Despite this difficiency, I Enoch had long been recognized as the largest and, after the canonical book of Daniel, the most important of the Jewish apocalyptic works which have so recently (this in 1916) come to be recognized as supplying most important data for the critical study of NT ideas and praseology.”(A.L. Davies, “Enoch, Book of,” in Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic church 1:334.)

This work, which had existed before this, was translated into Ethiopic about A.D. 500 (O. Ploger, “Henochbucher, “Die Religion in Geshichte und Gegenwart, p: 222). The leaves of Enoch the University of Michigan received in 1930 were matched by a few more from the same text that Frederick Kenyon found a year later, all from the 4th century. Van Andel tells us that it was typical of the “edifying literature in Christian circles from the 3rd to the 6th(?) centuries,” ((Van Andel, Structuur, p 3) again reminding us of the influential place enochian literature had in the literature of the early Christian church.

Jellineck’s story of finding Hebrew Enoch texts in the Bet ha-Midrash reminds us that enoch was not simply influential among the Christians, but it’s theological influence was felt among the Jews. In 1859 Jellinek suggested a Hebrew enoch had circulated among the jews. “The Karaite Salmopn b. Jerucham in the 10th century, Moses of Leon [12th century] and the Zohar toward the end of the 13th century all cite from a Book of Enoch” . In Volume 2 of the Bet ha-Midrash, Jellinek gives us the text of a “Book of Enoch”…” (BHM, 2:xxx-xxxii) The next volume he notes the Great Hechalot, a book, “parts of it appear in the Book of Enoch, that provided the source of the Christian-Essene and Jewish-Essene literature.” (BHM 3:vii, 83-102)

In Bet ha-Midrash, volume 4, jellinek refers to text to a Life of Enoch from the Sefer ha-Yashar, using even older sources and announced to the world that this provided “a new confirmation that the entire Enoch saga and the Enoch books were known to the Jews, and were only allowed to fall into neglect after the time when a growing Christianity displayed a dogmatic preference to this cycle (Sage)”. Thus, the Christian adoption of enochian literature, soured the Jews on Enoch. (BHM 4:xi-xii, 129-132)

In volume 5, in 1872 jellinek announced the vindication of his work on Enochian literature. “In [Bet ha-Midrash] III, 1855, p. xxiii, I suggested that several version of the Hechalot themes attributed to the Wisdom of Enoch must be in existence. And so also the primitive…Book of Enoch was put together from various smaller works, which had been traced back to Enoch!The study of Jewish apocalyptic literature was again initiated in 1857 by M. Lilgenfeld and it revealed that (thanks to references in by XII patriarchs, Jubilles and other works, that Enoch was “the first” and “most important” of all the Palestinian apocalypses.” (Pierre Batiffol, “Apocalypses Apocryphes,” in V. vigouroux, ed. Dictionaire de la Bible, 1895-1912 1:757) “Of all the Palestinian writings” (the wonderful Catholic scholar J.B. Frey said), “the book of enoch seems to have surpassed all the others in antiquity and in importance.” (frey, “Apocryphes,” 1:357)

Though “Christian enoch” (i.e. the Greek Enoch) was important, the discovery of Enoch among the dead sea scrolls in such great numbers is the discovery showing Hebrew Enoch was first. In 1956, Father J.T. Milik announced eight different enoch fragments among the dead sea texts. I Enoch in Aramaric and an Aramaic book III (which was superior to the Ethiopian in some ways). There was also an epistle of Enoch to Shamazya and his friends.

F.M. Cross noted that the Pesher on Habakkuk was “an unknown work related to the Enoch Literature.” (Frank M. Cross, “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (feb 1954) 3) Even the fantastic Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran begins with five columns that “deal with the birth of Noah in a manner that has no direct relationship at all to the brief biblical account in Genesis 5, 28-29,” but instead “resembles chapter cvi of the Book of Enoch in most essential points.” Terrien, “Enoch, Books of,” 10:394)


I hope it is becoming clear that one cannot read the old testament, the new testament, the early Judao-christian Literature or any judao-christian sacred literature from the earliest periods without coming face to face with enochian literature. When you read the Old or New Testament, you are reading references to enochian literature. You just didn’t know it. Many of the early doctrinal roads, passed through enochian influence.

All scholars on enoch will agree that the ultimate beginning of the enochian literature (or it’s many, many references and parts) remain completely unknown to history. However, all agree that the book of enoch derives from earlier writings. This is obvious since, many of the oldest sources we have claim to, go back to enoch.

You can seek for the source material for the most ancient of texts (which never turn up) or simply accept the assertion of the writers of Jubilees and the 12 Patriarchs do and assume that there was an Enoch which himself began the enochian literature just as we assume there was a Moses who wrote and began the Mosaic traditions we all discuss.

As far as what were authoritative (“canonical”) to ancient Judeo-Christians, If you want, I can I reference many, many other texts which were sacred to early Judao-Christianity.

Referencing texts that were important to early Judo-christianity demonstrates not only the deep and firm contextual milieu of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of spirits in this time period, but the pervasiveness of the doctrine as well. Religious Historians as well as Readers with greater historical understanding see the importance of this.

The base and core doctrinal themes of early Judao-christianity are somewhat independent of their various textual sources (if one is looking at themes that remain constant over a large portion of early Judao Christian Literature – these are the consistent, “orthodox doctrines” of ancient Christianity).

For example, whether I am a 21st century historian reading New Testament Jude who himself is quoting from Enoch as a scriptural reference, or if I am a 1st Century Christian reading from the Enoch text itself, the theme

Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all...,” (New Testament Jude 1:14-15)“

Is the same doctrine as enoch, whom the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting :

Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them...” (Old Testament I Enoch ch 2)

When the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting old testament Enoch, he is not only quoting the same words from Enoch, but he is referring to the same doctrine as well. When Jesus and the apostles quote or refer to Enoch, they are referring to earlier scriptural texts, just as Jude is referring to an earlier scripture.

The same principle of doctrinal equivalence holds true for other Judao-christian texts which I quoted from, including :

The apocalypse of Sedrach
The apocalypse of Abraham
First Enoch
Second Enoch
Third Enoch
Ecclesiates (Old Testament)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Clementine Recognitions
Job (Old Testament)
The Second treatise of the Great Seth
Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (Napthali)
The Jewish Haggadah (related to the Talmud)
The Jewish Zohar

The same principle holds true if one is quoting
Ancient Christian sermons
Ancient Christian Hymns
Ancient Christian Diaries
Ancient Christian novels

So, IndigoChild5559, the question still remains regarding support for your theory.

Can you provide historical data why you think R.H. Charles and Charlesworth, and the other historians who point out the same historical conclusion are wrong?

Clear
τωσιδρω
υρ τωειακ
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559 claimed : "... the Ethiopian church, which has a very very different idea what the nature of canon is." (post #14)

Your first claim
that Enochian literature was not used as sacred literature historically (i.e. personal canon by those who used it) was shown to be in error as demonstrated in posts #15 and #16 above. You have not, (so far) given readers any historial data demonstrating your personal theory is superior to the historical data from religious scholars who actually study enochian literature. Since you have been unable, so far, to provide any justification to believe your claim instead of the historical scholars, I will consider this claim debunked as erroneous.

However :

Your second claim that needs to be supported by you is your claim that that the Ethiopian church, which claims 45 million members (a number that I think is unsubstantiated....) had a "VERY, VERY different idea what the nature of canon is" (IndigoChild5559 in post #14).

IndigoChild5559. What sort of "very, very different idea" does the Ethiopian church have concerning the concept of "canon"?

What sort of credible data do you have to provide forum readers that supports your claim that the Ethiopian Orthodox have a "very, very, different idea" concerning the nature or definition of canon as you claim?

Clear
δρτζσι
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Enoch has never been a part of either Jewish or Christian canon, with the exception of the Ethiopian church, which has a very very different idea what the nature of canon is.
I wanted to add that you are correct as far as the history of Jewish scripture since the formal Canon was compiled in the Septuagint, but at the time of the Dead Sea scrolls it was considered apart of JEwish scripture.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
as far as the history of Jewish scripture since the formal Canon was compiled in the Septuagint,
The Septuagint has never been Jewish canon. It was a translation of the Torah and other Jewish religious texts meant to be helpful to Greek speaking Jews.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Septuagint has never been Jewish canon. It was a translation of the Torah and other Jewish religious texts meant to be helpful to Greek speaking Jews.
I believe the Septuagint was the beginning of the establishment of the evolved Canon for Judaism. Choices were made in what was included in the Septuagint that influenced the development of Canon.
 
Top