The book 1 Enoch is canon in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. I’d wager that Rastas view it as canon as well since Hailie Selassie did. 1 Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude, and it’s quotation is attributed to “the prophet Enoch”. I have read on some Christian apologetics websites that Jude was mistaken in believing that Enoch was a legitimate text. All that matters is that he was trying to make a good moral point. I think this is an absolutely ridiculous explanation. First, these same Christians claim that the Bible is an infallible text. Second, Jude was JESUS’S BROTHER, I’m gonna take his word over a 21st century Pastor.
Leviticus 16 6-10 is about Yom Kippur. The Israelites yeeted a goat off a cliff as part of the ritual. In the KJV, this goat is called “the scapegoat”. In Hebrew, and in many translations, this word instead is the proper noun of “Azazel”. Azazel is a prominent figure in Enoch, the leader of the fallen angels. God has him cast inside the earth until the final day of judgement, according to Enoch. So, the goat yeeted off a cliff was for him, according to all sources OTHER than the KJV. So, I think there was purposeful manipulation in the translation in an attempt to discredit Enoch. Also, I believe this is where Jesus went when he died on the cross.
Do you guys believe that Enoch should be canon in the Bible? Personally, I believe the authoritative Bible is the Hailie Selassie Bible, which includes an additional five books of canon atop the traditional canon.
Hi
@Xavier Graham SA
I wish the western canon had kept enoch in it’s canon. I would certainly trade an exclusion of songs of Solomon for an inclusion of I Enoch.
While it is true that no one can know the authorship of Enoch, this is also true of every other book in the Old and New Testament. No one knows who wrote any of these books but instead, authorship of all of the books of the old and new testament is attributed by tradition. We simply don't know who wrote and edited any of them.
There are certain characteristics of Enochian literature which are helpful historically. The old testament enochian literature existed
before the New Testament, thus the New Testament writers quote from and refer to the Enochian literature and it was historically, quite popular.
Regarding the observation that the later Enochian literature is syncretic.
This is certainly correct, however this is also true of almost all sacred literature to some extent, including the Old and New Testaments. I’ve already pointed out for example, that the New Testament quotes and borrows from Enoch in multiple instances. For example, the writer of Jude quotes Enoch directly. This is syncretism.
A SIMPLE HISTORICAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING ENOCHIAN LITERATURE
The Enochian literature existed before the New Testament existed and it was incredibly influential in Judeo-Christian history. For example, it is obvious that early Christian, including those who wrote the New Testament had read the book of Enoch and used it in their writings. 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 influences, 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 written” Another quote from Pistis Sophia :
“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 37 to place them in the rock of Ararad."
MANY of the testaments 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 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.".
Charles had ample reason to make this claim.
For examples :
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 Eliezser 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/Qumranic Library.
In fact, outside of the Pentateuch and psalms, there were more copies of Enoch discovered in this ancient library than any other old testament book. (Other than their Enoch, no other old testament book even reached double digits in terms of copies found in their library.)
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 Judeo-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.
If one is going to make a study of Judeo-Christianity of this era, they will end up studying enoch.
Clear
φυτωτωω
