Jude quotes the book of Enoch. Is it Scripture?

The census decree of Augustus Caesar is not Scripture. However, its mention by Luke is scripture. Likewise, Pilate's sign placed above Jesus' head on the cross isn't Scripture, but the mention of it by four gospel writers IS Scripture.

As for the Book of Enoch...How ancient is it? It mentions a year of 365 1/4 days in length, the current length, while it's well-established by Scripture and secular sources all over the world that the year was once 360 days long & each month was exactly 30 days long. And this is NOT because those ancient people couldn't count nor measure the movements of the sun & moon...it was because those were the actual physical lengths of the year and month.

It is widely believed a cosmic cataclysm occurred in the 700s BC that altered the lengths of the year and the month, the most prominent event being the reversal of the sun in its course for Hezekiah. This reversal was seen by the eastern Pawnee Indians in North America as a sunrise that retreated for a few hours & by more westerly Indians as a retreat of the stars in their courses, and a long night.

Therefore, the BOE musta been written no earlier than the time of Hezekiah and Isaiah.

 

Enoch evidently prophesied for we have his word on good authority. What he said in scripture is good enough for me for the Holy Spirit included Enoch’s word. Scripture we have today, I believe, is the Word of God that God wishes us to have today. It is sufficient.

Brother Ian’s post includes “Perhaps the Holy Spirit wanted the portion of the source to become Scripture and not the entire contents.” I believe he is right for its inclusion is placed “into” scripture, as it is prophecy to be fulfilled.

As to discussions of Sabbath vs. Sunday is well put by Ray Berrian - “The Apostle Paul said that we should not make a fuss about which day of the week we worship. Everyday we should be worshipping Him in our hearts.”

I fully agree with Ray, and I believe this also takes care of Christmas and Easter. But with that said, I believe it is imperative we Christians know what His Word teaches, and not that of man. It should be noted that Jesus Christ came from the Tomb at just about the stroke of 5:59 PM Saturday ascending the first time to heaven very early Sunday morning. He would not allow Mary to touch Him. In
this, prophecy is fulfilled, and there is a New beginning on the First Day of Week.

Today we are to worship not what was promised Israel, but what is ours – heaven. Out of the Old came the New, and we cannot put this New wine into Old bottles. That New Day is here, and the Bridegroom of Israel is taken from them, but He will come for them. Christian faith, ituttut

 

In the same vein as the Ray Berrian quote, the late Dr. Oliver B. Greene was once asked: "Bro. Greene, don't you keep the Sabbath?" His priceless response, which I shall never forget, was: "I keep every day!" 'I heard this with my own two eyes. Heh! Heh!' Ed

 

Helen, did anyone post that it should be considered Scripture? You really need to answer a more fundamental question... Was the Book of Enoch written by the Biblical ENoch?

 

I'm not sure I get you. Who was suggesting the Book of Enoch should be Scripture? Shouldn't the real question be is the book written by the Biblical Enoch?

 

Sister, Helen hasn't posted on here for quite a while-two, three years maybe? So you probably won't get an answer.

 

If Noah had taken some books on the ark, what language would they have been in?

 

No, Jude was prophesying of what Enoch would be preaching in the streets of Jerusalem in the tribulation with Elijah as one of the two witnesses. Both Enoch and Elijah will die there in fulfillment of the scriptures which say, "It is appointed unto man once to die...".

I believe this, along with Revelation and other scriptures, is evidence of the fact that God knows the end from the beginning and can show the end from the beginning to us as well. The use of the past tense could mean that Enoch prophesied these things in his day before his immediated translation from his day to the tribulation period, but I believe this is what Enoch will be preaching in the tribulation period. Another example of the use of tense in this manner is where Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," clearly showing that time is irrelevant to God.

Also, when recording future events in the Book of Revelation, the record is written as if the events are taking place in the present or even the past tense, even though none of those things have yet occurred in our present tense.

 

Many say the period of Job represents a very ancient period, pre-Abraham even, but no one says the canonical Job is that old. The poetic speeches likely reflect old oral tradition which the canonical author inscripturated for us along with narrative at the beginning and end. As for 1 Enoch, there could have been a similar set of oral traditions that were passed down, which authors used to give authority or name recognition to their new apocryphal edition which likely resembled very little of their the source they drew inspiration from. So the written 1 Enoch is just that. It certainly wasn't written by biblical Enoch!

 

I suspect that there was a lot of information lost when the Sect of the Nazarenes ("the Circumcision" - genetic Israelite believers) was dispersed
following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. The Gentiles under Paul really had no tradition of preservation of ancient Jewish knowledge
or ancient Jewish documents. So this vast amount of knowledge, which is only hinted at in the (genetic) Israelite N.T. Epistles, was lost (for now anyway).
This is one reason why I suspect that Enoch will be one of the "Two Witnesses" of Revelation. As well, I suspect that there is another caché of documents,
similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls, that are waiting to be discovered by (genetic) Israelite believers during the Great Tribulation.

 

Wow, I just noticed the OP is 6 years old now. Someone had to dig deep for this one!

 

If you are "certain", can you cite specific reasons why you are convinced it is not? I am convinced it is and am prepared to give evidence.

 

That may or might be the case that gentiles had no tradition of preservation (though I question that), however, on the subject with you mention it was decidedly NOT the case. I will cite just one example for you to think over...

There is a body of literature which in the West is called "the Apocrypha". Those books are of Jewish origin and are pre-Christian, yet, the only reason we still have complete copies of those books is the Church kept copying them. It is a fact of history that if their reservation had been left to the Jews, they'd be lost. About the time Palestinian Judaism reorganized itself and finalized its canon, books which were being used by the Church were dropped from that body of literature they sought to preserve. It is the case the Apocrypha exists is due to the Church, not the Jews.

 

Have you read the Hermeneia volume on 1 Enoch? Can you interact with the redactional arguments put forth there?

 

I own that book and a number of other Vanderkam books. I can and do "interact" with it but am unsure if this forum is appropriate. I would rather keep this on point and ask that you cite a specific reason which you are sure on this matter.

Preliminarliy, suffice it to say that Biblical scholars who focus on the texts themselves approach this study with a number of assumptions. Number 1 on that list of assumptions affecting this discussion is the "evolution of religion" theory under which most operate.

For instance, Moses simply COULD NOT have written Leviticus because Leviticus clearly foretells the captivity and restoration periods in Israel's history. Foretelling the future is not possible. Therefore, Moses could not have written it and someone else had to.

The same textual scholars who say Enoch didn't write Enoch say Isaiah didn't write Isaiah and Daniel didn't write Daniel, and so on.

 

Don't you know the Catholic Church determined the book of Enoch was not canonical. Originaly Enoch was part of scripture. In my humbled opinon it still is, but then I do not allow the RCC to dictate what is cannonical and what isn't.
MB

 

You can present it if you want. The only inspired Scripture that we have is in the 66 books which are currently in our Bible. Revelation is the last book. And then the canon was closed. There are no more books including Enoch. Now the verses that were quoted out of Enoch God chose to inspire. He chose to inspire them just as he chose to inspire the Greek poet that Paul quoted on Mars Hill, and the Cretian philosopher that he quoted in Titus one. That doesn't mean that all Cretian philosophers and all Greek poets are inspired does it? Only the words that these men wrote down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were and are inspired. So it is with Jude quoting from the Book of Enoch. Only the words written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are inspired, and no others.

 

I am not raising any issues related to canonicity nor to inspiration. I am merely saying that for the Book of Enoch there is evidence both internally as well as externally that indcates it was written by Enoch. Can you see that is an entirely different approach? Implications concerning canon and inspiration are just that, implications.

 

The book of Enoch is no more inspired than Satan's words in Matthew 4. The book(Jude) is inspired. There's no problem with inspiration in quoting non inspired sources.

 

It's too apocryphal and not in accordance with the biblical account. Take the flood as a good example. God says it was to punish MAN's sin, not the sin of 400 foot tall demon offspring who went around eating the flesh of all humans and beasts they could get their hands on.