What is wrong with the Book of Enoch?

[LadyEagle]

Have you ever read it?

You can read the Book of Enoch on line here:

http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM

The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. It is even mentioned in the NT in the Book of Jude.

Here is an interesting thread about the Book of Enoch:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2001/enoch_cal.html

 

[LadyEagle]

History. The Book of Enoch was dropped from the Jewish scriptures shortly after Christ, most likely because it apparently referred to him as the Messiah. It was quoted as scripture by the early Christian Church fathers until the middle of the third century AD, accepted as a divine work having been written by Enoch himself.[SIZE=-1][5][/SIZE] It then fell into disrepute and was banned from the canon of scripture in the fourth century, partly because it didn't agree with how Christianity came to be redefined after the death of the apostles.

From the link above....

 

[gb93433]

Have you ever read it?

You can read the Book of Enoch on line here:

http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM

The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. It is even mentioned in the NT in the Book of Jude.

Here is an interesting thread about the Book of Enoch:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2001/enoch_cal.html

1 - 3 Enoch is a part of the pseudepigrapha but was never accepted as part of scripture. Also, it is not a part of the MT nor LXX.

Just because something is mentioned does not make it a part of the canon from which it was quoted. The source of "All Cretans are liars" is not a part of scripture but it is quoted in the NT.

 

[LadyEagle]

Here is what I find interesting in the light of Rev 3:

In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697

Rev 3: [13] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
[14] And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
[15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
[17] Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

I can't help but wonder if there is a connection to this passage (prophetically speaking) because they did not include the Book of Enoch in the canon.

 

[Chessic]

I find it tough, as a protestant, to deal with the formation of the canon. Between what the Jews thought and what the Catholics thought, I feel like I have to struggle to come up with a theory for protestants--without sounding like a Mormon ("another testament of Jesus Christ...").

This book looks very interesting, though I see no connection with many of the verses paralleled in the article. I'd like to hear more evidence about its history.

 

[Humblesmith]

My vote goes with those who were closest to the events........further, they read a lot more and watched a lot less TV than we do. Therefore I'll trust them and leave it out of the canon.

 

[EdSutton]

Voted no, because I have not read but a couple of snippets of the Book of Enoch. As to the title of the thread, nothing is wrong with the Book of Enoch, per se.

Although the OT Hebrew compilers did not see fit to include it in the 24 books of the Hebrew canon, all this means is that God, the Holy Spirit did not see fit for it to be included, as Scripture, hence I assume did not directly lead (carry along) the writer to pen it. (II Pet. 1:16-21) Why should this surprise us? The Holy Spirit did not see fit for Paul's letter to the Laodecians, and, I believe, another Epistle to the Corinthians to be included either, and we have no clue what was in that Corinthian Epistle. Likewise some books mentioned in the OT, such as Gad and Jasher. And Luke mentions several other 'Gospels' as well, presumbly including some by some of the Apostles. (Ignore the so-called Gospel of Judas. This is a big time "red herring".) There were several Acts, Gospels, and Epistles that were, no doubt, written by faithful believers in the time of the NT, as well as the same in the time of the OT. And there were a few that accepted various of these books as Scripture. However, the great majority never accepted any non-canonical book as Scripture.

And I believe, by the providential leading of the Spirit through the believers, the Scriptures God wanted for us are exactly what we have in out hand, today.

Ed

 

[npetreley]

I have no idea how useful the book of Enoch may be. I read it years ago and I thought it was fascinating.

Speaking of Enoch, I heard once that a local nickname for the great pyramid is "the pillar of Enoch". Anyone ever hear that?

 

[blackbird]

The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. It is even mentioned in the NT in the Book of Jude.

Ummmmmmm! Sister LE!! The book of Enoch is NOT mentioned in the book of Jude!!! Sorry---but whats mentioned there is a portion of Enoch's message to the perverse people of his day---turns out that in Enoch's walk with God---he was a witness to the world---as he went and in his encounters his message was

"BEHOLD!! HE COMETH WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF HIS SAINTS!!!"

 

[Steven2006]

The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. It is even mentioned in the NT in the Book of Jude.

I don't believe this is true.




"The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered at Qumran, also verify the current Old Testament canon. They date from as early as 100BC, making them about one thousand years older than any other copy of the Hebrew Old Testament still in existence today." - From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man

"There is no clear evidence of the Jews ever making any official pronouncement listing the books they considered authoritative.....
The closest they ever came to such a listing was at the Synod at Jamnia(ca. AD90).Jamnia, or Jabneh, was a town located on the western boundary of Judah, or Jabneh, which became the headquarters of the Sanherdrin-in-exile after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. One of the major topics of discussion of the Jewish elders who gather for the synod was a review of the canon of their holy books. Apparently were raised concerning the canonicity of Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Song of Solomon, and Esther. Although no official pronouncements emerged from this conference, the end result was the affirmation of the canonicity of all thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. The leaders who met there understood that they were not "creating" a canon; they were acknowledging that the collection traditionally revered divinely inspired deserved its status as Holy Scripture." - From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man

 

[Linda64]

The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. It is even mentioned in the NT in the Book of Jude.

And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Genesis 5:22-24)

This all happened BEFORE the Flood. Everything and everyone was destroyed except 8 people (Noah & his family). If Enoch wrote a book, it was destroyed in the Flood. Therefore, how can anyone be so sure that what they found (this supposed Book of Enoch) is authentic?

The Book of Jude doesn't say that Enoch wrote a book--it does say that Enoch prophesied:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, (Jude 1:14)

 

[LadyEagle]

Are there no pre-flood artifacts?

 

[npetreley]

Are there no pre-flood artifacts?

I don't know what you mean by artifacts. I mentioned earlier that there may be a connection between Enoch and the great pyramid of Giza. That pyramid may actually be a testimony to the flood. The walls inside the pyramid were encrusted with salt up to a point where water would have leaked out. This implies that the great pyramid was deluged, then the water leaked out after the waters subsided. But the water leaked out only to the point where it could - after which the water had to evaporate, leaving behind a salt coating.

If there's any truth to the salt evidence, it would imply that the great pyramid pre-dates the flood.

 

[GLipscomb48]

Try writing something on paper and then submersing that paper in water for 150 days. Given the constant churning from the rain coming down and the waters coming up along with the wind that would be blowing, it was probably like a giant washing machine beating the water with an agitator.

I doubt any writing pre-flood survived.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Book of Enoch was NEVER a part of Scripture and was, of course, a late style of writing where people wrote anonymously and gave the name to a famous personage to add credability.

It would take a lot more than a 10,000 year old name to make its content credible.

 

[GLipscomb48]

Does that mean I can write a book of Jubal? or of Tubal-cain?

 

[npetreley]

Try writing something on paper and then submersing that paper in water for 150 days. Given the constant churning from the rain coming down and the waters coming up along with the wind that would be blowing, it was probably like a giant washing machine beating the water with an agitator.

I doubt any writing pre-flood survived.

I don't mean to argue that the book of Enoch was written by Enoch, but you can't rule it out with your logic. It may not have been on paper. Noah could have kept a copy on the ark. Noah could have remembered it supernaturally and passed it on. There are tons of possible explanations as to how the information survived.

Like I said, I don't know if Enoch is authentic or not, and it doesn't matter much to me either way. But you can't rule things out with assumptions based on the natural.

 

[Dr. Bob]

What written records do we have from the antediluvian era? None. They had no paper. Cuniform writing was still 2000 years to come.

Didn't happen. Don't be deceived by false writing that claims antiquity.

 

[npetreley]

What written records do we have from the antediluvian era? None. They had no paper. Cuniform writing was still 2000 years to come.

Didn't happen. Don't be deceived by false writing that claims antiquity.

Again, I'm not arguing for its authenticity, but the lack of paper counts for nothing. We have lots of historical documents that we consider to be trustworthy but for some, our most recent extant manuscripts are dated almost 1,000 years after the events they record.

Also, have you ever read Beowulf? That was passed on orally for something like 300 years before it was written down. We have no idea if the current version is anything like the original, but it certainly could be very accurate. Add to that the supernatural working of the Spirit and you could keep something accurate by oral tradition indefinitely.

Like I said, Enoch could be a total scam for all I know, but arguing about whether or not paper existed doesn't make it so. I'm more likely to believe it's not authentic simply because it didn't make it into the canon. I think God could have gotten it into the canon if He wanted it there.

Edit:

1. Here's a link to Beowulf. Look at how long it is and imagine passing it on for 300 years. Like I said, maybe it isn't anything like the original, or maybe it's very much like the original. Without having the original in written form, there's no way to know.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/beowulf/bl-beowulf-all.htm

2. Actually, Enoch did make it (partially) into the canon, since it is quoted there. The book had to carry some weight in order for it to be quoted with authority.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Yeah, that Enoch was antediluvian doesn't really prove that the book is not authentic. God could have preserved it if even from then if He wanted to.

I've seen two contradictory "facts" set forth in this thread, and determining which one of them is true might shed a bit of light on this subject: that Enoch was considered Scripture by Jews of antiquity, and that it was not considered Scripture by Jews of antiquity.

Michael