Posted on 08/27/2003 11:33:41 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Several Freepers are engaged in a research project to evaluate whether the book of astronomy in 1 Enoch gives the modern day reader any clues concerning its authenticity. Perhaps you would like to participate in the research or keep tabs with the progress as we move along. Enoch is quoted directly in the book of Jude and about 100 passages in the New Testament are rooted in the 1 Enoch phrasing. Why is the authenticity of Enoch relevant to Christians today?
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. - Daniel 12:4
Obviously we are in a time of unprecedented knowledge and travel, thus many have been curious whether the hidden text mentioned in Daniel has already been revealed to any extent. Some have proposed that the Bible Code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) is the hidden text mentioned in Daniel. So far I believe the search has been limited to a simple matrix but there was some talk of looking for any patterns in a holographic. As I recall, Newton suspected there was a code in the Pentateuch. Still others have mentioned the book of Enoch which was rediscovered in 1773 in Ethopia and further authenticated by copies found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls). Enoch begins:
The blessing of Enoch; with which he blessed the elect and the righteous who would be present on the day of tribulation at (the time of) the removal of all the ungodly ones. And Enoch, the blessed and righteous man of the Lord, took up (his parable) while his eyes were open and he saw, and said "(This is) a holy vision from the heavens which the angels showed me; and I heard from them everything and I understood. I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming. I speak about the elect ones and concerning them. (The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume I, 1 Enoch) Chaps. 72-82 The Astronomical Book, like the Book of Watchers, may date from the third century BCE; the oldest copy of it seems to have been made not long after 200 BCE. Sizable portions of the text are preserved on four copies, written in Aramaic, from Qumran cave 4. The Aramaic original appears to have been much different and much longer than the Ethiopic text, adding far more astronomical details." - James C. Vanderkam
At one time Enoch was considered Scripture but it fell into disfavor. I pulled the following excerpt from this link a few years back:
The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels… The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book’s teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223). So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded–and last but not least, lost (and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch found its way back into circulation two centuries ago. In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it right alongside the other books of the Bible… Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in obscurity. It is, in a word, old… There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians’ acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for many years buried under the King James Bible’s mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son: hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in Matthew and Mark. But Luke’s verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One (from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him." The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud" tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch. The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly…" … Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings. Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings. Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings… One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the final complaints about the Book of Enoch’s lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new evidence of the book’s real antiquity.
Here is a current day Jewish perspective on Enoch:
The oldest known Jewish work not included in the Bible is the Book of Enoch. This is a complex work, written in the third (or perhaps even the late fourth) century BCE, after the return from the Babylonian Exile and the establishment of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (6th-5th centuries BCE) and before the Maccabean revolt in 172 BCE. The oldest copies of the Book of Enoch, dating from the third century BCE, were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls (see below). The Dead Sea ScrollsBy Ayala Sussman and Ruth Peled The Qumran sect's origins are postulated by some scholars to be in the communities of the Hasidim, the pious anti-Hellenistic circles formed in the early days of the Maccabees. The Hasidim may have been the precursors of the Essenes, who were concerned about growing Hellenization and strove to abide by the Torah. Archeological and historical evidence indicates that Qumran was founded in the second half of the second century B.C.E., during the time of the Maccabean dynasty. A hiatus in the occupation of the site is linked to evidence of a huge earthquake. Qumran was abandoned about the time of the Roman incursion of 68 C.E., two years before the collapse of Jewish self-government in Judea and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E…. The historian Josephus relates the division of the Jews of the Second Temple period into three orders: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Sadducees included mainly the priestly and aristocratic families; the Pharisees constituted the Jay circles; and the Essenes were a separatist group, part of which formed an ascetic monastic community that retreated to the wilderness. The exact political and religious affinities of each of these groups, as well as their development and interrelationships, are still relatively obscure and arc the source of widely disparate scholarly views.
Here is Tertullian’s explanation of why Enoch didn’t make it into the canon:
Early Church Father, Tertullian 155-160 CE The Book of Enoch & the Church Fathers Tertullian, for example, wrote, "I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God," and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house. "If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra. "But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired". By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude."
An opinion from the Later Day Saints corner:
Modern scholars, beginning with Laurence, all date the origin of the book to the first or second century before Christ, hence it is assigned to the "pseudepigrapha," meaning it is not believed to have been written by the named author. It is dated using standard "scholarly" methods. One rule of dating used by modern scholars, is that if anything is prophesied which turns out to be correct, it must have been written after the event, because otherwise the author would really have to have been a prophet! This complete rejection of the entire concept of revelation forced Laurence to put the authorship of the Book of Enoch extremely late because he saw that it prophesied not only the existence of Parthia (250 B.C.), but even the reign of King Herod the Great, which began in 37 B.C. On the other hand, it was quoted by the Savior and his apostles so it must have been written before their time. Thus Laurence inferred that the book had been written "before the rise of Christianity; most probably at an early period of the reign of Herod."[8] More modern scholarship has concluded that the book was probably written by several authors over the period of about 180-64 B.C.[9] This extremely recent authorship date of course raises the question of how such a late forgery could have been so totally accepted as genuine in just a few decades, which has never been adequately explained. In this article, let us consider the outrageous possibility that the work was actually originally written by the prophet Enoch long before the Great Flood and contains many genuine revelations.[10] It probably also contains some interpolations of men, and has suffered from mistakes introduced by the many hand-made transcriptions. But for the purposes of this article, when it says that an angel revealed to Enoch a divine calendar, those statements will be taken at face value. One scientific way to test a hypothesis is to assume it is true and examine the consequences. Let us now apply that method to the astronomy contained in the Book of Enoch.
For our own counsel, we Freepers may be able to shed some light on the antiquity of Enoch by looking at the book of astronomy. 1 Enoch contains various statements about astronomy which are strangely accurate considering the known age of the manuscript and the language. Page 14 of the following article dates fragment 4Q208, which is from a Qumran copy of 1 Enoch in the book of astronomy section as paleographic age 200 B.C. and is carbon-dated, calibrated 166-102 BC and 186-92 BC.
Radiocarbon dating of scrolls and linen fragments (pdf)
To put it in context, the Essenes at Qumran were evidently piously anti-Hellenistic, which is to say they strongly resisted the influence of Greece – so much so they went into the wilderness. The other two main sects of Jews after they returned from Babylon were Pharisees and Sadducees. So, in terms of influence on the 1 Enoch book of astronomy – if it were a fabrication – the possible influences would include Babylonia and to a lesser extent Greece. Here are the strange observations concerning astronomy recorded in 1 Enoch:
That the light of the moon is a reflection from the sun: "Then Uriel showed me another order (concerning) when light is beamed into the moon, from which direction of the bright sun it is beamed." 1 Enoch 78:10
Research on the forum indicates that the earliest notion that the moon was reflecting light from the sun can be traced to Greece, ca 450 B.C. Anaxagores of Clazomenae. That date would be plenty early enough for an original from which the Qumran copy would be made. The counter point would be the anti-Hellenistic attitude of the Essenes, but then again, they may not have known the origin of the idea.
Orbits. We know that the moon orbits the sun and the sun orbits the Milky Way. It is very strange (to me) that Enoch would say: "They [sun and moon] do not depart from their orbit, neither increase or decrease it; but they keep faith one with another; in accordance with an oath they set and they rise." – 1 Enoch 41:5
Research on the forum shows the earliest notion of heliocentricity came from Greece - Aristarchus of Samos (fl 320-250 B.C.) but that his views were not prominently held until Ptolemy in 150 B.C.
The carbon-dating of 186 B.C. would have to be too old by at least 36 years and even so, the orbit information would need to migrate from Greece to an original Aramaic or Hebrew/Aramaic manuscript to Qumran to be copied to Aramaic. In the alternative, if the 1 Enoch is fake, then the author had to subscribe to the minority view of Aristarchus of Samos, thus not only being Hellenistic but extremely so.
That the sun and moon generate energy: "they do not economize (on energy), for their very essence generates new power." – 1 Enoch 41:7
If Enoch had seen a supernova from his heavenly travels, as testified in the manuscript, then he would describe it the way he did - the star explodes into light and cannot gather itself back into being the star. Research on the forum indicates the first observation of a supernova was in China in 4 B.C. but the cause of a supernova wasn’t understood until 1054 A.D. in Japan and China. Freeper Right Wing Professor suggested Enoch’s statement might have been a misinterpretation of a meteor (shooting star.) Further research indicates that the ancients in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria all tied meteor activity to omens and weather and knew that they fell to earth as iron, which they pursued. We have not yet found a hint that the ancients thought stars died or that they died by becoming "lightening." Ancient Astronomical Observations and in particular this page shows that it is difficult to separate astrology and astronomy in ancient literature.
Singularity? And then there is a reference to the end of all that there is (and beginning) which sounds like a singularity: in chapter 18 a place with no measure and no content, a pit "where the heavens come together." He records that the angel explained [v. 14] "this is the ultimate end of heaven and earth; it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven…"
Alexander liberated Israel from the Persian empire around 300 BC and thus from that point forward, the Jews traveled freely in the Greek world and many became culturally Hellenized (paraphrased from a post by PatrickHenry.) There is a Scholar, Chris King, who believes Enoch is Hellenistic and that explains everything:
1 Enoch is an unmistakable product of Hellenistic civilization. A world view so encyclopaediac that it embraced the geography of heaven and earth, astronomy, meteorology, medicine was no part of Jewish tradition - but was familiar to educated Greeks, but attempting to emulate and surpass Greek wisdom, by having an integrating divine plan for destiny, elaborated through an angelic host with which Enoch is in communication through his mystical travels. - Chris King.
IOW, if 1 Enoch is a fake, at the minimum, the writer of Enoch must have been familiar with Greek philosophy. The main Jewish/Greek philosopher prior to 150 BC was Philo. And I believe he would have either written in Hebrew or Greek. The book of Enoch at Qumran was copied in Aramaic. Some scholars believe the original Enoch may have been a combination of Hebrew and Aramaic like the book of Daniel. Since the Essenes went into the wilderness to escape the Hellenization, the counter-point is whether they would have intentionally brought a Hellenized text with them. Or if they believed the text was "kosher" – then there are two significant counter-points: 1. The Jewish calendar is 360 days/year whereas the Enochian calendar calls for 364.
Enoch: a brief textual history The third Enochian book, the Book of Astronomy, is considered the oldest of those preserved, thought to have been written well before the second century. It contains a description of the structure of the universe as well as the details of a 364 day solar calendar, a calendar that seems to have been popular especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls although it is well supported by another pseudepigraphic book, Jubilees.
2. Enoch does not mention Moses specifically and contains no contextual reference to Jewish traditions present in typical pseudepigraphal manuscripts. If the book were written after Moses by a Jewish author, such would be expected because the Jewish traditions would be second nature. Indeed, a Slavonic version of the Enoch, 2 Enoch, is presumed to have been originally written in Greek because the phrasing gives away clues of both the Greek language and culture. In other words, if Enoch were authentic we would expect it to not include more than prophetic metaphoric references to Moses or Jewish law or Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc.
"One of the most remarkable features of 1 Enoch is that the law revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai plays almost no part in it at all. It could be objected that it would be more surprising if it did have a role, since 1 Enoch is, of course, about Enoch who lived before the flood (see Gen 5:21-24) and thus long before the law was revealed. The argument would be that the authors of 1 Enoch were consistent about their pseudepigraphic attribution of the material to Enoch and therefore did not commit the anachronism of having him teach and obey the law of Moses. "But there is a flaw in that argument because at least two places in the book should mention the law revealed on Mt. Sinai. The two places are in the two principal apocalypses, the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse. Both of these revelations cover the period when Israel was in the wilderness and, according to the pentateuch, received the covenantal law." - James C. Vanderkam
One comment with regard to Vanderkam's comment: the Enochian Apocalypse of Weeks is a prophesy (forward looking) and thus, IMHO, would not contain more than it does:
93.1 And, after this, Enoch began to speak from the books: 93.2 And Enoch said: "Concerning the sons of righteousness, and concerning the chosen of the world, and concerning the plant of righteousness and uprightness, I will speak these things to you, and make them known to you, my children. I, Enoch, according to that which appeared to me in the Heavenly vision, and that which I know from the words of the Holy Angels, and understanding from the Tablets of Heaven." 93.3 And Enoch then began to speak from the books, and said: "I was born the seventh, in the first week, while justice and righteousness still lasted. 93.4 And, after me, in the second week, great injustice will arise, and deceit will have sprung up. And in it there will be the First End, and in it, a man will be saved. And after it has ended, iniquity will grow, and He will make a law for the sinners. 93.5 And after this in the third week, at its end, a man will be chosen as the Plant of Righteous Judgment, and after him will come the Plant of Righteousness, forever. 93.6 And after this, in the fourth week, at its end, visions of the righteous and Holy will be seen, and a Law for All Generations, and an enclosure will be made for them. 93.7 And after this, in the fifth week, at its end, a House of Glory and Sovereignty will be built forever. 93.8 And after this, in the sixth week, all those who live in it will be blinded. And the hearts of them all, lacking wisdom, will sink into impiety. And in it, a man will ascend, and at its end the House of Sovereignty will be burnt with fire. And in it the whole race of the chosen root will be scattered. 93.9 And after this, in the seventh week, an apostate generation will arise. And many will be its deeds - but all its deeds will be apostasy. 93.10 And at its end, the Chosen Righteous, from the Eternal Plant of Righteousness, will be chosen, to whom will be given sevenfold teaching, concerning his whole creation.
The other thing of course is that over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedence in Enoch and Enoch is quoted directly in Jude. So, to the New Testament - Enoch is authentic. The difficulty after 2,000 years is piecing together "the" Enoch. There are two other Enochs - one is Slavonic, 2 Enoch, and the other, 3 Enoch, is a Hebrew Apocalypse of that name written by Rabbi Ishmael in 132 A.D. (approx). Because of that date and known authorship, 3 Enoch isn't relevant to this project. 1 Enoch - is the oldest and most complete. It was first discovered in Ethiopia (in the Ge'ez language) where it had been preserved but was then confirmed by the finding of the 200 B.C. Aramaic copies at Qumran. 1 Enoch as found in Qumran is the best candidate for the one referenced by Jude. It is also the one with the most complete book of astronomy and thus gives us a window to date the original from which it was copied. 2 Enoch is also quite interesting, particularly in its prophesies concerning the 7,000 years allowed for Adamic man (including the 1,000 perfect era at the end.).
An entirely different Enoch manuscript has survived in the Slavonic language. This text, dubbed "2 Enoch" and commonly called "the Slavonic Enoch," was discovered in 1886 by a professor Sokolov in the archives of the Belgrade Public Library. It appears that just as the Ethiopic Enoch ("1 Enoch") had escaped the sixth-century Church suppression of Enoch texts in the Mediterranean area, so a Slavonic Enoch had survived far away, long after the originals from which it was copied were destroyed or hidden away. Specialists in the Enochian texts surmise that the missing original form which the Slavonic was copied was probably a Greek manuscript. This may have been, in turn, based on a Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript…. One of the most fascinating passages of the Slavonic Enoch is the account of the dramatization of eternity found in Chapter 33. As the world was made in six days, so its history would be accomplished in 6,000 years, and this would be followed by 1,000 years of rest, when the balance of conflicting moral forces has been struck and human life has reached the ideal state. (A reference of this conflict is also found in The War Scroll, a future battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. These writings were recently discovered in Qumran Cave 1, which are part of the collection of The Dead Sea Scrolls). At the close of this 7,000 year cycle would begin the 8th Eternal Day, when time should be no more…
Personally, I believe the 1000 year reign of Christ on physical earth (Revelation 20:2-3) is the seventh thousand referred to in 2 Enoch, because it precedes the eternal, new heaven and earth (Revelation 21.) However, Enoch – like Revelation – contains many metaphors and parables and is therefore particularly difficult to read.
1. Are the collection of writings extant as 1 Enoch (Ethiopian) really materials handed down by Enoch or the product of anomolous writers during the intertestamental period using the name of Enoch to lend credability to their writings and creating myth out of the basic structure pre-existing in the OT. 2. Is the material compatable with both OT and NT in inspiration, doctrine and truth? 3. Absence of Similitudes in DSS Cave 4 and the alledged references associated with them to the NT - did they exist before or after Christ? How close does the Son of man in Enoch match the son of man in the gospels?
Please read the body article of this thread for some research we've already gathered relevant to the points you raise.
My "two cents":
1. Tertullian (see article) makes the case for why the Enochian manuscript should not be dismissed as post-Flood. To that the article adds astronomy in Enoch which would not seem to find roots in an anti-Hellenistic society such as the Essenes, e.g. orbits, that the moon's light is a reflection from the sun, that the sun still shines after dark, singularities or black holes. Also interesting are the references to what surely was Herod's reign in Enoch copies of which preceded him by centuries. Before the Dead Sea Scroll discovery, those references were taken to mean that Enoch was written by Christians. Scholars start with the presumption that if the document refers to an actual historical event, it must have been written after the event occurred, i.e. that prophesy is impossible on principle of "methodological naturalism."
2. The material is compatible with Scripture - providing one is not reading Scripture with theological presuppositions and understands allegory and metaphorical language (like the book of Revelation and Daniel.) Phrases used in Enoch (fragments carbon dated to approx 200 b.c.) appear some 100 times in Scripture. Plus of course the direct quotes.
3. The terminology for Christ in Enoch is "the Elect One" which is the same terminology used in the original Greek in Luke 9:35 to describe Christ, i.e. God tells us that He is the Elect One, hear Him. Essentially, the Jews rejected Enoch out-of-hand after Christ being enfleshed, because it was obvious that it was speaking of Him. The Church rejected Enoch along with other apocalyptic ancient manuscripts (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas) - to discourage Christians from expecting Christ to return any moment (2 Peter 3:9) - and because some leaders were loathe to speak of angels. And the Reformers, leaning on the late Hebrew Masoretic sources - and Enoch having been not only rejected but physically discarded by the Catholic Church - were blind to the manuscript altogether until the late 1700's. And of course its true antiquity remained unproven until the Dead Sea Scrolls.
As a final remark, I do not consider Enoch to be Scripture - but rather insight to Scripture. The manuscript itself is not preserved as a single text at Qumran and thus segments of it remain suspect of later dating.
There are many reason why I believe the book of Enoch is equal to all we call “inspired”.
I have been studying Enoch for a while now, and am delighted to always be finding things in it that explain things I had wondered about and which help me in defending the name and faith of Jesus to those in false cults -even though the language of translation is archaic and I wish there was an updated version.
At first I did not think the astronomy section would be useful to me, but I have begun to see that differently with new understanding, as the angel told Enoch when he showed him “this is their parabolic meaning”.
Angels and stars have a connection in the OT, NT, and in Enoch -plus others, and the universe is not what it seems to be, to us who are shut out of the heavens.
We see only like a fish in a fishbowl, to the outer realms, being shut out since our fall from the heavenlies, we have no way to really measure what is out there, as all we can measure is by what we know in our quarentine state.
BTW: that is what the rebel sons of God taught the sons of Adam, “the secrets of heaven”. But the Great Glory said to them -through Enoch -”but you knew worthless ones”.
All that the sons of God taught man were worthless secrets, by which man made atomic bombs [I refer you to the ancient writings of the Hindu scriptures, which describe atomic warfare,taught by the ‘gods’ who came down from heaven, to man; and there is evidence of it, also, in the past]and other weapons of mass destuction, by which man and fallen angels together, about destroyed the earth after the flood, too! -evidences abound for those facts, but one has to search http://www.s8int.com/atomic1.html.
I shorted that post.
The secrets of heaven were taught man by the fallen sons of God, which included weapons of warfare, among which were all the same kinds of weapons of mass destruction as we have now come to have, and are still acquiring, today.
I have not found that the OT is quoted directly so very many times in the NT as it is loosely phrased by the commentor, but we know generally where it is from, in the OT, by context.
Many times the Septuagint is quoted from by the NT writers, and the reference is certainly phrased a bit differently than in the Masoretic text of the KJV.
The same goes for Enoch 1. It is often loosely phrased -and maybe not so loosely as we have so many translations to go through to get back to an original remark, sometimes, but the context and doctrines which come from Enoch 1 are easily identified by one familiar with it, when reading the NT -and the OT; and in my own studies I have discovered that Enoch is referred to many more times than credit is given.
In Revelation I discovered the same scene shown John in heaven which Enoch saw, but Enoch’s was pre-incarnation and John’s was post resurrection of the “Lamb that was slain”.
As the originals were not chapter and versed, and as the commentors had internalized the contents of the OT and the prophets, then they freely use the internalized material, in truth. They do not change the context by free usage, and one who is familiar with the source also identifies it easily.
The same thing is in every day life. I repeat something after internalizing it truthfully, but the phrasing may differ from the original.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all did the same, with none of them stating the same words in the same reports of the sayings and deeds of Jesus Christ, but all agreeing in context of the events and words.
The original language is edenic, the closest is Hebrew.
all languages are one, mingled, since the flood.
Noah Webster and the founding fathers of the USA believed that Hebrew was the mother tongue, and his dictionary included many Hebrew Etymons for English [the continental congress even voted on what language to establish as our national tongue, and Hebrew, French, and English were voted on], but it is politically incorrect to have Hebrew as the mother tongue, and so the idea fell out of fashion for a time, and has been revived in the work of Isaac Mozeson and associates. I have his dictionary, “The Word”, and His book “The Origin of Speeches” in which he tells of the research in this area [which is of course debunked by skeptics who have nothing more than their opinions to argue with, while he has the science.
In the Book of Jasher, Cush, the son of Ham found a copy of a book written by the Watchers from before the flood [teaching idolatry], and hid it from his father. Nimrod had it later.
Tertullian (see article) makes the case for why the Enochian manuscript should not be dismissed as post-Flood.
Though the argument is coherent, other church leaders opposed it for various other reasons. This is reflected in the nearly 4 centuries it took for Jude to finally be accepted as scripture. Even Orogen, though initially endorsing it, after further review rejected it as scripture.
To that the article adds astronomy in Enoch which would not seem to find roots in an anti-Hellenistic society such as the Essenes
Being rather close to science type stuff, this understates the Jewish appreciation for astronomy. Job cites how God ‘suspends the earth over nothing’ (Job 26:7), during a period when the earth was described by many cultures as being held up by elephants, turtle, or Atlas. The other astronomic references are very sketchy at best.
Before the Dead Sea Scroll discovery, those references were taken to mean that Enoch was written by Christians. Scholars start with the presumption that if the document refers to an actual historical event, it must have been written after the event occurred, i.e. that prophesy is impossible on principle of "methodological naturalism."
While preference to the document is correct, that is only good if nothing else about it runs counter to it. In the case of Enoch, the portions most commonly considered ‘Christian’ are the Simlitudes. These are absent from the DSS cave four materials of Enoch. This has caused many to conclude that Similtudes were written post 70AD. These are the sources for the referred ‘direct quotes’ of enoch proponents.
The material is compatible with Scripture - providing one is not reading Scripture with theological presuppositions and understands allegory and metaphorical language (like the book of Revelation and Daniel.)
Enoch has some sever short comings in its compatability with scripture, even Similitudes. Nowhere in Similitudes is the atonement mentioned, Christ’s sacrifice or resurrection even addressed. The famous ‘son of man’ correlations come to a conclusion with the angels telling Enoch he was the ‘son of man’ mentioned over and over again. Other incompatabilities include:
An angel (demon) teaching men to write with ink and paper, thus causing them to sin. Chapter 40:9-10
Another angel who acts as a door keep to salvation and eternal life Chapter 69:8-12
The ‘son of man’ being named by the ancient of days Chapt 48:2
The terminology for Christ in Enoch is "the Elect One" which is the same terminology used in the original Greek in Luke 9:35 to describe Christ, i.e. God tells us that He is the Elect One, hear Him.
This challenges the story that God used those words and forces an Enochian interpretation on the basis of this word – from Similtudes – that argumentatively may not have existed at the time of the writing of Luke or Matt who uses the same.
Essentially, the Jews rejected Enoch out-of-hand after Christ being enfleshed, because it was obvious that it was speaking of Him.
That is an assumption that FF Bruce took Tertullian to task for. This doesn’ t mesh with what IS known – portions of Enoch are as old as 3d century bc and known to the Jews prior to Christ. The LXX excluded it (160 BCish) from not only scripture but apocrypha as well. Respected it, yes, but didn’t believe it to be inspired – recognizing it was pseudographic – not written by Enoch to begin with.
The Church rejected Enoch along with other apocalyptic ancient manuscripts (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas) - to discourage Christians from expecting Christ to return any moment (2 Peter 3:9) - and because some leaders were loathe to speak of angels.
Not a reason I am aware of, interesting.
As a final remark, I do not consider Enoch to be Scripture - but rather insight to Scripture. The manuscript itself is not preserved as a single text at Qumran and thus segments of it remain suspect of later dating.
Agree, provides great insight to the thinking of the intertestamental Jewish nation, but to go farther as some would is reckless.
The oldest reference we could find for modern astronomy suggested by Enoch, outside Enoch, was from Greece, ca 450 B.C. Anaxagores of Clazomenae – on the point of the moon’s light being a reflection of the sun’s light.
Charlesworth sums up the Messianic parts of Enoch as follows:
This description is placed in the Similitudes in the context of reflections upon the last judgment, the coming destruction of the wicked, and the triumph of the righteous ones. This eschatological concept is the most prominent and recurring theme throughout the whole book. The very introduction (1-5) opens with an announcement of the final, coming punishment, the destruction of the wicked ones, and the resurrection of the righteous ones to an endless and sinless eternal life. Likewise, in the Dream Visions (83-90) the same theme is recalled. In this case, the righteous dead, including converted gentiles, will be resurrected, the Messiah will appear, his kingdom will be founded, and the new Jerusalem established; on the other hand, the sinners, the fallen angels, including the apostate Jews, will be judged. The last major section of 1 Enoch (91-105) is an admonition to righteousness, for he predicts that the wicked shall be condemned to eternal punishment in Sheol, whereas the righteous shall have a blessed resurrection to enjoy the bliss of heaven.
That being the case, I see it more akin to the dispute between the Catholic Church and the Reformers – which is to say, the Reformers wanted to remove the influence of the Church itself from the beliefs, go back to the roots so to speak. Thus they rejected the LXX and went with the Masoretic, rejected extra-Biblical traditions, etc.
Of course, by then, 1 Enoch had been purged by both the Jews and the Catholic Church. The Essenes had preserved it unknown to the outside world until the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only the Ethiopians kept it "alive" until it was discovered by the Western world in the late 1700's.
In other words, the history of the manuscript cuts both ways.
My bad, Talmud should have been Tanakh.
bump for later reading
Thanks much.
Very fascinating.
Thank you so much for the information. I am making a Sunday School lessen on this many parts of this information right now.
Types and shadows only, were seen in the Book of ENoch and in the OT, until the Son of Man was come in flesh of second human being creation.
In Enoch the Son of Man was seen with God, and He was God, but He was seen by Enoch as “the Holy One” in the heavens as a secret, hidden in God, and as an alter ego/another same self, of the Word. The Word was seen sitting on the throne, by Enoch, as “The Great Glory”, the Father of all spirits, by creating them.
-From my own studies in the Word I have come to the conclusion that the Word shows us that all created kinds are one single individual created spirit, which gets their own bodies by the multiplication of the first/chief/head of the created kind, which was formed in the first or head of the kind’s body. Malachi 2:15 for one states that Adam was made male and female, one spirit, to multiply the godly seed =sons of God. Adam was son of God before the fall, of the human being kind, as Luke 3:38 states, and the multiplication of the Adam kind by being made one spirit, but two individual persons =souls, was to bring forth the “living” seed as sons of God in Adam’s image. Adam multiplied as commanded and contuinued to multiply and continues to multiply Adam on the face of the earth [a truth found by easy search of a concordance using those words to search by], but after the fall, all the seed were born dead, not sons of God, and so the woman “Eve” whose name meant “life”, and who was the “mother of the living” seed who were to be multiplied in Adam as sons of God, bore no living seed as sons of God after the fall. The Glory was gone and Adam was irrevocably defiled to bear the Glory of the unseen YHWH ever again.
But we see the Mercy of YHWH, when in the Person of the Word/Voice/Presense of YHWH He made a covering for Adam’s shame and sent him [male and female] out of the Garden of Life so that he would not eat of the tree of life and live forever in that body of death and then never have the opportunity of being adopted in the planned second Man’s name, who was to come, from the beginning, to be Kinsman/Redeemer of Adam and to restore all things that were corrupted by the fall.
All the story from Enoch’s book to Genesis and to Revelation is one story, of the creation by the Word =God Seen- and the fall, and the planned redemption of Adam and Adam’s kingdom by cleansing, adoption, and regeneration for the Glory to indwell him but in the second Man name.
That name, of the Son of Man who would redeem and restore all things, to unite them with heaven and the Unseen invisible Person in YHWH [called the Father] was the big hidden secret of Enoch’s vision, and it was to be revealed.
Hubby needs breakfast -gotta go for now.
According to Charlesworth, the consensus among scholars dates the Similitudes – chapters 37-71 between 105 and 64 B.C.
James Charlesworth writes: "......... The main question concerns the date of the second section, chapters 37-71, which contains the Son of Man sayings. J. T. Milik (esp. no. 755) has shown that this section, which is not represented among the early fragments, is probably a later addition to 1 Enoch; but his contention that it was composed around A.D. 270 (no. 755, p. 377) is very speculative. If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century A.D. ......." (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 98)
Leonhard Rost writes".....They contain various traditions dating from earlier ages but in their present recension cannot be designated earlier than the first century B.C. J.T. Milik dates them as late as the second century C.E., above all because there is no trace of them at Qumran." (Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon, pp. 138-139)
J. T. Milik (the editor of the Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch from Qumran) argued that the Similitudes are a Christian composition that was not written until the third century C.E.
Like most authorities, opinions are like belly button - everyone has one :0
How the sun was being held up was not one of the issues we were researching in this project.
I understand, it was a point made to indicate that Jewish astronomy was not as weak as your reference seemed to suggest and that there are quite accurate statements in scripture. Greeks may have published early accurate astronomy, silience on the Jewish part doesn't necessarily mean an absence of the same - as indicated by Job
Since the Crucifixion, the Blood of the Lamb, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was unexpected by the Jews of the day, and Christ explained it in retrospect – I would not expect Enoch to more specific than Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22.
That is argueable. Jews had a concept of the Suffering Messiah based on the above and other verses. The fact that the prophecy to Eve in Genesis is clearly accomplished in Christ without twisting in comparison to Enoch shows its weakness in this area.
I wonder which translation you are using and if you have a chapter/verse reference for this.
Laurence Translation 70:17
Schodde Translation 71:14
Charlesworth sums up the Messianic parts of Enoch as follows:
The termonolgy "son of man" is also present in Daniel and Isaiah, not requiring an Enoch (Similitudes)
As to the history of the manuscript, the LXX, Talmud, et al – I find the cultural insights to be most telling. Enoch was preserved at Qumran by the Essenes who were trying to escape the Hellenization of the Jews. IOW, they intended to preserve the original beliefs from distortion by the Greek influence.
I wish I had my FF Bruce in front of me for this. While the Essenes did this, there is no evidence that their 'canon' list was much different than that of the Scribes and Pharasees. Furthermore, many of the OT citations Jesus used were rooted in the LXX form. Be that as it may, it is evident that Jesus accepted the OT canon at that time which excluded Enoch. So what am I getting at (yeh, what am I getting at?)? Acceptance of the Enoch components (and these were set up as separate booklets from the DSS cave 4) may reflect what the greater Jewish nation as a whole believed, that this 'book' was instructional but did not 'defile the hands' as a prophetically inspired writing (ie canon/scripture) would. LXX shows that with the some preexisting components of Enoch around for at least 200 years, it was not deemed to be scriptural. This is interesting since the LXX included the apocrypha documents - indicating a little more liberal interpretation of canon scripture. 70AD the conference in Jamnia left Enoch out as well. Some of this work described by Josephus.
That being the case, I see it more akin to the dispute between the Catholic Church and the Reformers – which is to say, the Reformers wanted to remove the influence of the Church itself from the beliefs, go back to the roots so to speak. Thus they rejected the LXX and went with the Masoretic, rejected extra-Biblical traditions, etc.
Reading Bruce Canon of Scripture I do not get that feel of struggle, at least until the time of the reformers. LXX was greek and gave the early church an existing document to spring board off into the gentile worlds. Jesus' lack of citing the apocrypha, among other things, gradually moved these away from scripture to valued books, but not at a doctrine establishing level - a distinction made clear by Jerome's time.
Of course, by then, 1 Enoch had been purged by both the Jews and the Catholic Church. The Essenes had preserved it unknown to the outside world until the Dead Sea Scrolls. Only the Ethiopians kept it "alive" until it was discovered by the Western world in the late 1700's.
I believe 'purge' is too strong of a word. It lost its influence over the course of years. It was considered to be within the OT category, and its absence there early on didn't help it, but it existed until 4th century at least in the works of some church fathers. The portion of the eastern church (Ethiopia) may have been a little more independent than the rest and preserved it (14t century extant ms). I'm not sure when the Coptic church there included it into its canon.
Laurence's is dated 1838 - pre Dead Sea Scrolls
Schodde's is dated 1882 - pre Dead Sea Scrolls
R.H. Charles is dated 1912 - pre Dead Sea Scrolls
Charlesworth's "The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research" is dated 1976
Issac's translation in Charlesworth's "Pseudepigrapha Vol 1" is dated 1983.
The Isaac translation of the verse in question is speaking of Jesus as the Son of Man, not Enoch, see footnotes inserted in the following:
C in the footnotes is a reference to the text of R. H. Charles
Jeepers, typos - texist s/b exist and foreer s/b forever. I’d much rather cut-and-paste than type from scratch. LOLOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.