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.
Thank you for the ping ... following along, still.
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC_Parallel.html
since I cannot find a more recent on-line translation. Without greater details, I wonder how the post DSS translations of the Similitudes portion are any different from earlier - Similiudes is only extant in the Ethopian MSs. Is Issac's translation trying to force an interpretation that the others didn't. If I understand the foot note correctly -
“Son of Man” (Alleged inference to Jesus) Man” is a translation of either sab’e, “people” or “eg-ula-emmaheyyaw,” “son of the mother of the living.”
This is to differentiate it from ‘son of man’ (Enoch) by be’esi “man” “a masculine person.
What is absent here is an analysis of the use of be’esi elsewhere and is it exclusive to enoch or is it applied otherwise. Same to the terms used for Man. Both the Laurence and Schodde translations are pretty clear the subject is Enoch, as the follow-on verses go.
Now just for additional thought (argument, muddled meanderings, whatever), some have looked at Simlitudes and considered it to be at least partly a Christian edition. IF (big if) this section is referring to Christ, this may account for it too.
I have not found any of the online translations to be as current and as closely word-for-word as Isaac's translation. (And, yes I prefer the King James Version for the same reason. LOL!)
Any hoot, Isaac has this to say about how he approached the task:
Concerning the "man" issue - Isaac's footnotes from chapter 62:7 "For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning.." say this:
Charlesworth’s book goes on to point out that Milik has a different theory and thinks the Book of Giants was replaced by the Similitudes and that they were a late Christian work. As to the consensus scholars, Milik is in left field. Charlesworth says,
Milik argues that by the year a.d. 400 the Book of Giants as in the Qumran Aramaic Enoch had been replaced by the late Christian work, the Similitudes, in a new Greek Enoch Pentateuch. This hypothesis is not supported by any solid evidence and has been subjected to serious criticism, in particular by the members of the SNTS Psuedepigrapha Seminar which met in 1977 in Tubingen and in 1978 in Paris. The consensus of the members was that the Similitudes were Jewish and dated from the first century a.d. At these meetings, it was also agreed that Milik should have worked more directly with the Ethiopic evidence. Unfortunately, he took Charles’s dated text and translation at face value and incorrectly assumed that all Ethiopic manuscripts of 1 Enoch are very recent, except possibly a fifteenth-century text (Charles’s – Abbadianus 55). We now have at least three definitely fifteenth century Ethiopic manuscripts, and it seems probable that even earlier ones may be discovered. Indeed, one of the readings in the fifteenth-century manuscript used herein as a base text casts serious doubts on one of Milik’s arguments for the late date of the Similitudes. Milik had argued that the references to angels flying “with wings” (1En 61:1) points to a post-Christian period for the composition of the Similitudes. Our manuscript does not support him; it has no reference to angels flying ‘with wings” (see translation and n below). Milik is correct that his text of 61:1 is late; he failed to see, however, that the late part is a late variant. In conclusion, I am convinced that 1 Enoch already contained the Similitudes by the end of the first century A.D..
Much appreciate your additions and elaborations on this thread.
Very fascinating.
Thanks.
Interesting methodology Isaac uses. However, it is interesting that though the DSS MS were “consulted” they were not ‘preferred’ This is rather odd, since the DSS is around 1400 years older than the Ethiopian MS. I believe that the reason was that the DSS MS had differing versions of the same books present. That is to say equivalent passages had differing verbage, and Isaac didn't want to weed through it and made a simplifying assumption to use the 14th century material.
Too bad that there isn't a parallel of Isaac translation available electronically, it would be nice to review the commentary/translational portions next to the text.
Regarding the greek in 62:7, I don't see how it rules out the association of Enoch to the son of man in Ch 71? The context of 62 reads like the final judgement, but what also seems to be overlooked is the phrase "For from the beginning the Son of Man was hidden" or "for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret", depending upon the translation. If this is the context of the final judgement, then the work of Christ on the cross is completely overlooked. It does say he is revealed to the elect, but when compared to Revelation, the saved there at the end of the tribulation were clearly saved by their faith in Christ's sacrifice and Christ returns with the evidence of the cruxifiction on his body. Interesting apocrypha writing, but the parallels 'miss' at key levels. IMHO (of course!)
quote you:”Personally, I think many people get too caught up worshipping “The Canon”. It’s easy to believe in “The Canon” because it was decided by a committee a long time ago. Kind of like the Jews believing in the dead Prophets but not being able to accept Jesus, of whom all the Prophets testified.
The fact is, Enoch was considered canonical by many and had a lot of influence on the New Testament. I can’t say I believe any version of Enoch has survived perfectly but I do think there’s probably a lot of worth in there.”
I agree with you.
The fact is that Jesus Christ is what the Law and the Prophets witness to, and Jesus said to the Jews: You search the Scriptures/writings, for in them you think you have life, but they are they that testify of Me.
A visit to a skeptic site which points out the inconsistencies in the Bible texts we have will show that the Word we have has come through many hands with some contradictions, for skeptics to have a field day with; but what the skeptics do not know is that nothing in those contradictions and inconsistencies changes the message of the Law and the prophets Witness on who Jesus Christ was, is, and what His purpose in coming is.
“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.”
Job was not a Jew.
Job has in it many things which are comments on what Enoch has written, and reading Enoch will explain the comments in Job. Just as Revelation has many things in it which are the end of the things Enoch first prophesied were to come, in the end of days. Enoch sees the same scene in heaven that John does, but Enoch saw the scene pre-incarnation and John saw it post incarnation and post ascension.
Job had read about His Redeemer who lived in heaven and who was to come and who would stand on the earth in the last day, and who would resurrect his dead body after it was destroyed, and that he -Job- would see Him -His Redeemer- with his own resurrected eyes.
Job did not read that in Moses, as Moses was not around then.
Job did read that in Enoch.
The ancient Jews claimed that Job was the descendent of Esau and the second chief of Edom -I think it was, the Jobab listed as Esau’s descendent.
Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter/last [day] upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.
“Son of the Mother of the Living” would be the son of Zion, God in flesh, and the Woman is Zion of the Spirit.
Since Adam fell all “Eve’s seed have been born dead, and the widow is barren.
Eve meant “life”, and the woman/’ishyah, Eve, was the mother of the living seed, who were to come into their being as “sons of God, in Adam”.
In the Word, the Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3 is “YHWH the Word” who was to come in human flesh, and the Woman is Zion of the Spirit, the mother of all the redeemed; the personified mother of all the living sons of God. She is seen as the star sign in Rev 12, and as the City of God, and is called “the Church”.
That Zion of the heavenlies is meant is seen through the Word, and she is the opposite of the personified Babylon of the spirit, the Harlot, Babylon, who is the mother of all the dead.
Both Babylon and Zion are headquartered in the heavenlies, and both are called cities, and both seek to be “established” in it’s sons above and below.
The sons of Zion are the elect angels and the redeemed/born again in Spirit seed of Adam, but the Foundation Stone in the heavenlies of Zion’s building is the human being body of the Firstborn of the second human being race, which is Jesus the Christ.
His incarnation was the day from which all grace is reckoned to all creation; backwards and forwards from that date [Haggai 2, in the Hebrew wording].
When the body was prepared for Him in the womb and He “donned it”, the angels shouted Grace! Grace! to it, as the Chief foundation Stone/Headstone of Zion, to be built and established by the second Man.
On Isaac, his comment was that he consulted the Aramaic DSS but that it did not influence his work. I read that to mean what was found in the Aramaic fragments was consistent with the fourteenth century manuscript he was using for the base line. His footnotes are exhaustive and do include references to DSS fragments as well as references to the other originals and sources.
The only reason I included the footnote out of chapter 62 was to sate your interest in the two Ethiopian terms, why the Isaac translation is different from the old translations.
In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16
The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:
I Enoch played a significant role in the early Church; it was used by the authors of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and a number of apologetic works. Many Church Fathers, including Justing Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Clement of Alexandria either knew I Enoch or were inspired by it. Among those who were familiar with I Enoch, Tertullian had an exceptionally high regard for it. But, beginning in the fourth century, the book came to be regarded with disfavor and received negative reviews from Augustine, Hilary, and Jerome. Thereafter, with the exception of a few extracts made by Georgius Syncellus, a learned monk of the eighth century, and the Greek fragments found in a Christian grave in Egypt (c. AD 800), I Enoch ceased to be appreciated except in Ethiopia. The relegation of I Enoch to virtual oblivion by medieval minds should not diminish its significance for Christian origins; few other apocryphal books so indelibly marked the religious history and thought of the time of Jesus.
The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.
“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
That is an excellent post and I am glad that you brought in
1 Cor 2:7, because the Greek is literally an expounding on Enoch’s revelation of the Holy One in the heavens, whom He saw as God hidden, who was with God and who was God, from the beginning, and who was to come and be revealed to the elect [Revelation is when He will come to be revealed to the world, and much in Rev is understood only by having a knowledge of Enoch 1.
1 Cor 2:7 [literally, word for word]: But [we] tell/speak Wisdom, God in mystery hidden, which God ordained before the world for our Glory”
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=2&verse=7&version=KJV#7
We tell/speak Wisdom, God in mystery hidden, which God ordained before the world for our Glory”
That is profound and revealing, showing Paul was a student of Enoch [as he was of all the ancient writings].
” It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was “burned?” Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.”
I also agree with the above sentiment.
I have researched the history of canon and have found it to be a big conspiracy of lies about the Holy Spirit and what He inspired and that the Christian Church worldwide has never been in agreement about what “canon” should be, from the beginning.(http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/canon2.stm “canon, whose canon?”) -and Martin Luther had the freedom to challenge “canon” lists, himself, being in disagreement with what was in his time so called.
It is unfortunate that Enoch had been hidden in the western Church, and also the Book of Jasher, by his day; both of which make a foundation to understand what the Genesis through Revelation message of Jesus Christ [one message] is about, in His Person and work. And that understanding dispels all false doctrines about the Person and work of YHWH come in flesh as Redeemer/Kinsman.
I do believe that Jesus Christ is the “last Word” from the Father, and that His Revelation given to John, of His coming and exhortation to the churches is the end of any inspired Word from God to man. Even the contents of the book of Revelation is not new information, but clarifies and reveals what Enoch first was shown “in mystery” about the end of days.
As to other books, and what was accepted: in Rev Jesus Christ states specifically that He is the AMEN, the Faithful and True Witness, and AMEN means “truth”, at it’s root, and “faithful” is from that.
In a foot note that Ronald Brown has on page 44 in my copy of his edited Enoch, he quotes from a translation from the Egyptian book of the dead, and it is very telling in that it shows that the ancient Egyptians knew the same one true God “seen” by Enoch in visions “in mystery”, “hidden”, and who was “truth”, and whom the Ancient Egyptians called “Amen”. They eventually corrupted His image, as all nations did who once knew God [and the vowels in the ancient literature were interchangable, as they were not written: now they write that name as “Amon”, and the image is corrupted indeed].
All nations knew the truth about God and His future coming to restore all things and to judge the world as the Son of Man, since their fathers all were sons of Noah and came off that boat and had Enoch -and Noah’s- writings.
Paul notes this in Romans 1:21-23:
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”
Even the ancient Chinese worshipped Him and had the complete Gospel in the beginning of their establishment as a people [after Babel], for the ancient Chinese oracle bone writing was invented by someone who knew the entire Gospel story from creation to the fall, and redemption by the Lamb who was God. The characters used for that writing told the story in themselves. There is a story that the inventor of that language was “Noah”, among the ancient Chinese.
I have the book detailing the Gospel in that character writing of the ancient Chinese [which my Taiwanese son-in-law has not returned to me], but a link to the message is on this page -with detailed pictures of the characters;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/china.asp
I have no doubt that Paul was aware of the book of Enoch, after all, he was an extremely well-educated Jew, but I do not see the theological connection as Enoch to Paul.
In other words, Paul conveyed the words of God as he received them directly from Jesus Christ. He made it a point to stop relying on the teaching of men. That his letters and Enoch agree on a point does not authenticate Paul's epistle to the Corinthians - but rather, that Enoch is not in "left field" concerning that teaching.
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19
Thanks for the fascinating ping, Dear Sister in Christ.
Agreed.
I think that if Paul had received new and different teachings from Jesus Christ which Jesus had not communicated to His “12 “foundation of the Church” Apostles and the disciples who backed them up, that Paul would then be the foundation for a false cult.
In fact, there is a false teaching founded in the past century which bases itself purely on “another” Paul who does not exist, and they do that by making up a whole new and different “gospel of Paul” which is completely contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but which they twist the Word of God to claim that it says what they alone say it says.
Jesus Christ is the very last Word from the Father to this world, and His Apostles were witnesses of His Person and Word/doctrine. The Revelation Paul had was of Christ, as the Light and the Glory and the Messiah who was to come, and was come, and was ascended, and who was the Son of God, upon whom the One Church is built.
Other revelations Paul had were not new teachings, but only understandings of what was already written. All believers who study the Word of God are supposed to “receive revelations” about what is written which in no way can contradict anything in the Word, but which opens the ears of understanding about the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
This is how I see it, and if anyone wants to produce anything they think is foundation doctrine for the Church, -given only to Paul and know first only by Paul- then I would be happy to expound on where I believe that doctrine is first written...
God, “hidden in mystery from the beginning of the world” is the message Paul preached, as He witnessed that he did, in the Cor passage last cited by me, and that is because of the opening of Paul’s understanding of the OT, and Enoch’s message of the Son of MAn who was God, hidden, who was to come and who was to restore all things. Enoch saw Him who was to come, first.
“Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,”
I have never found any one new thing stated by Paul that can be considered foundational doctrine for the NT Church. He could not have done that, and have been a Witness of the Person and doctrine of Christ, as the Church was founded on the doctrine and Person of the “Firstborn in the one New Man” as His Witnesses teach.
Paul received the doctrine of Christ’s teachings from men, as I can point out, but the personal revelation of Christ came to Him direct from the risen LORD, Himself -and we all must have the personal revelation of Christ, which is called the second birth, too, of Spirit. -Then we can receive light/revelation from the written records which are called the Law and the prophets.
“1Cr 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
Anything anyone reads in Paul’s letters [which are added as “canon” in a manner disproportionate as to who Paul was, “IMO”], which one thinks is “new” can be found in the OT or the Gospel of Christ, as His Eyewitnesses had already reported it, or in other, older than Paul, writings, like Enoch; which the Jews and the Gentiles already had at that time.
Paul expounded on what was “revealed by the Spirit” from the writings already written, about the Person and work of Jesus Christ, who personally revealed Himself to Saul on the road to Damascus.
Hbr 1:1,2 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
```
It is the mark of false cults that they teach “new doctrines”, but there are no new doctrines; just “One New Man”, whom the Church is to proclaim as Salvation, in this “Day of Salvation”
Okay, I’ll be flamed, no doubt, as I have been in a most sadistic and vile manner by G-lla; but I can back up what I believe, from the writings which were before Paul, and which were held as sacred to the righteous men and women of God of old times.
On the record of Paul, and his relation to the Apostles:
Ananias, one of the seventy, was sent to tell Paul all that the LORD Jesus was to have him to do. Jesus had chosen Paul to be a vessel to take His Witness to the Gentiles and the Jews [as many also have been chosen down through the age of the Church, to go].
But Paul was not a foundational Apostle, -not one of the twelve- and the Church is not built on His name and teachings. The Church is built on the Name and teachings/doctrine of Christ, as His eyewitnesses delivered it, who are themselves the foundation of the Church of Christ, with Him as the Chief headstone.
Saul spent several days with the disciples at Damascus, hearing from them the eyewitness accounts of the Person and doctrine of Christ, when He walked on earth and taught them.
Later, Barnabas -one of the seventy- and Mary, the mother of John Mark’s sister, went to get Saul and brought him to Antioch, where they remained for one year before being sent on the mission to the Gentiles by the Antioch Church, by the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Mary was one of the women who was among Jesus’ followers from the beginning, and tradition says that the last supper was held in her house [where the disciples gathered for prayer and were gathered, praying for Peter, when Peter was released from prison by a miracle].
Barnabas was a disciple who was an eyewitness, and no doubt there was nothing he did not instruct Paul in, about the Person and doctrine of Christ: but Paul’s revelation of Christ’s Person as the LORD of GLORY, was personal, not got second hand, and many of Paul’s letters have things in them which can only be got from Enoch, as they are not got from the OT, and they are in Enoch.
Ananias Baptizes Saul
Acts 9:10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”
And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord [fn1] Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.
Saul Preaches Christ
20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.
21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, “Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?”
22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
Saul Escapes Death
23 Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him. 24 But their plot became known to Saul. And they watched the gates day and night, to kill him. 25 Then the disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall in a large basket.
Saul at Jerusalem
26 And when Saul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, and did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. And he declared to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 So he was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out. 29 And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. 30 When the brethren found out, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.
The Church Prospers
31 Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.
“Barnabas and Saul at Antioch
Acts 11
19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. 20 But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.
22 Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. 23 When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.
25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”
Pauls’ visit with the brethren and Apostles in Jerusalem fourteen years after he was saved was in Acts 15. He and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to get the matter settled about the saved Gentiles being circumcised and keeping Moses or not. The matter was settled there by the Jerusalem council, and that is the reference Paul is making about ‘fourteen years after, going up to Jerusalem”: obviously, Paul was among the disciples and learning much from them, and with Barnabas as his companion [and sometimes John Mark, who wrote the Gospel of Mark], then Paul was not ever acting in isolation from the Christian community of Believers before presenting his preaching to the Apostles in Jerusalem and being approved of them there, at that time.
Like in global warming (ducking).
In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)
To me, context is significant. 1 Enoch 62 passage context is the final judgement at the end of time if you read further down. This you compared to the messianic secret elements of the gospels. However, Paul writes this even within the 2 Cor quotation (as well as the gospels ) about the revelation of Christ, which speaks contrary to the Enoch passage.
IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)
Again, the context of the Enoch 62 is that of an end time judgement - not the first advent. The aspects described above are parallel only at a stretch and I don't find the comparison especially convincing.
The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:
While I won't deny that 1 Enoch was cited by the early church and shows up in Christian as well as Jewish pseudographic works, he is not totally unbiased in his selection of those supporting it. For instance while Origen initially was supportive of 1 Enoch, he later is on record as doubting its authority. Infact, Origen went as far as to say that the churches do not recognize Enoch as divine.
The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.
A document listing the canon as we know it is by Athanasius (about 376AD). FF Bruce does a good job tracing the development of the listing from church leader to church leader.
It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was "burned?" Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.
I am aware book burnings - but these were associated to the persecution phase of the Roman empire. Secondly, as far as categorizing Enoch, it was understood from pre-Christian period to be pseudographic, and not apocryphal - these are two different technical terms that are commonly mingled together.
Thanks thanks.
Fitting points.
Thanks for the fascinating ping, dear Sister in Christ.
Of a truth, though, I feel like I'm sitting squarely in the center of a teeter-totter. One side is putting far more emphasis on Enoch than I am comfortable with - and the other side, far too little. LOLOL!
But it's been fun. Thank you both!
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.