Freeper Research Project: Enoch and Astronomy

Thanks for the additional info, I've been using a this

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.

Thank you for your reply and the link to the online comparative translations!

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:

My primary base text (A) for this translation of Ethiopic Enoch is a fifteen-century Ethiopic manuscript found in a monastery in Kebran, in Lake Tana. I obtained a copy of the manuscript from a microfilm (A) now found in West Germany. Though I have chosen to use as my base text a single manuscript, instead of an existing eclectic text or one created temporarily as the real basis of my translation, I have continually compared A with another Ethiopic manuscript of the late eighteenth century (B) found in the Garrett collection of Princeton University as well as with the text of R.H. Charles (C), and, in a few cases, followed them insted of A where the latter is clearly wrong or unintelligible. I have been as faithful as possible to A, following it even when B and C and all other known witnesses attested by the variations of other manuscripts given in the apparatus of Charles (EC) disagree with it, except in clear cases where A obviously transmits grammatical, syntactical, or scribal errors. Only the most significant or relevant variations of other witnesses are shown in my notations. If B or C are clearly erroneous (scribal, typographical, grammatical), I do not always give them as variations. Wherever possible or necessary I have also been able to compare A with the texts of the existing Greek fragments as given in the Charles edition of 1 Enoch: Ga (the fragments from Akhmim - Ga1 and Ga2 the duplicate passages of the same if the exist), Gs (the fragments preserved by Syncellus), and Gb (the Greek papyrus as edited by Bonner.) The Qumran Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch have been consulted but have not influenced the following translation."

He goes on to explain why A is superior to B and C.

Concerning the "man" issue - Isaac's footnotes from chapter 62:7 "For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning.." say this:

Here the Eth. expression walda eg'ula-emma-heyyaw (sic) is used instead of walda sub'e, which we have seen above. Though both expressions, eg ula-emmaa-heyyaw and sub'e, designate "man," "a human being," "a living person," "a mortal being," the latter term has a collective ("people"), more abstract ("humanity") and more universalistic ("man") connotation, whereas the former expression emphasizes the individualistic, naturalistic, and particularistic aspect of man. It (the former expression) literally means "offspring of the mother of the living." The first person to be described as "the mother of the living" in the Bible is Eve (cf. Gen 3:20), so Eth. grammarians sometimes interpret the expression as "offspring of Eve." (This expression should not be confused with eg'ula-maheyydw, which, though having the same meaning ["man"] and more likely the same etymological origin, has come to be regarded by Eth. grammarians as of different etymology: "the offspring of the one whom the Living One has brought forth from the earth," or simply "the Son of God," i.e. man as God's offspring.) If one were to be literal, one would translate the two Eth. expressions found in 1En respectively as "Son of the Offspring of the Mother of the Living" (or "Son of Eve's Offspring"," "Son of Man") and "Son of People."

Again, the consensus of scholars in Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha Vol 1 dates the Similitudes to 105-64 B.C.

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 for a pre-Christian Qumran Enochic Pentateuch which contained a much longer version of the astrological writings, and, most importantly, instead of the Similitudes, another work entitled the Book of Giants. He bases his arguments on the fact that fragments of only four of the five constituent parts of the Ethiopic Enoch have been discovered at Qumran. No fragments from the Similitudes has been recovered.

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..

Well, that’s all I can do tonight. It takes too long to type this stuff in. LOL!

Solution - Cage match Charlesworth v Milik Live PPV

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!)

“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.

Solution - Cage match Charlesworth v Milik Live PPV

LOLOL! Still, I’d take Charlesworth by 3 touchdowns because his is a consensus. That part about Milik ignoring ‘wings’ being added after the fourteenth century was rather telling.

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)

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

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

Concerning your earlier post, and the value of Enoch to us – and what happened to it over the years, here are a few points:

The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:

More important, however, is the light it throws upon early Essene theology and upon earliest Christianity. It was used by the authors of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Some New Testament authors seem to have been acquainted with the work, and were influenced by it, including Jude, who quotes it explicitly (1:14f) At any rate, it is clear that Enochic concepts are found in various New Testament books, including the Gospels and Revelation.

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 bottom line is that the Catholic Church did in fact go through a “book burning” phase – probably starting with Philastrius (who hated Enoch) in the late 300’s.

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.

”These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistu, Donatus, Eustatius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom the one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.”

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.

“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

Thank you for sharing your views!

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.

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

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

Also, Enoch was not actually "cursed" by the Jews until after Christ was resurrected. I suspect the rejection may be because of the growing Christian "sect" because Enoch clearly speaks of the Messiah. However, the above article suggests it had to do with all the talk of angels in Enoch: "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)."

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.

LOLOL! Still, I’d take Charlesworth by 3 touchdowns because his is a consensus.

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.

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.

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.