The Book of Enoch

[JBaldwin]

I have recently found myself in the middle of discussions with folks about the Book of Enoch. Since I am almost completely ignorant on the subject, I though I'd see if any of you have done any serious research on this topic.

Here's what I have come across that may or may not be plausible:

The book of Jude either quotes directly from the Book of Enoch (vs. 14, 15) or refers to it. I did actually read the first part of the Book of Enoch and found those verses in it.
The book was supposed to have been approved in the canon by some of the early church fathers (I can't find verification either way), and it was supposedly lost somewhere around 1400 and recovered and translated 180 years ago.

Can any of you help me with this?

 

[Grimmson]

I have recently found myself in the middle of discussions with folks about the Book of Enoch. Since I am almost completely ignorant on the subject, I though I'd see if any of you have done any serious research on this topic.

Here's what I have come across that may or may not be plausible:

The book of Jude either quotes directly from the Book of Enoch (vs. 14, 15) or refers to it. I did actually read the first part of the Book of Enoch and found those verses in it.
The book was supposed to have been approved in the canon by some of the early church fathers (I can't find verification either way), and it was supposedly lost somewhere around 1400 and recovered and translated 180 years ago.

Can any of you help me with this?

Tertullian is the only example I can think of. See the following quote from On the Apparel of Women. 1.3, translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall in the ANF:

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.

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

I have no idea when Enoch was lost, but one must be careful when discussing on the subject which book of Enoch is being talked about. I thought the Ethiopian version was lost much earlier then the 1400s. There were a couple other versions floating around, nether of them having the Jude citation. Ethiopian version has the citation and its this version that was also discovered in the Dead Sea scrolls. There has never been a church council in the West that has accepted the Ethiopian version of Enoch as scripture.

 

[JBaldwin]

Thanks for that information.

 

[jambo]

I have the Book of Enoch on Kindle for £1.50. I started to read it put it down and never really got round to picking it up again. Like the Apocrypha it is interesting but would not really pay much attention to it.

 

[bug]

Just because Jude uses a story/ tradition that is also found in the book of enoch that does mean enoch is inspired scripture, it means that one story is accurate and has God given application through the epistle of Jude.

Actually the book was lost long before 1400 AD, it was discredit as canonical late in the 4th century by consensus. It must be noted that the protestant Old testement canon mirrors the Jewish canon and Enoch never found acceptence in the Jewish canon. the 15th century marks the date when there was some renewed interet in this book within Europe, this probably relates to the movement of Greek literature into europe containing refernces to Enoch from Constantinople and the the enlightenment, more then a real christain endevour, copies of Enoch were found in 1773 (I believe.) To my knowledge it does not stand up to the rigors of textual criticism and the test of consistency with the canon of scripture.