The Book of Enoch

[Guest]

To understand the Catholic and Protestant Bibles we must know what books the Biblical authors considered important and divinely inspired during the time they wrote the biblical manuscripts. Books outside the traditional 66 have been mentioned in the Bible in three different ways: by name, quotation, or alluded too. So what books did the biblical authors consider important? Here is a list:

1) The Book of Jasher

2) The Annals of Jehu

3) The Treatise of the book of Kings

4) The book of Records, Book of Chronicans of Ahasuerus

5) The Acts of Solomon

6) The Sayings of Hozai

7) The Chronicles of David

8) The Book of Wars of the Lord

9)The Chronicals of Samuel, Nathan, Gad

10) Samuels Book

11) The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite

12) The Treatise of the Prophet Iddo

13) The Book of Enoch

Both OT and NT writers of the Bible considered the Book of Enoch to be divinely inspired, and it is included in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible which is actually 88 books.

If a book is mentioned, quoted, or alluded to is it worthy of study if it expands the understanding of the Bible and why Jesus Christ came to earth? The theory of the book of Enoch is that it was written prior to the book of Genesis and then before that was kept through verbal oral tradition. Our earliest manuscripts date to the 2nd to 3rd centuries BC but scholars believe this is not the original date of the Enochian canon. The first century Christians considered the book of Enoch as inspired canon if not authentic.

Thoughts?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Interesting topic to ponder. I believe Enoch is quoted directly in the book of Jude. 

I believe that all the books of the bible are inspired, but I wonder if their are other inspired books that where written but not included. 

Ive heard the letter of Clement to the Corinthians was considers inspired by some and ultimately excluded. 

[Guest]

Yeah it seems that in the 66, none of the books I numbered were included in the Bible but were either mentioned, quoted, or alluded too. I am not sure if they are all considered divinely inspired but according to Dr. Lumpkins is a scholar on Enoch, the first century Christians considered Enoch divinely inspired.

[Willa]

We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God.

 

 

 

The above statement was taken from our statement of faith on Worthy

GOTQUESTIONS.ORG is considered pretty reliable by most here on Worthy.  It references F.F. Bruce who is also respected by many as a reliable authority.  To be included in the Bible as sacred scripture it must be all true.  Even the book of mormon has some truth quoted directly from the Old Testament KJV that is truth, but is interspersed with lies and garbage. Our statement of faith on Worthy states that the 66 books of the Bible are the exhaustive (complete) word of God.  Other books are spurious or also contain errors and fiction.  Some churches separate some OT books from the rest of Scripture and believe they are OK to read but we must not base doctrine on them.  Our OT is based on the Hebrew manuscript whereas the Catholic church used the Greek manuscript.  

Question: "What is the book of Enoch and should it be in the Bible?"

Answer: The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18). Enoch is also one of the two people in the Bible taken up to heaven without dying (the other being Elijah), as the Bible says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him." (Genesis 5:24; see also Hebrews 11:5). Most commonly, the phrase "Book of Enoch" refers to 1 Enoch, which is wholly extant only in the Ethiopic language.

The biblical book of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch in verses 14-15, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’” But this does not mean the Book of Enoch is inspired by God and should be in the Bible.

Jude’s quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true. It is interesting to note that no scholars believe the Book of Enoch to have truly been written by the Enoch in the Bible. Enoch was seven generations from Adam, prior to the Flood (Genesis 5:1-24). Evidently, though, this was genuinely something that Enoch prophesied – or the Bible would not attribute it to him, “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men…” (Jude 14). This saying of Enoch was evidently handed down by tradition, and eventually recorded in the Book of Enoch.

We should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the Apocrypha says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Recommended Resource: The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce
 

---

 

[Guest]

I would have to disagree with that because the first century Christians (meaning the bible authors themselves as well as OT authors) considered the Book of Enoch divinely inspired. My thoughts are that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the complete canon (88 books). Enoch is quoted, mentioned and alluded to throughout the Bible. The compilation of the 66 came way after the first century Christians. I've learned that we have to take what the authors considered as sacred canon/important books to get a fuller understanding of the Bible.

[wingnut-]

I would second what Willa offered, and add this specifically in regards to Enoch.  There is no doubt that Enoch is a prophet of God, the question of that simply comes down to the timing of it.  In my opinion Enoch will prophesy to the world, but that will not occur until the final 3 1/2 years of this age.  He will represent one of the two olive branches, one being Jewish, the other being Gentile.  Enoch was a Gentile as he pre-dated the existence of Israel, therefore excluding him as a Jew.

God bless

[other one]

Because of the guidelines used to pick the Canon books, enoch does not pass the test.  However it does not mean that it isn't a valid book to consider reality.

Several of the early church father's quoted from it and a few considered it qualified to be included in the Bible.

Personally,  to me, it answers a lot of questions I had about Genesis.

I would note though only the first book of Enoch would fall into this category.  2enoch is a bad translation, and 3enoch is kabbalistic teaching that is pure occultic.

 

[Guest]

In 367AD the  church father Athanasius "first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon and noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted."

My question is why are we relying on the proclamations of a church father over 300 years after Christ's resurrection? Why aren't we relying on the early biblical writers themselves who believed Enoch to be divinely inspired and who were divinely led by God himself? The Ethiopian orthodox church is much older than 367 AD and older than the Catholic church. 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

4 hours ago, Allroses48 said:

In 367AD the  church father Athanasius "first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon and noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted."

My question is why are we relying on the proclamations of a church father over 300 years after Christ's resurrection? Why aren't we relying on the early biblical writers themselves who believed Enoch to be divinely inspired and who were divinely led by God himself? The Ethiopian orthodox church is much older than 367 AD and older than the Catholic church. 

 

The 66 book canon is Luthers canon and not the early Churches Canon. 

[Guest]

Well apparently Athanasius is the early church father who first declared the 66 the compose  Bible. I can give you the source. I'm not saying he's correct but it does appear he said this.