1 Enoch

[anochria]

Just curious what your thoughts are on the book of 1 Enoch.

On the one hand, it seems to have had a profound influence on the apocalyptic thinking of Jesus' day, and even on the wording of parts of the New Testament. On the other hand, it seems clearly pseudopedographal.

Have you read it? What are your thoughts?

[Jonatan]

I must say I love 1 Enoch. I don't know the pros & cons of 1Enoch at all. But why is this that Apostle Judah quotes 1Enoch? Now, this sounds very interesting:

14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,
15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
(Jude v14-v15)

I must say lot of things found in Enoch are extra information for that what is not in OT nor NT. Good is that Book of Enoch gives us completed image - the missing parts in Bible are revealed in Enoch and it gives sense - that's why I like it so much. Concerning the era of Adam and first people, and the reasons why the world flood took place, and that the 'giants' described in Genesis 6, are here described in more detail as 'Nephilim' - tall up to 300 cubits! This might give the reason why there are giant skeletons in the earth, found by archaeological diggings. And people, believing Evolutionism think they are 'dinosaurs'. No dinosaurs, no animal nor human evolution, rather corruption that would come through fallen angels, and thus - Nephilim.

I believe it may help me a lot in my eschatological study. For example I am finding out answers if the Nephilim and the bound Fallen angels before Noach could play an important role in eschatologic times. (e.g. fallen angels (or nephilim?) called 'Samyaza' or 'Azazyel' - one of them could be the Antichrist that will rise from the Abyss to kill the Two Olives)

Also, there are many and many messianic (!!!) prophecies about the righteous seed (Son of Man, the term that Yeshua uses, Himself) that will come to establish the eternal reign of God in the earth.

I think in Enoch there are not such dangerous things that might corrupt ways of true believers. In comparison to Maccabeans, Judit or chapters of Esther which are considered Apocryphas, I haven't found misleading things such as praying to dead or other occult influence. Instead of it, I found it very harsh (righteous) against sin, sinful spiritual beigns and very lawful. It's truth that I hadn't yet much time to read it whole, but I tried to read fast as many chapters as I had time.

If there's anyone who have read it whole, please post here if you found something what sounds very odd.

I have heard that first Apostles believed it (and moreover if Apostle Jude quoted from Enoch) and if that's true, it must have some more merit. If they trusted it, we should trust it too.

[anochria]

Well, I really liked sections of it when I read through it a couple years ago.

My biggest problem with it is how can it really have been written by Enoch when it turns up so late in the historical record.

In other words, it seems so obviously pseudopedographal, even if the content is not necessarily problematic (although I can't say I personally share the view you're describing regarding dinosaurs,etc)

[Jonatan]

Well, I do not study theology yet. I'm just self-learner theologian in presence. I'd like to ask you what passages of 1 Enoch and why are they considered Pseudoepigraphal. Now, yet I know 'pseudoepigraphal' means that there's suspiction that Enoch did not write it. Well, maybe yes - and maybe no.
But why is this that Jude quoted from Enoch?
Isn't the Book of Enoch much older, even rabinnical scripture if Jude quoted from it?

I have read that 1Enoch is considered by critics as being written in 1st century AD. They say the same about 2Peter.

By what methods and what rights do they decide what was written in what time?
Jude quoted from it - it should sound like he knew it already from Jewish tradition.

And why did first apostles trusted 1Enoch then?
That's why extra-biblical sources are also important.

How else did Jude know about Michael's and Satan's struggle for the body of Moses?

[John]

perhaps the book was transmitted orally by enoch, and then it was named enoch not because the person who wrote it was enoch, but because they were comprising oral stories into written words about enoch. most other texts seem to agree with enoch- ie, jasher, which is also a VERY good book mentioned twice in the bible.

and even if it was pseudigraphical, it 's contents arent very problematic at all. so i would worrt about the name so much. you must also note that perhaps the 'title' of it was added after the text itself was written?

enoch most definately didnt 'write' the book, although the stories may have been passed down by him until a person actually decided to write it down.

it may also be a collection of oral traditions and other stories of enoch like in jasher and such.

the only thing that some might have a problem with in enoch is the kabbalah in it. i dont, because i dont think kabbalah is bad... but some do.

shalom- john

[anochria]

perhaps the book was transmitted orally by enoch, and then it was named enoch not because the person who wrote it was enoch, but because they were comprising oral stories into written words about enoch. most other texts seem to agree with enoch- ie, jasher, which is also a VERY good book mentioned twice in the bible.

As someone who believes in a date for Adam and Eve more around 50,000 years ago than 6,000, I find it difficult to imagine an oral version of Enoch, with that length and complexity passing down intact over that length of time. And if it did, why did it take the Jews so long to write it down?

As to Jasher, I had never heard that there is an extant text. Is there? And if so, are there good reasons to think it is authentic?

[Jonatan]

May 19, 2009 21:44:42 GMT -5 anochria said:

perhaps the book was transmitted orally by enoch, and then it was named enoch not because the person who wrote it was enoch, but because they were comprising oral stories into written words about enoch. most other texts seem to agree with enoch- ie, jasher, which is also a VERY good book mentioned twice in the bible.

As someone who believes in a date for Adam and Eve more around 50,000 years ago than 6,000, I find it difficult to imagine an oral version of Enoch, with that length and complexity passing down intact over that length of time. And if it did, why did it take the Jews so long to write it down?

As to Jasher, I had never heard that there is an extant text. Is there? And if so, are there good reasons to think it is authentic?

This way, we can allegorize also crossing of Sons of Israel through the Red Sea. Was the Red Sea divided by God? - was the miracle? Or the Torah was made up by men as a fable? Or it was only 'symbolical','allegorical', 'spiritual' etc., so that there was water in that place and that time so low that all could walk through without swimming?
But how then would Egyptians drown with their horses?

That would deny the power of Almighty God and also trustworthiness of the True God that is not a man so that He would lie.
Same as the compromise with Evolutionist theory. If God wasn't created all in Genesis LITERALLY 7 days, it denies Him being Almighty!
I believe Word of God - be careful of philosophy and allegorizing.

Only when you believe the literal fundament (as fundament of house), then build higher and higher in form of other - spiritual meaning. You cannot build levitating buildings without having fundament laid on something that cannot be shaken - as the house built on rock.

Collosians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

God has turned wisdom of this world into foolishness. And foolishness of God (what is simply - to believe plainly) is wiser than people or wisdom of this world.

Look in faith, anochria!

...and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)

[John]

yes i think jasher i absolutely authentic. the only thing that may have been poluted is some stories on mosheh, and possibly the screams of the 12 sons of yaakov. you would have to read it.

shalom- john.

[Jonatan]

Extra-biblical sources are also important as I see. Otherwise we wouldn't know who were Jannes and Jambres, about Moshe's body defended by Mikael and about Enoch's prophecies.
Are there any alternative scripts of Jewish traditions, such as these, saying about Enoch, Moshe's body, Jannes and Jambres and so on, which are not apocryphal or pseudoepigraphal?
Or we should not take it into consideration that these 'apocryphas' or 'pseudoepigraphs' were declared as non-Word of God in Jamnia? As I have heard, Council in Jamnia was against messianics and christians, that's why these book were given out of consideration, what do you think?

[John]

i think apocraphal scripts should be considered as such. but i dont think 'apocryphal' should be demeaning to the books authority. i would do a lot to try and reorder the bibles canon, but there is no way that is going to happen, so i will just read all that i can.

i think that we are to be well rounded and complete, as Yaakov says.... and if we are to be complete in knoweldge than we need to read into apocryphal texts as well.

but i would highly suggest not reading apocryphal books until you have the basics of yourfaith down.

shalom- john

[anochria]

Jonatan wrote:

This way, we can allegorize also crossing of Sons of Israel through the Red Sea. Was the Red Sea divided by God? - was the miracle? Or the Torah was made up by men as a fable? Or it was only 'symbolical','allegorical', 'spiritual' etc., so that there was water in that place and that time so low that all could walk through without swimming?
But how then would Egyptians drown with their horses?

I don't see how one relates to another. I think there are good biblical reasons supporting an old earth. If you're interested in discussing this, I've posted a lot on this topic on my forums in the Science and Faith sub-forum:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science

Since this is off-topic it's probably best to discuss elsewhere, but I really enjoy discussing that topic.

As to your comment about the council of Jamnia, what evidence is there that certain books were ruled out because of the Christian/ messianic movement? I've heard that as well and I'm curious what it's based on.

john wrote:

i think that we are to be well rounded and complete, as Yaakov says.... and if we are to be complete in knoweldge than we need to read into apocryphal texts as well.

Much agreed, once a person is grounded, as you said.

John- about Jasher, when did the book first surface?

[Jonatan]

May 26, 2009 13:58:08 GMT -5 John said:

i think that we are to be well rounded and complete, as Yaakov says.... and if we are to be complete in knoweldge than we need to read into apocryphal texts as well.

but i would highly suggest not reading apocryphal books until you have the basics of yourfaith down.

shalom- john

Amen! Apocryphal books are not for spiritual children up to three, as I would say Same as some products that children shouldn't use unless they are above three, otherwise it would do great damage to them.

About the council of Jamnia, I'd like to know also. Was it banned for christians or messianics?

[John]

the council of Jamnia was not prejudice against either group as far as documents go.

as for jasher, i will make another thread.

[anochria]

OK, I posted some thoughts on Jasher over there instead.

[Jonatan]

Do you know where could I find the original scripts of 1 Enoch? In Hebrew, it would be good or Aramaic. Just the most original. You know, now we have english translations of Enoch, but for me - to translate it, it would be better, the most insurance to look into Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, to the most original texts.

You agree that english wasn't the original language for 1 Enoch, do you? heh,

[John]

i have only found one really reliable and exhaustive translation of i enoch but it is in english, not hebrew or aramaic.

shalom