Is the book of Enoch canonical?

[Soulfyre]

I have created this topic to that the current discussion of the canonicity of the Book of Enoch may be continued. I do believe that this will be addressed at more length as I discuss the concept of canonicity, how it is traditionally defined by the church, and the process (sometimes bloody) that was undergone to establish what is conventionally called the "canon" of Scripture. But as the discussion has brougth up issues I wish to answer specifically, I have decided to move it here.

Happy discussing!

Matthew (soufyre)

[worthily]

What is signifigant towards the account of Enoch by new testament standards has many aspects but in this post i will touch basis with only one, i wont go into anymore detail than necessary:

Q. If the book of Enoch has no relavance to new testament doctrine then why go to any lengths to bring Enoch to the new testament?

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

It is truly odd that Elijah wasnt expounded upon towards christian doctrine and instead it was Enoch who was expounded upon towards the new testament although, what is worth stating towards Elijah is the following:

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

The observations to most scholars is that Enoch's testamony touches the reality of Christianity before the outpouring of the God's Spirit given in Acts as He imparts the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost by which is given onto us. The reason why the Jews did not want his testamony submitted even though Enoch himself was in the same lineage is because of the issue regarding monotheism.

According to Enoch's testamony: There is a LORD of Spirits and a Son of Man as being one authority and his testamony will never be accepted by the Jews, it wasnt accepted back in the early old testament and it surely will not be accepted to this very day. This testamony was brought to the new testament as part to establish yet another truth in Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and Son of Man that was with the Father who is Lord of Spriits since the beginning and Enoch's testamony is then there to represent that truth, that truth before the outpouring and imparting of the Holy Spirit upon all, for Jesus Christ prayed to His Father for that to happen for us all, as well.

[worthily]

We are invited to partake in the Father's wisdom and revelation through Jesus Christ and we are invited to partake worthily. i will do my best to defend the Word and the biblical scripture no matter if it has been neglected or disregarded and i will continue to ask for wisdom and discernment pertaining to matters that defends God's Word for this has been given for us to understand. This is one of the many reasons why mankind cannot be mediator because of self-ish fallibility.

May God bless you all for the hope is in Jesus Christ

[melinky]

worthily said:

If its not to be drawn from as a source then neither is the book of Jude. the book of Jude must then be uncanonical, to put into simple terms relating with contradiction. You cannot have a trustworthy source deemed the whole truth and still refer to a source that is outside of that trust or what should have been made aware to Jude. Sooner or later you will have to come to grips with that fact.

So i ask again, do you accept the book of Jude? yes or no

I don't think it's a matter of personal opinion or whether any of us accept Jude or Enoch. If that were so, I could tell you that the Book of Matthew isn't canon because I don't accept it. Therefore, it is my opinion, that we must look to the church for the answer to this one. From what I understand from all the posts thus far is that none of our churches accecpt the book of Enoch as canon, though it might be considered proper study material.

Melinda

[worthily]

the church in Ethiopia regards it as canon, though i dont know how long it has been canonized with their church.

[melinky]

Three questions:

1. Do any of us live in Ethopia?

2. Do any of us belong to the Ethiopian church?

3. That is one church out of how many?

;D Melinda ;D

[worthily]

well, perhaps if i can get their address, you can restate those exact statements in a letter to them and see if they like it. Would that be ok with you? perhaps you can start a correspondance where you ridicule them while they dont know you.

[melinky]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but one church calling a book canon does not make it canon. If the church of Ethiopia wants to claim it as part of their canon then I have no problem with that, but I don't belong to the church of Ethiopia.

I'm not arguing that there is value in reading it. I think it's wonderful that it speaks to you so strongly, but for now, I have enough material that is considered canon to keep me going for years. The book of Enoch is one that I will eventually look at but right now it isn't on my reading list. We all have to follow our hearts with God's guidance, God is leading you in one direction and me in another. It is more important for me to nurture myself on milk (basic scripture) and save the meat and potatoes for later.

With this said, I am withdrawing from this thread and this topic. I will leave it in the more capable hands of those who are on a steady meat and potatoes diet.

Yours in Christ,

Melinda

PS - It wouldn't bother me in the least to tell the church of Ethiopia that I respectfully don't accept Enoch as canon.

[worthily]

i can understand if you want to stay with the milk of the word, there isnt nothing like the milk of the word for growth and stability ;D

God bless you


ps-- and sometimes maturity

[worthily]

"The original Aramaic version was lost until the Dead Sea fragments were discovered."
"The original language of most of this work was, in all likelihood, Aramaic (an early Semitic language). Although the original version was lost in antiquity, portions of a Greek translation were discovered in Egypt and quotations were known from the Church Fathers. The discovery of the texts from Qumran Cave 4 has finally provided parts of the Aramaic original. ...Humankind is called on to observe how unchanging nature follows God's will."
- Milik, Jazef. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4


Composition
"1 Enoch, preserved in a full, 108-chapter form in Ethiopic, consists of five parts and one appended chapter. It originated in Aramaic (perhaps Hebrew for chaps. 37-71), was translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic."
- James C. Vanderkam (Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at the University of Notre Dame)

"The Aramaic Book of Enoch...very considerably influenced the idiom of the New Testament and patristic literature, more so in fact than any other writing of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha."
- Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, (1995) p. 366


Although the Book of Enoch is considered as apocryphal, it was clearly known to early Christian writers as the following quote from 1 Enoch 1:9 indicates:

"In the seventh (generation) from Adam Enoch also prophesied these things, saying: 'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners spoke against him'."
- Jude 14-15

The Enochian writings, in addition to many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras, etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings. The term "apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret". Originally, the import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public.

In Dan. 12:9-10 we hear of words that are shut up until the end of time and, words that the wise shall understand and the wicked shall not. In addition, 4 Ezra 14:44ff. mentions 94 books, of which 24 (the OT) were to be published and 70 were to be delivered only to the wise among the people (= apocrypha).

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.

[Soulfyre]

Let me quote one of the authorities you have cited concerning the Book of Enoch (in this case, it would be the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, or I Enoch, as opposed to the Slavonic Book of Enoch, or II Enoch, or the relatively late III Enoch):

[/b] (a work that claims to be by a biblical character). The Book of Enoch was not included in either the Hebrew or most Christian biblical canons, but could have been considered a sacred text by the sectarians."
     - Milik, Jazef. T., ed. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4[/ul]
Here are some additional references that may be helpful:

As you probably are aware, these quotations, along with the quotation you cited from Norman Golb, are from the web page entitled, The Pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch. While it was certainly representative of an important strain of Jewish mystical thought (as was that of the Essenes, also discovered among the Qum'ran fragments), only the Ethiopic Church (sometimes referred to as the Coptic Church of Ethiopia) accepted it as canonical. The teachings of the Coptic Church reflect gnostic influence that was considered heresy in the ancient church. The apostles Paul and John took a particularly dim view of the proto-gnosticism present in much of the Jewish mysticism that was already plaguing the early church (cf. Colossians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, and I John).

Enoch was, of course, not written by Enoch, but was a pseudonymous work. That the author attempted to mask his identity to gain credibility was considered dubious at best by the early church. That the book reflected a strain of Jewish mysticism of which there appear to be parallels in the New Testament (including the Gospels) does not assign it the status of Holy Writ. There were certain parallels between the teachings of the Essenes and the teachings of Jesus Christ, and of the New Testament. There were also some important differences. We may look at much of the information from Qum'ran to illuminate our understanding of the Jewish religious milieu at the time surrounding the coming of Jesus Christ, but it is dangerous to utilize these texts to define our theology.

The Book of Enoch was not considered true in its entirety (the test of a prophet in the Old Testament). One proposing to speak the words of the Almighty could not have an admixture of error, for such was considered unimpeachable proof that the self-proclaimed "prophet" was, in fact, as "false prophet." It is likely that this was a primary reason that the Jews rejected the canonicity of I Enoch (and its other more spurious counterparts), and why the majority of the early Christian church concluded that it was not canonical. This does not mean that it did not manifest lofty thoughts, or that it could not contain some truth. That Jude identified the passage in v. 14 as a prophecy of Enoch does not lend overall authority to I Enoch, but lends credibility to the specific prophecy.

After much searching, I found the home page to this series of sites. It is entitled "Illuminations". On the page "Underground Streams" I found this quote from the apparent author of the website:

I would not recommend a site essentially gnostic in its presuppositions as a primary source for truth. To this author, canonicity is not the issue, but rather ancient and hidden knowledge. What is important to him is not whether Enoch was or was not part of Holy Scripture, but that it may have reflected these "hidden traditions of beliefs and practices."

worthily, be careful with this site. Remember the stern words of Paul to the believers at Colossae:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

Colossians 2:8

You will also note that while I believe that some of the material he quotes is in fact accurate (I have submitted the quotations above), I do not agree with the general direction of his reasoning or with many of the quotations and conclusions on his website. This illustrates that it is in fact possible for someone who is in generally in error to cite information which is correct, as it is also possible for someone reading someone who is in error to quote that information which is correct without lending credence to the whole body of information.

God bless and keep you,

Matthew (soulfyre)


"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in doing so have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you."

I Timothy 6:20-21

[worthily]

As they also stated the original manuscript is lost and they had to use copies and fragmentations and compile them together. You forgot to mention that as well. They use gnostic terms of course but because they are judgeing it from a third perspective, the author gives a point of view based upon his stance and his belief system which does not share the same if taken from a biblical belief system. Similar terms have been used when the dead sea scrolls were first unearthed as well or perhaps you should know that as well. If its the usage of the terms that you have a problem with then i can get biblical only perspectives so that you are not exposed to a third perspective. i appreciate the fact that it is actually the perspective being questioned for the terms would not be associated with the biblical persons that concur with it. What is well noting IS the fact that his views that is different than from a biblical doctrine would try to disprove rather than to approve so as to entail it upon the new testament as well or perhaps you do not find that in their findings.

i have a collection of same relavant perspectives towards the dead sea scrolls from authors outside of the biblical doctrine so as to give a third person perspective. It boils down to the perspective matthew and in the future i will draw from a biblical perspective if that is what you are after rather than from an unbiased source

[worthily]

Dr. Gene Scott is a source in the perspective that you are after matthew and all of his religious teachings are on audio.

www.drgenescott.com

that should give you a start

[Soulfyre]

I did not "forget to mention that". But you will note that there is general agreement that the original was in Aramaic. Although certainly Aramaic is a very old language, I believe that few would argue that it was in common usage at the time of Enoch, which was ante-diluvean. Our first records of Aramaic come from 900-700 B.C.E. So far as I have seen, the only "Christian" support for I Enoch is from the Coptic Church.

I guess one can either believe that the vast majority of scholarship, past and present, liberal and conservative, is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress true Christianity, or you can believe, as with all conspiracy theories, that such premises utlimately collapse upon themselves from the sheer weight of the assumptions and unlikely collusions that would have had to have taken place for the premises to be true. And I have not found overwhelming evidece from the Church Fathers to indicate a groundswell of support for I Enoch. All in all, evidence appears to stand against it. And while some may consider evidence to be in the eye of the beholder (as in the dispute between evolutionists and those who support intelligent design), I would need to be persuaded with a very convincing line of reasoning and substantial evidence of the alternative for me to accept, against the nearly united word from church history, that I Enoch is canonical, i.e. part of Holy Scripture, and therefore "God-breathed" and inerrant.

God bless and keep you and yours,

Matthew

[worthily]

here is a excerpt from allen cronshaw:

From a biblical perspective, the Old Covenant was and continues to be the written Word of God that brings the believer to the beginning of The Way -- wherein, carnal men must bring discipline into their lives -- subdue their beastly nature -- and learn about God from other men. The New Covenant begins at the point where a man has sufficiently been molded by the Law and the Knowledge of the Prophets, to where he is able to learn directly from God. Essentially, the two Covenants are the same -- i.e., what we call the Old Covenant being an elementary level of revelation, while what we call the New Covenant would be a middle-school level of revelation. When we pray to the Lord for the higher knowledge in our churches today, we must begin to perceive our plight as a people who dwell under the limitations of the Old Covenant (Egyptian bondage) who are beseeching the Lord to bring about a reinstatement of the New Covenant -- which can only be brought about through a restoration of those scriptures and teachings which the Roman Church destroyed in the fourth century.

In the process of investigating Christian origins, a number of our experts have now come to realize that our modern-day churches are very much functioning in an Old Covenant mode. People who call themselves Christian live lawless and heathen lifestyles where they are literally possessed by the nature-gods of this world. Men teach other men their ideas and doctrines about a God -- ideas which they do not truly understand. The result is that the flock of believers are not only led astray by incomplete ideas and doctrines of belief that anchor the people to the thinking of this realm, but they worship the gods of this world -- i.e., sex, materialism, alcohol, drugs, secularism, Paganism, and the precepts and opinions of other men.

What stops us from perceiving the inner meaning of the text of the Bible? What stops us from seeing God with clarity and perception of mind? What inhibits us, and causes us to be of a natural (carnal) mindset? What inhibits man in his natural organic state of mind from being able to access more than ten percent of his potential of mind? Why do men who read the same biblical text hold divers and often opposite points of view with respect to what is the meaning of the narrative? Why does one man believe one way? Another, and opposite way? And why does such overwhelming conflict of thought and strife exist in the world? The answer is found in the fact that few men comprehend the Laws of Creation -- and fewer yet are able to overcome these Law that are revealed within the text of the Book of Enoch.