The Book of Enoch

Introduction

What does the Bible say about Enoch? The first time anyone named Enoch is mentioned is in Gen. 4:17. But the one everyone is familiar with, the 7th from Adam, is in these passages: Gen. 5:18-24, Luke 3:37, Heb. 11:5, Jude 1:14. That's it. There is no book of Enoch cited or mentioned, in contrast to passages such as 1 Kings 11:41, 14:19,29, and Joshua 10:13.

Now we should note that the Jude 14 reference seems to come from the Jewish 1st Book of Enoch from around the first century . But just as the kings' annals are referenced but not included in the canon as inspired, only Enoch's prophecy is cited as divinely given, but not necessarily the book it was recorded in.

The apostle Paul quoted from several Greek writers [Aratus (Acts 17:28), Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), Epimenides (Titus 1:12)], but nobody tries to claim that the Greek philosophers should be considered part of the Bible canon for that reason.

So we're establishing a precedent here: Just because someone is quoted in scripture, that doesn't make any and all writings by or about that person also divinely inspired. Also note that “book of” can mean either by or about, such as the books of Moses, or Job, or Esther, or Ruth.

Date of writing

As the 7th from Adam, Enoch lived thousands of years BC, before the Flood. But scholarship on 1st Enoch suggests a time of writing spanning 300 BC to 100 a.d., which is well past the time of paleo-Hebrew or some more ancient script contemporary to Enoch. So on what basis is 1st Enoch authentic to the Biblical Enoch? Yes, it was found among the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), and it was included in the Ethiopian canon, but would those two criteria be enough on their own to establish the rest of the canon? I haven't seen that consistently applied. It seems that the integrity of the canon boils down to which one has the books people think should be in it, rather than actual evidence or acceptance by the ancients.

1 Enoch 14 has Enoch speaking in the 1st person, without any preface such as "And Enoch said…", so the book itself presents Enoch as the author. Yet there is no evidence of any line of transmission from before the Flood, no mention of its preservation, no claims of any copies of it before about 300 BC.

So since there's no firm evidence that Enoch wrote a book, and since we have no writings attributed to Enoch earlier than a few centuries BC, then 1st Enoch is about him rather than by him, though the book itself says it's by him. But even if it wasn't by him, was he quoted accurately and faithfully? We have no way of knowing, outside of the Biblical quotes.

Essenes and Gnostics

Now let's look at the Essenes and Gnostics, since this is all related. Most proponents of this book as canonical appeal to the Essenes' acceptance of it, so now we need to take a brief look at the Essenes and early Gnostic teachings.

First of all, the Bible treats Gnostic teachings as false: 1 John 4:2-3, 1 Tim. 6:20-21, Rev. 2:24. The Gnostics were known for teaching esoteric (hidden) knowledge, among other things, as shown in this article. Another article cites Josephus and Lightfoot on the Essenes, and more discussion can be read at Stack Exchange, which asks who wrote the 1st book of Enoch, and when.

Now I don't necessarily agree with every point in the list, but it's a long list and it presents sufficient reason to strongly question the authenticity of the book as inspired by God. Good points are raised in additional comments there, including that there is no evidence it was ever included in the inspired canon in the first place, such that claims it was removed are baseless.

Content

Now let's take a look at a particular passage in 1st Enoch. In passages such as 46:3-4 you'll find the phrase “son of man”, which is also seen in both Testaments in the Bible. As a figure of speech, it simply means a human being, but in some contexts it refers to the promised Messiah. So does 1st Enoch 71:14-15 refer to Jesus, or as some now insist, to Enoch?

First look at the most accepted translation, and then the challenge to that translation (standard disclaimer).

Do those who insist that Enoch belongs in the Bible even know of this disputed meaning? Do they realize the implications? This article argues that Enoch himself is the Messiah, rather than (as they put it) “a dreamed-of messiah that is yet to come” (you can hear the disdain in that phrase). This is serious business, because many Christians believe 1st Enoch was removed from the Bible and kept hidden. But if that's true, and if the modern translation is more accurate, then it contradicts all the rest of the Bible's references to the Messiah as future to Enoch.

Objection

Some early “church fathers” rejected 1 Enoch because it agrees with Gen. 6:1-4 (!!) concerning the “sons of God” breeding with the “daughters of men”, which was thought impossible and blasphemous, and gave rise to the ridiculous notion that the children of Seth were the “sons of God” and the children of Cain were the “daughters of men”.

There's no reason that only these particular human unions would produce “heroes of old, men of renown”, in a context where the Nephilim were just mentioned. 1 Enoch 7:2 states this more clearly, yet at the same time, we can get the same understanding by referencing Jude.

Conclusion

Since there were differences of opinion regarding the Bible canon even before the time of Christ, we should not rush into either acceptance or rejection of any given book. My point in all this is that we need to apply a consistent standard, rather than allow personal preferences to be the judge of what is or isn't inspired by God. Don't just say what you believe; show how you reached that conclusion, and use that method consistently.

Nothing in 1st Enoch tells us anything that makes an iota of difference to the Gospel or the authenticity of the most widely-accepted Bible canon. Without it, we already know about fallen angels, giants, the earth as the center of God's creation, etc. So what exactly would anyone have been hiding?

Certainly extra-Biblical historical records shed light on many passages, but by itself that isn't all it takes to make a book divinely inspired. There are many true, factual books that no one tries to say are inspired of God, and divine inspiration is what the whole Bible canon debate is about. The reason it hinges on that one point is because whatever is divinely mandated carries moral authority.

But an equally pressing question is this: Why is it that Christians and non-Christians alike want so badly for 1st Enoch to be divinely inspired? Why is it held as superior to the Bible by so many, without the usual goalpost-moving demands for evidence and non-contradiction placed on the Bible? Is it only because it was revered by the Essenes, who many claim were the “real” Christians— solely because they don't like what the Bible teaches? Is it because they consider the Bible a corrupted text, without any such criticism of 1st Enoch? Is it because 1st Enoch teaches them something they like better?

On the other hand, some believe 1st Enoch supports and validates the Bible, and for that reason should be considered canonical. Yet this opens the door to the Gnostic so-called gospels to be included as well, even though they contradict the existing canon. But in my experience, the main reason people want the Gnostic “gospels” and 1st Enoch to be canon is because they don't like what the accepted canon teaches.

Those of us who don't accept them are mocked as close-minded and afraid of truth, but what we really object to is a double or inconsistent standard regarding evidence and inspiration. Why is it that the Gnostic “gospels” and alleged books of Enoch aren't attacked and denounced like the Bible, if they belong in it? Would today's supporters of 1 Enoch have denounced it, if it had been in the Bible all this time? Why not? And why does Hollywood make movies like The Davinci Code to promote Gnostic works? Who is behind that sort of thing?

Here again, self-proclaimed “awake” people abandon all the principles of skepticism and evidence when a text or teaching outside of or contrary to the Bible is dangled in front of them. Even Christians will get their beliefs about the Bible from just about anyone, and they'll hand-wave dismiss any and all who don't accept Enoch or Gnostic works. So which side is really biased and close-minded?