The
purpose of this Group is to examine the claims made by the
pseudepigraphical book of Enoch which many Messanics view as inspired
scripture (this ministry does not). We shall here examine the claims
and the evidence and why occultists love it...
Introduction to the Book of Enoch
The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed
to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18).
While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it
was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude
1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian
Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.
It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments
from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. There is
no consensus among Western scholars about the original language: some
propose Aramaic, others Hebrew, while the probable thesis according to
E. Isaac is that 1 Enoch, as Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic
and partially in Hebrew[2]:6. Ethiopian scholars hold that Ge'ez is the
language of the original from which the Greek and Aramaic copies were
made, pointing out that it is the only language in which the complete
text has been found[3].
According to Western scholars its older sections (mainly in the Book of
the Watchers) date from about 300 BC and the latest part (Book of
Parables) probably was composed at the end of 1st century BC[4]; It is
argued that all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it
and were influenced by it in thought and diction.[5] - see Wikipedia Book of Enoch.
Satans plan in all this could have been to so pollute the blood of
humans that Christ couldn't have been born. Before the flood, when the
phrase "the end of all flesh is come before me" in Genesis 6:13 is used
could be a statement that meant there was no more true human blood
(besides Noah and his family. Just a thought...
Comment by Lev/Christopher on July 9, 2009 at 2:33am
I think the differences between Cain and Able are based exclusively in
choice and not (as I hope no one is suggesting) the suggestion that
Abel was the offspring of Adam and Eve whilst Cain was the offspring of
the serpent and Eve (Serpent-Seed Doctrine) which has led to all sorts
of racist slurs on various people (Jews, blacks, etc) implying that
they are not really human and are unsavable. (Genesis actually says
Cain was the offspring of Adam and Eve, like his brother Abel).
Apart from the dimensions of the giants, I believe the Book of Enoch
does preserve and expands upon a truth about the offspring between
women and watcher angels. I believe the production of these hybrids was
one of the reasons for the Flood.
I agree, Enoch is not fraudulent from beginning to end, though i do
believe the reason it was created, and some of the content, is. The
Pseudepigrapha a dicey species of writing in any case.
The Council of Jamnia, in acse anyone should misunderstand me, was not
a church council but a Jewish counsel of rabbis, sages, etc.. As far as
I can recall (it's been a while since I read up on it), the only book
of our Protestant OT canon that was disputed was the Song of Solomon
and it was only upon the insistence of one of the sages, who was well
respected, that it was retained.
Comment by Lev/Christopher on July 8, 2009 at 12:26pm
A brother and Messianic Rabbi, who is unable to join this group, has
been exchanging messages with me about Enoch and this is what we have
communicated:
Him: So in a nutshell Chris, what do you think about Enoch? I presume that you think it not authentic?
Me: I think, like most pseudepigrapha, that it has authentic elements
in it which may have been transmitted orally and were then reworked and
expanded by the Pharisees in the original author's name. I have put up
a couple of posts that explain some of my concerns. I do not think it
is a reliable text.
Him: Thanks for the reply. I do not hold an iron clad opinion one way
or the other except to use Enoch as a teaching point should it detail a
point already affirmed or alluded to in the TANACH.
I think that it fell out of favour because it clearly disputes the dual
seedline teaching / heresy that some jews latched onto and some other
folks in the messianic movement seem to have embraced.
Comment by Lev/Christopher on July 8, 2009 at 12:24pm
As a footnote, the Council of Jamnia, which canonised the OT, and which
has been a part of all Canons did not canonise the Book of Enoch. I
don't even know if it was considered - does anyone know?
Comment by Lev/Christopher on July 8, 2009 at 12:17pm
The quoting of non-Tanakh texts does not mean that those texts are
necessarily authoritative, let alone scripture. Paul quotes a pagan
philosopher too. And it is possible that Paul was quoting a quote from
some other document. We just don't know.
Comment by Christian on July 8, 2009 at 11:52am
Whatever scripture Jude / Yahudah quoted from was in any case
considered authoritative and spiritually sound enough to be published
abroad, more than any particular scripture from current canons.
Comment by Christian on July 7, 2009 at 6:13pm
Perhaps the version of Enoch quoted in Jude is not the same version we have today?
