What is wrong with the Book of Enoch?

It might be good that the Jews focus some attention on Enoch because Enoch will be coming with Elijah to visit them in the midst of the tribulation where he will no doubt be prophesying of the Lord's soon coming with ten thousands of His saints.

 

What's the evidence that the two are Elijah and Enoch?

 

Speculations are interesting, but in this case there is plenty of evidence that the Book of Enoch influenced Jewish literature for a long time and there is no evidence that it really was some other source instead.

 

Yes, Elijah and Enoch are not lying in a grave somewhere.

Also, Enoch must come to testify of the things before the
Flood as we know virtually nothing of the Pre-Flood
World. He must testify that the bene ha 'elohim
(see Gen. 6) have returned and are presenting "The Lie".
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe the LIE: - 2 Thes 2:11

 

I agree only that the two witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah.

 

It's not part of the scriptures, but then it was mere mortals who decided what was or was not scripture.

 

Whenever the subject of the Book of Enoch comes up, it seems the first reaction is "it's not Scripture," or "its not inspired".

Without bothering with those subjects, I would like to suggest, "it is authentic".

 

Awhile back I became aware of verse numbering errors in the various online copies of R.H. Charles' translation of The Book of Enoch.

In 2006, I perpetuated the same mistake, basing my own webpage on the text found at the Wesleyan University site:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

So, initially my website also had many places where verses were divided incorrectly and sometimes verse numbers were missing completly and/or verses had been combined and run together.

Just look at the following example. Notice where the division for Enoch 1:2 comes (taken from the CCEL.org site):

1The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3for to come.
That's pretty odd, don't you think?

Here's what it should look like (which makes it a lot nicer for quoting purposes):

1The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. 2And he took up his parable and said- Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

The following sites all have the same sort of verse numbering and division problems:

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenochwithversenumbers.htm
http://www.altheim.com/lit/enoch.html
http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_1.HTM
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiopian/enoch/1watchers/watchers.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/book_of_enoch.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/enoch.htm

Since then, I have received a corrected digital copy.

I also have an old hard copy edition of The Book of Enoch, published by S.P.C.K., with which to compare my corrected digital copy; they are the same.

I have converted the entire book into fully linkable HTML; all chapters and verses are linkable. In this version the verse breaks and numbers are correct

I also made sure it has a proper paragraph format for easier reading, with the poetry sections of the book showing in versified form.
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm

You may feel free to link to any chapter and verse within the text.

To link to Chapters use this convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#69

To link to Verses use this convention:
http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#69:26

The # (pound) sign directs the URL to internal anchors on the page for either chapters or chapters and verses.

Enjoy!

 

Out of curiosity, was there a defined time when God quit "inspiring" people/things?

 

For me it is not about whether God has stopped inspiring people. I mean, I hope your preacher is inspired. I think the relevant question is, has God stopped giving "Special" revelation? (I'm meaning "special revelation" as defined by your systematic theology) I think the most recent installment in God's special revelation to mankind was the revelation which came through Jesus Christ during the era of the first Apostles. John was the last to inscripturate God's "Special" revelation, and then he passed. Yes. The canon was closed in a de facto sense, at the repose of John. So, yes, there was a defined time when special revelation was "put on hold"-- the end of the first century AD. This "hold" will be lifted at the 2nd-coming of Jesus.

 

No, the Holy Spirit decided. Mere mortals debated and tried to mess it up, but the HS inspired canon won out after all.

 

Which one won?

There are no less than five different Old Testament canons in use by Christians of orthodox faith in today's world.

Add this thought to the mix, there never has been 100% universal agreement in the Church as to what should be the exact delimeters of the Old Testament's contents.

 

I have no idea. What I'm wondering is how was any writing chosen or rejected as scripture? Some of the books are questionable as it is--like the Song of Solomon. What purpose does that book serve?

How do we know for sure that the books we have were actually inspired by God, and that something else that was rejected wasn't?

 

In answering this question most Baptists conclude with an answer that God's soveriegnty overruled the fallibility of men in this regard.

I think that is basically true. However, I get the impression that God always leaves some things a bit unclear so we have to resort to faith at the end of the day. Its the same reason, imo, we don't have the autographs.

However, more to your point, you have hit on something of a problem with the idea of "canon". The Scriptures, from which we derive everything necessary for teaching, reproof, correction and training, contain no doctrine of canonicity of Scripture. My opinion is, God never asked it to be done. It was not necessary. Had there been no official promulgation of a list of canonical books, we'd not be in a vastly different place today than we are. The churches of orthodoxy had roughly the same group of books in their use. There was a vast concensus without the edict of a canon.

 

If the Biblical Enoch is the author of the book bearing his name, one might well expect the book’s contents to be consistent with the books of the Bible. Not only do we find the Book of Enoch to be consistent with the Bible, but as it turns out, familiarity with the contents of the book aids in understanding certain difficult passages of the Bible. Does this intriguing fact point to a familiarity with the Book of Enoch on the part of the writers of the Bible?

There are quite a number of subjects in the Old and New Testaments concerning which the Biblical writers seem to assume a certain level of prior knowledge on the part of their readers. It is the lack of this prior knowledge in our day that creates problems for us in understanding these texts. There are a surprising number of these passages of scripture which knowledge of the contents of the Book of Enoch resolves. Here are a few examples:

• The nature of the sin of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6
• The curious origin of the Old Testament giants
• The origin of demons nowhere expressly stated in the Bible
• The pervasive use by Christ of the term Son of Man
• The nature of the angels’ sin mentioned in Jude and 2 Peter 2
• The sending of the scapegoat to Azazel in Leviticus 16
• The identity of the seven angels in the books of Ezekiel and Revelation
• Jude’s classifying of Enoch as one of the prophets
• The Book of Revelation’s singular mention of a “bottomless pit”

If one is unfamiliar with the contents of the Book of Enoch each of the above-mentioned subjects poses questions which cannot be definitively answered from the 66 books of the Bible. If one is willing to refer to the Book of Enoch on these questions, however, none of these examples pose serious problems. Modern readers do well to bear in mind, by the time of Christ, the subject matter of the Book of Enoch was well-known and would have provided a wekk-spring of conceptual background for readers and hearers of the Scriptures in first century Israel.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns. All rights reserved.

 

Oh Moses, where art thou?

The Book of Enoch exhibits other traits which indicate it was written much earlier than the timeframe most textual scholars place it in.

Enoch is devoid of a number of items one would expect to find in a Jewish book written in the period after the Jewish return from Babylon but before the birth of Christ. Unlike other works from the inter-testamental period, Enoch is devoid of anything we’ve come to associate with Judaism from this period. For instance, there is nothing specifically Mosaic in the Book of Enoch. In this book there is no appeal to tradition, no Sabbath observance, there is no concern for dietary laws, there is no concern for ritual purity, there is no mention of the Jewish temple, there are no animal sacrifices mentioned, there are no “Jews” mentioned, and for that matter, no Israel. For an inter-testamental writer to create such a document without slipping up and introducing a single Mosaic assumption is an extreme feat indeed.

Readers should take note of the complete lack of mention of any of the controverted points of Judaism which were in vogue during the inter-testamental period. For instance, there is no evidence of the prevalent tension between tradition and Hellenization, which was becoming an issue at that time. In fact, one cannot find any Greek ideas introduced or any Greek influence on the book. There are however many examples of other Jewish books written between the Old and New Testaments which show a pronounced Greek influence.

A remarkable feature of the Book of Enoch is how much of its terminology is unlike the rest of the Bible, even though in spirit it is thoroughly similar. Try as one might, one will not find in Enoch anything specifically influenced by the Law of Moses. Enoch is bereft of any terminology remotely Mosaic in its tone or flavor. Even the books of the New Testament betray Mosaic influence, but Enoch does not.

Copyright © 2006-2012, R.I. Burns. All rights reserved

 

I just published a book on the subject.

For context I am SBC graduate, ordained, church-planting, cross-cultural pastor.

I believe the Book of Enoch fits in nicely with the Bible.

I argue that the book is older than textual critics assert. I assert it is the writings of the Biblical Enoch.

 

My vote goes with those who were closest to the events........further, they read a lot more and watched a lot less TV than we do. Therefore I'll trust them and leave it in the common canon of the Church.

There is a common canon. It may not be yours, but the fact is, as far as anyone can determine, The Book of Enoch has always been in someone's canon as far back as we can determine.

When Jerome and Auggie Daddy the Great were busy fretting over people having too much to read, and thus excluded the Book of Enoch, (for Greek philosophical reasons), the Christian/Jews of Ethiopia did not get the memo and left it in.