What is wrong with the Book of Enoch?

Everyone seems to be making the argument about if it is possible or not for it to have existed. When the real question remains did the Jews consider this scripture? I believe I have already posted factual information that shows that the Jews did not consider this Holy Scripture.

 

At least one considered it authoritative.

Note that it does NOT say, "And some unknown guy writing under the name of Enoch in order to pass himself off as someone with authority, pretended to prophesy of these, saying, ..."

 

Nor does it say Enoch wrote anything. Enoch prophesied, Enoch walked with God and was not for God took Him. That is all we need to know about the life of Enoch or God would have inspiried more to be written in the Bible.

 

No, it doesn't say Enoch wrote anything. But by an astounding coincidence, you'll find that prophecy in the book of Enoch. And more was written in the Bible. See Jude quote, above.

 

What some of you seem to be confusing, is just because there were other Jewish books or writings, that in no way means they are then inspired, nor were they ever considered inspired. The Jews did write other books. Just as God inspired the writing of the Holy Scriptures, He also had his hand in reveling what was or was not inspired, in the canon process. God preserved His word.

I'll give some other examples:

Numbers 21:14 Refers to the "Book of the Wars of the Lord"
Joshua 10:13 Refers to the book of Jashar
2 Samuel 1:18 also refers to the book of Jashar
1 Chronicles 29:29 Refers to the acts of David, chronicles of Samuel the seer, chronicles of Nathan, the prophet, and the chronicles of Gad the seer.
2 Chronicles 12:15 Refers to the acts of Rehoboam, records of Shemaiah the prophet, and Ido the seer.
2 Chronicles 13:22 Refers to the acts of Abijah

We either have faith in the inspired Word of God, that He preserved and passed down to us, or we don't. Do we look at these passages and then conclude that all these books should have been included in our Bible, just because they were mentioned? If that is the criteria one would use, then we would have a vastly incomplete Bible.One we could have little faith in.

No, just because other writings were present at the time, and quoted, does not make them inspired by God. And they were never considered inspired by the Jews, who were meticulous in their record keeping.

 

What you're forgetting is that Jude isn't simply referring to a book. He's quoting what he believes to be a legitimate prophecy. Prophets were either legitimate and inspired by God, or they were fakes - actually, they should be dead fakes according to the law.

I know people love to write off the Jude quote as not lending legitimacy to the book of Enoch. One of my Bibles even has commentary notes saying as much. But I don't see how anyone can argue that Jude didn't think of the quote as having been inspired by God and written by the real Enoch. The language doesn't allow that possibility.

So you basically have to toss Jude out of the Bible if you don't want to consider the possibility that he was quoting a real, inspired prophecy written by the real Enoch. Either he was deceived and passed on the deception via the quote, or he was not deceived, and his quote is just what he said it was -- a prophecy written by the real Enoch. If Jude was deceived, then the book of Jude doesn't belong in the Bible because the quote is framed as being legitimate.

 

I guess you didn't even bother to read any of the passages I posted. In many of the verses the writer was quoting from them.

 

Perhaps you don't see the difference between this:

And this:

The latter identifies the one who "saying" said it, and frames it in terms of a fulfilled prophecy. Legitimate prophecy ONLY came from God.

 

I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me I accept that God had His hand in preserving the Holy Scriptures, and what we have today is the complete Bible. But one thing I am adamant about is that the original OP was incorrect when stating that "The Book of Enoch was accepted by Jews as part of the Scripture. " I have posted evidence that disputes this. I have yet to see any evidence that supports this claim, only peoples opinions suggesting that we might be missing a book in our bible.

 

Or the Holy Spirit was deceived, and Peter was deceived when he basically said the Holy Spirit was behind the writing of Scriptures.

(not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody, npet, just going to where this part of your post logically goes).

 

Exactly. Either the real Enoch did prophecy as Jude described, or the book of Jude is not inspired. I don't see any third option here.

 

Enoch prophesied. There is no disputing that. But just because someone included verse 14 of Jude in a book and then wrote something that supposedly came from Enoch himself does not mean it is true.


I could sit down today and write a book on parchment in a Hebrew writing and include Numbers 11:26 and go into some dissertation about some foretelling of events to happen and call the book 'The Book of Eldad' or 'The Book of Medad'. But that does not make it true.

Scripture must interpret scripture. Unless one can find a verse that states that Enoch wrote a book and did not just prophesy, there is no evidence to believe that a book was written by Enoch.

 

Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, in his NIVAC on 2 Peter and Jude, gives three position on the matter of Enoch: 1. Several church fathers considered 1 Enoch to be inspired. 2. Others thought that because Jude quoted a noncanonical book, Jude did not belong in the canon. 3. Augustine thought that Jude's reference showed that 1 Enoch was inspired at some points, but argued that this did not mean the whole was inspired.

But his own analysis is that not because Jude quotes this work means that it is inspired. Rather Moo thinks that he was only appealing to what his readers were familar with and so it more of an illustration. It is like Paul quoting the pagan poets at the Areopagus (Acts 17).

 

My two options are the same as 2 vs. 1+3 by Douglas Moo. All we know from Jude is the portion he quotes, not the entire book of Enoch. I'm not arguing that if Jude is inspired, therefore the entire book of Enoch as we have it today must be inspired. I'm only referring to the one quote, because I don't know if we have an accurate copy of the original book of Enoch (if such exists or ever existed).

I disagree strongly with the latter argument - that Jude is appealing to his readers. He refers to Enoch specifically by his lineage, not just as an author, thus giving authority to his authorship of the prophecy. Then he cites it AS a prophecy being fulfilled, which gives the prophecy itself authority. This isn't how one would quote something that isn't accurate just to appeal to the reader.

 

I am sorry but I still have not seen any evidence posted that shows any proof that the Jews ever considered Enoch scripture. All that has been posted so far is opinions and conjecture.

Here is one more quote from a source of authority on the subject that disputes this claim:

(Speaking about Jude quoting from Enoch and the Assumption of Moses) ......

" These books were written before the time of the New Testament, but were not accepted as inspired by the Jewish or Christian communities." ---Nelsons Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Facts


The way I see it, if someone wants to state that in their opinion they view Enoch as inspired scripture, that is their right. But You can not state as a fact that the Jews considered it Holy Scripture without supporting that fact.

 

Here is some more historical evidence that the Jews never considered Enoch inspired scripture:


Josephus, the famous Jewish historian, confirmed the books of the Old Testament Canon when he wrote his work Against Apion 1:8 in A.D. 90, and he wrote:

'For we (i.e., the Jews) have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing with and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the tradition of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes, very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take it from them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.'

Thus, the writings of Josephus tell us the number of books in the Old Testament Canon (22) and that the Canon was "closed" at the time of Artaxerxes (same time as Ezra and Nehemiah).

Josephus' 22 Old Testament books are the same as our 39 Old Testament books. His books were as follows:

5 BOOKS OF MOSES
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

13 PROPHETICAL BOOKS
1. Joshua
2. Judges and Ruth
3. Two Books of Samuel
4. Two Books of Kings
5. Two Books of Chronicles
6. Ezra and Nehemiah
7. Esther
8. Isaiah
9. Jeremiah and Lamentations
10. Ezekiel
11. Daniel
12. Books of 12 Minor Prophets
13 .Job

4 HYMNS TO GOD
1. Psalms
2. Proverbs
3. Ecclesiastes
4. Song of Solomon

The difference between Josephus' 22 books and our 39 books can be explained simply. He counted the Minor Prophets as one book (we count it as 12), he counted Samuel, Kings and Chronicles as one book each (we count them as two books each), he counted Ezra and Nehemiah as one book (we count them as two), he counted Ruth and Judges as one (we count them as two) and he counted Jeremiah and Lamentations as one book (we count them as two). Thus, Josephus' 22 books are exactly the same as our 39.

This separation of books happened at the time when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek

 

You have made a definitely strong point for your position. But I will lean on the side of the late Donald Guthrie when he said that "it is clear that Jude regards the words he cites as invested with some authority, although this need give no indication of what he thought of the rest of the book."

Peter says that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). Or in the case of Paul quoting Jesus in Acts 20:35, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." This is clearly agraphon but spoken by our Lord. Can't this quote of Enoch be the same?

 

It could be the same. The big difference is that there's a possibility that Paul got the quote directly from Jesus through special revelation or second-hand through the apostles (or through just about anyone who heard Jesus speak, since countless people who heard Jesus speak were still alive).

Jude and his friends obviously weren't of the same generation as Enoch, so there's no possibility he got the quote orally first hand, or second hand by someone who heard Enoch say it. So -- assuming the quote is authoritative -- either this quote was a special revelation by the Spirit, or Jude was quoting it from a text. If he quoted it from text, we simply do not know if that text was what we now know as the book of Enoch. All we know is that the current book of Enoch DOES have that quote in it. So it's a possibility that we have a real book of Enoch on our hands. Unfortunately, there's no way to be sure.

Edited to add: Does anyone know if the book of Enoch was found in the dead sea scrolls, and if those particular scrolls predate Jude? If so, it would be reasonable to guess that Jude was referring to that book. It's not a guarantee, just a reasonble assumption.