AWS: The Books of Enoch (Ancient Word Series: The Book and Path to the Holy Law)
God has used the Church, with all of her missteps and human failings, to produce a canon that fully describes His character and plan for the world. I think that the easiest answer is that it was excluded because it was never properly included. None of the groups who formed a version of the canon felt that this book accurately reflected Jewish values sufficiently to be included in the Tanak or the LXX.
Christians just followed suit. Just because a book is cited by the Bible, that does not make for automatic inclusion. Just because a book is not cited by the rest of the Bible that does not mean that it would be right to exclude it Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes come to mind. For your first question, the Book of Enoch is part of liturgical canon of Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches within Oriental Orthodox communion.
The reason for this inclusion is because this book is included by Jews in the early first century as confirmed in Dead Sea Scrolls. Conception of liturgical canon doesn't exist in Protestantism. This doesn't mean the other five New Testament books are not considered inspired, it's just that they're not included in their liturgy. Eastern Orthodox to this day doesn't include Revelation in their liturgical canon, because they don't use it in liturgy. Each churches have their own liturgical canon. This is why in the Acts of the Council of Trent it's discussed why regarding Canon of Scripture the Tridentine Fathers chose not to anathematize books outside liturgical canon used in Latin because they want to keep the liturgical canon open.
Especially for Eastern rites Catholics who include Psalms , Prayer of Manasseh, and Third Maccabee in our liturgical canon, similar with the liturgical canon of Eastern Orthodox brethren. For your second question, major Christian denominations don't accept the Book of Enoch because regarding Old Testament canon they only accept Canon of Scripture approved by Jews at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century.
The Book of Enoch is not included in that canon. The idea of this council was first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in but later was proved to be a 19th century myth.
Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site the association bonus does not count. Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead? Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical? Ask Question. Jomet Jomet 8 8 gold badges 14 14 silver badges 22 22 bronze badges. Related on BH. SE: What were the historical reasons why the book of Enoch was excluded from most Christian canons?
Enoch says this: And behold! Clearly this is very similar to Jude The question is: Why? Was Jude quoting The Book of Enoch? If so, does this mean the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture? There are many arguments on all sides of this debate, but the real question in the back of many Christian minds is: Is it Scripture? Summary I think Paul's words are very pertinent here: As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Jas 3. If you have questions about specific claims I made in my list, it would probably be more appropriate to post a separate question on C. SE about whether the Enoch "verse" in question is in conflict with Scripture, as opposed to debating it in the comments. This is really helpful.
Did you actually read the book of Enoch and come up with this yourself, or did you get it from somewhere? I agree with your conclusion in general, but this list seems kind of issues seems kind of bogus to me. One could easily compile a list that looked much like that for some works that ARE in the Canon, and if the same hermeneutics we apply to the rest of Scripture were applied, many of the issues you raise would vaporize as variously interpreted as alegory, symbolism or even the author not knowing how to properly describe what he was seeing.
Reading Hezekiel with the same eye you have applied to Enoch would produce a similar list of bizarrities. Again I agree overall, but your evidence is weak. Caleb I am starting with the presupposition that the Bible is the standard by which we judge all other teachings. When we use the Bible as a standard and read "Enoch 1", it comes up short. I think that is pretty easy to discern which is why it's not in the Bible! The list was an attempt to illustrate that without writing a commentary on the entire book. You might consider reading some of the verses I referenced; it might make more sense what I was talking about.
Regarding "Hezekiel" Ezekiel? I have answered the question. I think your disagreement is with the assumption behind the question. The purpose of these articles is 1 to call attention to some of the long-ignored aspects of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch in the book of Moses and in the Inspired Version of Genesis and 2 to provide at the same time some of the evidence that establishes the authenticity of that remarkable text.
Contemporary learning offered few checks to the imagination of Joseph Smith; the enthusiasm of his followers presented none. Yet, though free to roam at will over a boundless plain, the Prophet never once in his account of Enoch strays from the narrow and exacting path that later Enoch texts have so clearly marked.
In his version, every essential element of the Enoch story as we now know it turns up, yet he never strays out of bounds—what he says and what he does not say about Enoch are equally remarkable considering his situation. To present and discuss all the ancient parallels to the Joseph Smith Enoch would require a work of immense scope, but such is not necessary for our purpose. It is enough to show by one or two examples in each case that even the most extravagant passages in the Joseph Smith version may all be matched by ancient texts—the Prophet is never alone.
Many important questions, such as the real age of the Enoch tradition, how the various texts are related, their relevance to modern life, etc. For the present the message and the bona fides of the Joseph Smith account of Enoch are our sole concern. Surprisingly enough, the best documented story of a clash between Adam and Satan is the scene in heaven.
There was great reluctance among the hosts to proceed with the creation of the earth, the earth itself complaining, exactly in the manner of Moses , of the filthiness and corruption that would surely go out of her and begging to be allowed to rest from such horrors. See Gen.
BIBLE HISTORY DAILY
This of course is the heavenly book of the generations of Adam open at the foundation of the earth, the book to which Enoch refers so explicitly in Moses , 8. In the presence of all the hosts, Adam is next made ready to take over his great assignment. They took from him his armor and all the insignia of priesthood and kingship. Other accounts say that after these cuts he retained only one-third of his former power, even as he was followed by one-third of the hosts.
Next Adam was escorted to earth to enter his mortal body, and for a hundred years thereafter was often visited by angels. Thereafter, for two hundred years he lived happily in innocence with Eve, taking good care of the animals in his charge. Eventually Satan succeeded in getting possession of a mortal creature, which enabled him to carry on an extensive campaign aimed at Eve.
Adam was greatly upset; but when Eve, the victim of a trick, took all responsibility, he joined her. With the threat of death before him, Adam saw the bitterness of hell 19a, 2lb , but calling upon God he received not only the assurance of salvation for the dead through the atonement of Christ 20b , but is told that death shall be sweet to those whose names are inscribed in the Book of Life 24a—b. Fear of death the angel Mouriel is wholesome and necessary to remind the human race of its fragility and constant need of repentance. What comes after the showdown between our first parents and the Adversary?
Let us briefly survey events leading up to the call of Enoch, as given in the Joseph Smith account. Cain rule over Satan? That is the classic bargain, the pact with the Devil, by which a Faust, Don Juan, Macbeth, or Jabez Stone achieve the pinnacle of earthly success and the depths of eternal damnation. What could one do in such a situation? Moses — All those who covenanted with Satan were excluded from the holy covenants of God, though they pretended that everything was the same as before. Is there no relief in the terrible picture?
Adam, having lost Abel, got another son, Seth, to carry on his work. Moses From him comes that line of successors in the priesthood, duly registered in the Book of Life, from which the wicked were excluded. Moses —8. After Seth came Enos, who decided to make an important move. Moses —21 ; Moses , 5— The occurrence of like names in the two genealogies should not surprise anyone who does much genealogy, where the same family names keep turning up in an endless round. And so the stage is set for Enoch.
In apocryphal Enoch stories we are told how humanity was led to the extremes of misconduct under the tutelage of uniquely competent masters. The latter two of them we shall criticise shortly. Hoffmann A. Jena, Dillmann, Das Bitch Henoch ubersetzt und erkldrt, Leipzig, Tms splendid edition at once displaced the two that preceded it, corrected their many ungrammatical renderings, and furnished an almost perfect translation of a text based on five MSS. So much however has been done in the criticism of Enoch since that the need of a new edition is im- perative alike in respect of the text, translation, interpretation, and criticism of the book.
For a criticism of the Ethiopic text of Din. As for the translation some of the renderings are grammatically impossible. See, for instance, Crit. Notes on xv. J ; xcix. Many other inaccuracies in the translation are silently corrected in his Lexicon. For some of these see Crit. Notes on viii, 1 ; General Introduction.
Further he has omitted to translate the opening words of xxxvii. As for the interpretation of the book, this has been pressed and strained in order to sup- port the critical views which Din. His critical views indeed have undergone many changes, but these undoubtedly are in the right direction. In his edition of 1 Din. In i in Herzog's B. In in Herzog's B. R, Ed. His final analysis is as follows. Yet despite every defect, Dim's edition will always maintain a unique position in the Enoch literature. The introduction is interesting and the account of the bibliography though incomplete is helpful, but the arrangement of the text and notes in this edition is most inconvenient.
But the work as a whole is unsatisfactory. Schodde has added a goodly number of his own. At times he translates directly from the German instead of the Ethiopic. As for instance in xxxvi. Again in lxii. Schodde's error. It is pos- sible that this error should be set down to an imperfect know- ledge of English, such as he displays in xxi. Schodde confounds words that in the Ethiopic closely resemble each other, as in xxvii. On the other hand the notes on the astronomical Chs. It will be sufficient to point to one or two more mistransla- tions in this book.
In the face of such a list as the above, and it is by no means exhaustive, it is hard to congratulate Dr. Schodde, and yet we are grateful to him for the good service he has rendered in introducing the knowledge of Enoch to the Western world. I should add that Dr. Schodde's analysis of Enoch is : — i. The groundwork i-xxxvi ; lxxii-cv, before the death of Judas Maccabee. The Similitudes xxxvii-lxxi, between b. Noachic interpolations liv.
He thinks it probable that xx ; lxx ; lxxv. Critical Inquiries. I had intended to give a critical history of all the work done on Enoch since , and had collected almost sufficient materials for that purpose, when I found that my space would not permit of such a large addition to the book. I shall therefore content myself with enumerating these inquiries and adding occasional notes. Lucke, Einleitung in die Offenharung des Johannes 2nd Ed.
Lucke regards the book as consisting of two parts; the first embraces i-xxxv; lxxi-cv, written at the beginning of the Maccabaean revolt p. Hyrcanus p. In his first edition Lucke maintained the Christian authorship of the whole book. Hofmann J. Schrift N. Hofmann regards Enoch as the work of a Christian writer of the second century a. His chief contribution to the understanding of Enoch is his correct interpretation of the seventy shepherds in lxxxix-xc.
See above under editions ; also Zeitschr. This is a criticism of Volkmar's theory. Jellinek, Zeitschr. Gildemeister, Zeitschr. It was the merit of Ewald first to discern that Enoch was composed of several originally independent books. It is, in fact, as he declares, f the precipitate of a literature once very active which revolved. Though this view was at once assailed by Kostlin and nearly every other critic since, its truth can no longer be denied, and Holtzmann's declara- tion that the so-called groundwork i.
Literaturzeitung, , p. But though future criticism must confirm Ewald 's general judg- ment of the book, it will just as surely reject his detailed analysis of its parts. His scheme is — 1 Book I, xxxvii-lxxi with the exception of certain in- terpolations , circ. Somewhat later than the former. Weisse, Die Evangelien-Frage, , pp. Weisse agrees with Hofmann and Philippi in maintaining a Christian authorship of the book, but his advocacy of this view springs from the dogmatic principle that the entire idea of Christianity was in its pure originality derived from the self-consciousness of Christ.
Kostlin, as we have already remarked, contended against Ewald that the book of Enoch did not arise through the editing of independent works, but that by far the larger part of Enoch was the work of one author which through subsequent accretions became the present book.
Though this view must be speedily abandoned, it must be confessed that the Articles in which it is advocated are masterly performances, and possess a permanent value for the student of Enoch. Hilgenfeld, Die judische Apokalyptik, , pp. This work like that of Kostlin is of lasting worth and indispensable in the study of Enoch. We cannot, however, say so much for the conclusions arrived at. Many of these are, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
According to Hilgenfeld, the groundwork consists of i-xvi ; xx-xxxvi ; lxxii-cv written not later than 98 b. The later additions, i. There are no Noachic interpolations. There is no occasion to enter on the, for the most part, barren polemic between Hilgenfeld and Volkmar on the inter- pretation and date of Enoch, to which we owe the following writings of Hilgenfeld : — f Die judische Apokalyptik und die 1 2 The Book of Enoch.
TheoL, hi. TheoL, iv. TheoL, v. TheoL, xv. As Hilgenfeld reckoned the periods of the seventy shepherds at seven years each, starting from B. He thus found the entire rule of the shepherds to last years or, through certain refine- ments, peculiarly Volkmarian, years, and so arrived at the year of Barcochab's rebellion A.
Thus Enoch was written B. It was the work of a disciple of Akiba, and was designed to announce the final victory of Barcochab. Volkmar restated his theory in an essay : Eine Neutestamentliche Entdeckung, Zurich, His views have received more attention than they deserved through the rejoinders of Hilgenfeld, Dillmann, Langen, Sieffert, Gebhardt, Drummond, and Stanton. Geiger, Jildische Zeitschr. This article deals mainly with the calendar in Enoch. I have adopted one of his suggestions in x. Langen, Das Judenthum in Paldstina, , pp. Langen regards Enoch as an early but highly composite work put together in its present form about B.
Sieffert, De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumento, General Introdtiction. Sieffert p. Holtzmann, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, , vol. This most interesting essay proves beyond doubt that Enoch was originally written in Hebrew. Unhappily the writer has lost much time over passages which better MSS. There are many errors in the Ethiopic part of this essay, but these are most likely due to the press. This writer agrees with Hofmann, Weisse and Volkmar, in regarding the book as post-Christian. He thinks it was written in Greek by one author, a Christian, about a.
It is notable that all the four writers, who assign a post-Christian origin to the book, have done for dogmatic reasons. Wittichen, Die Idee des Menschen, , pp. These books I have not been able to see. Erforschung des A. Heft ii. In this most trenchant criticism of the different explanations of chs. Nay more, he holds it impossible with our present 14 The Book of Enoch. But this writer's despair of a true interpretation is overhasty and his condemnation of the text is unwar- rantable. Anger, Vorlesungen ilber die Geschichte der Messia?
Veenes, Histoire des ldees Messianiques, , pp. Vernes thinks that the earliest part of Enoch was written in Aramaic by a con- temporary of J. Hyrcanus ; and that the Similitudes spring from a Christian and Gnostic circle about the close of the first century a. Kuenen, Religion of Israel, 1 , iii. Tijdschrift, , pp. Tideman regards the book as proceeding from different authors living at different periods. His analysis is as follows : — 1 The oldest book : i-xvi ; xx-xxxvi; lxxii-lxxxii ; xciii; xci.
Christian interpolations are found in xc. Tideman thinks that we have in the Similitudes a combina- General Introduction. Drummond, The Jewish Messiah, , pp. Drum- mond gives a concise and able review of the work of former critics on Enoch. He rightly approves and further enforces Hof mann's interpretation of the seventy shepherds as angels. He agrees with the limits assigned by Tideman to the oldest book in Enoch ; but concludes, against Hilgenfeld and Tide- man, that the Similitudes could not entirely be the work of a Christian ; for if they were such, there would undoubtedly have been some reference to the crucified and risen Christ such as we find in Test.
Levi, 4. The difficulties of the case are met, he believes, by supposing that a Christian Apocalypse has been worked into the tissue of an earlier Jewish production, and that all the Messiah passages are due to the former. His chief arguments are : i the title ' son of a woman 3 could not have been applied by a pre-Christian Jew to a supernatural Messiah ; ii a consistent text is possible by an omission of the Messiah passages, a text also which answers to the title placed at the beginning of each Similitude ; iii the closing ch.
This theory is as untenable as that of Hilgenfeld and Tideman. As for i the title in question is not found in the oldest MS. Moreover in no instance that I am aware of does any superscription in Enoch give an exact account of the Chs. It is first to be observed that lxxi must be regarded as an inter- polation on quite other grounds see notes in loc. In the next place what significance are we to attach to the appearance of the title ' The Son of Man ' in the interpolations and as applied there to Enoch, lx. We can only under- stand this by studying the method of the interpolator.
In the Noachic interpolations we find that the interpolator seeks to adapt his additions to their new contexts by incorporating technical terms from these contexts. At the same time the pre- sence of many such misused technical terms in the inter- polation over against the technical terms in their adjoining contexts is demonstrative evidence as to the genuineness of the latter.
Every copy or caricature presupposes an original. And this is exactly what we find in connexion with the title, ' The Son of Man. But the interpolator has not dis- appointed us ; the inevitable ' caricature ' appears in lx. The Similitudes, therefore, are neither of Christian author- ship as Hilgenfeld supposes nor of Jewish authorship worked over by a Christian.
All evidence internal and external will, as we shall see presently, prove not only that they are Jewish but also pre-Christian, iv It would be most unreasonable to expect the Book of Jubilees to quote or refer to the Messiah General Introduction. Hauseath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Erster Theil, 3rd ed.
The oldest book, i-xxxvi; lxxii-cv, is referred to the time of J.
Watch the biography of William James Sidis here:
The Similitudes, with the exception of the Noachie inter- polations, were probably composed in the reign of Herod the Great. Hausrath thinks that the Messiah-passages may have won somewhat of a Christian colouring in the process of translation from Hebrew to Greek and Greek to Ethiopic by Christian hands. Lipsius, art. This however is an unhappy synthesis; for the demonic doctrine of xvii-xix connects it peculiarly with the Noachie interpolations, while its Greek colouring as strongly disconnects it with the ultra- Jewish lxxii-lxxix; lxxxii.
This book belongs to the reign of J. I and probably x. Other interpolations and additions xx ; cviii. This article forms a valuable contribution to the criticism of Enoch, and I welcome it all the more gladly as I arrived at many of its results before I was acquainted with it. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, , 6th ed. John, , p. In the former work this writer recognises the probability of the different sections of the book as proceeding from different authors, yet he essays the impossible task of moulding their c 1 8 The Book of Enoch.
In the latter work Dr. Westcott asserts that the title in Enoch is i A Son of Man'; but wrongly; for it is as definitely ' The Son of Man ' as the language and sense can make it. The being so named, further, is superhuman, and not merely human as Dr. Westcott states. See above pp. We have here an interesting and valuable discussion of the Calendar in Enoch. Wieseler assigns the Similitudes no less than the rest of the book to the reign of J.
In accordance with these Schiirer divides the book into three parts: 1 'the original writing' i-xxxvi; lxxii-cv, written in the reign of J. Hyrcanus ; 2 the Simi- litudes written in the time of Herod the Great ; 3 the Noachian Fragments, liv. It was Schiirer who was the first to recognise the validity of Hoffmann's interpretation of the Shepherds and to give it currency. This article concludes with a very full list of patristic passages referring to Enoch and with an excellent bibliography of the literature.
Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, , pp. Stanton agrees likewise with the generality of critics in assigning the first part, i. The Similitudes must, he thinks, be ascribed to a Jewish Christian or to a Jew influenced by Christian ideas. The fragments of a lost Apocalypse of Noah are probably xxxix. It is to be hoped that the author of this admirable book will add to our indebtedness, and give to the book of Enoch the fuller and profounder treatment it deserves.
Reuss, Gesch. Schrtften A. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N. Pfleiderer, Has Urchristenthum, , pp. This writer accepts the traditional view with regard to the ground- work, and approves of Drummond's theory as to the origin of the Messiah-passages in the Similitudes. This theory he seeks further to substantiate, but without success. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, , pp. This writer assents to the traditional view and date of the ground-work. The Similitudes he assigns to the years im- mediately following on the death of Herod the Great.
He believes there are many references to the Romans in the Similitudes, and that Augustus and Herod are designed under the phrase c the kings and the mighty. Peter, Le Livre d? Ses Idees Messianiques et son Eschatologie, Geneve, This is an interesting little treatise, but by no means free from blemishes. The Simili- tudes are pre-Christian, and the traditional view and date of the ground-work are here reproduced. Deane, The Pseudepigrajoha, , pp. This is a c 2 20 The Book of Enoch. The writer assigns the traditional ground-work to the years B. Many of this writer's statements on the theology and influence of Enoch are to be taken with extreme caution.
Thomson, Books that 'influenced our Lord and His Apostles, 1 , pp. Thomson's analysis is as follows : — 1 Book of the Similitudes and the Book of the Weeks, xxxvii-lxxi; xci. Thomson's chief ground for regarding xxxvii-lxxi as the oldest section is derived from the presence of the Noachic interpolations. As he believes that these interpolations are confined to this section, he infers that xxxvii-lxxi is therefore the oldest and that i-xxxvi ; lxxii-xci were not yet in existence. Even if Mr. Thomson were right in his facts, quite another conclusion would be possible.
But this writer's premises are without foundation. Interpolations are found in every section in Enoch and numerously in the sections which Mr. Thomson regards as free from them. It cannot be said that this book contributes much to the better interpretation of Enoch, and this is all the more to be deplored as its author obviously possesses abundant ability for the task.
Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, , pp. Cheyne accepts pro- visionally the traditional division of Enoch into the ground- work, Similitudes and Noachic fragments, and regards the Similitudes as pre-Christian. He deals mainly with the dogmatic teaching of the book and its place in the develop- General Introduction. De Faye, Les apocalypses juives, Paris, , pp. Laurence and Hoffmann believed on various grounds that the original was written in Hebrew. Jellinek Zeitschr. Buck Henoch, Einleit. The evidence furnished by Din. And his conclusion has been further and finally confirmed by Hallevi.
This scholar. There is much that is far-fetched and more ingenious than true in this able article, yet none the less its author has established his contention. As proofs of a Hebrew original he adduces 1 frequent paronomastic expres- sions possible only in Hebrew see Crit. Note on vi.
Subscribe to RSS
This Hebrew original was first translated into Greek. Portions of this translation still exist see pp. The translation of the Bible into Ethiopic was made between and , and it is probable that the book of Enoch was not made much earlier than the later date. The Place of Composition.
The various authors are at home in Palestine and accurately acquainted with the various localities close to Jerusalem, the valleys, brooks, and other natural features in its immediate neighbourhood. To them further Jerusalem is the city of the elect, the centre of the coming Messianic kingdom, and Gehenna is the destined habitation of the apostate. Greek elements have no doubt found an entrance in certain fragments of the book, but as a rule there is a deliberate and sustained opposition rendered to all Hellenistic ideas and influences.
The whole tone and exegesis of the book are Palestinian in character. The Object of Apocalyptic Literature. The object of Apocalyptic literature in general was to solve the difficulties connected with the righteousness of God and the suffering condition of his righteous servants on earth.
The righteousness of God postulated according to the Law the temporal prosperity of the righteous, and postulated this temporal prosperity of necessity; for as yet there was no promise of life or recompense beyond the grave. But in the experience of God's servants this connexion of righteousness and temporal reward was so often found to fail that the Psalmists at times go so far as to complain that the best things of this life are bestowed on the wicked. The difficul- ties thus arising from this conflict between promise and experience might be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectively with the position of the righteous as a com- munity, and the position of the righteous man as an in- General Introduction.
The Old Testament prophets had concerned them- selves chiefly with the former and pointed in the main to the restoration of Israel as a nation and to Israel's ultimate possession of the earth as a reward of their righteousness. But later with the growing claims of the individual, and the acknowledgment of these in the religious and intellectual life, the latter problem pressed itself irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule and righteousness to gain acceptance, which did not render adequate satisfaction to the claims of the righteous individual.
It was to this difficulty in particular that Apocalyptic addressed itself, though it did not ignore the former. It strove to show that alike in respect of the nation and of the individual the righteousness of God would be fully vindicated. In order to justify their contention Apocalyptic writers sketched in outline the history of the world and of mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things, and thus in fact presented a Semitic philosophy of religion.
The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth : even in this world the faithful community should attain to all its rights either in an eternal or in a temporary Messianic kingdom. So Apoca- lyptic taught universally and thus enforced the teaching of prophecy. As for the destiny of the individual, and here lay the chief interest and service of Apocalyptic, this was finally to be determined according to his works. For though the righteous individual might perish amid the disorders of the world, his death could not fall out without God's knowledge, and though cut off here apparently as a sinner, he would not fail to attain through the resurrection the recompense that was his due in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself.
The conceptions as to this risen life, its duration and character, vary with each writer. With this short introduction we will now proceed to con- sider the different writings in this book, their respective characteristics and dates, and the various accounts they offer 24 The Book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is a fragmentary survival of an entire literature that once circulated under his name. To this fact the plurality of books assigned to Enoch from the first may in some degree point : as for instance the expression ' books ' in civ.
Celsum v. Lommatsch ; Aug. Be Civ. Dei xv. Syncellus, p. The references to Enoch's writings in the Book of Jubilees and in the Test. Patriarch, cannot in many instances be traced to the existing book of Enoch. The last passage attributed by Syncellus to Enoch has no corresponding part in the Ethiopic. Portions of the Ethiopic version are manifestly lost, as, for instance, the close of the first Similitude.
And finally two Slavonic MSS. This preliminary conclusion is finally confirmed on internal grounds. All critics are agreed in ascribing the Similitudes xxxvii-lxxi to a different authorship from the rest. For the main grounds for this conclusion see pp. Criticism is further agreed as to the presence of a large body of inter- polations. But the interpolations are far more numerous than has hitherto been observed, and the discrimination and due appreciation of these are indispensable to the understanding of the book.
They are found throughout the book, and are as follows : — General Introduction. See notes in loc. See notes on liv. II j xciii.
- COME SONO GUARITO DAL CANCRO (Italian Edition).
- How To Research, Write and Publish an Art History Book in American Art.
- The Controversy!
- Seeking Catherine (historical romance novella set in Tudor England).
- My Window: The Dreams Within;
The bulk of these belong to a lost Apocalypse of Noah mentioned in the Book of Jubilees x ; xxi , i. We might refer L, lvi. We can hardly be wrong in ascribing them largely to the authorship of the editor who brought all the writings into one whole, cv may be due to the same editor, cviii is undoubtedly a later addition.
Disregarding the closing chapter we find that there are thus three distinct elements in the book : — a The so-called ground- work i-xxxvi ; lxxii-civ. The question now arises : are we justified in regarding i-xxxvi, lxxii-civ as proceeding from the same author? This question is discussed at length in the Special Introductions to sections i-xxxvi ; lxxii-lxxxii ; lxxxiii-xc ; and xci-civ, and it is there shown that these four sections are distinct writings as to authorship, system of thought, and date. We will not resume here the grounds for this conclusion, but will sketch briefly the various independent writings contained in the book of Enoch, with their respective characteristics and dates.
Part I, consisting of chs. This is, undoubtedly, the oldest part of the book, being anterior to lxxii-lxxxii; lxxxiii-xc; and xci-civ see Special Introductions. It is laid under contribution by the authors of these sections. As lxxxiii-xc was written not later than B. This book i. In other respects the writer of i-xxxvi has not advanced much beyond the Old Testament prophetic view of the Messianic kingdom.
This kingdom, he holds, is to be ushered in by the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked with the exception of one class of the latter followed immediately by the final judgment. The wicked angels, demons, and men were to be punished according to their deserts, and the righteous to become members of the eternal Messianic kingdom. The scene of the kingdom was to be the earth purged from all violence and sin.
Peace, and hap- piness, and prosperity were to prevail everywhere. Sin should never again appear on the earth, and after a life crowned with all good things, and blessed with patriarchal years and num- berless offspring, the righteous were at length to die in peace, as in Is. It is manifest here that the writer apprehended neither the thought of the immortality of the soul, which was pressing itself on the notice of Judaism from the side of the Greek, nor the doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous to an eternal blessedness which was seeking recognition from the side of Zoroastrianism.
Part II, consisting of lxxxiii-xc, written between 1 General Introduction. The grounds for discriminating this section from the rest are given at length in the Special Introductions to those sections. We find there that the writer of lxxxiii-xc has made use of i-xxxvi. He is moreover of an ascetic turn of mind. These visions came to him before he was married, the implication being that he has no such supernatural ex- periences after marriage.
But as visions are inferior to actual waking intercourse with the angels, such as Enoch enjoyed in i-xxxvi, it is clear even on this single ground that these two parts are from different authors. The writer of lxxxiii-xc has advanced considerably beyond the naive and sensuous views of the kingdom presented in i-xxxvi. His conceptions are more spiritual. He writes a few years later than the last chapters of Daniel, and like the latter has risen to the conception of an everlasting blessedness.
He may be indebted to this writer for the fourfold division of the seventy angel reigns among the four great world powers to which, in succession, Israel was subject, and the phrase 'glorious land - ' lxxxix. His eschatological views are developed at greater length than those of Daniel, but he follows in some respects prophetic rather than apocalyptic ideas. In Daniel the final crisis is sudden and unmediated, but in lxxxiii-xc it is ushered in through the warlike efforts of the Chasids led by Judas Maccabaeus. In this strife the heathen enemies of Israel are destroyed. Then ensue the judgment and condemnation of the fallen watchers, the faith- less angel shepherds, and the apostate Jews.
The judgment appears to be followed by the resurrection of righteous Israelites only : if this is so, then this book diverges from the teaching of Daniel xii. The righteous Jews are all assembled in the New Jerusalem established by God Himself, and their ranks are swelled by those Gentiles who had hitherto been neutral, but are now converted to the worship of Israel's God.
At 28 The Book of Enoch. This is the earliest reference to the Messiah in non-canonical literature. But he has no role to play : he has not as yet vindicated for himself a real place in the Apocalyptic doctrine of the last things. This Messianic kingdom lasts on earth for ever, and its members enjoy everlasting blessedness. Part III, consisting of xci-civ, and written between 94 b. For a detailed criticism of this writing and its relations see Special Introduction to this part.
As we pass from lxxxiii-xc to xci-civ we feel we are entering into a world of new conceptions. In all previous Apocalyptic writings, the resurrection and the final judgment have been the prelude to an everlasting Messianic kingdom j but here we encounter quite a new schema of the last things.
These great events are relegated to the close of the Messianic kingdom, and not till then in fact do the righteous enter on their reward. In this writer we have a fusion of pro- phetic and apocalyptic ideas, but a fusion which, without doing actual violence to either, gives expression to both in a profounder and more comprehensive system. As we see in such Apocalyptic writings as the Apocalypse of Baruch, iv Ezra and Revelation, that an adequate fulfilment is given to the promise that the righteous should inherit the earth through the establishment of a temporary Messianic kingdom: so in xci-civ the Messianic kingdom, in which the righteous possess the earth in peace, lasts from the eighth to the close of the tenth week.
- The Philosophical Works of David Humes as an audiobook, listen here:.
- Bible Secrets Revealed, Episode 3: “The Forbidden Scriptures”.
- Thoughts on the New Testament Canon.
In this kingdom no place is found for a personal Messiah : the righteous, with God's help, vindicate their just cause and destroy their oppressors. On the close of this kingdom follow the final judgment and the risen spiritual life of blessedness in a new heaven. From such a view of the future it is obvious that for the writer the centre of interest has passed from the material world to the spiritual, and the Messianic kingdom is no longer the goal of the hopes of the righteous.
Their faith finds its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality in heaven itself. The righteous, it is General Introduction. In the meantime they are at rest, guarded as the apple of an eye by the angels of God, and will in due time, on the close of the Messianic kingdom, attain to the resurrection. This resurrection of the righteous appears not to be of the body but of the soul only, as we find in a later book, the Psalms of Solomon, or in the still later Book of Jubilees. As for the wicked they will descend into the pain of Sheol and abide there everlastingly.
Here Sheol appears as Hell for possibly the first time. The writer of this section lived towards the close of the second century b. He was a Pharisee strongly opposed to all hellenizing tendencies, but apparently influenced by kindred Zoroastrian ideas. His chief denunciations are directed against the Sadducees. These oppress the righteous, and the rulers who are in league with them connive at their oppression. The persecution which the righteous undergo is severe, but far removed from the murderous oppression of which they were the victims from 95 b. We may therefore regard this book as written before that date, and after the breach between J.
Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, i. Part IV. For full account see pp. The Similitudes introduce us to the events and aspirations of a time not far removed in years from the period we have just been considering but very remote in character. The sufferings of the righteous mourned over in xci-civ are of slight consequence compared with their afflictions of this later date. Their plaint is no longer now of the greed and 30 The Book of Enoch. For their grief they have now graver and more abundant reason. Their blood is now crying to heaven for vengeance.
Their foes, moreover, are not as in xci-civ the Sadducees secretly backed by the rulers of the nation, but the rulers themselves are now their foremost and declared oppressors, and take the chief part in their destruction. These rulers are the Maccabean princes, and not the Herods ; for as yet there is no reference to Rome, though we know that Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs of Palestine about 64 b. The widespread influence of the book on the writers of the New Testament see pp.
The date of the Similitudes therefore must be later than 95 and before 64 b. For the fuller treatment of this subject see pp. The varying relations in which the Maccabees stand to the Chasid or Pharisaic party are faithfully reflected in the books of Enoch.
In lxxxiii-xc the Maccabees are the leaders of the righteous, and their efforts form the prelude to the Messianic kingdom.
The Apocryphal Book of Enoch
In xci-civ they are no longer regarded as the chiefs and friends of the Chasids, and yet they have not become their open foes. They are, however, the secret abettors of their Sadducean oppressors. But when we turn to the Similitudes the scene is wholly changed. The Mac- cabeans are now the open and declared enemies of the Pharisees and add to their other guilt the slaying of the righteous. It is still more instructive to observe the conceptions regarding the Messiah to which the writers of these books were led by the events of their times.