19 Reasons Why 1 Enoch is not in the Bible

1c15.co.uk/enoch

12th June 2020

Published by 1c15 on

Reading Time: 26 minutes

Welcome
Here it is! The Grand refutation of 1 Enoch! Well lets go easy.. I’m no scholar, but a student
learning from those who’ve discussed the text and the reasons it is not seen as canonical, This
takes us into the intertestamental period, Ethiopia and even the Quran is mentioned in here!
(That was a bombshell surprise in itself!

1/24
I hope I have provided a clear, simplified article the layman can understand. The goal is
simply to state why we as Christians need not hold to the book of 1 Enoch on the level of the
Old or New Testament canon as we know as Protestants. I’ll start with a brief introduction
before going to 15 reasons was 1 Enoch is not in the Bible.

Structure of Enoch
George W.E. Nickelsburg who produced the Hermeneia translation of Enoch (Hermeneia is a
new word to me too!) informs us that the collection of traditions and writings which are
dated between 4th century BC And the turn of the century are mainly considered “In the
name of Enoch, the son of Jared”.

Enoch is a collection of sayings is put into a book is and is divided into 8 major sections, with
each section having a different history in terms of composition and integration into the book
we have as present. These books likely existed as booklets prior and were combined later.

The names of these booklets are:

1. The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries

2. Book of the Watchers
3. Enochs Two Dream Visions (Two pieces of testamentary narrative)
4. The Epistle of Enoch
5. An Account of Noahs Birth
6. The Book of Parables
7. The Book of Giants (Found at Qumran but not part of the Ethiopic book of Enoch)

If they don’t sound cool, they certainly play on mystery.

So in the Intertestamental period we have these seven traditions slowly merging on each
other which would lead to a whole book eventually. We see this starting to happen predicted
by the 1st century AD in Ethiopia.

For more on the textual witness and the inns and outs of manuscript data… by which there
are quotes/manuscripts etc. See This lecture by Professor Peter Gentry, a textual expert in
manuscripts and the known languages of the time.

2/24
Watch Video At: https://youtu.be/_2J0j3RcBMQ

15th century Ethiopic text

The Only complete (Which doesn’t include book of Giants) copy we know of in full is from
only Ethiopia. It is based on a Greek version as well as a copy of the Aramaic parent text and
this was made between the 4th and 6th centuries AD. Michael Nib (I hope I got his surname
correct) prepared a critical edition based on 33 manuscripts, the oldest of which dates to the
15th century AD.

Overview
Here’s an overview of Enoch. (Introduction to the Intertestamental Period, pp. 142-143):

The book was arranged by its last editor in five sections, as in the Psalms and other Jewish
Books.

Section I (1-36)

This section is mainly concerned with Enoch pronouncing God’s judgement on the angels, or
watchers who fell through their love for the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4), and Enoch’s
intercession for them. A bizarre description of Hades is found in this portion of 1 Enoch.

Section II (37-71)

3/24
This has three “parables,” or apocalyptic revelations, together with the story of Enoch’s
translation into heaven.

Section III (72-87)

This section Is primarily concerned with furnishing a treatise on astronomy, the secrets of
the movement of the stars as revealed to Enoch, who sees with his own eyes their very course,
even the portals through which they enter and issue forth, for the purpose of transmitting the
information to future generations (Very bizarre!).

Section IV

This runs along lines laid down in the first two portions dealing with the problem of sin and
suffering of Israel. Enoch relates to Methuselah his visions of the deluge, the fall of the
angels, and their punishment in the underworld, the deliverance of Noah, the Exodus, the
giving of the Law, the conquest of Canaan, the time of the judges, the establishment of the
united kingdom, the building of the temple, the story of the two kingdoms, the fall of the
Northern Kingdom, and the Exile.

This is followed by four periods of angelic rule up to the time of the Maccabean Revolt, the
last assault of the Gentiles, and the great Judgment. The last part of Section IV contains the
prediction of the foundation of the new Jerusalem, the conversion of the Gentiles, the
resurrection of the righteous, and the coming of the Messiah.

Section V

This is without any account of the origin of sin but appears to be mainly devoted to the
problem of suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the oppressing sinners. It
denounces evil and utters woes on sinners and promises blessings to the righteous. Within
part of Section V is an older work “The Apocalypse of Weeks” (93:1-10; 91:12-19). It
concludes (105): “In those days the Lord bade to summon and testify to the children of the
earth concerning their wisdom: show (it) unto them; for ye are their guides, and a
recompense over the world. For I and My Son will be united with them forever in the paths
of uprightness and in their lives; and ye shall have peace; rejoice, ye children of
uprightness. Amen.”

4/24
Now if such a monumental work was at all valuable to the Jews, or Jesus, or the New
Testament writers, surely someone would quote it’s great prophecies or words as scripture?

Why not discuss 2-3 Enoch? In a nutshell..

If you care to know about 2 and 3 Enoch, they almost certainly post-date Jesus, although 2
Enoch is probably pre-70 AD since it assumes the temple is standing. This is said of 3 Enoch:

It is impossible to reach a very firm conclusion as to the date of 3 Enoch. The main problem is
the literary character of the work: it is not the total product of a single author at a particular
point in time, but the deposit of a ‘school tradition’ which incorporates elements from widely
different periods. Certain rough chronological limits can, however, be established. 3 Enoch can
hardly have been written later than the tenth century A.D…

James H. Charlesworth – 2010, The Pseudepigrapha

The fact that the tenth century is being tossed around for this is telling enough.

Summary of the reasons for rejection

Let’s start with some* of the reasons why 1 Enoch is a rejected work

1. We have no manuscripts dating to the time Enoch lived. All manuscripts are from 2nd
century BC and newer.
2. The Quote in Jude is either not from 1 Enoch and so from a common tradition or if it
was Enoch, it is loosely quoted.
3. Jude is refuting either 1 Enoch or those that follow Enochic tradition. Either way.. It’s
not good for the Enochians!
4. Quote doesn’t imply scripture anyway
5. It is of the apocryphal-Intertestamental period.
6. The Jews considered the Canon closed. Jews never saw 1 Enoch as canonical
7. Jews rejected Apocrypha
8. Jesus made clear no intertestamental books were part of either Canon.
9. 1 Enoch contradicts scripture
10. Internal content is speculative and based on musings form Genesis 6
11. 1 Enoch is never publicly affirmed at any church council (As well as the entire
Apocrypha)
12. Very few church fathers were deceived into thinking 1 Enoch was canonical
13. Didn’t even make the Septuagint
14. No doctrine was relied on by disputed books. 1 Enoch was disputed
15. It’s just too weird
16. Warnings by Paul

5/24
 17. The Holy Spirit didn’t lead them to add it to the Canon..at any point as a whole church!
18. Considered fiction
19. Son of man texts were later additions

*Some, because there are quite a lot more reasons.. some are technical, others not is weighty
and more because I am not an Enochian specialist!

1. We have no manuscripts dating to the time Enoch lived. All manuscripts

are from 2nd century BC and newer.

This is the first main problem with the Book of Enoch is that there are zero manuscripts of it
from the time it was supposedly written, or indeed before the 2nd century BC. It is totally
within the Intertestamental period and after. If you wonder why we say Enoch is older than
the manuscripts below, thats because the manuscripts we do have are likely copies and not
original hand manuscripts as well as historical alignments.

In 1992 George W.E.Nickelsburg wrote

“The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries is part of the evidence of an early discussion of function
and structure of celestial and terrestrial phenomena belongs to do with a debate belonging to
the 2nd century BC in Judaism”.

This was to do with whether a lunar or solar calendar was divinely instituted. The book of
Jubilees cites 1 Enoch to attack the lunar calendar. So it was likely around prior for this
quotation.

The book of Watchers considered the second oldest dating to the 2nd half of of the 3rd
century reflects a developing tradition from the 4th century BC.

Enochs Two Dream Visions. Has dependence upon materials in the book of Daniel which
indicates it must have been composed before Judas’ defeat of Nicanor in 161BC.

There is no evidence for section 7 & 8 being from a pre-Christian time (2-3 Enoch). Also the
first part of section 4 or for the arrangement in the Ethiopic version.

2. The Quote in Jude is either not from 1 Enoch and so from a common
tradition or if it was Enoch, it is loosely quoted.

6/24
So Peter Enns considers 1 Enoch to be quoted by Jude. Professor Peter Gentry challenges this
notion..

Here’s 1 Enoch:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and
to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which
they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken
against Him.

1 Enoch 1:9

And then Jude:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the
Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are
ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Jude 1:14-15:

This appears at first glance to be fairly convincing, yes? Here are some problems:

The word used in Jude, that ‘prophesied’ there, is prophéteuó.Its cognate, prophetes, was
used in Titus 1:12 to refer to a heathen poet, and the word itself is only used as a citation once
in Matthew 15:7 to cite Isaiah 29. Indeed, in that same section of Titus, Paul asserts that the
pagan he is quoting is correct, even; yet this does not mean the poet’s words in total bear
inclusion in the Bible.

It is also entirely possible that Jude is referring to a real prophecy by Enoch… that is not from
this book of Enoch. Oral traditions are powerful, and considering the care with which the
Jews recorded information, it is plausible it survived. Notice the curious differences between
the two. The book of Enoch says that the righteous were destroyed whereas Jude says they
were judged. I don’t know of any New Testament citation of scripture that misquotes its
source material. Also, Jude is careful to say that Enoch prophesied; the book does not quote
the book of Enoch. Is careful to say it is not quoting Enoch himself.

7/24
There is also some other information worth knowing. The Greek Qumran scrolls (scrolls
found in a cave called Qumran (Dead sea scrolls) which were edited by Millik has missing
parts and guess what? He USED Jude as the basis for this reconstruction…well what would
that mean? The two would sound even more alike…Jude was used to plug the holes of 1
Enoch making them sound increasingly similar!

The Greek of Jude and the Greek of Enoch have about 72% in common after this
reconstruction. The Ethiopic text however of 1 Enoch 9 is not very much like the text in Jude
at all. The Greek reconstruction looks far more alike Jude than the Ethiopic text

So the text of Jude and the text of Enoch have 72% of all words in common. This could be
considered an abbreviated citation, if it is, it is fairly freely abbreviated.

Another firm possibility proposed by Professor Gentry is that both 1 Enoch and the reference
in Jude go back to a common tradition in Judaism much like Paul’s reference to Janis and
Jambres (the names of the magicians opposing Moses).

Jacques von Wrighton writes “The author of Jubilees knew about the Enochic traditions, it is
strongly influenced by this material, however in my opinion it is not possible to say that
Jubilees is dependant on the text of 1 Enoch. The wording of two is too different”. Jude could
be like Jubilees, drawing from a common tradition, not necessarily citing an actual text.

If he is citing, sure, that’s also no problem as we show in the next reason.

3. Jude is refuting either 1 Enoch or those that follow Enochic tradition.

Either way.. It’s not good for the Enochians!
There are what are called Chiasms in Jude but the extra Biblical references are put outside of
these arcs.

Chiastic structure, or chiastic pattern, is a literary technique in narrative motifs and other textual
passages. An example of chiastic structure would be two ideas, A and B, together with variants
A’ and B’, being presented as A,B,B’,A’. Chiastic structures that involve more components are
sometimes called “ring structures”, “ring compositions”, or, in cases of very ambitious
chiasmus, “onion-ring compositions”. These may be regarded as chiasmus scaled up from
words and clauses to larger segments of text.
Source: Wikipedia

In a paper entitled “Reassessing Jude’s use of Enochic Traditions” Dr Peter Gentry expressed
a crucial point about Enoch:

8/24
“If ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ represent three topics, one could arrange them as ABC::A’B’C’ or
ABC::C’B’A’ just to mention a couple of six possibilities. The pattern ABC::C’B’A’ is called
chiastic because, like the Greek letter chi, the repeated half forms a mirror image of the first
half. Chiastic patterns fulfil several functions. One function is to clearly demarcate text as a
unit that is not connected to what precedes or follows.

In the literary structure of Jude, the chiastic presentation of the examples from canonical
history unite and separate them from those drawn from non-canonical Jewish traditions.
This clearly separates Enoch from canonical literature and puts it in the same category as
the Assumption of Moses, at least from the point of view of the author of Jude”.

legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/68=2017/Fountain-26.pdf

In Venice Italy, 2003, Paolo Saatchi, a Guru in the field of Enoch gave a paper entitled
“History of the Earliest Enochic texts” he makes these observations concerning the book of
Watchers:

1. The origin of evil in the world lies in an angelic sin that contaminated the whole world.
2. Two, the impure truly exists in nature as an outcome of angelic sin. Impurity in the root
is the root of evil in history, besides the devil continues his work in the world.

The focus then of the central message of the book of Watchers is to demonstrate through
Genalogical and Narrative speculations on angels based on Genesis 6 that chaos and evil in
the world are due to angelic sin.

It seems then that the function of Jude’s reference to the Enochic traditions is to demonstrate
and emphasise (note how Ungonly appears four times in the verse) that evil in our present
world is due to human rebellion. So Jude is using their own text (1 Enoch) against Enochians!
He’s taking the Enochic tradition and saying evil is here not because of angelic sin. It’s
because of Ungodly human rebellion. And thus we cannot blame the evil of the world purely
on angels, humans partook in that evil.

9/24
Interesting Sidenote: The Assumption of Moses
The reference to the dispute of Michael the Archangel with the devil over the body
appears to function in precisely the same way (Chiastic structure again! I think they
add to the beauty of scripture to be honest). Here we have another reference to
speculative traditions from the second temple period “The Assumption of Moses” this
time. Scholars are agreed that the comment of Jude is clear reference to the lost
ending of this work (Asusmption of Moses). Jude refers to this work to show that the
greatest angel of all did not have authority to rebuke the devil but committed the
issue to God himself, hence all appeal to angelic authority is worthless. So Jude is
using their text against them here also.

Learn to Love Chiastic structures!

4. Quote doesn’t imply scripture anyway

The Apostle Paul quotes the pagan Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we
should give any additional authority to Epimenides’ writings. He does it again in Athens
when debating philosophers.

There are plenty of texts quoted in the Old Testament times with such references to the Book
of Jasher recorded in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Their inclusion means that the part
references and quoted is Scripture, but the rest of the work is not. So the mere quotation of a
work does not, in and of itself, make a whole work Scripture. You can argue also that written
outside of that book it is not scripture (Because the context could defile it).

The same is true with Jude, verses 14-15. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch does not
indicate the entire Book of Enoch is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular
verse is true.

5. It is of the Apocryphal-Intertestamental period.

At best, we can assume 1 Enoch was written pre-Jude, the Book of Enoch is intertestamental
at best. It would have been written down between the conclusion of the Old Testament and
the beginning of the New Testament, and therefore could not be an inspired work.

Note that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Noah’s great-grandfather Enoch
actually wrote this, or that it was passed down to be written inter-testamental as Oral
Tradition. Absolutely none, especially considering the Jews stopped only orally transmitting
things as important as prophetic words thousands of years prior.

Likewise, 1 Enoch was never included in their canon. Some argue that certain Aramaic
sections of the fragments we have ‘seem’ quite old, but something ‘seeming’ a certain way
isn’t good enough. “Seem” is not a standard, we can’t be appealing to feelings here.

10/24
6. The Jews considered the Canon closed. Jews never saw 1 Enoch as
canonical
The Old Testament consisted of The Law, The Prophets and The Writings. The Protestants
hold the same Old Testament as this (which is the same as the Jews). Catholics and Eastern
Orthodox have expanded Canons. No 1 Enoch here!

It is good to have knowledge of how things were canonized in the Old Testament and the
speed at which it happened!

Unlike 1 Enoch, the Old Testament Canon happened fast after a writing happened. There’s
over 1,000 year between the oldest and youngest Old Testament books, New Testament 70ish
years

Moses books were accepted right away, no council needed! He was a proven spokesman for
God!

We see also in Joshua also he was received right away (Joshua 24) sees his words as inspired.

This was not transmitted orally, they wrote it down immediately.

1 Samuel 10:25 we see that what he wrote down was put away in the temple and saved right
away

Daniel around 600’s AD (Sure people vary Daniel’s time) had a physical copy of Moses and
the prophets and he specifically mentions Jeremiah by name who was only 70 years before
him! That means Jeremiah’s words were already in the canon (Daniel 9:11)

Several of the prophets are supported by Kings and Chronicles and sometimes prophets
mention each other crediting them as from God.

There were Principles in adopting books into the Canon also:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 Prophetic test:

This is why many prophets would get a short term prophecy (confirming they were a
prophet) before they would get a long term one.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 consistency test:

If future prophecy contradicts old revelation then reject it. It needs to be consistent (the
heretic could get lucky or Satan could even be at work!)

Note: Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. He acknowledges
the previous scriptures.

11/24
We don’t know about why every Old Testament book was accepted. Jews probably knew
more about Job and his work than us and there are scholars out there with strong
hypothesis.

Between Malachi 400BC and Jesus 30AD

Israel had this full canon and they also felt like the time of prophecy was over

The Cessation was predicted by the last of the prophets. Enoch wouldn’t of had a chance. It
was acknowledged by those people at the time and it was affirmed by people who lived after
that time. See Zechariah 13:2-6 predicts the cessation of prophecy.

In Syrac, 180BC it says in the prologue it has references to the law, the prophets and the
writings. The author says his grandfather studied well these three sections (so way before
180BC)

Josephus 1st century Roman historian tells us that After Xerxes he says there were good
writings but nothing of the same quality or level of the prophetic Old Testament writings
(referring to after Malachi’s time)

1 Maccabees 9:27 — refers that its an accepted fact that the prophets are no longer happening
to Israel. There are two other occasions where they claim not to know what to do because
there was no prophecy.

So we see these intertestamental books claiming not to be scripture and also that There was
nothing new to be added.

Debunking a myth
The Council of Jamnia: This council had nothing to do with the Old Testament canon.
That is a modern myth. Look it up I fell for it too once.

7. Jews rejected Apocrypha

This is relevant for the wider case.

We kind of touched on this already but the Jews did reject it and this is important. The book
of Romans says the oracles of God were committed to the Jews. If I trust the New Testament
as God’s word I should trust the Jews! When I get into the church fathers you’ll see where
some fell for the trap of “extra Apocryphal books”

12/24
Josephus refers to books laid up in the temple as 22 in number (which means the apocrypha
is not part of them). Since there are 24 books in the current Jewish canon instead of the 22
mentioned by Josephus, some scholars have suggested that he considered Ruth part of
Judges, and Lamentations part of Jeremiah. (This is a side issue but good to know!)

By 70AD the Jews had a law that it was forbidden to bring even new copies of old books into
the temple. Now if you can’t even bring in them what chance do you have bringing a new
book altogether?

The Old Testament has the fingerprint of the Messiah all over. The Apocrypha is more
political and not messianic or if so, very slightly. 1 Enoch doesn’t win here…

Even those who accept the Apocrypha never accepted 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses..
You only really find it in Oriental Orthodoxy, outside of mainline forms of Christianity.

Sorry.. Didn’t have timer to make a pretty version so I just stole this one of google images

13/24
8. Jesus made clear no intertestamental books were part of either Canon.

Jesus continuously says “It is written” “as God says” “the word of the Lord” etc. And
sometimes says this to the Pharisees directly. He never quotes other books outside the Old
Testament (The Son of Man references were added later, see later in the article). Note: The
Pharisees don’t disagree with Jesus about the scripture he quotes also! Affirming our closed
Jewish canon.

14/24
Jesus and the apostles quote from the Old Testament about 300 times. Matthew 23:35 —
Jesus refers to the martyrdom of the first martyr (Abel) to the last (Zechariah) And this is
also when the Canon stops. Nothing in the next 400 years are mentioned. So in a sense he
affirms that timeline. No Apocrypha, No 1 Enoch.

Disagree with Jesus? Ok we’re gonna have problems.

9. 1 Enoch contradicts scripture

And now on to some of the things it says which are not scriptural. References are from 1
Enoch:

1. 10:15 on to about chapter 11 details that after the deluge then righteousness would be
restored and evil would be eliminated. This contradicts the Old Testament, it
contradicts the New Testament… really everything.
2. Enoch 2:2-3 contradicts 2 Pet 3:3-7; it says that things have been going on in the same
way since the beginning of creation, which is literally an argument 2 Peter warns about.
3. In 10:2, it condemns itself by having Enoch talk about someone saying something to
Noah; Enoch was taken up before Noah was born, and this is not given in a prophetic
form, so…
4. 10:8 places the blame for all the fallen angels on some angel named Azazel, which is not
scriptural.
5. Chapter 20 incorrectly assigns the roles of both Gabriel and Michael.
6. 41 calls the Kingdom of God divided. Contradicts Jesus and the rest of Scripture.
7. 47:4 says God requires the blood of the righteous, which is… hmm… wrong. It isn’t
discussing the blood of the righteous one, mind, but all righteous, but an offering of a
‘number’ of them.
8. In general, Enoch details, well, Enoch going down to Earth after being taken up by God,
and that’s not supported by the rest of Scripture. It’s not precisely rejected, but no one
else that God took made a habit of coming back.

I Found another list that I shamelessly copied. Couldn’t find a definitive list but many!

Taking a cursory look at the text up through Chapter 59, It shows a series of false doctrines.

1. 1:1 Implies restoration during tribulation – not congruent with scriptures.

2. 1:8 In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross. Also, in the last days
tribulation will increase for the righteous – this “verse” seems to dispute that.

15/24
 3. 2:2-3 Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7
4. 5:4 Is an admonition to some unknown party – this is very irregular relative to the
scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)
5. 6:3 Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural
6. 6:3,8 None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible
7. 8:1 Azazel isn’t even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women
8. 8:3 Araqiel and Shamsiel aren’t listed in 6:8 either
9. 10:2 Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was
taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.
10. 10:4-6,12 Implies angels can be bound & hid in holes under rocks. This is contrary to
scripture.
11. 10:8 Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel – not scriptural.
12. 10:15-11:2 Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood –
clearly not true. It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to
the future restoration.
13. 13:5-6,14:4-5,7 Implies fallen angels can’t talk to God – this contradicts Job. Also
implies that angels were repentant, but weren’t received back by God – very strange
doctrine.
14. 14 Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures
15. 15:8-10 Very strange doctrine about “evil spirits” proceeding from unredeemable giants
16. 17-18,21,23 Gives a very strange description of the earth & universe which is clearly not
true. Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars
(the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don’t.)
17. 19:3 Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.
18. 20 Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael
(the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)
19. 21:7-10 Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present & final judgement
places for the fallen angels
20. 22 Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present & future dwelling places for the
righteous who die
21. 32:2-6 Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood
22. 33:1-2 Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth
23. 33:3 He claims he counted the stars & individually mapped them, which is impossible
scripturally (& scientifically)
24. 34 Says the winds come out of a “portal” at the Northern edge of the earth
25. 36:3 Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth & move West
26. 38:5-6 Contradicts Daniel & other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign
27. 39:1-2 Very strange implications here about the “seed” of angels dwelling with men at
the end… this contradicts the scriptures
28. 40:7 Talks about the “Satans” – plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to
only one fallen angel. Also, implies Satan can’t stand in God’s presence, contrary to Job.

16/24
 29. 40:9 Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels & adds more names in.
Michael’s role in scripture is related to conquoring nations & fighting spiritual wars,
while Gabriel’s relates to bringing messages & visions to people.
30. 41:1-2 Says the Kingdom of God is divided – it’s not & can’t be scripturally. Also
describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless
you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.
31. 41:4-5 Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers & released at appointed
times.
32. 41:6-7 Implies the sun & moon move opposite of each other
33. 43:1-3,44 Very weird model of the nature of stars & lightning
34. 47:4 Says God requires the blood of the saints… very strange
35. 51:1 Says Sheol & Hell will give back to the earth, which isn’t scriptural – also Hell is a
NT term, not OT
36. 51:2 Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen. (We don’t have to wait until
Christ’s return to be chosen.) This isn’t scriptural.

10. Internal content is speculative and based on musings form Genesis 6

The Old Testament is very Messianic, pointing to this one to come (Jesus). The Apocrypha
does nothing like this. It deals mainly with Jewish nationalism and developments in the
Jewish faith and particularly political ramifications to an ultimately successful rebellion.

The focus of the central message of the book of Watchers is to demonstrate through
Genealogical and Narrative speculations on angels based on Genesis 6 that chaos and evil in
the world are due to angelic sin. As we know Jude refutes this and see later the section on
Paul’s likely caution specifically about angelic genealogies that have been made up and
treated as valuable.

11. 1 Enoch is never publicly affirmed at any church council (As well as the
entire Apocrypha)

The Apocrypha is never publicly affirmed at a council of the entire church. You have little
regional councils that affirm it at moments, but you never have Christendom signing off on
this. The council of Trent, post-reformation is the first time this happens..

In April 1546 is the month they were “officially” added to a Catholic Canon at the council of
Trent because they helped the Catholic Church teach the doctrines that the Protestants were
fighting against.

17/24
Hippo and Carthage were not universal Catholic councils and they had a different list.. these
councils clash with Trent. Notably Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century rejected the
Apocrypha and said it was not Canonical. Jerome did translate Apocryphal books but he was
clear in saying they were not scripture

12. Very few church fathers were deceived into thinking 1 Enoch was
canonical

There is an accusation that the Church Fathers supported Enoch.. let’s get into that because
it’s important. The two big fish cited are Tertullian and Origen.

Tertullian

Tertullian of the 3rd century was a fan, calling it Scripture in Book 1, Chapter 3 of On the
Apparel of Women (On the Apparel of Women. Book I). However, we must take care to
remember that the Early Church Fathers are not the authority on what is Scripture and what
is not, and they were fallible human beings. Tertullian fell, in his later life, to Montanism, a
heretical branch of Christianity, and On the Apparel of Women was most likely written after
this fall; so one should treat the words within with great suspicion.

Origen

So what about Origen? Origen cites it in the same breath as the Psalms (although he mis-
translates the Psalm he’s quoting…) in De Principiis IV. However, the passages from Enoch
he cites do not appear in the version we have. Origen mentions the Book of Enoch another
time, in Contra Celsus, LIV. He doesn’t quote it there, however, nor does he call it Scripture.
It would appear that he considered it a useful book, but there is no evidence that he thought
it was Scripture.

Proceed with caution

Be very careful when reading articles claiming what the Early Church Fathers did or did not
say. I See far too often see people mutilate their quotes, cut out entire blocks of text, or
outright lie about the content of their works or what they support.

There are at least three different articles about Origen on Enoch that completely lied about
the contents of De Principiis or Contra Celsus in an effort to support Enoch. If someone does
not give you at the very least the book and chapter to go find it yourself, assume their
quotation is a lie.

18/24
For instance, people quoting De Principiis 3:3, saying that it supported the Book of Enoch as
Scripture. Do you know what Origen was doing in that section? He was discussing heretics
who said God created the Holy Spirit, and that it did not exist eternally as God. But because
he said the word “Scripture” within the same paragraph as “book of Enoch,” he must
therefore be discussing it as Scripture. This is just someone trying to assume you won’t fact
check them. (I invite you to fact check me, I won’t be perfect, but luckily a lot of this is backed
up by renowned scholars such as Professor Gentry).

This paragraph, if anything, supports the notion that Origen separated Enoch from Scripture.
See here:

“And in the book of Enoch also we have similar descriptions. But up to the present time we
have been able to find no statement in holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to
be made or created…”
http://www.documentacatholicaomn… p 444, PDF page 26.

Is Origen supporting Enoch as Scripture? Absolutely not… He’s intentionally separating it.
He puts Enoch closer to something written by Hermas than Scripture (which was recognized
even as early as the Muratorian Fragment, which if you read my other answer is the oldest
canon we have, as non-scriptural).

Septuagint

So that’s them two out the way, now we need to get to the core of this issue: The Septuagint.
Before Jerome, most Christians simply used the Septuagint (or Latin translations of it)
because it was convenient, it was quoted (and therefore used) by the apostles, and some
(such as Augustine) considered the translation itself inspired. Obviously, Enoch was not
found in that collection. After Jerome, the Latin church shifted to using the Vulgate, which
also didn’t include Enoch. So for the vast majority of Christian traditions Enoch simply fell
out of use.

Enoch was not found in the 132 BC translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the
Septuagint). Most likely, the text was not in it’s final form at that time. However, many
church fathers quoted Enoch, so it must have been translated into Greek by the first and
second century AD.

19/24
Sidenote: Why did some church fathers believe the apocrypha was scripture? Because of
the Septuagint

These people spoke greek and they translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek
and these Apocryphal works entered into this Greek compendium of works. The Jews knew
this wasn’t scripture as you can see from all the quotes earlier on. However, if you
weren't familiar with Judaism and all you knew was Greek and didn’t know the Hebrew
and you saw this then you might see it as scripture. This is them being ignorant
“well its in the Septuagint so it must be scripture!” This is poor reasoning…

The Apologist Mike Winger informs that when you survey church history, the least
educated about Hebrew and the original languages are the ones who endorsed the
Apocrypha because they assumed the Jews did. But they were wrong. The ones that knew
the languages and were more educated rejected these extra books

Interestingly, The 50+ people at the council of Trent who added these books, none of
them were scholars of the Hebrew. But they knew these books were good in arguments
against Protestants.

Now With Enoch in Greek, and it coming from the Intertestamental period, you can see why
a few took on a defence of 1 Enoch. But Like we show here, 1 Enoch is not lumped as highly
with the other texts.

So there you go, challenging a bit of Apocrypha to deal with a bit of bit of 1 Enoch!

13. Didn’t even make the Septuagint

1 Enoch was never included from both the formal canon of the Tanakh and the typical canon
of the Septuagint and therefore, also from the writings known today as the Deuterocanon.

Emanuel Tov and Craig Evans, Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in
Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective Archived 2016-06-15 at the Wayback
Machine

Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures
London: SPCK, 1998

14. No doctrine was relied on by disputed books. 1 Enoch was disputed

Of the books we include in the New Testament that were called “ἀντιλεγόμενα”
(antilegomena), meaning “spoken against”, by the early church. To quote Eusebius:

20/24
“Among the disputed writings [των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by
many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle
of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to
the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be
reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and
in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the
Apostles… And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all
these may be reckoned among the disputed books [των αντιλεγομένων].”

New Testament books here referenced in bold.

The importance of this distinction they kept was that no doctrine was to be founded on
disputed books; doctrine had to begin with the fully accepted ones. The function of the
disputed books, then, was to support and/or expand or expound upon doctrine from the fully
accepted books — and they were also to be carefully interpreted according to the Gospel,
something true of all the books but emphasized strongly in these cases. It’s a distinction we
would have done well to maintain, given that a great amount of division and off-beat or even
false teaching has arisen from teachings founded on one or more of those books.

15. It’s just too weird

Seriously just go read it for yourself. It’s very odd, and not in an Ezekiel kind of way: Ezekiel
is odd because he’s describing with words things neither he nor we understand. It’s like a
blind man trying to describe color. Enoch is odd for the same reason some of the gnostic
works talking about Jesus are odd; it tries too hard to mimic that which it is not. This isn’t an
appeal to emotions, this is a challenge that it is wholly uncanonical in it’s themes, context and
intent.

16. Warnings by Paul

Paul has Warnings about endless Genealogies and foolish myths in 1 Timothy 4:6; 4:7; 6:4, 2
Timothy 2:23, Titus 3:9. These Enochic traditions fit exactly what Paul was talking about
because they contain an enormous genealogy of all the angels and speculations based on
Genesis 6:-1-4

It should be noted Syriac Christianity did not heed the warnings of Paul so already in the
writings of Aphrahat we see the angel Gabriel receiving the prayers of Christians and
determining whether or not they will be determined in history. Angelology is much more
developed here more than anywhere else. Attention to Angels is developed heavily in Syriac

21/24
Christianity. Egyptian, Turkish, Syrian and Palestinian Christians were exposed to this in
later centuries. Europe was spared due to linguistic differences and thus it did not filter in
(which also helped to determine it was a later work otherwise surely Europe would have it)

Side note: The Quran likes 1 Enoch!

Patricia Crone (far from conservative) has demonstrated that the Quran has at least
five distinct instances where it is directly dependant on the Enochic Book of
Watchers. Although angelic genealogies are not in the Quran, much of Islam today
follows an elaborate genealogy of angels and the teaching that angelic sin is
responsible for evil and impurity in our world and avoids the Biblical doctrine of
sin*.

*Tracing the connection between earlier groups and later Islam are not possible on
the basis of our current evidence.

Although there is much in this Jewish tradition to be avoided, according to Paul, some of it is
true such as Enochs condemnation of his contemporaries and those names of the magicians
who opposed Moses

17. The Holy Spirit didn’t lead them to add it to the Canon..at any point as a
whole church!

Ok here’s a very Christian answer, but it is justified after all this: The Holy Spirit did not lead
this book to be in the known Canon. We know Apocryphal and later 2nd century+ works do
not meet the Canonical criteria and were not inspired by God.

God didn’t error.

18. Considered generally fiction

Although it was held in high esteem it was never considered the canon of scripture, it was
actually categorised as Pseudopigraphical (This word means fiction). I’m 18 facts in, gimme a
break If I Haven’t written 1,000 words on this bit!

19. Son of man texts were later additions

Scholars recognise the Son of Man references to be later additions.. problematic for those
who want to claim 1 Enoch is quoted by Jesus. And secondly Jesus is clearly quoting Daniel. 1
Enoch could easily be accused of pillaging from Daniel if it were pre-Jesus (Still has the
problem of being Apocryphal). This fact is quite a deathblow to a lot of conspiracy theorists.

22/24
James Charlesworth tells us this about the additional passages:

“This pseudepigraph has evoked divergent opinions; but today there is a consensus that the
book is a composite, portions of which are clearly pre-Christian as demonstrated by the
discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments from four of the five sections of the book among
the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of these fragments, moreover, was copied in the second half of the
second century B.C. The main question concerns the date of the second section, chapters 37-71,
which contains the Son of Man sayings. J. T. Milik (esp. no. 755) has shown that this section,
which is not represented among the early fragments, is probably a later addition to 1 Enoch;
but his contention that it was composed around A.D. 270 (no. 755, p. 377) is very speculative.
If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second
century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century
A.D. The original language of 1 Enoch appears to be Aramaic, except for the Noah traditions,
which were probably composed in Hebrew.
James H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 98)

In Summary

I gave up at this point.. but in summary here is the list again!

1. We have no manuscripts dating to the time Enoch lived. All manuscripts are from 2nd
century BC and newer.
2. The Quote in Jude is either not from 1 Enoch and so from a common tradition or if it
was Enoch, it is loosely quoted.
3. Jude is refuting either 1 Enoch or those that follow Enochic tradition. Either way.. It’s
not good for the Enochians!
4. Quote doesn’t imply scripture anyway
5. It is of the apocryphal-Intertestamental period.
6. The Jews considered the Canon closed. Jews never saw 1 Enoch as canonical
7. Jews rejected Apocrypha
8. Jesus made clear no intertestamental books were part of either Canon.
9. 1 Enoch contradicts scripture
10. Internal content is speculative and based on musings form Genesis 6
11. 1 Enoch is never publicly affirmed at any church council (As well as the entire
Apocrypha)
12. Very few church fathers were deceived into thinking 1 Enoch was canonical
13. Didn’t even make the Septuagint
14. No doctrine was relied on by disputed books. 1 Enoch was disputed
15. It’s just too weird
16. Warnings by Paul
17. The Holy Spirit didn’t lead them to add it to the Canon..at any point as a whole church!

23/24
 18. Considered fiction
19. Son of man texts were later additions

Some of the sources

See other sources throughout the post. sorry I’m no scholar so you won’t get the cleanest
source list! Peter Gentry covers pretty much everything discussed in his lecture or other
works.

Peter Gentry, Professor & Textual expert. See lecture: The Putative. Citation of Enoch in
Jude
Mike Winger, Pastor & Apologist
Matt Whitman, Apologist
Dane Walters, Professional data scientist work on 1 Enoch
Roy Wilson, Retired pastor & scientist
Dr Michael Brown & his work on this as a Messianic Jew
Michael Heiser also a scholar worth investigating regarding 1 Enoch

24/24