I would like an answer to some questions about the book of Enoch. I am concerned because this book’s teachings are starting to be represented as “inspired” at our Church. Did Jesus quote (as found in any translations of the Bible today) from the book of Enoch? Is the book of Enoch considered “inspired” -or- the same as “all scripture is given by inspiration of God”? When this book is preached from or taught from, is this not “adding to the prophecies of this book” as stated in Revelation chapter 22, verse 18?

This is the second time the Book of Enoch has been the subject of questions on freelance theology and it seems to be an ancient text that is proving quite popular. There are two men called Enoch mentioned in the book of Genesis – the son of Cain (chapter 4, verse 17) and the father of Methuselah who was ‘taken to be with God’ when he was 365 years old according to Genesis chapter 5, verses 22-24. This second Enoch is the one about whom a number of traditions grew up in the centuries immediately before Christ. For example, Enoch is mentioned in the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), which dates from approximately 150BC.

Enoch became regarded as one of the heroes of the Jewish faith, as listed in Hebrews chapter 11, verse 5, where the author makes the point that Enoch’s faith pleased God and so God took him away. Except for the inference regarding Enoch’s faith, this adds nothing to what is already said in Genesis. However, being listed with Noah, Abraham, Moses et al, indicates that Enoch was considered a good role model.

The book of Enoch is associated with this hero, but contains mainly apocalyptic themes and traditions. It belongs to a family of quasi-sectarian Jewish writings from the time between the testaments and contains a number of interesting, but separate ideas merged into one ‘book’. The principal legend that has proved very popular in modern Christian fundamentalist circles is the ‘Watcher Legend’ – which expands upon several minor themes in Genesis relating to an Angelic Fall as the cause of sin and evil in the world. It also contains parables, ‘visions of the Son of Man’ (which Christians later interpreted to refer to Jesus as happened with the Biblical book of Daniel), astronomical data and apocalyptic visions of judgment. Many scholars point to Babylonian influences on the book of Enoch, particularly regarding its angelology, but the book seems to have originated in Egypt and exists in Greek and Aramaic textual sources, but is only found complete in Ethiopic. To confuse matters, two further books bearing Enoch’s name exist as well – 2 Enoch has only been found in medieval Slavic manuscripts from Eastern Europe, while 3 Enoch is a sixth-century collection of Hebrew writings relating to kabbalah and introduces the character of the Metatron (Voice of God), which later cropped up in medieval mysticism and theology.

Jesus never quoted from the book of Enoch, but the writer of the short New Testament letter we know as Jude does quote it in verses 14 and 15. This is in the context of a warning of judgment on the ungodly, and it should be noted that the writer of Jude, while familiar enough to quote from the book, does not refer to it as Scripture. The author presumably uses Enoch because his audience will be familiar with it (the same thing happens today when a modern preacher or writer uses a cultural reference to reinforce their point – it is not conferring any kind of authority on something to quote from it). In two other places the author of Jude refers to events that are mentioned in Enoch (verses 6 & 12), but each time in order to underline the author’s point.

With regards to the Book of Enoch’s authority, it has only ever been accorded canonical status by the rather isolated Ethiopian Church. While this particular grouping lays claim to being the oldest continuous organised church, it should be noted that none of the great church councils regarded Enoch as part of the Old Testament and it does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. It may have reached a prominent position in Ethiopia due to its popularity in pre-Christian Jewish communities in Northern Africa. Noted Biblical scholar FF Bruce summed up the usefulness of the Book of Enoch by saying: “It throws welcome light on the background of popular thought in Palestine in New Testament times.” [The Books and the Parchments, Marshall Pickering 1991, p.161] In real terms, the received opinion of Christian tradition and modern scholarship would regard Enoch as an example of the religious ideas that circulated in the Mediterranean area around the time of Christ, and that’s about it.

One final point – while now, with a closed canon of Scripture, Revelation’s warning not to add anything might seem like a reference to the whole of what has gone before, it actually would have referred originally to just the collection of visions written down by John on Patmos (Revelation chapter 1, verse 9). Given the tendency at the time to collect disparate visions and stories together to create books like Enoch, it is perhaps highly appropriate to mention in the context of this question, but has little bearing on what is preached in your church.

Thanks for your question, RS.

A friend of mine has been massively influenced by the book of Enoch, to the point that he believes people in government across the world are descended from a line of interbreeding between fallen angels and humans – which is why there is so much corruption and abuse of power. I know the book of Enoch was not widely accepted as a canonical book, why was that? And what are the dangers of teaching a fairly important doctrine from a non-canonical book?

The Book of Enoch was accepted as authoritative by the Ethiopian Church, but within the general sphere of Christian thought was never included in the canon. Without going into too much detail regarding the formation of the canon of Scripture, the Hebrew Bible (renamed the Old Testament) was absorbed into Christianity from Judaism, while a book’s inclusion in the New Testament tended to revolve around Apostolic involvement or authorship.

The Book of Enoch is a collection of apocalyptic traditions including the pre-historical fall of the angels, dream visions, visions of the ‘Son of Man’ (probably Enoch, not Jesus), parables and the miraculous birth of Noah. It was probably written in Aramaic and is quoted in Jude 14-15. However, it was written sometime in the last two centuries before Christ, so was written too late to become anywhere near authoritative in the Jewish community. As it has pre-Christian roots and no Apostolic link, the majority of Christians ignored it, although it remained popular in Africa until Rome exerted it’s authority and insisted on a universal canon of Scripture.

Your friend’s particular belief, while apparently based on Enoch, sounds very similar to the conspiracy theory propounded by David Icke, among others, which states that the world is ruled by large lizards who appear human and kill blonde people to drain their blood. This idea, in turn, is a coded version of an anti-Semitic myth of a world ruled by disguised Zionist Jews, who feed off Aryan maidens in bizarre rituals.

Generally any theology that is based solely on the interpretation of one passage of Scripture should be open to debate. It is good exegetical practice to ensure that any doctrine is only considered a ‘primary doctrine’ if it is supported by several passages of Scripture, preferably from different books and writings. Thus we see that the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus as being vital to the salvation of human beings is a primary doctrine of the Christian faith. The great doctrines of the Church fall into this category and, in the Protestant traditions any doctrines that lack this Scriptural support are rendered irrelevant.

A doctrine that is based solely on a book that lies outside the mainstream canon of Scripture is optional at best, lacks authority and could very well be dismissed as misguided. If your friend insists on promoting his interesting world-view as a primary doctrine, then sadly you will have to inform him that he is a whisker away from heresy.

Thanks for your question, DM and here’s hoping you can talk to your friend about this.

What is the Apocrypha?

The early theologian Jerome used the word ‘apocrypha’ (meaning ‘the secret books’) as a label for a collection of writing dating from the last few centuries before Christ. In fact, the books were not secret at all. Most of them had been part of the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Jews, and then Christians, throughout the Roman Empire. However they are not found in the Hebrew Bible because in AD70, after the Jewish War against the Romans and the destruction of the Temple, a council of top Jewish scholars met in Jamnia, Palestine and agreed on a set ‘canon’ of books/writings.

Any books that did not equate to their particular brand of Judaism (they belonged for the main to the group known as Pharisees) were dropped. Towards the end of the fourth century Jerome produced the Vulgate, the official Church version of the Bible in Latin, and excised the Apocrypha because he believed that the Hebrew text had more authority than the Greek Septuagint. Pope Damasus ruled against him and the Apocrypha stayed in the traditional place in the new Latin translation.

This highlights the big problem with the Apocrypha. The books are in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew Bible, which begs the question of which collection is authoritative. When the Church delineated a formal, authoritative canon (mainly in response to heresies), the Apocrypha were usually included and the Apocryphal books were widely quoted by the earliest theologians.

Since Jerome’s time the Apocrypha has been regarded as slightly less than authoritative. For example the Anglican Church describes the Apocrypha as suitable edifying reading, but not a permitted source of doctrinal authority (paraphrased from the sixth Article of Religion). The Protestant Reformers tended to reject the Apocrypha, removing the various disputed section from the body of the Old Testament – first to its own section and then dropping it from Bibles altogether. In contrast, the Roman Church decided to affirm the full canonicity of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, although now they are generally referred to as ‘deutero-canonical’ books (literally from the ‘second canon’).

For those who have not got a copy of the Bible containing the Apocrypha:

Freelance Theology’s Rough Guide to the Apocrypha

There are 14 ‘writings’ popularly listed as the Apocrypha, including additional material from Esther and three stories interpolated into Daniel.
The other 10 are:
1 Esdras (also known as 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (also known as 4 Esdras)
Tobit/ Tobias
Judith
The Wisdom of Solomon
(The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of) Sirach (often called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch & the Epistle of Jeremiah
The Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

FF Bruce splits the Apocryphal books into four types: Historical, Religious Fiction, Wisdom/Ethical Literature and Apocalyptic (See The Books and the Parchments, revised edition, 1991, pp 153-165)

The Historical Books
1 Esdras is an alternative version of the book of Ezra which includes material covered in 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. 1 and 2 Maccabees are two independent works covering the inter-testamental period. 1 Maccabees relates the war between Judas Maccabaeus and the Greek despot Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to destroy the Jewish faith after conquering Palestine. It was probably written in about 100BC and seems to have been translated from a now-lost Hebrew original. 2 Maccabees is written from a different point of view, covers the same struggles and has a noted emphasis on martyrdom, which possibly influenced early Christian attitudes towards dying for the faith. Two further ‘books of the Maccabees’ (numbered 3 and 4) have been discovered, but have nothing to do with the Maccabaean rebellion.

The Religious Fiction
Tobit and Judith are both stories featuring eponymous heroes. Tobit is a pious Israelite carried off to Assyria and has a lot of Persian influences, especially regarding the influence of good and evil angels. It’s main point seems to be the importance of observing the Law in a foreign land, which might be why it survived among Greek-speaking Jewish communities outside Palestine. Judith is a plucky Hebrew heroine who saves her city by charming and then beheading a Persian general. Bruce believes the story became popular during the Maccabaean uprising as a stirring patriotic tale (op cit, p157)

The additions to Esther add some religious content to a book notably lacking in this regard. The three additions to Daniel – ‘The Song of the Children’, ‘The Story of Suzannah’ and ‘Bel and the Dragon’ – vary in purpose. Bel and the Dragon is an attack on idolatry, which leads to Daniel (Belteshazzar is his Babylonian name) being thrown into the lion’s den again. Suzannah is a virtuous Jewish woman saved by Daniel’s legal expertise from those who would harm her and the Song of the Children is a poetic expression of praise to Yahweh inserted into the story of the three men cast into the furnace in Daniel chapter 3.

Wisdom literature
Both the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach/Ecclesiasticus are classic examples of Jewish Wisdom literature. Early Christian theologians quoted both frequently and even Jerome, who coined the word Apocrypha when he rejected ‘the secret books’, referred to Sirach as ‘Scripture’. In fact the probable reason why Sirach received the alternative name of ‘Ecclesiasticus’ is because sections of it were read so widely in the liturgy of the early Church. Sirach was also used in synagogue services, even after the Council of Jamnia rejected it because the view it held of the afterlife did not tally with the Pharasaic outlook.

The Wisdom of Solomon contains an attack on idolatry very similar to Romans chapter 1, which has led some scholars to date it as late as AD40, when the Emperor Gaius insisted on placing an Imperial image in the Temple of Jerusalem – an edict which contributed to the failed uprising thirty years later that saw the Temple destroyed. Wisdom, as it is often called for short, was probably written in Greek and has a Hellenistic cultural style, which may account for it never being incorporated into the Hebrew Bible.

Baruch was the name of a friend of Jeremiah, but this book probably has nothing to do with him. It talks about sin, wisdom and redemption, a theme also picked up in the Prayer of Mannasseh – supposedly the petition of King Manasseh of Israel when he was captured and taken to Babylon. Mannasseh’s prayer is alluded to in 2 Chronicles chapter 33 vv11-13, but was not recorded by the Chronicler.

Apocalyptic
2 Esdras is one of a number of apocalyptic books that circulated from 200BC to AD200. It consists of seven visions of the future received by Ezra in Babylon with some Christian polemic attached as a frontispiece. FF Bruce dates it to AD100.

Some final comments
1 & 2 Esdras are sometimes called 3 & 4 Esdras because, in the Vulgate, Ezra (Esdras in Latin) and Nehemiah are called 1 & 2 Esdras, hence the Apocryphal books are numbered 3 & 4.

The Ethiopian Church also gave canonical status to the Book of Enoch (sometimes called 1 Enoch to distinguish it from some other books bearing Enoch’s name) and the Book of Jubilees. Words from Enoch chapter 1 v 9 are quoted in the New Testament epistle of Jude (vv 14–15) and this caused a notable early Christian theologian called Tertullian to argue for 1 Enoch’s authority. The Book of Jubilees is a different version of the Book of Genesis that divides history up into ‘jubilee periods’ i.e. sections of 49 years each.

Thanks for your question, JM – hopefully this guide will be of use as well.

What is the Gospel of Thomas? Is it any use to Christians? Are there any other books written in Biblical times that aren’t in the Bible, but which could help Christians today?

There are many writings that have survived from Biblical periods and the Gospel of Thomas is one of them. These books are often referred to as ‘apocryphal’, which literally means ‘hidden’. They are a varied collection of writings; ‘wise sayings’, ‘historical’ stories written from a theological slant, prophecies and morality tales.

The Gospel of Thomas is one of the best known apocryphal books from the New Testament era. It dates from somewhere in the first two centuries AD. It was one of 52 works discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Egypt as part of an extensive library of Coptic texts that originally belonged to the ancient Christian monastery at Chenoboskion. The majority of these works show definite traits of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism was a religious movement dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom through secret knowledge (the Greek word ‘gnosis’ means knowledge). It was a ‘movement’ in the loosest sense of the term – it actually varied a great deal from straight-forward philosophy through to eccentric mysticism. Various Christian communities undoubtedly contained a few people who had flirted with Gnosticism, although historians now refer to Gnosticism as a ‘tendency’ rather than a world-view.

While many people regard the Gospel of Thomas as a lost ‘Gnostic gospel’, FF Bruce believes it is only “indirectly Gnostic” (see The Books and the Parchments pp262-3). It contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus and according to the preface they are ‘the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down’ (quoted in Bruce, op cit). Each of the sayings is prefaced by ‘Jesus said’ and several are paralleled in the four canonical gospels we are familiar with. A few sayings are unique and Clement of Alexandria, another Patristic writer, quotes one of the sayings as well – although he ascribed it to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

The New Testament as we have it now is the ‘norm’ produced by the earliest Christian communities. They are the documents regarded by those Christians as the most reliable and all have some apostolic link (traditionally John-Mark was a scribe to Peter, Luke was a companion of Paul etc.). Documents like the Gospel of Thomas may have some insights into the life of these early communities, but whether they have anything to say in our situation is another matter. The tradition of the church down through the centuries is that these books are not totally reliable. They might contain genuine sayings of Jesus, there is no way to be sure. However, that has not stopped wacky individuals on the cultic fringe using them to further their own theories.

The real problem with using any of this literature is that we know even less about the authorship, context and what influenced it than we do about the canonical books. Given the endless scholarly debates about the four Gospels, of which we have thousands of early examples, the likelihood that we will ever fully understand where the Gospel of Thomas is coming from is slim.

I hope this answers your question. GT. Thanks for contributing to freelance theology.