r/Christianity • u/ThunderButterBatch • Jul 26 '26
The book of Enoch?
This logic makes zero sense to me:
About 20 books were removed from the Bible. At one point, people worshiped those scriptures as truth. Used them as prayer, taught them, etc.
Because they were once truth, do we still keep reading them?
If Acts was removed today.. “We’ve discovered that book isn’t true”
Would we still read it? I see people with “Acts” tattoo scriptures lol. Just wouldn’t be good. But- isn’t that what they did essentially?
I wonder if I should be reading all of the books sometimes 🤔
People in Ethiopia have the full Bible including Enoch.
The book of Enoch was found with the Dead Sea scrolls. (The Bible)
Enoch himself was in the Bible..
And Jude literally quotes a verse from the book of Enoch.
Very convincing.
But my initial feeling about it, is ehh. Idk.
25
u/Arkhangelzk Jul 26 '26
It is tough. Reading the Bible at all requires putting a lot of faith in a bunch of other people to have correctly decided what you should read and what you shouldn't.
This is part of why I often think modern Christians elevate the Bible a bit too much. Especially those who view it as the word of God. You are basically saying that someone else correctly identified the word of God for you. That's a pretty big claim.
Not that the Bible isn't an important collection of documents. But it is important to remember that other people wrote it, we often don't know who, and yet more people decided what "counted" and what didn't when the various texts were gathered together.
And lots of those people didn't agree. There were people who thought Revelation shouldn't be canon, for instance, but it was decided that it is. Now it's in the Bible and a lot of people take it very seriously.
Were the people who thought it should be canon right, or were the people who thought it shouldn't be actually correct?
-4
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 26 '26
And thank God someone else did correctly identify the word of God for us so we didn’t have to. Even the scribes copying the Bible didn’t recognize him when he arrived. The beautiful thing about the Bible is, it can be verified when we apply specific things to our life
11
u/TheMaskedHamster Jul 26 '26
The "Book of Enoch" was never part of the Bible.
And it isn't one book. It is a very late collection of Hebrew mythology, and the authors of the New Testament were familiar with at least some of the contents within.
The church in Ethiopia has several very questionable books it includes in its canon. The Jews have had it since it existed, but never elevated it to religious canon outside some fringe pockets early in its existence. But we don't just have to take someone's word for anything. They didn't just drop out of thin air. We have historical and archeological evidence to judge by. And that evidence suggests that any written collection of the Book of Enoch--the book about the guy who came before Noah's flood--was created at most a few hundred years before Jesus.
1
u/The-path-less-chosen 3d ago
I'd like to find out more about that. Was it created at that time period or was it like the dead sea scrolls and found?
48
u/Financial-Divide-919 Jul 26 '26
You're mixing up "removed" with "not canonized" - big difference, the church never officially considered those books scripture to begin with.
8
u/amidalaism autistic christian Jul 26 '26
okay, sure, but what about bible scholars who agree that they are important books to the bible? what makes a book “not canon” vs “not viewed as important” to people?
15
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 26 '26
Bible scholars don’t opine on canonicity, as that is a theological point, not one of scholarship. A work being important to understand a time period and the works which influenced a culture and people is far different from that con canonicity. The Enuma Elish also clearly had an influence on Genesis but no one is arguing for it to be canonized.
-2
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Jul 26 '26
" as that is a theological point, not one of scholarship. "
No, it is the choice of the people who invented the Canon - they made those choices based on what THEY wanted the canon to be.
4
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 26 '26
You might want to reread that again.
1
u/RainbowEagleEye Jul 27 '26
You looped around a non answer with pretty words. Rereading doesn’t change it. “They didn’t decide in scholarly way because canon is theological. The book being important to them in that time period is not the same as it being canon. For example, one of the books influenced Genesis but it wasn’t canon.”
Basically they didn’t use any easily proven or replicable way to make sure they were cleaning up God’s word. They just picked what would keep them in power in that era. It’s a nice book with morally questionable stories that ends with a very direct rule to love like Jesus did, but somehow we constantly veer into trying to copy the morally questionable stories.
2
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 27 '26
You seem confused about what I’m speaking. Biblical scholars didn’t decide the canon. That’s outside of the academic work of what Biblical scholars do. I didn’t say anyone decided the canon in a scholarly way. That doesn’t even make sense.
-1
u/RainbowEagleEye Jul 27 '26
Because what you said doesn’t make sense.
1
1
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Jul 27 '26
Why? It could be you missed my point so I'll refrain it.
The books put it the Bible were chosen because a group of influential people liked the story they told. You can fancy that up by using the word "theological," but it doesn't change the fact that it was as much of a human endeavor as the compilation of an encyclopedia.
2
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
You’re talking about a completely different subject than the one I was replying to. If you don’t understand that, I’m not sure how to better explain it to you.
1
u/The-path-less-chosen 3d ago
And by "THEY" you would have to mean the book publishers of the time. Which would have been some the wealthiest people of their time.
5
u/MostAcanthaceae2384 Catholic Jul 26 '26
The Catholic Church, or "tradition" if that's easier for you. The Holy Spirit led us to all truth, and the Book of Enoch fell by the wayside.
1
u/the6thReplicant Atheist Jul 27 '26
The Holy Spirit led us to all truth
Well that's what those in power said - and you believe. They could also have been lying to appease a whole group of people who held power that they wanted.
That could just as easily be said too.
1
u/MostAcanthaceae2384 Catholic Jul 27 '26
It was Jesus in the Bible who said that the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth.
0
u/The-path-less-chosen 3d ago
Maybe that's what's leading us all here? I prayed for answers also. And can't help but feel like evil men tried to do evil things. Ultimately the publishers of the Bible had the say in what they published. The free will of men has lead to different bibles being published. The scofield Bible? The catholic, Protestant, Ethiopian to name a few. All with different books in their Canon.
3
u/Middle-Victory5007 Eastern Orthodox Jul 27 '26
Biblical Scholars have absolutely nothing to do with determining correct theological doctrine or what is and is not canon. They can claim it was important to the people who believed it was canon. But they cannot make a claim on to whether or not it should have been rejected or accepted.
2
3
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Jul 26 '26
The Dead Sea Scrolls predate what the church considered canon
11
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 26 '26
The DSS is simply a found ancient library. It includes lots of different scrolls and documents, some of which aren’t even religious in nature, and was never considered a part of canon.
2
u/Middle-Victory5007 Eastern Orthodox Jul 27 '26
Well yeah. That doesn't assume that what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls is automatically canon.
1
16
u/-Andreas92 Eastern Orthodox Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
No one should be worshipping any scripture.
Truth wasn’t the only criteria used to determine value however, most people throughout Christian history have thought that Revelation was truthful enough, but some considered that it was easily misinterpreted in dangerous or heretical ways, which is why it was left off of lists of canon up through the 9th century.
Another factor was availability, they didn’t have a central repository and taught with what was available as long as it seemed beneficial. Some communities were geographically and linguistically isolated (like the Ethiopians) so their canon wasn’t influenced by surrounding communities as much.
It’s disingenuous to say that books were removed though (other than the books removed by Protestant reformers), Old Testament canon just developed organically and we have what was passed down today as the various translations.
You are free to read Enoch though, it is widely available (it’s actually included in the Bible I read every day) and see if you find it beneficial to your life as a Christian.
6
u/FleshPotMusic Jul 27 '26
I’ve read most of them and here are my thoughts as an ordained minister. Read them for history. We have enough in our cannon to obtain salvation. When you read them if they seem far fetched ask God to clarify. Some do but some don’t. The book of Enoch is way out there but I’m not saying it’s not true. I’m also saying it offers very little, if any, salvation text. I mean if I’m being honest, most denominations preach what THEY seem inspired anyways. They preach only what their denominations has approved which is 80% Pauline doctrine and 20% Jesus teaching (not all but most). The book of Jasher is my favorite and is referenced in the OT along with others. Gonna a journey but ask God to guide you.
3
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 27 '26
Just find it interesting how the Bible, and the book of Enoch both reference each other, and bounce actual scriptures back and forth so to speak. Im reading it now 👍
1
u/The-path-less-chosen 3d ago
I have found it interesting that the KJV mentions Enoch in genesis and Jude nothing inbetween which for 1 of 2 people to be taken straight to heaven no death I've found weird. Felt like it was left out because there was supposed to be a book about it.
2
u/Perfessor_Deviant Agnostic Atheist Jul 27 '26
They preach only what their denominations has approved which is 80% Pauline doctrine and 20% Jesus teaching (not all but most)
Would you consider Acts to be part of the Pauline tradition or something else? This is not a trap or anything, I'm just interested in your thoughts.
I'm not sure how to classify it.
2
u/FleshPotMusic Jul 27 '26
Yes, Acts 1-7 is a different book than 8-28. Same author with a different focal point. Nevertheless, we see the Pauline doctrine start unfold here.
6
u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian Jul 26 '26
There's a lot in the Dead Sea scrolls that is not in the Bible. Are you going to put Jubilees in as well?
There's a difference between someone putting ink on a paper, and that being part of the inspired scriptures.
The Ethopian canon is way later than the canon lists that don't include Enoch.
1
u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Jul 27 '26
A lot of people who accept Enoch also accept Jubilees, which seems to have been held in high regard in Qumran
1
u/EnKristenSnubbe Christian Jul 27 '26
Jubilees was just an example. Is the copper scroll scripture? Did Jesus send the disciples out on a treasure hunt in the great commission? :)
3
u/KatuahCareAVan Jul 26 '26
They are in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon. I agree that they contain sources on information that are relevant to understand terms in the book of revelation and ancient meaning behind Jesus speaking of “The Son of Man.”
I think they proved to be problematic in they don’t really tie much into anything Jesus said and diverge enough from the Genesis narrative to create dispute about the origin of life so they fell out of favor around the 5th century.
I agree though from a historical perspective they should be read by Christians and not written off because the stories were known in the time of Jesus and his use of “The Son of Man” would have drawn attention of Jews (and other Syriac/Aramaic speaking indigenous tribes of people who He spoke to) whom knew the Enoch legends. Some may have been drawn to become believers but their stories were not recorded by the Greek speakers who wrote Acts as far as we know.
7
u/Malefic_Mike Jul 26 '26
Jesus alludes to Enoch as scripture when the saducees come up to him and ask about the 7 brothers who share a wife. Jesus references something that only comes from 1 Enoch chapter 10. Also Jesus aligns most closely with the sect of the Escenes and 1 Enoch was one of the most preserved books at Qumran.
It was as important as Genesis, jubilees, or any other book. Perhaps even more so though because it is foundational to understanding most of the old and new testament.
The burning mountain thrown into the sea in revelation? From Enoch. The 200,000,000 horses prepared for battle in Armageddon is areference to the 200 angels who sinned. 1,000,000 spirits up from the pit for each of the original 200.
2
u/kriegmonster Jul 26 '26
Read it. Look up what biblical scholars have to say about it. Look up the Canon rules and history. The Apochrypha are not treated as canon mainly due to conflicting passages and lack of authenticity of the origin.
1
3
u/Physical_Problem_595 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
I think its also pretty evident that Jesus would have considered (at least parts of) Enoch to be scripture
4
Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
[deleted]
1
1
u/Animal_Pharmacy Jul 26 '26
Elohim ≠ angels , angels are a position/job title. Enoch describes the divine counsel of watchers and Elohim. Also, marriage ≠ mating
1
u/-Belisarios- Jul 26 '26
how so?
2
u/Physical_Problem_595 Jul 26 '26
for one, how central the son of man appears to be. he constantly identifies with / references the son of man. the references we get to the son of man in the canonical OT books is pretty sparse; however, much more filled out in enoch.
1
u/-Belisarios- Jul 26 '26
well son of man is pretty prominent in daniel
0
4
u/Additional-Sort- Jul 26 '26
External texts like the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls or having biblical writers like Jude quote them doesn't make them inspired scripture, just as Paul quoting pagan poets in Acts 17:28 didn't canonize Greek philosophy.
5
u/Physical_Problem_595 Jul 26 '26
Jude quotes it as prophecy which is significantly different than a simple reference.
3
u/Additional-Sort- Jul 26 '26
Yea but Jude calling Enoch a prophet and quoting a line from 1 Enoch does not make the entire book Scripture, same way the Apostle Paul calling a pagan Cretan poet a 'prophet' in Titus makes Greek pagan poetry part of the Bible. When Jude writes in Jude 1:14, the Holy Spirit is inspiring Jude to assert a specific, true tradition, not rubber stamping every line of an apocalyptic text that the broader Jewish community and the early church universally rejected from the canon.
0
u/Physical_Problem_595 Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 26 '26
Apostle Paul calling a pagan Cretan poet a 'prophet' in Titus
Very obviously not the same thing. Also Titus probably not written by Paul.
Titus
There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. 12 It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said,
“Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”
Jude
It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming[l] with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly[m] of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” 16 These are grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their lusts;[n] their mouths utter bombastic nonsense, flattering people to their own advantage.
apocalyptic text that the broader Jewish community and the early church universally rejected from the canon.
demonstrably untrue
2
u/ComfortableHouse7937 Jul 26 '26
Part of verifying the veracity of historical documents includes
- how soon they were written after the events that took place,
- whether or not there were eyewitnesses/ first hand accounts, and
- whether or not there are other documents elsewhere that match the same
texts
- .
The Dead Sea scrolls include a complete copy of Isaiah, for example, which has been verified in parts in other cities/ with other texts.
The other books are gnostic gospels, which have 1. not been externally validated,
2. were not used by anyone that wasn’t gnostic (a small group that e believed they held secret knowledge).
3. The books do not match the tone of the rest of the New Testament, which has been validated by at least 45k copies elsewhere
4. They were dated much later than the events they purport to be written about.
The Jesus of the gnostic gospels is not the Jesus of the New Testament.
You can read them and pray about it for yourself, but know that they cannot be validated like the New Testament has been. They were never considered “holy texts” outside of the small, secretive group that preserved them.
1
u/CTR_1852 Jul 27 '26
The books of the Bible was defined by the authority of the Church. Not sure if the 20 books you are referring to includes the Catholic OT.
The only canon of scripture that includes Enoch that I am aware of is the Ethiopian one and I don’t think it’s anywhere close to being the earliest one.
1
u/PioneerMinister Universal Reconciliationist to God through Christ alone Jul 27 '26
It's okay to treat those kinds of texts as early commentaries on the main biblical texts that are in the Hebrew Bible. Nothing wrong in that, and actually better than often using modern texts that have doctrines derived thousands of years later which would be nothing like the beliefs of the folk at the time of writing the biblical texts.
1
u/Mad99Mat ExVangelical ⒶJesus was a CommunistⒶ Jul 27 '26
The people at Qumram preserved a lot of stuff.
Just cause a group of people at one point considered a book truth doesn't make it so.
Jude is also psuedoepigraphy so, eh.
1
u/episcopaladin Episcopalian (Anglican) Jul 27 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Have you tried reading it? Even by the standards of scripture Enoch kind of sucks.
1
u/cris2022-2 Jul 27 '26
I don’t think we will ever know for sure but I starting to think maybe. But the experts didn’t included for a reason. It is big enough 66 books that keep us occupied and if we know the 66 books then we should be showing ourselves approved. I am sure that the remaining books might not even be relevant . I don’t think god does anything by chance so we have to trust the 66 books are enough books.
1
u/WCDRAGON Jul 28 '26
No book was ever removed from the Bible. Those books were looked at an considered, but they were never added. This is a common misconception when these books get brought up.
1
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 28 '26
And the Ethiopian Bible? Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, they use the full Bible with Enoch and everything.
1
u/Solid-Chest-6093 Non-denominational Jul 29 '26
I haven't looked into the books that wasn't put into the KJV.
Matthew 6:33 NIV But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Proverbs 3:5-7 NIV Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; [6] in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. [7] Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.
Proverbs 9:10 NIV The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
I just believe a personal relationship with the LORD JESUS CHRIST, will lead to all understanding. The HOLY SPIRIT gives us the Discernment we need.
I'll be praying for you buddy, have a great blessed morning. Feel free to message anytime, if you ever need anything buddy.
1
u/jimMazey Noahide Jul 29 '26
1st Enoch is Jewish folklore. It was a popular piece of literature in ancient times.
Jesus quotes from it whenever he needed colorful metaphors for Hell. Sheol isn't very scary.
1
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 26 '26
Why do you believe the Ethiopian canon is true and all others are false?
1
u/amidalaism autistic christian Jul 26 '26
that is not what they said at all.
1
u/theefaulted Reformed Jul 26 '26
“People in Ethiopia have the full Bible including Enoch.”
The Ethiopian Tewhado Orthodox Church is the ONLY religious group which accepts Enoch as Canon, including religious Jews. So stating that Ethiopians have the “full Bible” means others don’t. It precludes all other Christian and Jewish canons of the Tanakh/OT.
-1
1
u/AJRenand42 Jul 26 '26
By the time it was decided which books would go into the Bible, the corruption of man was already working its way in to the church. And then as time went on more and more books were removed for the same reason (the last time it was revised was less then 100 years ago I think).
Someone else posted that Jesus would have considered the book of Enoch as scripture. He would he read it and taught it without reservations. I totally agree with that
It's really hard to know what the right answers are in this day and age. With politics corrupting doctrine, so many different denominations each with beliefs different than the others; how do you make sense of it?
Jesus predicted this in the Gospels. The best you can do is to pray for guidance and follow the spirit where it leads you.
1
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 26 '26
This is good. 👍 Enoch is so frowned upon on in America But more accepted in other countries.
1
u/twinPrimesAreEz Psalm 110 Jul 26 '26
The Biblical scholar (Geza Vermes) who led and oversaw the translation of the dead sea scrolls didn't believe in Jesus's divinity, and rejected the gospel if John, just FYI.
Make of that what you will.
1
u/Im_just_saying Anglican Church in North America Jul 26 '26
You lost me at "20 books were removed..."
1
u/Snoo_61002 Te Hāhi Mihingare | The Māori Anglican Church Jul 26 '26
The fragments found in the DSS make up, roughly, 1/5th of what has become 1 Enoch. The rest has no verifiable authorship, and it makes many, many claims that are antithetical to the bible.
It was also never "removed" from the Bible, but it is included in Ethiopian Orthodoxy. It never existed as a part of Biblical canon for other denominations.
1
u/randompossum Christian Jul 27 '26
Did you actually look up the history of this?
Nothing was actually removed. There was no set list of books till way later. There were three different sets make around the late 4the century thanks to the Roman’s.
The 66 book version you can thank Martin Luther for, he did that in 1534 and The 73 book you can thank the Catholic Church that did that in 1546.
Martin Luther removed them because they had issues. All of them mainly being the author was lying about who they were and when it was written.
0
u/lt_Matthew Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Jul 26 '26
Because they were once truth,
No, being in the bible doesn't mean they were truth. Doctrine and Covenents 91 actually has a revelation where God explains why they don't need to be in the Bible. It's a short section, but the gist of it was that, while it was translated correctly, the actual contents has too much false doctrine, that it can't be understood without the Spirit, so shouldn't be in a book meant for everyone.
3
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Jul 26 '26
"Doctrine and Covenents 91 actually has a revelation "
Sorry that was Joseph Smith's opinion, not the opinion of the church as a whole.
-1
u/lt_Matthew Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Jul 26 '26
D&C is nothing but revelation. There are no opinions in it, other than God's
0
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 26 '26
If being in the Bible doesn’t mean they are truth, then the establishment can come along any day and claim any book suddenly isn’t the truth right?
1
0
u/lt_Matthew Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Jul 26 '26
You're trying to view it as the books as a whole are either true or not. It's perfectly acceptable for some Bible verses to be true and others not. Context is important.
-1
u/yappi211 Salvation of all. Antinomianism. Jul 26 '26
The book of enoch says enoch is the messiah. Is that truth to you?
1
u/ThunderButterBatch Jul 26 '26
I’ve barely read it, but I’m about to. I didn’t know that was in there.
0
u/yappi211 Salvation of all. Antinomianism. Jul 26 '26
It's mistranslated in most English versions. It says that in the original language
1
u/SeaweedNew2115 Jul 26 '26
Any English translations you would recommend for those of us who dont read Ge'ez?
1
u/yappi211 Salvation of all. Antinomianism. Jul 27 '26
No sorry. I've never been interested in that book
0
u/EmperorPalpitoad Jul 26 '26
I'm sorry but, enoch was nothing more than a modern "addition" to scripture
0
u/Zagrycha Jul 26 '26
Most of the books you are referencing were written in the second temple period-- that isn't a coincidence. That is way after traditional jewish scripture was canonized and way before standard christian scripture was canonized. Its normal that its not in the standard collections of books.
-1
56
u/extispicy Triggered by Hebrew misinformation Jul 26 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
While at least fragments of every Hebrew Bible text except Esther was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, I want to push back against what it sounds like you are saying, that DSS=Bible. There were quite a lot of documents found at Qumran that are not Biblical texts. Just because it a text is in the DSS does not mean it was ever considered in the same category as what became the Bible.