Jump to content

Talk:Enoch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.74.191.229 (talk) at 07:32, 13 December 2013 (→‎Enoch/Hermes/Idris). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

People of Nod

Who was Enoch's mother. Where did the people of Nod come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.138 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nod is a typo, it comes from a hebrew root meaning wandering, i.e. Cain went to the land of wandering, having been condemned to wander. There weren't any people there because it isn't a place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nod is not a typo, it is a term for the "Land of the Nomads" which, reasonably could be called so as a result of Cain's arrival (ie he is the original Nomad). What is not so clear is where the woman came from who was to be his wife and Enoch's mother. God had created Adam and Eve, who begat Cain and Able - that's it. No female children. So where did she come from? Also, how can Cain have become the founder of a City when it could only have consisted of three people? Begs the question, "Where did the people of Nod come from?" - women to marry and enough other folk to justify the term "City". -- RobinsonN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.250.65 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nod is a typo. It cannot mean "land of the Nomads", Nod is a proper noun and comes from the root wandering, it is very contorted to make it "Nomads".
As for Cain's wife, Classical Rabbinical sources said that Cain's wife was either Lilith or Lilith was her mother. Thus neatly avoiding the problem.
Also note that the bible has a tendency to avoid mentioning daughters whether or not they exist (due to ancient attitudes towards women), so there could be thousands of daughters and it still wouldn't mention them. Also note that the longevity of the ante-diluvians would mean that Cain was still alive and able to found a city in the time of Lamech, when there were many more individuals.
Also note that "found a city" does not require there to be a substantial population in their time. Romulus supposedly founded Rome, despite being a singular individual.
The Pilgrim Fathers founded America, but there really weren't that many of them at the time, just one boat's worth at most. --User talk:FDuffy 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It may be a translation error, but the idea of a 'typo' in Biblical scripture is a little anachronistic. I still maintain that the Land of Nod, once translated as the "Land of Wandering", indicates a place where one would wander. Whether it is named this because Cain wandered through it after being expelled, or because there were already wanderers there is unclear and would help clarify whether there were other people at that time.
Rather than avoiding the problem, the Lilith option can be used to solve another problem, namely where, if the Jews are Gods chosen people, the Gentiles came from. The implication is that anyone not descended of Adam and Eve is part demon.
This tendency to selectively mention women is problematic in the extreme. There are those who suggest that women were once far more prominent, if not dominant, but references have been systematically removed from records since before Moses' time.
I accept all points made on the subject of founding the City. -- RobinsonN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.250.65 (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Reference Necessary?

Is the Star Trek reference really necessary? Even were it the same name, I'd wonder if it were worth including on the page. But since it's a name that just sounds similar, it seems too trivial to keep here. --William Pietri 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the star trek reference is completely unrelated. --PhilipW 02:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose for "pop-culture" trivia, the star trek reference is important. Unlike the two previous opinions, I don't find it to be a distraction; rather, as informative (admittedly, trivial) as it is intended to be. --RobertsJ--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.228 (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADAM had Daughters

It helps if you know or read the bible. Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters SO yeah, Adam was alive for 900 odd year so he had PLENTY of daughters. Only key children are mentions in the bible. -astenb

Category

People have placed this article in category:Jewish history. Are we suppose to believe that someone who lived 365 years and was taken by God to the sky was a historical character? --JLCA 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical text?

How is it that the biblical text concerning Enoch walking with God that is quoted is not referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.54.50 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the relevant citation. The portion you refer to is Genesis 5:22 through 5:24, but the relevant information in the article's introduction includes information through to 5:29. By the very fact that you're here writing on a Talk page means that you likely have some interest in the subject, and the info is right at the beginning of the Book, so remember to be bold! :) --Thisisbossi 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the last line in the first paragraph, "However, Hebrews 11:13 claims that Enoch (along with Abel, Noah, and Abraham) died." seems to be in error. Hebrews 11:5 makes it clear that Enoch did not die, but was "translated" (KJV) a term which is rendered "taken up," "carried away," or "transposed," in other translations. "By faith Enoch was taken away without experiencing death. He could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he won approval as one who pleased God." Heb 11:5 ISV. DaveBoyd 2:44PMCDT 03122012.

Curious omissions

I find it interesting that the article does not so much as nod towards Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley, not to mention masonic lore. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's more the curious structures of heavenly gates, windows and directions in Book of Enoch seem also to relate to some sort of Stonehenge-like structure, viz., (Laurence trans.) Chapter LXXI [Sect. XIII], if not Stonehenge herself. Dr. Dee mentions his own discovery of a pre-Enochian language; some his "actions" with Kelley more resemble the semi-political workings of the Witch of Endor than the inspirations of Enoch or the seeings of Emanuel Swedenborg or Andrew Jackson Davis. 71.51.77.3 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the church (and pronouns)

The article states that the book has "been rejected by the church". Shouldn't that be A church? And it would be nice to know which one(s) reject it.

That little portion of it is probably more encyclopedic than Wikipedic... "persuade us"? Who is "us"? I'm not going to go looking for the WP:xxx thing for this but I think it's generally frowned upon to use first person pronouns in any form?125.236.211.165 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my understanding for some years that the compiler of the Bible, namely Jerome, rejected Enoch as a book therefor on account of the several, fourteen I think, versions he was confronted with during his compilation process. Thinking about that multiplicity of Enoch versions led me to conclude that it were probably indeed an ancient book even in Jerome's time, and that those versions had reached his cave by some very diverse routes. It is interesting to muse that perhaps the Apostles & Jesus had gathered some of those versions to use as compilations or recipes for their activities -- and that perhaps the migration of some of the Jerusalem survivors into Gaul were a basic migratory motion toward Stonehenge. The early "Church" in following Jerome, adopted his compilation as Vulgate and thus were Enoch's book(s) omitted -- nothing is ever so very simple, though, in reading any or all the remaining versions of Enoch, how indeed could one easily include the materials...69.69.19.79 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

last paragraph, rabinnical literature, original research? relevance? Citations?

and other stuff

The Enoch son of Cain (Genesis 4:17) is not grandson of Adam. As Cain is not mentioned in the generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1-18) in the original text nor in any of the translations. This coincides with ancient documentation that Cain was never seed of Adam, pointing to a deeper and sinister origin of Cain in the Garden of Eden. The fruit that Lucifer tempted Eve to partake of in the Garden was not a fruit but carnal knowledge. Trees (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) have been always a reference of "people" in the bible (as "Descendants" are also referred as "Seed").

This is a very interesting passage, and personally I think it may be important to clarify it. "The Enoch son of Cain is not grandson of Adam."... What? Were Cain and Abel not sons of Adam? I'm not really disputing it, I'm no bible scholar... "As Cain is not mentioned in the generations of Adam" -- ahh, now we are getting clearer. Does that indeed necessarily negate the possibility that he is Adam's son? Sorry to shake the tree here. "nor in any of the translations" .. wait... what?? ANY of the translations? According to who exactly? How many translations are there? Original Research? WP:NOR "The fruit that Lucifer tempted Eve to partake of in the Garden was not a fruit but carnal knowledge." ... Again, according to who? The Bible in front of me (heavily translated as it may be) merely claims that the apple was an apple, no more, no less. Perhaps something in the way the original text is rendered shows that it is more than a mere apple but I don't think it's our job to deduce, speculate or assume this. Besides, if it were our job to do so, we would be researching or calculating the will of God - and not by inspired works, but by human effort. One could argue that the nature of the fruit is irrelevant and all that matters is their sin in disobeyed God's instruction to not eat it. In any event, I'm sure that this is discussed in the article where it is actually even relevant at all. "Trees (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) have been always a reference of people in the bible" -- with all due respect, how do you know, and what does said tree exactly have to do with Enoch at this point?

So we have: - a discussion of Cain's origin, which is of questionable relevance - a discussion of botany, which is of questionable relevance - a question of metaphor, also hard to see how it relates to Enoch - no citations - possibly a lot of speculation

I don't really mean to point the finger and accuse ;-) .. If I thought that I could do better, I would. I was just passing through.

I think that a big first step would be to check all the "External Links" for relevance and try to use them as citations where appropriate. Then citations should be added to any other wanting parts of the article as this would help clarify it. Following that an editor (me!? oh no) could verify the relevance of each portion of the article.

It's a wonderful article, I'm very pleased to see it represented and learned a lot from it.. Thanks for your attention, I hope I haven't overly restated the obvious, stepped on anyone's toes, offended anyone etc.125.236.211.165 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: If an external link is a reference, then it should be indicated as a reference and not as an external link 125.236.211.165 (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Traditions?

I think there needs to be some explanation how Enoch could exist in Hindu traditions. I'm not familiar with any details of Hinduism, but I never learned of it utilizing any Judeo-Christian traditions. Did some parts of Jewish scripture get absorbed into the Hindu scriptures? If so, when and how? 69.95.232.2 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, presumably added as a joke. Jooler (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that chakras and kundalini could be related to Enoch, but I have no way of knowing/proving this now. 69.157.239.212 (talk)
The Enochian seven "levels of Heaven," like the seven layers of Humbaba's armor (Epic of Gilgamesh) and the seven devils cast out of Mary Magdalen -- may well all be related to the seven chakra structures of Hinduism, i.e. internal, psychological as well as physiological reference places. Nowhere does one read of pandits or scholars claiming Enoch as an incarnation of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva -- yet then very few are openly willing to claim Christ as an incarnation of Vishnu, either. 71.51.77.3 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A clue as to some tentative relationship may possibly be found in the linguistic closeness of "Idris" and "Indra" who seem to share some attributes as well. 69.69.19.79 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related figures

This article should improve the section which talks about figures who were thought to be related to Enoch. In particular :

  • Enoch / Metatron ?
  • Metatron / Holy Spirit ?
  • Enoch / Wandering Jew ?
  • Enoch / Count St. Germain ?
  • Enoch / Proclus ?
  • Enoch / Thoth ?
  • Etc ?

For Enoch-Metatron the relation is simple and it is already pointed out about 3 Enoch (to rewrite article 3 Enoch is in may to-do, but not a priority). About Enoch/Fu-Xi I dont know. I know only that according to many apocriphal litterature Enoch (as Fu-Xi) was the inventor of writing. A ntv (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figurists are Jesuits priest during the 17th and 18th century and it was a huge Chinese Rites controversy that influence Catholic compatibility with local beliefs in China among the Catholics. The Jesuit Priest upheld these beliefs that was successful in penetrating China and serving at the Imperial court from 1689 until there was a decree by Clement XI and Benedict XIV to regard Confucious and local customs as superstitious and not social. This was reversed by Pope Pius XII. It affected the spread of Catholism in China from 1721 to 1939. All Figurists agreed upon the belief that a certain period in the Chinese history does not belong to the Chinese only but to all of mankind. The Jesuits furthermore believed that Chinese history dated back before the Flood and was therefore as old as European history. This made the Figurists believe that the two histories were equal in religious importance. According to the Figurists at the time, Noah's son Shem would have been to the Far East and would have brought with him the knowledge of Adam. Among their beliefs is the link between Enoch and Fu Xi. These are significant and historical decisions that changed a country's historical interaction with Rome. Joachim Bouvet publish some of the text with his conclusion that Chinese had known the whole truth of the Christian tradition in ancient times and that this truth could be found in the Chinese classics. User:Topsaint User talk:Topsaint 18:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to Enoch-Fu Xi linkages are

  • Li, Shenwen, 2001, Stratégies missionnaires des Jésuites Français en Nouvelle-France et en Chine au XVIIieme siècle, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, L'Harmattan, ISBN 2747511235
  • Etat présent de la Chine, en figures gravées par P. Giffart sur les dessins apportés au roi par le P. J. Bouvet (Paris, 1697)


The link of Islamic view of Enoch leads to an irrelevant page?--Zakkour (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of Enoch

There ought to be an article on the Pillars of Enoch, which could borrow from this site. [1] ADM (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch and Judeo-Christian morality

Some ancient treatises of Judeo-Christian morality appear to have a strong Enochian element, for example in the opposition to abortion and contraception. It would be interesting to try and examine the influence of Enochian teachings in the moral aspect of Abrahamic religion. ADM (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Grandson of Adam?

Surely as son of Cain, the first Enoch was the grandson, not great grandson of Adam? I've amended the opening paragraph accordingly. If I've overlooked something here, please explain here and change it back. Rojomoke (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename article

Please consider renaming this article Enoch, son of Jared as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong icon

The icon does not represent enoch and elijah. It is st. Anthony and st. Paul the hermit. Please change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.182.138 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figures seem to be labeled ... can anyone read it/recognize the language? The12thMan (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch/Hermes/Idris

There are different trusted sources those accept Prophet Idris was Hermes Trismegistus and as well as, suspects there shows he is Enoch? What is correct and according to what certainly? Wikipedia seems confusing in fact, Idris = Enoch (?). Davion 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's fault; the subject is open to interpretation. What is generally considered facts: 1) Thoth was an Egyptian God; and scribe for the other gods 2) Hermes was a Greek God; and messenger for the other gods 3) Mercury was a Roman God; and messenger for the other gods 4) Hermes-Trismegistus became a fusion god in the Roman era combining the three gods (Hermes, Thoth, Mercury) into a new messenger god 5) Enoch was a Jewish Patriarch in the Tanakh 6) According to Jewish medieval apocrypha Enoch is Archangel Metatron, the voice of God 7) Idris was a pre-Islamic Prophet according to the Quran; his name means Interpreter Therefore Thoth could be Hermes, who could be Mercury, and they all could be Hermes Trismegistus, and perhaps also Enoch and/or Metatron, and Idris too. However, if you want to know what is correct and certain, you'll need to ask God who his voice/interpreter/scribe/messenger is. 70.74.191.229 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Enoch Died"

I suggest removing the bolded text in the quote below:

The second mention is where the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews writes, "By faith Enoch was transferred, that he should not see death, and was not found, because God had transferred him; for before his transference he had the witness that he had pleased God well." (Hebrews 11:5) Later in the chapter, Verse 13 adds that Enoch died, along with Abel, Noah, and Abraham.

The relevant portion of Hebrews 11:13 reads (in the NIV): "All these people were still living by faith when they died." Without a citation showing that scholars believe the passage is referring to Enoch's death, this probably should be deleted as original research. I would imagine commentators see Enoch as an exception to verse 13 since according to verse 5 he didn't see death; at least that is the view in Gill's, Matthew Henry's and other commentaries I've seen. The12thMan (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the text in bold - feel free to discuss. The12thMan (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Oddity

At the beginning of the article it says that you spell 'Enoch' חֲנוֹךְ, in biblical hebrew and in modern/tiberian hebrew you pronounce it 'Hankok'. Surely it would be 'Kanok' as ח is the letter 'khet' as opposed to the similar looking letter 'Heh' (ה in hebrew). Is this oddity due to someone misreading the hebrew mistaking ח for ה so Kanok became Hanok or have I made the mistake? --Grammarbishop8 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch is not a "Character" but a MAN

I find it offensive that Enoch is referred to as a "Character" and not a man. It's insinuating he's a myth or cartoon. How can we change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.139.190 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably don't.
As a person Enoch did not do anything to deserve a stand alone article. His only importance is as a character in the texts.
However, if you wanted to push your point, you would need to start by providing reliable published sources that indicate that a significant portion of the mainstream academics in the field hold that his importance is as a specific historical personage rather than a character in the texts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enoch&oldid=585874872"