Talk:Book of Enoch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

citations

To "Codex Sinaiticus" :

A couple of citations, as requested, for major authorities stating the 5-part macrostructure of 1Enoch (with lesser additional chunks):

Vanderkam, JC. 1Enoch:A new translation (Minneapolis:Fortress,2004), p1ff (ie. preface summary)

Nickelsburg, GW. Hermeneia:1Enoch1 (Minneapolis:Fortress,2004), p7-8

I expect Charlesworth (1985?) also mentions this in his summaries within his OT Pseudepigrapha series, but my copy is on loan till Monday. RH Charles recognized litterary units - he does refer to it but again I dont have the material to hand to cite. And indeed this theory was first posited as far back as the mid c19 by some German scholar whose name I forget! And just glance down the page of the current article ... does not the consensus opinion of different dates for the different sections suggest to you distinct compositions?!

I can only imagine you have some personal academic/religious agenda in requesting citations over this point (of all the 'dubious' uncited assertions in the article!); it is fairly apparent to even the the non-expert familiar with the material (and isn't influenced by religious concerns) that we are likely dealing with several separate compositions that themselves have highly complex redactional histories. (Naturally any outline beyond the most superficial lies in the realms of academic journals, not wiki!)

I have changed the wording back from "some" to "most modern scholarship" (instead of my previous "most scholars").

172.215.181.32 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pov pushing, you have not demonstrated that "most" "scholars" think Enoch was originally 5 different works, only that "some" do. This is a recent view, and furthermore it is incorrect because Enoch was NOT composed of five separate works. It might be added that this view is unsupported speculation, no matter how many modern "scholars" adopt this line. People have been trying to trample Enoch in the dirt for thousands of years, beginning with the Pharisee council of Yavneh which replaced it with the Talmud, now in the age of internet it is no longer feasible to blot ot out of existence, will you stop at nothing to smear it??? It remains a holy book in Ethiopia no magtter what lies you tell. (ውይይት) 01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

01:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Ethiopic version was just about all that was available until c19, the view of it being a composite work (1850s) is actually surprisingly old. This issue is not even discussed any more in academic circles, but taken as a given. It might be a holy book in Etheopia, but the fact remains that most modern scholars (or rather, any that are respected in academic, as opposed to religious, circles) it is a composite work. You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact. It is a FACT (absolutely indisputable, in that they can be numbered) that most modern scholars hold the OPINION that it is a composite work. And that opinion is, in their eyes at least, far from unsupported (otherwise peer review would criticise it as such). You are right that this issue is 'pov pushing', but it is you who is doing it. Just because you hold an opinion doesnt make it the majority opinion. You are abusing wiki, using it to unduly emphasise your miniority religious opinion, despite citation. So I have reverted to my version once again. By all means include (non-OR, and thus preferably cited) information over the opposing view, but leave the FACT that most modern scholars (be they right or wrong) affirm a composite nature. 172.141.236.166 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote this gem : "beginning with the Pharisee council of Yavneh which replaced it with the Talmud". You may wish to read the wiki article on the Talmudim. This council was unrelated, being a faw centuries too early for any involvement! 172.141.236.166 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You can only claim "most" scholars hold that opinion, if with typical arrogance, you pretend that Ethiopian scholars do not count. The work has been studied intensely in Ethiopia, and long before 1850. Stop pushing your pov and keep the article neutral. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there isn't any actual EVIDENCE that might actually CONVINCE someone that it was once five separate works, beyond the bald assertion of a bunch of western scholars who are trying to foist that view, and make peoples' minds up for them, who are supposed to be just taking their word for it... If there is any real textual EVIDENCE for such a view, it might be more relevant to our article, but there isn't... "Scolars have determined that it is Maccabean, and so it is, because anyone who disagrees is ostracised and disqualified..." Please... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A "bald assertion" by a bunch of Western scholars? Be it a "bald assertion" or not, they are not tied to a fundamentalist religious dogma that requires them to state otherwise. Any early Ethiopean study would not have had access to more recent mss dicoveries, and in any case could not acknowledge them as significant as they hold as dogma that their version is the original. Their view is worth stating in the article, but it MUST be stated as now being a minority view.

And I'm now registered here, despite seldom using (let alone editing) wiki. I shall again make the changes to the article in this same location. I have provided citations when requested, and could provide (litterally) hunderds more as required. I shall change 'most' to 'much', not because 'most' is wrong, but because it will leave you with no excuse to foist your "at least an equal number of scholars, and probably many more, who maintain the integrity of..." falsity upon other readers who may know no better. Wiki is not a soapbox from which you can maintain your minority religious dogma to the suppression or marginalization of majority opinions. I shall ask for an administrator to intervene under the 3RVR rule if you seek to impose your POV on the article again. And stop replacing your name in signature with ???? - its getting boring editing it back in! Tobermory 16:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

By changing my signature, you are the one violating official policy... Please have a minimum of coutesy and abide by the rules... I have stated nothing false, for every "expert" on Enoch who states that it was originally 5 documents, there are four others who state it probably was not... Your obvious anti-religiouis bigotry notwithstanding... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, striking through... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - didn't occur to me you would be using Unicode characters in sig - looked like an odd attempt at anonymity :) All displaying properly for me now .... typical edit conflict too *sigh*. And far from anti-religious I can assure you. However I quote some wise words of Kant : "Religion without science is empty, science without religion is vain" :) Synthesis of religious 'revelaed truths' with observed 'facts' has been a problem for philosophers since the Mu'tazilites, and arguably (in a less systematic way) since the Greeks. Neither camp has all the answers. Because of that, both sides need a hearing, which is why both your view, and the view of modern scholars (which i happen to share, from a position of some acquaintance with the text) need to be listed in the article. Your view remains the view of religious scholarship, and mine of academic scholarship. Without coming to a blanket value judgment of their individual conclusions, it will be recognized by most that research in the modern world is governed by post-enlightenment ideals - namely on the basis of evidence! Where there is a refusal to move with the times, it necesarily devalues any opinions formed under such conditions. Tobermory 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but it's really not quite that simple as to say my view is the view of "religious scholarship"... It depends what religion you are talking about... Most of the "scholars" who first said it was not canonical were after all religious... And many secular scholars like Wossene say it was all one document... But you are entitled to your point of view, although I've still never seen anything at all really convincing in the text of a Maccabean date, and it takes a little better argument than "because we don't have to say what the Church says"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

An individual may be religious, but that doesn't mean that their academic output will reflect their religious beliefs. Equally, someone who 'lacks religion' may not be free of its influence. Academic scholarship tries hard to disown external interest (although it can never be totally successful in doing this) to attain the 'truth'. Religious scholarship has a religious motive (personal or otherwise), and the 'truth' of an opinion is often judged according to its correspondence with accepted tradition (religion is inherently conservative). It is that which separates the religious scholar from the academic scholar. A scholar who doesnt have to agree with the Church is not necessarilly correct in his opinions, but one that does have to agree with the Church is more likely to be wrong because he has less freedom of thought and cannot respond to new evidence (unless you presuppose the default accuracy of church tradition, that is! Lets not go there ...). Tobermory 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tobermory 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The COW

Is this comment really necessary?

Female heifer is Eve (notice she becomes a cow)

If Adam is a bull, and Cain a calf, and Abel a calf, does it not follow logically that Eve is a heifer? What exactly am I supposed to notice about Eve as "she becomes a cow"? I'm curious. I can only presume that whoever made this comment is insinuating that it is an insult. Try stepping out of your prejudices and 21st century mind and how you may perceive that a cow is a derogatory term for a woman. Here on Wikipedia itself it states that a heifer is a term of endearment, but an insult when referring to a woman who is fat.

This is POV and should be deleted.

Good thing it doesn't say Adam is a dog or this person would probably start their own conspiracy website.

Lusitano Transmontano 17:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My addition

I added a minor sentence to disambiguate the name 'Azazel'. If anyone has a problem with my edit, please tell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerowren (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Recent edits by Ierome

I am having some trouble following the recent contributions by Ierome (talk ;; contribs). Would someone familiar with this topic please review his multiple edits? I spotted several things that added weasel words and some dubious information, in addition to the numerous spelling errors, but I do not want to revert portions of it for fear that changes may then go unnoticed; and I also don't want to revert the entire thing since it seems that he made an honest attempt at improving the article. Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

reverts by Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus keeps reverting a change which it seems to me is completely reasonable:

Old text:

The Jewish Sanhedrin at Yavneh c. 90 AD removed this book from its Scriptures. Partly due to this, the book was discredited after the local Christian Council of Laodicea in 364, which quite a few scholars regard as being a nonexistent council, interestingly enough.

The Greek text was subsequently lost as well as the Hebrew.

New text (by Rocksong):

By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception). The Greek text was subsequently lost.

The Jewish Sanhedrin at Yavneh c. 90 AD removed this book from its Scriptures.

I think the improvements are obvious.

1. I remove the reference to a single list of Council of Laodicea, and replace it with a link to the fuller article Biblical canon which discusses all the different lists. The old article gives the impression Laodicea was the key moment in Enoch being denied canonicity, but I know no evidence for this and the Biblical canon article suggests it wasn't. 2. I remove a link between the Yavneh (90 AD) and Laodicea (364 AD) which is made without any citation. 3. I remove the unencyclopedia comment "interestingly enough". 4. I remove the mention on the Hebrew text because this section is about the Christian church which used the Greek. The existence of a Hebrew version is disputed, and discssed elsewhere in the article anyway.

Codex Sinaiticus accuses me of "suppression", which is strange because I link to more infomation at Biblical canon. s/he also doesn't like the change of order - well I don't care which way the order goes.

Anyway, I don't do edit wars. Can someone else offer an opinion on my edit, and restore it if they think it is reasonable. Rocksong 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'm italian, sorry for my english). If this can help you, Book of Enoch is not in jewish biblical canon because is not write in hebrew: all non-hebrew books at Yavneh were declared apocriphal. About christian biblical canon, is apocriphal because it is not in Septuaginta: only this books were inclused in christian bible.

I've write the italian article it:Libro di Enoch, and imho is better (full, easy, orderly) than english article. --Robertoreggi 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The question then, of course, is how was it decided which books belong in the apocrypha, because this list is different for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox churces. Anyway, thank you for pointing me to the Italian article. I can actually understand a fair bit of it, especially the references (i.e. the list of citations of Enoch by the Church Fathers). Rocksong 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken up to heaven, why mention Elijah and/or Mary at all?

Recently there have been numerous edits to the sentence in the first paragraph about Enoch being taken up to heaven; and whether to mention Elijah and/or Mary and/or Jesus. My suggestion (which I've done): delete the entire sentence entirely, and let it be discussed instead at Enoch (ancestor of Noah). This article is Book of Enoch, so should primarily be about the book. Peter Ballard 02:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Psudo?

Does anyone know why it is considered psudo, why the Jews first removed it from their cannon, and anything else about the reasoning behind all that? 201.90.205.203 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to log in. SadanYagci 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

See Pseudepigraphy for the answer. 71.92.157.95 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

old church slavonic is not first-century AD

it was claimed that the old church slavonic text was "c. first century" but this is clearly impossible. nothing in OCS was written before the 9th century. Benwing 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A typo?

I am going to replace the word 'pseudobiographical' with the word 'pseudepigraphical', as it looks like a typo to me. Mauror (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow I just learned a new word... though I wouldn't say that "pseudobiographical" was a typo; I'd say the user intentionally meant to add in the combination of "pseudo-" and "-biographical" to mean the same thing. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm unsure how editing on wiki works, however I need to make a correction. In the article, I quote, "Whilst this book does not form part of the Canon of Scripture for the larger Christian Churches, various groups, including the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church of Alexandria, regard parts or all of 1 Enoch to be inspired Scripture." This statement is 100% falseItalic text. The "book of Enoch" is not part of the deutrocanonical books under the beliefs of the Apostolic churches - Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic. --MikhaelAdly 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's 100% true. It's not part of the deuterocanonical books for any other Churches, but it most definitely is for the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, as the article states. I have an Ethiopian Bible right here with Mets'hafe Henok (Book of Enoch) included right at the beginning of the deuterocanon. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I am Coptic Orthodox. Before you make accusations, please back up your claims and I'll be happy to discuss this. Thanks. --MikhaelAdly 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't know how the Coptic Church sees Enoch, and I don't know what editor added that they include it. But the Book of Enoch is most definitely in my Ethiopian Bible with the Deuterocanon, and it is most definitely considered canonical in Ethiopia. That's my source. You can find it in any copy of the Ethiopian Bible that includes the Deuterocanon. What else would you like to know? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Having spoken with a friend about the Ethiopians, yes they are going through some internal problems, but I will do the research. In terms of us, Coptic Orthodox, we do not accept the "Book of Enoch", it is still pseudo.. How can I go about editing the article? Thanks--MikhaelAdly 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the same way you edited this talk page. But I think you still have somewhat more to learn about our standards; which you can read here WP:VER. Conversations you had with your friend "about the Ethiopians" are basically useless for our purposes. Ethiopians may or may not be "going through internal problems" politically, but that is irrelevant to the position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church which is unambiguous on its canon, and has issued several definitive statements that they consider Enoch to be canonical, and part of the Bible. Haile Selassie, whom you may have heard of, even stated this and made sure it was translated into modern Amharic from the ancient Ge'ez version, and that is the same version still appearing in Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles today. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be a mention of Dr. John Dee and Enochian Magick/Language mentioned here, The Book of Enoch was integral to his system. Perhaps I will add a link at least ... for now. Khirad 05:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text of the Book of Enoch was considered lost until the beginning of the 17th century, when it was confidently asserted that the book was found in an Ethiopic translation in Abyssinia...

I'm not clear on this. Was Enoch not part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon until that discovery, or was it just unknown outside of Ethiopia? It seems hard to believe it would be considered "lost" if it was in a church's canon.--Cuchullain 05:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It was almost entirely unknown outside of Ethiopia. For Jews, Enoch was one of the books cut from the Bible by the Sanhedrin at Yavne ca. 85 AD, and for those Christians covered by the Roman Empire, the very same list of books was cut by the council of Roman Bishops in AD 365, mainly because they could no longer be found in the Hebrew Bible. This is somewhat ironic, because the original reason they were cut from the Hebrew Bible in 85 AD, is because those were the books being used more by Christians than by Pharisees. Codex Sinaiticus 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that the book of Enoch mentions Mt. Sinai, which didn't exist in the time of Enoch as he was an antedeluvian. If you believe in the great flood as described in the book of Genesis, one would be hard pressed to believe that the launching place of the ark of Noah was anywhere near the modern Mt. Sinai and that the geological features persisted from pre-flood earth

Intresting question its the translated version that calls it Mt. Sinai I would imagine the Ethiopian has another name which we now know based on descriptions or old maps as Mt. Sinai? Also isn't a antedeluvian a grandchild of Caine? just no mention of this on his page so wondered where you heard that? --Shimirel 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Antediluvian is an Old Englisch word that means "from before the great flood." There is no connection to the fictional lore of Vampire: The Masquerade. --TheOtherStephan 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Something I found just now which you all might find intresting... "...The ONLY...geographical landmarks in 'Original Enoch' refer to Galilee! In I En.6, the 'angels, the children of heaven...descended into Ardos, which is the summit of Hermon.' "In 13.7, Enoch has been sent to deliver imprecations against the fallen angels and offer their prayers for forgiveness. 'And I went and sat down upon the waters of Dan - in Dan which is on the southwest of Hermon - and I read their memorial prayers until I fell asleep.' (Peter's Confession in Mk.8.27-30 is delivered in the environs of Caesarea Philippi, on the southwest approach to Hermon.) "In 13.8-9 Enoch's story continues, 'I came unto them while they were conferring together in Leya'el, which is between Lebanon and Sanzer...' Though 'Sanzer' is uncertain, apparently 'Leya'el' represented the Valley of Jezreel in Galilee." - Philip B. Lewis (CrossTalk) --Shimirel 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually some mountains did indeed exist before the Flood: "17And the flood was upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and the water abounded greatly and bore up the ark, and it was lifted on high from off the earth. 18And the water prevailed and abounded exceedingly upon the earth, and the ark was borne upon the water. 19And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and covered all the high mountains which were under heaven. 20Fifteen cubits upwards was the water raised, and it covered all the high mountains. 21And there died all flesh that moved upon the earth, of flying creatures and cattle, and of wild beasts, and every reptile moving upon the earth, and every man. 22And all things which have the breath of life, and whatever was on the dry land, died. 23And God blotted out every offspring which was upon the face of the earth, both man and beast, and reptiles, and birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth, and Noah was left alone, and those with him in the ark. 24And the water was raised over the earth an hundred and fifty days." - Genesis 7:17-24 LXX -- 66.144.34.5

Someone wrote in the code: "Since Bruce's discovery, an Old Church Slavonic translation has been identified" is this different from, or the same as, "2 Enoch"?

No its not Enoch 2 (different contents) its a number of copies of Enoch 1 in a couple of different languages I believe. In fact its this discovery that reinforces the belief that the book of parables is a later addition as it appears they may have been in Hebrew rather than Aramaic I believe. --Shimirel 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone the page is getting a bit on the long side '35 kilobytes long' at the present edition. I was wondering what you thought about splitting the books onto seperate pages allowing for additional expansion on the summary of each book part as and when people desired. So the content section would disappear, with the layout section linking out to each individual book. Like the way it does it with the Book of Giants with each page linking back to here from each page. Or another way might be to leave the content section with the layout of each book with a link going out for further details? What do you think? -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it quite helpful that it was all on one page and I think it should stay that way, unless it is a definite problem. 74.185.204.118 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)ExquisiteDelusions

---

My reasons for reverting your work: (ELohim) Really what the list would come across as is say 'perfection' + 'god' so you would say "perfection of God" or "perfection is God". Another example is Michael "he who is like God" or "likened unto God" the name hasn't changed just the interpretation of it. "No scholar in existence has suggested that el means 'in God', which doesn't make any sense since a name like Gabriel means "strong man of God", not "strong man of in God"." Actually you might take it to mean "strong man in god" aside from your comment being perhaps pov or rude it does not belong in an article thats what discuss is for. If you think its wrong take it out and give reasons here that back it up. Though I will change it to just God so someone can take whatever meaning they like. You changed Giants back to Nephilim ('again' and in directly quoted text), Nephilim is the name used in Genesis NOT from the book of Enoch, all translations that I've seen say giants. I was already adding a link to make this clearer before I ended up here. The reason for using 'it' to describe parts of the book rather than saying 'Enoch' is because its pseudepigraphal! I use Azâzêl, Semjâzâ, and Sêmîazâz et al because the translators would never write the translated versions as Azazel for instance. You shouldn't just mess around with the quotes of text if you have a later version (than is listed in notes) add the details in the notes section and then ill leave them in place by all means. "The original Hebrew would have" <sigh> see my history for the article edits not to mention reading it before editing it. Gods Kettle/Crucible/Cauldron you see all those names in different places so until someone can say which is 100% correct ill leave it like this. I've left your change to the dream visions alone for the simple reason you could be right :) I'm not confident enough at the moment to disagree with your interpretation. That said I do think the messiah is in fact "and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head" which does go along with Jesus so you may have misinterpreted. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

165.21.7.137 (talk) 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the Book of Enoch. In Chapter 41 verse 5 onwards, Enoch claims that the orbit of the sun and moon was divinely revealed to him, and how the couse is fixed and does not move off course. We all know, in this modern era through science that the sun does not orbit the earth. The earth orbits. How can divine inspiration be so wrong depicting the truth? Is someone going to say it should be interpreted differently? The writer must have been a great astrologer in his ancient heyday, but the book would most definitely be a counterfeit.

This page is for discussing changes to the article, not "disputing" the article subject. Though it might be argued that if we were to assume that somewhere over the centuries, people who were convinced the Sun moves around the Earth had altered the text by switching the words "Earth" and "Sun" accordingly, and that if we hypothetically switched it back, then it would describe the actual orbit of the Earth around the Sun (ie passing through twelve gates corresponding to the twelve months around a circle, 1st through 6th portal and then back to 1st on the other side) that would be only my own original hypothesis -- which just goes to show why we should really avoid using the talkpage for any criticism or debates except that which can be reliably referenced. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Since the 18th century an Old Church Slavonic translation has been identified, as well as two separate fragments of a Latin translation." - this is incorrect. Please remove the sentence from the article. There is not any fragments of 1 enoch preserved in Slavonic. Only 2 Enoch is preserved entirely in Slavonic.--Enochmetatron (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See Template:sofixit -- Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My friend the scripture is correct the sun revolve round the galactic center of milky way, yes the Sun has orbit.

Bezaliel

Can someone please edit Bezaliel to read better, and also figure out how to include Bezaliel in the Book of Enoch, so the orphan tag can be removed from the Bezaliel article? Kingturtle (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is too long

Article is now too long, and it is difficult to add information. I suggest to create separate Articles for at least Book of Parables of Enoch, Book of Dream Visions and The Epistle of Enoch where to place the content and typical information or scholar theories related only to them. A ntv (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Annunaki? Yeah, right.

Please source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I am disputing the neutrality of the current version by Dbachmann. He has referred to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church position that the book is not pseudepigrapha, as "lunatic fringe" in his edit summary. This is the Holy Book of Ethiopian Christians, and even though some other churches have declared this a "false writing" and "pseudepigrapha", we cannot neutrally take any stance either way. He has upset the neutral balance of this article. No other religion's Holy Scripture has to endure this indignity of being proclaimed false by wikipedia, per WP:NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You both are right because the term "pseudepigrapha" has two meanings: literally (and always in the catholic use) it means a text whose claimed authorship is unfounded. (a "pseudepigrapha" -according this literal meaning- can anyway be part of the canon: see the Ecclesiastes or the Proverbs). In the protestant use, due to the fact that the term "apocrypha" was used for only a limited number of texts in appendix of the KJV, the term "pseudepigrapha" started to be used to mean "out of the canon", even if there is not any claimed authorship. I suggest to keep Dbachmann version, but to modify it as follows: ..is a pseudepigraphic text (one whose claimed authorship is unfounded) ascribed to Enoch,.. and in the next paragraph While this book today is not regarded as scripture by Jews or most Christian groups instead of While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches (because "non-canonical" is linked to Biblical apocrypha and for protestants it is not at all a Biblical apocrypha but it is a pseudepigrapha). A ntv (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudepigrapha" is the POV of the European Church, controlled by Rome, who first placed it in that category when they rejected it from the "Canonical" and "Apocrypha" categories. If any modern scholars call this book "Pseudepigrapha" it is only because the Roman Church placed it in this category. Anyone attempting to deny that this is a categorization first given by the Church, should look up the history and etymology of "pseudepigrapha" in the OED. As such, it is inflammatory, and not at all neutral to endorse the POV that it is Pseudepigrapha, and to dismiss the opposing POV (that of the Ethiopian Church which accounts it the holiest of texts) as "lunatic fringe". If wikipedia were to go by the Roman Catholic canon, we could just as easily use the very same arguments to declare all other religions' books false or wrongly attributed - those sacred to Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other group. This is just the beginning of a "slippery slope", because the Roman Church does consider all of these religions books to be false, and scholars could just as easily be found who consider the contents of each of them "lunatic fringe". But what happened to WP:NPOV?? The Ethiopian Church, whose Bible this is, most definitely contests the "pseudepigrapha" label of other Churches, and holds Enoch "canonical"; we are not supposed to opt for the less neutral approach when a more neutral balance may easily be struck: ie, simply state which churches consider it canonical (the Oriental Orthodox), and which consider it pseudepigrapha (most other Churches), rather than take one side or the other and declare that it "IS" one or the other simply because "we" say so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Til, please come back once you have a case, and once you have understood the term "pseudepigraphy". The book is dated to roughly the 2nd century BC regardless of its canonicity. It is attributed to Enoch, ancestor of Noah. Now unless you want to argue Noah lived considerably later than the 2nd century BC, it follows that the book is pseudepigraphical. This is so obvious, it shouldn't need further elaboration. Of course, on Wikipedia, there will Always Be Someone who makes a fuss regardless, but that doesn't reflect the real world of educated debate. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments continue to be inflammatory and biased. The evidence that Enoch is dated to the 2nd century BC is considered very weak by Ethiopian scholars, who have undertaken immense studies of this book, and posit a far older date for it. This is a Holy Book in the EThiopian Church, and you seem determined to dictate that your world-view is the only correct one and hence "neutral" by your definition, while you also dictate that all other world views beside your own are incorrect and therefore "lunatic fringe". I am not going to stop until acceptable neutrality is resumed here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the term "pseudepigrapha" well and I have already pointed you to the OED to learn something of the history of the term. Contradicting what you said, it is a nomenclature introduced by the Roman Bishops in the 4th century, when they applied it to this book, but this decision did not take effect in the Ethiopian Church, outside the borders of Rome, where the Romans did not have jurisdiction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

then cite these Ethiopian scholars, and stop wasting time over idle attacks on my person. I do not contest it is a "holy book in the Ethiopian Church", so there is no reason for you to keep repeating the point. If you can cite any scholar, Ethiopian or not, who in a peer-reviewed Hebraist journal develops the thesis that this book was originally written by an ancestor of Noah around 4000 BC, feel free to cite that. Before you produce such a citation, you have no business creating a disturbance here. Look. pseudo-Eratosthenes means "not in fact written by Eratosthenes". Now Eratosthenes is in fact a historical author, while Enoch is just a legendary patriarch mentioned briefly in Genesis. For this reason it is not even appropriate to call this book "pseudo-Enoch", because there never has been a historical work written by "Enoch". It was just a fashion in 2nd century BC Judaism to name books after Torah characters, ok? Now please find a decent scholarly source contradicting this, or else drop the issue. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check the article, one of the most prominent recent Ethiopian scholars to state these views in his monograph on Book of Enoch, is already cited - Wossenie Yifru. ANd what you have stated about Enoch is your wn POV, but please look past your own nose and realise that there are people in the world who firmly believe things you do not believe. Simply asserting that you are right and they are wrong because you say so isn;t proving anything. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you did not understand by point at all. The "Church controlled by Rome" never spoke of "Pseudepigrapha" as a category of texts. It is a only protestant category. The catholic collection of these books are named "Apocrypha (=hidden away) of the Old Testament", while the protestants call them "Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament". Also the interest for a clearly limited canon is typical of protestants only, not of the Church of Rome, that have always kept in high estimation many apocrypha (think to the 4 Esdra). So, "Pseudepigrapha" for a catholic reader means only it is not written by Enoch himself (something very different from saying it is not inspired), while for a protestant reader it means "not inspired and false". Because of that, I can agree with you to leave out the ambiguous term "Pseudepigrapha". The only problem is that in English countries this text is usually included in collections named "Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament" A ntv (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it you haven't checked the etymology of pseudepigrapha in the OED yet. There is nothing wrong with saying whose POV is that it is pseudepigrapha. We just cannot neutrally say that it simply "is" pseudepigrapha because the EOTC specifically rejects this label. The purpose of NPOV policy is to word things if possible so that all POVs will be happy with it, but some editors seem to take particular relish in making sure that there will "always be someone upset", and wikipedia is like a game for them to see how many conflagrations they can ignite and how many people they can upset by defeating NPOV; and that is the problem here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I suggest to leave out the term pseudepigrapha but to explain the various POV about authorship with other words. By the way article is now too long, and it is difficult to add information. I suggest to create separate Articles for at least Book of Parables of Enoch, Book of Dream Visions and The Epistle of Enoch where to place the content and typical information or scholar theories related only to them. A ntv (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is, we should not leave out the term pseudepigrapha, rather we should attribute this pov to those who hold it (per WP:NPOV) rather than endorse it outright. The previous wording before yesterday preserved the neutral balance, and is more informative and accurate. But it was removed with the erroneous argument that churches did not declare it 'pseudepigrapha', "scholars" did and therefore they are right and everyone else is a "lunatic". This is sheer ignorance of the history of the word pseudepigrapha; it was indeed certain churches who first placed it in that category. And they can only speak for themselves, not across the board as if no one at all disputed it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there aren't "various POVs about authorship". The work is anonymous. It is "attributed" to "Enoch" in best 2nd c. BC tradition. Nobody holds the "pov" that it was written by an ancestor of Noah's. If anyone does, that would be a huge extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary referencing. This is a non-issue, inflated for the sake of antagonism alone, it has no substance. --dab (𒁳) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

These arguments about anonymity and difficult dates apply to plenty of texts from the time that aren't referred to by terms as tendentious as "pseudepigrapha". The discrepancy between date of authorship and the date of the text is frequent enough when texts are transmitted orally or otherwise before the extant/definitive manuscript is set down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.250.1 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adopting a magisterial tone will not change the fact that both the Ethiopian Church, and Ethiopian scholars such as the one already referenced, dispute that date, call the "evidence" for that hypothetical date weak to non-existent, and most of all, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church specifically disputes that it is pseudepigraphal and accounts it the holiest of books, yet Dbachmann considers them "lunatic fringe". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed in Canonicity

I can't divine the author's intent clearly enough to correct the ambiguity in the second sentence, below:

However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work. By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception).

The first sentence starts out talking about the Book of Enoch, but then switches to comment that some consider the Epistle of Jude uncanonical. This renders the pronoun "it" ambiguous in the subsequent sentence; does "it" refer to Jude or Enoch? rowley (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Word for "Biters"?

In this sentence in the description of the Watchers section...

Some suggest that 'biters' should read ' s' but the name is so unusual that some believe that the implication that's made by the reading of 'biters' is more or less correct.

...there appears to have been some vandalism; the proposed substitute for the word "biters" is missing. What was it supposed to be? rowley (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whup, I did a little research; the missing substitute word (perhaps it offended someone?) appears to have been "bastards," according to R.H. Charles, (Charles, p. 73; Michael A. Knibb, ed. and trans., The Ethiopic Book of Enoch [Oxford

Clarendon Press, 1978], p. 88). Interesting, though, the substitution of "biters" for "bastards," or "children of fornication." Any road, I have reinserted the offending? word into the bastardized text. rowley (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead section

I was hoping someone could improve the lead section of this long and detailed article by inserting a short paragraph of two or three sentences on the content of Enoch. I feel the intro as it stands doesn't do enough for people coming to the article with no prior knowledge. The section on its language seems a little specialized for introductory material; I would suggest condensing it for the intro and preserving the discussion for its own section. Most readers (like me) would probably prefer to get a snapshot of content first, and then the more scholarly questions. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Interpolations

I've been reading over some books about the Book of Enoch and they've been mentioning later Christian interpolations into the book. One scholar suggested that all refrences to the Son of Man were later additions. I think this should be noted in the article. I read over parts of the book and some of the "Christian-like" passages really kind of break up the flow and seem to just be stuck in. The aramaic pre-Christian fragments only make up about 5% of the book so we really don't know what it was like in the beginning. It makes it hard to say what was origional and what was taken from the NT and put back in, making it look the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't go by what it might "look like" to us; we are strictly bound by policy to restrict ourselves to attributing what specific sources have considered what specific passages to be later interpolations -- since there is disagreement. For example, the published position of the OOC, which includes this book as canon, is that the original Scripture included many old books such as this, containing prophecies of the Messiah, but that in about 80 AD, the Sanhedrin, faced with the growing Christian movement, deliberately decided to cut out most of the books that mentioned prophecy about a Messiah from the Hebrew Bible, including this one. Later, at the Council of Nicea, as the Hebrew version could no longer be found, it was also dropped by the Roman Empire's official Christianity, but was continued in the OOC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds vaguely famillair how Alexander the Great supposedly destroyed all of the Zoroastrain scriptures and that's why they're missing them... I'm just saying that the point should be made, even if it's just a sentence. On a similar note, I think the influence on the gospels is a bit overblown. It's just a personal opinion, I wouldn't edit the article. I've looked at different lists of similarities, and maybe except one or two ideas (mostly regarding Satan), aren't already expressed in the Old Testament. They're usually specifically messianic in nature, and no, I'm not reading into this with modern eyes since we know that the Jews of the first century took these specific texts as messianic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.76.77 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The only part of the Book of Enoch suspected to could be a Christian addition is the Book of Parables (the only that refers to the Son of Man, not found in Qumran), but the Article in the relevant section Book of Enoch#Book of Parables already gives (too) wide evidence of this old scholar position. By the way, nowadays all scholar texts as the cited Charlesworth, as well as the Isaac, the Nickelsburg and the Boccaccini (Eerdmans 2007, that is collection of modern paper on this subject) are unanimous to reject the idea of Christian addition. A ntv (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that but I was referring to individual additions over time by Christians. In fact, I wasn't even aware of the situation with the Book of Parables until about an hour ago. If the texts of the Old Testament were said to be edited the same way introducing new ideas, or even the gospels, I don't see why this text can't be immune especially if the book was held in high esteem by some groups. You wouldn't want to give the appearance of letting books get away with not being edited if they challenge traditional beliefs. That would be a double standard.69.254.76.77 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place then. This is wikipedia, we aren't supposed to conduct any of our own original research based on our own opinions or hypotheses here; we only present neutrally what the relevant viewpoints are, as can be found in already-published sources. There are many books about this topic; if you say you have some specific quotes making your point, we may be able to attribute them, although it is certainly easy to find many published quotes arguing the opposite point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some expressions in 1 Enoch that could be "Christinizations", as the title "Son of the Mother of all Living Ones": but usually the critical editions sign them (the aforementioned title is usually already translated "Son of Man" with the other occurrences of this tile, simply because it looks like to be unusual in a Hebrew text). But I'm not aware of any scholar that claim that 1 Enoch was interpolated with whole sentences to support Christian ideas. A ntv (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a stupid question

If scholars don't even know what the Book of Enoch's original language was, how can they estimate a date of composition? Normally that's done by features of the writing... but wouldn't that just give the age of the Ge'ez translation, not of the work itself? Vultur (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some scholarly books about the Book of Enoch written in Amharic by Ethiopian scholars, that argue with much evidence that the Ge'ez work isn't even a translation, but rather the language in which it was written, and that the other extant language versions were translated from it. There's really never any agreement across the globe about these kinds of thing, since it would be almost impossible to prove anything compellingly anyway. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

99.999% of the scholars reject the the idea it is a Ge'ez composition. The reasons are many: the more important is the founding in Qumran of Aramaic, Hebrew fragments, and also Greek fragments were found. The certain datation of these fragments made impossible a Ge'ez origin (the Ge'ez we have is typical of centuries later). Also before these discoveries, the 99.99% of scholars were sure of a not-Ethiopian origin, because its content is suitable only in a Palestinian 3 BC - 1 AD context. See for example the conclusions of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia [1]: "(1 Enoch) had become one book (about 60 B.C.)". A ntv (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion of 99.999% sounds to me like pov pushing, and I am highly skeptical of that figure. You are stuck in quoting pre-Qumran scholarship on Enoch? Quite a bit of attention has been given to this book by Ethiopian scholarship. The candidates are the Greek version, the Syriac / Hebrew version, or the Ge'ez version. There's probably no need to delve into the details of the internal evidence that has been thoroughly studied, but their main assertion is that the Ge'ez version is flowing and concise, while the other languages seem more wordy and elaborate and less natural flow (many more particles), while also less complete (huge missing sections). I respect that other opinions exist but we cannot take sides nor pretend there is an artificial "consensus" on something so controversial. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are those the only candidates? I thought it was presumed to be translated into Ge'ez from some other language (no evidence of which), then translated into Greek, Hebrew etc. from there? Vultur (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"No evidence of which?" Do you have a source for that 'presumption'? Obviously, the book was definitely written in SOME language. But if you fond some source who thinks it was written in, for example, Swahili first, and then later translated into a Semitic language like Ge'ez, we could consider using it in the article to demonstrate the wide array of viewpoints -- but we'd still need to see your source first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it could be ANY language: just that (AFAIK) there is no way of knowing which of the reasonable candidates is the actual original language. I'm wondering why (if we have, as you say, a Greek version, a Syriac/Hebrew one, and a Ge'ez one) the assumption is that ANY of these is the original. Isn't it more likely, if we have 3 of similar age that all seem like translations, that they are all translations of an original (whose language cannot now be determined, since no copies exist)?Vultur (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people think our purpose here is to try to do the detective work on the talkpage and figure out or prove what the "right" answer is, to these sorts of questions that, as you say, "there is no way of knowing" or convincing everyone what the answer is. In fact, such discussion is discouraged and technically not even allowed, as at some point it would involve what we call "Original research". Our only purpose here is to determine what significant viewpoints have already been published elsewhere, be they right or wrong, and to explain what they all are, and who holds them, as neutrally as possible. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean that we should do any OR, I'm just bringing up the issue because the article seems awfully uncritical of what it calls the 'Western' view, which seems awfully shaky in this case - the article says 'According to Western scholars its older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) date from about 300 BCE'; but what do 'non-Western' scholars say? The history section of the article just goes on with the 300 BCE and more recent view, and doesn't answer the question of what date the Ethiopian scholars who've talked about the book's history (there must be some!) assign it to - does anyone believe it was actually composed by a historical Enoch? do some people assign it a comparable age to the older Torah books? The article doesn't say. I just don't know how to find these sources myself... Vultur (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Canonicity section

Dear and respected contributors. I am new to this, and I wonder whether my changes have been done in the right way, and whether they will simply be reversed. If that is the case then at least they are on record so some may be restored. It is certainly not the intent to do anything which would reduce the value, objectivity, of the article.

I also apologise if the below is stating the blindingly obvious, please forgive me.

My concerns relate to the section "canonicity". In three areas:

1. Firstly, Canonicity has been treated as if it is entirely a Christian issue. This is a Jewish book of considerable antiquity and therefore there should be a section related to Jewish canonicity. please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon

2. Secondly, Canonicity is more than simply quoting, which is all the section describes at the moment. All sorts of books quote all sorts of other sources, written and oral. This in itself is not canonicity. Please see in particular the section of the Septuagint in the link above.

3. Thirdly Canonicity is related to form, and - particularly critical to Jewish textual traditions. It is well documented by Charles, Isaac, Nickelsburg, Vanderkam etc. that sections of 1En are midrashic. The nature of midrash per se is of dependent literature, for example 1En1 being dependent on De33.

In addition there is a significant grammatical issue in Jude's quote of 1En1:9 related to the use of dative "prophesied to them" which needs to be registered in any discussion of the quotation.

Finally the comments about the "influence" of 1Enoch on later works, Christian or Jewish, is somewhat overstated. For example, the examples of "influences" provided in the back of RH Charles full edition of the work do provide parallels, that is undeniable, but they do not occur in a universe that is empty of all kinds of alternative sources and influences. Actual direct 1-on-1 influence from Text A to Text B has to be demonstrated by verbal or content correspondence, and lack of alternative correspondence.

Again, very sorry if the above is stating the obvious. But that expresses my concerns with the canonicity section of the article. It does not seem to fit the frame of standard works on the subject In ictu oculi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me (I did deal with something that I noticed, but that was from before your edits), I reinserted a reference, but we could really use more (one could almost say that Wikipedia isn't about what is correct, but about what is sourced). I'm not going to delete it or put citation needed tags on it, I will revert deletions and only then will I put citation needed tags to quell deletion for a little bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian, Right, Thankyou - that I realise. I have a slight problem in that I physically don't have copies of my library on canon, or Enoch to hand right now, but should have some of them in 12 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)In ictu oculi (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WHOA! You're my hero, dude! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though that was slightly optimistic, I managed to find my notes, but probably am not going to be able to give the actual page numbers for each book so quickly. Please bump me for specific refs which look unsupported I will endeavour to improve/provide. Incidentally, I think this is an exceptional article on Wikipedia, please don't anyone take my niggling on the Canonicity section as being anything less than respect for the article as a whole In ictu oculi (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've modified your edit about the quotation from Isaac, restoring the original correct quotation. The Charlesworth edition (which include Isaac's paper) is considered the more relevant modern edition of these apocryphal. Be free to add an other referenced scholar quotation that supports your disagreement.

About the issue of the marriage of the angels I removed, the statement was unsourced, it went too deeply into detail in comparison to the rest of the section, and none -not even the Isaac- suggests an influence of 1E on angelogy, but only on demonology, thus it was off-topic.

That 1E has many points in direct contradiction with the Hebrew Bible, is something obvious. I suggest to find a scholar statement about this contradiction and to place it in the canonicy section.

Note: the issue of canonicy of 1Enoch is hot because it covers an area of religious Points Of View. I suggest to edit this Article only with high qualified scholar quotations (RH Charles is actually extremely dated), strictly following the WP:NPOV principle A ntv (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Those seem to me to be very reasonable edits. I can see that canonicity could/would be "hot", though nevertheless it is still an area with certain objective standards and scholarly norms. As I say I'm new to this, and though I have an extensive library of sources I do not have them to hand at the moment. So I will be guided by more experienced editors In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Book of Enoch and Jude

The two verses are identical. Jude even acknowledges in verse 14 that he is quoting Enoch.

The oldest manuscripts of the BoE are older than the Apostle Jude. The only other alternatives are:

• that God inspired the parts that appear in both Enoch and Jude.
• that some older manuscript is quoted by both the BoE and by Jude.

The first is outside the scope of Wikipedia (we can report if it is documented that some believe this, but we cannot say this is the case). The second has no evidence. To say that Jude wasn't quoting Enoch, when he said "and Enoch said (sentence identical to part of the BoE)" goes against common sense. Finally, the article has sources that say that "In the case of the Jude 14 quotation of 1Enoch 1:9 it is undeniable that a quotation has been made." To say that it is only claimed (as one editor has been doing) is unsourced and biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an illogical and unwise policy to be stating something as fact based on less than all the facts, which is what you are doing. If it is theoretically plausible that Jude got his information from somewhere else(i.e. Hebraic oral tradition, God, another book, ...) then that fact should be represented in the article. I also dispute the claim that the verses are identical(http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00810.html), which is essentially the supporting argument for your position. -98.155.49.197

Wikipedia is not concerned with "facts," but what is published in scholarly sources. What is published (and not self-serving) says that Jude was quoting Enoch (quoting doesn't affect Enoch, Paul quoted Plato and other Greek philosophers, but that doesn't make their works part of the Bible). By the way, it is hypocritical to accuse the article of being based on less than facts when you try to tell us that we should not go with what is published because of a possible tradition or book for which no evidence exists or something that cannot conclusively be proven at all (the existance of God). The site you bring up can only find differences because of different translators. The site does not give whose translation of Enoch they are using, and they have an agenda so we must question the value of their translation. In fact, both the R.H. Charles and Richard Laurence translations use "ten thousands" instead of millions, so the other site's translation has long since gone beyond suspect. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My position remains unchanged. Btw you might want to update your profile; Christians actually believe in God. -98.155.49.197

Faith is belief independant of proof or lack thereof, and your position (what I disbelieve in) is not God. If you want to change articles to match your personal beliefs instead of scholarly sources and attack the faith of others (instead of loving them) just because they disagree with you (see Luke 9:50), then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the scholars agrees that Jude is quoting BoE. There is already one quotation, but it is easy to find more of them (and the fact that the very early Christian writers belived that BoE was scripture supports this position). By the way, if you can find a reference of the contrary (I can, but I have no time), we can add something like conservative Christian scholars, as xx, disagree on the fact that there is a quotation of BoE in Jude. And please, in Wiki talk pages, speak only of the subject of the Article, not of the faith of other contributors. A ntv (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Translated passage from Wosene Yefru

This is getting a little interesting, isn't it? So much that I've spent a little while just now translating a sample page from the first chapter of Wosene Yefru's 82 page scholarly work in Amharic. The rest of the book is full of similar detailed examples. Note, I don't know how my quick translation would compare with the published English translation Antv found online, since I cannot get it. If anyone wants to see the original Amharic I translated this from, I will be happy to give it here on request. We have already seen that this scholarship is peer reviewed, and from a journal. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To briefly explain the syntax of these, consider the following sentences taken from the Book of Henok:
"we'awkske Henok weyibe bi'isi tsadiq ze'imhebe 'Igzi'abihier 'inze 'a`intihu kisutat. Weray'i ra`iyu qidus zebesemayat ze'aryeni mela'ikt wesema`iku 'imhibihomu kulu we'a'imerku 'ane ze'ari'a we'ane lez tiwild 'ale yimets'u tiwild rihuqan be'inte hiruyan."
When biblical scholars (Dan, Charles, Lydel, Scott, Fleming, Eulendorf and Kniebe) examined the above-quoted sentences, they noted the differences and similarities that the sentence structure and syntax have in these sentences. What the Ge'ez sentence says is "Henok answered and said thus". In contrast, what the the Greek sentence says is "Henok took up his parable and said thus", while the Aramaic sentence agrees with the Greek sentence. This means while the Greek and Aramaic syntax and sentence structure are the same, the Ethiopian differs from both. In the next sentence moreover, in Ge'ez when it says "And he beheld a vision that was holy" (weray'i ra`iyu qidus), the Greek says "He has seen in a vision." In this sentence nothing is found in the Aramaic. In the next sentence when the Ge'ez says "The Angels showed me, and I fully listened to all they said; and I understood what I saw, but without being for this generation, it is for the distant future coming generation," the Greek moreover says "And he showed me, and I heard when the righteous ones spoke the communication of the righteous; and at the time I heard this, I understood as I beheld. However without my thought being for the present generation, what I speak is for the distant future coming generation." The Aramaic seems to follow the Greek syntax.
In addition to this, in the opinion of these scholars, they say either the Ge'ez or the Greek sentences have a deficient syntax. It is when rules of syntax are mistaken that a sentence is not complete. For example, in the sentences given from Ge'ez, it says "Henok answered and said thus, he was a righteous man whose eyes God opened for him, and he beheld a vision that was holy in the Kingdom of Heaven. And the Angels showed me this..." As it were we saw the subject and clause in proportion to number and gender, everything is in agreement. In the Ge'ez when it says "Weyibe bi'isi tsadiq" the auxiliary verb "'ale" is assumed to be understood. However, because the scholars did not examine the rules of Ge'ez grammar, it did not seem to them that the sentence was inserted.
Syntax
The syntax and sentence structure reveal the quality of the writing, composition and thought developing on a lofty level. However, because the Book of Henok has been found in three languages, the result gained from examining which language is developed to the greatest degree, is learning about the development of language - yet not in which language the Book of Henok was first written. Because the three languages were ancient, they have been developed in their eras. Because the effort made by scholars to discover the source of the book was quite extensive, they have studied the text word by word, comparing it with each language. For example, within the Ge'ez text, a sentence has been written that seems not to follow rules of grammar, "ወእምሩ በከመ ገበርኩሙ ለእሉንቱ ኩሎሙ ዘሕያው ለዓለም" (we'imru bekeme geberkumu le'iluntu kulomu zehyaw le`alem). This sentence gives no sense, and the reason is because "ገብርኩሙ" (gebrkumu) was a word that the scribe inserted in error, thinking to write "ገብረ ለክሙ" (gebre lekmu) as the proper transitive verb agreeing with the sentence. Because scribes routinely make similar mistakes, what the word "gebrkumu" proves is the scribe's neglect, yet not the fault of the language. These kind of mistakes are especially common, both in antiquity and now; and the reason is, since the occasion when the scholar copied pages was when he was teaching a hymn or passage, sometimes he would correct students, interrupting the writing. And this means since there were two jobs for the scholar, in the time from one to another, he would mistake the sentence - not only the wrong word, but skipping the lines. Therefore, for this reason, mistaken sentences cannot be presented as evidence for a source of any literature. And it is not just the syntax error mentioned above, it is omission of words.
When the syntax of all three languages is examined in this manner, differences and similarities are found in them. The Ge'ez syntax is found word for word in the other two languages. But their differences are very problematic. When the Ge'ez agrees with the Aramaic, it does not agree with the Greek; when it agrees with the Greek, it does not agree with the Aramaic; furthermore, what makes the problem worse is, since the Aramaic text is insufficient, it was impossible to completely compare them in full. However, to those scholars who claim the Ge'ez text was translated from Greek, it is advantageous to present the following syntax style. Ge'ez: "ዝመንፈስ ዘመኑ ውእቱ ዘከመዝ ቃሉ ይበጽሕ እስከ ሰማይ ወይስኪ" (zimenfes zemenu wi'itu zekemez qalu yibetsih 'iske semay weyiski.) And while this means "Whose spirit is it, who makes his voice of petition heard up to the Kingdom of Heaven?", the Greek further says: "Whose spirit is it, who makes a petition heard? and by this reason, the voice and the petition reached Heaven." Even though the thought is similar in both sentences, in syntax and the sentence structure, the Ge'ez is far superior. And since there are many others of this kind, Ge'ez and Greek should not compete much. And beyond the Ge'ez being far superior - since it was a language developed in precedence of Greek, and since the opinion of scholars who say it was translated from Greek is unsupported by evidence, it remains only an opinion.
The matter of Aramaic is extremely problematic, and the reason is, since what was said to be found in a cave was an extremely modest fragment, much evidence cannot be found therein. And of the evidence that was found, while half of it has syntax resembling the Ge'ez, half again resembles the Greek.
Thus, the reader must consider in great focus, how the hypotheses expounded above resolve the puzzle. Eulendorff and Kniebe, after conceding the Ge'ez syntax and sentence structure to be superior and more coherent than the Greek in the groundwork of the text, concluded their opinion by saying "The Book of Enoch was translated into Ge'ez from Greek and Aramaic." This means that - the effort made to develop this hypothesis lacking any reward - the entire study was a random opinion unsupported by evidence. And the reason why this opinion, that lay outside the study, was given, is only because the Ge'ez syntax was found in the Greek and Aramaic. This theory also implies that the one Book of Henok was translated together from two Books of Henok. And since to say whether this is possible or impossible, is, as mentioned above, an "opinion", then developing and researching additional hypotheses on a different course will help to discover additional evidence. Taking the syntax mentioned above as a feature of writing, makes it convenient to properly detail and analyze the text's historical process. Furthermore, the stylistic features of the writing, more than rules of syntax, can indicate the source. And the reason is, while what syntax indicates is the language being coherent by rules of grammar, what stylistic features indicates besides, is the overall order. What is listed below is a division of the stylistic features that indicate this.

• 1st: If the Ge'ez stylistic features were found in the Aramaic;
• 2nd: If the Aramaic stylistic features were found in the Greek;
• 3rd: If the Ge'ez stylistic features were superior to the Greek;
• 4th; If the Greek stylistic features were found in Aramaic;
• 5th; If Greek and Aramaic features were the same;
• 6th; If the Greek and Aramaic stylistic features were found in Ge'ez;

If it were seen in succession how the procession of features, written above with common numerals, could be exchanged; in the first place if the Ge'ez features were found in the Aramaic, it means the Aramaic text has taken on two features: one its own, and secondly, the Ge'ez'. In the second place, if the Ge'ez stylistic features are superior to the Greek, it means that the Ge'ez and Greek texts did not have a direct connection. In the third place, if any Ge'ez stylistic features were found in Greek, then the Greek text must of necessity have gotten its Ge'ez features from the Aramaic. In the fourth place, if the Aramaic stylistic features were found in the Greek, and if the stylistic features of both were especially similar to the Ge'ez, it means that by translating the Greek Book of Henok from Aramaic, it has taken on its own, the Aramaic's and the Ge'ez' features. Finally, if the Greek and Aramaic stylistic features were found in Ge'ez, it means that it is the owner of the three similar features. This can indicate the source of the text without any error. The similarity of the features is first, that it is completely within literature; secondly, that it occurred in Aramaic; third, if the Greek were taken in translation from Aramaic.

Ge'ez-English Dictionary

I have started an Ge'ez-English dictionary at the Wictionary site, for the purpose of making available a tool for all who wants to translate the Book of Enoch into their native languages. I believe this is very important, and that it is God's will for his people today to do so. /Leos Friend (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just found out there is already such a dictionary started: [2] /Leos Friend (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Dear Til, with reference to some edits of you as [3] supporting the need of consider also the POV of one Ethiopic scholar who support that the Book of Enoch was writen by Enoch himself in Geez in the 3000 BC, please note what WIKI says about fringe theories:

• When discussing fringe views, any mention of them should be proportionate, making clear which is the dominant majority view among reliable sources, and which are minority views. Notable views that are held by a tiny minority may be discussed in articles devoted to them. Examples of these are forms of historical revisionism that reliable sources widely regard as lacking evidence—or actively ignoring it—such as Holocaust denial or claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

I've nothing against listing with details this Ethiopian Scholar theory, i.e. a tiny minority, in a subsection, but the readers shall know that all the other scholars, i.e. the dominant majority, have a different idea. And the dominant majority is not made only by Western scholars but also from scholars from Asia, and so on. And some fact, as that fragments Q208 and Q209 includes a more extensive text, are simply facts and not interpretations, and cannot be denied or omitted because not supporting the tiny minority view. Til, you removed the sentences "This understanding is based on the physical datation of fragments Q208 and Q209 found in Qumran, which also preserve parts of the book not found in the present Ethiopic text. Thus the Astronomical Book appears to have been more extensive in the Aramaic original than in the Ethiopic version" saying that "contradicted by other sources": please list a good number of sources that support the contrary: I've listed two refs, but I can list many others scholars, as Boccaccini, Nickelburg, Beckwith, Sacchi and many others. This is not a issue of "interpretation", but a fact with an archeological evidence. (and we are speaking of scholars, not of "interpreters": the datation of Q208 and Q209 is a technical issue, not a religious one). Be free to propose a better wording, which anyway inform the readers that the Qumran fragments are more extensive in lenght (actually the Aramaic very boring part about the correspondence between solar and lunar calendars have been summarized in the Ethiopic text) A ntv (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea sounds very dubious to me that any significant part is missing from the Ge'ez text. What do your sources assert is missing? Our article already notes that the Ge'ez is the only complete version. And the Ethiopian view is not a "fringe theory". Furthermore, the Ethiopian view on their own Bible is not to be called "fringe" because just some western scholars assert some rather flimsy evidence that the Aramaic is older - This is like saying they must accept outside scholars views on how to interpret their own canon, because their own research cannot be significant. Thus all views have to be noted evenly and not favor one or the other. ANyway even if the Aramaic parchment could be soundly dated to 300BC, how does this supposedly "prove" it is not a copy or a translation of a far older text? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

ALso, please look carefully at my last edits you have been reverting. I did not remove that whole sentence, I merely added "Beckwith asserts" to the beginning per WP:ATTRIB and took out the more dubious assertion that it has some part missing from the Ethiopian text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a large part of AB is missing from the Geez text. The Nickelburg (see the ref I made) writes literally "The first, very long part of the book, which has been preserved only in the fragments of Qumran Aramaic manuscript a and b (4Q208 and 209), consisted of a tabulation that synchronized the movement of the sun and the moon over the course of a 364-days solar year" (pag 44). The same information can be found in other scholar texts, none saying the contrary: for example the Stuckenbruck [4] ("The Astronomical Book was being preserved in a recension that was both longer and contained material non included in 1E"), or the Jackson [5] ("..astromonic material (4q208...) which includes material not contained in the later versions of 1E"). This is an information to include in our Article.

I will never define "fringe theory" the canonicy or not of 1E for the Ethiopian Church (this is a religious issue), but the content and datation of archeological fragments is a different and technical issue.

Because of the datation of these Qumran fragments (very beginning of the II century, according to Milik who edited the fragments), the date of AB shall be at least the 3 century BC: thus I wrote "this part of the Book of Enoch was written no later than the third century BC" (see the no later). Some Western scholars suggest the 4 century (Sacchi) and a very few ones even before (M.Barker).

You wrote "According to the current theory of some western interpreters". I dont like the "some" (weasel word) and "interpreters": here we are not interpreting a text (any interpretation can be correct), but working on archaeological evidence: I suggest to use "scholars", which is the correct English terms.

You wrote: "Beckwith asserts". But as I showed you, it is not only the Beckwith (which dedicated 200 pages on this calendar), but the majority of the scholars. By the way the Beckwith sentence says "appears to have been" which already leave room to a little doubt. A ntv

Why in the heading you move the sentence about the Ethiopian theory about the language to the sentence about the date? I tried in the heading to be linear: canonicy, date, original language, NT. (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It is completely out of the question to give any sort of screen-time to theories that place this pseudepigraphic text in the Early Bronze Age. Come on. This harping on "western" origin of the scholarship cited is thinly disguised racialist trolling. The division here is between scholarly and devotional literature, not between "west" vs. "east".

I have no idea whether Yifru (1990) is at all quotable, and whether its content is at all represented faithfully. All mention of "Henok Metsiet", whatever this is, found on the wide internet appears to be due to Til Eulenspiegel. This is a serious problem wrt WP:RS, WP:V, and if the content and peer-reviewed status of this publication cannot be verified, we will have to drop it. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Racialist trolling? Absolutely - this is the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Western scholars, many of them secular, trumpet all kinds of supposed "evidence" that the book must be from 300 BC but I have yet to see anything compelling whatsoever, otherwise I would be convinced and agree with them. It's just a rather assertive hypothesis that is always changing whenever they find an older copy. Sure we can note what they have alleged, suspect as it is, but we cannot neutrally accord the seccular / western assertions the priority they claim. This is the Bible of a living religion, thus we are obliged to treat it in as neutral terms as the scriptures of any other religion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We are mixing two different issues:

1) One is the religious believe of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (1E written in Geez by Enoch in the Early Bronze Age?): this statement needs a reference from a offical document of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church -now missing-, and, if supported by a ref, shall be listed in the Article with the right relevance.

2) the statement of Mr Wossenie Yifru (who present himself as a scholar) that Ge'ez is the language of the original from which the Greek and Qumran Aramaic copies were made. The point is that this theory is a very-minority scholar theory which is extremly marginal, not found in any other study on 1E, and thus shall be mentioned in the Article according to the Wiki guidelines for Fringe Theories.

Dear Til, it is not that the "Western" schorals are bad, simply they list the last sure evidence, which is that 1E was used in the Jewish world in the 1-2 century BC, with copies in Hebrew and Aramaic.

More, the claim of Mr Wossenie Yifru that 1E was a single text produced in Geez and later imported at Qumran and translated in Aramaic is exteremly difficoult to support, mainly because there are section of 1E which undoublty date after the 165 BC, as the Book of dream visions which content refers to the Maccabean Revolt, and the Book of parables which uses the book of Daniel, this last written after the Maccabean Revolt. On the other hand, the physical datation of some fragments of other part of 1E, as the Astronomical Book, are older than the Maccabean Revolt !!! Thus the claim of the unity of 1E cannot be reasonably supported !! (not to speak of the AE which in the Geez version undoublty looks like a bad summary of the Aramic text).

It is anyway possible that a few sections of 1E are much older than the 300 BC, but there is no prove nor evidence, and even the very few scholars who support the early composition, as M. Barker, place the composition in Palestina in Aramaic/Hebrew, not in Ethipia in Geez. And the present Geez texts unfortunatly uses a clear medieval Geez. In Wiki we can anyway for these sections adopt the wording "written not later than the 3 century BC" which is a wording, based on archeological evidence, that anyway do not exclude Mr Wossenie Yifru claim.A ntv (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is enough scholarly literature on the Book of Enoch written in Amharic an other Ethiopian languages to fill a small library. I fully understand that they may all be summarily disqualified from consideration, Amharic not being a member of the Indo-European language club and all. But, your western scholars claim to have "proof" that the book could not be older than 400 BC, and nobody has actually seen this "proof" yet. I suppose Ethiopians are supposed to take it "on GOOD FAITH" when these scholars in Europe claim to have figured out "proof" their Bible is a fraud. They claim that the book could not be older than 400 BC, but they just can't tell anyone exactly what that "proof" is, because Ethiopians supposed to take it on GOOD FAITH that these European scholars are just smarter, and therefore convert away from their Ethiopian religion, right? Come on. It isn't our job here as wikipedia editors to determine the "true" age of the Book of Enoch. Rather it's our job (and I intend to perform it) to make sure that ALL the significant points of view are represented and that no point of view is given short shrift by editors who are partisans of another point of view. And the Ethiopian scholarship of Enoch IS significant to this article. Also the view of the EEOC regarding their own scripture is every bit as significant as the view of the LDS regarding theirs. They most certainly do not accept the pretensions of interested secular and western scholars to have figured out the age of the book - but this is wikipedia, so we can mention them all here NEUTRALLY. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Plaese Til, statments like "I fully understand that they may all be summarily disqualified from consideration, Amharic not being a member of the Indo-European language club and all" show simply the false reasons under certain acritic positions (anyway Hebrew, Aramaic, Geez and Amharic are all Semitic languages, so referring to the "Indo-European language club" is simply a misleading: noone claims the Greek to be the original language). Back to Wikipedia, I'm not agaist to list also Mr Wossenie Yifru's position, but the readers shall be informed that this position is extremly marginal, and all the other modern scholar texts say the contrary. I suggested (for certian sections of 1E) to say not later than 3 century bc. Please, look for an official position of the EEOC about the composition of 1Enoch: from what I read about Mr Wossenie Yifru positions, his aim looked like to be the supporting of the Ethiopic nationalism more than the defense of the EEOC doctrine A ntv (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Mr. Yifru has done serious linguistic scholarship (in Amharic) that demonstrates that the only complete version is in Ge'ez, and that the other languages were translted from it. His scholarship looks far more credible to me than bald assertions by other scholars to the contrary. Also the idea that the content Enoch has anything whatsover to do with the Maccabean Revolt in my opinion seems like a pernicious lie. If there were really any mention of the Maccabean Revolt, or anything remotely like it, you can rest assured that your scholars would be trumpeting the exact chapter and verse all over the place, then they might convince me too. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all in the main article, but 1 En. 90:6-19 is interpreted by--let's say--a significant number of scholars (from Charles to Nickelsburg) as a reference to the Maccabean Revolt. (Nickelsburg, “Enoch, First Book Of,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 511, inter alia.) Yes, it is in the form of a thinly-veiled allegory, but so are the references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 7-12, which biblical scholars use to date those sections to the Maccabean Revolt. There are also possible references to the Maccabean Revolt in 1 En. 93:8-14, but those are not specific enough to create a consensus. (ibid.) </trumpet> blackjack@jolly-roger.com (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry today I made a mess-mistake edit because of my mobile. Thank for having undone it A ntv (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just when it seems that we have worked out a neutral compromise wording between us, Dab comes in and reverts it all back to a barely coherent mistyped version stating as fact that the book was written in 300 BC. This is most unconstructive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Astronomical Book, the text "The fragments 4Q208 and 4Q209 found in Qumran have been dated to the beginning of the second century BC, providing a terminus ante quem for the Astronomical Book of the third century BC..., if not earlier. The fragments found in Qumran also include material not contained in the later versions of the Book of Enoch...." is a good compromise which is well acceptable.

About the other sections, I honestly support Dab, suggesting to remove the "Western" and to create a section all for the "Ethiopic theory".

By the way, the "Ethiopic Theory" can be found in the book Ethiopic, an African writing system: its history and principles By Ayele Bekerie where there is also the correct citation of Mr. Yefru text (which is probably?? the the first volume of [6]). A ntv (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the original version was in Ge'ez. I have no idea whether it was. The point is WP:V, WP:RS and not WP:TRUTH. If we have verifiable evidence of a scholarly opinion to that effect, there is no problem with mentioning it. But as long as Til insists on the "western" red herring, we do not have a debate here at all. It is perfectly irrelevant whether the Ge'ez hypothesis is "western" or not, the question is, was it published academically. --dab (𒁳) 19:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've read a lot of published literature about 1E, and the literature, apart from "Ethiopean theory" and a few other mystical-religious texts, agree that the books that now form 1E were translated into Geez. (check for example the critical edition [7] or the commentary in the prestigious Hermeneia series [8]) There are different position in the literature if the original was Hebrew, Aramaic or a mix of the two, and if the Geez comes directly from the originals or through a middle version in Greek. The more recent scholarships is moving towards the three stages translation, giving priority to the Geez manuscripts of family B, see for example the above edition at pag 4: For all part of the book there is general agreement that the Ethiopic is a tertiary version, a translation from a Greek Vorlage, itself rendering an Aramaic/Hebrew Grundschrift. These are reliable sources, and in agreement not to consider the Geez as the original text. I can add many other secondary moder scholar refs, as the one I used when I re-wrote the heading (the Isaac), but also the Boccaccini, the Sacchi, the jackson..and so on.

Again, I surely agree to mention the "Ethiopean theory" -which I respect as a scholar position-, but it shall be clear to the readers that it is a very-minority position in the frame of all the published scholar literature. A ntv (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me A ntv, I have confidence in you once again now that I see you've done some homework, and I know you will keep it neutral. And no, "western" isn't a sticking point with me - but all the various assertions about the date should be treated as controversial (ie attributed per WP:ATTRIB, not endorsed), since there have been many disparate views, not a monolithic consensus, as anyone who has researched this knows. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing - I'm not sure how you can know which is a "minority" position in scholarship. You might not think the Ethiopian view was such a minority if you read Amharic books. They have actually devoted far more to the subject of Enoch than any scholar in the West. Everyone in Ethiopia knows about Enoch, few elsewhere do. Let's just present the various views neutrally and without tilting. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I can give you some criteria: the majority is formed by the agreement on a issue of the larger number of serious publications, published in different nations, from people teaching in different universities the very subject. A minority position is a single book, not published by an accademic press, written by someone who is not teaching in a good university such subject.

About the "Ethiopean theory", I would like to know, if you have such text, which is the exact position of [9] on many issues. Does it suggest an early writing in Geez of 1E a few centuries before Qumran or it claim that 1E was written in the Bronze age? Does it suggest that the writer of 1E was Enoch himself or one (or more) Geez-literates ? It should be nice to have exact short excerpts (with relevant page) from such a text. Unfortunately such text is not available in any European library. A ntv (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess I can buy that definition of majority, and I'm sure we can find an appropriate way to present the viewpoints. As for your question about Yefru, I do have a copy of the text cited, in the Amharic version, which I can look at again to try to answer your question. I do recall his stressing the point that it was the earliest Ge'ez literature, and giving quite a few examples of how the language stylistically seemed to predate the other translations, which he presented as bulkier, more awkward and obvious second-hand translations. It would be interesting to see the English edition, I didn't even know there was one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

on the fact that 1E is to be considered a masterpiece of early Geez literature, I think that we all can agree and insert this statment (with a ref from Ethiopic, an African writing system: its history and principles By Ayele Bekerie) in the Article. Actually this fact is not in opposition with the "Western" theory, for which the Geez texts we have are free rendering of the probable originals and always use the richness of the Geez style.A ntv (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not - I have read in WP policy that if views differ, we are simply to describe matter-of-factly how each one differs, but avoid trying to present them as merged into an artificial synthesis or intermediary position between the two, ie if something is disputed, just say it is disputed. I have found my Amharic text of Yefru now and can provide some quotes, either in Amharic or in my own best free translation, if it would help, but if there is already an English version in print, it would be better to get the exact wording of that for any cites... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

then you should read policy again. Start with WP:DUE. It is irrelevant if "views differ". The differing views must have comparable academic credibility. If this is still about the book of Enoch being 6,000 years old and written in Ethiopian, we can safely say that this is not the case, hence the "differing view" has no business being mentioned anywhere outside a "fringe views"/"trivia" section. If your Yefru source has any credibility, let's see some academic reviews. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dbachman, Totally agree - but that was a reply to 20 April 2010? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah

Before getting into an edit war, let's discuss this here. The problematic text is whether the Book of Enoch should be described as "ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather ofNoah", as I restored it to read, or to "the great-grandson of Noah". If we follow the link to Enoch (Biblical figure), we find that he is there described as the great-grandson of Noah. So, if "my" version of the article is wrong, then either (1) the link is to the wrong Enoch, and should also be corrected, or (2) that link has the wrong information about that Enoch, and should also be corrected. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

yes you are right, sorry. I've not found references, but for sure Enoch speaks to Matusalem as to his newphew. A ntv (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem when you use wp as a source, you see... In point of fact, all texts describe Enoch or Henok as being BEFORE Noah. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Banned from bible?

Wasn't the Book of Enoch originally in the Christian bible but later removed? Is it a controversial topic? I will do a bit of research before getting involved here. Great Purple Way (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, it was never universally accepted, but not rejected by all but one or two sects (unlike a lot of stuff that didn't make it). Jerome argued against its inclusion (apparently even telling everyone "it's this or Revelation"), but I don't think it's that controversial a topic these days (unlike, say, trying to suggest something like the Gospel of Judas always having been a part of every Christian canon until Constantine, or arguing that the Gospel of Barnabas included Islamic theology in it's earliest drafts). As the article notes, it was and is still accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Enoch becomeing an Angel

I know in 3 Enoch that Enoch is explicitly depicted as becoming Metatron. But I read an article once calming that 1 Enoch subtly implies he become one of the Angels in that book, Uriel I think, but I can't re find this article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So if Enoch is Metatron, then that would make him an archangel? Metatron, to my understanding, is one of the highest archangels. Galaxywarrior (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what point you're reading, and what school of theology you're reading. Early modern Kabbalah? Definitely. But during the Second Temple period, it appears that Metatron was the name of the Angelicized Enoch. Jewish mysticism, though monotheistic, is not monolithic, and Christians and Hermeticists complicate matters further. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Metatron belongs to 3 Enoch, which is a text written 500 years after the last portion of 1 Enoch: it is off-topic here.

More important is the identification of Enoch with the Son of Man we found in chapter 71 of 1 Enoch: this identification is a controversial question in the study of 1 Enoch, and the scholars are divided between who consider this last chapter of the Similitudes as original and who deem it as an early addition: be free to add some infomartion about this issue in our Wiki article, using as reference for exemple the Hermeneia commentary to 1 Enoch by George W. Nickelsburg.A ntv (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing E V Kenealy?

Why no mention of Dr E V Kenealy's translation of the Book of Enoch published in London, England in 1872 in 2 vols.? It antidates the versions by Archbishop Laurence issued in 1883 and R. H. Charles issued in 1917, yet is not mentioned or discussed. Why has this source been omitted?

Interested Wikipedia user 8 October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.200.97 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We could use more editors who know about obscure old versions like that. Why don't you make an account here and join in, and add the source yourself! You could even add it in without signing up! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

FAO Til Eulenspiegel. I don't have the qualifications to add new material. Surely it would not be difficult for existing editors who do have the requisite knowledge and qualifications, to add this source? Or at least mention it in the bibliography? I will happily start it off with the following suggestion: "Kenealy, E.V. Enoch, The Second Messenger of God, 2 vols. London, Englishman Office, I872."

I also note that this version has been re-issued in the last few years (see Amazon), so it is no longer as "obscure" as it once was. So I would have thought it was at least worth mentioning for the sake of the completeness of the article?

Am new here but quite aqainted with the Enock books. My revision on the 28th Feb 2013 was undone because the OP stated I need references because the meaning is unclear. This is incorrect. Firstly it is quite clear that Chapter 104.1 (A) or 105 in some manuscripts reads In those days sayeth the Lord.....104.2 for I and my son will forever hold communion with them in the paths of uprightness while they are still alive.... This is clearly spoken by God referring to Him and His Son, the Messiah. This is the source and reference to itself and has been not written about AT ALL in this article. It is of extreme importance as it is the only short paragraph accepted as fact by all scholars written around 170-50BC referring to the Messiah which has a crucial bearing on evidence suggesting that all sections referring to the Elect One or Messiah were interpollated in the latter part of the 1st century AD such as the Book of Parables which Milik suggested as interpollated because it wasnt found at Qumram it was written by Christian Jews. This small paragraph shows that writings of the Elect One Messiah Son were written of by man or inspired by God in the 2nd century BC. To not mention this is biased and historically negligent akin to say for example ancient church elders or Jewish pharasees destroying or removing books as they did which referred to any mention of a son of God or Messiah figure. I request this to be included as it is referenced and sourced from itself, thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.162 (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but a wider perspective is needed. It is not true that scholars are all agreed it was written in the 2nd century BC - many Ethiopian books say it is considerably older. 2nd century BC may be the oldest copy of the text, so they say that is the age of it, but the Maccabean authorship 'evidence' is indeed flimsy and intangible, and it seems a much lower standard is applied when in many other fields something a little more ironclad is wanted as 'proof' of something. Before 1947, the oldest piece they had was Tertullian's quote so of course the prevailing theory then was that the book was not much older than Tertullian. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Enoch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615144741/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/_The.Dead.Sea.Scrolls.Study.Edition_Martinez-Tigchelaar.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/_The.Dead.Sea.Scrolls.Study.Edition_Martinez-Tigchelaar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

______________________

Watchers/Fallen Angels Names:

Samyaza is Azazel!!!! acording to some scholars the word "azaz" mean "to go against" or Rebellion!!!! so Azazel and Samyaza in a way are the same word or have the same meaning!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.231.2 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

_____________________________

Samyaza/Azazel/Al Uzza as an angel:

According to Isaac of Antioch, the pagan Arabs worshiped the Venus Star under the title Al‘Uzza “The Strong (Female)” and Syrian women ascended the roof tops to pray to the star to make them beautiful.

Grintz suggested that the Aza’el/Azazel or

Uza of 1Enoch 8:1

is none other than the goddess Al‘Uzza/Samyaza.

Indeed, Enoch tells that Aza’el taught men to make among

other things bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of anti- mony, and the beautifying of eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.192.65.218 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Book of Enoch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071231132153/http://ocp.acadiau.ca/1Enoch.html to http://ocp.acadiau.ca/1Enoch.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810183848/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/Charlesworth_Old.Testament.Pseudepigrapha.1_1983.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/Charlesworth_Old.Testament.Pseudepigrapha.1_1983.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161007061958/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/____The-Apocryphal-Old-Testament_SPARKS.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/____The-Apocryphal-Old-Testament_SPARKS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811092514/http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/3Enoch.pdf to http://www.filbluz.ca/resources/3Enoch.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Metraton?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Metatron" just an error/innovation of Gaiman & Pratchett that's gained currency through salience? Older sources such as the Rev Thomas' Angels of God (1845), and those not in English http://www.wemystic.fr/guides-spirituels/archange-metraton/, render the name Metraton. I first heard "Metatron" when watching Dogma, and I remember thinking at the time "that's not right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willfred (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, Metatron is listed as the primary name and Metratron the variant in Gustav Davidon's Dictionary of Angels (1967). Metatron is also used in Abelson's Jewish Mysticism (1913), Mathers's 1912 translation of Kabbala Denudata, Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma (1871), and this 1854 translation of the Revelation of Moses. "Metratron" doesn't come up in a search of the Internet Sacred Text Archive. Lewis Spence's 1920 Dictionary of Occultism does list Metratron, but the entry is so short and vague that I'm wondering why he even bothered including it. Metatron is used in throughout Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (especially P. Alexander's translation of 3 Enoch) and in notes in R.H. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. I'm not seeing "Metratron" appearing in Charlesworth or Charles.

The 1651 translation of Agrippa's Occult Philosophy uses "Meratiron" or "Metattron". The 1620 Magical Calendar uses "Metatron". Pico della Mirandola's 1486 900 Theses uses "metatron". The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses uses either form depending on the variant.

The 1818 and 1833 editions of the Dictionnaire Infernal do not have an entry on either Metatron or Metratron, but the 1853 edition does have "Metatron" (though it's short enough that I wonder "why bother").

I remember occasionally seen "Metratron" in a few sources, but not often enough for me to place when the change would have occurred. I recall a couple of authors in the 1800s that insisted that Metatron Metatron has to be derived from Mithras, and so spelled it differently. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Son of Man

Hi. I'm not entirely clear as to the intent of this sentence: "The first known use of The Son of Man as a definite title in Jewish writings is in 1 Enoch, and its use may have played a role in the early Christian understanding and use of the title."

The term is used quite frequently in other Jewish writings in the Hebrew Bible; see Son of man.

68.129.144.18 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As that article explains, it's used to contrast the lowly status of humanity against the permanence and exalted dignity of God and the angels in most cases.

Daniel 7 mentions "one like a man" being given dominion by God but the exact phrase "Son of Man" is not used -- only later interpretation by both Jews and Christians read it as such.

Enoch is the oldest document where the exact phrase "Son of Man" was explicitly used as a title for the Messiah. Hence "definite title." Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Canonicity among Christians

The article says that the book is considered canonical only by the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches. I am curious as to how this came about since the two are theologically very close to the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian church (of which the Eritrean church is a still more recent offshoot), only became autocephalous in 1959. Does the Coptic church accept the Book of Enoch? Or did the Ethipian/Eritrean churches only accept after they separated form the Coptic church? Or did the Ethiopian branch of the Coptic Church, prior to 1959, accept a book that the rest of the Coptic church did not?Bill (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know it's "always" been canonical in the Ethiopian Church, but as to why that is but not in the Coptic Church, I'm not sure. There are some other examples: Pontius Pilate is a saint in the Ethiopian Church but not the Coptic Church. Historically Pilate was considered a saint in Egypt though, so maybe Enoch was considered canonical by the Coptic Church at some point but not later. I believe the Ethiopian Church has had its own liturgy as well even before autocephaly.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Consistent Era

This article has been using an inconsistent WP:ERA style. Which Era would you prefer and why? Editor2020 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BCE/CE, since it is non-Christian. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not clear that it is wholly non-Christian, since some Christian groups (namely, the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches) do accept it as canonical, as did also some early church fathers. I don't personally see any strong reason to favour BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD, and since the article currently uses mostly BC/AD, MOS:VAR would probably argue against a wholesale change to BCE/CE "unless there is some substantial reason for the change". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact

Woman 2600:1700:31A5:1B80:11E0:44C4:CF67:AFC6 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Please provide more detail about what you think should be done to the article, including citations to reliable sources. Otherwise, there really isn't much we can do here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dating

I thought this had a dating section. Has it been deleted? In any case needs to be (re)added. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

An alternate view is that additions to the book of Enoch quote Jude

Updated the following section title and added an alternative perspective -- that is actually the more traditional, and that was completely missing:

Parallel New Testament passage

Many scholars promote the idea that the Apostle Jude quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch, rather than having had direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. The traditional Christian perspective follows Jesus' saying, in John 16:13, that the Spirit would reveal further truth to his Apostles, who then wrote the New Testament.

Many sections of Enoch are known to have been added later, and the passage that parallels Jude's epistle has its literary style more in common with prophetically-themed biblical poetry than with the surrounding book of Enoch encapsulating it.

The Gnostics proficiently plagiarized the New Testament, using quotes from Jesus and the Apostles in their works to give a false sense of credibility to their heretical teachings. They further developed revelatory concepts from the Apostles' writings into apocalyptic-style literature of their own making.

In addition to Enoch's prophecy, Jude also states, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam", likewise purported to be from another part of the book of Enoch, rather than being an interpolated emendation to Enoch from Jude.

The entire passage in question, Jude 1:14–15, reads: ...etc...2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is unsourced and also takes a strong WP:POV that "Orthodox Christianity" has always existed, throwing around words like "heresy" "plagiarism" etc. Enoch has nothing to do with the Gnostics, moreover, and predates Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Gnostics changed not just mainstream Christian scriptures, but anything they felt like. The book of Enoch has undergone multiple changes and additions. Even though some of the oldest portions of the book may date before the 1st Century, other parts were added later.

If you read about Gnosticism, you will see that the Gnostics heavily plagiarized, while some even believed that they had a divine unction to do so. Heresy is simply a deviation from orthodoxy (and has nothing to do with Roman Catholic cruelty that contradicts the teachings of the New Testament). Christian orthodoxy is based on the New Testament, and if the New Testament is taken at face value and not read-into, it is quite simple and uncomplicated, however profound it may be.

I added the following to the intro, but have here proposed a slight change to it, so as to not use so much terminology, as you seemed to think my previous contribution was over-worded:

"There is also a theory that the Book of Enoch's parallels with Jude are emendations to the Book of Enoch, quoting Jude. For example, incorporation of the New Testament into the writings of Gnosticism was a common practice in the 1st Century when the book of Enoch was still undergoing change."

It's a simple fact that simply needs to be sourced. Also, not including this type of information makes the article biased against the doctrine of the biblical inspiration of Scripture.

Yes, there shouldn't be a bias in either the article (and it should be encyclopedic), nor should there be a bias in the basis for determining what should and should not be in the article. Because of you're saying that I'm throwing terms around, when I seem to be using them according to the definitions on the Wiki pages that they're hyper-linked to, it makes me wonder whether you have a bias in editing?

It would be rather rude (and please don't take this wrong, I'm only making a point here), but one could delete every non-sourced statement in the article!.. There's a lot else that could be outright deleted from MANY articles on this basis, perhaps MOST articles, in fact, if one wants to be a stickler about it.. It's also an easy way to enforce bias in editing, by outright dismissal of everything not yet perfectly sourced. But that overly discourages contribution and goes against another aspect of Wikipedia than it being encyclopedic, and that is (apart from original research) that it is thorough and truly accurate, not just passing along 'official' biases of certain academics -- And this is where the average person can help, as long as there is not biased or excessive criticalness to new input that has not yet been perfectly sourced.

Overall, I was just hoping for some help on this page, but I do have enough familiarity with this topic to know that outright dismissal of this information is not the best route. However, not everyone has the time to do extensive referencing, and so I now put forward the task to others who are interested. I hope that there are some biblical scholars out there, or general researchers, who in fact are. :) 2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• If you want to include in the article the thesis that original text is Jude, and Enoch was later modified in order to include that passage of Jude you need to provide some good scholars that say that. Further, because the relevant passage in 1Enoch was found also in Qumran (i.e. it belongs to the more ancient portion of 1Enoch), your thesis is against any evidence, and it should be managed as WP:FRINGE.A ntv (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls copies are fragmentary and do not contain any parallel passages from Jude.

Here's a source: Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford, 1976.

P.5 "Scarcely any fragments offer continuous, or almost continuous, passages of the text. The majority are reduced to tiny pieces, in truth minute crumbs, whose identification, direct and indirect association, and combination into a restored text, demanded great reserves of patience and ingenuity."

Here's a quote from a list of the existing portions of the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls, from P. 6: "Books of Enoch from Qumran Cave 4 Book of Watchers [En.1-36], Book of Dreams [En.83-90), Epistle of Enoch [En.91-107] 1:1-6, 2:1-5:6.."

The second quote, from the following page, is from a list of the surviving text. As one can see, Enoch 1:9 is not extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, neither is 60:8, the phrase about Enoch being the 7th from Adam (as can be checked in the same list).

The entire book I just quoted from can be read online here; see page 5 and 6 for quotes: https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4/mode/2up

Here's details about the Book of Enoch fragments from the DSS: List of Dead Sea Scrolls, Cave 4, category 4Q201–4Q300, 1st item: 4QEna (alt. ref. # 4Q201a)

There are no other listings among the DSS of the Book of Enoch, only the Book of Giants, that does not contain the Book of Watchers, the section in question.

The parallel passage from Jude is only found in copies of Enoch that were written later than the Apostolic period. Enoch is a book with known additions and changes. The Gnostics were proficient in taking revelatory statements from the Apostles and either including them in their own writings or expanding upon them. For example, the text of Jude verse 9 may have been used for lost Gnostic work referred to by post-Apostolic early Christian writers as "The Assumption of Moses."

Knowing about 1st Century Gnosticism and its practices, others have suspected as much. Guy N. Woods, commentating on Jude, wrote:

"There are sharp variations between the statement allegedly cited by Jude and the actual statement as it appears in Jude. There is more reason for supposing that the book of Jude is older than this so-called “Book of Enoch” and that the author quoted from Jude rather than Jude from him! ... Jude learned of Enoch’s prophecy..by inspiration." -- A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, James and Jude (1962, p. 399).

The Book of Enoch has been considered apocryphal by both Jews and Christians from the earliest mentions of it in Christian writings. There were, however, some who came to think that Jude must have quoted from it, giving it validation, but this was at a later date, when the facts about an earlier interpolation would have been obscured. In general, though, it was considered apocryphal and quite different in style from and contradictory to Scripture.

Other considerations: Paul twice quotes Greek poets to make a point, but doesn't say that he considered them divinely inspired in the biblical sense. He refers to them as as one of their own prophets, because, as pointed out by Justin Martyr, the Greeks considered their poets divinely inspired.

Also, Paul may have used a traditional reference for the names of the magicians who confronted Moses (Jannes and Jambres), who are un-named in the Book of Exodus. This was originally a private letter to his protégé Timothy, who grew up with Jewish tradition from his mother, and would amount to using the traditional names for the 'three wise men' (Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar) as a point of reference. In several places in his writings, Paul strongly warns not to give heed to "Jewish myths," and so he would not have assented to extra-biblical teachings. A traditionally-given name would only have been used as a point of reference.

There is a possibility that the rabbinical literature borrowed the names as popularized by the Gnostics (who even gave Jannes and Jambres their own book). On the other hand, the un-dated Damascus Document from the DSS Cave 4, contains a reference to "Jannes and his brother". Jose O'Callahan believes he discovered papyri fragments from the Gospels among DSS fragments. If this is true, the New Testament may have influenced later stages of the Qumran community, even if they weren't specifically Christian. Thereby, the reference to Jannes could have been borrowed from the early Christians or 1st Century Gnostics. 2600:8801:CA01:5950:79F3:A8BD:DEAD:2851 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• We have a source from 2008 saying that the passage from Enoch in question is found in Qumran. It's possible someone writing when your source was written wouldn't have known this yet. The rest appears to be your own speculation.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. However, this hyper-linked reference (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193298?read-now=1) from the article says that Milik left out only seven minute fragments that "add little to our knowledge of the Book of Watchers," whereas a connection with the Epistle of Jude is major. Do you suspect that Milik may have left them out intentionally because they showed a link with Jude, or were these supposedly insignificant scraps so tiny that he left them out because they barely have any letters in them? Part of the reason we are dealing with such tiny fragments, by the way, is because when the finders of the scrolls realized they had something valuable, they tore what they hadn't yet sold into tiny pieces that they then held at ransom prices (or at least that's how the story goes). They'd also be brittle, obviously, from the passing of a couple millennia.

• We're not interested in your own musings, see WP:OR. WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS which explicitly WP:V your claim, or be gone from this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How harsh! This article is actually in error and I will prove it.

The specific book that is cited, The Comprehensive New Testament, proves my point, not the assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain parallel information from Jude.

The full working title is, The Comprehensive New Testament: Standardized to the Greek New Testament text of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition with Complete textual variant mapping and references for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Plato, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Talmud, Old Testament, Patristic Writings, Dhammapada, Tacitus, Epic of Gilgamesh.

It doesn't claim this passage is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, otherwise it would say so at its footnote reference for the Book of Jude. Instead it says, "Pseudepigrapha," meaning 'false writing', a term used to describe falsely attributed works. In other words, authors Clontz & Clontz believe that the Book of Enoch is a forgery and are only showing where there happens to be a parallel text with Jude. If it was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they would have indicated in the notes for this section on the Book of Jude, as the working-title says. There would have been a "textual variant mapping and reference." In fact, they claim the book has a "complete" list of such references. And so, this reference actually confirms the contrary, that the passage from Jude does not exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neither are they saying that they think Jude is quoting from a pseudegraphical source. The book is simply a textual reference tool, and it does not prove the point that it is cited for in the article, but actually confirms the complete opposite.

At page 399, in a footnote at the bottom of the page, concerning Jude verses 14 and 15:

"1:14-15 Pseudepigrapha[1 Enoch 1:9 “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints.." etc.

Again, he's just saying that this passage has a parallel in 1 Enoch, not that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain this passage. But more than that, by not referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls here, and claiming to have complete reference to them, he's saying that a parallel does not exist (or at least has not been discovered yet).

Here's the entire book online -- It doesn't contain the book of Enoch, by the way, just the canonical New Testament with notes: https://archive.org/details/the-comprehensive-new-testament/page/399/mode/2up

WP:CITE the darn WP:RS or be gone from here. Since you are not WP:RS, we don't trust your own judgment, so we have no need of WP:OR performed by you. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Provided that it is not important what I say (but only what the mainstream scholars write), I checked in the book Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation (ISBN 9780060766627) that I have at home, and at page 281 we have the translation of 4Q204 Frag. 1 Col. 1 with the 1Enoch verse that is quoted in Jude. A ntv (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited some of my own comments here for clarification and also added a response to the most recent comment, and this was all deleted from this page. Can anyone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:DB4:E32F:A6F3:A5F (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a general rule that you should not edit your comments after they have been replied to. If you want to clarify anything, add a comment to the bottom. Also, since you insist on editing as an IP, there is no way for another editor to tell whether they are "your" comments or not. You are the first editor on this page to edit from the IP you are currently using. This means you can never edit your previous comments after your IP changes. Dynamic IPs do not establish a consistent identity. If you want use to understand you as an individual rather than a legion, create an account. Skyerise (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop posting walls of GPT-generated text. Use your own words, maintain a converstation style, and keep it brief. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time. Either provide citations to a reliable secondary source which directly makes the statement you want to include, or desist. If a source doesn't explicitly state it, it cannot be included. Provide a quotation from the source that supports the view. Unless you are able to do that, you are engaging in original research which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Instead, write a journal article or a book about it. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, now even my regular responses are being deleted, without me editing any of my earlier comments. A talk page shouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny as the article. How can anybody be free to discuss the matter if they're written-off so easy?

Part of the reason I had edited my earlier comments, by the way, besides clarification, was to be more concise. I was hoping to be finished with commenting on here with that last comment -- Unless there was any further comments to respond to, I was pretty much wrapping it up on this talk page. But now it looks like I'll have to figure out how to finish saying what I need to say without it being deleted for technical reasons.

I put a lot of thought into that comment and had abbreviated it this last time after it got deleted because of editing my previous comments at the same time that I posted it. It was also very on-subject and seemed to be my most productive comment on here yet. Anyway, it really wasn't THAT long of a comment. So then, what length of a response will you be able to accept? It was very well-sourced for references, the very best in the field.

Just so you know, because I'm not sure how long you've been following the conversation, that even though I was the one who initially started this talk page section, all of my further comments after my initial posting have been responses to other peoples' input and comments. I'm sorry if they're lengthy, and as I said I wanted to cut down on some of them (without negatively impacting other peoples' responses), but the length of my comments has to do with the nature of the subject requiring some meshing-out. People have been helping the article on here with their input, and I've tried to express my gratitude for it. The comment you deleted was a direct response to someone else's response, however thorough it may have been, and you are not allowing it to go through.

Again, I just want to give my response. I'll give my deleted response another going-over and see if I can improve it enough to meet Wikipedia's talk page standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:A075:EEC4:ACB1:450D (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment I deleted was clearly AI generated. Don't do that, we aren't talking to ChatGPT, we are talking to you. Though you give zero indication that you are listening. WP:WALLOFTEXT. Skyerise (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's some ChatGPT back atcha:

Given this context, it does not seem that the IP editor is intentionally trolling. Instead, they appear to be passionate about their perspective and are not fully adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sourcing and neutrality. Their lengthy, repetitive posts and resistance to policy-based feedback contribute to the perception of unproductive discussion, leading other editors to request brevity, reliable sourcing, and adherence to established Wikipedia standards.

Skyerise (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How could I be a 'bot' when my comment was a response to someone else's comment? If you're pro-Gnosticism, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, or for you to take any comments personally about well-known 1st Century Gnostic plagiarism. I wasn't saying that all Gnostics were like that. In the same way that I differentiated the real meaning of heresy (a false version of someone else's teaching) from Roman Catholic, or rather, Vatican oppression (again, more by certain individuals in eras of deeper political corruption).

Please be respectful. I hope it's been obvious on here that I'm not trying to push any point of view, but merely sticking to the facts. I was actually questioning why Milik didn't seem to include the passage (although I found out that he did). Was he covering something up? I just wanted the truth. I had no idea that only the newer Scroll contained the passage and not the older ones. But the point is -- What's been academically published on the subject? I'm not going by anything else, and I'm not proposing to introduce any of my own opinions to this article. Love and peace. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:A075:EEC4:ACB1:450D (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Great. If you have a source, post a citation to the source and a quotation that directly supports what you want to add to the article. If you have a source, you should be able to state this briefly, without having to use multiple sources or engage in synthesis or argumentation in any form. If you actually have a source, rather than simply speculation, then that should be short and simple. Otherwise, please comply with WP:NOTFORUM: talk pages are not forums for discussing or making arguments about the subject, but rather intended for improving the article. Such arguments do not lead to improving the article; only an explicit sourced statement on the matter from a single reliable source can do that. If you continue to engage in argumentation that can never lead to improvement of the article, other editors have every right to revert your misuse of this talk page as a forum for speculative discussion. Are you getting this? If you don't have a source, find somewhere else to have your long, speculative discussions. Skyerise (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To make it simple for you, your proposed statement is:

"There is also a theory that the Book of Enoch's parallels with Jude are emendations to the Book of Enoch, quoting Jude. For example, incorporation of the New Testament into the writings of Gnosticism was a common practice in the 1st Century when the book of Enoch was still undergoing change."

So whose theory is it, and in what publication have they explicitly stated this theory? A name and a journal article or book please. It's that simple. No need for interpretation of sources or long unreadable posts. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating my earlier suggestion.

At the moment, I would like to simply repost a concised form of the contested response that was deleted. After posting it, please explain (if you still disagree with it) why you think that it's irrelevant to a talk page about the article, so that others can evaluate it as well, instead of automatically deleting it. That seems more like 'bot' behavior (as you suggested my posts resembled), than over-talking a bit, don't you think so? Again, the contested comment is accurately cited to the best possible source on the subject, with the reference pages being checkable online as well.

Also, if I can't concise my earlier posts, please don't continue to bring up the fact that they were lengthy. I do feel really bad about that. I'm not too sure that it would count as 'trolling', though, as you suggested earlier, as I was honestly trying to contribute, and not wanting to be detrimental. However, thanks for helping me to be more aware about not coming across that way.

Just as you seemed to think, earlier, that I was a troll, I was likewise starting to think that this talk page was suffering from edit warring, in the form of Talk page vandalism. My hopes are that we're both ready to move forward, without any confusion about my intents, nor, by anyone else, any fact-censoring overreach. Now that there's more understanding all around, let's keep getting along; we seem to be doing much better :)

Alright, are you ready for the reposting? It's more sensitive to the fact (something I was oblivious to) that there are contemporaries who seem to identify with aspects of these ancient Gnostic groups. And so, there's no use of the word 'plagiarism', but rather 'adapted'. I've got it down to about nine sentences. Feel free to criticize it, by the way, as long as I can actually contribute this comment to the discussion.

Again, this contested comment is only intended for discussion here on this talk page, at this point. It is not (and has never been) in any proposed format for inclusion in the article. Even the earlier suggestion, that you reiterated, was only intended for evaluation by more experienced field experts than myself, and by more experienced Wikipedians such as yourself.

After my original edit to the article was rejected, I haven't yet even considered (as far as I can remember) personally making any further changes to the actual article itself. In retrospect, there's often been days between my responses (even a whole month a couple of times!) Thus, as one can see, I'm not in any big hurry with some sort of agenda to push, and so there's no need to be concerned about me messing up the article, if anyone was worried about that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:C836:EA23:B1B0:DFF8 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"After posting it, please explain.." That is, after I myself post it, then if you want to explain whether you still disagree with this new update. I wasn't in any way demanding that you yourself repost what you deleted, in case that was unclear. Besides, how could you post my edited form of it, that I haven't yet posted here, right? (what I was actually referring to there).

I've learned not to dare edit my own posts on here, and so this extra clarifying, while potentially sounding like a jerk near the beginning of the previous post. Bummer! :) 2600:8801:CA01:5950:F59C:F2DC:5256:AB70 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The new-and-improved form of the comment in question turned out to be 12 sentences instead of 9:

..Thanks for pointing out that your book, Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation has the parallel passage with Jude. This seeming contradiction with other reference material inspired me to take a second look at Milik's authoritative and exhaustive work on the subject, and I discovered something that I didn't notice before. At the contents page (that I referenced here earlier), while the passage from Jude is not listed in the first column for the Book of Watchers, it is in fact listed in the third column as existing in a later-written manuscript described as the 'Third Copy'. Your book is basically an English-language reader's version that merges surviving fragments without going into details (making it rather misleading on this point).

Concerning the Third Copy, Milik states that it's "dating from the early Herodian period or the last third of the first century B.C." (p.177). With paleographic and other types of dating requiring, as a general rule, at least some amount of flexibility, this makes this manuscript well within range for a 1st Century interpolation (by an adjustment of a few decades). Compare this fact with the older manuscripts not containing this passage from Jude or anything even similar (nor, also, the phrase, "seventh from Adam"). Futhermore, Milik states (p. 177) that the script style of the later Third Copy resembles the North Syrian Aramaic alphabet. Many of the earliest Christian Jews fled to the regions of North Syria because of persecution and shared language. As apostle to the Jewish saints, Jude would have written specifically to this group. Thus, North Syria is where his epistle would have been most widely read, copied and circulated, as well as adapted by other groups at the earliest possible period of its existence.

Also, new content to the Book of Enoch continued to be added later than all of the known Dead Sea Scroll copies (as seen in the Ethiopic version) involving further Christian concepts about the 'Son of Man' adapted by the Gnostics.

Milik at the Internet Archive (see p. 185, 177) https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:F59C:F2DC:5256:AB70 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, we are not interested in WP:OR. WP:CITE a WP:RS which explicitly WP:V the claim you're trying to make, or leave this talk page. If "the truth" means your original research, we are not interested in the truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

By 'TRUTH', it looks at first glance like this person is referring only and entirely to FACTS that could be reliably sourced with citations provided..

NEVERTHELESS..

There seems to be a CONCLUSION being drawn by compiling these same facts in such a way as to support their PRESUPPOSITION.

FOR EXAMPLE..

CITED FACT 1. surviving material from the oldest DSS manuscripts of Enoch lack any parallels whatsoever with Jude

Fair enough.

CITED FACT 2. only one DSS manuscript, dated up to the 1st Century CE, has the parallel with Jude

Still on key.

CITED FACT 3. this same manuscript has a North Aramaic/North Syrian script type.

Truly interesting.. I mean, this IS a DSS copy of THE BOOK OF ENOCH being referenced, so spot on.

NEVERTHELESS..

UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSION / INFERENCE 1:

Therefore, per all of the above, we may reasonably CONCLUDE that there was an INTERPOLATION from Jude into Enoch. This MOST LIKELY took place in North Syria, where Jude's epistle first circulated, a CONCLUSION all the more persuasive because there were also later additions to Enoch of a succinctly Gnostic/Christian nature [?].

APPLICATION OF WIKI STANDARDS: although the facts may seem to a casual observer to support this person's presupposition [that if I understand his/her presupposition correctly, seems to involve an 'EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON' POV], the reality is that if anyone wants to retain their contribution, or edit, of a Wikipedia article [apart from fair consideration on a talk page], then they need to abide by WIKI STANDARDS.

ENDLESS SPECULATION is not ENCYCLOPEDIC..

EXAMPLE.. one could convincingly argue that Dr. Milik would have been uncomfortable with INFERENCE 1, simply by referring to the very next page in his "exhaustive and authoritative" book, PAGE:178. Milik himself is actually proposing a FAR EARLIER DATE than general consensus. Milik would like to re-date the so-called "newer" manuscript as CONSIDERABLY OLDER by pointing out that the high quality of the parchment itself is such as would require a more prosperous economic period. Even as early as the Hasmonean Era, like the other, "older" Enoch scrolls. In an ACADEMIC DEBATE one would have to show that North Syria in the 1st Century had a substantial enough economy to explain the lusher type of materials used, or propose a wealthy sponsor, or emphasize the script type itself or the radio-carbon dating and on and on, back and forth. This belongs to the REALM OF SCHOLARLY DEBATE.

While FACTS are indeed relevant, the CONCLUSION is an unsourced OPINION. The FACTS could be worked into the article, minus the OPINION.

..I was being hard on myself! :)

As long as my comments on the subject aren't deleted, I don't currently have anything else to comment. 2600:8801:CA01:5950:E9E3:6EDF:2D7C:39B3 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not interested in your own opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)