# Jude and Enochs Prophesy



## scottmaciver (Jan 21, 2011)

A friend of mine sent me the following via text:

In Jude v14 we read Enoch's prophesy - this is taken from the apocryphal book of Enoch. Do you think that the book of Enoch is divinely inspired? Similarly, Bunyan was converted when an unknown text came to him which it turned out was from the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus.

I don't believe that the apocrypha is inspired but at the same time I'm not sure how to account for references to these books in scripture. So I thought I would pass to those of you more learned in these matters than me!


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 21, 2011)

LBC 1689 (updated language)

1.3 The books commonly called the Apocrypha were not given by divine inspiration, and are not part of the canon or rule of Scripture. Therefore they have no authority in the church of God, nor are they to be accepted or made use of in any way different from other human writings.1

(1) Luk 24:27,44; Rom 3:2

1.4 Holy Scripture demands belief, yet its authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church,1 but entirely on God its author, who is truth itself. Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.2

(1) Luk 16:27-31; Gal 1:8-9; Eph 2:20
(2) 2Ti 3:15; Rom 1:2; 3:2; Act 2:16; 4:25; Mat 13:35; Rom 9:17; Gal 3:8; Rom 15:4; 1Co 10:11; Mat 22:32; Luk 16:17; Mat 22:41ff; Joh 10:35; Gal 3:16; Act 1:16; 2:24ff; 13:34-35; Joh 19:34-36; 19:24; Luk 22:37; Mat 26:54; Joh 13:18; 2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:19-21; Mat 5:17-18; 4:1-11


----------



## he beholds (Jan 21, 2011)

Could Enoch have been written after Jude? And the author tried to capitalize on the mention? Sorry, I have no clue!

Also, I am sure that truth could reside in the apocryphal books, just as it could reside [almost] anywhere. So perhaps that part of the book of Enoch was true, though the book wasn't an inspired book?


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Jan 21, 2011)

In John Gill's Commentary, he says:

"that Enoch wrote a prophecy, and left it behind him in writing, does not appear from hence, or elsewhere; the Jews, in some of their writings, do cite and make mention of the book of Enoch; and there is a fragment now which bears his name, but is a spurious piece, and has nothing like this prophecy in it; wherefore Jude took this not from a book called the "Apocalypse of Enoch", but from tradition; this prophecy being handed down from age to age; and was in full credit with the Jews, and therefore the apostle very appropriately produces it; or rather he had it by divine inspiration, and is as follows..."


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 21, 2011)

he beholds said:


> Could Enoch have been written after Jude?




There were several different books of Enoch that was floating around in the Jewish Pseudepigraphical writings. Even though I do not have my notes on hand, regarding the particulars of the Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Hebrew editions, there are a few things I can say regarding the history of the texts at hand. The Slavonic edition is probably translated from a Greek text dating near first century B.C.E. to about the first century C.E. The Hebrew edition is a much later text, because it was written about the fifth or sixth century C.E. Now the Ethiopic edition is the interesting edition and the one that the Jude quote is referring to and a text that Tertullian thought was scripture:


> “I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s ‘grace in the sight of God,’ and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity…
> 
> If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
> But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.” -From De cultu Feminarum 1.3, pages 15-16 of the second edition of ANF, vol. 4.



I would say that the date of the text should fall around the third and was added to progressively in the second century BCE. Thus, dating it prior to Jude. Jude would have known of the text, as with those that hide the Dead Sea Scrolls ( I do not want to go into the Qumran debate right now), since it has been one of the finds (4Q201) as a fragment. If you want more details on this text then let me find my notes and ask away.

By the way, I am not saying that Enoch is scriptural. Nor would I suggest that it should be seen as scriptural, because I do not. I am just pointing out some of it’s history and the view of its acceptedness.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Jan 21, 2011)

Grimmson,

BCE and CE? I thought this was a Christian forum- unbelieving academics came up with those abbreviations to replace BC and AD- History revolves around the Lord!


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 21, 2011)

David, I too am curious as to the reason you are using CE and BCE. They don't mean, as some undergrads at Christian colleges are being taught, 'Christian Era' and 'Before the Christian Era'. Hopefully, that is what was in your mind as your typed. If so, well enough. But, CE and BCE were developed to specifically avoid mentioning Jesus Christ in dating events. The only time I have ever used them was when required by academia. Even then I did so under duress and protest. Trust me, no one here will take offense at the conventional BC and AD. If they do then we need to have a long talk.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Jan 21, 2011)

The book of Enoch is boring anyway. Save your time and pesos (money).


----------



## Grimmson (Jan 22, 2011)

Sorry I did not get back to you all sooner for this issue.


saintandsinner77 said:


> Grimmson,
> 
> BCE and CE? I thought this was a Christian forum- unbelieving academics came up with those abbreviations to replace BC and AD- History revolves around the Lord!





LawrenceU said:


> David, I too am curious as to the reason you are using CE and BCE. They don't mean, as some undergrads at Christian colleges are being taught, 'Christian Era' and 'Before the Christian Era'. Hopefully, that is what was in your mind as your typed. If so, well enough. But, CE and BCE were developed to specifically avoid mentioning Jesus Christ in dating events. The only time I have ever used them was when required by academia. Even then I did so under duress and protest. Trust me, no one here will take offense at the conventional BC and AD. If they do then we need to have a long talk.




This thread is to deal with Enoch and _Jude_ 14-15. It is not meant to deal with the issue of convention for numerical historical dating, which is why I do not think it should be an issue in this thread. If someone wants to discuss the use of B.C. E. (Before Common Era) vs. B.C.(Before Christ) by people, namely academics, then I suggest starting a new thread. Since non-Christians are on the web and may come to this thread and see this issue raised I will briefly deal with it once, and no more here. 

Some of you here on this board know that I am engaged in working on a master’s degree in historical theology. Therefore I must engage with material on an academic level, including monographs and journals. If one takes a look at my personal notes you would see B.C.E., B.C., A.D., and C.E. commonly used. In my academic training I have found that I am more likely in recent years to use the current standard of dating, just like in my papers I am more likely going to use a Kate Turabian or Chicago style format of writing. It is just an issue of a common convention, it is not to communicate against the notion that history does not “revolve around” our “Lord.” This is not an attempt to be unbiased with my theological beliefs, but to communicate facts objectively within the current formatted accepted structure. Whether or not one uses B.C.E. or B.C., the dates still revolves upon the birth of our Lord, that has not changed. In fact the use of Common era or Vulgar era (sometimes as “Aerae” or combined as “aerae vulgaris”) is not a recent phenomenon in the history of reporting history. One example of this use of the vulgar era comes from the son of Westminster divine Edmond Prideaux, Humphrey Prideaux. Humphrey, named after his father’s brother and a highly educated man himself as a holding a doctor of divinity and holding the position as a dean of Norwich, wrote in _The Old and New Testament connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations_ (c. 1716) used the term vulgar era at least six times in his work. And of course vulgar does mean common. The following is in his own words and spelling:


> “In the annals, I have made ufe of no other aera, but that of the years before Chrift, reckoning it backward from the vulgar aera of Chrift’s incarnation, and not from the true time of it. For learned men are not all agreed in thr fixing of the true time of Chrift;s incarnation, fome placing it two years, and fome fout years, brfore the vulgar aera. But where the vulgar aera begins, all we know that ufe it; and thereforethe reckoning of the years before Chrift backwards from thence, makes it a fixed and certain aera. The difference that is between the true year of our Saviour’s incarnation, and that of the vulgar aera of it, ptoceeded from hence, that it was not till the 527th year of that aera, that it was firft brought into ife” page i-ii of his preface.



When he goes into the history of “Anno Domini” I find it interesting that he does not call it Anno Domini or A.D. for short. But to be fair he does use “Anno Domini” once on page 513 of his text. 

I have read that Johannes Kepler used the term vulgar era in his work on celestial motion (Ephemerides novae motuum coelestium, ab anno vulgaris aerae ), and thus predating Humphrey usage of it. I have also read that Johannes Clericus, the famous swiss theologian, used it as well such as in his 1701 work called the _Harmony of the Gospels_. This is not to say that the man was orthodox under reformed ideals of his time though, it is just the observation of his use of the vulgar era that I find interesting.

The use of vulgar would drop off the map by the nineteenth century due to its negative connotation then and even to this day. Common era, as a non-translated version of vulgar era, was also used in the 18th century as can be observed by the Jan. 1708 tenth volume of _The History of the Works of the Learned_, page 513, found here at The History of the works of the ... - Google Books.

There are other examples that can be found in the 18th and 19th century. Therefore its usage is not a new activity from historians or theologians that wish to take a secularized position of historical dating. I think the main reason why Christians react so violently against the A.D. to C.E. is not due to a subjective lack of Christian influence, but because they not use to or comfortable with change; such as the case with the demotion of Pluto as a planet. Also another issue to point out is the reason why common era or vulgar era was used. It was probably due to the wide spread influence of Christianity on society and culture as common and therefore expresses it under a temporal dating system. Of course such a common influence is not necessarily the case today by secular standards and thus has a different meaning. Christian influence still exists for if it did not then there would be the need for a complete change in all the dates in all the modern history books and I think people are a little to lazy to do that. Therefore we can still see a Christian influence in our dating system.
And on another note, Anno Domini is not scriptural as it relates to dating for the church. There is nowhere in the Bible that says we must use Anno Domini or A.D., or even B.C. for that matter. Therefore you cannot bind anyone’s conscience by the church to the use of A.D., Anno Domini, or even C.E. for that matter. It should be left up to individual conscience of the believer in the church and how they interact in topics of history with professional historians. The use of C.E., not as an abbreviation but as what the abbreviation stands for, is not denying the faith and has a precedent of use before anyone in this board was even born; even though it may not have been as popular or common in days past.

My personal use of B.C.E. or C.E. was not purposeful to be academic or to go against any of my brothers or sisters here. I was just addressing Jessica’s question quickly, and it was the first system that popped in my mind to use out of general inconsistent habit. If A.D. popped in my mind first then that what I would probably use, but I didn’t. However, if I am going to be criticized on this issue (which I am not personnally critical of people using A.D.) and not on the doctrines that I believe, then I may need to use C.E. or B.C.E more often on here because this in not an issue of canonical scripture in my option. None of our books of the Bible were originally written in Latin, and during the time when our Lord walked upon this earth Anno Domini was never used in relation to himself. The push for Christians to use Anno Domini or A.D. may in fact backfire against use and prove to the world that we are more concerned over non-biblical traditions then we are about peace and charity, or even the gospel. We should pick our fights carefully as a church, and those fights must be grounded in scripture and the truth of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will remind you all now that if you want to discuss this further then start a new thread. 
Now let us go back to discussing _1 Enoch_ and _Jude_.


awretchsavedbygrace said:


> The book of Enoch is boring anyway. Save your time and pesos (money).



I personally do not find 1 Enoch boring at all. In fact I recommend reading it if you are interested in patristic history and the history of exegesis/hermeneutics; such as the interpretation of _Genesis _ 6:1-7 (corresponding also _Antiquity of the Jews_ by Josephus). Some people actually use to think that the work was authoritative. Therefore they would apply it to their own thinking. Also reads works like 1 and 2 _Maccabees_, which also had a deep impact on Christianity for a long time. I remember reading a sermon by Chrysostom over the Maccabees as martyrs. I think we live in am age where we are disconnected with the ancients and their way of thinking. Where we find new ideas outweigh older ideas of interpretation. We sometimes read these ancient texts, like Plato’s _Timaeus _on origins or the Gnostic _Apocryphon of John _and we get lost. And because we are getting lost, we then become bored with the text. I can see ideas of Timaeus within Origen, the Gnostics, Augustine, and even Ephrem( see his commentary on Genesis). I can slightly see how Gnostics interpreted _Genesis_ 1-3 based on lexemes of various words in the LXX. This in turn educates me in how they were thinking about various texts. And the best part is if you search now, you can find some of these texts for free, whether it be online or in your local public library. You do not need to pay for it. Now with this said, I want to make it clear that collections of works like the Apocrypha are not scripture and should not be confused with scripture. Reading these works however helps us to interpert how some of the ancients interpreted scripture when we read their commentaries, which I recommend here for everyone to do, including pastors.

Scott’s question was indeed a good question, was Apocryphal literature in play? The people here have probably never heard of the text _the Assumption of Moses_, whereby we have a story of the devil confroting Michael over the body of Moses. We have no scriptural book that back’s that story up outside of _Jude_ 9. I think Jude was influenced by the Apocryphal literature of his day. Even though it influenced Jude that does not mean we accept fully _Enoch 1_ or the _Assumption of Moses_ as part of the canon of the church. 
Hopefully this as been informative and a useful post to all who are interested.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

