What do we know about 1 Enoch and the Bible? The first thing to say is that 1 Enoch is pseudepigraphal, that is, it was not written by Enoch. The book claims to contain dreams and revelations from Enoch, but this is impossible, since Enoch was taken to heaven millennia before 1 Enoch was written. Rather, the material was made up by writers from the Intertestamental period.
Furthermore, it is not likely that the author(s) of 1 Enoch even expected their readers to believe the book came from Enoch. Pseudepigraphal writing often claimed famous names for thematic purposes, not to pretend that the book actually came from the person whose name it bears. For these reasons alone, it is a mistake to suggest that the book has any canonical authority. It is not inspired, and it is not from Enoch.
Further, the book is full of biblical anachronisms, moving historical events around to suit the authors’ purpose. 1 Enoch also has errors in it, contradicting itself frequently. For example, Enoch learns about the Nephilim for the “first time” multiple times in the book. The stories often contradict what we know Jews believed, as recorded in other writings. And the stories contradict the Bible itself, making fanciful use of the Bible to tell a different story. The Jews have never considered the book as part of their canon, even though the book was fairly well known. And the only Christian traditions that ever considered it canonical, as stated above, are the Ethiopian and Eritrean Tewahedo Christians.
“Pseudepigraphal writing often claimed famous names for thematic purposes, not to pretend that the book actually came from the person whose name it bears.”
This doesn’t mean the early church didn’t know about 1 Enoch; it did. The book is quoted or alluded to in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexander, and others. Since the book was frequently quoted by early writers, it is wrong to claim that 1 Enoch was a “lost book” of the Bible. It wasn’t lost; it was well-known but rejected for canonical consideration. Or more precisely, it was never considered for canon by mainstream Jews or Christians.
Jude apparently quotes 1 Enoch at Jude 14-15 (citing 1 Enoch 1:9). But Jude doesn’t suggest that Enoch was biblical, only that its statement regarding judgment is correct. Quoting non-biblical works does not compromise the scriptures. The Bible quotes several ancient works, and why not? The Bible was produced in particular contexts, so sometimes the Bible uses other materials of those contexts. Luke suggests he made use of ministers of the word and eyewitnesses when writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). The Old Testament makes reference to a “Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14), the “Book of Jasher” (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the “Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), and the “Annals of King David” (1 Chronicles 27:24). And Paul quotes the Greek philosopher Epimenides and the poet Aratus (Acts 17:28). And in Titus 1:12, Paul says, quoting Epimenides, “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true” (Titus 1:12-13a ESV).
“The Bible was produced in particular contexts, so sometimes the Bible uses other materials of those contexts.”
This last reference of Paul is especially helpful: Paul quotes Epimenides, calling him a “prophet of their own” and stating that he was right. Now clearly Paul doesn’t consider Epimenides part of Christian Scripture when he quotes him (and literally nobody today would make that argument). Rather, Paul was simply quoting another work familiar to his audience to support Paul’s point. In the same way, just because Jude quotes from 1 Enoch doesn’t mean that he considered it Scripture. In fact, Jude also appears to quote from another contemporary work, the Assumption of Moses, in verses 8-9, which, if it is actually a quotation, would demonstrate that Jude is comfortable using other sources. In the case of the quotation from 1 Enoch, we should understand that Jude is merely supporting his argument by referring to a work that was fairly popular in his day.
1 Enoch and Sensational Interpretations
What about 1 Enoch and modern interpretations by today’s sensationalists? Well, to treat 1 Enoch as Scripture is wrong. It is not Scripture and not inspired by God. Just because a book is old doesn’t mean it is from God. Further, the book is not about America and China, or nuclear war, UFO’s, aliens, globalists, secret technologies, or whatnot. It is about the Jewish struggle against the pressures of Hellenism. The wars it references are the Jewish wars, especially the Maccabean wars. The threats it treats are the threats of Hellenism against Judaism. The concerns about the calendar and astronomy are about preserving the Jewish way of life, with its Sabbath and its festivals, against the paganism of the day.
The book is not secretive; it is apocalyptic, a word that literally means the opposite of secretive, as it is Greek for revealed. 1 Enoch is not a mysterious work about our future. It is an imagistic book about the future that Second Temple Jews faced if they capitulated to pagan culture. It is safe to say that the author(s) of the work would be very surprised to see the book used in the many sensational ways it is used in the twenty-first century A.D.
“1 Enoch is not a mysterious work about our future. It is an imagistic book about the future that Second Temple Jews faced if they capitulated to pagan culture.”
But 1 Enoch does have value for us. It uses themes that will appear again in the New Testament: the day of judgment, Sheol, the son of man, fallen angels, and other themes. By noting how Enoch understands these themes, we get a glimpse into how the terms were being used when the New Testament was written. Furthermore, since 1 Enoch is apocalyptic in nature, it helps us understand what ancient Jews meant when they wrote in this odd style, which occurs in the New Testament as well (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation). It also demonstrates that Jews were familiar with apocalyptic-style writing, and generally knew how to understand it. More broadly, 1 Enoch contributes to our knowledge about what faithful Jews thought of the encroachment of pagan culture around them.
So, we have 1 Enoch, a pseudepigraphical, apocalyptic book full of judgment, fire, cosmological speculation, and messianic expectation. The book is helpful for understanding how apocalyptic literature works, and it shows us one very harsh response to the pressures many Jews faced during the Hellenistic crises. Contrary to the superficial theories of Youtubers and conspiracy theorists, 1 Enoch is not biblical, and is certainly not a “lost book of the Bible.” But it is a helpful book in understanding the history of the Jews and the problem of unfaithfulness.
