Much speculation has arisen about three sets of manuscripts which were recovered in 1773 from the Ethiopian Empire (then known as Abyssinia) by the Scottish traveling writer, James Bruce. The copies were all written in the Ge’ez language and are known today as the Book of Enoch. It, or a book similarly entitled, had been thought missing since about the year 400 AD. From the onset of this study, it seems highly uncharacteristic for God to hide “light” under a bushel basket for almost 1400 years. Even today, only a handful of people have ever heard of the Book of Enoch, so it is still a largely hidden esoteric text. This paper seeks to review the contents of this Book in comparison to the 66 books of the Holy Bible and to prayerfully note any “red flags” of contradiction or blasphemy. We are told to “try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
Contrary to popular belief, the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9, 60:8) is not necessarily quoted in Jude 1:14-15, “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Rather Jude quotes a “saying” of Enoch not preceded by “It is written. . .” Similarly, we see in Matthew 2:23 that Jesus “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Yet, neither this prophecy nor even the words Nazareth or Nazarene are anywhere mentioned in the Old Testament. The key is that the prophecy was “spoken by the prophets” much like Enoch’s spoken prophecy quoted by Jude. Notwithstanding, even if Jude was quoting from a genuine text of the Biblical Enoch, that text was lost in history for many centuries and at any time post-Jude may have been greatly altered or great portions of it fabricated entirely as a pseudograph (forgery), yet inclusive of Jude’s quote to promote plausibility. We need to look a little deeper.
Was there some form of a “Book of Enoch” known to the early church? Yes, but it was largely ignored by the early church leaders and eventually disappeared from bookshelves entirely. Having vanished for centuries, we cannot know for certain that the text we have today is what was known by the early church. About 20% of the Ethiopian text can be found (although altered or mistranslated) in fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Enoch supporters commonly tout the unsubstantiated idea that the Book was widely quoted and promoted by early church leaders. My own computer-based study revealed these claims to be greatly exaggerated. Merely mentioning the man Enoch and making a few Biblically-based observations is not supportive of the text of the Book of Enoch. Truthfully, of the early church only Tertullian (c. 200 AD) clearly championed the authenticity of the then-known Book of Enoch, and seemed to do so quite boldly to an apparently defiant audience. Origen (c.200-250) also quoted from the Book, but added the caveat, “if any one cares to accept that book as sacred,” deferring to its denial by the majority of Christian believers. Normally, the early church fathers who mentioned the prophet Enoch commented only upon his righteousness and translation into Heaven without seeing death, virtually the totality of what is known of him from Genesis. Many made the comment in defense of the New Covenant that he was uncircumcised (as were with many other pre-Abrahamic saints), yet accepted by God. Many regarded him as one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, yet do not cite any verse of Enoch. A listing of early writings which highly honor Enoch without so much as mentioning the Book of Enoch include: Clement, Barabas, Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Methodius, Lactantius, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Pseudo-Clement, and apocryphal works such as Joseph the Carpenter, Nicodemus, Esdras, the Revelation of Paul, and the Revelation of St John the Theologian.
We know that God chose the Jews (and only the Jews) to write Scripture. Romans 3:1-2 honors the Jews to whom “were committed the oracles of God.” Yes, this means that even Luke (a then-common Gentile name) was a Jew. Upon circumcision at age 99, Abraham became the first Jew. Moses, also a Jew having been descended from Abraham’s grandson Jacob (Israel), wrote the first five books of what we now know and accept as Scripture. Enoch, although undoubtedly a great man of God yet living centuries before Abraham, was not a Jew. He may have been a prophet, as Jude implies, but to pen Holy Scripture was not his calling. It should be noted that Moses penned sayings of Adam, Eve, Cain, Lamech, Noah, the builders of Babel, Abraham, etc., but never of Enoch. In fact, Enoch is never quoted in the entire Old Testament. Moreover, it is apparent that Moses had certain pre-Jewish texts to draw from. For example, the events upon the Ark during the Flood appear to read like a ship captain’s log, with specific dates and events recorded which one would not presume to be easily or accurately preserved through oral tradition.
The Book of Enoch was not originally written in Hebrew. We know this because certain verses translate words into Hebrew for the reader. “On the tenth heaven is God, in the Hebrew tongue he is called Aravat” (2 Enoch 20:3). Also, “And I saw the eighth Heaven, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Muzaloth, … And I saw the ninth Heaven, which is called in Hebrew Kuchavim …” (2 Enoch 21:6). This is very interesting because Hebrew may indeed have been the worldwide pre-Babel language before the division in the days of Peleg, whose father was Eber (Gen 10:25, 1 Chron 1:19). Peleg and Eber were forefathers of Abraham, the first person in Genesis to be called a Hebrew (Gen 14:13), therefore Abraham spoke Hebrew as did Moses who penned the first five Biblical books in Hebrew.
Many believe the word Hebrew is derived from Eber. Only one assumption is required for the theory to hold. Assuming that God did not intend to divide families, we conclude that Peleg (and his descendents) spoke the same language as his father, Eber, which would thus have been the pre-Babel, pre-Flood, and even Edenic language. Regardless of this theory, there remains the question: Why does Enoch mention some other “tongue” than the one he is writing in? The Biblical Enoch, who is alleged to have written this Book before the Flood, lived in a world where there was only one language, whatever that language may have been. This alone proves that the Enoch of Genesis is not the author of what we now have as the Book of Enoch who must have lived after Babel.
"Behold the summer and the winter, how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it" (1 Enoch 2:3). Rain is mentioned in allegedly pre-Flood days in 1 Enoch 2:3, 34:2, 36:1, 42:3, 60:20-22, 69:23, 76:6-13, 80:2, 100:11-12 (where we are actually told to practice idolatry by giving gold and silver to the rain so that it will fall), and 101:2. In reality, rain never fell before the Flood, but rather the earth was watered by a mist, “for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Gen 2:5-6).
This inaccurate description of pre-Deluge weather proves that what is now entitled the Book of Enoch was not written by the Biblical Enoch, an actual eyewitness to the absence of rain in his day. If the author lies about his very identity, no matter how spiritual the remainder of his story seems, he is deceptive. Why trust him?
Enoch 9:1-3 tells of men praying to angels (Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel), asking them to "bring our cause before the Most High" in much the same way Catholics pray to saints such as Mary. Rather than rebuking them for petitioning anyone other than God, they pass the prayer on to God as mediators in verses 4-11. See Col 2:18 and Rev 22:8-9. Godly angels rebuke such idolatry and false worship.
Jesus taught that angels “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Mat 22:30, Mark 12:25). However the Book of Enoch tells of angels taking “wives” (1 Enoch 6:2, 7:1, 12:4-5, 15:3-7, 2 Enoch 18:4-5) and thereby “have married” (1 Enoch 106:13-14). It is obvious that the story tells of “two hundred” (1 Enoch 6:4) fallen angels and one would expect that such beings might likely rebelliously disdain God’s order of celibacy. However, we would then expect a holy prophet to refer to such mates as concubines or harlots, not “wives”. We would also expect them judged to have committed fornication, not to “have married”. In fact, God might even consider such a union between two different types of beings as bestiality. Marriage is a holy union ordained by God, not a sinful union that violates His will.
The Book of Enoch also tells us that these allegedly unholy unions resulted in giant offspring (1 Enoch 7:2-3, 9:9, 15:3, 8). It is often alleged that Genesis 6 speaks of giants borne of these same unions. However, a fresh folklore-free Biblical examination shows simply “that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Gen 6:2). We see no indication that the sons of God were angels here. It is unclear exactly who these sons of God were, but they certainly were not angels lest we spurn the teaching of Jesus. Most likely there was nothing wrong at all with these marriages, involving God-fearing men who were obediently fulfilling God’s command to multiply (Gen 1:22, 28) as the immediate context implies (Gen 6:1).
One theory suggests that they were righteous men who nonetheless were enticed by beautiful worldly women or even harlots, however the daughters are described as “fair” (Strong’s #2896), which connotes a wholesome goodness, not merely outward beauty.
Next, we see God sorrowed by man (not sinful angels), “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years” (Gen 6:3). It may initially appear that God is grieved over the marriages, but we are soon told that God’s actual regret is over continual evil in man’s heart.
Next, we see giants (nephalim) first mentioned as a new subject, “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen 6:4a), and this is the only mention of them in the passage.
Next, we again read of the marriages with their offspring now described not as marauding giants, but rather as honorable mighty men of renown, “and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Gen 6:4b). Here, the marriages are not at all seen as lamentable, but apparently pleasing to God, resulting in favorable offspring. Note also that the marital unions came “after” the giants were already established “in the earth” and therefore we see that the marital unions and giants are completely unrelated in context.
Read it again: There were already giants in the earth in those days before the sons of God took wives of the children of men! The Book of Enoch that we have today is a fraud.
Next, we see God’s sadness over man’s wickedness (not that of fallen angels), “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen 6:5-6).
And, finally we see God electing to destroy man and animals (but not rebellious angels), “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” (Gen 6:7).
We are told in 1 Enoch 7:2, "And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells." An ell throughout history has ranged from 18 to 54 inches. Thus, we are told the giants ranged from 4500 to 13500 feet (1.372 to 4.115 kilometers) in height! So, as the good creationist asks, where is the fossil evidence of these kilometer-plus super-monsters? Where is even the slightest historical parallel account outside of Enoch? With hundreds or perhaps thousands of these monstrosities devouring virtually all plant and animal life on the planet (v.4-5), why does Jesus seem to ignore them as folklore when he declares that "in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" (Mat 24:38) as though to imply a complete lack of alarm regarding the giant-induced famine?
Moreover, giants (nephalim) are seen after the Flood (Numbers 13:33) and the largest of recorded height stood at an amazing 9 feet, 9 inches (Goliath, 1 Sam 17:4). If a 6-foot man is standardized at 180 lbs., then the noteworthy Goliath would have weighed about 772 lbs. We cube the height ratio, then multiply by 180. Og, king of Bashan, slept on a bed of 9-by-4 cubits (Deut 3:11). Figuring about 8 cubits (12 feet) for his height puts him at around 1440 lbs. These are the tallest giants that are described in the Bible. A 4500-foot nephalim would have weighed about 37,968,750 tons. How many centuries would it take for any one creature of any type to grow to such a size? For the truly curious, a 13500-foot nephalim would have weighed about 1.025 billion tons. I offer no further commentary on marauding supergiants for the recalcitrant or uneducated mind.
Although beyond the scope of this paper, Biblical gigantism is easily traced when one studies the descendants of Cain. Note Cain’s son, Enoch, is not the Enoch who was translated. The giant gene was apparently passed through one of the four women aboard the Ark.
Also, we cannot ignore the fact that 1 Enoch 60:1 mentions "the year five hundred (500), in the seventh month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the life of Enoch." Enoch's days, as any Bible student knows, totaled only 365 years. "And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years" (Gen 5:23). This is a clear error in the Enoch text which should happily end any confusion as to its purity. Genuine Scripture is pure. Heeding the extreme warning of Rev 22:18, we need to immediately drop any notion of the Book of Enoch (as we know it today) as being equal to Scripture.
Interestingly, in 2 Enoch 1:1, the author paradoxically claims to have "completed of all the years of my life three hundred and sixty-five years." However, in the same verse, he makes the grave error of stating his son Methuselah was born when he was aged 165: "when my 165th year was completed, I begat my son Mathusal." Somehow, 100 years was added to the correct figure of 65 years: "And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah" (Gen 5:21).
Another chronological error is in 1 Enoch 10:1-2 where it is told that the angel Uriel (nowhere mentioned in the Bible) made an announcement to Noah about the impending Deluge. Gen 6:13 tells us that God himself addressed Noah directly about the Flood, but this does not nullify the fact that an angel named Uriel could have made a similar announcement. While the predicted Deluge is obviously intended as prophecy, Enoch notes the story of Uriel's announcement to Noah has already occurred in the past tense (not as a future prophecy). However, Genesis 5:3-29 reveals that Enoch's 365 years were completed 69 years before Noah was born. Simple calculations show that Enoch's days spanned the Years 622 to 987 after Creation, however Noah was not born until the Year 1056. Using the 120 years of Gen 6:3, we would calculate God's announcement to Noah in the Year 1536.
Again we see this same chronological error in 1 Enoch 106 where Enoch is supposedly an eyewitness to the birth of Noah. This is not a vision of a future birth, but a simple narrative. Enoch says, "And after some days my son Methuselah took [past tense] a wife for his son Lamech, and she became [past tense] pregnant by him and bore [past tense] a son" (1 Enoch 106:1). Noah was a son of Lamech, and we soon learn that Enoch is indeed speaking of this same son: "And now make known to thy son Lamech that he who has been born is in truth his son, and call his name Noah" (1 Enoch 106:18). Again, according to Genesis 5, Noah was born 69 years after the days of Enoch. If 1 Enoch is true, then Genesis is a lie. We can reach no other conclusion. Moreover, in the same chapter we are told the scientific contradiction that "his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose" (v. 2) and/or and "the colour of his body is whiter than snow and redder than the bloom of a rose" (v. 10).
It is quite common for ancient non-Biblical accounts of the pre-Flood patriarchs to change the lifespans and/or fathering ages of the accurate Genesis record, introducing mathematical errors. For example, the edit-happy scribe of the Septuagint makes so many "corrections" to Genesis that the resulting corrupted math indicates that Methuselah actually survives the Flood by 14 years! 1 Peter 3:20 tells us only eight human souls were on the Ark. Genesis 7:13 clearly identifies them as Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth, and their four wives. Methuselah was not on the Ark. Ironically, modern scholars downplay such blatant tampering with God's Word as acceptable and swallow whole volumes of lies.
1 Enoch 40:9 tells us that an angel named Phanuel "is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life." Fortunately, the true Christian knows that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim 2:5- 6). "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). So, there is no co-savior, no co-mediator, nor co-redemptor who is co-equal with Jesus; not even a being called Phanuel (not mentioned in the Bible). Enoch blasphemous?
The Bible mentions only three heavens, the highest being the third (2 Cor 12:2). Enoch mentions at least ten (2 Enoch 20:3, 22:1).
1 Enoch 32:3-6 is a particularly troublesome passage for the Christian believer. Here, we see the Garden of Eden, known by Enoch as the "Garden of Righteousness". Eden means "pleasure", and in no way connotes the idea of "righteousness". Beyond just a subtle word twist, we see men freely eating from the Tree of Wisdom (or Knowledge) in order to "know great wisdom". Enoch (a Godly and discerning man) praises this tree, which Christians know as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (not Wisdom), for its height, beauty and fragrance and describes its carob-type leaves and fruit in clusters. The nearby and vastly more praiseworthy Tree of Life of Genesis is not even mentioned here. Strangely, the Cherubims and flaming sword set to guard the Garden from entry (Gen 3:24) are nowhere to be seen.
In 1 Enoch 32:6, the Tree is clearly identified as "the tree of wisdom, of which thy father old (in years) and thy aged mother, who were before thee, have eaten, and they learnt wisdom and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked and they were driven out of the garden." Nowhere in genuine Scripture is wisdom (a universal virtue known in Proverbs 4:7 as "the principal thing") confused with the knowledge of good and evil (the great stumbling block of humanity).
1 Enoch chapters 72 to 82 describes a very interesting calendar which would be 100% accurate if not for just one error. It is based on a year of “exactly” 364 days, with “perfect justice” requiring no adjustment even by one day in eternity. “And the sun and the stars bring in all the years exactly, so that they do not advance or delay their position by a single day unto eternity; but complete the years with perfect justice in 364 days” (1 Enoch 74:12). See also 1 Enoch 72:32, 74:9, 75:2, 82:6,11. Unfortunately for the angel Uriel who allegedly gave Enoch the calendar, his astronomy is flawed. In reality, a year (four complete seasons) has tightly ranged from about 365.242552 days (4000 BC) to 365.242189 days (2000 AD), therefore Enoch’s calendar has only been 99.66% accurate at best. A loss of an average 1.2423705 days per year adds up quite quickly, resulting in one entire season displaced every 73.5 years. Uriel is oblivious to this error and the confusion it will cause and makes no attempt to correct it. Instead, he dogmatically declares his calendar as “perfect”.
Enoch measured his seasons at exactly 91 days each by stringing together three 30-day months followed by a single named (but not numbered) day. Each 91-day quarter neatly completes exactly thirteen 7-day weeks. In many ways, it is quite an ingenious system requiring very simple intercalations to align the seasons. Yet, no adjustments are found in the text, thus it remains less than angelic in origin. Consequently, no population aside from the Essenes is known to have used anything similar to it, they too failing to correct the seasonal drift. Noah did not use Enoch’s calendar aboard the Ark. This is important because we would presume that the true writings of Enoch, if they existed outside of oral tradition, would have been aboard the Ark. Certainly, the God-fearing Noah would have honored the legacy of his famous great-grandfather. However, Noah seemed oblivious to Enoch’s calendar and instead used a standardized 30-day month. For 150 days the waters prevailed upon the earth until abated (Gen 7:24, 8:3). The Flood began the seventeenth day of the second month (Gen 7:11) and the Ark rested the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Gen 8:4), a span of exactly five months. Hence, Noah reckoned all months as exactly 30 days in length and did not regard supplemetary quarterly days. During any 5-month period, Enoch’s calendar always adds one or two of the quarterly 91st days. Between the two specified dates, Enoch would have reckoned 152 days, not the 150 days as declared in Genesis.
The Jews in Jesus’ day were certainly not using Enoch’s calendar. In fact, Jesus taught that “the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do” (Mat 23:2-3). Whereas Jesus reprimanded the scribes and Pharisees on many occasions for many faults, their calendar choice was not one of them. Had Jesus instituted or approved Enoch’s calendar, he would certainly have corrected them.
Enoch 72:37 says the sun's "light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal." Two major errors in one verse. Exactly how much brighter is the sun than the moon? Enoch tells us the difference is “sevenfold”. Brightness is measured in apparent magnitude, and each order of 5 magnitudes represents a 100-fold variation. For example, a 2-magnitude star would be 100 times brighter than a 7-magnitude star. Each magnitude represents a variation factor of the 5th root of 100, or 2.5118864. So, we simply find the difference between the two magnitudes to be compared and raise 2.5118864 to this power. NASA measurements put the sun and mean full moon magnitudes at -26.74 and -12.74. The brightest the moon ever gets (full moon at perigee) is -12.90. Subtracting -12.90 - (-26.74) gives us a minimum 13.84 magnitudes in difference. 2.511886413.84 gives us our answer: The sun is 343,558 times brighter than the brightest full moon. Enoch’s figure is a mere 7, ridiculously dim by a factor of almost 50,000. Similar calculations show that the sun is 398,107 times brighter than the average full moon.
Are the sun and moon really “both equal” in size as Uriel allegedly reveals to Enoch? Any student today can tell you the sun and moon appear equal in size (no angelic revelation required), but that the sun is actually much larger than the moon. Exactly how much larger? NASA publishes solar and lunar volumes in cubic kilometers at 1.4122x1018 and 2.1958x1010. Simple division reveals that the sun is 64,314,000 times larger than the moon. Apparently, Uriel (who we are told is the angel in command of celestial bodies) never bothered to actually gauge solar and lunar light, nor did he ever make a quick exploratory flight to actually measure their sizes. With such grossly unscientific statements, we can only conclude that Uriel is fictional at best, demonic at worst.
Today’s Book of Enoch should prayerfully be examined by the modern Christian. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusion. Be reminded, however, that we have noted several undeniable errors in what we now call the Book of Enoch, some of them quite seriously in opposition to the Bible. These contradictions of Scripture may have led early Christians to reject the text (assuming the original text to be current) along with many other apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Early Christian support has been exposed as exaggerated.
We have clearly exposed the author as falsely claiming to be the Biblical Enoch by showing that he did not live before the Flood, but rather after the Tower of Babel. We have seen the noble concept of wisdom maligned. We have seen a faulty calendar described as “perfect” by an alleged angel. We have seen another supposed angel acting in Jesus’ role as our mediator with God and have likewise seen four other “angels” acting as prayer mediators. We have exposed mathematically-unsound chronological errors and celestial data, quite typical of other non-Biblical sources. We have seen a tale of fallen angels mating with humans to spawn kilometer-plus giants, and shown this folklore clearly falsified in Genesis and refuted by Jesus.
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2)
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deu 12:32)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Rev 22:18-21)
So, what are we supposed to do, now that we know the Book of Enoch as it exists today has numerous errors, some of them doctrinally serious? Simple! We are to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph 5:11).
All scripture quotes are fom the KJV. Written by Zach Anderson (zmanderson@gmail.com) and found at ultrafree.org/articles. Feel free to copy and share, free of charge.