The book of Enoch belongs to the so-called Pseudepigrapha books and was apparently written during the first century B.C.–even though some claim that it was written before then.

The term Pseudepigrapha was given to Jewish writings, which were attributed to authors who did not actually write them, but who misappropriated the names of famous people by pretending that they were the authors of those writings. Known “Pseudepigrapha books” include “the Apocalypse of Abraham,” which was probably written in the second century A.D.; “the Apocalypse of Adam,” which was perhaps written in the first or second century A.D.; the “Fourth Book of Ezra (2 Esdras),” which was probably written between 95 and 100 A.D.; and “the Testament of Moses” (or, “Assumption of Moses”), which was written in the first century A.D.

The Pseudepigrapha books also include the Book of Enoch, which is a compendium of four or five Jewish apocalypses, all of which were composed before the destruction of the Second Temple. The book of Enoch is now usually designated as I Enoch, to distinguish it from the later II Enoch, or the “Secrets of Enoch.” The book of Enoch was written by many different writers in different time periods. The whole book is found only in an Ethiopic language, but parts of it have been discovered in Greek and in Aramaic.

In addition, the Pseudepigrapha books include the book of the Secrets of Enoch (2 Enoch or Slavonic Enoch), which is a Jewish apocalypse from the time before the destruction of the Temple. Closely connected to it is the Books of Giants, a writing allegedly associated with Enoch, relating the deeds of the giants who were born by the daughters of men (descendants of Cain) to the sons of God (descendants of Seth, compare our Q&A on Genesis 6:1-4). It is known from fragments found at Qumran and was written before 100 B.C.

In a previous Q&A, we discussed the reasons why the Apocrypha are not to be considered as inspired. Similar reasons exist for the Pseudepigrapha books, including the book of Enoch. In addition, unlike the Apocrypha which are, to an extent, considered as inspired by the Catholic Church, none of the Pseudepigrapha books are considered inspired by either Protestants or Catholics.

From the evidence provided by the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that this religious Jewish community located at Qumran had writings that included much of the Old Testament. However, other nonbiblical books were also discovered, and this included 1 Enoch along with Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch 6.

The book of Enoch was quoted in the apocryphal book of Baruch, and in several early writings, including the “epistle of Barnabas,” as well as by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Some have speculated that Jude 14-15 is a quote from the book of Enoch and concluded that Jude regarded Enoch as inspired Scripture. The following two quotes compare Jude 14-15 to the suspected passage in the book of Enoch:

Jude 14-15 reads: “… Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

Enoch 1:9 reads: “. . . Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all of flesh for every thing which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.”

Even though both passages are close, they are not identical. Jude says that God will “convict” all of the ungodly, but Enoch says that they will be “destroyed.” The rest of the two passages disagree in wording in minor ways.

Therefore, it is not compelling to conclude that Jude quoted from the book of Enoch. Even if he did, he would not have been particularly careful in quoting it verbatim. But apart from the inconsistencies between the letter of Jude and the book of Enoch, and assuming that Jude had quoted from the book of Enoch, this still does not mean that he felt that the entire book had to be inspired.

For an example, Paul quoted a Cretan prophet (whom scholars have identified as Epimenides) in Titus 1:12, but that does not mean that Paul considered the writings of that prophet as godly inspired, or that we should give any additional authority to his writings. Other New Testament quotations from, or allusions to, non-Biblical works include Paul’s quotations of some Greek poets in Acts 17:28 (one of those poets has been identified as Aratus).

In fact, both the Old and the New Testament mention quite a number of books which were not preserved, but which were known to the particular biblical author at the time of his writing. It is obvious that God did not see fit to preserve those books, and they never became part of the canonized Holy Scriptures.

For instance, Numbers 21:14-15 mentions “the Book of the Wars of the Lord.” Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 refer to and quote from the “Book of Jasher.” 1 Kings 11:41 refers to the “book of the acts of Solomon.” 1 Chronicles 29:29 refers to the “book of Samuel the seer,” “the book of Nathan the prophet,” and “the book of Gad the seer.” 2 Chronicles 12:15 refers to “the book of Shemaiah the prophet” and of “Iddo the seer.” The “book of Jehu the son of Hanani” is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20:34.

We can deduce from 1 Corinthians 5:9 that Paul wrote another letter to the Corinthians which was not preserved. There is also a reference by Paul to a letter which the Corinthians wrote to him, which is likewise not preserved (compare 1 Corinthians 7:1). Paul makes reference in Colossians 4:16 to an unpreserved “epistle from Laodicea,” which he even instructed the Church at Colossae to read. Luke makes reference to “many” who wrote down events pertaining to the life of Jesus (Luke 1:1-4).

The fact that reference is made in Scripture to some other book or a statement within another book does not mean that those writings were inspired. The same is true for Jude 14. Assuming that Jude quoted from Enoch 1:9, then this still does not indicate that he thought the entire book was inspired or true. All it means is that the particular quoted verse was true.

It is more likely, however, that Jude did not even quote from the book of Enoch. No scholar believes that the book of Enoch was written by the Enoch in the Bible. But it is obvious that the words of Enoch, as quoted by Jude, were something that the true Enoch prophesied. Jude related the prophecy of Enoch, as it had been preserved orally. Notice that Jude introduces Enoch’s words as follows, in verse 14: “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, SAYING…'” This introduction is then followed by the exact wording of Enoch’s oral prophecy, as quoted in verses 14 and 15.

Note, too, that Jude is not even referring to the book of Enoch in the context. He is just making the point that Enoch had made an oral prophecy, under godly inspiration. That one of the authors of the book of Enoch wrote down the substance of Enoch’s prophecy (even though with slight changes) does not render the book of Enoch inspired.

Consider the additional fact that Moses is quoted in Deuteronomy 33:2, using a similar statement as that of Jude: “‘…The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came with ten thousands of saints; From His right hand Came a fiery law for them.'”

While this quote does not reference Enoch, it does verify the same truth of what Jude wrote about.

We can safely say, then, that the Pseudepigrapha books, including the book of Enoch, are NOT inspired writings.

As is the case with the Apocrypha, the Jews never considered any of the Pseudepigrapha books inspired. And as we have pointed out in previous Q&A’s, God entrusted the Jews with preserving the “oracles of God,” including the INSPIRED Old Testament writings. In addition, many parts of the Pseudepigrapha contain heresies condemned in the Old Testament. Especially the book of Enoch preaches falsehood and doctrinal error; for instance, that allegedly angels married humans, and that the giants became evil spirits dwelling on earth (Book of Enoch, chapter 15, verses 8-10). Compare for more information Norbert Link’s sermon, titled, “When the Sons of God Saw the Daughters of Men…”

The Pseudepigrapha books also abound in even more historical errors than the Apocrypha.

Finally, the book of Enoch was never referred to by Jesus or any of the New Testament writers as Scripture, and the book was not included in the New Testament by the apostles. As we explained in a prior Q&A, the apostles Paul, Peter and John canonized the New Testament Scriptures, but the book of Enoch was not one of those books.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The Apocrypha are a collection of books, which were written in Greek by various individuals from about 400 to 200 B.C. The Catholic Church considers some of these books as inspired Scripture.

At the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.), the Catholic Church declared that some apocryphal books, together with unwritten Catholic tradition, are of God. It was stated that those who disagreed with this decision were to be considered “anathema.”

The Roman Catholic Church (as well as the Greek Orthodox Church) consider the following Apocrypha (which are also referred to as Deuterocanonical books) as inspired:

Tobit or Tobias
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch (including the letter of Jeremiah, Baruch 6)
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel [i.e., added chapters at the end of the book of Esther; and added chapters to the book of Daniel, including Prayer of Azariah (Daniel 3:24-50); the Song of the Three Young Men (Daniel 3:51-90); Susanna (Daniel 13); and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)].

The Catholic Church rejected as inspired the Apocryphal Books of Third and Fourth Maccabees, Psalm 151, First and Second Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh, as well as the so-called Pseudepigrapha, which were written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D. and which contain, among other writings, the books of Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. There are additional Pseudepigrapha books, which were possibly written after Christ’s death and which were likewise rejected as inspired, such as the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse of Elijah, and the Ascension of Isaiah.

When the Catholic Church decided in 1546 to treat some of the Apocrypha as inspired, their decision had been preceded by a hot debate among early “Church Fathers.” Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected as inspired the Apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15), and so did Epiphanius (360 A.D.). Referring to the Wisdom of Solomon and the book of Jesus Sirach, he said: “These indeed are useful books and profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.” In addition, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and Jerome spoke out against the inspiration of the Apocrypha.

In his preface to the Wisdom of Solomon, Jerome (340-420 A.D.) rejected the Apocrypha as godly inspired, stating: “As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”

According to Edward Hills in “The King James Version Defended,” page 98, other famous Catholics with this viewpoint included Augustine (354-430 A.D., who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D.), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.

The Protestant Churches have rejected as inspired all of the Apocrypha. It has been said that the translators of the early King James Bible (Authorized Version) felt that some of the Apocrypha were inspired, but this is incorrect. It is true that in early editions of the King James Bible, the Apocrypha were placed between the Old and New Testaments. But this was done as an appendix of reference material. The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629 A.D.

Luther stated: “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read” (compare, “The King James Version Defended,” page 98). Calvin wrote: “I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books.” His objection was to “placing the Apocrypha in the same rank” with inspired Scripture (“Antidote” to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68).

WE MUST STATE THAT THE APOCRYPHA ARE NOT INSPIRED WRITINGS.

Although there are many reasons why this is the case and why the Apocrypha must not be viewed as inspired, we are setting forth several striking examples for this conclusion:

1) The Jewish Canon never included the Apocrypha. This is important, as Romans 3:1-2 tells us that the Jews were given the godly responsibility to preserve the “oracles,” including the Hebrew Scriptures.

As a consequence, the Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 A.D.) rejected the Apocrypha as divinely inspired. Philo, a Jewish teacher from Alexandria (20 B.C.- 40 A.D.), quoted extensively from virtually every canonical Hebrew book but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.

Josephus (30-100 A.D.) said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority. In fact, the Jewish people reportedly destroyed the Apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of the prophet Malachi who lived about four centuries before Christ. While the proof of this assertion is not directly stated in the Word of God, the evidence is that no further inspired writings were given by God until Jesus Christ established the New Testament Church of God.

2) Jesus Himself confirmed the inspired canon of the Hebrew Bible and its correct order (which is divided into the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms). When speaking about the violent death of righteous people, He said in Luke 11:51: “… from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple…” The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2 Chronicles, the last book of the Hebrew canon.

3) It is also worthy to note that the New Testament never quotes from ANY of the Apocrypha, while it quotes extensively from EVERY section of the Old Testament Scriptures, which Jesus referred to as “ALL the Scripture” (Luke 24:27). In fact, there are allegedly 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha.

4) While the inspired Scriptures make the claim for themselves that they ARE inspired and infallible, the Apocrypha do NOT make this claim for their own writings.

For instance, the author of 2 Maccabees writes:

“… At this point I shall bring my work to an end. If it is found to be well written and aptly composed, that is what I myself aimed at; if superficial and mediocre, it was the best I could do” (2 Maccabees 15:37-38, Revised English Bible).

5) The Apocrypha contain blatant contradictions, but God’s inspired Word does not contradict itself (compare John 10:35). For example, in the two books of the Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three different deaths in three different places.

6) The Apocrypha include teachings which contradict the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, showing that the Apocrypha could not possibly be inspired. For instance, 2 Maccabees 12:42-45 states in the New Revised Standard Version, that 2.000 drachmas of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering and to “pray for the dead,” so that “atonement” or reconciliation for the dead could be made, so that “they might be delivered from sin.” The Revised English Bible translates that they were praying and giving the silver drachmas “to free the dead from their sin.” This concept of praying and paying for the dead is contrary to the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures (and to the teaching of the New Testament).

A terrible example of wrong teaching is included in Tobit 6:5, 8, where the “angel Azariah” gave the following “healing” advice: “Cut open the fish and take out the gall, heart, and liver… For its gall, heart, and liver are useful medicines… As for the fish’s heart and liver, you must burn them to make a smoke in the presence of a man or woman afflicted by a demon or evil spirit, and every affliction will flee away and never remain with that person any longer.”

We must therefore conclude that the Apocrypha are NOT inspired writings, and that they do not belong in the Bible. This is not to say that they must never be read. Especially historical records, for instance the first two books of the Maccabees, can give us valuable information. But as is the case with every book other than the inspired writings contained in the Holy Bible (the writings of Josephus, for example, are of historical value, but they are not “inspired”), we need to be aware that we will be reading, to a larger or smaller degree, truth mixed with error.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link