Talk:Book of Enoch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Enoch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk.

Bible Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Christianity Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Books

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There was a claim at Kingdom of Aksum that the book of Enoch mentions Axum. It was cited to someone named Murray “The Library: An illustrated history”. Any assistance in either assisting me in proving this wrong or else showing it to be somehow correct with an actual source on Enoch can head over there to the talk page. My removal has faced some resistance.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Unless it is a later Ge'ez translation, there would be no possible way the earliest versions of the book of Enoch would mention Axum. Africologist (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha (vol. 1, p. 6) there exist also the following Ethiopic manuscripts:

• Kebran 9/II (Hammerschmidt- Tanasee 9/11), fifteenth century (Atiopischen Handschriften von Tanasee; Wiesbaden, 1973, pp.107f)
• Princeton Ethiopic 3 (Garrett collection -Isaac 3): eighteenth or nineteenth century (A Catalogue of Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Garrett Collection), Princ. Univ. Lib. 1973 p. 3)
• EMML 2080: fifteenth (possibly 14th) century (a microfilm copy is preserved at St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota. in addition to the 17th-century manuscripts EMML 4437 and EMML4750)

95.233.176.20 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Text smells strongly of translation, possibly from Italian? Manuscript names don't follow standard English-language conventions. Bill (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs some work. It's unclear exactly how the section is helpful as it doesn't really summarize the work or give important details, and it seems to be written from a religious perspective in some places (as well as, until I just changed at least some of it, seemingly using 'ancient aliens' nonsense as a source. Nefaeryous (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible way that the original Book of Enoch was written in Ge'ez. Translated into Ge'ez in the first millennium CE, yes. Africologist (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article currently say that it was originally written in Geez?—Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It is absurd. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired it. 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very obviously vandalism (someone just replaced all instances of Aramaic with Ge'ez).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why is there no possible way and there is no evidence it was copied from Greek whatsover 149.90.75.126 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: 2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]