Friday, November 30, 2012

The Problem of Enoch

List of articles/books/sources
Manuscript from Lecture
Video from lecture 
     - Q&A Portion

I wrote this essay last year for my NT Canon class. Since then, I have continued to grow in my understanding of this issue, which means that there is much more to say and a few things to change. I don't believe I concentrate on Jude as much as I do in my lecture, and I no longer am focusing on just NT Canon, as this is a question of the OT Canon. Lord willing, I do plan on revamping this in the future, and I do encourage all the feedback you can give: )
 The Problem of Enoch:
a challenge to the current model of canon theology

       According to scholars the Book of Enoch was authoritative in the first few centuries of the church. RH Charles, whose translation of the Book of Enoch many still use, made this startling claim:
“Nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it [The Book of Enoch], and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction. It is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude, and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. The authors of the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Ezra, laid it under contribution. With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book” (Charles ix).

Charles Bigg, who wrote on Jude in the highly-acclaimed International Critical Commentary of the New Testament of 1901, made the bold statement that when the Epistle of Barnabas (135 AD) was written, Enoch was held to be inspired (Bigg 309). A much more modern scholar, James VanderKam, also gives his assent, “Enoch's writings were a legitimate source of authority for some time [among early Christians]” (VanderKam 100).
            We know today that the Book of Enoch is not found in our canon and is not even found in the canon of the Roman Catholic Church[1]. As we will see, it was as early as the fourth century when the Book of Enoch fell out of favor. For the current theology of the canon, this brings up a major problem. Much of the current theology of the canon rests on the witness of the fourth and fifth century church leaders. If it is shown that they were not simply preserving the earlier churches' testimony regarding authoritative books and doctrines but making decisions according to their own beliefs, our current theology of canon will have to be rethought. In order to prove such a bold claim, I will survey the Book of Enoch's influence first in Judaism, and then in the early church. I will be using a lot of material from H.J. Lawlor, R.H. Charles, James VanderKam, and George Nickelsburg, all of whom are experts in Enoch and have researched the influence of Enoch on the early church.      
            Before we survey the evidence, a short summary of the discovery and content of Enoch is in order. The book of Enoch was lost to Judaism and Western Christianity for most of the second millennium and was not discovered until 1773 when James Bruce was searching for sources about the River Nile in Ethiopia. Bruce brought three manuscripts back with him to Europe and in 1800 parts of the text were translated into Latin. The first full translation wasn't completed until 1821 and since then numerous scholars have published their own versions.
            The consensus among scholars is that the Ethiopic version was translated from a Greek version which in turn, was translated from a Semitic original (Nickelsburg 9). In 1886/7 a Greek manuscript of Enoch 1-32 was discovered. This brought scholars the next step closer to the proposed Semitic original. Then, in Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered which included 20 different fragments in Aramaic (9). This confirmed for many that Enoch was originally written in Aramaic and even more, this proved Enoch existed before the Christian Church.
            We can now turn to the content of 1 Enoch. The book can be divided into five sections: The Book of the Watchers (Ch 1-36), The Book of the Parable (37-71), The Book of the Luminaries (72-82), The Dream Visions (83-90), The Epistle of Enoch (91-105), and the Birth of Noah (106-107). The majority of scholars today maintain that each section was once independent (VanderKam 33). The most attested to and important book is the Book of the Watchers. It is this book this paper will follow, and its from this book that we have the quote in Jude fourteen and fifteen, and the allusions in 2 Peter and Genesis. Scholars generally date the Book of the Watchers to 200 BC at the latest (Bauckham 314). One even calls for a fifth-century composition (314).         
            The Book of Watchers elaborates on the Genesis 6:1-4 story. In chapters six through eleven, we are told of how the Watchers, who were angels in the days of Jared, saw the daughters of men and lusted after them. Two hundred of them banded together and descended to Earth on Mount Hermon. Each of the angels took a wife and had children. These hybrid offspring were giants who towered a massive three hundred cubits, four hundred and fifty feet tall! One Greek manuscript adds in that these giants produced the Nephilim (Laurence 7:11). The giants consumed all of man's resources and then turned on the people and the animals of the Earth.
            During this time the Watchers also taught mankind all sorts of secrets of heaven. Charms, astrology, enchantments, weapons of warfare, how to work metal, the signs of the sun, moon, and stars, and even the “beautifying of eyelids” were taught to men. Thus much godlessness was committed by man, and they cried out to God. God responded in three different ways. He sentenced the Watchers to be held prisoner in a terrible valley of punishment (See Charles 10:12 and 67:4) until the day of judgment. God also had His angels purge the earth of the giants and heal the earth of all the destruction. The third and most interesting response of God was to commission Uriel (one of His top angels) to go and tell Noah to hide himself, for God was going to rid the earth of mankind by the deluge. Uriel was to“instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world” (Charles 10:3).
            Chapters twelve to sixteen are labeled the dream-vision of Enoch (24). In response to God's condemnation of the Watchers, the Watchers commissioned Enoch to act as intercessor to God on their behalf. Enoch agreed to it, and was given a vision where he was transported to heaven and delivered the Watchers plea which God promptly denied. Woven throughout this story is the description of heaven with all of its wonders. After the denial of the Watchers appeal, Enoch journeys throughout the earth and even sees Sheol (chapters seventeen to thirty-six). Much is spoken of in these chapters including information about the seven Archangels of God[2] (chapter twenty), The Lake of Fire (Chapter twenty-one), and Sheol (chapter twenty-two). One astounding verse even mentions that the spirits of these Watchers will lead mankind to sacrifice to demons as gods (19:1). We also hear more about the prison of the Watchers:
And beyond these mountains Is a region the end of  the great earth: there the heavens were completed. And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns' of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains.” (Charles 42-43)
            The Book of the Watchers ends with Enoch traveling to the South and then to the North. With this understanding of the Book of the Watchers, we can now begin surveying the history of its reception, beginning with the Jews before Christ's time, and continuing to the early church until we come to the time of Augustine and Jerome. I will include citations of Enoch and His book, along with the citation of the story of the fallen angels. Many refer only to the story of the fallen angels, but this points directly to the authority of the Book of the Watchers because it's the earliest, most developed version of it (VanderKam 42). Because the early church used much of the Jewish Scripture and tradition, we will start with Jewish sources.
            The most important document of Jewish antiquity relating to Enoch would be the Book of Jubilee's[3]. According to RH Charles, this book was written by a Pharisee between 135 and 105 BC (Charles Jubilee's xiii). It is basically a reworking of Genesis and Exodus and pulls a lot from the Book of Enoch. In five separate areas, Jubilee's uses material from the Book of Enoch extensively. Jubilees 4:15-16 speaks of Enoch being with the angels of God who showed him “everything on earth” and he testified against the Watchers who had united themselves with the daughters of men and sinned. Jubilees 5:1-12 describes the fall of the angels who has united with the women and how they were bound in the depths until the day of condemnation. Jubilees 7:21 speaks again of the story in Enoch 6-11 of the angels uniting with the women. The eighth chapter of Jubilees verse three mentions how the watchers taught men astronomy/astrology which parallels 1 Enoch 8. Jubilees 10:10-18 – Enoch 12-16.
            The most important quote, however, is Jubilee's 4:17-18:
“And he was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. And he was the first to write a testimony, and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth” (36-37).

            This quote is speaking directly of a book written by Enoch the patriarch which contains signs of heaven. The third part of today's Book of Enoch is called The Book of the Luminaries for that very reason, it speaks often of the signs of the sky. There are many more parallels found in the Book of Jubilees, I have only included a sampling.
            As one can see, the Book of Jubilee's relied heavily on 1 Enoch. Since Jubilee's supposedly came from an angel, the fact that a good amount of Enochic material is used validates the Book of Enoch as authoritative and, at least in the eyes of the author of Jubilee's, given by God (Nickelsburg 72). This is important because intertestamental literature like the Book of Jubilee's can show us what Judaism looked at that time.
            The discovery at Qumran also shed much light on Jewish feelings towards the Book of Enoch. Though it may not represent the majority of Judaism, these findings indicate that the Book of Enoch, along with other “apocryphal” books, was held to be authoritative by a portion of the community. Lee McDonald, in his book The Forgotten Scriptures, lists out how many copies of each Old Testament book have been found and the reader is shown that though a few books like Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Psalms have between 20 and 40 copies, most of the books have between two and six copies (McDonald 53). In contrast, the reader is told that 1 Enoch has twelve copies, Jubilee's has fourteen, and Tobit five copies. According to McDonald not only did these books and others like it function as scripture, they were more valued than books like Ezra and Chronicles, each of which have only one copy that's been discovered (60). Nickelsburg further states that “the Enochic and calendrical material was fundamental for community life and religious observance.” (Nickelsburg77).
            Many other documents of Qumran prove that this sect believed Enoch to be authoritative. The Damascus Document, of which there have been eight copies found, knew the story of the Watchers (77). There was a commentary on the Book of Watchers also found, along with several other documents that employed the tradition of the Watchers (77). The evidence found from Qumran is overwhelming, and represents at least a sect that understood Enoch to be authoritative.
            There are many other documents we could consider that contain references to Enoch and his writings which I will briefly cove. The Psuedo-Epolemus document (early second century BC) mentions Enoch as the inventor of Astrology along with he and his son learning all things from the angels of God[4] (Pseudo-Eupolemus, qtd. Eusebius, Praeparatio 212). The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira (second century BC) had a high regard of both Enoch and his writings, along with affirming Genesis 6:1-4 as the fall of the angels (71). The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (second century BC) has nine direct references to the Book of Enoch (Charles lxxv and Lawlor 169). Charles also believes that 2 Baruch (late first or early second century AD) is dependent on 1 Enoch, as 2 Baruch does refer to and name the Book of Enoch, specifically the Book of the parables (lxxvii). Likewise, 4 Ezra (written 81-96) makes much use of and names the Book of Enoch, mainly the Book of the Parables (lxxviii).
            Genesis 6:1-4 gives us a most curious story. The sons of God saw the daughters of men were beautiful, and took them as their wives. After this, the Lord decided that His Spirit shall not strive with men forever. After this, we learn of the Nephilim on the Earth, during and after this period of the sons of God having offspring with the daughters of men. The very next verse we read that God saw that the wickedness of man was great, and He grieved that He had made men. What do we do with this? Who are these sons of God? There have been three main answers to this question. The sons of God could be referring to the sons of princes, which Orthodox Judaism has now adopted; angels; or the Sethites as the godly line (Keil and Delitzsch).
            The Septuagint translation perhaps gives us a clue to the understanding of this controversial passage within Jewish antiquity. The Pentatuech is said to have been completed around the middle of the third century. According to tradition, seventy-two Jewish elders translated the LXX. Both Jews and Christians alike believed this translation to be divine, especially those five books of Moses[5], which means that its witness can give us a good picture of mainstream opinion of Antiquity. In Genesis 6:1-4 we read of the Sons of God coming into the daughters of men. Much debate surrounds this term, the sons of God. The Septuagint gives us a very interesting take. In verse two, where it says “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose” (NASB), the LXX substitutes angels of God, in place of the sons of God (Sweete 9).
            Augustine, who was a strong opponent of the Watcher story, conceded this point (Augustine 303). However, Augustine argued that angels of God merely meant messengers, and he cited examples of the prophets who were called God's angels[6] (303). The witness of the Septuagint does not prove on its own that the Jews believed in the story of the Watcher, yet it does point to it. Augustine had to write an entire chapter defending his interpretation of this rendering of the Septuagint, which speaks of the atmosphere of his day.
            Our next testimonies come from the Jewish historians, Josephus and Philo. Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD) was born a son of the priest and descendant of the Hasmonean dynasty (Josephus ix). At 19, he joined the party of the Pharisee's (ix). He would later become involved in war between the Romans and the Jews that eventually brought about the downfall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (ix). He was very much involved with the Jews and Judaism and is an excellent witness to Jewish religion of his time.
             In Antiquity of the Jews, book one chapter three, Josephus writes, “For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants” (32). This is quite an interesting quote. It comes right after Josephus' description of how the godly Sethites turned corrupt at the seventh generation, possibly implying that angels of God meant Sethites. But it is rather confusing. Nickelsburgs take was that Josephus was interpreting Genesis 6 as referring to the Sethites, yet believed Josephus was trying to combine the traditions of the Watchers mating with women and teaching secrets with the Sethite interpretation of Genesis 6 (Nickelsburg 79).
            William Whiston, the translator for the Works of Josephus commented on this confusing passage of Josephus by stating that the story of the fallen angels fathering the giants was a “constant opinion of antiquity” (Josephus 32). Notice he used the term fallen angels, thus proving he believed Josephus to be interpreting Genesis 6:1-4 as fallen angels and not Sethites. There is mixed opinion on what Josephus believed in regard to the fall of the angels. We know for sure he did not mention Enoch and the Watchers.
            Philo of Alexandria was an odd combination of Jew and Greek philosopher who lived from 20 BC to 40 AD in Egypt. He did indeed prescribe to the story of the fallen angels in reference to Genesis 6:1-4, though he took an alternate interpretation, describing it as part of the story of the soul. But this makes sense, as Philo tried to harmonize Judaism with the wisdom of the Greeks (Toy, Siegfried, and  Lauterbach). After a thorough comparison between the Book of the Watchers and Philo's section on Genesis 6 (entitled On The Giants), Archie T. Wright concludes that Josephus was at least aware of the story of the Watchers, and was even “attempting to ‘correct’ such an understanding of the problem of evil and its origins” (Wright 488).
            From this survey of Jewish thought in antiquity, we see mainly the plethora of intertestamental books and Qumran mentioning Enoch by name and using his writings authoritatively. It is hard to tell how much of Judaism accepted this, but it does represent a significant portion of Jewish thought during this time. Baukham is bold enough to say that the Watcher story was the standard interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 of that day (Bauckham 316). The Jewish historians, along with the Septuagint, witness to a belief of angels descending to earth and having sexual relations with women. This lends itself very nicely to story found within the Book of the Watchers, though it is confirmed that they did not prescribe to such a tradition. Even if it is demonstrated that the Book of Enoch and the Watcher story was not held by all of Judaism, it still would not hurt my thesis. For what matters is what the apostles believed and held to, and not what the Jews believed. However, what has been proven at the very least is that some of Judaism[7] held Enoch as sacred. Such was the environment in which Christianity was birthed.
            Now to the main part of this paper – how did the early church view the Book of Enoch and the Watcher tradition? We will see that many in the early church did accept the authority of the Book of Enoch and the watchers. Not all are aware of the Book of Enoch, but they cite interpret Genesis six as referring to fallen angels. VanderKam asserts that the Book of Enoch is the oldest and most developed witness to this doctrine, which means any interpretation of Genesis six as fallen angels originates in Enoch, even if the interpreter if not aware of Enoch himself (VanderKam 42).
            I will argue that this was the commonly held view of the early church, and it wasn't until about the fourth and fifth centuries that this doctrine was discarded. The question is then raised, whose opinion should we align with, those of the earlier church, or men of the age of Augustine? We will then realize that this then raises significant issues with the question of canon.
            Let us first evaluate The Epistle of Barnabas, which gives us much material to start with. This epistle is no longer thought to be authored by Barnabas, yet scholars believe that it is among one of the earliest works of Christians outside of the Bible (VanderKam 36). It was most likely written in Alexandria (36). There is much reason to think that this epistle was popular in the early church. It was included at the end of the Sinaitic Codex, and “confidently” cited by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind and even Jerome (Paget 441[8] . Which means the material contained in this epistle would have been accepted by or at least influenced many.
            We read in the Epistle of Barnabas 16:5b-16 –
 “For the scripture saith, And it shall come to pass in the last days that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of his pasture, and their fold and their tower shall he give up to destruction; and it happened according to that which the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, therefore, whether there be any temple of God. There is; even where he himself hath declared that he would make and perfect it. For it is written, And it shall be when the week is completed that the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.” (Schaff 1.396)

            According to Charles (which VanderKam reiterates) this quote of Barnabas' is a summary of 1 Enoch 89:56,66 and 91:13(Charles lxxxi)[9]. In context, the author is proving the error of putting ones trust in the Temple of the Jews, which is just a building, instead of God (VanderKam 38). To illustrate his point, the author of the Epistle quotes from Isaiah 40:12; 66:1; and 49:17 (38). We then come upon this passage quoted above. Barnabas makes it clear; to him this quote is scripture. Notice also that Barnabas saw this prophecy as being carried out by God with the destruction of the Temple. This quote is not taken from the Book of Watchers, but the Book of Dream Visions, which proves that the Book of the Watchers it not the only part of 1 Enoch that was taken authoritatively.
            We find a second citation of Enoch material in the Epistle of Barnabas in Chapter four verse three, “The tribulation being made perfect is at hand, concerning which it is written, as Enoch saith, For to this purpose the Lord hath cut short the times and the days, that his beloved might make haste and come into his inheritance” (Schaff 1.373) Here we have Enoch being mentioned by name as having written something that Barnabas is taking authoritatively. The next verse Barnabas quotes Daniel as writing similar things as Enoch, and elsewhere is the chapter Exodus, Isaiah, Matthew, and a few New Testament epistles are mentioned or alluded to (38).
            The difference from this quote and the last one (besides that Enoch is named) is that no one is sure where this quote comes from. Charles simply writes that this quote is, “not in our Enoch” (Charles lxxxi). VanderKam lists a few different possibilities, but concludes that Barnabas is indeed using teachings of Enoch (VanderKam 37).
            Moving on, we can skim through the Apocalypse of Peter. The Apocalypse of Peter was written sometime between 125 and 150 AD and possibly came out of Egypt (Metzger 184). It is first mentioned in the Muratorian Canon where we hear “some of our people do not wish it to be read in church” (184). Clement of Alexandria (before 215) believed the apocalypse to be Peter's and quoted from it, along with Methodius of Olympus (about 311), and Macarius Magnes (about 400) (“Muratorian” and Metzger 184). Metzger states that the early church had a “high regard” for the Apocalypse, and was even reading it church in the fifth-century (184). Also of note is that fragments of the Apocalypse of Peter were found bundled with 1 Enoch 1-32 in an Egyptian codex (Nickelsburg 87)
            Lawlor points out that verse 6 of the Akhmim Fragment tells of two men who were beautiful to behold (Lawlor 172). They are described as having bodies “whiter than any snow and redder than any rosé.” Their countenance came as a “ray as of the sun” and “their raiment was shining so as the eye of man never saw the like” (James B.6-9). Lawlor compares this to Enoch 106:2,10 which uses the exact same descriptive words to describe Noah – his body was white as snow and red as a rosé, and his eyes are like the “rays of the sun” (Lawlor 173). Lawlor admits that the consensus is that this late chapter of Enoch was an interlopation by the final editor of the Book of Enoch, but Lawlor points to Enoch 14:19-20 (The much attested Book of the Watchers) and shows the same imagery of His raiment was the appearance of the sun, more resplendent and whiter than any snow (173)[10]. Given that Apocalypse claims to be the words of Jesus, this would prove that the writer of the Apocalypse believed the Book of Enoch to be authoritative.
            Justin Martyr is our first church leader as a witness to the Book of Enoch. Born around the beginning of the second century in Samaria, Justin was a teacher who founded a school in Rome. As an apologist for the faith, the story of the Watchers proves to be an integral part of his attack on the pagan religion that surrounded him In his second apology chapter five, written between 148 and 161, we read:

[God] committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons; and besides, they afterwards subdued the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and the punishments they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices[...] (Schaff 1.508).

            Fascinatingly, Justin uses the story of the Watchers as an authority to prove that the Greek gods were the wicked watchers (Nickelsburg 88). He not only implies that they disobeyed God, descended to Earth, and mated with women, which we found in the Jewish historians, but he mentions that their offspring were demons and that they taught men magical writings. Justin mentions the demons again in conjunction with “defiling women and corrupting boys” in his first apology proving that the story of the Watchers was firmly etched in his theology (Schaff 1.428). Though Martyr does not mention Enoch or the Book of Enoch, his authoritative use of the Watcher story is only found in Enoch and documents that rely on Enoch.[11]
            Papias (ca.130), bishop of Hierapolis contributes two pieces of material to the current survey. According to Ireneaus, Papias attributed to Jesus a saying that possibly originated in 1 Enoch 10:19 concerning how much the earth would produce in paradise (Nickelsburg 87). In Papias fr. 8 we are told, “To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says, immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing” (Schaff 1.414). This is a bit vague but likely refers to the reason why the Watchers are called the Watchers – They were to watch over the world. Papias then tells us that this did not work out, leaving out all the details.
            Our next early church leader that speaks of or alludes to the Book of Enoch is Athenagoras of Alexandria. Athenagoras was an Athenian philosopher and one of the early Apologists to the Romans. The work which we shall examine is called the Embassy (which means apology), which was presented to the Emperors Aurelius and Commodus about 177 AD (Schaff 2.278). In chapters 24 and 25, which are devoted to the angels and giants, we find:

“(You know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets);these [angels] fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants[12][...]These angels, then, who have fallen from heaven, and haunt the air and the earth, and are no longer able to rise to heavenly things, and the souls of the giants, which are the demons who wander about the world” (Schaff 2.315-317).

            Several things stand out from this selection. First, the angels are not able to return to heaven. That's a very developed statement in comparison to the citations we have surveyed so far. 1 Enoch speaks of the same thing in 13:4 and 14:5 (Nickelsburg 88), stating, “And from henceforth you shall not ascend into heaven unto all eternity, and in bonds of the earth the decree has gone forth to bind you for all the days of the world” (Charles 32). Second, Athenagoras specifies that the demons are the souls of the giants, which is another detail found in Enoch 15:11 – 16:1 (Nickelsburg 88). These details are not found in the Genesis 6 story, which means Athenagorus had to have something else to pull from (VanderKam 41).
            The most important detail of this selection is the statement about the prophets. Athenagorus writes that he says nothing apart from the prophets, and then goes on to relate this story of the Watchers. A scholar has raised the opinion that Athenagorus was referring to Moses when he said that, because the root of the story is found in Genesis (41). However, as I just said, there are many details that are not in the Genesis six story, which means it did not come from Moses (42). Many scholars believe it is a very likely possibility that Athenagorus is joining with Jude in affirming the Book of Enoch as a book of a prophet (42). It should also be noted that  Athenagorus followed the example of Justin and attributed mankind's worship of pagan gods to the influence of the Watchers\demons (Schaff 2.319).
            Out of Lyons we hear more testimony for the authority of Enoch. Ireneaus was born in Smyrna and wrote much concerning Enoch and the story of the Watchers around the year 180 (Nickelsburg 88). In Against Heresies 4.16.2, Enoch is said to have, “discharged the office of God’s legate to the angels although he was a man[...]because the angels when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment” (Schaff 1.1202). This comes in the context of listing of other great men of Genesis who had been justified apart from the law. Enoch is the only example that Irenaeus goes further then what is found in Genesis, which implies that Irenaeus understood the relation of Genesis and 1 Enoch (VanderKam 42). It also shows that Irenaeus considered the Enochic account on the same level as Genesis (42).   Nickelsburg gives several other examples of Irenaeus' mention of the sins of the angels[13]. Some, like 4.36.4, also mention the “commingling” of the angels among mankind, illustrating that to Irenaeus, the sin of the angels included taking wives from that daughters of men (Schaff 1.1227). In his Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching 18, Irenaeus speaks clearly of the “illicit unions” of angels and women (Irenaeus 53-54[14]). We also learn from this selection that their offspring produced the giants and that the angels teach the women, “virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colors and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God” (54). This list of items is quite unique and very similar to the list given in 1 Enoch 8. Irenaeus explains right after he gives this list that, “entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled” (54). This parallels the idea found in 1 Enoch 10:7-9 that through the angels' introduction of these “secrets” mankind became corrupted.
            It is necessary that I quote one more selection of Irenaeus in order to show the place the story of the Watchers had in his theology. It appears to even be Ireneaus' version of the regula fide, or rule of truth:                
“The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory” (Schaff 1.876)

            I have shown that to Ireneaus, the angels who transgressed are one and the same with the angels of the Watcher story. Which means that here Ireneaus is not only affirming his own belief in the story of the Watchers, but that this was passed down from the apostles. Notice also how he uses the Holy Spirit as the proclaimer of this early creed, equating the Watcher story with the voice of the Holy Spirit (VanderKam 43).
            Writing some twenty years after Irenaeus, Clement, who founded the famous school in Alexandria, also corroborates Enoch's authority. In his Selection from the Prophets 53.4, written around 200 AD, we read, “Enoch says that the angels who transgressed taught men astronomy and divination and the other arts” (Bauckham 320). This quote of Enoch's was written right after Clement had stated that all the demons knew that it was the Lord who was raised after the cross, making it seem like Clement was appealing to Enoch as an authority. Clement is also confirming both the story of the Watchers and that it is written in a book by Enoch. VanderKam notes that Clement's use of ηδη signals that he viewed the Book of Enoch as being written from antiquity, and not forged in a recent time (VanderKam 46).
            It seems that in the time of Clement many viewed Greek philosophy as originating from the devil. Clement argued against this many times in his writings[15] and even stated that these people believed that pagan ideas were, “stolen by the fallen angels who revealed it illicitly to humanity, which means it was quite a widespread belief of his time” (Schaff 685). Bauckham asserts that those who believed that Greek philosophy came from the devil based this on 1 Enoch 16:3[16] and determined that any secrets revealed were worthless (Bauckham 324). Clement had a clever point against this. He admitted yes, the wisdom was stolen, but that doesn't make it any less wise (324). Instead of arguing that the angel story is ludicrous, Clement is admitting that fallen angels did indeed steal secrets but that we should not throw these secrets out. For truth is truth, whether stolen or not.
            In book five of his Stromata's, Clement makes it clear that this common belief of his time was the Watcher story:
“And we showed in the first Miscellany that the philosophers of the Greeks are called thieves, inasmuch as they have taken without acknowledgment their principal dogmas from Moses and the prophets. To which also we shall add, that the angels who had obtained the superior rank, having sunk into pleasures, told to the women the secrets which had come to their knowledge; while the rest of the angels concealed them, or rather, kept them against the coming of the Lord. Thence emanated the doctrine of providence, and the revelation of high things; and prophecy having already been imparted to the philosophers of the Greeks, the treatment of dogma arose among the philosophers.” (Schaff 2.942-3)
            Here we see everything in detail. Clement believed that the origins of pagan philosophy came from both Moses and the Prophets and from these angels who had co-mingled with the women. Bauckham notes that the “revelation of high things” connects with the usual descriptions of the fallen angels teachings (Bauckham 325). From his analysis of Clement's writings regarding Enoch, Lawlor concluded that though it's hard to determine Clement's view on the authority of Enoch (doesn't seem to hard to me), it is clear that Clement regarded the writings of Enoch as authored by Enoch himself (Lawlor 201).
            Tertullian of Carthage is the most outspoken and has written the most material on our topic of the book of Enoch. Glover states that Tertullian was “the first man of genius of the Latin race to follow Jesus Christ, and to re-set his ideas in the language native of his race” (Glover qtd. by Metzger 157). No one is sure of the precise dates of Tertullians writings, but all are in agreement that they were right around the start of the second century. We do know that all of Tertullians writings that deal with Enoch were written before his slip into Montanism, with the only possible exception being On Idolatry (VanderKam 47).
            We shall start with the most obvious selection, taken from On The Apparel of Women, book one chapter three entitled, “Concerning the Genuineness of "The Prophecy of Enoch”:
“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. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
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” (Schaff 4.29)
            There is much here, but I will have to summarize it. As we can see from the title, Tertullian is defending the genuineness of the Book of Enoch. Depending on how much is “some” and taking the rest of the literature of this period into account, we can probably conclude that the “some” hold a minority view of not accepting the Book of Enoch. It is apparent that Tertullian himself believes that Enoch is authoritative, calling it scripture in the opening sentence and again in the third paragraph.
            Also worthy of consideration is Tertullians' opinion about why the Jews reject it. Notice Tertullian makes it sound like this rejection was a recent happening – “By the Jews it may now seem.” Tertullian also argues that the Jews reject Enoch because Enoch preaches Christ, just like they do with other portions of Scripture. This is important because as we will see one of the reasons the Book of Enoch falls out of favor is because the Jews reject it.
            Elsewhere, Tertullian affirms that the angels left heaven for the women of Earth and showed them many secrets, including the cuttings of herbs, enchantments, astrology, and the ways to entice men (Schaff 4.27). Tertullian also continues the tradition of attributing the influence of the demons to idol worship, stating that Enoch prophesied that it would be so (Nickelsburg 89). According to Nickelsburg, Tertullian must have known of the Book of the Watchers, chapters 81:1-82:3 of the Book of the Luminaries, the Epistle of Enoch, and maybe even the Book of the Parables (89). Tertullian continues the high regard for Enoch, but is the first to defend it against doubters (VanderKam 54).
            Our survey takes us next to Origen, the successor of Clement of Alexandria. Origen referred to the writings of Enoch five times, though it sometimes seemed confusing (Nickelsburg 90). VanderKam believes Origen's view on Enoch “evolved over time”, which might explain the rather confusing remarks (VanderKam 54).      Lawlor believes Origen held the Book of Enoch to be genuinely from Enoch the patriarch (Lawlor 204). He believes that Origen's first reference to Enoch, found in First Principles, was a representation of what the school of Alexandria believed, while his later books and references to Enoch show Origen's own beliefs modifying the Alexandrian tradition (204).
            Among Origen's writings is First Principles, written around 225 AD, where we find two references to Enoch and his book[17]. According to VanderKam, in the context that Origen uses Enoch, Origen considers the Book of Enoch inspired and authoritative (VanderKam 56). He even calls Enoch, the author the Book of Enoch, a prophet (56).
            Origen, in his Commentary on John 6:42, written about 226-229 AD, cites Enoch authoritatively and then writes, “if it pleases one to accept the book [of Enoch] as holy” (Nickelsburg 91). This indicates that Origen's audience was skeptical of the book, yet shows that Origen himself accepted it as scripture. We see this in Origen's Homilies on Numbers 28.2 (244 AD) as well:
Concerning which (names) many secret and hidden things are contained in the books that are called Enoch's. But since these books do not seem to be considered authoritative among the Hebrews, for the present we defer citing as an example the things that are named there and pursue our investigation from the things that we have in hand whose authority cannot be doubted" (91).
            The idea that Origen's views evolved over time as VanderKam asserts can be seen here as well. Origen goes from citing Enoch as scripture to hesitantly calling holy, yet still cites it then to deferring to cite it. We next read in Against Celsus, book five chapter fifty-two written about 250 AD (91):
For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears” (Schaff 4.1313)
            Celsus was arguing that Christ was not the only angel who had come to men (Lawlor 201). He then appeals to this “they.” This is very important because the “they” mentioned is referring to common belief of the Christians of his day (202). Among Origen's replies to Celsus' assertion[18], we find that Celsus is doubtlessly getting his information from the Book of Enoch; Celsus is misinterpreting Enoch's contents which means he has not even read the book; and Celsus is unaware that “in the churches that books that bear the name of Enoch do not at all circulate as divine” (Nickelsburg 91).
            Nickelsburg notes that this is one of the most strongest negative claims about Enoch from Origen. It comes in the later part of his life. But it seems as if Origen is making two contradictory statements. For we see that Celsus got his information from the common belief of the Christians. But then Origen states that the book does not circulate as “divine” in the church. I am not sure how to interpret that, but Nickelsburg concludes that Origen did consider the Book of Enoch to be authentic and even scripture. However, Origen acknowledged that not all believed so, and because of such people, he would not invest much in Enoch while writing for the public (92). Lawlor notes that in this passage Origen calls Enoch a prophet, thus showing his true feelings on the Book of Enoch, which would make Nickelsburgs conclusion more understandable (Lawlor 202).           
            We must now scan the rest of the church leaders. Though Julius of Africanus (221 AD) was the sole christian writer to interpret Genesis 6 as Sethites and not angels, he quotes from 1 Enoch as he chronographs Genesis to the end of the world[19] (92). He believes the Sethite version because he found the term “sons of God” instead of the “angels of God” in several different manuscripts of Genesis 6 (92). He does admit though, that if “angels of God' is the correct rendering, it must refer to the Enochic story (92).
            Anatolius of Alexandria ca. 270 (Nickelsburg 92), Commodian ca. Mid-third century (VanderKam 82), Cyprian ca. 250 (82-3), Zosimus of Panopolis ca. Late third to early fourth century (83), and Lactantius ca. 305 (84-85) all refer to Enoch authoritatively one way or another. The famed Eusebius even interprets Genesis 6:1-4 as referring to angels and that these angels are the same as the gods of the pagans[20] (Bradshaw). It is said even Ambrose held to the fallen angels interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 (Bradshaw).
            It is proven beyond doubt that the majority of the early church[21] held to the fallen angels interpretation of Genesis six. In fact, before the year three hundred AD, there was only one christian author who interpreted Genesis six as referring to men (Bauckham 316).Many church leaders add more information than what is found in the Genesis account. However some, like the later fathers, speak of only material found in Genesis. This actually makes more sense because that was the time when Enoch was falling out of favor, as we will soon see.
            Not all the church leaders have the exact same details, but so would one expect if the story of the Watchers was held in common by all. It's going to get twisted here and there, because at this early time not all had the collection of authoritative books to refer to, they had to rely on orality. But the story remains the same. Angels lusted after the women and the descended to Earth and produced giants/demons.
            The biggest difference between the Jewish use and the early Christian use of the Watcher story is the emphasis on the Watchers as contributing to the worship of demons. The early Christians, especially the Apologists, make great use of this aspect found in Enoch 19:1 – 

And Uriel said to me:' Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women, and their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind and shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons ""as gods"", (here shall they stand), till ""the day of"" the great judgment in which they shall be judged till they are made an end o£ (Charles 43).

            With this understanding some of the New Testament writings concerning angels starts coming into focus a little bit better. First Corinthians 11:10 states, “Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels.” Paul goes on as if his audience knew exactly what he was talking about. He uses this understanding of the angels as evidence for his command.
            We see this in Second Peter 2:4 as well, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment.” Peter then lists the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to prove his point that God will rescue the “godly from temptation and keep the unrighteous for the day of judgment” (2:9).
            This same idea is reiterated in Jude 6, “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” The example of Sodom and Gomorrah again follows immediately after. The two passages show this same instance of the angels being kept in prison on the same level as biblical events. But what is important to notice is that, if they are referring to Genesis six, there is much more information included than what we are told in Genesis. We learn that these angels were cast into hell and are awaiting judgment in eternal bonds; that this prison is under darkness; and that the angels were assigned a specific “abode” which they abandoned. Peter and Jude must be pulling from another source, and this source must be well know to the early church because they refer to the angels casually and without explanation.
            Once you add in Jude fourteen and fifteen, the conclusion seems almost certain:
“And about these also Enoch, [in] the seventh [generation] from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
This is found verbatim in 1 Enoch 1:9:
And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute judgment upon all. And to destroy all the ungodly And to convict all flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Charles 7-8).

Notice also that Jude specifies that this Enoch was the same Enoch that walked with God in Genesis. Which means that Jude had as his disposal a prophecy that dated back before the flood.
            The evidence is now staggering. We know there was a very popular doctrine in the early church that Paul, Peter, and Jude all referred to. It has to be extra-biblical because there is more material than what is found in Genesis six. Jude actually quotes 1 Enoch, which happens to also have the same material that 2 Peter and Jude 6 have. It has now been proven that the generation that came after the apostles held to the Book of Enoch. The conclusion seems inevitable. The early church believed the Book of Enoch was both written by the Patriarch himself and that it was authoritative for them. So how come we don't do the same today?
            VanderKam, Bigg, Charles, and Nickelsburg all agree that it was about the beginning of the fourth century when Enoch fell into disfavor and eventually was discarded. VanderKam attributed this decanonization[22] to the rising of the Sethite interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 (VanderKam 101). George Nickelsburg, who wrote a very respected commentary on Enoch in 2001, gives several different reasons for the falling out of Enoch. One of which was Jerome's dismissal because the story of the Watchers was a source of the Manichaens (Nickelsburg 102). Augustine also may have also disregarded Enoch for this reason, and Nickelsburg suggested Enoch's use among the Gnostics and heresies was a major reason for the church at large to reject it (102).
            Another of Nickelsburg's reasons was the rise of other explanations for the origin of evil – Isaiah fourteen as the fall of Satan, along with the “increasing emphasis on Adam (and Eve) as the cause of all sin” (102). The author went as far to suggest that Augustine may have disliked Enoch and the story of the Watchers because of his own developing “anthropologically oriented doctrine of original sin” (102). Bigg would add attribution of carnal lust to heavenly beings to the list of reasons for condemnation (Bigg). This reason is what I hear the most of today.
            Reflecting on these reasons, are they enough to reject a book that had once been held to be sacred? The more important question, did the church at that time have the authority to reject any books that were held as sacred?
            It has been proven that the traditional Evangelical theory of canon formation is historically inaccurate. The books in today's canon were not considered canonical as soon as they were penned. It was a process. We don't have much material between the apostles and the fourth and fifth-century, but it seems that the rule of faith was handed down from the apostles throughout this time as a standard to compare all doctrine. This rule of faith was then used, along with whether or not a book was written by an apostle or his associate, to determine what books should be included in the canon. That process took place mostly in the fourth and fifth-centuries, which is why we have so many canon lists during that time. It has been commonly thought that the leaders of the church used only the mentioned criteria to determine what books would be included. Though the Book of Enoch would be an Old Testament book the history of its “decanonization” questions such a thought. For it gives us a glimpse into the minds of these fourth and fifth-century leaders whose witness is so pivotal.
            We see Jerome's willingness to throw Enoch out even though he knows the church once held to it:
“We have read in a certain apocryphal book that at the time when the sons of God were descending to the daughters of men, they descended to Mount Hermon and there entered into an agreement to come to the daughters of men and marry them. The book is very explicit and is counted among the Apocrypha. The ancient interpreters have sometimes spoken of it. We mention it, however, not as authoritative, but to call it to your attention.... I have read about this apocryphal book in the book of a certain person, who used it to confirm his heresy.... He says, the sons of God who descended from heaven came to Hermon and coveted the daughters of men. They are angels descending from heaven, he said, and souls that desired bodies, since bodies are the daughters of men" (Nickelsburg 94).

            We watch as the great Augustine, from whom most of our theology comes, discards Enoch for the sake of the theology of his two cities, though he admits that many hold to the angelic interpretation of Genesis six:

“And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two cities are
sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children of men,
they had come into possession of another name by grace. For in the same Scripture in
which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also
called angels of God; whence many [!] suppose that they were not men but angels”[23] (VanderKam 86).

            We observe as he argues that the earlier church did not attest to Enoch thus displaying his seeming ignorance, and that the Jews of his day do not hold to Enoch, which is a good enough reason to not hold to it either:

“Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal [speaking of Enoch], because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine[24]” (87)

            Many great things have come from the fourth and fifth-century church, and they have preserved a great amount of the earlier church. But as the Book of Enoch shows, they too have meddled with it, inserting their own opinions against the common doctrine of the early church.

            Through my research I have found that today's Book of Enoch is not exactly the same as the Book of Enoch of the early church. We have observes repeated quotes of early church leaders that are not found in our version. However, it does seem that the common story of the Watchers has stayed the same. See Lawlors article for more analysis. I haven't researched how the rest of the Book of Enoch fits in to the early church. This study was done mainly about the Book of the Watchers. 

            I also want to reiterate the wisdom of Cyril, “For why should you, when you do not know the books acknowledged by all, trouble yourself needlessly with those whose authenticity is disputed?”

[1]    It is, however, included in the canon of the Ethiopian Church.
[2]    Uriel is mentioned as over the world and Tartarus
[3]    See also Lawlors discussion  “Early Citations from the Book of Enoch” starting on page 166
[4]    See Stuckenbruck 358-362
[5]    See Augustine's City of God book 15 chapter 23
[6]    In the Greek, the word for angel also means messenger. So the examples Augustine used are translated as God's messengers, but they could also mean God's angels. See Mark 1:2 and Malachi 2:7.
[7]    If not the majority
[8]    See article by Paget for the citations
[9]    Nickelsburg also added Enoch 89:60 (Nickelsburg 87)
[10]  Lawlor gives more examples of parallels between the Apocalypse and the Book of Enoch and concludes, “We may conclude therefore that the writer had before him this Book, and not the Noachic Work [IE The Book of the Birth of Noah which may be an interpolation].but they will not be covered here” (Lawlor 175).
[11]  Tatian, the disciple of Martyr, also mentions equates fallen angels with the gods of the Greeks (Schaff 2.129 on). However, he does not go into as much detail about how the angels fell, but being the disciple of Martyr it is likely that he also believed the Watcher story. VanderKam believes so (VanderKam 65).
[12]  There was an interesting footnote in Schaff's translation of this selection, “The Paris editors caution us against yielding to this interpretation of Gen. vi. 1–4. It was the Rabbinical interpretation. See Josephus, book i. Cap. 3” (Schaff 2.316).
[13]  See Against Heresies 1.10.1,3; 1.15.6; 4.36.4; 4.37.1,6
[14]  Even the editor of The Demonstration understood this to be a quote from the Book of Enoch (Irenaeus 54)
[15]  See Clements Stromata 1.16,17; 6.8; 6.17
[16]  Which states “You [angels] have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you  knew worthless ones, and these in the hardness of your hearts you have made known to the women,  and through these mysteries women and men work much evil on earth" (Charles 37-38).
[17]  See Schaff 4.594 and the second citation is taken from the same book, First Principles, book four chapter four, but its only available in latin. Here is VanderKam's citation of it:
                “Moreover Enoch speaks thus in his book: "I walked until I came to what is incomplete," which I think may also be understood in a similar way, namely, that the prophet's mind, in the course of its investigation and study of every visible thing, came right to the very beginning, where it beheld matter in an incomplete state without qualities. For it is written in the same book, Enoch himself being the speaker: "I perceived every kind of matter." Now this certainly means: "I beheld all the divisions of matter, which from one original have been broken off into all the various species, of men, animals, sky, sun and everything else in the world" (VanderKam 56)
[18]  See  Schaff 4.1315
[19]  This is from Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus 19.24-20.4 (VanderKam 262)
[20]  “Of this kind then perhaps were the statements in the Sacred Scripture concerning the giants before the Mood, and those concerning their progenitors, of whom it is said, 'And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, they took unto them wives of all that they chose,' and of these were born 'the giants the men of renown which were of old.' For one might say that these daemons are those giants, and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves, and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods. Plutarch indeed, in the discourse which he composed On Isis and the gods of the Egyptians, speaks as follows word for word”  (Preparation 82)
[21]  Tatian seems to have a different version of the fall of the angels found in his “Oration against the Greeks” chapter 7-9. He does however attribute the introduction of astrology to these angels-turned-demons (Bauckman 320).
[22]  I have borrowed this term from Lee McDonald
[23]  Augustine's City of God 15.22
[24]  Ibid

Works Cited
Bauckham, Richard. "The Fall of the Angels as the Source of Philosophy in Hermias and Clement of             Alexandria." Vigiliae Christianae 39.4 (1985): 313-30. JSTOR. Web. 19 Oct. 2011.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude.       Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. PDF.

Bradshaw, Robert. "Creationism and the Early Church - Chapter 5." Creationism and the Early Church   Home Page - About This Site. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.            <>.

Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. PDF.

–, -- and G. H. Box. The Book of Jubilees; or The Little Genesis,. London: Society for Promoting             Christian Knowledge, 1917. PDF.

Eusebius. Evangelica Praeparatio. Trans. Edwin H. Gifford. Oxonii: Typ. Acad., 1903. PDF.

Ireneaus. The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Ed. Armitage Robinson. Macmillan. CCEL.      Web. 8 Dec. 2011. <>.

James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament, Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses, with Other Narratives and Fragments,. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. HTML.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Ed. William Whiston. Peabody:             Hendrickson, 1987. Print.

Keil, Johann and Franz Delitzsch. “Genesis 6:1-8.” Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old       Testament Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857. The Word Software. Corfu, Greece. Software

Laurence, Richard. The Book of Enoch, the Prophet an Apocryphal Production, Supposed for Ages to       Have Been Lost; but Discovered at the Close of the Last Century in Abyssinia; Now First          Translated from an Ethiopic Ms. in the Bodleian Library. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1838. HTML.

 Lawlor. "Early Citations from the Book of Enoch." Journal of Philology 25 (1897): 164-225. Web.
            Oct. 2011.

Marlowe, Michael. "The Muratorian Fragment." Bible Research by Michael Marlowe. Web. 08 Dec.         2011. <>.

McDonald, Lee Martin. Forgotten Scriptures: the Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings.       Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Print.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.   Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. Print.

Nickelsburg, George W. E., and Klaus Baltzer. "Enoch in the Ongoing Tradition." 1 Enoch 1: a    Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. 71-108. Print.

Paget, James Carleton. "The Epistle Of Barnabas." Expository Times 117.11 (2006): 441-446.       Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.

Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Ed. Charles Duke Yonge. Peabody:          Hendrickson, 1993. Print.

Schaff, Phillip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library,          1885. PDF

–,-- ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885. PDF

–, –  ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885. PDF

–,--  ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885. PDF

Stuckenbruck, L. T. "The 'Angels' And 'Giants' Of Genesis 6:1-4 In Second And Third Century BCE      Jewish Interpretation : Reflections On The Posture Of Early Apocalyptic Traditions." Dead Sea   Discoveries 7.3 (2000): 354-377. New Testament Abstracts. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.

Toy, Crawford, Carl Siegfried, and Jacob Z. Lauterbach. "Philo Judaeus."        Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <>.

VanderKam, James C. "1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature." Enoch and    the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington (D.C.): Catholic University of America,   1984. 33-101. Print.

Wright, Archie T. "Some Observations of Philo’s De Gigantibus and Evil Spirits in Second Temple          Judaism." Journal For The Study Of Judaism In The Persian, Hellenistic And Roman Period 36.1 (2005): 471-488. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.  


  1. Not sure if you are checking your older blog entries, but I want to thank you for taking the time to compose them -- especially this series on Enoch! I occasionally teach adult Sunday school, and think I might spend one Sunday on the 'Divine Council' them, including verses from Jude -- but wasn't sure how I could legitimize any references to Enoch 1. Your blog will help immensely with that! :)

    1. Glad it could be of some help! How exactly are you going to incorporate Enoch into your class? I still haven't figured out my approach to bringing Enoch into Church besides talking about the reference in Jude. I would be curious to hear your strategy.

  2. At this point I am not quite sure (working through a 'Powerpoint' as I write this). I like to 'shake things up a bit' and make people think, but introducing 'non-biblical' references is going to be tricky, and I will need to add all sorts of disclaimers :) There are WAY too many articles on the internet that either dismiss Enoch (with dire warnings of danger) or embrace it 100% (into their wild UFO/Alien/Nephilim invasion scenerios). Your article was the first (?) one to calmly put its history into perspective :)

    As a bit of an introduction, the previous class topic will be one 'The Enemy' i.e. Satan and his minions. I will intentionally not go very far in suggesting the origin of demons (as differentiated from fallen angels), but this leads into the whole Genesis 6/Jude/Enoch thing for the next class.

    1. How did the presentation end up going?

    2. Actually, it went better than I thought it would. I expected a bit of backlash, but it never came (!). On the other hand, no one has (yet) asked me anything more about my 1 Enoch references :)

  3. I appreciated the extensive research you did. Your paper was a breath of fresh air amidst the UFO, NEPHILIM, ALIEN ABDUCTION, CRACKPOT ARTICLES AND WEBSITES that show up when you google THE BOOK OF ENOCH. if you publish or do further articles on The Book of Enoch, I will look forward to reading them. I have wondered if the early church respected and accepted this book for the first 4-500 years of its history, then in the realm of spiritual warfare, fallen angels who are completely unmasked and exposed in The Book of Enoch, were working overtime to discredit this book by any means possible in order to go "undercover" for the rest of Church History. In C.S.Lewis THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, a conversation between Screwtape and Wormwood revolves around the demonic strategy of making every effort to convince Christians that "we (demons) simply don't exist". The result is like children running through a candy shop when th store owner is not present in the store.

    1. Thanks for the feedback Jasper! Yes, it is quite annoying to rifle through all the junk out there when you search "Enoch" and really any other books outside of the canon.

      I haven't dove into Enoch and the canon for some time now, as my studies have progressed to other areas of theology. However, I hope to return to the larger issue of canon and Church authority soon. My thinking has definitely shifted a bit as I have thought through the doctrine of the Church. Perhaps I will blog about it in the near future for those of you who are on a similar path.

      I do agree though that Enoch is a great way for one to understand the bigger picture of angelic and demonic influence on our day to day lives. I am thinking now that the issue isn't just the first 400-500 years, but really is the most recent centuries. While Enoch fell from favor early on, angels and demons were still taken much more seriously throughout the history of the Church than they are today. Even Luther himself was very aware of their devices. However, it has been since the enlightenment age that we have through out the entire spiritual realm, and I believe it is that thinking that is the source of the issue we are confronted with today.

  4. Thanks for your excellent research. Jasper nailed it when he wrote "the fallen angels who are completely unmasked and exposed in The Book of Enoch, were working overtime to discredit this book by any means possible in order to go 'undercover' for the rest of Church History."

    We are now at the end of Church history and opposition remains strong to the interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4 as fallen angels commingling with human women. Suppression of the Book of Enoch will have serious ramfications when Satan and his fallen angels are let loose on the world per Rev. 9. Even now mankind is being programed to welcome their arrival with open arms as popular performers like Katy Perry and Kanye West are making videos about mating with fallen angels.

    " the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Mt. 24:37

  5. Maybe truths can be gleaned from the Book of Enoch, but it seems to contradict scripture. For instance, In Enoch 58:1 in this translation, it mentions an event taking place when Enoch was more than 500 years old. How can this be when Genesis says he died at 365?

    In the five hundredth year, and in the seventh month, on the fourteenth day of the month, of the lifetime of Enoch, in that parable, I saw that the heaven of heavens shook; that it shook violently; and that the powers of the Most High, and the angels, thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, were agitated with great agitation....

  6. I have made a video series called 'Book of Enoch Warnings for the last Generation' Watchers Nephilim Giants & Fallen Angels Explained for people who are interested in getting more info about the Watchers, Nephilim, Rephaim Giants & Fallen Angels before Noah's flood. I think that Enoch writings are key to understand what happened in the past, in that way we will be able to understand what's coming in the future because Jesus said that the last times will be
    like in the days of Noah, and according to Enoch and the book of Genesis, giants, nephilim, rephaim & fallen angels were on earth in those days, and will be again for the coming of the son of men.