The Book of Enoch in the ancient LXX and Qumran Tanakh

[Priestly1]

Nowhere does the Book of Enoch state that "I Enoch....blah, blah, blah..." As Steve has continually stated. I have a copy here: "These are the good words of Enoch the Prophet, the seven son from Adam." This work is a compilation of the Tradition and Prophecies of Enoch. WrJust iten in the exact Aramaic as was much of Daniel. just as the Torah does not say "I Moses....." Hbrew works of Scripture are ascribed to the source of the materials therein...not the author. Did Moses witness all that went before his own birth? Did he write about his death and burial? No. His Scribes wrote these books, as did they write much of the Old Testament...whether of the Kings or Histories. Even Jeremiah has his scribe Baruch. Did Jesus write His Gospel? No......His apostles did, and John had his scribe Proculos. Peter had Mark, and though Paul signed his letters he himself used a scribe. As for Enoch.......it was in the LXX and the Hebrew-Aramaic Tanakh as is evidenced by the allusions or citations of Paul, Peter and Jude. It remains in the Ethiopian LXX and has been found among the Biblical Texts of the Prophets at Qumran Qirbet, Jericho and Masada. It's teachings do not conflict with the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, The Gospel or the Apostle's own Encyclicals, Letters and the Revelation.

This Book was removed from the LXX during the middle 4 and late 5th centuries in the west and later in the east.....except for Africa....which was not under Western or Eastern Roman Imperial Dominion. so if we wish to ask why was it cited by Jude, used by Peter and alluded to by Paul....it was in their Bible, whether ancient Hebrew Text/canon in Hebrew-Aramaic or it's Translation into Greek LXX. as for it not being cited by some in the NT...well neither was Esther or many other protestant approved books. As as matter of fact Esther is not included in Qumran, Masada or Jericho Bible. And rabbinic Judaism almost removed it too....why? Because a Torah Observant Jewess married a pagan willingly in violation to the TORAH.She was unequally yoked as it were. Maybe thats why it is not among the ancient Hebrew or Greek Canons now discovered. Maybe that's why it was added to in the Greek LXX in order to "reform" it?

As for Enoch and Genesis 6.....they agree 100% in language and details. The Beni Elohim is a rank of angels....one of the choirs deliniated by Paul and referenced in Judaism and the Church since the 2nd Temple era. There are phases in Hebrew and in greek similar to Beni Elohim....but they are not related and refer to loyal humans in relationship with God. Similarity is not equivalence....as steve has sometimes implied.

Do I personally believe fallen angels forsook their proper bodies (habitaions---used in Jude and by Paul for bodies) and are able to become humanoids able to procreate with any woman they choose to co-habitate with and sire Nephilim? Genesis says it, Hebrews believed it, the Nazaraeans believed it and all later Gentile Christianity received it as Gospel......until Augustine's times in the west. So biblically and theologically I see no opposition to it....so i do. As to How these beings did so...or who and what they can or cannot do according to the laws of their natures and world......dunno....I theorize....but dunno. They all reside in the Pit of Tartarus now and await the final judgment, their drowned children walk the earth as vengeful demons awaiting their doom at Christ's return.....all else is not disclosed.

If a virgin birth or resurrection does not conflict with our Laws of nature and are accepted verbatim......what is the issue about Genesis 6 and Enoch? I mean really? A Reptilian being chats with Eve and that is kool? No biggy? Then how is it this topic really freaks moderns out? Are Angels real? Or do you just say you believe cause it's status quo. Oh....it sounds too close to pagan myths? Hmmmmmmm. They have flood myths too I guess, so we just dump the Flood then too? Where do you think paganism got it's gods? Demigods? Heros? I guess the Trojan War is fiction too? Ooops the same archeology that uses the Bible and has proven it's historic fact, also used the Illiad and discovered...uhhhhh...TROY!!!! We cannot have it both ways. We either accept what to modern scientic minds cannot when Scripture says this and such, or we become Agnostics.



In Christ,
Rev. Fr. Ken Huffman

Priestly1

[brody196]

You seem upset...

[steve]

I have no problem believing in miracles that defy natural law as it is normally observed. My problem is with Jesus saying that the angels do not marry, whereas the sons of God, in Genesis 6, seem to have done so. If there is a convincing way around this problem, I am fine with it (though I still don't know how non-human angels managed to come up with the near-human DNA code that would enable them to produce offspring with human women).

[TK]

Steve wrote:

My problem is with Jesus saying that the angels do not marry, whereas the sons of God, in Genesis 6, seem to have done so.

To be literal, Jesus said the angels don't marry; he didn't say that they can't have sexual relations with humans. (Unless the original greek says something along these lines).

I have listened to a teaching series on angels by David Jeremiah and he made this point- that Jesus didnt say angels could not have relations with human beings he just said they dont get married in heaven. He surprisingly believes what Priestly1 says- that fallen angels co-habited with women and the nephilim resulted.

TK

[RickC]

Greetings,

I've been studying topics related to Gen 6 and the Enochian Tradition in Judaism for years.

I have no problem believing in miracles that defy natural law as it is normally observed. My problem is with Jesus saying that the angels do not marry, whereas the sons of God, in Genesis 6, seem to have done so.

Jesus referred to non-marrying angels in heaven. These were/are the 'loyal angels' who did not rebel. Jesus never said "No angels ever took wives." Which, if He had, but He didn't, we would then have a more clear teaching from Him as it relates to Gen 6. At the same time, though, Jesus did mention that loyal angels are permanently celibate. Which makes you think...(does me, anyway)....

If there is a convincing way around this problem, I am fine with it (though I still don't know how non-human angels managed to come up with the near-human DNA code that would enable them to produce offspring with human women).

But of course, this is a very complicated 'theme'!
(I surely don't have it all figured out! -- but have thought about it a lot)!

Two Things That Come Up (About 'Here')

1) Historically-speaking, there was the Enochian Tradition in Judaism which persisted to the NT Era (Jesus and the Apostles' liftetimes). This tradition saw the Origin of Evil as stemming from rebellious angels who 'took wives' and who were, consequently, permanently banned from heaven. Note: non-marrying loyal angels remained 'in heaven'.

This Enochian Tradition's influence was 'carried over' to post-apostolic times in non-Jewish Christian circles by people like Tertullian, who read Genesis 6 'literally' and 'liked' the Book of 1 Enoch.

2) Since at least the times of Augustine, who did not read Genesis 6 'literally', the Church has seen the Origin of Evil in anthropological ways. That is, through Adam's Sin (while not neglecting Adam's temptation by the devil).

Before Augustine, and with 'Enochian thinkers' like Tertullian, problems arise because Tertullian didn't really flesh out what a 'literal' understanding of Genesis meant to his contemporaries. (And what I mean by this is: Did Tertullian believe that Fallen Angels could still 'take' wives? He didn't say, one way or the other). Yet Tertullian accepted an 'Enochic Origin of Evil': that un-loyal angels really 'took' human wives--but also--the other story of its origin which we are more familiar with in the Fall of Adam.
============================

Paul, being a Pharisee, wasn't an Enochian Jew (Romans emphasizes Adam's Fall, Paul never mentions anything from the Enochian traditon, that I know of, etc.).

When we come to Jesus' teaching, He says "the devil sinned from the beginning". Traditionally, this has been interpreted to be when the devil tempted Adam in the Garden. Or at least this is how I've always thought about it. However, though Jesus can't be centrally located as being within any certain 'camp' of Jews (though He had similarities with Pharisees on things like the resurrection, etc.), since Jesus' own brother Jude quoted from 1 Enoch, it's unlikely Jesus had 'no affinities' with Enochian Judaism.

Just how this plays out could be many other topics....

Thanks!

[RickC]

To be literal, Jesus said the angels don't marry; he didn't say that they can't have sexual relations with humans. (Unless the original greek says something along these lines).

I may be repeating myself a bit here, TK, but . . .

The 'angels of God in heaven' Jesus referred to were/are the non-rebellious ones. And whether we're discussing Genesis 6 or not, the Bible makes it clear, (or at least seems to me), that angels have already made their Choice as to who they will be loyal to: God or the devil. The Bible doesn't spell this out specifically, but it seems pretty apparent that angels (Good or Fallen) have made their Choice as to their final judgment and outcome. This seems to be a 'settled issue' in the NT. (As an aside here, the Fallen Angles in 1 Enoch 'petitioned' God ("the Lord of Spirits") to have their sentence changed. Their petition was refused).

I have listened to a teaching series on angels by David Jeremiah and he made this point- that Jesus didnt say angels could not have relations with human beings he just said they dont get married in heaven. He surprisingly believes what Priestly1 says- that fallen angels co-habited with women and the nephilim resulted.

I'm surprised David Jeremiah 'accepts' a 'literal' understanding of Gen 6! But like with Tertullian, no one has ever fleshed this out. Perhaps most who accept, or have accepted, this 'ancient view' (as I do myself) see it as an historical event that won't be repeated<--(is how I also see it). But this isn't 'everything' I think about the topic or related topics-->(Snippet on that: I think the Fallen Angels possibly, if not probably, 'possessed' men, who then took wives).

I said: Jesus never said "No angels ever took wives." And while I agree that 'loyal angels in heaven do not marry'; as far as I know, no place in biblical or extra-biblical traditions have ever seen angels as being able to reproduce (angels begetting angels). If D. Jeremiah thinks Jesus was saying "Angels can't marry one another," I agree. The Bible portrays angels as 1) Loyal or 2) Rebellious, and that they have already made their One-And-Only-Decision as to whom they will follow. But it seems that D. Jeremiah may be 'open' to the possibility that Fallen Angels can still 'take' wives. Does he think they can?

Does anyone know of anyone who believes this is possible today?

[steve]

Presumably, angels who fell were originally constituted with the same nature as those that remained loyal. Of the nature of the latter we read very little in scripture, other than that they are spirits (Heb.1:14), and they don't marry (Matt.22:30).

From which data we might reasonably conclude certain things:

1. As spirits, they are not naturally physical (Luke 24:39). God may indeed permit them temporarily to appear in physical, humanlike form, in order to bring His messages to humans, but this would not speak of physicality as a natural condition for them;

2. If they are not to marry, then either: a) they were created non-sexual; or b) they were created sexual with a purpose of being sexually-active without marriage; or c) they were created with sexual urges for which they were given no legitimate outlet (I am inclined toward "a" and would be very interested in hearing any suggested defense of the other two options);

3. If we are correct in suggesting that angels were not created either physical nor sexual, this would strongly suggest that they have no sexual organs or sexual hormones—the very features that cause men to be attracted to women. Without these, what cause of attraction to women could be postulated to have motivated the angels to have sex with them?

If the disloyal angels changed from being non-sexual spirits into physical, sexual beings possessing human DNA, and were thus able to marry and procreate with human women, then we must ask, did God grant them this transmogrifying ability (and if so, why?), or were they able to generate this physicality and sexuality by their own innate powers (again, why would God have created them with such abilities?)? Neither of these options seems very likely to me.

While I am not saying that the Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6 cannot be true, I am saying that it is not obvious that it is true, and that believing it involves us in some pretty wild speculations that seem counterintuitive. I really don't care if it is true or not, and if I go to heaven and discover that it was the correct interpretation, I will not complain.

[charleswest]

I have no problem believing in miracles that defy natural law as it is normally observed. My problem is with Jesus saying that the angels do not marry, whereas the sons of God, in Genesis 6, seem to have done so. If there is a convincing way around this problem, I am fine with it (though I still don't know how non-human angels managed to come up with the near-human DNA code that would enable them to produce offspring with human women).

" My problem is with Jesus saying that the angels do not marry"
Not quite complete. It is the angels IN HEAVEN that do not marry. These were on the earth.
Mark 12:25
"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven."

"...how non-human angels managed to come up with the near-human DNA code"

Then again, if Satan's agents can turn two dry sticks into living snakes in Pharaoh's court, (including, presumably snake DNA), then it seems that manufacturing human DNA along with the rest of the body parts to be not much more remarkable.

[Paidion]

I know of no person from modern times who has seriously studied the book of Enoch, who thinks it was written by the historic Enoch, the seventh from Adam, even though Jude and many other early Christians believed that it was.

Has anyone read the "astronomy" section of the book? The reason that the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies come into view and go out of view is that they pass through various celestial gates.

[brody196]

Okie dokie...Lets all assume that the "sons of God' in Genesis 6 were fallen angels and those angels mated with humans to create offspring.....Does that mean that the same phenomenon happens today?? If so, how would you recognize them?

What are the implications of such a doctrine? I have a short list of questions that I would like answered by those of you who believe that fallen angels could/do mate with humans and create genuine offspring.

Does this phenomenon happen today?

How would you recognize them?

What would happen to a Christian if she accidentally married one?

Should we preach the gospel to those whom we have identified as such?

What is the criteria for figuring out that one is the offspring of a fallen angel?