Revelations versus Enoch

[cheezgrits]

Read the Book of Enoch and it strikes me as weirdly similar to Revelations. I understand from research that Enoch isn't "canonical" or something like that, it isn't a real book of the Bible and wasn't chosen to be in the bible.

Is it possible that the "visions" of Enoch were rewritten and presented as being from John, to make it more credible?

I am not trying to start an argument, I am truly exploring and would like some reasonable input and thoughts from the reasonable ones in here.

(spare me biblical google fest)

I recently read in the other posts that the Catholic church were the authority of the written bible, and 1. I didn't know that and 2. I'm pretty sure you guys should have some pretty in depth thoughts and some possible references.

And please, remember I am not of any religion, so I am truly a person on a learning quest.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Radiant1]

Enoch like Revelations is an Apocryphal work which is why they might seem familiar to each other. The wiki on The Book of Enoch is reasonable and explains why it isn't part of,the Canon. Its a facinating book, especially for one interested in angelology. I just read it again a few months ago and would be more than happy to discuss it with you but it might have to wait due to my weekend schedule and the fact that I'm on my phone.

 

[cheezgrits]

Enoch like Revelations is an Apocryphal work which is why they might seem familiar to each other. The wiki on The Book of Enoch is reasonable and explains why it isn't part of,the Canon. Its a facinating book, especially for one interested in angelology. I just read it again a few months ago and would be more than happy to discuss it with you but it might have to wait due to my weekend schedule and the fact that I'm on my phone.

That would be great, I'll gather up some questions and drop them in, whenever you get a chance, I'd certainly appreciate it.

 

[cheezgrits]

OK, in no particular order, but in order of what intrigues me the most. This quote from Enoch, Chapter 40:8. After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and whose words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.

9. The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.

Could these 4 be the same as the four horsemen that Revelations mentions? It seems plausible to me.

http://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-40/

 

[cheezgrits]

Next is Chapter 50. Is this a comparison to the reign or rebirth of the world after the Messiah returns/arrives?
1. In those days shall the earth deliver up from her womb, and hell deliver up from hers, that which it has received; and destruction shall restore that which it owes.

2. He shall select the righteous and holy from among them; for the day of their salvation has approached.

3. And in those days shall the Elect One sit upon his throne, while every secret of intellectual wisdom shall proceed from his mouth; for the Lord of spirits has gifted and glorified him.

4. In those days the mountains shall skip like rams, and the hills shall leap like young sheep satiated with milk; and all the righteous shall become angels in heaven.

5. Their countenance shall be bright with joy; for in those days shall the Elect One be exalted. The earth shall rejoice; the righteous shall inhabit it, and the elect possess it.

 

[cheezgrits]

And now we have the flood story and the rainbow...wth???
Afterwards the Ancient of days repented, and said, In vain have I destroyed all the inhabitants of the earth.

2. And he sware by his great name, saying, Henceforwards I will not act thus towards all those who dwell upon earth.

3. But I will place a sign in the heavens; and it shall be a faithful witness between me and them for ever, as long as the days of heaven and earth last upon the earth.

4. Afterwards, according to this my decree, when I shall be disposed to seize them beforehand, by the instrumentality of angels, in the day of affliction and trouble, my wrath and my punishment shall remain upon them, my punishment and my wrath, saith God the Lord of spirits.

 

[SamSpade]

Apocryphal works are legion; there's a couple dozen that are remotely considered Jewish or Christian, and even more that faintly touch upon prophecy about the final days.
There are also several dozen pseudepigryphal books associated with both the Old and New Testament, which range from the dull and mundane to the positively ridiculous.

I tend to regard them the way we generally regard crap we see on the Internet that are easily shown to be baloney, but which feed the paranoia of conspiracy types.
Rather than believe that somehow believe the "truth" was hushed up and only sanctioned stuff was allowed, most texts that survived were vetted by centuries of popular consensus across the entire Roman world.
That is, thousands of opinions of educated people who could not have corroborated with one another tended to approve the same group of books (e.g. the Muratorian Canon).

 

[b23hqb]

Apocryphal works are legion; there's a couple dozen that are remotely considered Jewish or Christian, and even more that faintly touch upon prophecy about the final days.
There are also several dozen pseudepigryphal books associated with both the Old and New Testament, which range from the dull and mundane to the positively ridiculous.

I tend to regard them the way we generally regard crap we see on the Internet that are easily shown to be baloney, but which feed the paranoia of conspiracy types.
Rather than believe that somehow believe the "truth" was hushed up and only sanctioned stuff was allowed, most texts that survived were vetted by centuries of popular consensus across the entire Roman world.
That is, thousands of opinions of educated people who could not have corroborated with one another tended to approve the same group of books (e.g. the Muratorian Canon).

That was a mouthful, and well stated. I agree with your position.

 

[Radiant1]

Although Enoch didn't make it in the Canon I certainly wouldn't liken it to "crap on the internet". The New Testament (Jude 14-15) quotes from Enoch, the Old Testament briefly mentions the Sons of God and the daughters of men as found in Enoch, many of the Church Fathers gave it credence, and it's always been a part of the Ethiopian Canon. At least parts of it are considered to be older than the Mosaic Law, as the law isn't mentioned within it's text and Enoch, seventh son of Adam, was long before Moses anyway.

With that having been said, I know first hand that people tend to use it and go a bit nuts about the last days. I briefly dated a guy who read Enoch and then suddenly got on an apocalypse kick and watched every whack youtube video about it swallowing a great deal of what he was hearing without any discernment whatsoever. That was during the three blood moons thing that was driving the more Evangelical types irrationally crazy not too long ago. Needless to say, I had to stop seeing him not only because of his obsession but quite frankly I figured if he was going to swallow all of that hook, line and sinker he was too stupid to waste my time on.

 

[Radiant1]

OK, in no particular order, but in order of what intrigues me the most. This quote from Enoch, Chapter 40:8. After this I besought the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, to explain all that was concealed. I said to him, Who are those whom I have seen on the four sides, and whose words I have heard and written down? He replied, The first is the merciful, the patient, the holy Michael.

9. The second is he who presides over every suffering and every affliction of the sons of men, the holy Raphael. The third, who presides over all that is powerful, is Gabriel. And the fourth, who presides over repentance, and the hope of those who will inherit eternal life, is Phanuel. These are the four angels of the most high God, and their four voices, which at that time I heard.

Could these 4 be the same as the four horsemen that Revelations mentions? It seems plausible to me.

http://book-ofenoch.com/chapter-40/

I don't think so. In fact, I see it as the opposite. The four horsemen brought conquest, war, famine and death. The four that are mentioned are Archangels (of the non-fallen variety). By the way, all but Phanuel are mentioned in the bible. Michael means "Who is like unto God" and is typically seen as a warrior or protector of Isreal/Christianity; hence, merciful and patient. Raphael means "God is healer" so it would make sense that he presides over suffering and affliction. Gabriel means "God is my strength" therefore he presides over all that is powerful. And Phanuel means "Face of God" ergo residing over repentance because that's what we need to do if we want to see the Face of God.

In addition, in the first part of chapter 40 Enoch talks about the four sides of people before the Lord. Typically, this would be symbolic of the four corners of the world (North, South, East, West). In other words, everywhere and denoting completeness.

This is just my view of course, nothing official about it, but I hope it helps shed a bit of light on this particular passage.

 

[SamSpade]

Although Enoch didn't make it in the Canon I certainly wouldn't liken it to "crap on the internet".

But there is stuff you'll find, such as the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene, another according to Thomas, that wholeheartedly support the competing Gnostic ideas of the time that matter is bad and therefore there's no such thing as actual sin and that Jesus could never have been in the flesh - and so on. Stuff like that is legion, and I always run into people who think "oh they tried to hush it up" and I'm trying to tell them that people wrote crap like that just like they do now. As my brother likes to say, "paper doesn't REFUSE print".

I do tend to favor stuff from Clement and the Didache. But when it came time to decide what went into the Bible, they both failed one or more of the criterion used as a basis.

The pattern of canonicity - because there's no single rule - appears to be this:

1. Is it a book widely held to be genuine?
2. Is it written by a contemporary of Jesus or someone who actually saw or was with Jesus - or an Apostle? and
as is true of Old Testament writings
3. Is it consistent with what the accepted canon says already?

Re: #3, does it say something completely at odds with other writings, or document a course of action inconsistent with what we know? For example, does it have Jesus cursing little children, or does it reward behavior that Jesus or God would otherwise consider reprehensible?

There were other considerations. For instance, churches would later decide which writings they would include in their Old Testament canon based on which books were quoted from. The Law is quoted often, the Psalms extensively as are the major Prophets. While there are Old Testament books never quoted or referred to in the New Testament, we have a canon where it is accepted. But there were many other books vying for inclusion in the Christian version which were never quoted, and therefore were excluded.

A similar test can be said was made of the canon of the New Testament by early Christian fathers. The four gospels, the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles and letters are pretty much never challenged. Even 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as canon. That only leaves the remaining nine books.

I've never been one to be too concerned about end times and the end of the world and so on. Jesus himself said HE did not know. All things were created for him and by him and in him all things are held together - and HE does not know. Why should I obsess on knowing the unknowable?

 

[Radiant1]

But there is stuff you'll find, such as the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene, another according to Thomas, that wholeheartedly support the competing Gnostic ideas of the time that matter is bad and therefore there's no such thing as actual sin and that Jesus could never have been in the flesh - and so on. Stuff like that is legion, and I always run into people who think "oh they tried to hush it up" and I'm trying to tell them that people wrote crap like that just like they do now. As my brother likes to say, "paper doesn't REFUSE print".

Enoch has never been considered a Gnostic work, but your right there's tons of stuff out there. I like your brother's saying, it's very true most especially these days.

I do tend to favor stuff from Clement and the Didache. But when it came time to decide what went into the Bible, they both failed one or more of the criterion used as a basis.

The pattern of canonicity - because there's no single rule - appears to be this:

1. Is it a book widely held to be genuine?
2. Is it written by a contemporary of Jesus or someone who actually saw or was with Jesus - or an Apostle? and
as is true of Old Testament writings
3. Is it consistent with what the accepted canon says already?

Re: #3, does it say something completely at odds with other writings, or document a course of action inconsistent with what we know? For example, does it have Jesus cursing little children, or does it reward behavior that Jesus or God would otherwise consider reprehensible?

There were other considerations. For instance, churches would later decide which writings they would include in their Old Testament canon based on which books were quoted from. The Law is quoted often, the Psalms extensively as are the major Prophets. While there are Old Testament books never quoted or referred to in the New Testament, we have a canon where it is accepted. But there were many other books vying for inclusion in the Christian version which were never quoted, and therefore were excluded.

A similar test can be said was made of the canon of the New Testament by early Christian fathers. The four gospels, the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles and letters are pretty much never challenged. Even 2 Peter refers to Paul's letters as canon. That only leaves the remaining nine books.

It was my impression that although Enoch was widely read by both the Jewish and Christian communities it wasn't included in the OT because it was considered incomplete and written by various authors. It was originally written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek and from there as with everything Greek it made its way to Egypt and was translated into the Coptic language where it held more weight as far as it's canonical status.

I've never been one to be too concerned about end times and the end of the world and so on. Jesus himself said HE did not know. All things were created for him and by him and in him all things are held together - and HE does not know. Why should I obsess on knowing the unknowable?

Me either, which is why I had to let that guy go. Enoch offers more than just end-time visions such as historical insight as well as angelic theology. It's unfortunate that some people tend to go a bit crazy with end times prophecies whether it be Enoch or Revelations.

 

[cheezgrits]

Thank you Radiant and Sam, I appreciate your time and effort in your responses. As I read Enoch more, I'm not so focused on the end times, but now I'm starting to digest the things he saw in his vision, and the hierarchy and lineage of the angels, the watchers and the concept of how we all got here. I did find it interesting that the fall of man, so to speak, may not have been as simple as a woman eating a fruit. I always believed that to be largely metaphoric, and wondered why it was the female that started all that and if it was the early churches way of subjugating women.

I'm not the apocalypse type, but this has got me wondering some things. I'll post more later and as always, would love some thoughts.

 

[Radiant1]

Next is Chapter 50. Is this a comparison to the reign or rebirth of the world after the Messiah returns/arrives?
1. In those days shall the earth deliver up from her womb, and hell deliver up from hers, that which it has received; and destruction shall restore that which it owes.

2. He shall select the righteous and holy from among them; for the day of their salvation has approached.

3. And in those days shall the Elect One sit upon his throne, while every secret of intellectual wisdom shall proceed from his mouth; for the Lord of spirits has gifted and glorified him.

4. In those days the mountains shall skip like rams, and the hills shall leap like young sheep satiated with milk; and all the righteous shall become angels in heaven.

5. Their countenance shall be bright with joy; for in those days shall the Elect One be exalted. The earth shall rejoice; the righteous shall inhabit it, and the elect possess it.

It's most definitely Messianic, chapter 51 actually mentions the Messiah. Since Enoch was thought to be written at the latest 200 BC and was so widely read within the Jewish and early Christian communities, it's highly likely that Revelations was influenced by Enoch.