On a recent Zoom call meeting, my fellow call members seemed shocked to hear me say, "Enoch is scripture." I promised a follow-up to that, and this article is not it. However, it does have a bit of a blend, so I will introduce some thoughts here, but without all of the supporting details that will come in the article directly addressing the matter.
In the meantime, I will do my best here to sort out how the question of the authenticity or even canonicity of 1 Enoch blends and dovetails with what you might be perceiving from the title and subtitle of this article: The Audience.
So, let's get to it!
Anachronisms
An anachronism is a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned. It can also refer to an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong. The term comes from the Greek word anachronous, which means "against time". Therefore, an anachronism is something from the wrong time period that goes against the time in which your story is set. For example, if a character in a movie set in the 1920s uses a smartphone, that would be an anachronism.
A great example of an anachronism being used in the New Testament is found in 2nd Peter 2:4, which reads:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Here, the word translated by the ESV as "hell" is actually ταρταρώσας (Tartarus). It is critical to note that Peter's audience was Greek and aware of Greek mythology. Therefore, he uses the word ταρταρώσας to precisely convey where the "angels that sinned" (Watchers of Genesis 6) were being held in prison.
Had Peter's audience been Jewish, he most likely would have used the word "Ge Hinnom," which means "Valley of Hinnom". This term is historically associated with pagan rituals, including child sacrifices. Over time, it became a place where trash was burned, making it a powerful metaphor for a place of destruction and suffering. In the New Testament, it is often used metaphorically to represent hell or eternal damnation.
However, since Peter's audience consisted of Greek Gentiles and ex-pagans, his choice to use Tartarus aligns better with their background and understanding.
Remember, Peter is relating a story that is not found in the presently canonical Old Testament as we know it, but in Jewish materials like 1 Enoch. This makes sense of his use of an anachronism in order to drive home his point as precisely as possible to his intended audience.
Moreover, there is an additional anachronism applied by the translators of the ESV as they translate Tartarus into the simple word "hell" for us as a modern audience.
The double-anachronistic dance of hell-for-Tartarus and Tartarus-for-GeHinnom has the distinct effect of twice removing the details of the story from our view. While one can argue that each translator has a different approach, the matter remains: By using the word "hell", we are not alerted to the depth of the story of the angels that sinned being in prison in Tartarus, where we can then be signaled to start asking questions.
This leaves many of us to lazily skip over the text, believing we understand what is being communicated based on our own worldview and understanding from what we've been taught.
The audience is listening
One constant in the matter is that writers generally have an audience they are attempting to communicate to. In the case of Peter, the audience is Greek Gentiles with a specific set of worldviews, understandings, and experiences that Peter is aware of. He uses his knowledge to write his two letters specifically for them, being as precise as he can be within their Greek Gentile worldview and not his Jewish one.
On the other hand, the translators of the ESV (and others) also have an audience. Similar to Peter, the audience of the ESV shares a contemporary worldview, understanding, and set of experiences. In conjunction with their translation rules, they strive to bring the Greek of 1st and 2nd Peter into English words that they believe best convey Peter's message to his ancient audience for a modern contemporary audience. In the process, they make a choice to translate words like Tartarus into more obscure terms such as "hell", which is, in my opinion, a fault and hindrance rather than helpful and useful for the reasons already stated above (dilution of the original story).
What appears to be missing from the toolbox of modern translators is two-fold. First, they seem to think that their audience is rather unsophisticated or perhaps even incapable of comprehending the technical details of the scripture's story. Second, it seems that they do not consider the importance of understanding scripture in its unfiltered, original context and worldview environment, both for themselves and their audience.
Instead, translators of the past 400 years have chosen to believe, and subsequently regurgitate, what they have been taught by their respective church doctrines, dogmas, and traditions. Furthermore, they appear to assume that their audience shares these beliefs.
From my perspective, this is a disservice and a disregard for the loyalty and desire of their audience to seek the truth of scripture, even if it contradicts what they have been taught from their church pulpits.
KJV vs NKJV vs NIV vs ESV example
Let's examine another example of an anachronism, but going in the other direction—an old thing trying to live unsuccessfully in a new context.
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
Our modern 21st century definition of "halt" might be primarily something like: To stop or pause often in a forceful manner. This shift in meaning from 1611 may make the usage of "halt" in the King James Version confusing to modern readers. The question becomes, is the word halt an anachronism in reverse (i.e., something old being brought into modern view with a different meaning)? Knowing the 1611 definition of halt will help clear the air.
In the case of 1 Kings 18:21 and the word "halt", the ESV gives the best rendering as "limping". The ESV version says "limping" which more obviously ties back to the original Middle English meaning, suggesting a physical representation of an indecisive gait, dragging one’s feet between one direction and another. The KJV of 1611 got it right, but the word they used anachronistically fails to work when brought forward to 2023.
For references, the NKJV uses the word "falter", which is fine and gets the right idea across to a modern reader. The NIV uses the word "waver" which also implies the same idea of being wishy-washy between two ideas. In this case, wavering, faltering, or limping back and forth between treating Yahweh as God or Baal, which is Elijah's (and God's) core complaint.
What we really want to come away with is that anachronisms have a root cause, which is: Worldviews, understandings, cultures, experiences, and other human matters change over time. Only by keeping an eye out for these things and resolving them independent of our own worldviews, understandings, cultures, and experiences can we hope to actually hear the unfiltered message of scripture.
Every layer of unresolved matters of worldview and so on help to push the story and its relevant details further away to where we either no longer see the details or we get the details wrong. We can even start making up details for ourselves and then pass those along to other believers, which further muddies and complicates matters.
Therefore, our only remedy is to do the hard work of close and careful reading of scripture. To do this successfully, we also need and are perhaps required to suspend what we believe and what we have been taught long enough to let the scripture get a word in edgewise to our thinking. And the best way to attack our own concreted thinking developed over years or even decades is to use questions that act as sledgehammers.
Other Potential KJV 1611 Anachronisms
There are perhaps quite a few examples of words in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible that have changed meaning since the 1611 translation. Here are a some suggestions:
1. 1 Thessalonians 4:15 - "Prevent." In this verse, the word "prevent" is used to mean precede or come before. Today, "prevent" is often understood as to stop or hinder.
2. Job 19:23 - "Imprinted." In this context, "imprinted" means to write or inscribe, whereas the modern English use of "imprint" often means to mark or stamp.
3. Job 21:13 - "Welfare." Here, "welfare" means prosperity or well-being. Contemporary uses of "welfare" often refer to financial or other assistance given to individuals in need.
4. Matthew 26:27 - "Suffer." In this verse, Jesus says, "drink ye all of it;" however, in the 1611 KJV, "suffer" could mean allow or permit. Today, "suffer" most commonly means to experience pain or discomfort.
5. Genesis 43:25 - "Made ready." In this context, "made ready" means to prepare. Today, "made ready" is not commonly used in this way.
6. 1 Timothy 6:4 - "Doting." In the KJV, "doting" means having a foolish affection for or paying excessive attention to. In modern English, "doting" often means expressing a lot of love or attention, typically used with a positive connotation.
7. 1 Corinthians 10:25 - "Shambles." In this verse, "shambles" refers to a meat market. Today, "shambles" is often used to describe a state of total disorder.
8. 1 Timothy 6:5 - "Gain." In this context, "gain" is used to mean godliness. Modern usage of "gain" refers to an increase or benefit.
9. Romans 1:13 - "Let." In the KJV, "let" often means hindered or prevented, whereas modern use of "let" typically means to allow or permit.
10. James 5:11 - "End." Here, "end" is used to mean outcome or result. In modern English, "end" is typically used to mean the final part of something.
These examples may illustrate how the meanings of some words have evolved over time, which might lead to anachronistic misunderstandings or misconceptions when reading older translations of the Bible, like the KJV.
Why does it matter for 1 Enoch?
If the last eleven months of deep study has taught me anything, one of the many important factors is this: Close and careful reading is essential. For me, this now includes looking at the language of a translation (or even original text) to see if I can discern anachronistic language being used that targets a specific audience, where an old story with its own worldview is being told to an audience with a different worldview.
Baked into this nearly year long study has been the book of 1 Enoch. The question has been raised about the canonicity and authentic status of 1 Enoch so many times that I have lost count. Within this conundrum I have wavered back and forth between wanting to call 1 Enoch scripture (canon) and holding it as crucial or even critical history. Many of you reading this may well have experienced something similar from both 1 Enoch and the canonical warfare raging around it. This now takes me back to the ZOOM meeting and the statement that 1 Enoch is scripture—flat out—and the promise to my very small audience to demonstrate my thinking on the matter (perhaps mainly for their amusement).
In the process of thinking about it, this matter of anachronisms raised itself up. It started with a video series where the maker of the videos pointed out quite a number of anachronisms used in scripture. This suddenly prompted me to start asking: Does 1 Enoch have this same thing happening to its text? The coupling has led me on a still surface level journey that is (nevertheless) starting to gel with details. However, those details are still to new and unexplored to lay them all out. That will come in a paper to follow, but until then, I will do my best to give you the thirty-thousand foot view of the lay of the land in my head at the moment.
Jesus and Enoch, Ge'ez, Greek, and Aramaic
In Matthew 22, Jesus is confronted by a group of Sadducees who pose a hypothetical story to Jesus in raw unbelief hoping to entrap Him. The story is of a woman who marries seven brothers as each brother dies in turn. The final question comes: In the Resurrection, whose wife will she be? Jesus doesn't skip a beat to answer them.
You are in error because [1]you do not know the Scriptures or [2]the power of God. At the resurrection [1]people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. [2]But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
[1] Scripture: 1 Enoch and Moses (Exodus)
[2] Power of God: Resurrection
Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures OR[2]the power of God? When the dead rise, [1]they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. [2]Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!
The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.
In all cases, Jesus is telling two stories. The second story is coming from Moses in the Book of Exodus; the story of the burning bush. However, the first story includes this notion of post-resurrection people with new bodies being "like the angels". Where is this story coming from? 1 Enoch.
And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish.
Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have NOT appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.
A good portion of the story of 1 Enoch and the Watchers is quite simple. In the beginning, the Watchers, who are male sons of God, are created by God. They are instructed to stay in heaven and are explicitly told that God will not create wives for them since they do not need them. However, despite this command, they succumb to lust and eventually fall from heaven. Their fall leads them to have sexual relations with human women, thereby defiling themselves by engaging in such relationships with mortal flesh and blood.
We can find further evidence supporting the male nature of the Watchers in chapter 86 of 1 Enoch. Here, the fallen stars, referring to the Watchers or sons of God, descend to earth. Interestingly, they are described as oxen, emphasizing their maleness. These fallen Watchers proceed to take the cows, symbolizing human female wives, belonging to earthly oxen or human males. They "let out their privy members, like horses," and proceed to cover or mount the cows, engaging in sexual intercourse with them. As a result, the human women become impregnated, and this ultimately leads to the birth of giants. These giants come in three different sizes: large, medium, and small, represented respectively by elephants, camels, and asses.
By examining these accounts, we can deduce that the Watchers, or sons of God, are indeed male entities who originally resided in heaven but eventually succumbed to temptation, engaging in illicit sexual relationships with human women and generating offspring of immense proportions.
1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphim's: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
More Evidence for Male Angelic Beings
The scripture above also provides a canonical Old Testament example of angelic beings (divine council and other spirits we call "angels") being male. In this case, the scripture represents an sometimes used euphemism where male genitals are presented in scripture using the word "feet". You can find other instances in the following:
While the use of "feet" or "foot" as a euphemism for male genitals is a topic debated by Bible scholars, below are some Old Testament passages that are often referenced in this discussion:
1. Deuteronomy 28:57 - Though the reference here is likely literal, some interpret this to refer to the privacy of childbirth.
2. Ruth 3:4-8 - The Hebrew word translated "feet" in this passage, which refers to Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet, is variably interpreted with different levels of modesty or immodesty.
3. 2 Samuel 11:8 - David tells Uriah to go down to his house and wash his feet. It could be read as a euphemism, though it's more likely a common expression for relaxing at home.
4. Exodus 4:24-26 - This is on the more debated passages, where it says "the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, 'Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!'” Some argue it could not have meant literal feet.
5. Judges 3:24 - The servants wait to a point of embarrassment supposedly thinking Eglon was relieving himself.
These are often cited examples but it's important to note that the interpretation largely depends on the reader and different theological perspectives, and more likely the term often just refers to literal feet. The Hebrew language like others often uses certain words and phrases with multiple meanings, depending on context.
Jesus refers to this story as a part of scriptures, linking and equating it to the height of Moses. Therefore, Jesus is not simply pointing to the story of 1 Enoch as scripture, but is elevating it to the extreme heights of Moses by referring to both 1 Enoch and Moses as "scriptures".
As astonishing as this may be, this is where we must start asking ourselves serious questions and bring the notion of anachronisms into full view.
- - How many copies of 1 Enoch do we have?
- - What timeframes were they created in?
- - From what sources were they created?
- - For what audiences were they created and with what worldview?
For many centuries, since the 4th century AD, we have only had a few instances of 1 Enoch:
1. The Aramaic Copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls—The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, contain substantial portions of the Book of Enoch in Aramaic. These copies are dated to the 2nd-1st century BCE, before the birth of Christ. These texts were likely copied by the Essenes, a Jewish sect living in isolation near the Dead Sea.
2. The Greek Copies—Fragments of the book were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting that the text was widely known and cherished in the Jewish world. Also, there are copies and fragments of 1 Enoch in Greek. These Greek versions of the Book of Enoch were presumably written in the 1st century BCE to 1st century AD.
3. The Latin Fragments—Latin fragments of the Book of Enoch have been dated to the 4th Century AD which were found in a Library of Christian Latin texts in Italy. Some believe that these fragments were written by an unknown Christian scribe, who lived during the time when the Roman Empire was Christianized.
4. Ge’ez Translation—The version found in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Canon is in the Ge’ez language, which was translated from a Greek manuscript of 1 Enoch, which itself was a copy of a previous copy in another language, possibly Aramaic or Hebrew.
Thus, what we have in 2023 of 1 Enoch is whatever we have in Ge'ez (and subsequent English translations), plus fragments in Latin. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us more fragments in both Aramaic and Greek from the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st centuries BC, certainly before 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. With this understanding, we can now form some thoughts regarding the other questions asked above.
The audience of the DSS fragments, both Aramaic and Greek, were Jews living in the Second Temple Era. The audience of the Latin fragments was most likely newly minted Christians in the era of the Roman church. Finally, the Ge'ez translation of Ethiopia was targeted at Ethiopians and the church in that land and of that people.
It is the timeframe of the Ethiopian translation that is of most interest, as well as the audience and translators of the English copies derived from it, as well as the now Aramaic and Greek sources from the DSS brought into view.
What ought to be very clear is that what Jesus had in front of Him is not necessarily what we have in front of us. Remember, our English translations from Ge'ez are perhaps several anachronistic steps removed from what Jesus was looking at and calling scripture.
Even in the modern age, the best we can hope for is a translation that is a strong historical or even critical historical translation from the sources we have.
What we must be willing to admit is that while our copy of 1 Enoch is strong, its translation from something original cannot be satisfactorily traced back to what Jesus would have held in His hands or the hands of other people around Him. This indicates a disconnect. So, while Jesus could call what He held as "scripture", we cannot do the same. There is a lack of continuity. Consequently, whatever existed in the early part of the first century may have been able to be canonized, but we do not possess it in a manner that allows us to validate it, as we can with books like Exodus.
This leaves us in a particular state where the best we can do with what we currently possess is to regard it as a strong, mostly accurate, and perhaps even critical history, but not canonical. What we can consider as canon is the unknown version that Jesus was reading and referring to, but which is lost to us. It is Jesus' declaration of 1 Enoch as scripture in His time that helps anchor us in 2023, treating 1 Enoch as a tome of critical history that must not be ignored.
Dovetailing
My own personal analysis is leading me to dovetail the notion of anachronism with the status of 1 Enoch. This provides a basis for understanding how to determine truth from error and where and how to draw the lines of trustworthiness. It applies not only to 1 Enoch but also to translations, traditions, creeds, doctrines, dogmas, and things like statements of faith.
Each one must be called into question, and the hard work of study, as well as close and careful reading, must be applied to each.
What is even worse are the statements found in the preaching and teaching of modern pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so on. Even your local Bible study, home fellowship groups, and the Christians that occupy the pews around you ought to have an element of suspicion attached to them in your mind and thinking. Until you do the hard work of ferreting out the truth from unfiltered scripture in its original context, worldview, understanding, and culture of both its writer and intended audience, no other approach will give you the truth you and I seek if, indeed, we are truth-seekers and not just roll-over-and-believe kind of people.
Perhaps will be noble like the Bereans!