Table of Contents

1. Table of Contents 1

2. The Biblical Cannon of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church 2-4

3. Introduction to the Book of Enoch 5

4. The Book of Enoch 6-8

5. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch 9-10

6. Why was the Book of Enoch rejected from the Bible 11-12

7. The Book of Jubilees 13

8. The Dead Sea Scrolls 14

9. The Dead Sea Scrolls (The Book of Giants) 15-18

 The Biblical Canon Of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today
The Biblical corpus is recognised in Ethiopia as a limited group of writings, and is generally called
'the 81 books'. However, the canon lists found in Ethiopian MSS and printed books present many
variations, and the study of the history of the canon offers a wide field for investigation. This present
study is concerned with the lesser problem of establishing the canon list considered to be normative
today by the authorities most respected by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The following difficulties were encountered in the course of the study: -
1. The concept of canonicity is regarded more loosely than it is among most other churches.
2. The number of canonical books is reckoned to be 81, but this total is reached in various ways.
3. The naming of a book in a list does not necessarily uniquely identify it.
4. Some of the books assigned canonical authority have never been printed in Geez, or only
printed outside Ethiopia, or are difficult to obtain.
5. The authorities of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have never said of an edition of the Geez
or Amharic Bible that it was complete.
Of the ancient sources recognised in Ethiopia, the principal ones containing canon lists are the books
Sinodos and Fetha Nägäst. Sinodos is a collection of material attributed to the apostles and early
church councils. Fetha Nägäst, the canon law, specifically cites Sinodos as its source in its section on
the canon, and so has the same list; this list adds to the universally accepted canon at least the books
Judith, Tobit, 2 books of Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Pseudo-Josephus.
As this list does not add up to 81, some more recent works enumerate further canonical books, further
identify the ones listed in the Fetha Nägäst, and attempt to explain the discrepancy. These later lists
fall into two main groups, one group having a broader canon, the other a narrower one, as follows: -
1. The Broader Canon
The main source for this is the traditional Amharic commentary on the Geez text of the Fetha Nägäst.
It gives 46 as the total for the books of the Old Testament, made up as follows: - Octateuch (8), Judith
(1), Samuel and Kings (4), Chronicles (2), 1 Esdras and the Ezra Apocalypse (2), Esther (1), Tobit (1),
Maccabees (2), Job (1), Psalms (1), books of Solomon (5), Prophets (16), Ecclesiasticus (1), Pseudo-
Josephus (1); Jubilees and Enoch are to be included in the number (by counting Samuel and Kings as
only 2 books). It gives 35 as the total for the books of the New Testament, namely the Gospels (4),
Acts (1), the Catholic epistles (7), the Pauline epistles (14), Revelation (1), Sinodos (4 sections), the
Book of the Covenant (2 sections), Clement (1), Didascalia (1).
2. The Narrower Canon
This is listed in 'The Prayers of the Church', and is the list of the books actually printed in the large
Geez and Amharic diglot, and Amharic Bibles, issued by the Emperor's command. In this, the
universally accepted 39 Old Testament books are counted as 40 by the separation of Messale (Prov. 1-
24) and Tägsas (Prov. 25-31), and then 14 further books are listed as equally fully canonical, namely
Enoch, Jubilees, Wisdom, 1 Esdras, Ezra Apocalypse, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 'the rest
of Jeremiah', book of Susanna, 'the rest of Daniel', 1 and 2 Maccabees. This brings the Old Testament
total to 54, which together with the universally accepted 27 Old Testament books makes a total of 81.
The actual text of most of the books listed may conveniently be examined in the large Amharic, and
Geez and Amharic diglot, Bibles mentioned above; and the following notes show where their text
differs appreciably from the Hebrew, Greek or English: -
1. The prayer of Menasseh appears as 13 numbered verses following 2 Chronicles 33 v. 12.
2. Jubilees and Enoch have a different system of chapter division than that found in the editions
of Dillmann, Charles and others.
3. The Ezra Apocalypse (Ezra Sutu'el) has 13 chapters, being 4 Esdras 3-14 of the Vulgate. It
does not include 5 and 6 Ezra.
4. In Esther, Job, Psalms and Daniel the LXX additions are found in the Geez and Amharic.
5. The 3 books of 'Maccabees' (Mäqabeyan), which are counted as 2 by the Canon Law
Commentary by reckoning the 2nd and 3rd as one book, are not the same as any of the 4 LXX
books of Maccabees, or as Pseudo-Josephus, which the Canon Law Commentary calls 'a further
book of Maccabees'.
6. The accepted text of Jeremiah 1-52 is followed by Baruch (5 chapters, but shorter than the
LXX text), and Säqoqawä Eremyas. The latter is made up of Lamentations (5 chapters), the
epistle to the captives (Lam. 6), the prophecy against Pashhur (Lam. 7 v. 1-5)[10] and 'the rest
of the words of Baruch' (4 Baruch, Lam. 7 v. 6-11 v. 63).
The books for which canonicity is claimed (at least by some authorities), but which are not included in
these large editions of the Bible, have not been printed in Ethiopia at all; so for these one can only turn
to MSS or to foreign printed editions. The books are the following: -

1. 'Pseudo-Josephus', the book of Yosëf Wäldä Koryon, called Zëna Ayhud or Mäshäfä Serew, a
history of the Jews in 8 parts, based on the writings of Josephus.
2. Sinodos, a book of church order. The part of it attributed to the apostles is traditionally
divided into 4 sections, Ser`atä Seyon (30 canons), Te'ezaz (71 canons), Gessew (56 canons) and
Abtelis (81 canons). Sinodos MSS contain more material than this, and their content and order
are rather variable.

3. Clement (Qälëmentos) is a book in seven parts, communicated by Peter to Clement. It is not

the Roman or Corinthian correspondence, nor one of the parts of Sinodos, (namely Te'ezaz,
Gessew or Abtelis, which are sometimes called 1, 2 and 3 Clement), nor part of the Syriac
Octateuch of Clement.
 4. The Book of the Covenant (Mäshafä Kidan) is counted as 2 parts, firstly sections 1-60,
mostly about Church order, and secondly section 61, a discourse of our Lord to his disciples in
Galilee after his resurrection.
5. The Ethiopian Didascalia (Didesqelya), a book of Church order in 43 chapters, distinct from
the Didascalia Apostolorum, but similar to books I-VII of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions.
Conclusions:
1. The canonicity of the books included in the large Geez and Amharic diglot, and large Amharic
editions of the Bible, and in the 'narrower' Canon, can be regarded as undisputed in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church today. The former Emperor is reported as saying that these editions of the Bible are
complete.
2. From a traditionalist point of view the additional books of the 'broader' canon must be regarded as
equally canonical; but it seems that in practice they may come to be regarded more as 'commentary' on
the canonical books, and therefore as possessing only a derived authority.
3. Some European writers allege that the 'Ascension of Isaiah' (Ergätä Isayeyas) and the 'Shepherd of
Hermas' (Herma Näbiy) are generally regarded as canonical in Ethiopia. While this may have been
true in the past, this study has not found it to be so at the present.

The writer is grateful to Fr. Dr. Ephräm Eising of Niederaltaich, W. Germany, and to Prof. E.
Ullendorff of S.O.A.S., London, for advice concerning this study.
 Introduction to the Book of Enoch
The antediluvian patriarch Enoch according to Genesis "walked with God and was seen no more,
because God took him". This walking with God was naturally understood to refer to special
revelations made to the patriarch, and this, together with the mystery surrounding his departure from
the world, made Enoch's name an apt one for the purposes of apocalyptic writers. In consequence
there arose a literature attributed to him.
It influenced not only later Jewish apocrypha, but has left its imprint on the New Testament and the
works of the early Fathers. The canonical Epistle of St. Jude, in verses 14, 15, explicitly quotes from
the Book of Enoch; the citation is found in the Ethiopic version in verses 9 and 4 of the first chapter.
There are probable traces of the Enoch literature in other portions of the New Testament.
Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Enoch enjoyed a high esteem among them, mainly owing
to the quotation in Jude. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas twice cites Enoch as Scripture. Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the
patriarch. But in the fourth century the Enoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an
allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view.
So great was the oblivion into which they fell that only scanty fragments of Greek and Latin versions
were preserved in the West. The complete text was thought to have perished when it was discovered
in two Ethiopic manuscripts in Abyssinia, by the traveler Bruce in 1773. Since, several more copies in
the same language have been brought to light. Recently a large Greek fragment comprising chapters i-
xxxii was unearthed at Akhmîn in Egypt.
Scholars agree that the Book of Enoch was originally composed either in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that
the Ethiopic version was derived from a Greek one. A comparison of the Ethiopic text with the
Akhmîn Greek fragment proves that the former is in general a trustworthy translation. The work is a
compilation, and its component parts were written in Palestine by Jews of the orthodox Hasidic or
Pharisaic schools. Its composite character appears clearly from the palpable differences in
eschatology, in the views of the origin of sin and of the character and importance of the Messias found
in portions otherwise marked off from each other by diversities of subject. Critics agree that the oldest
portions are those included in chapters i-xxxvi and (broadly speaking) lxxi-civ.
It will be seen that the work is a voluminous one. But the most recent research, led by the Rev. R.H.
Charles, an English specialist, breaks up this part into at least two distinct constituents. Charles's
analysis and dating are: i-xxxvi, the oldest part, composed before 170 B.C.; xxxvii-lxx, lxxxiii-xc,
written between 166-161 B.C.; chapters xci-civ between the years 134-95 B.C.; the Book of Parables
between 94-64 B.C.; the Book of Celestial Physics, lxxii-lxxviii, lxxxii, lxxix, date undetermined.
Criticism recognizes, scattered here and there, interpolations from a lost apocalypse, the Book of
Noah. Expert opinion is not united on the date of the composite older portion, i.e. i-xxxvi, lxxi-civ.
The preponderant authority represented by Charles and Schürer assigns it to the latter part of the
second century before Christ, but Baldensperger would bring it down to a half century before our Era.
 The Book of Enoch
(also referred to as "Ethiopic Enoch" or "1 Enoch")
The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this
book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial
statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels. The Enochian writings, in addition to
many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras,
etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings.
The term "apocrypha" is derived from the Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret". Originally, the
import of the term may have been complimentary in that the term was applied to sacred books whose
contents were too exalted to be made available to the general public. In Dan. 12:9-10 we hear of
words that are shut up until the end of time and, words that the wise shall understand and the wicked
shall not. In addition, 4 Ezra 14:44ff. mentions 94 books, of which 24 (the OT) were to be published
and 70 were to be delivered only to the wise among the people (= apocrypha).
Gradually, the term "apocrypha" took on a pejorative connotation, for the orthodoxy of these hidden
books was often questionable. Origen (Comm. in Matt. 10.18; p. 13.881) distinguished between books
that were to be read in public worship and apocryphal books. Because these secret books were often
preserved for use within the esoteric circles of the divinely-knit believers, many of the critically-
spirited or "unenlightened" Church Fathers found themselves outside the realm of understanding, and
therefore came to apply the term "apocryphal" to, what they claimed to be, heretical works which were
forbidden to be read.
In Protestant parlance, "the Apocrypha" designate 15 works, all but one of which are Jewish in origin
and found in the Septuagint (parts of 2 Esdras are Christian and Latin in origin). Although some of
them were composed in Palestine in Aramaic or Hebrew, they were not accepted into the Jewish canon
formed late in the 2nd cent. ad (Canonicity, 67:31-35). The Reformers, influenced by the Jewish canon
of the OT, did not consider these books on a par with the rest of the Scriptures; thus the custom arose
of making the Apocrypha a separate section in the Protestant Bible, or sometimes even of omitting
them entirely (Canonicity, 67:44-46). The Catholic view, expressed as a doctrine of faith at the
Council of Trent, is that 12 of these 15 works (in a different enumeration, however) are canonical
Scripture; they are called the Deuterocanonical Books (Canonicity, 67:21, 42-43). The three books of
the Protestant Apocrypha that are not accepted by Catholics are 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of
Manasseh.
The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated
the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber
de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book's teaching about angels.
Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it
(Delitzsch, p. 223).
So the book was denounced, banned, cursed, no doubt burned and shredded–and last but not least, lost
(and conveniently forgotten) for a thousand years. But with an uncanny persistence, the Book of Enoch
found its way back into circulation two centuries ago.
In 1773, rumors of a surviving copy of the book drew Scottish explorer James Bruce to distant
Ethiopia. True to hearsay, the Book of Enoch had been preserved by the Ethiopic church, which put it
right alongside the other books of the Bible.
Bruce secured not one, but three Ethiopic copies of the book and brought them back to Europe and
Britain. When in 1821 Dr. Richard Laurence, a Hebrew professor at Oxford, produced the first English
translation of the work, the modern world gained its first glimpse of the forbidden mysteries of Enoch.
Most scholars say that the present form of the story in the Book of Enoch was penned sometime during
the second century B.C. and was popular for at least five hundred years. The earliest Ethiopic text was
apparently made from a Greek manuscript of the Book of Enoch, which itself was a copy of an earlier
text. The original was apparently written in Semitic language, now thought to be Aramaic.
Though it was once believed to be post-Christian (the similarities to Christian terminology and
teaching are striking), recent discoveries of copies of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at
Qumran prove that the book was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. But the date of the
original writing upon which the second century B.C. Qumran copies were based is shrouded in
obscurity. It is, in a word, old.
It has been largely the opinion of historians that the book does not really contain the authentic words
of the ancient biblical patriarch Enoch, since he would have lived (based on the chronologies in the
Book of Genesis) several thousand years earlier than the first known appearance of the book attributed
to him.
Despite its unknown origins, Christians once accepted the words of this Book of Enoch as authentic
scripture, especially the part about the fallen angels and their prophesied judgment. In fact, many of
the key concepts used by Jesus Christ himself seem directly connected to terms and ideas in the Book
of Enoch.
Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it
highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme
of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"–the term most often used in the Old Testament
to describe the Watchers.
There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the
New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.
Another remarkable bit of evidence for the early Christians' acceptance of the Book of Enoch was for
many years buried under the King James Bible's mistranslation of Luke 9:35, describing the
transfiguration of Christ: "And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my beloved Son:
hear him." Apparently the translator here wished to make this verse agree with a similar verse in
Matthew and Mark. But Luke's verse in the original Greek reads: "This is my Son, the Elect One
(from the Greek ho eklelegmenos, lit., "the elect one"): hear him."
The "Elect One" is a most significant term (found fourteen times) in the Book of Enoch. If the book
was indeed known to the apostles of Christ, with its abundant descriptions of the Elect One who
should "sit upon the throne of glory" and the Elect One who should "dwell in the midst of them," then
the great scriptural authenticity is accorded to the Book of Enoch when the "voice out of the cloud"
tells the apostles, "This is my Son, the Elect One"–the one promised in the Book of Enoch.
The Book of Jude tells us in vs. 14 that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied…" Jude also, in
vs. 15, makes a direct reference to the Book of Enoch (2:1), where he writes, "to execute judgment on
all, to convict all who are ungodly…" The time difference between Enoch and Jude is approximately
3400 years. Therefore, Jude's reference to the Enochian prophesies strongly leans toward the
conclusion that these written prophesies were available to him at that time.

Fragments of ten Enoch manuscripts were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The famous scrolls
actually comprise only one part of the total findings at Qumran. Much of the rest was Enochian
literature, copies of the Book of Enoch, and other apocryphal works in the Enochian tradition, like the
Book of Jubilees. With so many copies around, the Essenes could well have used the Enochian
writings as a community prayer book or teacher's manual and study text.
The Book of Enoch was also used by writers of the noncanonical (i.e. apocryphal or "hidden") texts.
The author of the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice calling
it "the Scripture," a term specifically denoting the inspired Word of God (Epis. of Barnabas 4:3,
16:5,6). Other apocryphal works reflect knowledge of the Enoch story of the Watchers, notably the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Book of Jubilees.

Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil
to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from
the Ibid.)–directly referencing the Enochian writings.
Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet.
He describes the angels which "violated both their own nature and their office." In his writings, he
goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from
the Enochian writings.
Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of
Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to:
Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of
and supported the Enochian writings.
The twentieth-century discovery of several Aramaic Enochian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls
prompted Catholic scholar J.T. Milik to compile a complete history of the Enochian writings,
including translations of the Aramaic manuscripts.
Milik's 400-page book, published in 1976 by Oxford (J. T. Milik, ed. and trans., The Books of Enoch:
Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) is a milestone in Enochian
scholarship, and Milik himself is no doubt one of the finest experts on the subject. His opinions, based
as they are on years of in-depth research, are highly respected.

One by one the arguments against the Book of Enoch fade away. The day may soon arrive when the
final complaints about the Book of Enoch's lack of historicity and "late date" are also silenced by new
evidence of the book's real antiquity.
 About the Book of the Secrets of Enoch
(also referred to as "Slavonic Enoch" or "2 Enoch")
An entirely different Enoch manuscript has survived in the Slavonic language. This text, dubbed "2
Enoch" and commonly called "the Slavonic Enoch," was discovered in 1886 by a professor Sokolov in
the archives of the Belgrade Public Library. It appears that just as the Ethiopic Enoch ("1 Enoch") had
escaped the sixth-century Church suppression of Enoch texts in the Mediterranean area, so a Slavonic
Enoch had survived far away, long after the originals from which it was copied were destroyed or
hidden away.
Specialists in the Enochian texts surmise that the missing original form which the Slavonic was copied
was probably a Greek manuscript. This may have been, in turn, based on a Hebrew or Aramaic
manuscript.
Many Aramaic fragments of 1 Enoch have been recovered in the past few decades from the Qumran
caves which preserved the scriptures of the Essenes, showing the importance of Enoch to the Essene
community. It is also possible that the core of the Slavonic Enoch, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,
was known to the Essenes.
The Slavonic text bears evidence of many later additions to the original manuscript. Such
editorializing is common in religious texts, and it can include, unfortunately, the deletion of teachings
considered "erroneous."
Because of certain calendrical data in the Slavonic Enoch, some claim the text cannot be earlier than
the seventh century A.D. Most scholars see Christian influences in the Slavonic Enoch and therefore
assign it, at the earliest, to the first century A.D.
But some see these passages not as evidence of Christian authorship, but as later Christian
interpolations into an earlier manuscript. Enochian specialist R.H. Charles, for instance, believes that
even the better of the two Slavonic manuscripts contains interpolations and is, in textual terms,
"corrupt."
Most scholars agree that the Slavonic Enoch is an eclectic and syncretistic text, perhaps compiled by
Christian writers but probably having origins in an earlier tradition. It may be dependent upon the
Ethiopic Enoch, although it is recognized as a separate part of the literary tradition concerning the
patriarch Enoch.
The Slavonic Enoch thus could preserve another part of a profound teaching on the fallen angels
known to the early Judaic peoples but mainly lost to us. For this reason, the Slavonic Enoch is
valuable, despite its editorial shortcomings.
So although the fingerprints of many centuries of later editors are left upon this manuscript, they do
not necessarily invalidate the authenticity and antiquity of this book and its teaching. The ring of truth
echoes from many of its pages.
One of the most fascinating passages of the Slavonic Enoch is the account of the dramatization of
eternity found in Chapter 33. As the world was made in six days, so its history would be accomplished
in 6,000 years, and this would be followed by 1,000 years of rest, when the balance of conflicting
moral forces has been struck and human life has reached the ideal state. (A reference of this conflict is
also found in The War Scroll, a future battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.
These writings were recently discovered in Qumran Cave 1, which are part of the collection of The
Dead Sea Scrolls). At the close of this 7,000 year cycle would begin the 8th Eternal Day, when time
should be no more.
As with the Ethiopic text of The Book of Enoch, the chapters of this book may be spartan editions of
several separate and larger books. Many scholars have seen in The Book of Enoch separate books
titled: The Ancient Book, The First and Second Book of the Watchers, The First Book of Secrets (or
The Vision of Wisdom), The Vision of Noah and History, and The Book of Astronomy. There could be a
similar set of resources, differently compiled, behind the Slavonic Enoch.

Enoch tells us here that he wrote 366 books. Why, then, should we not postulate some one or two or
ten of his "lost" books behind this Slavonic Enoch?
 Why Was the Book of Enoch Rejected from the Bible?
Some may ask, if Enoch was such a great book, then why isn't it in the Bible today? There must be a
reason why the churches ultimately rejected it, right?
Actually, Enoch still is in the Bible. The Ethiopian Christians still hold Enoch sacred. This is a
crucial point, because Ethiopian Christianity traces its roots to apostolic times, and it was
relatively free from the pagan influences which adulterated Christian tradition within the
Roman Empire. Since Ethiopia was never part of the Roman Empire, Constantine’s mixing of
pagan sun worship with Christianity never had an impact on the development of the faith.
Therefore, Ethiopian Christianity is more trustworthy than Roman Christianity. Ethiopia
accepts Enoch, so Christians outside Ethiopia should accept Enoch too.
Now, for why it was rejected: The Old Testament in most modern-day Bibles contains the same
scriptures as the Jewish Bible. Although the books are arranged in different order, nothing is lacking in
one that is in the other, so they may be considered essentially the same. Why are they the same?
During the Protestant Reformation, Luther argued that no scripture should be permitted into the Old
Testament unless the Jews included it in their Bible. That is why the Jewish Bible and the Protestant
Old Testament include the same books.
But the Jewish Bible was not finalized until sixty years after Christ, at the Council of Jamnia about 90
AD. Moreover, Jamnia was a council that was dominated by Pharisees – a sect which Jesus Christ did
not particularly care for. Consequently, there is no reason to assume that Jesus Christ would have
agreed with the council's decision. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe Jesus would have
protested Jamnia, and therefore, Jesus would also protest the contents of the Old Testament if he were
here today.
Prior to Jamnia, there was widespread disagreement among Jews about which books should be in the
Bible. The Sadducees only accepted the first five books. The Pharisees of Palestine may have accepted
a canon similar to the Old Testament of today. The Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora accepted a
larger Old Testament called the Septuagint, which contained more books. Some of these books made it
into the deuterocanon, also called the apocrypha, which Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept but
Protestants do not. The Essenes, as we saw earlier, had still another canon, which contained Enoch and
Jubilees. Consequently, it is superfluous to argue that we cannot accept Enoch just because it is not in
our Bible today.
Which of these Bibles would Jesus have been most likely to accept? Jesus had ties to the Essene
community who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls; therefore he would have been most likely to choose the
Essene canon, thereby including Enoch and Jubilees in the Bible. There is no reason to think he would
accept the Catholic/Greek Old Testament, because Jesus was not a Greek Jew, and he never made any
statements suggesting he favored Greek Judaism over Palestinian Judaism. Neither would he have
accepted the Protestant Old Testament, because it is based on the Council of Jamnia, which was a
council of Pharisees.

Besides this, the early Christians supported the canonization of Enoch despite Jewish rejection of it.
Early 3rd century Christian writer Tertullian commented on the Jews rejection of Enoch as follows,
Since Enoch, in the same Scripture, also taught about the Lord, then it should not be rejected by us…
but it appears that the Jews rejected it specifically for that reason, just like they do almost every other
part that foretells Christ.
Indeed, it is true that the Jews corrupted their own scriptures to take Jesus out of the Old Testament.
One example is Psalm 22:16. It reads "They pierced my hands and my feet." That is what the
Septuagint and Syriac versions say. Christians take this as a prophecy about the crucifixion of Christ.
But the Jewish Bibles say "Like the lion my hands and my feet." Which is correct? To answer the
question, we should look to the oldest manuscript evidence, which is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead
Sea Scrolls favor the Christian version.
According to this line of thinking, the Council of Jamnia was in error because it allowed an anti-
Christian prejudice to influence the decision regarding Enoch’s canonicity. If this is the case, then
Luther was certainly wrong in allowing Jamnia to decide his Old Testament canon.
Another reason for why Enoch was rejected from the canon is because later church leaders found the
story of angels having sex with humans too fantastic. Julius Africanus was one of the first to
reinterpret Genesis 6 and thus cast a shadow over Enoch. Around 245 AD, he said,
In my opinion, what the Spirit is trying to tell us is that the descendents of Seth are the sons of God
because of the godly men and patriarchs who descended from them, all the way down to the Savior
himself, and that the descendents of Cain are the spawn of men and have nothing from God in them.
At the beginning of the dark ages, this interpretation regarding the good sons of Seth versus the evil
sons of Cain became quite popular, thanks to revisionist theologians like Jerome. Popular literature
such as The Life of Adam & Eve also promoted the sons of Seth versus the sons of Cain opinion.
Although The Life of Adam & Eve may go back to the 1st century BC, it is obviously fictional and
contains so many variant readings between copies that it cannot be trusted. No ancient Christian canon
list included it.
The book of Enoch was ultimately rejected in 364 AD at the Council of Laodicea. The fact that this act
of betrayal against the earlier traditions happened in the church of Laodicea is stunningly prophetic,
for the Prophet of Revelation has more harsh words for Laodicea than any other church in Asia,
I will spit you out of my mouth… You are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked… be zealous,
therefore, and repent.
Discontented by this critique of their town, Laodicea tried to remove Revelation from the Bible too, in
addition to Enoch, but the Council of Carthage superceded them. Should we allow these Laodicean
heretics to have the final say on Enoch? More and more Christians are saying No!
 "What is the Book of Jubilees and should it be in the Bible?"
The Book of Jubilees, sometimes called the “Lesser Genesis,” was probably written in the 2nd century
BC and records an account of the biblical history of the world from the creation to Moses. The book
divides history into periods or “jubilees” of 49 years. Generally, the Book of Jubilees follows the
account of creation as recorded in the Book of Genesis, but provides interesting details such as names
of Adam’s daughters.
The only complete version of the Book of Jubilees is written in Ethiopian, though most scholars
believe that it was originally written in Hebrew. There are some fragments existing today in Greek and
Latin, but nowhere near a complete book in either language.
Perhaps the most obvious reason for the book was the author’s preoccupation with advocating a solar
calendar based on days and months rather than on the Jewish lunar-based calendar. In fact, some
scholars have pointed out that it appears the book was written exactly for that purpose—to push the
author’s idea that the solar-based calendar more accurately represents the 49 years (jubilees) and
provided for a better understanding of prophecy. If that is true, then the Book of Jubilees may well
have merely been an attempt to show how the solar calendar better fits in the biblical account of time
and prophecy.
As for whether the Book of Jubilees should be in the Bible, we must first recognize the fact that God is
the One at work in the Scriptures and if He wanted the Book of Jubilees as a part of Scripture, no man
(or Satan) could have prevented it. Hundreds and hundreds of years of Christian (and Jewish) scholars
have labored to ensure that the Holy Scriptures remain true and untainted. Part of the problem with the
Book of Jubilees is that so little remains of original writings that there is no way to determine if the
book as it now exists is the same book that was originally written. This is one huge reason that the
Book of Jubilees fails the standards of the canon of Scripture.
 The Dead Sea Scrolls
What are the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Dead Sea Scrolls have been called the greatest manuscript
discovery of modern times. They were discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves along the
northwest shore of the Dead Sea. This is an arid region 13 miles east of Jerusalem and 1,300 feet
below sea level. The Dead Sea Scrolls are comprised of the remains of approximately 825 to 870
separate scrolls, represented by tens of thousands of fragments. The texts are most commonly made of
animal skins, but also papyrus and one of copper. Most of the texts are written in Hebrew and
Aramaic, with a few in Greek.
The Dead Sea Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect, considered most likely the Essenes.
Near the caves are the ancient ruins of Qumran, a village excavated in the early 1950's that shows
connections to both the Essenes and the scrolls. The Essenes were strictly observant Jewish scribes.
The library appears to have been hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt
(66-70 AD) as the Roman army advanced against the Jews.
The Dead Sea Scrolls can be divided into two categories -- biblical and non-biblical. Fragments of
every book of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) have been discovered, except for the book of
Esther. Now identified among the scrolls are 19 fragments of Isaiah, 25 fragments of Deuteronomy
and 30 fragments of the Psalms. The virtually intact "Isaiah Scroll", which contains some of the most
dramatic Messianic prophecy, is 1,000 years older than any previously known manuscript of Isaiah.
Based on various dating methods, including paleographic, scribal, and carbon-14, the Dead Sea
Scrolls were written during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 AD. Many crucial Messianic
manuscripts (such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 61) date to at least 100 BC. As such, the Dead Sea
Scrolls have revolutionized textual criticism of the Old Testament and Messianic prophecy.
Phenomenally, the biblical texts of Qumran are in substantial agreement with the Masoretic text,
"Septuagint", and variant translations of the Old Testament we use today. 1
Wow, what a find! Until recently (in historic terms), didn't exist. Now, it does! We now have dramatic
evidence that the key Messianic prophecies contained in today's Old Testament are the same
Messianic prophecies that existed prior to the time Jesus walked this earth. There was no contrivance
after-the-fact... There was no conspiracy... Simply, Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Jewish
Messiah!
The Dead Sea Scrolls sat untouched in a perfect, arid environment for approximately 2,000 years. In
1947, a Bedouin shepherd stumbles upon arguably the most important archaeological find in history.
Then, one year later, against tremendous odds, the Jewish people return to their homeland as a formal
nation for the first time since 70 AD.
 The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Book of Giants
4Q203, 1Q23, 2Q26, 4Q530-532, 6Q8
It is fair to say that the patriarch Enoch was as well known to the ancients as he is obscure to modern
Bible readers. Besides giving his age (365 years), the book of Genesis says of him only that he
"walked with God," and afterward "he was not, because God had taken him" (Gen. 5:24). This exalted
way of life and mysterious demise made Enoch into a figure of considerable fascination, and a cycle
of legends grew up around him.
Many of the legends about Enoch were collected already in ancient times in several long anthologies.
The most important such anthology, and the oldest, is known simply as The Book of Enoch,
comprising over one hundred chapters. It still survives in its entirety (although only in the Ethiopic
language) and forms an important source for the thought of Judaism in the last few centuries B.C.E.
Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were
found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a
vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned
up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or
little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book
of Giants.
Enoch lived before the Flood, during a time when the world, in ancient imagination, was very
different. Human beings lived much longer, for one thing; Enoch's son Methuselah, for instance,
attained the age of 969 years. Another difference was that angels and humans interacted freely -- so
freely, in fact, that some of the angels begot children with human females. This fact is neutrally
reported in Genesis (6:1-4), but other stories view this episode as the source of the corruption that
made the punishing flood necessary. According to The Book of Enoch, the mingling of angel and
human was actually the idea of Shernihaza, the leader of the evil angels, who lured 200 others to
cohabit with women. The offspring of these unnatural unions were giants 450 feet high. The wicked
angels and the giants began to oppress the human population and to teach them to do evil. For this
reason God determined to imprison the angels until the final judgment and to destroy the earth with a
flood. Enoch's efforts to intercede with heaven for the fallen angels were unsuccessful (1 Enoch 6-16).
The Book of Giants retells part of this story and elaborates on the exploits of the giants, especially the
two children of Shemihaza, Ohya and Hahya. Since no complete manuscript exists of Giants, its exact
contents and their order remain a matter of guesswork. Most of the content of the present fragments
concerns the giants' ominous dreams and Enoch's efforts to interpret them and to intercede with God
on the giants' behalf. Unfortunately, little remains of the independent adventures of the giants, but it is
likely that these tales were at least partially derived from ancient Near Eastern mythology. Thus the
name of one of the giants is Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero and subject of a great epic written in the
third millennium B.C.E.
Book of Giants -- Reconstructed Texts
A summary statement of the descent of the wicked angels, bringing both knowledge and havoc.
Compare Genesis 6:1-2, 4.
1Q23 Frag. 9 + 14 + 15 2[ . . . ] they knew the secrets of [ . . . ] 3[ . . . si]n was great in the
earth [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] and they killed manY [ . . ] 5[ . . . they begat] giants [ . . . ]

The angels exploit the fruifulness of the earth.

4Q531 Frag. 3 2[ . . . everything that the] earth produced [ . . . ] [ . . . ] the great fish [ . . . ] 14[ .
. . ] the sky with all that grew [ . . . ] 15[ . . . fruit of] the earth and all kinds of grain and al1 the
trees [ . . . ] 16[ . . . ] beasts and reptiles . . . [al]l creeping things of the earth and they observed
all [ . . . ] |8[ . . . eve]ry harsh deed and [ . . . ] utterance [ . . . ] l9[ . . . ] male and female, and
among humans [ . . . ]

The two hundred angels choose animals on which to perform unnatural acts, including,
presumably, humans.
1Q23 Frag. 1 + 6 [ . . . two hundred] 2donkeys, two hundred asses, two hundred . . . rams of
the] 3flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [ . . . beast of the] 4field from every animal, from
every [bird . . . ] 5[ . . . ] for miscegenation [ . . . ]

The outcome of the demonic corruption was violence, perversion, and a brood of monstrous beings.
Compare Genesis 6:4.
4Q531 Frag. 2 [ . . . ] they defiled [ . . . ] 2[ . . . they begot] giants and monsters [ . . . ] 3[ . . . ]
they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted . . . ] 4[ . . . ] with its blood and by the hand
of [ . . . ] 5[giant's] which did not suffice for them and [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] and they were seeking to
devour many [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] 8[ . . . ] the monsters attacked it.

4Q532 Col. 2 Frags. 1 - 6 2[ . . . ] flesh [ . . . ] 3al[l . . . ] monsters [ . . . ] will be [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ]

they would arise [ . . . ] lacking in true knowledge [ . . . ] because [ . . . ] 5[ . . . ] the earth [grew
corrupt . . . ] mighty [ . . . ] 6[ . . . ] they were considering [ . . . ] 7[ . . . ] from the angels upon [
. . . ] 8[ . . . ] in the end it will perish and die [ . . . ] 9[ . . . ] they caused great corruption in the
[earth . . . ] [ . . . this did not] suffice to [ . . . ] "they will be [ . . . ]

The giants begin to be troubled by a series of dreams and visions. Mahway, the titan son of the
angel Barakel, reports the first of these dreams to his fellow giants. He sees a tablet being immersed
in water. When it emerges, all but three names have been washed away. The dream evidently
symbolizes the destruction of all but Noah and his sons by the Flood.
2Q26 [ . . . ] they drenched the tablet in the wa[ter . . . ] 2[ . . . ] the waters went up over the
[tablet . . . ] 3[ . . . ] they lifted out the tablet from the water of [ . . . ]
The giant goes to the others and they discuss the dream.
4Q530 Frag.7 [ . . . this vision] is for cursing and sorrow. I am the one who confessed 2[ . . . ]
the whole group of the castaways that I shall go to [ . . . ] 3[ . . . the spirits of the sl]ain
complaining about their killers and crying out 4[ . . . ] that we shall die together and be made an
end of [ . . . ] much and I will be sleeping, and bread 6[ . . . ] for my dwelling; the vision and
also [ . . . ] entered into the gathering of the giants 8[ . .. ]
6Q8 [ . . . ] Ohya and he said to Mahway [ . . . ] 2[ . . . ] without trembling. Who showed you all
this vision, [my] brother? 3[ . . . ] Barakel, my father, was with me. 4[ . . . ] Before Mahway had
finished telling what [he had seen . . . ] 5[ . . . said] to him, Now I have heard wonders! If a
barren woman gives birth [ . . . ]
4Q530 Frag. 4 3[There]upon Ohya said to Ha[hya . . . ] 4[ . . . to be destroyed] from upon the
earth and [ . . . ] 5[ . . . the ea]rth. When 6[ . . . ] they wept before [the giants . . . ]
4Q530 Frag. 7 3[ . . . ] your strength [ . . . ] 4[ . . . ] 5Thereupon Ohya [said] to Hahya [ . . . ]
Then he answered, It is not for 6us, but for Azaiel, for he did [ . . . the children of] angels 7are
the giants, and they would not let all their poved ones] be neglected [. . . we have] not been cast
down; you have strength [ . . . ]

The giants realize the futility of fighting against the forces of heaven. The first speaker may be
Gilgamesh.
4Q531 Frag. 1 3[ . . . I am a] giant, and by the mighty strength of my arm and my own great
strength 4[ . . . any]one mortal, and I have made war against them; but I am not [ . . . ] able to
stand against them, for my opponents 6[ . . . ] reside in [Heav]en, and they dwell in the holy
places. And not 7[ . . . they] are stronger than I. 8[ . . . ] of the wild beast has come, and the wild
man they call [me].
9[ . . . ] Then Ohya said to him, I have been forced to have a dream [ . . . ] the sleep of my eyes
[vanished], to let me see a vision. Now I know that on [ . . . ] 11-12[ . . . ] Gilgamesh [ . . . ]

Ohya's dream vision is of a tree that is uprooted except for three of its roots; the vision's import is
the same as that of the first dream.
6Q8 Frag. 2 1three of its roots [ . . . ] [while] I was [watching,] there came [ . . . they moved the
roots into] 3this garden, all of them, and not [ . . . ]

Ohya tries to avoid the implications of the visions. Above he stated that it referred only to the demon
Azazel; here he suggests that the destruction isfor the earthly rulers alone.
4Q530 Col. 2 1concerns the death of our souls [ . . . ] and all his comrades, [and Oh]ya told them
what Gilgamesh said to him 2[ . . . ] and it was said [ . . . ] "concerning [ . . . ] the leader has cursed
the potentates" 3and the giants were glad at his words. Then he turned and left [ . . . ]
More dreams afflict the giants. The details of this vision are obscure, but it bodes ill for the
giants. The dreamers speak first to the monsters, then to the giants.
Thereupon two of them had dreams 4and the sleep of their eye, fled from them, and they arose
and came to [ . . . and told] their dreams, and said in the assembly of [their comrades] the
monsters 6[ . . . In] my dream I was watching this very night 7[and there was a garden . . . ]
gardeners and they were watering 8[ . . . two hundred trees and] large shoots came out of their
root 9[ . . . ] all the water, and the fire burned all 10[the garden . . . ] They found the giants to
tell them 11[the dream . . . ]

Someone suggests that Enoch be found to interpret the vision.

[ . . . to Enoch] the noted scribe, and he will interpret for us 12the dream. Thereupon his fellow
Ohya declared and said to the giants, 13I too had a dream this night, O giants, and, behold, the
Ruler of Heaven came down to earth 14[ . . . ] and such is the end of the dream. [Thereupon] all
th e giants [and monsters! grew afraid 15and called Mahway. He came to them and the giants
pleaded with him and sent him to Enoch 16[the noted scribe]. They said to him, Go [ . . . ] to
you that 17[ . . . ] you have heard his voice. And he said to him, He wil1 [ . . and] interpret the
dreams [ . . ] Col. 3 3[ . . ] how long the giants have to live. [ . . ]

After a cosmic journey Mahway comes to Enoch and makes his request.
[ . . . he mounted up in the air] 41ike strong winds, and flew with his hands like ea[gles . . . he
left behind] 5the inhabited world and passed over Desolation, the great desert [ . . . ] 6and
Enoch saw him and hailed him, and Mahway said to him [ . . . ] 7hither and thither a second
time to Mahway [ . . . The giants awaig 8your words, and all the monsters of the earth. If [ . . . ]
has been carried [ . . . ] 9from the days of [ . . . ] their [ . . . ] and they will be added [ . . . ] 10[ . .
. ] we would know from you their meaning [ . . . ] 11[ . . . two hundred tr]ees that from heaven
[came down . . . ]

Enoch sends back a tablet with its grim message of judgment, but with hope for repentance.
4Q530 Frag. 2 The scribe [Enoch . . . ] 2[ . . . ] 3a copy of the second tablet that [Epoch] se[nt .
. . ] 4in the very handwriting of Enoch the noted scribe [ . . . In the name of God the great] 5and
holy one, to Shemihaza and all [his companions . . . ] 61et it be known to you that not [ . . . ]
7and the things you have done, and that your wives [ . . . ] 8they and their sons and the wives of
[their sons . . . ] 9by your licentiousness on the earth, and there has been upon you [ . . . and the
land is crying out] 10and complaining about you and the deeds of your children [ . . . ] 11the
harm that you have done to it. [ . . . ] 12until Raphael arrives, behold, destruction [is coming, a
great flood, and it will destroy all living things] 13and whatever is in the deserts and the seas.
And the meaning of the matter [ . . . ] 14upon you for evil. But now, loosen the bonds bi[nding
you to evil . . . ] l5and pray.

A fragment apparently detailing a vision that Enoch saw.

4Q531 Frag. 7 3[ . . . great fear] seized me and I fell on my face; I heard his voice [ . . . ] 4[ . . .
] he dwelt among human beings but he did not learn from them [ . . . ]