Sunday, May 14, 2023

Stephen De Young (EO) on the Reception of 1 Enoch in the New Testament and Early Christianity

  

New Testament References

 

The New Testament authors refer to these concepts in a way that assumes them as the majority position of the Jewish faithful in the first century AD. The authors do not argue for or demonstrate these ideas; they merely allude to and reference them. The New Testament mentions Enoch three times: The first is a brief reference in St. Luke’s genealogy of Christ from Adam, as would be expected (Luke 3:37). The second occurs in Hebrews 11:5 in the listing of faithful figures and their legacy, where the author uses the same terminology as the Greek Genesis and Wisdom of Sirach to state that Enoch had been translated from this world. The emphasis of Hebrews is clearly on the fact that Enoch, unlike all other figures in the genealogies of Cain and Seth, does not die.

 

The third mention of Enoch comes in Jude 14-15 and is especially significant because it includes a quotation ascribed to him, from 1 Enoch 1:9. In these two verses. St. Jude is clearly drawing deeply from Enochic traditions. First, he identifies Enoch as “the seventh from Adam.” Through this is apparent from counting generations in the Genesis genealogy, its ascription as a title occurs in 1 Enoch 60:8. This title has a particular relationship to Enoch as the origin of the Enochic calendar . . . Further, St. Jude portrays Enoch through the quotation as a preacher of repentance to the unrighteous. Enoch does no preaching in the text of Genesis, though Sirach possibly alludes to this (W. Sir. 44:16). The Enochic literature, however, repeatedly describes Enoch’s “walking with God” as his preaching of righteousness to the wicked and corrupt generation that surrounded him. Finally, the first chapter of Enoch, where St. Jude draws this quotation, is a midrashic commentary on Deuteronomy 33:2, which describes Yahweh coming forth in judgment from ten thousands of His holy ones. Saint Jude, therefore, is not quoting the general idea from the Deuteronomy text but rather the particular interpretation and application of this text from 1 Enoch. While this interpretation may have been widespread, St. Jude explicitly places this interpretive word in the mouth of Enoch himself.

 

Beyond these direct references to Enoch, the New Testament books also contain a number of allusions and references to various parts of the text. These are particularly concentrated in the Epistles of Ss. Eter and Jude, and, as one might expect, the Apocalypse of St. John. Perhaps less expectedly, St. Matthew’s Gospel features several references to Enochic material. Many of these surround the way in which Christ speaks of the Son of man as an apocalyptic figure. Others, however, are simpler, such as the meek inheriting the earth:

 

Blessed are the meek, because they will inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

 

But for the elect there will be light and joy and peace, and they will inherit the earth. (1 Enoch 5:7)

 

In some cases, these allusions, once understood, bring out an added dimension of meaning. As just one example, Jesus’ Parable of the Wedding Banquet ends with the unworthy one being bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness: “Then the king told his servants, ‘Bind this one hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matt. 22:13).

 

This precise phrasing—of being bound hand and food into darkness—is used to describe the fate of Azazel, the prince of demons, in 1 Enoch: “Then in the second place, the Lord said to Raphael, ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot and throw him into the darkness.’ And he made a hole in the desert which was in Dudael and threw him there” (10:4).

 

This connection reveals that the fate of the wicked person is to share in the fate of the rebellious spiritual powers, as Christ states elsewhere in that Gospel (Matt. 25:41). In fact, this fate, the lake of fire itself, seems to have its origin as an image in the Enochic literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 54:6). (Stephen De Young, Apocrypha: An Introduction to Extra-Biblical Literature [Chesterton, Ind.: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2023], 38-40)

 

Significance to the Early Church

 

The Church’s reception of 1 Enoch may surprise many modern people who assume anything outside of a rigid “Old Testament” canon was basically rejected. It is relatively well known that because of the authority of the text has always exercised within Ethiopian Judaism, it was immediately received into the Old Testament of Ethiopian Christianity, centuries before the Council of Chalcedon. Beyond this, however, 1 Enoch found wide use in the ancient Church. The Epistle of Barnabas twice cites 1 Enoch as Scripture: Barnabas introduces one set of quotations with “for the scripture says” and the other with “for it is written” (4:3; 16:5).

 

Saint Justin the Philosopher, in the mid-second century, refers more than once to the Watchers story as reflected in 1 Enoch and related literature. He is likely our most important witness to the separation between Christianity and other Judaisms (In the Second Temple period, the religious practice of Judean people in various places was highly varied. There was no single Judaism or a single religion of which all Jewish people were a part) that took place during his lifetime. In 1 Enoch, the Son of Man plays a central role as the second hypostatic of Yahweh, which likely doomed the book to immediate repudiation by non-Christian Jewish communities. However, in his Dialogue with Trypho. St. Justin makes a tantalizing reference that another central emphasis of 1 Enoch was also a point of contention among Jews. Trypho accuses St. Justin, and thereby Christians, that their “expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; may, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God” (79).

 

Tertullian, writing about AD 200, defends the authoritative status of 1 Enoch in part by saying that nascent Rabbinic Judaism had rejected it because of its many prophecies pertaining to Christ (On the Apparel of Women, 1.3). Also, in the late second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives a fairly detailed account of the teaching of 1 Enoch regarding the origin and fate of the powers of darkness, ascribing this teaching to the prophets (Adv. Haer. 10.1). Another second-century Father, St. Athenagoras of Athens, describes Enoch as a prophet and makes great use of the book’s descriptions of the angelic realm (Legatio). Origen states that he had previously accepted 1 Enoch as Scripture but later found that others did not consider it so; thus he moderated his stand (see De Principiis 4.1.35; Contra Census 54). (Ibid., 40-42)

 

. . . modern readers often presume that this acceptance shifted in the post-Nicene Church, with 1 Enoch marginalized and set aside along with the rest of the Enochic material. This is incorrect on at least two counts. First, the teachings of 1 Enoch represents the earliest textual witness to the principles of Christology, angelology, demonology, hamartiology (the doctrine of sin), and eschatology that became doctrinally normative for the Christian Church. The ubiquitous understanding of demons as “fallen angels,” for example, testifies to this influence. While 1 Enoch does not function as Scripture and is not read in the Church liturgically, many of its central teachings passed through the textual witness of the New Testament and of the early Fathers, eventually coming to rest on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of the book itself as a document.

 

In the second place, despite this dynamic, in various places throughout the later history of the Orthodox Church, the authoritative use of 1 Enoch arises without controversy. For example, the great eighth-century Byzantine chronicler George Synkellos, a close adviser to St. Tarasios, the Patriarch of Constantinople, used 1 Enoch’s text for the early portions of his Chronography, thereby indicating that he viewed it as accurate world history. A generation later, St. Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, identified 1 Enoch as one repository of the teachings of the apostles not written explicitly in the New Testament—an apostolic apocryphon. This means that as late as the ninth century, the Church remembered that the earliest written record of these apostolic traditions regarding angels, demons, sin, and the end of days is, in fact, the Book of Enoch. It is evident that 1 Enoch and other significant Second Temple literature preserved through the centuries by the Church occupy a place in relationship to the Old Testament similar to the place that the Apostolic Fathers hold in relation to the New Testament. (Ibid., 42-43)

 

With respect to St. Nikephoros I, Patriarch of Constantinople, calling 1 Enoch “an apostolic apocryphon”:

 

Literally, “a hidden thing.” In St. Nikephoros’s usage, apocryphon more commonly means “private” rather than “public.” He saw the Book of Enoch as a text that influenced the apostles without being openly cited, with the exception of St. Jude. (Ibid., 94 n. 24)