You don't know me. I just happened to find your web site. It's so clear and concise! Many could take an example!

I hope you will answer my questions. if you do, please spend only the minimum of time on it.

  1. What is the difference between 1Enoch and 2Enoch?
  2. Does the following answer that someone gave me make any sense, namely the underlined?

    "... I've never considered 2 Enoch authentic for many reasons. But as my paper said, Christ apparently quoted 1 Enoch over a hundred times, and I consider Him a good "Christian" source. But I am amazed at how smart people believe themselves to be...."


There are three independent books which call themselves the Book of Enoch. They have been numbered to keep them straight. 1 Enoch is the text found in Ethiopia in 1773 and written in the Ethiopian language believed to be translated from Aramaic. It is the one most people think of when someone mentions the Book of Enoch.

2 Enoch is written in Slavonic believed to be translated from Greek. Recently some Coptic fragments of the book have been found. The twenty Slavonic manuscripts that have survived date between the 14th and 18th centuries. Most scholars believe the story was originally written in the first century, probably by a Jewish writer. The date and the author is because it shows strong familiarity with the temple and the worship practices of that era. The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and 2 Enoch shows no hints of knowing the temple is gone. There is a section in 2 Enoch that is believed to be a later addition. That section shows knowledge of the Gospels (it has Melchizedek being born of a virgin) and the concept of the priesthood of Melchizedek discussed in the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament.

In 2 Enoch, Enoch is taken to heaven by Gabriel, told the secrets of creation, becomes the writer of 360 books of all that is knowable that is dictated to him by angel, and then sent back to earth for a month. When he comes back, he teaches moral principles that are similar to those found in another psuedpiograph call The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Interestingly, fornication is not considered a sin in this writing. And it is claimed that interceding for others is useless. Among its glaring errors is that Melchizedek is born before the flood, even though Melchizedek in the Bible is a contemporary of Abraham who lived about 300 years after the Flood.

3 Enoch was written in Hebrew but contains many Greek and Latin terms. It is ascribed to Rabbi Ishmael, a visionary among the Merkabah Jews. It is believed to have been written between 90 and 135 A.D. The writer was clearly familiar with 1 Enoch. This book claims that Enoch becomes an exalted angel named Melatron after ascending into heaven.

A common feature of pseudopigraphs is to borrow phrases and word choices from the Scriptures to make them appear more authentic. You can also see this today in the words of modern-day false prophets. Jesus did heavily refer to the Old Testament, so the fact that there are similarity in wording with 1 Enoch which also drew phrases from the Old Testament is not surprising. There is no evidence that Jesus actually quoted 1 Enoch. In addition, keep in mind that we only have two short fragments of 1 Enoch that predate the New Testament. We can't rule out that the Book of Enoch was modified to pick up phrases from the New Testament as well. For example, one of the claimed quotes is Jesus' reference to himself as the son of man. Of course the phrase appears in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, but because 1 Enoch uses the same phrase, it is claimed that Jesus is quoting 1 Enoch, which is unsupportable.

Thank you so much for answering my questions. First time I heard of 3 Enoch! But I never really delved into the subject and don't even wish to. I did listen to a video, a spoken Book of Enoch, and it left me with a horrible feeling and disliking God. Got rid of that. Don't wish to listen to that garbage anymore.

So what this man says: "...Christ apparently quoted 1 Enoch over a hundred times,..." is totally fiction. Is it really true that a scholar like him can state that? How is that possible? It's John Pratt I am talking about.

I tracked down John Pratt's web site. He has a Ph.D. in astronomy. That does not make him an expert in biblical literature or a judge of what is or is not inspired. Still, even experts can be wrong. That is why I want you to use your head and look at the evidence.

Let me illustrate with two of Mr. Pratt's examples:

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth" (Mathew 5:5).

"The elect shall possess light, joy and peace, and they shall inherit the earth" (Enoch 5:7).

This isn't a quote. To even claim an allusion would be framed around "they shall inherit the earth." But as I pointed out, the writer of 1 Enoch pulls phrases out of the Old Testament to make his work sound scriptural.

"For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth" (Psalms 37:9).

"But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Psalms 37:11).

"For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth, But those cursed by Him shall be cut off" (Psalms 37:22).

It should be clear that Jesus was referring to Psalms 37:11, not 1 Enoch.

"The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son" (John 5:22).

"The principal part of the judgment was assigned to him, the Son of man" (Enoch 69:27).

These two statements do not say the same thing. "All judgment" and "the principal part of judgment" are not the same thing. But again, the idea of the Messiah being judge is found in the Old Testament.

"For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with His truth" (Psalms 96:13).

You can do this for every claim of quotation. Choice phrases are found, not because of prophesy but because they are recorded in the Old Testament. Then the fact that the book of Enoch lifts the phrase incorrectly is further evidence that it is not from God.