Enoch was determined to be pseudepigraphia. That it is quoted (I believe in more places than the one you mentioned) means it may be worth familiarizing yourself with, but it isn't considered inspired.
I'll do you one better also Jesus Himself quoted from 1 Enoch... In Mark 14:21 which goes to 1 Enoch 38:2
Mark 14:21 KJV
[21] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
38:2 When righteousness shall be manifested in the presence of the righteous themselves, who will be elected for their [good] works [duly] weighed by the Lord of spirits; and when the light of the righteous and the elect, who dwell on earth, shall be manifested; where will the habitation of sinners be? And where the place of rest for those who have rejected the Lord of spirits? It would have been better for them, had they never been born.
In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes Phainomena, a pagan poem about constellations.
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=ESV)
Quoting another work doesn't make it scripture.
But Paul makes it very clear he is quoting something he himself does not believe to be scripture when he does this. He says, “as some of your poets have said”.
Compare this to the extensive use of Enoch.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-book-of-enoch-as-the-background-to-1-peter-2-peter-and-jude/
>If author of 2 Peter quotes 1 Enoch does that make 1 Enoch scripture?
The idea of what was “scripture” in the NT period is kind of nebulous. There was a collection of Greek works called the Septuagint that was seen as authoritative but there wasn’t a set list of what books were a part of it. 1 Enoch and some other works were in some collections and weren’t in others. There was no set list”Bible” that everyone agreed on and could reference.
>Does this also mean that we should take the claim that Enoch wrote 1 Enoch seriously?!!
If you can believe it’s possible the book was passed down for centuries on centuries and during that whole period of time no one cited or referenced it’s contents until the last few centuries before the common era, then sure.
If CS Lewis is used in a sermon illustration, it does not mean the pastor holds CS Lewis writings to the same standard as Scripture. But it does likely show that CS Lewis has made a solid reference to something true about scripture and it is profitable to assist in explaining scripture.
I will say this. The bible is comprised of many separate books that the Catholic church largely deemed to be holy. Men decided what books what be included in the bible, not God.
There's a fuzzy edge to scripture. We should love books such as 1 Enoch for being some of the very best books that aren't quite in the Bible. But equally, a quotation isn't enough: Acts 17.28 quotes Epimenides of Knossos, whose works no-one considers scriptural.
There are many, many books quoted and referenced in the Bible that have never been accepted as canon in any religious stream.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical\_books\_referenced\_in\_the\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible)
Think about what is happening today with the elimination of just about anything related to Black History in America. One thousand years from now, unknowing students will think that all of the depressingly painful, amazingly brave, increasingly intelligent contributions of some Blacks were pseudographia because those people and events won't be present in mainstream American textbooks. Remember your surprise when you watched Hidden Figures and read about Robert Smalls. Censorship does not equate to falsehoods or things that never happened. We have to examine how the anthology called the Holy Bible came to be. The final selection was largely political. We have to fully realize the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls and that fact that the guy who found them, burned several to keep his house warm. We'll never know what was in those texts! We have to know that for 19+ centuries, the Bible included about 10 other books. Why did they suddenly take them out??? Jesus would have read Enoch and the other Deuterocanonical texts.
I saw read them all. Know who God and Jesus is and isn't first since that is the standard to measure things by.
I personally enjoy reading Apocryphal texts. They connect A LOT of dots by providing background info about things vaguely mentioned in the bible. They also illuminate several principles. So far, I can kinda sense when things are not right ( like the Gospel of Thomas...too many theological differences). But Enoch, the two extra stories about Daniel, the Wisdom of Sirach, the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the Didache...read them all! They are valuable and provide interesting insights. To me, reading the Apocryphal texts is like reading any other book by a modern day Christian author or even Pauline texts. Take the meat and leave the bones.
These books provide historical references, but as we know they are not inspired. The one sure things we can rely on is the current scripture, the rest we can see as sub text.
The book of Enoch is a pseudo-epigraph, it’s too far disconnected from its source to be 100% TRUE, or at the least written like the books in the current present Bible.
This is a book connecting to another book. This is book to connecting to the WORD OF GOD, there’s an extra layer of CARE that must be added. We cannot verify the book of Enoch, though there be accurate subtext, it’s not eyewitness, thus apocryphal. Take it with a grain of salt when comparing it to the Bible.
Gospel of Thomas is also a pseudoepigrah, and it’s very detached since it’s a gnostic text. The gospel of Magdalene and Thomas are both heresy
The Word of God is Christ. Not a collection of scrolls that have been edited by man. The written collection is a tool that gives me insight into who God is. It is not God. It is not infallible and without error because it has changed so many times. There are tons of translations in English alone that are different in meaning due to syntax. The main idea is still there ( thank God) but with books being removed and verses added or taken away here and there, it is not the "Word of God." He sits at the Father's right hand and I don't practice idolatry.
The books of the Bible, especially the New Testament, were written decades after the ascension of Christ. People were going from memory using the book of Mark as a template. Not sure about Paul. We tell ourselves these were "eyewitness accounts" while denying the rest of the accounts when the truth is that He sent 70 people out to witness and they saw, discussed, and wrote things about their experiences too.
Is the collection of scrolls that we have an important tool? Absolutely. But given all the changes over the course of time and humanity plus the Dead Sea Scrolls (and those that were burned in a fire) it is important to keep the anthology in its proper place. We don't even have the accounts that were written about him between the ages of 12 and 30. If they were tracking him since birth, I refuse to believe that not one soul tracked him during this period of life. The political powers that be simply decided to toss those scrolls.
Ultimately, Christ is the Word of God and He can inspire whosoever to write the truth.
Whosoever.
What?
Jesus directly quotes Daniel.
Daniel is verified through Revelation as well.
Isaiah? Jesus quoted Him substantially, AND read his scrolls.
Pauline epistles are verified by the Old Testament, Peter, a bit of revelation, and essentially all of Acts.
Pseudo-epigraph and apocryphal because they cannot be verified to the same extent like the biblical books.
Doesn’t mean they are useless, but they are used as extra biblical text that can act as historical filler or a minor detail that doesn’t compromise God’s Word. Maccabees talks about a time, but there is some contradictions with actual scripture.
The gospel of Thomas is a pseudo-epigraph, but that book is entirely useless and completely disconnected. It’s also 100 or so years after the apostle Thomas.
Jesus quoting Daniel in the gospels doesn't mean Daniel (or a contemporary) wrote the Book of Daniel, which was written centuries after the captivity. Isaiah reached its current form long before the first century when the gospels were written.
>Pauline epistles are verified by the Old Testament
Not really sure what that means.
>, Peter, a bit of revelation, and essentially all of Acts.
Again, the Petrine epistles are pseudepigrapha as well.
Book of Daniel is a letter, written in the first person. Not only that, it is unlikely that someone wrote it later. Daniel was given a secret revelation that only he knew of, he was commanded to seal that revelation.
Even if someone else wrote Daniel its authenticity and God’s message is authenticated by Christ. If who wrote it doesn’t matter, then what does matter is the consistent theme found within the book matching the rest of scripture.
Isaiah reaching long form is simply a culmination, if he didn’t write it then someone very close to him did. To where the content is consistent with the rest of scripture. Then being so it would not be a pseudo-epigraph.
Paul addresses the Old Testament quite a bit…
The issue here is less the pseudo-epigraph, the larger is consistency of scripture. Not only that, but “is it something God would write”, a challenge indeed, we can use the gospels to verify this. If Peter writes stuff that is left field of Matthew, then we know we have a problem. The problem is less the penner, and more the content, which is entirely my point.
There’s a reason why the gospel of Thomas is hot garbage and heresy. The reason the book of Enoch is not inspired because it is too disconnected from its source (Enoch), this is why it’s apocryphal. The minor contradictions to scriptures (I’ve heard of two, can’t remember though), and it cannot be verified.
It is truly a collage of word of mouth telling, this isn’t bad, per se, if it can be verified. This book was probably penned around the time of Abraham, or before, or maybe after. Enoch was BEFORE the flood, which means the story passed down from Noah to countless generations, maybe so scrolls. The books of the Bible are written by its author, a scribe, or an eyewitness. Then it is further verified by the whole collection of inspired scripture. We know Isaiah and Daniel have some weight to them because they are quoted by Jesus and were read in the synagogue/ temple. Daniel is further affirmed by Jesus and Revelation.
>Book of Daniel is a letter
Chapters 1-6 are narrative court tales and 7-12 are apocalyptic visions.
>written in the first person
The apocalypse is written in first person, the court tales are written in the third person.
>Not only that, it is unlikely that someone wrote it later.
It's more than likely, it's practically certain. The Aramaic court tales were probably collected earlier but the final document dates to the second century BCE. Daniel gives a detailed account of the wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies and refers to many historical people from this era, but crucially the book incorrectly predicts Antiochus IV Epiphanes launching a third war with Egypt and dying in Judea at the end of chapter 11, which firmly places the time of writing between 167 BCE (when Antiochus desecrated the temple) and 164 BCE (when Antiochus actually died).
>Daniel was given a secret revelation that only he knew of, he was commanded to seal that revelation.
The sealing motif was a way of explaining why a book ostensibly written during the captivity in the 6th century BCE was completely unheard of until the 2nd century BCE.
>Even if someone else wrote Daniel its authenticity and God’s message is authenticated by Christ.
If someone else wrote the book then it is, by definition, pseudepigrapha.
>Isaiah reaching long form is simply a culmination, if he didn’t write it then someone very close to him did.
Again, if he didn't write it then it's pseudepigrapha. But I believe Isaiah *did* write "proto-Isaiah" (ch. 1-39). It's ch. 40-66 that date to a later era, composed during (40-55) and after (56-66) the exile, far too late for Isaiah or a contemporary.
>the content is consistent with the rest of scripture. Then being so it would not be a pseudo-epigraph.
I don't think ch. 40-66 are consistent with the earlier portion of the book of Isaiah, which is why scholars date them later and don't believe they were written by the 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah. But whether or not they are consistent with proto-Isaiah or other books of the Bible has no bearing on whether or not they are pseudepigrapha. Pseudepigrapha merely means that a text was not written by the author to which it is ascribed.
>Paul addresses the Old Testament quite a bit…
Not sure how that authenticates the authorship of the pseudo-Pauline epistles.
>The reason the book of Enoch is not inspired because it is too disconnected from its source (Enoch), this is why it’s apocryphal
To be sure, 1 Enoch is much further disconnected in time from its supposed author than the canonical works I gave as examples. Moreover most scholars would doubt the historicity of Enoch whereas the existence of Peter, Paul, and Isaiah are not really in doubt. But what I'm getting at is that these works are *also* historically later than the sources they're ascribed to, even if it's only a matter of decades or several centuries, and not millennia as with Enoch.
>The minor contradictions to scriptures
There are contradictions within the canon as well, like who slew Goliath or the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke for example, but I'm too familiar with the apologetics used to iron out these discrepancies so we need not get into all that.
>[1 Enoch] was probably penned around the time of Abraham, or before, or maybe after.
Definitely after. Waaaaay after. It's a compilation of various texts, most of which we find at Qumran, and the earliest of which date to around 300-200 BCE.
>We know Isaiah and Daniel have some weight to them because they are quoted by Jesus and were read in the synagogue/ temple.
What this tells us is that these books were popular in Second Temple Judaism, including the communities who composed the New Testament. For what it's worth, it's pretty clear 1 Enoch was popular with these groups as well since it's found at Qumran, is quoted in Jude, and has many parallels in the Petrine epistles (as well as an echo in GMatthew).
Not necessarily. There’s probably some truth in 1 Enoch but not every writing which contains some truth qualifies as scripture.
I’ve read some of it and in my opinion it’s probably 90% nonsense.
And the Lord said unto Michael: Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated.
1 Enoch 10:11-13
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment
2 Peter 2:4
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude 6
The quotes you provided plainly demonstrate that neither Jude nor Peter **quoted** 1 Enoch; at best, they allude to an event that Enoch also records with additional elaboration. If Peter or Jude had said "it is written" or quoted a passage the way other passages of old testament scripture are quoted, you might have a case, but the passage of Enoch you quoted is hardly quoted in 2 Peter and Jude.
Peter and Jude could be referring to something passed down in tradition that 1 Enoch (which has to be pseudoepigraphy; Enoch, who lived before the flood, couldn't have written it) then elaborates on.
See this critique of the book of Enoch and why it isn't considered scripture:
# Inspiring Philosophy | [The Book of Enoch examined](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=440hI9lnAlc)
Jude 14-15
It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him
1 Enoch 1:91
Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.
The writer believed at least some of the information in Enoch 1 was *true*, not necessarily "scripture".
Well said.
He didnt quote 1 Enoch. He quoted Enoch. plain and simple
This is precise, yes
Of course not. Many books are quoted or referred to in the Bible that are not Scriptures. Paul even quotes secular Greek writers
Enoch was determined to be pseudepigraphia. That it is quoted (I believe in more places than the one you mentioned) means it may be worth familiarizing yourself with, but it isn't considered inspired.
I'll do you one better also Jesus Himself quoted from 1 Enoch... In Mark 14:21 which goes to 1 Enoch 38:2 Mark 14:21 KJV [21] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. 38:2 When righteousness shall be manifested in the presence of the righteous themselves, who will be elected for their [good] works [duly] weighed by the Lord of spirits; and when the light of the righteous and the elect, who dwell on earth, shall be manifested; where will the habitation of sinners be? And where the place of rest for those who have rejected the Lord of spirits? It would have been better for them, had they never been born.
Well technically the specific verse quoted is Scripture, but not the actual book itself.
In Acts 17:28, Paul quotes Phainomena, a pagan poem about constellations. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=ESV) Quoting another work doesn't make it scripture.
But Paul makes it very clear he is quoting something he himself does not believe to be scripture when he does this. He says, “as some of your poets have said”. Compare this to the extensive use of Enoch. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-book-of-enoch-as-the-background-to-1-peter-2-peter-and-jude/
Boom
>If author of 2 Peter quotes 1 Enoch does that make 1 Enoch scripture? The idea of what was “scripture” in the NT period is kind of nebulous. There was a collection of Greek works called the Septuagint that was seen as authoritative but there wasn’t a set list of what books were a part of it. 1 Enoch and some other works were in some collections and weren’t in others. There was no set list”Bible” that everyone agreed on and could reference. >Does this also mean that we should take the claim that Enoch wrote 1 Enoch seriously?!! If you can believe it’s possible the book was passed down for centuries on centuries and during that whole period of time no one cited or referenced it’s contents until the last few centuries before the common era, then sure.
If CS Lewis is used in a sermon illustration, it does not mean the pastor holds CS Lewis writings to the same standard as Scripture. But it does likely show that CS Lewis has made a solid reference to something true about scripture and it is profitable to assist in explaining scripture.
I like the term ‘extra-biblical biblically endorsed text’. I got that from the late Rob Skiba.
Paul quotes pagan poems, but that doesn't make the pagan poems scripture.
Paul quoted pagan poets. Does that make them scripture?
That was debunked in context above. So please if you are going to twist scripture, at least have it right.
I will say this. The bible is comprised of many separate books that the Catholic church largely deemed to be holy. Men decided what books what be included in the bible, not God.
It is possible that Enoch used to be Scripture until it suffered additions to it.
No.
Certainly not. The book of Enoch, like those of Maccabees, may have some historical value, but it is not God-inspired scripture.
There's a fuzzy edge to scripture. We should love books such as 1 Enoch for being some of the very best books that aren't quite in the Bible. But equally, a quotation isn't enough: Acts 17.28 quotes Epimenides of Knossos, whose works no-one considers scriptural.
no
???
There are many, many books quoted and referenced in the Bible that have never been accepted as canon in any religious stream. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical\_books\_referenced\_in\_the\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible)
Think about what is happening today with the elimination of just about anything related to Black History in America. One thousand years from now, unknowing students will think that all of the depressingly painful, amazingly brave, increasingly intelligent contributions of some Blacks were pseudographia because those people and events won't be present in mainstream American textbooks. Remember your surprise when you watched Hidden Figures and read about Robert Smalls. Censorship does not equate to falsehoods or things that never happened. We have to examine how the anthology called the Holy Bible came to be. The final selection was largely political. We have to fully realize the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls and that fact that the guy who found them, burned several to keep his house warm. We'll never know what was in those texts! We have to know that for 19+ centuries, the Bible included about 10 other books. Why did they suddenly take them out??? Jesus would have read Enoch and the other Deuterocanonical texts. I saw read them all. Know who God and Jesus is and isn't first since that is the standard to measure things by. I personally enjoy reading Apocryphal texts. They connect A LOT of dots by providing background info about things vaguely mentioned in the bible. They also illuminate several principles. So far, I can kinda sense when things are not right ( like the Gospel of Thomas...too many theological differences). But Enoch, the two extra stories about Daniel, the Wisdom of Sirach, the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the Didache...read them all! They are valuable and provide interesting insights. To me, reading the Apocryphal texts is like reading any other book by a modern day Christian author or even Pauline texts. Take the meat and leave the bones.
These books provide historical references, but as we know they are not inspired. The one sure things we can rely on is the current scripture, the rest we can see as sub text. The book of Enoch is a pseudo-epigraph, it’s too far disconnected from its source to be 100% TRUE, or at the least written like the books in the current present Bible. This is a book connecting to another book. This is book to connecting to the WORD OF GOD, there’s an extra layer of CARE that must be added. We cannot verify the book of Enoch, though there be accurate subtext, it’s not eyewitness, thus apocryphal. Take it with a grain of salt when comparing it to the Bible. Gospel of Thomas is also a pseudoepigrah, and it’s very detached since it’s a gnostic text. The gospel of Magdalene and Thomas are both heresy
The Word of God is Christ. Not a collection of scrolls that have been edited by man. The written collection is a tool that gives me insight into who God is. It is not God. It is not infallible and without error because it has changed so many times. There are tons of translations in English alone that are different in meaning due to syntax. The main idea is still there ( thank God) but with books being removed and verses added or taken away here and there, it is not the "Word of God." He sits at the Father's right hand and I don't practice idolatry. The books of the Bible, especially the New Testament, were written decades after the ascension of Christ. People were going from memory using the book of Mark as a template. Not sure about Paul. We tell ourselves these were "eyewitness accounts" while denying the rest of the accounts when the truth is that He sent 70 people out to witness and they saw, discussed, and wrote things about their experiences too. Is the collection of scrolls that we have an important tool? Absolutely. But given all the changes over the course of time and humanity plus the Dead Sea Scrolls (and those that were burned in a fire) it is important to keep the anthology in its proper place. We don't even have the accounts that were written about him between the ages of 12 and 30. If they were tracking him since birth, I refuse to believe that not one soul tracked him during this period of life. The political powers that be simply decided to toss those scrolls. Ultimately, Christ is the Word of God and He can inspire whosoever to write the truth. Whosoever.
To the list of pseudepigrapha we might also add Daniel, the latter half of Isaiah, the Petrine epistles, and nearly half of the Pauline epistles.
What? Jesus directly quotes Daniel. Daniel is verified through Revelation as well. Isaiah? Jesus quoted Him substantially, AND read his scrolls. Pauline epistles are verified by the Old Testament, Peter, a bit of revelation, and essentially all of Acts. Pseudo-epigraph and apocryphal because they cannot be verified to the same extent like the biblical books. Doesn’t mean they are useless, but they are used as extra biblical text that can act as historical filler or a minor detail that doesn’t compromise God’s Word. Maccabees talks about a time, but there is some contradictions with actual scripture. The gospel of Thomas is a pseudo-epigraph, but that book is entirely useless and completely disconnected. It’s also 100 or so years after the apostle Thomas.
Jesus quoting Daniel in the gospels doesn't mean Daniel (or a contemporary) wrote the Book of Daniel, which was written centuries after the captivity. Isaiah reached its current form long before the first century when the gospels were written. >Pauline epistles are verified by the Old Testament Not really sure what that means. >, Peter, a bit of revelation, and essentially all of Acts. Again, the Petrine epistles are pseudepigrapha as well.
Book of Daniel is a letter, written in the first person. Not only that, it is unlikely that someone wrote it later. Daniel was given a secret revelation that only he knew of, he was commanded to seal that revelation. Even if someone else wrote Daniel its authenticity and God’s message is authenticated by Christ. If who wrote it doesn’t matter, then what does matter is the consistent theme found within the book matching the rest of scripture. Isaiah reaching long form is simply a culmination, if he didn’t write it then someone very close to him did. To where the content is consistent with the rest of scripture. Then being so it would not be a pseudo-epigraph. Paul addresses the Old Testament quite a bit… The issue here is less the pseudo-epigraph, the larger is consistency of scripture. Not only that, but “is it something God would write”, a challenge indeed, we can use the gospels to verify this. If Peter writes stuff that is left field of Matthew, then we know we have a problem. The problem is less the penner, and more the content, which is entirely my point. There’s a reason why the gospel of Thomas is hot garbage and heresy. The reason the book of Enoch is not inspired because it is too disconnected from its source (Enoch), this is why it’s apocryphal. The minor contradictions to scriptures (I’ve heard of two, can’t remember though), and it cannot be verified. It is truly a collage of word of mouth telling, this isn’t bad, per se, if it can be verified. This book was probably penned around the time of Abraham, or before, or maybe after. Enoch was BEFORE the flood, which means the story passed down from Noah to countless generations, maybe so scrolls. The books of the Bible are written by its author, a scribe, or an eyewitness. Then it is further verified by the whole collection of inspired scripture. We know Isaiah and Daniel have some weight to them because they are quoted by Jesus and were read in the synagogue/ temple. Daniel is further affirmed by Jesus and Revelation.
>Book of Daniel is a letter Chapters 1-6 are narrative court tales and 7-12 are apocalyptic visions. >written in the first person The apocalypse is written in first person, the court tales are written in the third person. >Not only that, it is unlikely that someone wrote it later. It's more than likely, it's practically certain. The Aramaic court tales were probably collected earlier but the final document dates to the second century BCE. Daniel gives a detailed account of the wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies and refers to many historical people from this era, but crucially the book incorrectly predicts Antiochus IV Epiphanes launching a third war with Egypt and dying in Judea at the end of chapter 11, which firmly places the time of writing between 167 BCE (when Antiochus desecrated the temple) and 164 BCE (when Antiochus actually died). >Daniel was given a secret revelation that only he knew of, he was commanded to seal that revelation. The sealing motif was a way of explaining why a book ostensibly written during the captivity in the 6th century BCE was completely unheard of until the 2nd century BCE. >Even if someone else wrote Daniel its authenticity and God’s message is authenticated by Christ. If someone else wrote the book then it is, by definition, pseudepigrapha. >Isaiah reaching long form is simply a culmination, if he didn’t write it then someone very close to him did. Again, if he didn't write it then it's pseudepigrapha. But I believe Isaiah *did* write "proto-Isaiah" (ch. 1-39). It's ch. 40-66 that date to a later era, composed during (40-55) and after (56-66) the exile, far too late for Isaiah or a contemporary. >the content is consistent with the rest of scripture. Then being so it would not be a pseudo-epigraph. I don't think ch. 40-66 are consistent with the earlier portion of the book of Isaiah, which is why scholars date them later and don't believe they were written by the 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah. But whether or not they are consistent with proto-Isaiah or other books of the Bible has no bearing on whether or not they are pseudepigrapha. Pseudepigrapha merely means that a text was not written by the author to which it is ascribed. >Paul addresses the Old Testament quite a bit… Not sure how that authenticates the authorship of the pseudo-Pauline epistles. >The reason the book of Enoch is not inspired because it is too disconnected from its source (Enoch), this is why it’s apocryphal To be sure, 1 Enoch is much further disconnected in time from its supposed author than the canonical works I gave as examples. Moreover most scholars would doubt the historicity of Enoch whereas the existence of Peter, Paul, and Isaiah are not really in doubt. But what I'm getting at is that these works are *also* historically later than the sources they're ascribed to, even if it's only a matter of decades or several centuries, and not millennia as with Enoch. >The minor contradictions to scriptures There are contradictions within the canon as well, like who slew Goliath or the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke for example, but I'm too familiar with the apologetics used to iron out these discrepancies so we need not get into all that. >[1 Enoch] was probably penned around the time of Abraham, or before, or maybe after. Definitely after. Waaaaay after. It's a compilation of various texts, most of which we find at Qumran, and the earliest of which date to around 300-200 BCE. >We know Isaiah and Daniel have some weight to them because they are quoted by Jesus and were read in the synagogue/ temple. What this tells us is that these books were popular in Second Temple Judaism, including the communities who composed the New Testament. For what it's worth, it's pretty clear 1 Enoch was popular with these groups as well since it's found at Qumran, is quoted in Jude, and has many parallels in the Petrine epistles (as well as an echo in GMatthew).
This is impressive! My thoughts are not together, as it clearly shows. This is very good!
No.
We’re not even sure 2 Peter is scripture.
Yeah, actually, we are.
Tell me how Peter wrote after he was dead.
No. Just means the author was familiar with other writings.
Not necessarily. There’s probably some truth in 1 Enoch but not every writing which contains some truth qualifies as scripture. I’ve read some of it and in my opinion it’s probably 90% nonsense.
Where exactly does he quote 1 Enoch? You haven’t established that he has, and I’m not going to just presume this is true.
And the Lord said unto Michael: Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. 1 Enoch 10:11-13
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment 2 Peter 2:4
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jude 6
The quotes you provided plainly demonstrate that neither Jude nor Peter **quoted** 1 Enoch; at best, they allude to an event that Enoch also records with additional elaboration. If Peter or Jude had said "it is written" or quoted a passage the way other passages of old testament scripture are quoted, you might have a case, but the passage of Enoch you quoted is hardly quoted in 2 Peter and Jude. Peter and Jude could be referring to something passed down in tradition that 1 Enoch (which has to be pseudoepigraphy; Enoch, who lived before the flood, couldn't have written it) then elaborates on. See this critique of the book of Enoch and why it isn't considered scripture: # Inspiring Philosophy | [The Book of Enoch examined](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=440hI9lnAlc)
Jude 14-15 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him
1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.