Hebrew Voices #17 – Enoch Walking with Angels (Rebroadcast)

In this episode of Hebrew Voices, Enoch Walking with Angels, Nehemia Gordon meets with Dr. Miryam Brand to discuss 1 Enoch, which is part of the Jewish "Pseudepigrapha" from the Second Temple period. Gordon and Brand discuss how Enoch’s marginal (albeit fascinating) mention in the Tanakh has resulted in a body of literature and lore about his life and its unusual “end.”

We learn how different time periods (particularly the Second Temple period) have grappled with the statement that “Enoch was not, for Elohim took him.” Regarding the translations of “Elohim” and “son of man,” Brand offers both rabbinical and academic interpretations: God, judges, or angels -- and mere mortal or messiah? We learn the Qumran connection to four of the five books that were combined to form 1 Enoch and the possible implications for the one book not found there. In closing, Brand and Gordon discuss the veracity of the Enoch stories—and in what sense it matters whether they are “true” or not.

I look forward to reading your comments!

Download Audio

Transcript

Hebrew Voices #17 – Enoch Walking with Angels

You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Nehemia: Shalom, this is Nehemia Gordon with Hebrew Voices, and we are back today with Dr. Miryam Brand, who has a PhD from New York University. We did an earlier episode with her on the origin of sin, looking at the concept of where sin comes from in Second Temple Jewish literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other stuff. And it was one of the most popular episodes that I’ve ever done, and for the Hebrew Voices, it actually is the most popular episode so far. And we decided to do another episode, and today, we’re talking about the Book of Enoch. Shalom, Dr. Brand.

Miryam: Shalom. It’s nice to be here.

Nehemia: It really is exciting to be here. And the Book of Enoch… that’s part of what is called the Pseudepigrapha, right?

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: Meaning, for the Tanakh, for the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, you’ve got the actual 24 books of the Hebrew Bible - in Hebrew, they’re counted as 24 books - and you’ve got what is sometimes called the “Apocrypha.” And if we have time, we’ll talk about that, or maybe do a whole series of episodes. And then in addition, you have something called the Pseudepigrapha, which is even part of the Apocrypha. Enoch is part of the Pseudepigrapha, but interestingly, it’s a relatively early book. When was Enoch written? Was it written by Enoch? Who is Enoch? Let’s back up to that.

Miryam: Okay, all right. So, if you look at Genesis 5, that’s where you’ll learn about who Enoch was, right? Enoch is…

Nehemia: That’s homework, Genesis 5.

Miryam: Yeah. So, I can just read you a translation of the verses I have in front of me. “So, when Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah, Metuselach. After the birth of Metushelach, Enoch”, or Chanoch in Hebrew, “walked with God, 300 years.” The word used for God there is “haElohim”, and that’s important to just remember that. “And he begot sons and daughters. All the days of Enoch came to 365 years. Enoch walked with God, haElohim, that he was no more, for God, Elohim, took him.”

Now, I’m using… you know that traditionally, Jews frequently won’t say that word, they’ll say, “Elokim” to mean God. But if you’re using Elohim to mean angels, you just say, Elohim. And certainly, in the Second Temple…

Nehemia: Wait, wait. So, the word Elohim, just to be clear, can mean God, and it actually can mean judges. For example, in Exodus, it talks about “asher yarshiun elohim,” “who the Judges convict.”

Miryam: Right, so traditionally, that verse has been translated as judges. If you ask an academic, they won’t translate it as judges, they’ll actually translate it as, “you’re going to get some sign from God saying who’s going to convict him.” But traditionally, that’s actually very interesting, because the traditional interpretation of that verse of “judges” has influenced what we’re probably going to talk about later, the…

Nehemia: And by the way, the reason it’s…

Miryam: …interpretation of the watchers.

Nehemia: The reason it’s traditionally, I think, interpreted as judges is it’s “yarshiun”, it’s plural.

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: It’s literally, “Who they…” the elohim, “convict.”

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: And so, it’s understood, well, that can’t be God, because God would be “asher yarshiah,” who He will convict.

Miryam: Right, and it certainly wouldn’t be angels, because how can angels convict?

Nehemia: Right, unless you’re some kind of angelic court, I don’t know.

Miryam: Right, unless you have an angelic court, right.

Nehemia: And what you’re saying is, in a sense, you wear two hats here. You wear the hat of the academic from New York University, but also as an Orthodox Jew, you know, there’s a category that you are aware of, even though today you’re actually here as an academic, right?

Miryam: Right. But it is important to keep in mind, and it’s good for me to always remember the traditional interpretation, and the academic interpretation. And frequently, I will say, “Well, the Rabbinic interpretation is this.” Or, when I’m speaking kind of Rabbinic, I’ll say, “The academic interpretation recognized that…” an academic…

Nehemia: And that traditional interpretation, what you’re saying, it influenced the interpretation of these verses in Genesis.

Miryam: Well, the fact that we have the verse in Exodus where elohim seems to mean judges, right, from a traditional point of view, means that you can translate elohim as judges. So, that doesn’t influence the…

Nehemia: So, what do we have here in Enoch?

Miryam: Let’s go back to Enoch. So, what we have here in Enoch is, Enoch…

Nehemia: And this isn’t the Book of Enoch, this is Genesis chapter 5. We’re still in the Tanakh, in the Torah.

Miryam: We’re still in the Torah. So Enoch is walking with God, right? That’s the way you would normally understand it. But in the Second Temple period they’re already thinking very much in terms of angels. And who can walk with God? You can’t walk with God. He must be walking with angels, right?

Nehemia: Wow.

Miryam: He’s walking with angels. And the angels took him. So then the question is, well, there are a bunch of questions. This is a period when people are really wondering, “What’s up there?” In terms of the heavens. People really are thinking about angels, thinking about the mysteries of the universe, and particularly, heavenly mysteries really interest them. So one of the things that they’re wondering is, what’s up there? And then another thing that they’re wondering is, why was Enoch taken? And there are a lot of places in…

Nehemia: Do we know that he was actually taken? Meaning, when you read the Hebrew literally… I mean it says, “ve’eneno” “And he was no more.”

Miryam: This is where God took him, yeah, “Lekach oto Elohim…”

Nehemia: In other words… look, when I read it and I’m trying to look at the pshat, the plain meaning, I’m coming as the Karaite reading it, and I say, “Yeah, He took him, like everybody dies. He was taken.”

Miryam: Okay, right.

Nehemia: But in other words, it’s an unusual way of saying somebody died…

Miryam: Exactly.

Nehemia: …and it could be very reminiscent of how Elijah was taken up by a chariot of fire.

Miryam: Exactly.

Nehemia: All right.

Miryam: And it’s very easy to interpret that as, at the very least, he was taken alive, or that he didn’t die in a normal way.

Nehemia: Even though you really could read it and say, “He just died.”

Miryam: Exactly.

Nehemia: But it doesn’t say he died, it said he was “taken by God,” so maybe he was taken up into heaven alive. Okay, so…

Miryam: Right, so you can very easily read it just as “he died”, and he was a very special person, and that’s why it talks about him this way, because someone who walked with God, you know, what does that even mean?

Nehemia: Right. And you’re saying, “walked with God” might mean “walked with the angels.”

Miryam: Well, I’m saying that’s the way they interpreted it in the Second Temple period. I don’t want to say, “I think that he walked with angels.” I think that in the verse, it makes more sense that there’s some kind of “to walk with God”, because you could say, “What does walking with God mean?” And we have a lot of different possible interpretations of that. They simply say, “He was just very, very righteous, and that’s what it means.” And yet, he still died, because God took him.

Nehemia: But what you’re saying is that based on their understanding of the nature of God in the Second Temple period they said, “Well, you can’t walk with God, so obviously, Elohim means angels.”

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: And there’s the verse in Psalms, “vetekhaserei amat Elohim…”

Miryam: And then you have bnei Elohim. Bnei Elohim in chapter 6, just one chapter later…

Nehemia: We’ll get to that.

Miryam: We’re going to get to that, but those are clearly angels. So from their point of view, and frankly, that’s the easiest interpretation, those are angels, so, it’s very easy for them to jump to, “this is also angels”.

Nehemia: So, he walked with angels was the interpretation.

Miryam: Seems to have been the interpretation.

Nehemia: Okay, and then how does that lead to the Book of Enoch?

Miryam: Well, the Book of Enoch is really several books. It’s really about five books, maybe six if you count the last chapters as a separate book, which by the way, themselves are kind of built up of different pieces. But those books each have a different point. They only thing they have in common is Enoch as a character, and that’s pretty much the only thing they have in common.

However, what we’re going to be focusing on today, which is the Book of the Watchers - that really addresses why was Enoch taken? What was going on? Why did Enoch have to go up to heaven? Why was he hanging out with angels? And the answer that Book of the Watchers presents is that you had this sin of the Watchers that we’re going to talk about in a little while, and he was asked by the Watchers to defend them, actually. And God’s like, “No, tell them they’re convicted.”

Nehemia: Which is an incredible concept, a human is praying for angels…

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: Let’s hold onto that. So just for those who think like, “Wow, how crazy is this? That somebody in Second Temple times read this verse in Genesis 5 and said, ‘he walked with Elohim’ he walked with God.” It means, “He walked with angels.” So, in Psalm chapter 8 verse 6, and in the English it’s verse 5, it’s talking about mankind, it says, “vatekhaserei me’at me’Elohim,” “You have made him a little lower than God” in the NRSV, the New Revised Standard Version. But then the King James version says, “For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.”

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: And those are both valid interpretations.

Miryam: Yes, absolutely. In that case, absolutely, yeah.

Nehemia: So the point is that elohim can legitimately be translated as angels, whether it means angels in Genesis 5, that’s a matter of interpretation. But somebody interpreted it that way, that Enoch was walking with the angels, and that led to this, I guess, creative burst in the Second Temple period where somebody wanted to write, “Okay, he walked with the angels. What did that look like?”

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: Okay. So, that brings us to the Book of Enoch. And you said there are five books, and of those five books… meaning, it’s pretty long. And let’s be clear, there’s 1 Enoch and there’s 2 Enoch and there’s 3… we’re only talking about 1 Enoch.

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: Within 1 Enoch, first Enoch, there are five different books that have been crunched together into a single book. And then four of those books were found at Qumran. Tell us about that.

Miryam: Okay, so all the books except for what’s considered the most unusual of the books, which is the Parables of Enoch, it’s also called the Similitudes of Enoch. And that book uses different terminologies, uses different words, standard words than the other books. It also talks about the “son of man” or the “chosen one”. And it’s unusual, because in many Second Temple works, there really actually isn’t much of an emphasis on a specific Messiah. There’s much more of an emphasis on a Messianic age, where there’s going to be this big battle…

Nehemia: I think in Judaism in general that that’s the emphasis - on the Messianic age, versus the Messiah. Am I wrong?

Miryam: I mean, as Rabbinic Judaism kind of develops and you go into the Middle Ages in particular, the Messiah becomes more and more prominent. But it’s absolutely true that there’s a lot of…

Nehemia: I think even today, I’ll often hear people talk about “yemei haMashiach”, “the days of the Messiah…”

Miryam: Right, and not the Messiah.

Nehemia: …and the actual character of the Messiah. He’s important, but it’s more like, “Okay, so what we do we get out of that?” That’s the basis. But you’re saying like in Second Temple period, it was even less significant, except in this Book of Parables, which doesn’t appear…

Miryam: It does appear a little bit in another section of Enoch, where you have a Messiah, and particularly what’s called the “animal apocalypse”, which is part of, if I remember correctly, the apocalypse of weeks, where there is kind of a Messianic thing there.

Nehemia: Okay, we’re probably not going to get to that.

Miryam: Yeah, sorry.

Nehemia: So, all right. Yeah, go on.

Miryam: We’re talking about, so there’s one book which is unusual. It talks about the “son of man”. It talks about the “chosen one” being this Messianic figure, and it’s the one book that there’s no fragment of it found at Qumran. So the natural assumption is, “Aha, this is a Christian book! It’s not actually a Jewish book.” However, however, it doesn’t have particularly Christian terminology, and the big revelation at the end of that book is that Enoch is the son of man.

Nehemia: Whoa.

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: Whoa!

Miryam: It’s Enoch, and you, Enoch, you are the son of man. You are the Messianic figure.

Nehemia: So, let’s just be clear. When you open up 1 Enoch and you read it, it doesn’t say, “1 Enoch, Book 1. 1 Enoch, Book 2.”

Miryam: Oh, no, no, no.

Nehemia: And by the way, I need to remind people that you wrote a book called, Evil Within and Without. We talked about that in the last episode, Origin of Sin, the last episode with you. And then you also wrote a commentary on the Book of Enoch which is part of a larger collection, a series called, Outside the Bible.

Miryam: Yeah.

Nehemia: And it’s funny, you told me when we first talked about this, you wrote a chapter, and then we looked it up and it was like, you wrote over 90 pages. That’s your “chapter”. And it’s like a systematic commentary on Enoch, on 1 Enoch, on the first book of Enoch. And so, we’re going to have a link on nehemiaswall.com referring people to Outside the Bible, where they can get your commentary on Enoch, because we’re not going to be able to talk about all this.

But the other thing I really want to refer people to, because, you know, when we were discussing this beforehand, I said, “We could do a whole series on this,” and then I found out you’re doing your own podcast, and it’s going to be called, understandingsin.com. That’s the website, understandingsin.com. And I’m going to hope and pray that you do a series just on the Book of Enoch and people can hear more about it, because there’s just so much to talk about here, we’re just going to scratch the surface. This is so exciting, this stuff.

And I mean… boy, so this Book of Parables, you know, for a lot of people who come from a New Testament perspective, is really important because it has this term “son of man” referring to a Messiah. It has all kinds of concepts about the Messiah being - let’s be honest - far more important than traditional Judaism…

Miryam: That’s right.

Nehemia: …has understood him to be. And certainly, more than the Tanakh Judaism understood him to be, as it’s understood by traditional Judaism. And, you know, he’s this almost supernatural figure – maybe not almost, isn’t he a supernatural figure in the Book of Parables?

Miryam: Yeah, he has a very important role.

Nehemia: And what you’re saying is, of the five sections of Enoch - as identified by scholars, the five different Books of Enoch - within first Enoch, the second one, this most important one for the Christian and the New Testament audience, actually isn’t in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and some people suspect it of being a later composition.

Miryam: Yes.

Nehemia: But what you’re pointing out means it couldn’t be Christian – meaning, if Enoch is identified as the “son of man”, how could that be Christian?

Miryam: That’s what… And works that we see where we can tell that Christians have kind of edited them, like for example, the Testaments of the Patriarchs, which gives a whole argument about can we only treat this as a Christian work? Can we look at the Jewish sources without the Christian additions? But it’s very clear when they’re putting in Christian additions, yeah.

Nehemia: And what comes to mind is… And by the way, let’s give some context here. So, this document, 1 Enoch, wasn’t preserved by Jews, right?

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: Meaning, where we do have it from? Talk about that.

Miryam: Yeah, okay. So, first I just want to make clear also that just as I said that first Enoch is really a whole bunch of books, they’re actually from different time periods. So the parables of Enoch are actually dated to between 40 before the Common Era, and before 70 to the Common Era. In other words, it’s after the Parthian invasion in 40 BCE and before the destruction of the Second Temple.

Nehemia: So, it’s sometime between what’s commonly known as 40 BC to 70 AD.

Miryam: Right, which on the one hand…

Nehemia: Is when it was written.

Miryam: Is when it was written, and it’s very important…

Nehemia: Okay, because I’ve read people who claimed it was written as early as the 4th century, or 3rd century BC.

Miryam: Okay, that’s the whole book. That’s the entire Book of Enoch, you understand what I’m saying. If they’re saying, “What’s the earliest piece of the Book of Enoch,” that’s why I thought it was important to point that out.

Nehemia: In other words, this book…

Miryam: When we look at dates…

Nehemia: The first portion may have been written as early as - and I’m throwing out a number - 350 BC?

Miryam: Yeah, let’s say.

Nehemia: And the last section was written as late as 70 AD?

Miryam: Yeah, yes.

Nehemia: Okay, it’s possible.

Miryam: And that last section is this one that has all the “son of man…”

Nehemia: The really interesting stuff for the Christian audience.

Miryam: And there’s a reason, because if you’re thinking about Christianity coming from Judaism, they’re coming from Judaism of exactly that period. This book is being written precisely - if in fact it’s accurate to date this work – to between 40 BCE and 70 CE, then we can talk about it as coming from the same period, more or less, from what you call the “Jesus movement”, early Christianity.

So in other words, you’ve got these concepts flowing around in Judaism at just the time when the Jesus movement is kind of starting.

Nehemia: In other words, when in the New Testament it refers to Jesus or Yeshua as the “Son of Man”, what you’re saying is, that’s not a term that was invented by the people who believed in Jesus, it was a term that those Jews who came to believe in Jesus already knew from the Book of Parables and maybe other literature that we don’t have. And so they were looking for the Son of Man, and some of them found him.

Miryam: Yeah, so I think that at least it’s something to consider - that this was already a term that was being used in a wider range of use. Now of course, remember that “Son of Man” is a very prominent term in the Book of Ezekiel.

Nehemia: Right, so it actually does appear in Ezekiel. And in Ezekiel, it just means like “human being” or mortal.

Miryam: Yeah, but he keeps on calling the prophets “Son of Man”. He keeps on calling Ezekiel “Son of Man”.

Nehemia: Right. But if I understand correctly, in the context of Ezekiel, you know, here is this…

Miryam: It just means “human being”.

Nehemia: Right, well if God who’s essentially, in a way, speaking down to Ezekiel – in other words, you’re a mortal, I’m this infinite being, I’m the Creator of the universe, and you’re a ben adam…”

Miryam: Yeah, that’s right.

Nehemia: …A son of Adam, a son of man. But then, the fact that the prophet is then always called “Son of Man” in Ezekiel, then what you’re saying is, in the Book of Parables, which is the second section of 1 Enoch, or first Enoch, then became this term for this elevated figure, right?

Miryam: Right. In other words, particularly when people are reading it in translation, I think like the same way when we say “Son of Man” it sounds really important, right?

Nehemia: Well also, there’s a capital S and capital M, whereas in Hebrew there are no capital letters, right?

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: It literally is “ben adam”, son of Adam… And I think in the JPS, if I’m not mistaken, they translate it as “O mortal,” whatever he says “ben adam”.

Miryam: Yeah, which is a good translation…

Nehemia: In Ezekiel.

Miryam: In Ezekiel, because that’s what it means.

Nehemia: But in Enoch, it wouldn’t be a good translation…

Miryam: Right, and if you happen to read a translation where it’s being really, really literal, then it sounds like something important, you know?

Nehemia: Okay. And again, it is important in the Book of Parables, which maybe we’ll do an episode on, one day. I want to bring up two issues, and this episode might just be the introduction to Enoch. I think we’re going to end up doing a second episode just on the Book of the Watchers, which is the first section of 1 Enoch.

And by the way, people, like I said, Miryam, Dr. Brand, she has a new podcast. Actually, what I’m going to call on everybody to do, go to understandingsin.com and find her podcast, and then go to find it on iTunes and subscribe to it so that every time she comes out with an episode, it automatically downloads to your iPhone or your Android.

Miryam: That would be great.

Nehemia: That’s what you really need to do, because this is some great stuff. I’m going to be listening to her podcast. This is some really good stuff. But I want to talk really, really briefly, as briefly as possible, about the Epistle of Jude, which is in the New Testament. And I’m going to read to you from Jude - there’s only one chapter in Jude – from Jude chapter 1 verse 14, and it said, “Now, Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them saying, ‘Look. The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of His holy ones…’” in verse 15, “to execute judgement on all, and to convict every person of all their thoroughly ungodly deeds, that they have committed, and of all the harsh words that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” That’s the end of the quote.

And so, it’s two verses in the Epistle of Jude, and the reason I bring this up is, it’s quoting Enoch as a prophet. And those two exact verses actually appear in 1 Enoch, right?

Miryam: Yes.

Nehemia: Actually, the first chapter of 1 Enoch.

Miryam: Yes.

Nehemia: Meaning, Jude didn’t read very far, I guess, to get to this. What’s interesting to me… So does that mean - and I don’t know if either of us is qualified to talk about this, it might be a theological question for Christians to talk about. But as a scholar, does that mean that the author of the Epistle of Jude considered 1 Enoch, or at least let’s say the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch, which is its own book - did he consider that part of his Bible?

Miryam: I would say that he, at the very least, considered it authoritative. In other words, he considered this an authoritative source, something that has authority. Did he consider it a basic part of his canon? The truth is, I mean, the Church Fathers knew 1 Enoch.

Nehemia: And define Church Fathers. Meaning, it’s almost like when we say “Chazal”, which is a very technical term. So, Church Fathers is the Christian authors from really the first 400 or 500 years of the Christian Church.

Miryam: At a certain point… and that’s why we have, for example, the Book of the Watchers we have a nice, large piece of it still that was translated in Greek, that was kept in Greek. We still have it.

Nehemia: So the main text of Enoch actually comes from Ethiopic, from the Ethiopian Church.

Miryam: Well, we have now. The Ethiopian Church kept two unusual books really within their canon, and that’s 1 Enoch and Jubilees. And thanks to the Ethiopian Church, we have full copies of these works.

Nehemia: So, let’s go over this. This is where it’s so much to talk about. So, 1 Enoch exists in whole only in Ethiopic. And I was looking in your commentary, the manuscripts are really late, like, the manuscripts are like the 16th century and later.

Miryam: Yes, and also, there hasn’t been a real critical edition. In other words, there’s been a critical edition…

Nehemia: I don’t know if my listeners know what a critical edition is.

Miryam: Okay, a critical edition is when you take all the manuscripts of something and you actually compare them. And you might choose, let’s say, one text which you think is the best and then have footnotes for all the differences. Then every scholar can, by opening this one work, see what the different manuscript evidence is.

Nehemia: So, this is really amazing. What you’re saying is, we don’t necessarily really even know what the final text, what the real text…

Miryam: Okay. So, someone is working on this right now, right now. This is what I wanted to say, Loren Stuckenbruck, he’s a professor who specializes in Enoch, among other things. He’s amazing, because he’s actually traveling, he spends a lot of time in Ethiopia. He actually spent some time even in Eritrea, tracking down these manuscripts. Now realize that once it’s part of your canon, every Bible’s got it, right?

Nehemia: Right. Whoa, whoa, back up. So, the Book of 1 Enoch isn’t part of the Jewish Bible. It’s not part of the standard Christian Bible, but the Ethiopian Orthodox Church actually includes it in their Bible!

Miryam: Right. So, you have lots and lots of…

Nehemia: They don’t just have copies of it, it’s in their Bible.

Miryam: It’s in their Bible. I mean, if every single Bible has it, that I don’t know, because I have not traveled to Ethiopia.

Nehemia: But it’s officially in their Bible as far as the Western world understands.

Miryam: Yeah. In other words, it’s part of their canon. So, he’s sitting in their library and looking at huge numbers of manuscripts and actually comparing them to create a real critical edition.

Nehemia: All right, so we have the Ethiopian version, which is actually a Semitic language called Ge’ez. So, it’s in the Ge’ez Ethiopian version, which is the complete 1 Enoch. And then you have fragments in Greek. What other fragments do you have?

Miryam: Well, we have some fragments that come from Qumran. Those are in Aramaic. We can pretty much…

Nehemia: And we possibly have some really, really small fragments in Hebrew, is my understanding. I think that’s controversial.

Miryam: Yeah, in general it’s considered to be originally in Aramaic, originally in Aramaic. And then it was translated into Greek, and from Greek, translated into Ethiopic, yes.

Nehemia: That’s really interesting. That’s interesting.

Miryam: Yes. And there are certain books that have… There’s for example, the Astronomical Book of Enoch which has all sorts of observations of the moon and sun, that are very confusing with lots of numbers.

Nehemia: So maybe that was lost in translation.

Miryam: Yes. A lot of that got… We actually found an Aramaic version at Qumran that’s very different from the Ethiopian version that came down to us.

Nehemia: I want to dwell on this, just for a second. So, this is really interesting. You have a book that’s preserved from a very late period in Ethiopian manuscripts, in a Semitic language, in Ge’ez. And as far as I understand it, the earliest ones are in the 16th century, maybe there are earlier ones now, that this guy has discovered. And that’s a translation from a Greek text of which we only have fragments. And that itself is a translation from another Semitic language from an Aramaic text, of which we have even smaller fragments. And some of these fragments are like a few letters, I mean, tiny. But it’s enough to know that we’re dealing with a version of Enoch.

And so it’s interesting, because if you only had the Ethiopian, you might say, “Oh, well, this is some late book that was written by the Christians.” You might, I don’t know. But now it’s proven that it actually existed in the Second Temple period from the Qumran finds, from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Miryam: Right, and Qumran finds did that for that and for Jubilees, even though there are… And with Enoch, it was a real question, because Enoch, even though it clearly reflects certain understandings of Bible verses, it doesn’t talk that much about, let’s say, keeping Torah law, okay?

Nehemia: Oh, so you suspect it of being Christian. It’s obsessed with interpreting the… This is nothing against Christians, but the Church was much more interested in, “How do we interpret these verses?” than “How do we keep the Torah?” And you’re saying Jewish works tend to be talking about, “How do we keep this commandment, and that commandment.”

Miryam: Right, except that we have to remember…

Nehemia: Like with the Damascus Document at Qumran.

Miryam: But we have to remember also, there’s a whole wisdom literature that is more about just kind of general moral things, as opposed to saying, “How do you keep X commandment?” So, we can connect Enoch to the traditions of interpretation, and the wisdom… literature.

Nehemia: I want to go back real quick to Jude. So, this may have been considered authoritative by the author of the Epistle of Jude, but even then, we probably were only talking about this chapters 1 through 36, which is the Book of the…

Miryam: Watchers.

Nehemia: The Book of Watchers, which we’re going to talk about in the next episode, which we’ll probably record in a few minutes. But you guys will be hearing it weeks later, because we’re almost running out of time. So it was in Jude, so I’ll tell you how I look at this and this is me and my pet theory, you know. It’s not a pet theory, I’m pretty sure I’m right.

So, there’s a book called 4 Ezra which is part of something called the Ezra Chitzoni, the Ezra Apocalypse, which isn’t in the Bible. But I’m convinced this is literature from the Second Temple period, or shortly thereafter. And in 4 Ezra chapter 14 verses 45 to 46 it describes something that supposedly Ezra did, but I don’t think Ezra did it. It’s something they believed he did. It says, “And when the 40 days were ended, the most-High spoke to me…” meaning to Ezra, “…saying, ‘Make public the 24 books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them.’” Now, verse 46, “‘But keep the 70 that were written last in order to give them to the wise among your people, for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge.’ And I did so.”

So here it’s describing really two canons of the Old Testament – and canon is like, which books are included. So, it’s the 24 books that are made public for the entire nation of Israel, and I think no one will dispute that that’s what we call the Tanakh today, the Hebrew Bible, because we actually count them as 24 books, even though the Christians count them differently. In English they’re counted as 1 Kings and 2 Kings, in Hebrew, it’s just the Book of Melachim.

But then he talks about these 70 books that are these secret books only for the initiated, and I’ve always understood this to refer to something like the Essenes - whether we call them “Essenes” or not, that’s a discussion - but some kind of group of Jews who had more books that weren’t known to the other Jews, or weren’t accessible to the other Jews, and they attributed those books to Ezra. So, what’s your take on that?

Miryam: Okay, so I think that absolutely, there are a lot of books that kind of had the cachet of being secret books. These are special books. The Book of Jubilees refers to itself essentially as “the other Book that Moses got at Sinai,” right?

Nehemia: That’s interesting. It reminds me of the Book of Mormon, which is like the other New Testament of Jesus Christ, or whatever. In other words, so Jubilees is presenting itself as an angel speaking to Moses at Mount Sinai.

Miryam: Right.

Nehemia: Meaning, when we read a lot of the Midrash, which is, you know, Rabbinical literature, it often will be in the name of this rabbi and that rabbi, and here, it’s actually presenting itself as an angel speaking to Moses.

Miryam: Well, that’s a basic difference in the way interpretation is presented in the Second Temple period and the way we have in the Rabbinic tradition. So, for example, what you’ll have in a lot of Second Temple interpretation is, they simply retell – we call it “a re-written Bible”. They’ll re-tell the story of the Bible with the interpretation kind of baked in.

Nehemia: Oh, with some tweaks.

Miryam: So, for example, you have the Genesis Apocryphon which is in Aramaic, and it’s re-telling a Biblical story. And we have that verse where the people tell Pharaoh how beautiful Sarah is, so that’s when he takes her, right? His advisors told him how beautiful she is. And in the Genesis Apocryphon it actually adds a poem. There’s whole poem that they say about how beautiful she is, going into detail. And that sort of thing was kind of just put right into the re-telling of the story, whereas in Rabbinic interpretation, you’ll have a quote of the verse and what Rabbis say. There’s a real distinction between, “This is the original and this is the interpretation.”

Nehemia: And you do have that at Qumran in the form of the Pesher.

Miryam: Yes, absolutely…

Nehemia: But then, there’s a second genre, so you’ve got the Pesher where it says, “Here’s the verse and its interpretation is.” But then, you have this genre, this type of writing where they actually, as you say, bake it into the writing, because they’ve re-written the Bible with the interpretation baked in. That’s fascinating.

Miryam: Yes, but coming back to this idea of the canon and this idea of secret work. So if you think about what the word “apocrypha” means, the word “apocrypha” actually means “hidden things”, which is a strange word to use for books that actually were not hidden for the Alexandria Jews. And so there’s this idea that there are these books that are hidden, and I would say far bigger than the Qumran group. There are a lot of people that are reading these books, but they’re kind of… Look, they’re literate, clearly. They’re people who are a little bit more educated, and they’re people who like to think about the mysteries of what’s going on. They’re the ones who are writing and reading these books.

So, for example, in Enoch itself, in the Book of Enoch, at the very end it talks about saying… I’m reading chapter 104 verse 10, “And now I know this mystery, that many sinners will alter and distort the words of truth and speak evil words, and lie, and concoct great fabrications, and write books in their own words.”

In other words, there are going to be people… don’t be fooled. “There are going to be people who write fake books,” says the author of this…

Nehemia: Of a fake book!

Miryam: Yes!

Nehemia: Wait, wait, wait. So let’s just be clear. Scholars agree - and look, you can, you know, say scholars are wrong. That’s your theological belief, whatever your belief is out there, work that out for yourself. But certainly scholars, and even Christian scholars, and secular scholars and Jewish scholars, Enoch didn’t write these books…

Miryam: No!

Nehemia: …right? And so, basically, this guy’s pretending to be Enoch, or writing in Enoch’s name. Some people would say he’s doing it to honor them. Other people would say, “That’s a forgery.” Like Bart Ehrman has this amazing book called Forged. I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but he makes some good points.

So, he’s writing this book, pretending to be Enoch and saying, “Watch out. Other people are going to write a book…”

Miryam: Write fake books, right.

Nehemia: Write books, pretending they’re someone and they’re not. And he’s actually doing that!

Miryam: That’s right.

Nehemia: So, is he doing that to kind of cover up his own crime?

Miryam: There’s this big question about what did people think they were doing? Did they think they were fooling everyone? Did they think that they were actually somehow channeling… What did they think when they were doing?

Nehemia: In other words, they could have been in some kind of mystical trance, believing they were writing words that were revealed to them. Or they could have just been saying, “Hey, this is what Enoch…”

Miryam: Would have said…

Nehemia: Would have said.

Miryam: …if he could have said it.

Nehemia: Right, and that’s a really big difference. In other words… And let me bring an example, which I hope isn’t offensive to you as an Orthodox Jew. But there are all these statements in the Talmud, or in the Midrash, especially, where they’ll say, you know, “God in heaven said such and such.” Did anybody really believe God said that, was it more like a homily, you know?

Miryam: Right, exactly. I actually had this experience. I was teaching a Rabbinic story or a Talmudic story to a Christian group, and someone got very upset. And she said, “This is false prophesy. You’re putting words in God’s mouth.” And I said, “This is a story. It’s meant to convey an idea. No one is thinking of it as putting words in God’s mouth, they’re thinking of it as, ‘This is a way to convey a certain idea.’” Because particularly in Rabbinic literature, they don’t write theological treatises the way, say, Paul did in the New Testament. If you want to convey a theological idea, the way you do it is through a story.

Nehemia: And so, my favorite story is The Oven of Akhnai, where God says at the end, “My sons have defeated Me. My sons have defeated Me.” And what you’re saying is, the rabbis who wrote that story didn’t literally believe God said, “My sons have defeated Me,” right? They were trying to convey a story. Am I understanding right?

Miryam: Yeah. They’re trying to convey a certain idea.

Nehemia: Trying to convey a message.

Miryam: You could say… see, what a lot of traditional people reading this say is, “This actually happened. This isn’t even just a story. This actually happened.” And especially modern…

Nehemia: Yeah, but did God in heaven actually say that, according to… Let’s say, do ultra-Orthodox Jews believe?

Miryam: Well, realize it says, “a heavenly voice comes out”. They have the… right?

Nehemia: So, okay. All right, no, but the continuation of the story is Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu, and he said when that happened, what did God in heaven say? And Eliyahu responds, “Banai nitzkhuni, bnai nitzkhuni,” “My sons have defeated me.” So, do ultra-Orthodox Jews, for example, believe that Rabbi Natan really meant Eliyahu? I mean, I don’t know.

Miryam: I think so. I think a lot would…

Nehemia: But many Orthodox Jews would say, “No…”

Miryam: “No, it’s a story,” yeah.

Nehemia: “He’s just trying to convey a message.”

Miryam: Right, that this has been given over.

Nehemia: And there’s this great quote from Eli Wiesel, something to the effect of, he meets this rabbi who he knew as a child, and the rabbi says, “What are you doing?” And the rabbi doesn’t know what fiction is, he’s never heard of it. So he describes it, he says, “I write fictional books,” and he says what that is. And he says, “So, you write lies?” And Eli Wiesel says, “No.” And I’m misquoting, it’s a great quote, I’ll post it on the page. He says something to the effect of, “Not everything that happened is true. And many things that are true never happened.”

And I think we should end with that, and we’ll definitely do another episode of The Book of Watchers, which the first section of Enoch. But I think it’s a really interesting thing, that there were these 70 secret books that some Jews knew about, some Jews may have considered authoritative.

Miryam: It may be 70, maybe not. But you feel like 70 is…

Nehemia: That might be a round number, right.

Miryam: …what they call a typological number, right?

Nehemia: Right, but there were a lot of books that weren’t part of the standard Jewish Bible. And, you know, what I think of is Josephus talks about how there’s, you know, these books that every Jew knows about, and nobody disputes them. He acts like he doesn’t know about these 70 books. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but he overlooks them and kind of ignores them, maybe on purpose.

This is an amazing discussion. We’re going to continue this in the next part. And check out understandingsin.com by Dr. Miryam T. Brand. That’s her podcast, her new website. And then on Amazon, we’ll have a link to her book, Evil Within and Without. And the book where she wrote a 90-plus page chapter in, which is called, Outside the Bible with a Commentary on Enoch.

Miryam: Which is probably also in your library. It’s a three-volume work.

Nehemia: Go buy the book, all right. All right, Shalom.

Miryam: Shalom.

Nehemia: This episode of Hebrew Voices was sponsored by Adam from Colorado. Thank you, todah.

Announcer: You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at nehemiaswall.com.

You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!


SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS!
Makor Hebrew Foundation is a 501c3 tax-deductible not for profit organization.

Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app!
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | 
Amazon Music
 | TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
 | Pandora

Share this Teaching on Social Media

Related Posts:
The Origin of Sin
Nephilim and Demons in the Book of Enoch
The Lost Book of Jasher
The Book of Jasher Exposed
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Support Team Studies
Nehemia Gordon's Teachings on the Name of God

Show Notes:

Dr. Miryam Brand holds a Ph.D. in Bible and Second Temple Literature from New York University and an M.A. in Bible and Biblical Interpretation from Matan and Haifa University. Her book on the portrayal of sin in the Second Temple period (Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature) was published in 2013 and her commentary on the Book of Enoch was published as part of Outside the Bible in 2013. She has taught at Brown University, New York University, and Stern College and has spoken at Hebrew University, Cambridge University, and the University of Kiel. She is currently an Associate Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research.

Dr. Brand's Website

Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture

1 Enoch (online)

"Some events do take place but are not true; other are--although they never occurred." Elie Wiesel, Legends of Our Time, page viii

"In literature... certain things are true though they didn't happen, while others are not, even if they did." Quoted in: Frederick L. Downing, Elie Wiesel: A Religious Biography, page 121

[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; [46] but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. [47] For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge." (4 Ezra 14:45-47)

Josephus, Against Apion 1.38-42 [1:8]

Verses Mentioned:

  • Laura Lee says:

    When people say God was just an idea to base good stories on, I wonder why they bother with the stories. When their entire lives are centered around that kind of explanation of all things, I feel awful for them, but really, let’s get to reality at some point. would really like to get a look at the Aramaic fragments, if they show online anywhere? Thanks, no offense intended.

  • Birhanu Alemayehu says:

    The book of Enoch origin is here in Ethiopia. By the way the Ethiopian Orthodox church have her own bible which is already included book of Enoch. But the others christian fellows they didn’t accept or not included in their bible book of Enoch. I don’t know why they not included.If any who know about this reason please, can mention an idea.

    • Rion Clark says:

      The book of Enoch has Jubilee date errors with history in Gen. Other types of errors if you believe Gen.(Brashyt) is correct. There are other bits of information that is not in the bible. That appear to be truth. Just need to be careful. This is my opinion I do not trust any religion of myself. Until proven by the tanach. Even then I will listen to others knowing men error also there is always more to learn.

  • Mario Greco says:

    I really enjoyed this podcast about the true source of the book of Enoch.

    So what about the book of Jasher.
    We see two scriptures in the Bible stating the book of Jasher:

    [Jos 10:13 NKJV] So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. [Is] this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go [down] for about a whole day.

    [2Sa 1:18 NKJV] and he told [them] to teach the children of Judah [the Song of] the Bow; indeed [it is] written in the Book of Jasher:

    Is there truly a book of Jasher where there is only some verses or chapters that are authentic and the rest has been tampered just like the book of Enoch?

    I have not read the book of Jasher yet, however, I was told that there was a story in the book of Jasher of Abraham speaking with Ishmael about his tent peg meaning his wife. I guess that’s the way someone try to explain to me.

    What is the book of Jasher?

  • I’ve learned Elohim are Heaven’s armies (the “Hosts”) where Yehovah is kind of Captain or Admiral (“Yehovah Tzevaot”) and His angels are His troopers and servants. Sounds like Star Wars! 😉 The “original one” ha ha! This topic reminds me of another Hebrew Voices regarding the UFO Jews in Israel. In some way I admire Raelian Jews because they are open minded and know how to use solemn thinking / imagination and they don’t try to put God in a box. They may have some New Age / UFO thinking in their theology and I don’t agree on everything with them. But they are correct about Yehovah being one of the Elohim together with the angels. This is clear concept in the Scriptures. Except Yehovah is not 25,000 years old being from another galaxy or some sort but eternal Creator. God the Father who summoned the Light in the beginning.

    Shabbat Shalom in the Father of Lights!

  • Karen says:

    I watched a video that said El means God and Elohem means God’s plural is this true?

    • El and Elohim are unrelated words. The singular of Elohim is Eloah. The plural of El is Elim. All four words appear in the Tanakh:
      El (mighty one/ god) > Elim (mighty ones/ gods)
      Eloah (judge/ god) > Elohim (judges/ gods/ Great God)

  • Andreas Büchler says:

    The Christian Bible counts 70 books, if one counts the book of psalms as 5. But in most versions, there is no separation between the psalms, and so it counts 66. You should know, if the psalms count as 1, or as 5 books. Thanks for this great article, and Shabbath Shalom.

  • Ludek Brown says:

    Thank you Nehemia for covering this topic! I loved this podcast! It goes along with my current interest in the Apocrypha and Pseudocrypha books. I’d love to hear a podcast on the topic of: How did Judaism choose Tanach’s 24 books? Were they chosen by GOD’s prophet or were they chosen by Jewish “wise” men?

    Also I’d love to hear a podcast covering other books. Especially: Book of Jubilees, Book of Jasher, Book of Adam and Eve 1 & 2, Book of Sirach, and Testaments of the Patriarchs!! BTW, here is a helpful link to MP3s if anyone wants to listen to the audiobooks: http://www.scriptural-truth.com/mp3free.html

    Shalom,
    Ludek from Czech Republic

  • LaVcaM says:

    These false books are actually called “Hypotheses” Just as most Biblical teachers/scholars would use parables. Yeshua also used parables when speaking to the multitudes and those who had the inclination to comprehend and glean truth were enlightened.
    Due 4:29 “But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

    Also, I believe the term ‘walked with G-D’ refers to seeking Him with our whole being and obeying His Laws/Statutes with gladness (i.e. pure in spirit).
    Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
    Gen 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

    Enoch was Noah’s gg-Grandfather.
    If you follow the time-line from Gen 5:21 – 7:6, you will see that Enoch walked the earth at the beginning of Noah’s life. Maybe YHWH ‘took’ Enoch to save him out of the violence and sin that ran rampart during the time that ‘men’s hearts were evil continually’, We have a loving and merciful G-D that only wants the best for us. Even tho Methuselah and Lamech were also on the earth, they were not mentioned as ‘walking with G-D’ doesn’t mean they weren’t worthy, they may not have been as pure in spirit as Enoch. I have to do more research about their years.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but this is what I have learned from reading this story. Am I on the right track? I pray that G-D will give me understanding and wisdom every time I read anything having to do with our faith.

    Thank you Nehemia and Dr Brand for your wisdom and teaching on this subject. May YHWH continue to bless your ministries.

    • clarkrion says:

      The points you brought up seem to me to be answered Brashyt chapter 1. First the Nephilim. 1:23 The 5th “DAY” ended year 5001 after Gen.1:1. Yes I am using 1000 years per “DAY” used in chapter 1. Why 1st No coal was ever found in earth that did not contain H14 which has about a 3700 year half-life. So all plants used to form all the coal reserves on earth are under 50,000 years old. Though others use different time frames, from 24 hours to billions of years. In this matter it is just a time frame so it doesn’t matter if it is exact.
      Next Chewah (Eve) was formed from the side of Adam, after he was “took” to the Garden. This move occurred after Adam was formed, garden planted, trees grew producing good fruit.
      Then he named the animals & found no helper suited to him. Then Adam received the breath of life. So we need to continue a time line for perspective whether the time is perfect would still not matter.
      I believe Adam to be 17 when the Garden was planted. 5 years later Adam was moved to the garden so the fruit trees were complete (tav). Adam was 22 when he moved and was given the breath of life (Abba’s Spirit). Then Eve was formed.
      Using Adam’s seed not Elohim seed. Adam would have known what death was. Or the statement in that “DAY” you will die would not exist. Going back in time.
      Note: Gen.1:26 Let “US” (plural) make man in “OUR” (plural) image, according to “OUR” (plural) likeness and let “THEM” (plural) rule over all the earth. Next Gen.1:27. He (singular) Elohim (plural) formed him male & female (plural). He formed them (plural).
      Gen.1:28-30 Then Elohim barak them (plural) told what food was for eating their positions “hero’s, judges, renowned & hosts of the earth. Including being over all other life on earth.
      Then after all this Gen.1:31 The 6th DAY ends year 6001. Note: All was very good (tav complete self sufficient).
      So the Nephilim were men & women without a bellybutton. As it is written.

      • LaVcaM says:

        2Pe 3:8 “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
        [This passage implies that time is irrelevant to G-D.]

        Gen 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
        [Abba is Aleph and Tav. His Spirit was/is/forever shall be.]

        [To follow ‘a 1000yrs is as a Day’ timeline is folly and limits G-D, putting Him in a box.
        When He said “Let there be…”, it happened as He spoke.
        He did not ‘Rest on the Sabbath’ 1000yrs. That would imply that from the beginning, He was not ‘walking’ in the Garden with Adam & Eve (Gen 3:8a), or ‘walking’ with Enoch (Gen 5:24) or Noah (Gen 6:9).]

        Gen 18:1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.
        [G-D also APPEARED to Abraham, meaning Abraham ‘WALKED’ with G-D.]

        In my spirit, I cannot put G-D in a box, for to do so would eliminate HIS power and diety. So forgive me if I do not agree with your timeline of 1000yr Day. It is incomprehensible to me.

        Shalom

  • mike melum says:

    This encouraged me to look into the book that was off limits.

  • D says:

    Dr. Brand states that during the second temple period, the understanding of Genesis 5:22, 24 seemed to be that Enoch walked with angels. This is an interesting thought. I think the Infancy Gospels allude to Mary, the mother of Yehoshua, regularly conversing with angels as a young child and also to Elisabeth, Yochanan’s mother, being ministered to by angels during the time that she fled to preserve Yochanan’s life. That said, my NASB text notes on these verses state, “The original Hebrew adds the definite article before ‘God’ in both instances (vv. 22,24).” If the definite article is present, wouldn’t Enoch walking with GOD be the more correct understanding?

  • Quite interesting that I just learned from another Jewish source that Ethiopian Jews still have Enoch in their Tanach. Enoch is classified being part of the “revelation literature” in the Scriptures such as Nevim (the Prophets) and Sefer Kizayon (the Book of Revelation).

    • clarkrion says:

      Thanks for your knowledge told.

    • clarkrion says:

      I have question. When you both were speaking about Hanok being “took” and what this meant. In Brashyt 2:15 Adam was “took” to the garden. He was alive. Are the spellings the same in the pictographic as Brashyt 5:24 for “took”? I have problems with the square script. The meaning seems to be lost in translation of square script compared to pictographic seeds (letters). A picture is a thousand words. Though this would seem to increase the difficulty the seed (letter) only grows one type of plant.
      Shalom Rion

      • Hi Clark, I think you are confusing Hebrew with Chinese. In Hebrew, the letters were originally objects that represented sounds, not ideas. For example, the paleo-Hebrew Bet is a “house” and therefore represents the B sound. However, words containing the letter Bet may have nothing to do with a “house”. Also letters (ot) have nothing to do with seed (zera).

        • Sharon Hedy says:

          I don’t see why anyone should be surprised that Enoch walked with Elohim (physically or in spirit and truth).
          Abraham made meals and eat with Elohim many generations after.
          I have to admit that the phrase “and he was not” about Enoch has tickled my thoughts though and would be glad for an explanation as to the meaning ……

        • clarkrion says:

          Thank you so much for answering my question. I am trying to teach myself Hebrew. It is still all Greek to me. However my question was is the word “took” spelled the same way in both scriptures in Gen. 5:24 & Gen. 2:15? Could you also tell what letters were used in Hebrew? Thanks As A thoughtful suggestion
          could you change your donation so I can donate and pay my membership at the same time & same place? Thank you again I didn’t know the Chinese language of pictographs represented Ideas. Perhaps that is where Hanok was “took”? LOL
          shalom

        • clarkrion says:

          I agree that B is not only a house.
          B is both male & female.
          Male is the control of the door.
          Female in control of the living area.
          B is also the #2.
          B is the foundation.
          B is the summit.
          B means in.
          The first 70 languages were pictures?
          A picture is worth a 1000 words?
          Did not the house of host start Gen?
          (ox) ayin tav nothing to do with seed?
          Does tav & covenant have connection?
          Does tav & mark have a connection?
          The book of Ruth has 12 aleph tav?
          Only after redeemed does Ruth (at)?
          The forth word is not defined in English aleph tav. thank you always
          learn something from you are the best.
          shalom

  • Wanda says:

    Once again excellent discussion Nehemia and Dr Brand. And thank you for the links Nehemia:) they too are very good…

    Shabbat Shalom
    Wanda

  • William Blank says:

    Anyone familiar with the scriptures will perceive that the book of Enoch is not inspired. Just because Peter and Jude quote one or two sentences from it doesn’t constitute an endorsement of it. Paul quoted Greek works. Enoch contradicts a number of scriptures and has a ludicrous perception of reality. For example, it says that the angels built Noah’s ark(67:2) and the sun and moon are the same size(72:37 and 78:3). It says the year only has 364 days(82:6) and that one month has 28 days(78:9) which didn’t come into being until the Julian calendar. The book is obviously a fraud. Also, it is full of astrology. Finally, anyone who believes the 106th chapter is seriously deficient in the ability of discriminating the truth since it is more ridiculous than some of the passages in the epic of Gilgamesh.

    • Simone Piletto says:

      The whole truth belongs to the lord and its concepts are there for those who seek the truth,now how your intelligence perceives it is another matter,but regardless of what is or isn’t inspired,enochs story in general is relevant to the genesis/noah narrative,so while these particular details are mysterious,they’re still valid in the bigger picture when viewed in the context of which the story is told.

  • The book of Enoch is fascinating because it gives revelation of end time events in heavens and on the earth. It sounds similar to the book of Revlations in the New Testiment. I have read through the book of Enoch a few times but I’ve always been told the texts has been changed and misinterpreted. So I wasn’t sure what to think regarding the validity. However, I always felt there might be some hidden mysteries or gold nuggets.

    I enjoyed learning from both of your zeal and passion for Elohim’s word along with everyone contributing their special piece of the puzzle. It is amazing to learn about individuals who have pursued ancient manuscripts of the books of Enoch through travels, and new discoveries found in Ethiopia. Really looking forward to the iPod series.

    Thank you very much Nehemia and Dr. Brand. Wow! You both have a very impressive list of credentials! I am hoping some of your wisdom and knowledge might rub off;)

    Shalom!
    Elizabeth

  • Vicki says:

    All I can say is your messages and Hebrew Voices are timely . Reading through the Tanakh I hit Enoch . Never heard of book of Enoch except in a JPS footnote . Did a quick Wikipedia search . I use that source as a jumping off point , a quick overview . Looked at Jude and saw the reference . I just put that train of information aside and thought ,” Well that is for later ,” and keep reading Tanakh.
    Then a week later here you are . Thank you both Nehemia and Dr . Brand .