Troublesome Topic: PROBLEMS WITH THE ENOCHIC INTERPRETATION OF THE NEPHILIM

For more of my comments about the books of Enoch, I have an entire, though short series of lessons called Can We Trust the Books of Enoch? Here I will deal only with the problems I see in the books of Enoch, primarily 1 Enoch.

QUESTIONABLE DEVELOPMENT

I don’t think the problems with the Book of Enoch came during the time of oral tradition of Enoch’s sayings, rather they came during the Hellenistic period when some Jews, honestly many Jews, were influenced by Greek culture (referred to as Hellenism). What we call the Book of Enoch reveals many examples of influence from Babylonian mythology (especially the part about Enoch as a visionary) and Greek mythology, including the belief in Greek gods. That is one of the reasons it was rejected and not included in the canon of Scripture.

This should not be called an Enochic worldview; most of it does not come from Enoch.

Since 1 Enoch was a compilation of the work of several authors, and since it shows the influence of many pagan myths, it seems doubtful that Enoch actually said all those things. Since he pre-dated Babylonian and Greek eras by several centuries, and since the book we call 1 Enoch does not agree with the rest of the Bible, we can be sure that the parts that resemble pagan mythology were inserted by others and were not the words of Enoch himself.

I envision it happening like this. Starting in the third century BC, someone wanted to promote his view of things (which was a mixture of Jewish Scriptures and pagan mythology) and yet he knew that whatever he wrote would be rejected by most other Jew unless he somehow infused it with greater authority. The traditions of the words of Enoch offered him a great opportunity to do just that. No one would argue against the piety of Enoch and his sayings were only oral tradition at that time. So this individual used his active imagination to write whatever he wanted to write as if it were the words of Enoch.

Later, others added to what this person had written and inserted other things which were also a mixture of Jewish thought, Babylonian thought and Greek thought. There ended up being several writings, some of which were joined together, some remained separate. That is why there are now three books of Enoch, and even the one we call 1 Enoch has several parts that are independent of each other.

Some of these writers may have included some of the oral tradition by Enoch’s sayings and added to it. But we cannot know for sure which parts are authentically from Enoch, therefore I consider most of it questionable and unreliable.

The reliability of the books of Enoch is so poor that it should be considered the very bottom of the barrel when someone is looking for support for their argument. Therefore, if you are trying to make a case for something, and you are having trouble finding sources that support your case, and you keep digging deeper and deeper in that barrel, when you are left with only the books of Enoch as support, it means you have no case. And after you have quoted from one of the books of Enoch, you still have no case.

PROBLEMS OF LOGIC

If the Nephilim were 3000 cubits, or 4500 feet tall, as the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch indicates, how could giants that size have sex with human women? The same problem occurs if we look at the Greek version of 1 Enoch. It says the giants were 300 cubits tall, or 450 feet tall.  How could those women give birth to giant babies? To say that the babies could have been normal size for humans seems illogical, especially when we are talking about giants that are, respectively, 75 to 750 times the size of an average baby. Such a giant

It sounds like the story about the giants arriving at Mt Hermon was made up at a later date without realizing that the mountain we call Mount Hermon did not exist before the flood because the flood changed everything. The Book of Enoch also mentions Mt Sinai, which did not exist in its present form before the flood.

WAS THE BOOK OF ENOCH ACCEPTED BY EARLY CHRISTIANS?

According to the Encyclopedia Britanica, it was at first accepted in the Christian Church but later excluded from the biblical canon. Its survival is due to the fascination of marginal and heretical Christian groups, such as the Manichaeans, with its syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian elements. (Britannica.com/topic/First-Book-of-Enoch.)

So, yes, it was accepted by many in the Christian community at first, but not by all.

WHY WAS THE BOOKS OF ENOCH NOT INCLUDED IN THE CANON?

Upon careful consideration by the church leaders, it became clear that the three Books of Enoch did not match the rest of Scripture and contained far too much mythology borrowed from the Greeks and the Babylonians. Their written form is also very unreliable with many parts that were obviously added. In reality, the Books of Enoch contradict almost all of the major themes of the Bible. Those who made determinations about the canon of Scripture could not possibly have accepted them in the canon without muddying the waters beyond recognition.

If you are interested in reading more about the books of Enoch, I have a short study series dedicated to it. Here is a link to the first lesson in that series: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

The next lesson is called AGAINST A NARROW USE OF THE TERM ELOHIM.