Could the modern scholars be wrong about the Book of Enoch? No scholarly consensus is beyond question, and the history of religious thought is filled with examples where consensus was later overturned. The Book of Enoch, long dismissed by many modern academics, stands at the center of such a controversy. Often treated as a curious relic of Second Temple Judaism, 1 Enoch is typically filed under apocalyptic literature or mythological speculation—useful for historical context but devoid of theological weight. But this reductionist approach, one that strips ancient texts of spiritual authority in favor of rational categorization, reflects more about the biases of modern scholarship than about the integrity or value of the text itself.
The Book of Enoch presents a view of the cosmos rich with divine agency, angelic hierarchies, cosmic conflict, and a preexistent Son of Man who judges the wicked and vindicates the righteous. These are not fringe notions in Christianity; they are central themes echoed throughout the New Testament. Yet scholars often sideline 1 Enoch, not because it lacks thematic resonance or historical influence, but because of commitments—sometimes explicit, often assumed—to secular, naturalistic worldviews. Such commitments cannot help but color interpretations, leading scholars to downplay or dismiss texts that speak too clearly of the supernatural. In doing so, they may be underestimating ancient religious wisdom while overestimating their own objectivity.
The Gospels themselves seem to suggest Jesus viewed the Book of Enoch not merely as literature but as theological truth. His description of angels, his teachings on the resurrection, and especially his consistent use of the term "Son of Man" mirror language and concepts directly found in Enoch. When Jesus told the Sadducees that those who rise from the dead will be "like the angels in heaven" (e.g., Matthew 22:30), he echoed 1 Enoch’s portrayal of the resurrected. In confronting elite interpreters of the Law, He did not hesitate to bypass traditional authorities and align Himself with what could be considered suppressed or marginal texts. That Jesus embodied roles and titles most clearly laid out in 1 Enoch—cosmic judge, preexistent Son, vanquisher of evil—should prompt more than a passing acknowledgment from scholars. It suggests Jesus functionally treated 1 Enoch as sacred scripture, and theological truth.
The early Church seemed to agree. The theme of a preexistent Christ, active in creation and judgment, appears repeatedly in apostolic writings. The Gospel of John opens by describing the Logos as the one through whom all things were made—language eerily reminiscent of 1 Enoch 48, which declares that the Son of Man was named before the stars, before the sun, and even before creation itself. Colossians and Hebrews affirm that this Son sustains the universe and reflects the Father’s glory—core themes not developed in Genesis or Exodus, but in Enoch. If the early Christians saw Christ through the lens of 1 Enoch, why should modern interpreters be so quick to discard it?
The rejection of 1 Enoch as canon is frequently defended on procedural grounds—it wasn’t included in the final Jewish canon, and it’s only officially recognized by the Ethiopian Church. Yet these arguments, while valid historically, are not theologically decisive. They reflect a certain intellectual scaffolding that emerged long after the earliest followers of Jesus were already drawing from its theology. The content of Enoch matches Christian doctrine too closely to be mere coincidence. Preexistent Messiah, divine judgment, cosmic war, the delight of God in His chosen Son—all these ideas are fully developed in Enoch before they appear in the New Testament. To dismiss 1 Enoch is, in a real sense, to risk severing Christianity from the soil in which it was planted.
This disconnect is not merely academic—it is spiritual. For many believers, the Book of Enoch still speaks with the voice of divine revelation, and its dismissal feels like yet another chapter in a long history of silencing inconvenient truths. The pattern is familiar: religious and intellectual authorities marginalizing those voices which do not conform to their categories. Jesus Himself experienced this firsthand. His teachings, too mystical or radical for the religious elite, were branded heresy. If He drew upon the theology of Enoch, then its rejection by institutional authorities mirrors the broader suppression of supernatural faith.
Indeed, to dismiss the Book of Enoch is to risk participating in what might be called “the murder of God”—a symbolic but powerful phrase describing the tendency of institutions, whether religious or academic, to extinguish the living voice of divine truth whenever it threatens their authority or challenges their framework. This isn't merely the oversight of a forgotten text; it's part of a broader movement to replace revelation with reason, spirit with structure, mystery with management. To question 1 Enoch is legitimate. But to dismiss it without recognizing its influence on the foundational doctrines of Christianity is not only unwise—it borders on intellectual and spiritual negligence.
In the end, 1 Enoch endures. It has survived rejection, marginalization, and scholarly condescension. Its truths remain embedded in the New Testament, in the language of Jesus, and in the theological architecture of the early Church. For those with ears to hear and eyes to see, the Book of Enoch still speaks. It reminds us that divine revelation is not always found where institutions say it should be, and that sometimes, the truest scriptures are the ones the world tries hardest to forget.
ChatGPT with Stephen D Green
