Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

EDITORS COMMENT: This new series is being offered in memoriam of Dr. Michael Heiser who’s truly groundbreaking research on the Divine Council and Enochian Worldview (based on the book of Enoch and its connection to Hebrew theology before and at the time of Jesus) opened the door for a richer understanding of the Life of Christ than previous generations could have imagined. This series reflects content from the leading-edge books published by Defender Publishing for Dr. Heiser—Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ as well as his two volume book set titled, A Companion to the Book of Enoch: A Reader’s Commentary, Volume 1: The Book of the Watchers and Vol II: The Parables of Enoch. PLEASE NOTE: ALL PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF DR. MICHAEL HEISER’S BOOKS FROM SKYWATCHTVSTORE.COM WILL BE  DONATED TO HIS FAMILY DURING THIS SERIES.

Did the Lord’s disciples and early church fathers consider the Book of Enoch to be sacred scripture? Let us review a bit of the evidence.

The Epistle of Barnabas

This ancient epistle is perhaps the earliest Christian source that cites material from 1 Enoch as Scripture. Nickelsburg writes:

Writing ca. 135–38 c.e., probably in Egypt, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas paraphrases 1 Enoch 89:56, 60, 66–67 with reference to the destruction of the temple, introducing his source with the formula, “For Scripture says” (λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, 16:5). To support the notion of a new temple, he quotes loosely 1 Enoch 91:13, again introducing it as Scripture (“For it is written,” γέγραπται γάρ, 16:6).[i]

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr’s Second Apology, written between A.D. 148–161, presumes the Watchers story—that they cohabited with human women and taught humankind forbidden knowledge. Justin therefore holds them responsible for the proliferation of wickedness among humanity. Justin “recognizes the parallel between the story of the watchers and Greek myths about the amours of the gods.”[ii] This is of interest because Justin clearly considers the Jewish version (i.e., 1 Enoch) to be superior in its truthfulness. The opinion suggests that Justin considered 1 Enoch inspired, but we cannot be certain since it is not cited as Scripture in his work.


Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon. He lived ca. A.D. 130–200. His writings make it quite evident that he knew 1 Enoch in some detail and accepted the accuracy of the Watcher story. Of interest is what he says in the tenth chapter of Irenaeus Against Heresies (sec. 1):

    1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess”8 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.[iii]

VanderKam notes of this passage:

It is not impossible that Irenaeus, in the wording of his lines about the angels, is thinking of 2 Pet[er] 2:4 and Jude 6, but the language he uses does not reproduce their vocabulary very closely. There is, however, some verbal similarity with 1 Enoch…. If lrenaeus is here reflecting the Watcher story, he is attributing it to the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the prophets and including it within a brief statement of the Christian faith shared throughout the scattered churches.[iv]


Tertullian was an early Christian writer from Carthage (ca. A.D. 155–240). He is famous (or infamous) for being the early church’s staunchest defender of 1 Enoch’s inspiration. For example, in his On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapter III, he calls 1 Enoch “Scripture” and defends its status using 2 Timothy 3:16:

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;  and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.” By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.[v]

In his treatise on idolatry, Tertullian discusses certain celebrations and practices of Christians (e.g., decorating doors with lamps and wreaths) that he considers idolatrous. To make his case, Tertullian quotes Enoch’s work as a product of the Holy Spirit:

But “let your works shine,” saith He; but now all our shops and gates shine! You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians. What does the case seem to be with regard to that species (of ceremony) also? If it is an idol’s honour, without doubt an idol’s honour is idolatry. If it is for a man’s sake, let us again consider that all idolatry is for man’s sake; let us again consider that all idolatry is a worship done to men, since it is generally agreed even among their worshippers that aforetime the gods themselves of the nations were men; and so it makes no difference whether that superstitious homage be rendered to men of a former age or of this. Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons. “The things which are Caesar’s are to be rendered to Caesar.” It is enough that He set in apposition thereto, “and to God the things which are God’s.” What things, then, are Caesar’s? Those, to wit, about which the consultation was then held, whether the poll-tax should be furnished to Caesar or no. Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Caesar’s, said, “Render to Caesar what are Caesar’s, and what are God’s to God;” that is, the image of Caesar, which is on the coin, to Caesar, and the image of God, which is on man, to God; so as to render to Caesar indeed money, to God yourself. Otherwise, what will be God’s, if all things are Caesar’s? “Then,” do you say, “the lamps before my doors, and the laurels on my posts are an honour to God?” They are there of course, not because they are an honour to God, but to him who is honoured in God’s stead by ceremonial observances of that kind, so far as is manifest, saving the religious performance, which is in secret appertaining to demons. For we ought to be sure if there are any whose notice it escapes through ignorance of this world’s literature, that there are among the Romans even gods of entrances; Cardea (Hinge-goddess), called after hinges, and Forculus (Door-god) after doors, and Limentinus (Threshold-god) after the threshold, and Janus himself (Gate-god) after the gate: and of course we know that, though names be empty and reigned, yet, when they are drawn down into superstition, demons and every unclean spirit seize them for themselves, through the bond of consecration. Otherwise demons have no name individually, but they there find a name where they find also a token. Among the Greeks likewise we read of Apollo Thyræus, i.e. of the door, and the Antelii, or Anthelii, demons, as presiders over entrances. These things, therefore, the Holy Spirit foreseeing from the beginning, fore-chanted, through the most ancient prophet Enoch, that even entrances would come into superstitious use.[vi]




Origen (ca. A.D. 184–254) was an early Christian scholar born in Alexandria, Egypt. As VanderKam notes, “In Origen’s writings one finds evolving attitudes about the Book of Enoch, and these follow chronological lines. He alludes to the book in four of his writings, all of which can be dated fairly accurately to specific stages in his career.”[vii] At one point Origen considered the writings of Enoch (1 Enoch) “authentic products of the patriarch and cites them as Scripture; however, he also indicates that others in the church do not hold this opinion.”[viii]

The acknowledgement that some in the church did not embrace 1 Enoch as authoritative surfaces later in Origen’s works. Scholars disagree as to whether Origen changed his opinion about 1 Enoch later in life. Nickelsburg writes:

Finally, one must consider Origen’s claim that the churches do not accept the books of Enoch as divine. This strongest of Origen’s negative statements about Enoch seems not to be a development of Origen’s previous ambivalence, but an acknowledgment of fact, which is one of several arguments that Origen uses to serve his purpose. Since his opponent cites material from Enoch, Origen emphasizes the book’s questionable status “in the churches.” At the same time, the words of Celsus indicate that the stories about the watchers were known and transmitted in Christian communities….

I conclude the following. Origen knew parts of 1 Enoch (the Book of the Watchers, the Book of the Luminaries, and probably the Book of Parables) well enough to quote, paraphrase, and summarize an occasional passage and to recognize Celsus’s misrepresentation of the material. Origen considered the texts to be authentic and Enoch to be a prophet, whose writings were “Scripture.” He occasionally cited the book, quoted a passage, and even exegeted it, in order to support his exegesis of a biblical text or to make a point that he could or would not base on a biblical text. At the same time, he acknowledged that the Enochic writings were not universally accepted as Scripture, and sometimes, with an eye to the possible skepticism of his readers, he did not invest a great deal in the probative value of these texts.[ix]

The Dating and Manuscript Evidence for 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants

The Date of 1 Enoch

First Enoch as we know it today is actually a composite literary work whose parts can be dated to different periods. This determination is based on internal evidence (e.g., historical reference points in 1 Enoch) and linguistic features. With the discovery of fragments of 1 Enoch among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and more intense critical study of the Ethiopic version of the book (the only complete version of all 108 chapters), the current consensus is that what we know as 1 Enoch is a composite of seven separate composed works dating to at least as early as the second century B.C. and which were complete by the end of the first century A.D.

The Book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36)

The Book of Parables (chapters 37–71)

The Book of the Luminaries (chapters 72–82)

The Dream Visions (chapters 83–90)

The Epistle of Enoch (chapters 92–105)

The Birth of Noah (chapters 106–107)

Another Chapter of Enoch (chapter. 108)

The second-century B.C. date represents the secure date of the Aramaic Qumran material. Consequently, it is obvious that the book is older than the scrolls fragments. That the book is a clear example of the apocalyptic genre known widely in Second Temple Jewish literature, most scholars are comfortable with pushing the date of significant portions of 1 Enoch another century.

Manuscripts of 1 Enoch

In my introduction to 1 Enoch for my employer’s digital Greek Pseudepigrapha database, I summarized the manuscript and language situation for 1 Enoch as follows:

Nearly all the major sections of 1 Enoch are witnessed in Aramaic material from Qumran. It is therefore considered likely that the original compositions were written in Aramaic. Some scholars, however, argue that the original language was Hebrew. Still others suggest that the work was written in both Hebrew and Aramaic, like the canonical book of Daniel. Since the author of the pseudepigraphical book Jubilees evidently draws on 1 Enoch and the former dates to at least 170 b.c., Aramaic 1 Enoch must predate 170 b.c. The Greek version of 1 Enoch is older than the first century a.d. since it is quoted in the New Testament epistle of Jude (14, 15). The Greek text of 1 Enoch derives from several manuscript sources. Between them, the Chester Beatty papyrus (4th century) and the Akhmim papyrus (6th century) preserve approximately twenty-five percent of the book. The Chronographia of the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus (ca. a.d. 800) preserves two long passages as well. A number of early church fathers quote from 1 Enoch favorably, and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine all considered the work to have been written by the biblical personage. The extant data only allows dating the work to the 2nd century b.c. with any certainty, though some of the Qumran fragments may be a century earlier. The author is unknown, but may have been associated in some way with the Qumran community.[x]

Nickelsburg, in his monumental scholarly commentary on 1 Enoch, assesses the situation in a similar vein:

Since the Ethiopic version of 1 Enoch was first introduced to the West at the beginning of the nineteenth century, scholars have almost universally acknowledged that the Ethiopic version derives from a Greek translation of a Semitic original, although they have debated whether that original was in Hebrew or Aramaic. The discovery of the Qumran Aramaic Enoch mss. makes it virtually certain that Aramaic was the language in which chaps. 1–36, the Book of Giants, and chaps. 72–107 were composed, although the authors may have drawn on some Hebrew sources.[xi]

With respect to English translations of this material, that is a very recent development. As I have noted elsewhere:

Much credit for the modern knowledge of 1 Enoch must go to the Scottish traveler J. Bruce who, in 1773, brought three manuscripts of the work to Europe. It was not until 1821, however, that Richard Laurence translated the entire book into English. Laurence was also the first to publish the Ethiopic text (1838).[xii]



The Book of Giants

The Book of Giants is not a part of 1 Enoch. The material in the Book of Giants overlaps with the content of 1 Enoch in many respects. It is, in effect, as Nickelsburg notes, “an expansion of material in 1 Enoch 6–16.”[xiii] The book is known from Qumran from nine fragmentary Aramaic manuscripts that have been published with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nickelsburg explains:

The text clearly relates to parts of 1 Enoch. The most obvious point of contact is the narrative in chaps. 6–11, which turns on the giants’ violent acts and their desolation of the earth. But what that narrative recounts pithily in a few sentences (7:2–6; 9:9; 10:9–10) is now subject to elaborate exposition. The stock figures of the giants come alive. They have names, they have dreams, they worry over them, discuss them, and seek to have them interpreted. In various of these respects, they recall the narratives about their fathers, the watchers, not simply in chap. 6 but also in 12:1–13:8, where the watchers interact with Enoch the scribe, petitioning him to intervene with the divine Judge…. The fragmentary condition of the Qumran mss. hinders certain conclusions about the precise relationship of this work to components of 1 Enoch…. The codicological relationship between the Book of Giants and (parts of) 1 Enoch is uncertain. Nonetheless, the nine mss. of this work at Qumran must be taken into consideration as one assesses the importance of this mythic material in the lives of the people who imported, copied, and read the texts that were deposited in the caves by the Dead Sea.[xiv]

Scholarly Bibliography on 1 Enoch and the Book of Giants

Due to the popularity of 1 Enoch, a number of books and studies are available online that attract the attention of those interested in studying this important work. These resources range from amateurish to ridiculous. What follows are the best academic resources for the study of 1 Enoch and the related Book of Giants. These resources are produced by scholars and used by scholars. This bibliography may be included in the resources provided in footnotes, but this is not a listing of all the resources that show up in footnotes. See the footnotes for specific resources on the content covered in respective chapters.

Translations and Critical Text Editions

James Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch I,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978) 184–98.

James Barr, “Aramaic-Greek Notes on the Book of Enoch II,” Journal of Semitic Studies 24 (1979) 179–192.

Matthew Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition with Commentary and Textual Notes in Consultation with James C. VanderKam (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985).

Matthew Black, Apocalypsis Henochi Graece (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).

  1. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text, and edited with the introduction notes and indexes of the first edition wholly recast, enlarged and rewritten; together with a reprint from the editor’s text of the Greek fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912).
  2. H. Charles, “Book of Enoch,” The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, volume 2 (ed. R. H. Charles; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 163–281.

Ephraim Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 1 (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85) 5–89.

Michael A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).

Michael A. Knibb, “1 Enoch,” in The Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D. Sparks; New York: Oxford University Press, 1984) 169–319.

  1. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976).

George W.E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation; Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Fortress Press, 2004). This is the best and most recent English translation of 1 Enoch.

Michael Sokoloff, “Notes on the Aramaic Fragments of Enoch from Qumran Cave 4,” Maarav 1 (1978–79) 197–224.

Loren Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).

Loren Stuckenbruck, Portions of the Book of Giants in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 8–94.

Charles C. Torrey, “Notes on the Greek Texts of Enoch,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 62 (1942) 52–60.

James C. VanderKam, “The Textual Base for the Ethiopic Translation of 1 Enoch,” in Working with No Data: Studies in Semitic and Egyptian Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (ed. D. M. Golomb; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 247–62.

Commentaries, Monographs, and Journal Articles

William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989).

Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 19:4 (2010): 277–320.

Angela Kim Harkins, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, and John C. Endres, eds., The Watchers in Jewish and Christian Traditions (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014).

Martha Himmelfarb, “A Report on 1 Enoch in the Rabbinic Literature,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 18, 2 vols (ed. Paul J. Achtemeier; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978) 1:259–69.

Jack P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1968).

George W. E. Nickelsburg, “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins: The State of the Question and Some Prospects for Answers,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 25 (ed. Kent Harold Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 341–60.

George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; ed. Klaus Baltzer; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001).

George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37–82 (Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; ed. Klaus Baltzer; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012).

George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Scripture in 1 Enoch and 1 Enoch as Scripture,” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995) 333–54.

Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

John C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmology: Studies in the Book of Giants Tradition (Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 14; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992).

Michael E. Stone, “The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E.,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 479–92.

James C. VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity (ed. James C. VanderKam and William Adler; Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 3/4; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 32–101.

James C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1995).

James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984).

James C. VanderKam, “Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of 1 Enoch: Reflections on J. T. Milik’s The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4,” Maarav 3 (1982) 85–97.

Pieter G. R. de Villiers, ed., Studies in 1 Enoch and the New Testament (= Neotestamentica 17; Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch Press, 1983).

Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005).

We hope you enjoyed this series and for those seeking deeper insights from Dr. Michael Heiser’s teachings on the Book of Enoch and its role in Old and New testament theology we recommend the collection below.

[i] George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001) 87.

[ii] Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 87–88.

[iii] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenaeus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; vol. 1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) 1330–331.

[iv] VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” 43.

[v] Tertullian, “On the Apparel of Women,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; trans. S. Thelwall; vol. 4; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885) 415–16.

[vi] Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; trans. S. Thelwall; vol. 3; The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 370–71.

[vii] VanderKam, “1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,” 54.

[viii] Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 90.

[ix] Ibid., 92.

[x] Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008).

[xi] George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001), 9. Nickelsburg’s footnote at the end of this selection reads (in part) as follows: “Throughout his edition, Milik assumes that Aramaic was the original language (J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976)…. Michael A. Knibb (Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments, vol. 2:6–7) also considers an Aramaic original ‘most probable.’”

[xii] Ken Penner and Michael S. Heiser, “Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology” (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008).

[xiii] George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 8.

[xiv] Ibid., 173.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles