Angelology and The Book of Enoch the Prophet

I’ve finally finished reading The Book of Enoch the Prophet. I began this effort based on the role it played in Danielle Trussoni’s novel Angelology. But upon actually reading The Book of Enoch, I found much more.

Now, the rest of this post may offend people of faith, for whom religion is the foundation of their lives and a comfort in times of trouble. As always, I mean no disrespect to anyone else’s beliefs..

The Book of Enoch dates from the first and second centuries before Christ. It’s “a Jewish apocalyptic text…perhaps the most important text not included in standard Biblical apocrypha….it falls outside the canon of the Old Testament for both orthodox Christianity and orthodox Judaism.” I don’t pretend to be a scholar; all of the above is taken from the introduction.

In The Book of Enoch, I was surprised to find extensive references to concepts I didn’t associate with Judaism, including the existence of angels and devils; the punishment of fallen angels by archangels; the day of the “Great Judgment,” when sinners receive no salvation, but “their souls shall be made to descend into Sheol,” where they are “cast into “an abyss full of fire and flaming,” and “perish in wrath and grievous judgment forever” while the elect inherit the earth; and a Son of Man who is killed and sits beside the Lord of Spirits (intriguing title, that).

Further: the content of the Book of Enoch was “utilized extensively in both the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles… notably in the titles of the Messiah, Christ (the Anointed One), the Elect One and the Son of Man,” according to the introduction. (I hasten to point out that I read the entire book, not just the introduction.)

To me, all this reinforces how Judaism and Christianity are so closely related; the controversies over who was allowed to decide what is holy text; how they decided what is inauthentic and heretical and must be excluded; and how, if men made those decisions, can we view the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Bible or the Torah as anything but a synthesis of ideas which had been circulating in various forms for thousands of years.

The evolution of these texts and what was excluded even from the apocrypha must be immensely complicated. But taking all of this into consideration — and I'm sure I've just barely scratched the surface — I cannot agree that these are the literal words of God. Or even history. There is much more involved here than the literal transcription of received wisdom. It’s fascinating stuff from an intellectual standpoint. It’s a matter for scholars to research and debate. But unfortunately, I can’t accept it as a matter of faith.

If any of this interests you, get the version translated by R.H. Charles, with the introduction by “esoteric scholar” R.A. Gilbert.