One of the key features of biblical hermeneutics is its insistence upon reading the bible in context. The context of the verse is the passage; the context of the passage is the chapter; the context of the chapter is the book; the context of the book is the entirety of the bible. Another way of looking at this is that the context of a verse or passage touching upon a particular subject is all the other passages about that subject; and the context of all the passages about that subject are all the related subject matter. But there is yet another way of looking at the bible — examining it in light of the author’s intent, which is influenced by the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. For the authors of the New Testament, the turmoil of the second temple period was the spirit of their age, and is reflected in the wealth of second temple literature.
The New Testament authors had some surprising literary influences from the apocalyptic writings of the 2nd Temple period, influences that are reflected in the text of the four Gospels, as well as the books of Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Robert Henry Charles, a biblical scholar known for his translations of various apocryphal and pseudepigraphacal works, describes two strains of Jewish literature — the Apocalyptic and the Legalistic, created by two broad strains of Judaism.[1]
Apocalyptic Judaism and legalistic Judaism were not in pre-Christian times essentially antagonistic. Fundamentally their origin was the same. Both started with the unreserved recognition of the supremacy of the Law. This is to be expected in regard to legalistic Pharisaism, which was therein only adopting the teaching of the priesthood. But it is enforced also in apocalyptic Pharisaism. Thus the most universalistic and ethical of all the apocalyptic writings, i.e. the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, declares that this Law is ‘the light that lighteth every man’. To all Jewish apocalyptic writers the Law was of eternal validity, but they also clung fast to the validity of the prophetic teaching as the source of new truth and the right of apocalyptic as its successor in this respect. We have early evidence of this conjunction of legalism and apocalyptic in the Book of Joel. The Law is there recognized as authoritative, its ritual as of the highest import, while at the same time the impending advent of the kingdom of God is depicted in highly apocalyptic colouring.[2]
The New Testament is a product of both strains of Judaism, but leans more heavily towards the Apocalyptic, which is a consistent strain in the Gospels.[3] Besides the purely apocalyptic teachings of Jesus, we also see this in the way Jesus consistently refers to himself as the “Son of Man”. Jesus does this around eighty times, emphasizing the significance of this title. Many of the theological discussions of this title say Jesus is identifying himself as the Representative Man, something that is theologically significant.[4] But that is not how the Jews would have understand it, which is clear from a reading of the second temple literature. This was a messianic term, implying divine origins. The ‘Son of Man’ is given a kingly throne in heaven, from which he would judge the nations. Based on the grammatical-historical hermeneutic used by so many Protestants, we should be interpreting this term as Jesus knew His audience would understand it, not in a manner consistent with western cultural norms.
Some of the arguments for accepting the so-called Apocrypha could be applied to the books of 1 and 2 Enoch, and possibly other second temple literature. As you may recall, in chapter 11 we discussed Merrill F. Unger’s arguments why the Apocrypha are not scripture. We will not rehash those arguments here. However, it would be dishonest of me to not point out certain similarities between those books the post-Nicene church accepted as scripture, and those books they did not. In this context, two of Merrill F. Unger’s arguments are worth a brief mention.
They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture.
As you may recall, our original argument is that the literary types, subject matter, and styling of the New Testament are quite different from that of the Old Testament, which demonstrates the hollowness of Unger’s argument. By contrast, the books of 1 and 2 Enoch, along with Jubilees, have much in common with the Old Testament. While they are apocalyptic writings, there are several sections in prophets which are apocalyptic in nature. In addition, 1 and 2 Enoch, along with Jubilees, expand upon the Old Testament historical books, and provide background information for some troubling passages.
They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling.
We previously discussed the ways in which the so-called Apocrypha actually meet these criteria. For example, we showed a number of prophetic passages which apply to Jesus Christ, and we provided examples of passages rich in poetic and religious feeling. In this Appendix, we will demonstrate the same could be said for 1 and 2 Enoch, as well as Jubilees.
In chapter 27 we demonstrated that Johann Gerhard’s arguments against the so-called Apocrypha were badly flawed, and that the Apocrypha did not meet his criteria for excluding them from the Old Testament. The same could be said for the books of 1 and 2 Enoch, as well as Jubilees.
The Apocrypha are not about Christ.
We previously showed that the Apocrypha actually contained a number of messianic prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Likewise, there are prophetic passages in 1 Enoch that were accepted in the ante-Nicene church as being about Christ. There are reasons why 1 Enoch lost favor with the Church, but it should become clear that without 1 Enoch, we have lost an important source for a good deal of New Testament content, and therefore are at a loss to interpret that content.
The Apocrypha are not accepted by Jews.
We demonstrated that this was a flawed argument, because there were multiple strands of Judaism in the second temple period. Moreover, the question of what books constituted the Hebrew Scriptures had not been settled. The inclusion of some of these books in the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates the possibility that these books were at least considered valuable for instruction, and were possibly read from in the Synagogues.
These books were written by Jews, for Jews, and touched upon particular themes of Jewish thought that did not pass on into Talmudic Judaism. Theologian and Professor Margaret Barker writes:
Until recently, all that we knew of Enoch was in Genesis 5.18-24. He was the son of Jared and the father of Methuselah; he walked with God and he was not, for God took him. …That is all the Old Testament tells us about him, yet books and visions in his name had once been widely known and very influential. It is clear that there was more to the figure than appeared in Genesis, and a considerable cult of Enoch did undoubtedly exist, even though the biblical writers gave no place to it.[5]
The book of Enoch was cited by Jude, and either quoted from or alluded to by the apostles Peter and John. To understand these passages, we have to understand the Enochian literature, even if we (like the Jews) do not accept that literature as scripture.
The Apocrypha were not accepted by the primitive Church.
We previously demonstrated that the Apocrypha were, in fact, accepted by the early church. Since a number of early church authors either quoted from or alluded to 1 Enoch, we can argue that while the status of 1 Enoch was unclear, there were some in the early church who considered it to be an important and valuable book.
An argument can be made that 2 Enoch was an important source for the book of Hebrews, and the description of Jesus Christ being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. There is much to say about the figure of Melchizedek, so much that we will save this discussion for its own section.
Given all this, why have we spent so much time discussing the likelihood that the so-called Apocrypha are in fact Scripture, only to exclude other books which potentially meet the same criteria? Our argument has not been that the Apocrypha are in fact scripture because they meet some scholastic criteria. Instead, we have turned that argument against itself by demonstrating the so-called Apocrypha do not, in fact, meet those criteria. But that is not the reason why we accept them as Scripture. No, we accept the Apocrypha as Scripture because the Church, operating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit determined the content of Sacred Scripture. The same Church defined the contents of the New and Old Testament, and we cannot reject the one without rejecting the other. It was the Church that decided that 1 and 2 Enoch, along with Jubilees, were not Scripture, despite being important source material for the New Testament.
The Apocalypse and Second Temple Judaism
The Old Testament prophetic books occasionally have apocalyptic sections that reflect the times prior to and during the Babylonian captivity. It was the turmoil of second temple Judaism that gave rise to the apocalypse as a Jewish literary genre, one that contrasting the troubles of this life with descriptions of the world to come. F. Crawford Burkitt describes these Apocalypses as follows:
They are the most characteristic survival of what I will venture to call, with all its narrowness and its incoherence, the heroic age of Jewish history, the age when the nation attempted to realize in action the part of the peculiar people of God. …We study the Apocalypses to learn how our spiritual ancestors hoped again that God would make all right in the end; and that we, their children, are here to-day studying them is an indication that their hope was not wholly unfounded. [6]
The apocalypse functions as an unveiling of God’s plan for the ages. It confesses a belief that history has a purpose, that evil will eventually be punished and good will eventually triumph. It purports to give the reader a glimpse behind the veil, so to speak. The Books of 1 & 2 Enoch, along with Jubilees, embody all these characteristics.
Judaism in the time of Christ was quite diverse, with multiple groups taking different approaches, yet all of them dependent upon the temple cult. As we have mentioned before, one way to distinguish between these parties is the emphasis they give to the Law and the Prophets; to legalism vs. the apocalyptic. Christians assumed the apocalyptic strain of Judaism, whereas after the destruction of the temple the Jews gradually abandoned the apocalyptic, becoming purely about the Law. Robert Henry Charles writes:
The affinity then between Jewish apocalyptic and legalism is essential, since the Law was for both valid eternally, but when apocalyptic passed over into Christianity and therein naturally abandoned this view of the Law, it became in a measure anti-legalistic. Even before the Christian era each of these two sides of Pharisaism necessarily tended to lay more and more emphasis on the chief factor in its belief and study to the almost complete exclusion of the other, and thus legalistic Pharisaism in time drove out almost wholly the apocalyptic element as an active factor (though it accepted some of its developments) and became the parent of Talmudic Judaism, whereas apocalyptic Judaism developed more and more the apocalyptic, i.e. prophetic, element, and in the process came to recognize, as in 4 Ezra, the inadequacy of the Law for salvation. From this it follows that the Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple, being almost wholly bereft of the apocalyptic wing which had passed over into Christianity, was not the same as the Judaism of an earlier date. Before A. D. 70 Judaism was a Church with many parties: after A.D. 70 the legalistic party succeeded in suppressing its rivals, and so Judaism became in its essentials a Sect.[7]
Let us accept as a given that Christianity subsumed the apocalyptic strain of Judaism, reinterpreting and repurposing it in light of the Christ event. With that in mind, it behooves us to examine the primary texts which influenced the New Testament authors, as well as the subject of the Gospels — our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Place of Enoch within Judaism
We have already quoted Margaret Barker’s contention that Enoch played a much larger part in Judaism than suggested by the biblical literature. The interest in Enoch passed over into the early church. Given the hostility of Judaism to the Christians, it should not be surprising to find that Enoch fell out of favor among the Jews. Margaret Barker writes: “In the early Christian centuries Jewish writers had condemned him [Enoch], perhaps because he was so important for the newly emerging Christians.”[8] The 1906 version of the Jewish Encyclopedia describes a less exalted view of Enoch held by Jews engaged in disputes with Christians.
According to Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan (Gen. v. 24) Enoch was a pious worshiper of the true God, and was removed from among the dwellers on earth to heaven, receiving the names (and offices) of Meṭaṭron and “Safra Rabba” (Great Scribe). This view represents one and (after the complete separation of Christianity from Judaism) the prevailing rabbinical idea of Enoch’s character and exaltation. Another, not quite so favorable, appears in the polemics carried on by Abbahu and others with Christian disputants (Friedländer, “Patristische und Talmudische Studien,” p. 99; “R. E. J.” v. 3). Enoch is held to have been inconsistent in his piety and therefore to have been removed by God before his time in order to forestall further lapses. The miraculous character of his translation is denied, his death being attributed to the plague (Gen. R. v. 24; Yalk., Gen. v. 24; Rashi and Ibn Ezra on the verse; comp. Wisdom iv. 10-14; Frankel, “Ueber den Einfluss der Palästinischen Exegese,” etc., pp. 44, 45; Ecclus. [Sirach] xliv. 16; Zohar to Gen. v. 24; but see also Philo, “De Abrahamo,” § 3). But withal Enoch is one of those that passed into Gan Eden without tasting the pangs of death (Yalḳ., Gen. v. 24).[9]
There are three important questions: first, whether Enoch was important in early Judaism; second, why Enoch was so important to second temple Judaism; and third, why Enoch fell out of favor in Talmudic Judaism. As to the first, it is unclear whether a trove of scribal literature concerning Enoch existed far into the far distant past. Any scribal libraries have been destroyed, and nearly all of the manuscripts have succumbed to the ravages of time. However, given the oral culture existing in pre-Hellenic times, it is likely there was an oral tradition coexisting side-by-side with priestly Judaism. And yet we have no way of knowing whether the Enoch materials formed a part of that tradition.
On the other hand, it is possible that the brief mention of Enoch in Genesis 5:18-24 was intriguing enough to spark speculation. As presented in Genesis, the person of Enoch is a blank slate, one which a creative author might draw upon for his own purposes. But once again, we don’t have enough information to draw any conclusions, nor to engage in anything other than idle speculation.
During the second temple period, Enoch became a blank slate upon which writers developed and promoted their ideas. They used Enoch to provide legitimacy to and authority for their apocalyptic speculations, as well as their arguments for a solar rather than a lunar calendar.[10]
The Jewish loss of interest in the character of Enoch seems to have had two causes. First was the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., something that struck deep into the hearts of the Jewish people. They went from being a people of the temple to a people of the book, and as the apocalyptic books did not seem to mention the temple’s destruction, it would have been easy for the Jewish people to have rejected the Enochian literature. In addition, the fact that the figure of Enoch was important to the Christians led (as we have seen) to a less exalted view of Enoch among the Jews.
Among the early Church, the writings about Enoch were held in high regard. As we will demonstrate, a number of interesting problems are resolved by an acquaintance with Enochian literature. The references to Enoch, or the uses of subject matter more fully explained in the Enochian literature, are found in the four Gospels, as well as the books of Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. However, the post-Nicene Church lost faith in the books of Enoch. St. Augustine of Hippo mentions it unfavorably, and the Apostolic Constitutions condemn Enoch, linking it to the books written by the heretics. In a paragraph entitled “Concerning Books with False Inscriptions”, these books are called “poisonous books”, being “pernicious and repugnant to the truth.”[11]
We do have 1 Enoch, which survived as part of the canon of the Ethiopian Coptic Church. The internal evidence suggests there are multiple section and multiple authors of this material. Therefore, 1 Enoch may be just a sample of the Enochian literature, something demonstrated by the Enochian material contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls. [12] In particular, The Book of Giants was part of the version of 1 Enoch among the Manicheans. But wait, there’s more. Margaret Barker writes:
There are ancient texts which quote ‘Enoch’, but not any Enoch text that we know. The Testament of Simeon says Enoch predicted war between the Sons of Simeon and the sons of Levi. The Testament of Levi knew a passage in which Enoch predicted the future corruption of the Levitical priesthood. The testament of Judah knew a prophecy that Judah would be evil. The Testament of Benjamin and the Testament of Naphtali predicted, on the basis of Enoch, that their descendants would fall into evil ways. We cannot place any of these in known Enochic texts, and we can only assume that there must have been far more Enochic literature than we now know.[13]
Perhaps the most important of the second temple influences on the New Testament are the first and second books of Enoch — echoes of which are reflected in the text of the four Gospels, as well as the books of Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, and Revelations. Except for the incomplete manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, these are the only surviving remnants of a once rich Enochian tradition.
When we discuss the Book of Enoch, we must admit of three different books with the same name. The first is the Ethiopian Book of Enoch which appears to have influenced the New Testament authors. 1 Enoch is likely a product of the 2nd century BC, and could not have been written any earlier than 250BC (due to mentioning countries that did not exist prior to that date.) 2 Enoch is the Slavonic Book of Enoch (aka The Secrets of Enoch), containing a variety of omissions and insertions which show our extant copy to be a 7th century AD recension of a second temple manuscript. Despite the recensions, there is much to be gleaned from 2 Enoch. And finally we 3 Enoch, known as the Hebrew book of Enoch, a book claiming to be a product of the 2nd century AD, but for which no manuscript evidence exists prior to the 4th century AD. This third version is not part of the second temple literary output, but instead reflects rabbinic changes to Judaism following the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to the first two books of Enoch.
The Ethiopian Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
The book known as 1 Enoch, or the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, was once important to both Jews and Christians, but was lost to history, surviving as part of the canon of the Ethiopian Coptic Church. Enoch is the only non-canonical book cited by name in the New Testament, and its influence is worthy of notice.
1 Enoch appears to be comprised of four different books, each likely composed at different times.[14] Given this, it might be more appropriate to think of this as the Books of Enoch. These books, or sections, are:
- The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36)
- The Book of Parables (or Similitudes) of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71)
- The Astronomical Book (aka the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries or Book of Luminaries) (1 Enoch 72–82)
- The Book of Dream Visions (or the Book of Dreams) (1 Enoch 83–90)
- The Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91–108)
Note: The Epistle of Enoch concludes with an account of the birth of Noah (1 Enoch 106-108)
The Astronomical Book is noteworthy for its use of a solar calendar, rather than the lunar calendar. It seems apparent that the weaknesses of the lunar calendar were apparent, and the issue of the calendar was a matter of some discussion during the second temple period. Aside from the apocalyptic nature of this section, it could also be viewed as an attempt to persuade the Jews to adopt its version of the solar calendar. Regarding the Hebrew calendar, Joseph Lumpkin writes:
The Hebrew calendar is a lunar-based system. In this system Passover occurs after sundown on the 15th day of the month Nisan. Passover is celebrated for seven days. The first Passover was in the springtime and many thought it should be keep in that period of the year. Since the calendar is based in lunar movements the Hebrew calendar is offset to the solar calendar by about 11 days a year. This meant that Passover would drift from spring, to winter, to autumn, and back again.[15]
The book of Enoch proposes a solar calendar that eliminates the annoying drift of the Passover, ensuring that it would occur in approximately the same time each year.
During the time period Enoch was written, the Jewish community was torn regarding which type of calendar to use. Enoch seems to taut a solar-based calendar that is 364 days long with a week added as needed to make up for the missing a day and a quarter (1.25). Compare 365.25 days to 364 days. The Enochian calendar began each year on a Sunday. The starting point for the calendar was the spring equinox, which occurs around March 21st or 22nd. Since the year always begins on the same day of the week, and only a full week is added when needed, the calendar is considered to be a calendar of weeks.[16]
The early church began to address the issue of the calendar by separating their celebration of Pascha from that of the Jewish Passover. The Christian Church eventually adopted the Julian calendar, a solar calendar with a 365 day year divided into 12 months. Because of the way the leap year is calculated, the Julian calendar has drifted from the solar year. The Western Church adopted the Gregorian calendar which, by changing the way the leap year is calculated, stays true to the solar year. However, because Pope Gregory imposed the Gregorian calendar by papal decree, many Christian Churches in the east continue to use a Julian liturgical calendar. The second temple disputes over the calendar were thus carried forward into Christianity.
The Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch)
The book we call 2 Enoch is also known as “Slavonic Enoch or Book of the Secrets of Enoch.”[17] The book was originally written in Greek, but now exists only in several Slavic translations. The longer versions show evidence of Christian interpolations, but the shorter and earlier versions were clearly products of second temple Judaism.[18]
2 Enoch differs from 1 Enoch in a number of ways. It appears to come from a different strain of Judaism than that of 1 Enoch, although the particulars have been lost to history. Michael E. Stone divides the book into three parts.
2 Enoch deals with three chief subjects. First, Enoch ascends through the heavens, achieves a vision of Goid, is transfigured into an angel, and receives God’s revelation of the secrets of the process of creation (chaps. 1-34). Next he descends upon earth, reveals the heavenly mysteries to his children and gives them his moral instruction (chaps 35-68). From this point until the end of the book, the story of the antediluvian priesthood is found. This narrative commences with Adam and reaches its climax in the narrative of the miraculous birth of Melchizedek who is Noah’s nephew by his apocryphal brother Nir. Melchizedek is eventually assumed to heaven where he is guarded safely until after the Flood.[19]
The importance of the Melchizedek story should not be underestimated, as the author of the book of Hebrews presumed the Jews were familiar with not only the story from Genesis, but also with the apocalyptic material. While the author does not use the material from 2 Enoch, he certainly makes use of the Jewish interest in the person of Melchizedek.
The connection between 2 Enoch and Hebrews led some scholars to assume this was a Christian interpolation. The internal evidence suggests otherwise, as the story of Melchizedek in 2 Enoch contains no Christian elements, and the details to not match those in the book of Hebrews. For example, 2 Enoch provides an origin story for Melchizedek, while Hebrews argues from the lack of an origin story, using that as a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus Christ.
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. (Heb 7:1-3)
The Jewish interest in Melchizedek is demonstrated by an interesting document included among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Taken from Qumran cave 11 are a set of manuscript fragments designated 11Q13 (aka 11QMelchizedek). These fragments form an apocalypse whose main character, Melchizedek, is portrayed as a “Heavenly Prince.” Geza Vermes, translator and editor of The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, describes the contents for us.
It takes the form of an eschatological midrash in which the proclamation of liberty to the captives at the end of days (Isa. lxi, 1) is understood as being part of the general restoration of property during the year of Jubilee (Lev. xxv, 13), seen in the Bible (Deut. xv, 2) as a remission of debts.
The Heavenly deliverer is Melchizedek. Identical with the archangel Michael, he is the head of the ‘sons of Heven’ or ‘gods of Justice’ and is referred to as <elohim> and <el>. …Here Melchizedek is portrayed as presiding over the final Judgement and condemnation of his demonic counterpart, Belial/Satan, the Prince of Darkness.
Here, instead of a human origin story as in 2 Enoch, the person of Melchizedek is identified as the archangel Michael. Clearly these two stories are in conflict, but provide evidence that the apocalyptic character of Melchizedek was present within the Judaism of the time of Christ. Thus, when the author of Hebrews used Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews, he was tapping into the zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.
Endnotes
[1] We are talking broadly and in one dimension about different strains of Judaism. There are other ways of looking at the Judaism of this period, other dimensionalities to explore. Margaret Barker, for example, draws a distinction between first temple and second temple Judaism. Distinctions are often drawn between the Judaism of the diaspora and the Judaism of Jerusalem; between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; between the Essenes and the Hasmonean priesthood; between the Samaritans and the Hebrews. These different dimensionalities are based on different presumptions and reveal different things.
[2] (Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English 1913, vii)
[3] The division of Apocalyptic and Legalistic Judaism should not be applied too formally. The Judaism of the time was essentially apocalyptic. (Heyler 2002, 119) What differed was the emphasis placed upon the apocalyptic among the different strains of Judaism.
[4] For example, Merrill F. Unger writes regarding the term ‘Son of Man’:
It portrays Him as the Representative Man. It designates Him as the ‘last Adam’ in distinction to the “first man Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). It sets Him forth as “the Second Man…the Lord from heaven” as over against “the first man…of the earth” (I Cor. 15:47). “The Son of Man” is thus our Lord’s racial name, as the “Son of David” is distinctly his Jewish name and “the Son of God” His Divine Name. (Unger 1966, 1038)
[5] (Barker 2005, 5)
[6] (Burkitt 1914, 15-16)
[7] (Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English 1913, vii)
[8] (Barker 2005, 5)
[9] (Enoch 1901-1906)
[10] During the second temple period, writers often attributed authorship to various biblical figures from the distant past. (Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period 1984, XXI) This is a distinct characteristic of second temple literature, and not — as some claim — the result of a “crisis of authority”, which is essentially the same as claiming an intent to deceive. (Heyler 2002, 117) Vincente Dubroruka notes that instead of being “mere fraud or a stylistic device”, the author may mystically identify himself with the author, considering himself to be a channel of revelation. (Dobroruka 2013, 1, 8) Thus, the pseudonymous authorship.
[11] (Schaff, ANF07 2004, Book IV, § III, para XVI, p. 680)
[12] The Prayer of Enosh and Enoch (4Q369); The Book of Enoch (4Q201-2, 204-12); The Book of Giants (1Q23-4, 2Q26, 4Q203, 530-33, 6Q8); the Book of Noah (1Q19, 1Q19 bis, 4 Q534-6, 6Q8, 19) (Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English 2004)
[13] (Barker 2005, 8)
[14] (Charles, The Book of Enoch 1917, xv)
[15] (Lumpkin, The Books of Enoch 2011, 19)
[16] (Lumpkin, The Books of Enoch 2011, 18)
[17] (Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period 1984, 406)
[18] (Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period 1984, 406-407)
[19] (Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period 1984, 407)
