Within this series, beginning with part 1, part 2, you will find info from The Gospel of Peter, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Epistle of Barnabas aka Pseudo-Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Anatolius of Alexandria, Jerome plus Alfred Loisy. See my previous articles Did the prophet Enoch write the Book of Enoch? and 1, 2, 3 Books of Enoch and Methuselah.
May generic statements can be found online, may repeated again and again, which reference certain early church leaders with regards to the Book of Enoch. However, most do not provide quotations or citations and until such a time as I can track more references down these will make due.
In this segment we will consider Tertullian and Origen.
TERTULLIAN (160-225 AD):
On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapter III:
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.
Dead Sea Scroll 1 Book of Enoch fragment
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 yews [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. [emphasis added for emphasis]
While this is highly speculative and no historical or manuscript evidence is provided; it, at least, shows knowledge of the work’s existence. Also, this is an important passage because many people claim that the Book of Enoch survived the flood upon the Ark as it was entrusted to Noah. Of course, the Book of Enoch 68:1 has Noah stating just about as much:
And after that my grandfather Enoch gave me all the secrets in the book and in the parables which had been given to him, and he put them together for me in the words of the book of the parables.
Yet, Tertullian is only speculating as much along with speculating that it could have been re-written post flood. In other words, he knows of its existence and, apparently, nothing solidly of its history.
ORIGEN (203-250 AD):
De Principiis, chap Iii:
That all things were created by God, and that there is no creature which exists but has derived from Him its being, is established from many declarations of Scripture…in the book of Enoch also we have similar descriptions.
De Principiis, chap Iv:
But some one will perhaps inquire whether we can obtain out of Scripture any grounds for such an understanding of the subject. Now I think some such view is indicated in the Psalms, when the prophet says, “My eyes have seen your imperfection;” (Psalm 139:16) by which the mind of the prophet, examining with keener glance the first principles of things, and separating in thought and imagination only between matter and its qualities, perceived the imperfection of God, which certainly is understood to be perfected by the addition of qualities. Enoch also, in his book, speaks as follows: “I have walked on even to imperfection;” which expression I consider may be understood in a similar manner, viz., that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its scrutiny and investigation of all visible things, until it arrived at that first beginning in which it beheld imperfect matter existing without “qualities.” For it is written in the same book of Enoch, “I beheld the whole of matter;” which is so understood as if he had said: “I have clearly seen all the divisions of matter which are broken up from one into each individual species either of men, or animals, or of the sky, or of the sun, or of all other things in this world.”
Note that Origen’s quotes of “Enoch” are not found in the 1 Enoch / Ethiopian Enoch so he may have had some other version or otherwise simile of the text. It is also possible that he was misquoting the Enochian text as he so very clearly misreads Psalms as stating that God is, or was, imperfect.
Second, it is known from the discovery of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran that there are large portions of text that are not present in the Ethiopic manuscripts. (See 4Q209 and 4Q211) So it is also possible that he was quoting from portions of Enoch that may have not been translated into the Ethiopic text, and hence have not survived to today.
Commentary on John, book VI:25:
Let us look at the words of the Gospel now before us. “Jordan” means “their going down.” The name “Jared” is etymologically akin to it, if I may say so; it also yields the meaning “going down;” for Jared was born to Maleleel, as it is written in the Book of Enoch—if any one cares to accept that book as sacred—in the days when the sons of God came down to the daughters of men. Under this descent some have supposed that there is an enigmatical reference to the descent of souls into bodies, taking the phrase “daughters of men” as a tropical expression for this earthly tabernacle.
Here, Origen was not focusing on the Book of Enoch and so this quotations suffices for our context; he is aware of its contents and may be implying that some do and some do not accept it as sacred.
Contra Celsus, book V:
Chap LIV:
Even against him, then, who maintained that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much more will he decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not understanding the contents of the book of Enoch…the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine…
Chap LV:
Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine origin among Christians or not—he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,”—a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God!
Note that the refers here to the books (plural) of Enoch which may refer to 1, 2 and 3 Enoch (or the 336 books that The Book of the Secrets of Enoch claims Enoch wrote) and it is thus unclear which ones he is stating are not circulate in the Churches as divine[ly inspired].
Origen as Critic and Interpreter:
…while Origen thus gives a primary place to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he expressly defends, in his letter to Africanus, the use of the additions found in the Alexandrine LXX. (cf. p. 122)…He quotes the Book of Enoch (c. Cels. v. 55; de Princ. iv. 35 ; Hom. in Num. xxviii. 2)…and it is probably to books of this class that his interesting remarks on “apocryphal” books in Pyol. in Cant. p. 325 L. refer.
In the next and final segment we will consider Anatolius of Alexandria, Jerome and some statement by Alfred Loisy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.