Has there been any scientific analysis on the Book of Enoch that will
prove it is unbiblical?


I am not an expert on the book of Enoch. I doubt science will have
anything to offer on the book of Enoch. Science generally has little if
anything to offer in analyzing literature. However, scholars can tell us
a lot about this book. It is of particular interest because the book is
referred to, definitely by both Jude and perhaps by the Hebrew writer.

A few facts about the book.

It obviously was not written by Enoch. No one believes it was written by
him. By definition it is part of the Pseudepigrapha (books attributed
falsely to an important Bible character)

It is also known as 1 Enoch, as there are two other pseudepigraphical
books of Enoch–2 and 3 Enoch.

The book was not included in the OT Apocryphal books, even by the Roman
Catholic Church.

However, the Ethiopian Coptic Church considers Enoch to be inspired.

It is considered to have been written about 160 BC, during early
Macabbeean times, but some scholars put it in the 3rd century (200’s) BC.
It is possible that the book is a compilation of writing from both periods.

It was probably written in Aramaic, or possibly Hebrew, but we have no
Hebrew manuscripts. The only ancient manuscripts are in the Ethiopic
language (except see below).

It is quoted from in Jude 1:14-15

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:
“See, the Lord is coming with thousabds upon thousands of his holy ones to
judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts
they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly
sinners have spoken against him

Compare this with Enoch 1:9, translated from the Ethiopic:

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all
flesh Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly
committed, And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken
against Him.

There is no evidence the Jews as a whole ever accepted this book as

Some important early church fathers did believe it was inspired, including
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.

It was favored by the early church at least in part because of its
messianic prophecies. Tertullian claims the Jews rejected the book because
of its messianic prophecies.

Some early church teachers rejected Enoch as non-canonical and concluded
that Jude is also non-canonical because it quotes a non-canonical book.

By the fourth century, nearly all Christian churches had rejected the book
as canonical.

The oldest Ethiopic manuscript is from the 5th century.

Fragments of 1 Enoch were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, confirming its
Jewish origin.

The subject of the book deals largely with the role of angels. It talks
about the relationship between angels and men and the origin of the
Nephilim. The Nephilim are the result of sexual relations between fallen
angels and women. The fallen angels were headed by Azazel.

To quote Enoch

“And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was
three thousand ells [the Ethiopian text gives 300 cubits (135 meters),
which is probably a corruption of 30 cubits (13.5 meters)]: Who consumed
all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them,
the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin
against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one
another’s flesh, and drink the blood.”

This unholy act led in large measure to the downfall of mankind and to the
subsequent judgement of the flood of Noah.

Other parts of the books deal with later history of Israel, including the
giving of the Law to Moses, and even a recounting of some of the events of
the Macabbeean times (160’s BC).

The cosmology of Enoch is somewhat problematic. There may be some
scientific errors in the description of the heavenly bodies.

As to whether the book is “biblical” (I assume by this you mean inspired
by God), you can read the book and decide for yourself what you think.
The book was used by some of the Jews, particularly those of the
Qumran/Essene sect, but it was not accepted by the main body of Jews as
rising to the level of canonical writing. Some early Christians
considered it inspired, but the overall verdict of the early church was
that it is not.

My opinion is that this is not an inspired book, but I suggest you do your
own study. The most interesting fact about the book is that it is quoted
by Jude. Assuming that Jude is inspired, does this, by implication,
mean Enoch is inspired? I say no. Jude can quote writings of
non-inspired Jews without this necessarily implying that the entire book
is inspired. Nevertheless, it is clear that even Jude gave some credence
to this book, at least as a useful spiritual book, if not inspired. Also,
the book gives some helpful ideas to us in order to understand who the
Nephilim may have been. It is possible that the theology of the Nephilim
in Enoch is accurate, although it will be hard to prove this one way or

Below are some references so you can read a translation of Enoch for

Vanderkam, JC. (2004). 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis:Fortress,
p1ff (ie. preface summary).
Nickelsburg, GW. (2004). Hermeneia: 1 Enoch 1. Minneapolis:Fortress,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; vol
The Book of Enoch compiled and edited by Ronald K. Brown ISBN
1 Enoch: A New Translation, translated by George W.E. Nichelsburg and
James C. VanderKam. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. ISBN 0-8006-3694-5

I believe you ought to reach your own conclusions about this book.

John Oakes, PhD

Comments are closed.