Too little, too late

To answer that question, we need to know how the book of Enoch was received in the era of the earliest Christians. But, in a nutshell, I’ll tell you what I found: There’s such a long list of problems with Ehrman’s appeal to the book of Enoch that it’s hard to know where to start. Lord, help us!

Too little (i.e., zero)

Let’s start by repeating the Ehrman quote from above:

“The noncanonical book of 1 Enoch is a complicated collection of different texts that have been spliced together by later editors.”

I repeat it here because, if such is the condition of the book of Enoch, it’s not clear what early Christians meant when they endorsed (or even labeled as “Scripture”) the book of Enoch.

Which edition did they have? Was it just the Book of the Watchers? Did it include the Astronomical Book? The Similitudes (this is the section which was written later, and deifies Enoch)? One of the other two sections of this book?

So, the best we can do is look at which specific sections/verses of the book of Enoch those early Christians were endorsing. And guess what? I found ZERO ancient writers even mentioning the deification of Enoch, let alone endorsing it.

It makes you wonder if they even knew about it.

Too late

Another problem is that the date of composition of the Similitudes is all over the place. Beginning with Ehrman:

“There are debates about the date of the Similitudes. Some scholars put this part of the book near the end of the first century CE; probably more date it earlier, to around the time of Jesus himself.” (58 of 321).

Already you should see a problem with trying to use the Similitudes to understand the Christology of the earliest Christians. Namely, if the first group of scholars is correct, then Christians had been Christianing for about 60 years before the Similitudes were even written. That’s a little late. But when you check Britannica’s comment about the Similitudes (AKA chapters 37-71), it gets worse (emphasis mine):

“No fragments of the longest portion of the work (chapters 37–71), however, were found among the Qumrān writings. This has led scholars to theorize that this section was perhaps written in the 2nd century ad by a Jewish Christian who wished to imbue his own eschatological speculations with the authority of Enoch, and added his work to four older apocryphal Enoch writings.”

See how we’re moving further and further away from the earliest Christians…and therefore from good reasons to use the Similitudes to understand what those Christians meant?

Plus, the whole non-canonicity thing…

In addition to not knowing what edition an ancient writer was holding when referring to the book of Enoch, we also have the problem that it wasn’t canonized. This is an additional problem for Ehrman’s specific appeal to the book of Enoch, because it makes it highly questionable to parlay an ancient writer’s citation of the book of Enoch (the section about angels marrying gorgeous women seems to be quite popular) into a blanket endorsement of the book. And without a blanket endorsement of the book, their understanding of the deification of Enoch in 70-71 remains a black box.

As far as not being canonical, Ehrman already said it wasn’t (see above), but here’s Britannica to reinforce the point (emphasis mine):

“I Enoch was at first accepted in the Christian Church but later excluded from the biblical canon. Its survival is due to the fascination of marginal and heretical Christian groups, such as the Manichaeans, with its syncretic blending of Iranian, Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian elements.”

And yes, I’m aware that the Ethiopian church and perhaps other groups do canonize Enoch…but remember, Ehrman and I are trying to get at what the general understanding of the early Christians was…not what a small group here and there (“marginal”, to use Britannica’s verbiage) believed.

Exaltation Christology receives zero points today

Exaltation Christology (as opposed to incarnation Christology) is what Ehrman would have us believe was the prevailing view of the earliest Christians. In other words, Jesus was NOT God made flesh, but rather flesh made God (178-179 of 302):

“…it is worth considering what a Gospel written in the year 31 CE by one of the surviving disciples might have looked like.”

…

“Nor would he be a divine being who preexisted his coming into the world, as attested by such authors and Paul and John. No, he became the Son of God when God worked his greatest miracle on him, raising him from the dead and adopting him as  his Son by exalting him to his right hand and bestowing upon him his very own power, prestige and status.”

In support of his claims, Ehrman mentions that a later addition (with highly uncertain date of composition, and unknown authorship) to a popular but non-canonical book deifies a human named Enoch.

I’m calling this wide of the net…how about you?