Talk:Book of Enoch

Axum mention

There was a claim at Kingdom of Aksum that the book of Enoch mentions Axum. It was cited to someone named Murray “The Library: An illustrated history”. Any assistance in either assisting me in proving this wrong or else showing it to be somehow correct with an actual source on Enoch can head over there to the talk page. My removal has faced some resistance.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unless it is a later Ge'ez translation, there would be no possible way the earliest versions of the book of Enoch would mention Axum. Africologist (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethiopic manuscripts

According to James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha (vol. 1, p. 6) there exist also the following Ethiopic manuscripts:

• Kebran 9/II (Hammerschmidt- Tanasee 9/11), fifteenth century (Atiopischen Handschriften von Tanasee; Wiesbaden, 1973, pp.107f)
• Princeton Ethiopic 3 (Garrett collection -Isaac 3): eighteenth or nineteenth century (A Catalogue of Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Garrett Collection), Princ. Univ. Lib. 1973 p. 3)
• EMML 2080: fifteenth (possibly 14th) century (a microfilm copy is preserved at St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota. in addition to the 17th-century manuscripts EMML 4437 and EMML4750)

95.233.176.20 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

General problems

Text smells strongly of translation, possibly from Italian? Manuscript names don't follow standard English-language conventions. Bill (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Description" section

This section needs some work. It's unclear exactly how the section is helpful as it doesn't really summarize the work or give important details, and it seems to be written from a religious perspective in some places (as well as, until I just changed at least some of it, seemingly using 'ancient aliens' nonsense as a source. Nefaeryous (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Originally written in Ge'ez?

There is no possible way that the original Book of Enoch was written in Ge'ez. Translated into Ge'ez in the first millennium CE, yes. Africologist (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Does the article currently say that it was originally written in Geez?—Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It is absurd. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've repaired it. 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very obviously vandalism (someone just replaced all instances of Aramaic with Ge'ez).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

why is there no possible way and there is no evidence it was copied from Greek whatsover 149.90.75.126 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

An alternate view is that additions to the book of Enoch quote Jude

Updated the following section title and added an alternative perspective -- that is actually the more traditional, and that was completely missing:

Parallel New Testament passage

Many scholars promote the idea that the Apostle Jude quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch, rather than having had direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. The traditional Christian perspective follows Jesus' saying, in John 16:13, that the Spirit would reveal further truth to his Apostles, who then wrote the New Testament.

Many sections of Enoch are known to have been added later, and the passage that parallels Jude's epistle has its literary style more in common with prophetically-themed biblical poetry than with the surrounding book of Enoch encapsulating it.

The Gnostics proficiently plagiarized the New Testament, using quotes from Jesus and the Apostles in their works to give a false sense of credibility to their heretical teachings. They further developed revelatory concepts from the Apostles' writings into apocalyptic-style literature of their own making.

In addition to Enoch's prophecy, Jude also states, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam", likewise purported to be from another part of the book of Enoch, rather than being an interpolated emendation to Enoch from Jude.

The entire passage in question, Jude 1:14–15, reads: ...etc...2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is unsourced and also takes a strong WP:POV that "Orthodox Christianity" has always existed, throwing around words like "heresy" "plagiarism" etc. Enoch has nothing to do with the Gnostics, moreover, and predates Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Gnostics changed not just mainstream Christian scriptures, but anything they felt like. The book of Enoch has undergone multiple changes and additions. Even though some of the oldest portions of the book may date before the 1st Century, other parts were added later.

If you read about Gnosticism, you will see that the Gnostics heavily plagiarized, while some even believed that they had a divine unction to do so. Heresy is simply a deviation from orthodoxy (and has nothing to do with Roman Catholic cruelty that contradicts the teachings of the New Testament). Christian orthodoxy is based on the New Testament, and if the New Testament is taken at face value and not read-into, it is quite simple and uncomplicated, however profound it may be.

I added the following to the intro, but have here proposed a slight change to it, so as to not use so much terminology, as you seemed to think my previous contribution was over-worded:

"There is also a theory that the Book of Enoch's parallels with Jude are emendations to the Book of Enoch, quoting Jude. For example, incorporation of the New Testament into the writings of Gnosticism was a common practice in the 1st Century when the book of Enoch was still undergoing change."

It's a simple fact that simply needs to be sourced. Also, not including this type of information makes the article biased against the doctrine of the biblical inspiration of Scripture.

Yes, there shouldn't be a bias in either the article (and it should be encyclopedic), nor should there be a bias in the basis for determining what should and should not be in the article. Because of you're saying that I'm throwing terms around, when I seem to be using them according to the definitions on the Wiki pages that they're hyper-linked to, it makes me wonder whether you have a bias in editing?

It would be rather rude (and please don't take this wrong, I'm only making a point here), but one could delete every non-sourced statement in the article!.. There's a lot else that could be outright deleted from MANY articles on this basis, perhaps MOST articles, in fact, if one wants to be a stickler about it.. It's also an easy way to enforce bias in editing, by outright dismissal of everything not yet perfectly sourced. But that overly discourages contribution and goes against another aspect of Wikipedia than it being encyclopedic, and that is (apart from original research) that it is thorough and truly accurate, not just passing along 'official' biases of certain academics -- And this is where the average person can help, as long as there is not biased or excessive criticalness to new input that has not yet been perfectly sourced.

Overall, I was just hoping for some help on this page, but I do have enough familiarity with this topic to know that outright dismissal of this information is not the best route. However, not everyone has the time to do extensive referencing, and so I now put forward the task to others who are interested. I hope that there are some biblical scholars out there, or general researchers, who in fact are. :) 2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• If you want to include in the article the thesis that original text is Jude, and Enoch was later modified in order to include that passage of Jude you need to provide some good scholars that say that. Further, because the relevant passage in 1Enoch was found also in Qumran (i.e. it belongs to the more ancient portion of 1Enoch), your thesis is against any evidence, and it should be managed as WP:FRINGE.A ntv (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Actually, the Dead Sea Scrolls copies are fragmentary and do not contain any parallel passages from Jude.

Here's a source: Milik, J. T. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4. Oxford, 1976.

P.5 "Scarcely any fragments offer continuous, or almost continuous, passages of the text. The majority are reduced to tiny pieces, in truth minute crumbs, whose identification, direct and indirect association, and combination into a restored text, demanded great reserves of patience and ingenuity."

Here's a quote from a list of the existing portions of the Book of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls, from P. 6: "Books of Enoch from Qumran Cave 4 Book of Watchers [En.1-36], Book of Dreams [En.83-90), Epistle of Enoch [En.91-107] 1:1-6, 2:1-5:6.."

The second quote, from the following page, is from a list of the surviving text. As one can see, Enoch 1:9 is not extant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, neither is 60:8, the phrase about Enoch being the 7th from Adam (as can be checked in the same list).

The entire book I just quoted from can be read online here; see page 5 and 6 for quotes: https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4/mode/2up

Here's details about the Book of Enoch fragments from the DSS: List of Dead Sea Scrolls, Cave 4, category 4Q201–4Q300, 1st item: 4QEna (alt. ref. # 4Q201a)

There are no other listings among the DSS of the Book of Enoch, only the Book of Giants, that does not contain the Book of Watchers, the section in question.

The parallel passage from Jude is only found in copies of Enoch that were written later than the Apostolic period. Enoch is a book with known additions and changes. The Gnostics were proficient in taking revelatory statements from the Apostles and either including them in their own writings or expanding upon them. For example, the text of Jude verse 9 may have been used for lost Gnostic work referred to by post-Apostolic early Christian writers as "The Assumption of Moses."

Knowing about 1st Century Gnosticism and its practices, others have suspected as much. Guy N. Woods, commentating on Jude, wrote:

"There are sharp variations between the statement allegedly cited by Jude and the actual statement as it appears in Jude. There is more reason for supposing that the book of Jude is older than this so-called “Book of Enoch” and that the author quoted from Jude rather than Jude from him! ... Jude learned of Enoch’s prophecy..by inspiration." -- A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, James and Jude (1962, p. 399).

The Book of Enoch has been considered apocryphal by both Jews and Christians from the earliest mentions of it in Christian writings. There were, however, some who came to think that Jude must have quoted from it, giving it validation, but this was at a later date, when the facts about an earlier interpolation would have been obscured. In general, though, it was considered apocryphal and quite different in style from and contradictory to Scripture.

Other considerations: Paul twice quotes Greek poets to make a point, but doesn't say that he considered them divinely inspired in the biblical sense. He refers to them as as one of their own prophets, because, as pointed out by Justin Martyr, the Greeks considered their poets divinely inspired.

Also, Paul may have used a traditional reference for the names of the magicians who confronted Moses (Jannes and Jambres), who are un-named in the Book of Exodus. This was originally a private letter to his protégé Timothy, who grew up with Jewish tradition from his mother, and would amount to using the traditional names for the 'three wise men' (Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar) as a point of reference. In several places in his writings, Paul strongly warns not to give heed to "Jewish myths," and so he would not have assented to extra-biblical teachings. A traditionally-given name would only have been used as a point of reference.

There is a possibility that the rabbinical literature borrowed the names as popularized by the Gnostics (who even gave Jannes and Jambres their own book). On the other hand, the un-dated Damascus Document from the DSS Cave 4, contains a reference to "Jannes and his brother". Jose O'Callahan believes he discovered papyri fragments from the Gospels among DSS fragments. If this is true, the New Testament may have influenced later stages of the Qumran community, even if they weren't specifically Christian. Thereby, the reference to Jannes could have been borrowed from the early Christians or 1st Century Gnostics. 2600:8801:CA01:5950:79F3:A8BD:DEAD:2851 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• We have a source from 2008 saying that the passage from Enoch in question is found in Qumran. It's possible someone writing when your source was written wouldn't have known this yet. The rest appears to be your own speculation.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. However, this hyper-linked reference (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193298?read-now=1) from the article says that Milik left out only seven minute fragments that "add little to our knowledge of the Book of Watchers," whereas a connection with the Epistle of Jude is major. Do you suspect that Milik may have left them out intentionally because they showed a link with Jude, or were these supposedly insignificant scraps so tiny that he left them out because they barely have any letters in them? Part of the reason we are dealing with such tiny fragments, by the way, is because when the finders of the scrolls realized they had something valuable, they tore what they hadn't yet sold into tiny pieces that they then held at ransom prices (or at least that's how the story goes). They'd also be brittle, obviously, from the passing of a couple millennia.

• We're not interested in your own musings, see WP:OR. WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS which explicitly WP:V your claim, or be gone from this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How harsh! This article is actually in error and I will prove it.

The specific book that is cited, The Comprehensive New Testament, proves my point, not the assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain parallel information from Jude.

The full working title is, The Comprehensive New Testament: Standardized to the Greek New Testament text of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the United Bible Societies 4th edition with Complete textual variant mapping and references for the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Plato, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Talmud, Old Testament, Patristic Writings, Dhammapada, Tacitus, Epic of Gilgamesh.

It doesn't claim this passage is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, otherwise it would say so at its footnote reference for the Book of Jude. Instead it says, "Pseudepigrapha," meaning 'false writing', a term used to describe falsely attributed works. In other words, authors Clontz & Clontz believe that the Book of Enoch is a forgery and are only showing where there happens to be a parallel text with Jude. If it was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, they would have indicated in the notes for this section on the Book of Jude, as the working-title says. There would have been a "textual variant mapping and reference." In fact, they claim the book has a "complete" list of such references. And so, this reference actually confirms the contrary, that the passage from Jude does not exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Neither are they saying that they think Jude is quoting from a pseudegraphical source. The book is simply a textual reference tool, and it does not prove the point that it is cited for in the article, but actually confirms the complete opposite.

At page 399, in a footnote at the bottom of the page, concerning Jude verses 14 and 15:

"1:14-15 Pseudepigrapha[1 Enoch 1:9 “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints.." etc.

Again, he's just saying that this passage has a parallel in 1 Enoch, not that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain this passage. But more than that, by not referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls here, and claiming to have complete reference to them, he's saying that a parallel does not exist (or at least has not been discovered yet).

Here's the entire book online -- It doesn't contain the book of Enoch, by the way, just the canonical New Testament with notes: https://archive.org/details/the-comprehensive-new-testament/page/399/mode/2up

WP:CITE the darn WP:RS or be gone from here. Since you are not WP:RS, we don't trust your own judgment, so we have no need of WP:OR performed by you. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Provided that it is not important what I say (but only what the mainstream scholars write), I checked in the book Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation (ISBN 9780060766627) that I have at home, and at page 281 we have the translation of 4Q204 Frag. 1 Col. 1 with the 1Enoch verse that is quoted in Jude. A ntv (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited some of my own comments here for clarification and also added a response to the most recent comment, and this was all deleted from this page. Can anyone explain why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:DB4:E32F:A6F3:A5F (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a general rule that you should not edit your comments after they have been replied to. If you want to clarify anything, add a comment to the bottom. Also, since you insist on editing as an IP, there is no way for another editor to tell whether they are "your" comments or not. You are the first editor on this page to edit from the IP you are currently using. This means you can never edit your previous comments after your IP changes. Dynamic IPs do not establish a consistent identity. If you want use to understand you as an individual rather than a legion, create an account. Skyerise (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop posting walls of GPT-generated text. Use your own words, maintain a converstation style, and keep it brief. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time. Either provide citations to a reliable secondary source which directly makes the statement you want to include, or desist. If a source doesn't explicitly state it, it cannot be included. Provide a quotation from the source that supports the view. Unless you are able to do that, you are engaging in original research which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Instead, write a journal article or a book about it. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, now even my regular responses are being deleted, without me editing any of my earlier comments. A talk page shouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny as the article. How can anybody be free to discuss the matter if they're written-off so easy?

Part of the reason I had edited my earlier comments, by the way, besides clarification, was to be more concise. I was hoping to be finished with commenting on here with that last comment -- Unless there was any further comments to respond to, I was pretty much wrapping it up on this talk page. But now it looks like I'll have to figure out how to finish saying what I need to say without it being deleted for technical reasons.

I put a lot of thought into that comment and had abbreviated it this last time after it got deleted because of editing my previous comments at the same time that I posted it. It was also very on-subject and seemed to be my most productive comment on here yet. Anyway, it really wasn't THAT long of a comment. So then, what length of a response will you be able to accept? It was very well-sourced for references, the very best in the field.

Just so you know, because I'm not sure how long you've been following the conversation, that even though I was the one who initially started this talk page section, all of my further comments after my initial posting have been responses to other peoples' input and comments. I'm sorry if they're lengthy, and as I said I wanted to cut down on some of them (without negatively impacting other peoples' responses), but the length of my comments has to do with the nature of the subject requiring some meshing-out. People have been helping the article on here with their input, and I've tried to express my gratitude for it. The comment you deleted was a direct response to someone else's response, however thorough it may have been, and you are not allowing it to go through.

Again, I just want to give my response. I'll give my deleted response another going-over and see if I can improve it enough to meet Wikipedia's talk page standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:A075:EEC4:ACB1:450D (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment I deleted was clearly AI generated. Don't do that, we aren't talking to ChatGPT, we are talking to you. Though you give zero indication that you are listening. WP:WALLOFTEXT. Skyerise (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's some ChatGPT back atcha:

Given this context, it does not seem that the IP editor is intentionally trolling. Instead, they appear to be passionate about their perspective and are not fully adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sourcing and neutrality. Their lengthy, repetitive posts and resistance to policy-based feedback contribute to the perception of unproductive discussion, leading other editors to request brevity, reliable sourcing, and adherence to established Wikipedia standards.

Skyerise (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How could I be a 'bot' when my comment was a response to someone else's comment? If you're pro-Gnosticism, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, or for you to take any comments personally about well-known 1st Century Gnostic plagiarism. I wasn't saying that all Gnostics were like that. In the same way that I differentiated the real meaning of heresy (a false version of someone else's teaching) from Roman Catholic, or rather, Vatican oppression (again, more by certain individuals in eras of deeper political corruption).

Please be respectful. I hope it's been obvious on here that I'm not trying to push any point of view, but merely sticking to the facts. I was actually questioning why Milik didn't seem to include the passage (although I found out that he did). Was he covering something up? I just wanted the truth. I had no idea that only the newer Scroll contained the passage and not the older ones. But the point is -- What's been academically published on the subject? I'm not going by anything else, and I'm not proposing to introduce any of my own opinions to this article. Love and peace. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:A075:EEC4:ACB1:450D (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Great. If you have a source, post a citation to the source and a quotation that directly supports what you want to add to the article. If you have a source, you should be able to state this briefly, without having to use multiple sources or engage in synthesis or argumentation in any form. If you actually have a source, rather than simply speculation, then that should be short and simple. Otherwise, please comply with WP:NOTFORUM: talk pages are not forums for discussing or making arguments about the subject, but rather intended for improving the article. Such arguments do not lead to improving the article; only an explicit sourced statement on the matter from a single reliable source can do that. If you continue to engage in argumentation that can never lead to improvement of the article, other editors have every right to revert your misuse of this talk page as a forum for speculative discussion. Are you getting this? If you don't have a source, find somewhere else to have your long, speculative discussions. Skyerise (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To make it simple for you, your proposed statement is:

"There is also a theory that the Book of Enoch's parallels with Jude are emendations to the Book of Enoch, quoting Jude. For example, incorporation of the New Testament into the writings of Gnosticism was a common practice in the 1st Century when the book of Enoch was still undergoing change."

So whose theory is it, and in what publication have they explicitly stated this theory? A name and a journal article or book please. It's that simple. No need for interpretation of sources or long unreadable posts. Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating my earlier suggestion.

At the moment, I would like to simply repost a concised form of the contested response that was deleted. After posting it, please explain (if you still disagree with it) why you think that it's irrelevant to a talk page about the article, so that others can evaluate it as well, instead of automatically deleting it. That seems more like 'bot' behavior (as you suggested my posts resembled), than over-talking a bit, don't you think so? Again, the contested comment is accurately cited to the best possible source on the subject, with the reference pages being checkable online as well.

Also, if I can't concise my earlier posts, please don't continue to bring up the fact that they were lengthy. I do feel really bad about that. I'm not too sure that it would count as 'trolling', though, as you suggested earlier, as I was honestly trying to contribute, and not wanting to be detrimental. However, thanks for helping me to be more aware about not coming across that way.

Just as you seemed to think, earlier, that I was a troll, I was likewise starting to think that this talk page was suffering from edit warring, in the form of Talk page vandalism. My hopes are that we're both ready to move forward, without any confusion about my intents, nor, by anyone else, any fact-censoring overreach. Now that there's more understanding all around, let's keep getting along; we seem to be doing much better :)

Alright, are you ready for the reposting? It's more sensitive to the fact (something I was oblivious to) that there are contemporaries who seem to identify with aspects of these ancient Gnostic groups. And so, there's no use of the word 'plagiarism', but rather 'adapted'. I've got it down to about nine sentences. Feel free to criticize it, by the way, as long as I can actually contribute this comment to the discussion.

Again, this contested comment is only intended for discussion here on this talk page, at this point. It is not (and has never been) in any proposed format for inclusion in the article. Even the earlier suggestion, that you reiterated, was only intended for evaluation by more experienced field experts than myself, and by more experienced Wikipedians such as yourself.

After my original edit to the article was rejected, I haven't yet even considered (as far as I can remember) personally making any further changes to the actual article itself. In retrospect, there's often been days between my responses (even a whole month a couple of times!) Thus, as one can see, I'm not in any big hurry with some sort of agenda to push, and so there's no need to be concerned about me messing up the article, if anyone was worried about that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:C836:EA23:B1B0:DFF8 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"After posting it, please explain.." That is, after I myself post it, then if you want to explain whether you still disagree with this new update. I wasn't in any way demanding that you yourself repost what you deleted, in case that was unclear. Besides, how could you post my edited form of it, that I haven't yet posted here, right? (what I was actually referring to there).

I've learned not to dare edit my own posts on here, and so this extra clarifying, while potentially sounding like a jerk near the beginning of the previous post. Bummer! :) 2600:8801:CA01:5950:F59C:F2DC:5256:AB70 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The new-and-improved form of the comment in question turned out to be 12 sentences instead of 9:

..Thanks for pointing out that your book, Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation has the parallel passage with Jude. This seeming contradiction with other reference material inspired me to take a second look at Milik's authoritative and exhaustive work on the subject, and I discovered something that I didn't notice before. At the contents page (that I referenced here earlier), while the passage from Jude is not listed in the first column for the Book of Watchers, it is in fact listed in the third column as existing in a later-written manuscript described as the 'Third Copy'. Your book is basically an English-language reader's version that merges surviving fragments without going into details (making it rather misleading on this point).

Concerning the Third Copy, Milik states that it's "dating from the early Herodian period or the last third of the first century B.C." (p.177). With paleographic and other types of dating requiring, as a general rule, at least some amount of flexibility, this makes this manuscript well within range for a 1st Century interpolation (by an adjustment of a few decades). Compare this fact with the older manuscripts not containing this passage from Jude or anything even similar (nor, also, the phrase, "seventh from Adam"). Futhermore, Milik states (p. 177) that the script style of the later Third Copy resembles the North Syrian Aramaic alphabet. Many of the earliest Christian Jews fled to the regions of North Syria because of persecution and shared language. As apostle to the Jewish saints, Jude would have written specifically to this group. Thus, North Syria is where his epistle would have been most widely read, copied and circulated, as well as adapted by other groups at the earliest possible period of its existence.

Also, new content to the Book of Enoch continued to be added later than all of the known Dead Sea Scroll copies (as seen in the Ethiopic version) involving further Christian concepts about the 'Son of Man' adapted by the Gnostics.

Milik at the Internet Archive (see p. 185, 177) https://archive.org/details/MILIKEnochInAramaicQumranCave4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA01:5950:F59C:F2DC:5256:AB70 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)