Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Book of Enoch


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. The case for deletion is very well argued and is supported by the weight of editor opinion below. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost Book of Enoch


A fork by User:TheEditrix, one of many. A quotation from Enoch appears in the Epistle of Jude, and it is accepted scholarship that what has come down on us as the Book of Enoch is identical to the work that the author of Jude quoted from. A reference can be provided on request.

Besides, the work is called Book of Enoch, not Lost Book of Enoch, so keeping a redirect would be misleading. Dr Zak 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not familiar on the subject, I suggest a redirect to Lost books of the Old Testament.--TBC TaLk?!? 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect: to where its relevant. Zos 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the article is problematic on several levels. Yes, there is a Pseudoepigraphical book called  Enoch (which survives largely in Ethopic [Ge'ez] versions); however, no credible scholar refers to this as "the lost book of Enoch."  Furthermore, no credible scholar would state that the book "may have been written by the Biblical prophet Enoch ben Jared, who was an ancestor of Noah."  These books (the Pseudoepigrapha) were literary works of the :Hellenistic period.  Finally, the one citation is not a scholarly source; but rather, appears to be an internet ministry.    ''Em-jay-es  06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MJS: This should be a keep. Please note that the pseudepigraphal Ethiopic book you reference is NOT the book described in the article. This article describes the original book referenced in scripture, which absolutely "may have been written by E b. J." I trust you'll reconsider your vote in light of this information. --09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. This is a thoroughly referenced article, and requires its own page for the following reasons:
 * 1. As the article notes, the existing Book of Enoch may or may not be the book referenced in the Epistle of Jude.
 * 2. I dispute the assertion that it is "accepted scholarship" that the two books are identical. To the contrary, there's a strong body of evidence that the existing Book of Enoch is pseudepigraphal. If so, the lost book and the pseudepigraphal book are entirely unalike. Note new Encyclopedia Britannica link confirming this position.
 * 3. If the two books are the same -- a question unresolvable by modern scholarship -- the article makes clear the possibility.
 * 4. Moreover, this is a daughter article to Lost books of the Old Testament. Redirecting it back to the parent would be comparable to redirecting all the individual entries for Biblical books (Book of Genesis, Gospel of Matthew, et al) back to Bible. These books are individually notable.
 * 5. Re: current lack of scholarly links. This is a growing article. Note that it's only a day old. Stub it, if you believe it needs more work, but deleting an article that is already this thorough because it's not yet thorough enough is premature, at best.
 * 6. Finally, if editors wish to discuss the possibility of the books being identical, the place to do that is within this article. Deleting the article makes that exercise impossible. --The Editrix 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, no redirect. This would appear to be WP:NOR in respect to the claims there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" different from existing, known works attributed to Enoch.  None of the links provided suggest that anyone has a serious, scholarly opinion that there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" that is different than 1 Enoch.  Claiming that because Enoch 1 is pseudepigraphal and thus cannot be this so-called "Lost Book of Enoch" is a straw-man argument.  Regardless of the true authorship of Enoch 1, the author of Jude apparently accepted it as scriptural and referenced it in his work; not surprising if taken in the historical context of when Jude was written.  A discussion of whether or or not there is an additional Book of Enoch that differs from 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, or 3 Enoch is a disscussion for a forum or message board, not a Wikipedia article.  I would say redirect to 1 Enoch but since this was found in 1773, the title would be a misnomer.--Isotope23 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Inclined to merge (no redirect necessary) with the existing article on the Books of Enoch. Apocalyptic texts are bound to attract esoteric interpretations.  This text needs to be changed to make it clear who is promoting the notion that the true text of Enoch was suppressed, and otherwise restated in a NPOV way; and if that is done I have no problem with its inclusion.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if that is done it needs to be sourced as well, because I couldn't find any evidience of the suggestion there is a true text that has been suppressed.--Isotope23 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Half-preserved text tend to attract speculation and conspiracy theorists, so it's imperative that any assertions made be on an adequate level of scholarship, lest the article descends into conspiracycruft. I see no proper sources there, merely websites with no scholarly aspiration. Dr Zak 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep . Not original research. Note sources on page. --The Editrix 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, please don't state keep again since you've already stated it once in this debate. The problem with the sources on the page is that none of them (as far as I could see) suggest there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch".  They all refer to 1 Enoch.  Thus, the contention there is a "lost" book constitutes original research.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By itself, my remark about the article’s title is insufficient for a deletion. However, as Wikipedia already has several articles on legitimate Enochic literature, the title Lost Book of Enoch is misleading at best and sensationalistic at worst. Please note the following points: 1. If this book of Enoch is separate from the known books of Enoch, and exists only in the short citation found in the New Testament (Jude 14-15), as User:TheEditrix asserts; then, the book in question is hypothetical. That is, it exists only in theoretical form (the theory being: Jude had a book called “Enoch” that has since been lost). 2. The presumption that Jude had a lost book of “Enoch” is problematic for several reasons. This is because the source cited by Jude is Enoch himself, and not a book. Thus, it remains in the realm of possibility that Jude was citing an oral tradition ascribed to Enoch, or (more probable), that he is citing a book in which the character of Enoch was a major player. The best example of this second possibility is the pseudepigraphical book of Jubilees, where Enoch plays a role. 3. To state that the historical Enoch “may have been the author” sidesteps not only the above considerations, but also the basic question of whether Enoch ever existed in history (many scholars view the character as a mythical figure). Furthermore, the statement stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming scholarly opinion regarding Pseudoephigraphic writing during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (i.e. the period of the second Temple of Jerusalem). The production of literature ascribed to biblical characters was commonplace during this time period. Biblical characters (like Enoch) who lived before the time of Moses, became popular “authors” in the third, second and first centuries BCE. While it is safe to say that Enoch is the “traditional” author of a particular text, it is improper for an encyclopedia entry to state that he “may” have 4. Finally, considering that User:TheEditrix is dealing with a theoretical book cited only in the New Testament epistle of Jude, it is problematic that no New Testament scholarly works are cited. To deal with a “Lost Book of Enoch” that only presently exists in Jude 14-15, one must begin by examining Jude 14-15. What can New Testament scholarship tell us? In terms of textual-criticism; do all ancient manuscripts of the NT include the Enoch quote? Are there any textual variations? Are there anomalies in the Greek of the NT that would indicate a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic source? Does the Greek quotation match up with any present Greek translations of Enochic texts known to date? User:TheEditrix, I am not trying to dissuade you from conducting research into extra-canonical biblical literature (and I hope you find my criticism constructive); however, the article as it stands represents WP:NOR, and does not qualify as an encyclopedia entry. ''Em-jay-es 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per MJS's excellent reasoning. No need for a redirect, an unlikely search term (especially with the capital B).  Tevildo 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per MJS. --Fire Star 火星 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or better merge with Book of Enoch, that is if there is any content worth merging. Peterkingiron 23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * merge with Book of Enoch. The debate about the if the 'lost book' is the same or separate from the 'book of enoch' can be easily discussed in a 'controversy' section within the Book of Enoch article in my opinion.--P Todd 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note massive talk page spamming             Dr Zak 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have warned User:Dr Zak about his recent personal attacks. This article is to knew for this.  Now if in a month or so, there is nothing important about htis article, then we can delete it then. False Prophet 03:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, pointing out talk page spamming is not a personal attack. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of personal attacks. Assume good faith. --Fire Star 火星 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How "new" the article is is totally irrelevant. It is not WP:V and constitutes original research, both are grounds for deletion and nobody has put forth any sort of coherent argument why this article does not run afoul of those two policies.--Isotope23 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with False Prophet. shijeru 03:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. And please quit spamming talk pages. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but add some sources please. --Guinnog 14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete POV fork with OR. As the cited sources make clear there is neither evidence nor scholarly speculation about such a book (rather than the well known Book of Enoch).  Eluchil404 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per MJS -- Avi 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.