The Truth Behind 1 Enoch

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] The Book of Enoch has exploded in popularity. Some people claim it unlocks the Bible's [laughs] greatest mysteries, while others say it shouldn't be trusted at all. So what's the truth? Today, we're diving into one of the most controversial ancient books arguably ever written. Does it really explain the origin of demons? Can it help us understand the mysterious story of the Nephilim in Genesis, or does it raise more questions than it answers? Back for the third time, by the way, is Dr. Joel Muddamalle, author of The Unseen Battle. You're a friend, protege of Dr. Michael Heiser, we talked about that before, who really has helped spark a lot of the interest in the Book of Enoch and the unseen realm. Joel, I've wanted to talk about this topic for a long time. Thanks for coming on.

Joel Muddamalle: Oh, thanks for having me, Sean. I'm really excited. This is the one topic, Sean, by the way, that I don't think I've had an in-depth conversation with-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Joel Muddamalle: ... On any other podcast.

Sean McDowell: No way.

Joel Muddamalle: Not in depth like what we're about to do. So I'm excited for this one.

Sean McDowell: Good. Well, we are diving in. And by the way, we just had a video we did on angels and demons-

Joel Muddamalle: Yep

Sean McDowell: ... Your work, Unseen Battle and Heiser. We're going on Book of Enoch. We're gonna be going live soon on a Talbot Tuesday to take questions, so if people have questions from this, write in question in caps. List your questions, and we'll take as many as we can with that episode coming up. All right. Why do you think The Book of Enoch has become such a phenomenon online? Why are Christians just fascinated by this book?

Joel Muddamalle: I think part of this is the nature of social media. I think- ... The clippable, you know, content that has viral capacity and capability is absolutely fascinating. I also think that what the Book of Enoch provides potentially, and this is debated, ... It starts to provide some fill-in-the-blank dots for aspects of the biblical text that feel like have been overlooked or neglected. And then you start to wonder, was this intentional? How come nobody ever talked about the Nephilim? How come we just go Genesis 6:1 through 4, goes right into the flood narrative, but we don't really get an explanatory rationale behind there's just evil in the world, and so that necessitates the flood? What do we do with angels and demons, and why does Paul use language like powers and principalities? I mean, there are these pieces of the biblical text that the longer you go, David and Goliath, was Goliath an actual giant? Was he not? What does it mean the giant, that Goliath came from Gath? What's going on with Joshua and the conquest? Like we could just go on and on. And for me, I grew up in the church, so I would start to wonder, are they holding something back from me? Is there explanatory power here, or are we just supposed to have blind faith that the Bible just says what it says, so just believe it? And I think what Enoch does is it is ancient. It's an ancient text. So that draw for tradition and something that is beyond just the modern conception, I think, is appealing to many people. And then also, Sean, I think, and this is maybe a wild take on my part, we're spiritual beings. [laughs] Like, God created us to consider and to be drawn to the cosmic reality of the world. And so in the way that Lewis famously talked about, you know, the desire of the human heart to have a longing and love for God, I think there's a desire in the human heart to want to connect to a spirituality that is beyond an earthly existence and to wonder, could it be true? We know that that can go sideways very quickly. And so for Christians, I think they go, "Wait a minute. Does Enoch give some explanatory power to these questions I've been wondering about that it feels like maybe people haven't talked about?"

Sean McDowell: The idea that we have a book that can fill in the gaps of information we don't have is obviously nothing new. We have books about the infancy gospel of Jesus, what he was... Of Thomas-

Joel Muddamalle: Sure

Sean McDowell: ... Like, what Jesus was like when he was a kid.

Joel Muddamalle: Yes.

Sean McDowell: We have the stories of the apostles going out in these apocryphal texts. So part of the question is, does First Enoch fill in some gaps in a way we can trust-

Joel Muddamalle: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Or is it purely fiction or some combination of the two? We will get there and get your take on it. But for people who have heard the name but know very little about it, what is First Enoch, and what kind of literature is it?

Joel Muddamalle: Well, first of all, I love your precision with the titling of this. Many people will notice that you have been saying First Enoch consistently. It is popular in modern vernacular to just talk about The Book of Enoch, or to just- ... Say Enoch. One of the things that I care about, you care about, is what are we exactly talking about? So Enoch can be split up into three actually distinct books. The one that, for our conversation, that we wanna pay attention to is First Enoch, and First Enoch itself is split up into five distinct categories. And so, Enoch is, in First Enoch, is referred to as The Book of the Watchers. So you've got- ... This idea, and when you think about the Watchers, this actually isn't an idea that is separate from the biblical text. In the previous episode that we talked about angels and demons, we talked about categories of spiritual beings, and in fact-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Watchers are a category. This is what Daniel 4:13 says, so the Aramaic text of Daniel actually uses the term watcher, ir. And so I'll just read it. In Daniel 4:13, it says, "In the visions I saw while lying in bed, I looked, and there before me was a holy one, a watcher, ir, a messenger coming down from heaven." So Daniel 4 actually places this watcher language in the cosmic supernatural context- ... That we actually see in Enoch. So there's a connection that, it's doing. The other thing that we have to remind ourselves with is that, Enoch is literature. First Enoch is literature. And, you know, it's kind of the popular saying, Sean, I will com- kind of comment to people, "You know, the Bible isn't a book, right?" And people are like, "Wait a minute. Of course, it's a book. It's got a front cover, a back cover, a table of contents." It's like, no, the Bible is a library of books, and it, in this library, there's different genre. You've got history, poetic-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... You know, revelatory information. You've got books that shift- From song to historical narrative. Well, the kind of literature of 1 Enoch is referred to as apocalyptic literature. The English word for this, apocalyptic, comes from the Greek word apokalypsis. And, we think, like, gloomy end time ... I know you're a Marvel guy, so I think of Apocalypse from X-Men, you know?

Sean McDowell: Of course, of course.

Joel Muddamalle: It's kinda like like doomsday kinda situation. The Greek term has in mind a revealing.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: So if I were to be, like, a magician and put this up right here and put a cloth over it, right? It would be like, "Watch the apocalypse, the revelation." This has already been there, but it has not been seen, so then you pull it off, and you reveal what's actually taking place. And so, this is apocalyptic literature that has a discussion of the cosmic realm, the relationship between heaven and Earth. It has in mind the consequence of sin and how sin has impacted the Earth in a negative way, and it has in mind the question of judgment, a final judgment, and, the enima- enigmatic figure of the Holy One who, does the judging and how spiritual beings are relating in light of all of that.

Sean McDowell: So biblically speaking, you said the Bible, it's a library book, 66 books. There's history, there's poetry. Apocalyptic literature, the Old Testament-

Joel Muddamalle: Revelation

Sean McDowell: ... Would be Daniel.

Joel Muddamalle: Yep

Sean McDowell: New Testament would be Revelation. So it's that kind of literature, so to speak. Not canonical, of course.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, we'll, we can get, we can get into that for sure. I think that's a, that's a big topic of conversation-

Sean McDowell: It is

Joel Muddamalle: ... In in the social media world, it is highly debated amongst, some Christians, and I think it's a fascinating discussion in itself. But yes, it is non-canonical. It is not part of the canon. You can't, you're not gonna open up your Bible and look and see, find 1 Enoch, unless you're part of the Ethiopic tradition. In the, Ethiopic Bible, Ethiopian, Bible, they did, canonize, Enoch, and so there is a tradition. I believe it's like the Ge'ez, translation that, did see the value in it and canonized it. So outside of that, it is not considered canonical.

Sean McDowell: So when was it written, and do we know who likely wrote it? I know these are also [laughs] debated as well.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: But give us a sense of some of the debate.

Joel Muddamalle: Okay, so this is very highly debated. The first thing is I wanna break down, a couple misnomers that end up happening with ancient literature. One is the presumption that our modern categories can, conflate and lay onto ancient literature the exact same way. They don't. And so I want us to push to try to understand the ancient literature in their own terms. Same thing with the Bible. We wanna understand the Bible in their own terms.

Sean McDowell: That's very Heiserian of you.

Joel Muddamalle: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: To quote Heiser, but keep going.

Joel Muddamalle: Yes yes.

Sean McDowell: That's good. [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: Okay. So, when was it written? Who wrote it? We would say scholars, specialists in Second Temple literature would say that 1 Enoch is actually a composite work. So we've got five distinct narrative structures within, the Book of the Watchers. Dating is

Joel Muddamalle: so difficult to try to, try to navigate. And you will open up Loren Stuckenbruck or, Susan Docherty or, VanderKam, all these, specialists, scholars, specialists in, the Enochic tradition and Second Temple literature, and you'll actually notice a bit of variety in terms- ... Of, when something was written, which fragment we're talking about, which section that we're talking about. So in terms of, a general idea, we could say that the Book of Watchers took its final form and shape somewhere around the 2nd century, maybe even extending into the 3rd century.

Sean McDowell: BC, AD.

Joel Muddamalle: BC, yeah.

Sean McDowell: Right.

Joel Muddamalle: So very little [laughs] is known about the authors of who- ... And notice I say plural, the authors. Very likely that, Enoch and even the significant sections, the five subsections of the Book of Watchers was written by multiple authors. Nicholsburg, who's a Enochic, specialist, points out, I kinda love his language. I'm gonna quote him. He says, "There are cautious inferences"

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: ... "that we can make about the type of person that wrote this." and so, I'm jumping a little bit around the place, but you'll also know that Enoch is categorically referred to as part of the pseudepigraphical work. So pseudepigrapha, comes from the, pseudo, which means false, and then, ... Epigraphical work, written work. What this could mean for people is this is false writing or a false author, and we again take a modern conception, and we think this is a literary forgery. That is not what the Book of Enoch is, 1 Enoch. Enoch would not fall in the category of literary forgeries in that time period. There were literary forgeries, absolutely, but 1 Enoch is actually a, stylized way of writing that is a category called a pseudepigraphical work, and the goal was anonymity of the actual authors, and they use a strategy- ... To name the work after a Biblical historical figure. And, I believe it was Loren Stuckenbruck who has a great, book in, on, Second Temple literature and Enoch, and he kinda gives 12 examples for why-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Joel Muddamalle: ... This might happen. The one for me that makes the most sense is, and again, different opinions, is you have the famous library in Alexandria In order to get any spotlight [laughs] for a book to get spotlight, it's gonna have to have some authoritative nature behind it, you know?

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: And so it might be that one of the reasons why we've got this Enochic figure here, and it's attributed to him, is so that there is, some novelty and some authority as well that's put behind it. And so, Carson has a book called Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy, and he kinda works through the difference between a literary forgery and what's actually happening with, the Book of Enoch as a category of pseudepigraphical writing that doesn't demand for us to throw it out because we would presume that it's a literary forgery. That's not the function of the work as it's being written in the Second Temple period.

Sean McDowell: So it wasn't, in the Second Temple period when it comes out, it wasn't thought like, "Oh, my goodness, we discovered this secret book that was written by Enoch-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... However many thousands of years before." That was not how it was supposed to land. It was understood that there's a different writer to it, but it's attributed to Enoch.

Joel Muddamalle: As a strategy.

Sean McDowell: As a strategy. Okay.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So remind us real quickly, who is the Biblical figure of Enoch, and if there's any other connection we should be aware of to the book itself.

Joel Muddamalle: Okay, so [laughs] once again, some of this stuff is like, it's gonna paint a little bit of a picture of the caution that we wanna have with Enoch. Very little is given to us about the Biblical Enoch.

Sean McDowell: That's true

Joel Muddamalle: ... There is a sentence, though, from Genesis 5:24 that gives us insight into Second Temple interpretations of what could have taken place and why Enoch was chosen as the name figure for the delivering of this literature. And it's Genesis 5:24. It says, "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." So, the Jewish thinking about Enoch, seems to have been also influenced by the ancient Near Eastern mythology that was also present at that time. So remember that the Jewish people are a product of their time, that there's competing ancient Near Eastern myths that are taking place. This is a big point when we get into the Genesis 6 and the Enoch connection point. If we're to have pillars of conversation, Genesis 6 is one pillar-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Of literary content.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: Enoch is another pillar of literary content, but there's a third pillar of literary content. That third pillar of literary content is the Mesopotamian literature, the ancient Near Eastern context, and the mythos of that time period. What Enoch is doing is it's actually drawing, sentence for sentence, word for word, thematic idea of both the Genesis 6 tradition-

Sean McDowell: All right

Joel Muddamalle: ... That's shared with the Mesopotamian tradition, particularly the story of the Apkallu. And so when you get back ... The Biblical Enoch and how Second Temple writers were, not, I wouldn't say reimagining, but they were drawing on this figure. There's a hero of the Mesopotamian flood narrative, Atrahasis, for instance, and there is a connection with the flood and the deluge. And so my view is we have a work of polemic in front of us. It is an argument against the creation myths of the ancient Near Eastern worldview.

Sean McDowell: Oh.

Joel Muddamalle: And it's a reorientation to the ideal of God and to the one true story.

Sean McDowell: Okay, so you might have answered my next question in terms of how widely was this read, how widely was this known, and do we have a sense of how early Jews and-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Or Christians took 1 Enoch?

Joel Muddamalle: So 1 Enoch definitely had value in the Qumran community. So the Qumran community is the, society where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. You've got, within the Qumran community, the Essenes. It just was popular apocalyptic literature.

Sean McDowell: Very strict Jewish community at that time-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... For people.

Joel Muddamalle: So, you know, specialists in the Jewish tradition would point out that there was no monolithic Jewish tradition.

Sean McDowell: Yep.

Joel Muddamalle: It wasn't just one Like, you had streams of Jewish thought. Even today, we have that as Christians, right? You can have, a stream that is denominationally more liberal. You have, even theologically, doctrinally oriented. So we have streams of Christian thought. It actually gives a little bit of anchoring. Like, if you were to say-

Sean McDowell: Sure

Joel Muddamalle: ... "Hey, I come from a Charismatic Pentecostal tradition," you start to fill in your brain with information about that, or from a Reform tradition or a Calvinist or a Arminian tradition.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: You go, "Oh yeah, I can start to fill in the dots." The same thing is happening in the Qumran community, and something to remember, [laughs] this is something that Heiser actually said that I thought was like, yeah, this is kinda fascinating. The Essenes and the Qumran community were not liberals. [laughs] They were actually probably, like, extreme conservative.

Sean McDowell: The opposite, yeah.

Joel Muddamalle: Like, we might call them fundamentalists, you know? [laughs] Like, they were super... They thought that the Pharisees and Sadducees were a bit too liberal. So, like, you're like, whoa, you know? And it was this community that held 1 Enoch in high regard as apocalyptic literature. Now, fascinating detail, one of the reasons we know this is because in the, Dead Sea Scrolls, one document that was found, it's 4Q180 and 181 for any nerd out there who wants to go and actually find the document. A thing called a Pesher was written about-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... 1 Enoch. Now, a Pesher is a document that is essentially in the same category that we would call today a commentary. It is a interpretation of a text. More often than not, it is a canonized Biblical text, like the Hebrew Bible, that would be present. So to have a Pesher on 1 Enoch- ... Starts to build a conceptual framework that says, amongst at least this stream of thought, not every stream of thought, but at least amongst this stream of thought- ... Enoch was important enough for somebody to put together a pesher, an interpretation of what is taking place. So pesherim are texts that interpret other texts. Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Okay, before you go on to your next point, so that's like a Biblical commentary that you typically would only do on a book you

Joel Muddamalle: Hold

Sean McDowell: ... In such high regard. Now, we could have a commentary on, say, the Gospel of Thomas, but that'd be a very nuanced, scholarly commentary.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, in the ancient world, we're talking about Hebrew texts, or, like, the Hebrew community, the Jewish community that was writing interpretive content based off of what they viewed as Scripture. So you would not find a pesher for that.

Sean McDowell: Right, yeah, that makes-

Joel Muddamalle: You know?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, it makes total sense.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: A qualitative difference between, say, Gospel of Thomas and 1 Enoch. So, I guess it's hard to know and we're getting in the weeds. It's one thing to say we value a text because it's interesting. Like, for example, the apocryphal Books of Acts, I studied 'cause of my work on the apostles.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: They have value, but everybody knew that they were fiction.

Joel Muddamalle: Right.

Sean McDowell: And they were just kind of almost pieces of entertainment on some ways about these fanciful tales of the apostles. So to value them doesn't mean you would've thought they were historically true in their entirety. You're saying this pesher suggests that they not only valued it, but thought there was some more truth to this-

Joel Muddamalle: Some validity

Sean McDowell: ... Akin to a Biblical book. So at least we have some in Qumran that likely took it early as a, not only a kind of a reliable, but authoritative text. That's the kind of argument, if I'm tracking with you.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, so I I you know, my nightmares, you wanna know what my [laughs] nightmares are, Sean? My nightmares are being misunderstood and misrepresented [laughs] on social media.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's not fun.

Joel Muddamalle: Not, right? I'm like, "Oh, I've kinda setting myself up a little bit for that." So I actually wrote down how I wanna summarize this-

Sean McDowell: Wow

Joel Muddamalle: ... So people can understand where I'm coming at.

Sean McDowell: Okay, do it. Do it.

Joel Muddamalle: Okay? So, this is how I would wanna summarize everything we just talked about. What is the impact of 1 Enoch on the Qumran community, the Essenes, and a tradition of, this community? We would say that this tradition of community highly respected 1 Enoch-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... And possibly even viewed it as Scripture. I'm hedging my bet here a little bit.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: That that's totally fine.

Joel Muddamalle: So, but the point is the fact that the Enochic texts were found at Qumran, I believe it's caves one and four, might be one and three, gives us evidence that they were used, they were accessed, they were distributed, at least in the Judean Hill country of where, the Qumran community, resided. Now, we can get into the Christian usage, the 1st century, church usage as well. There's a little bit of a bridge that gets us there, which is the fact that Jude, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all allude or at least quote, the Enochic- ... Tradition, which, as Christians, puts a little bit more of a, intentional consideration that we need to wrestle with.

Sean McDowell: You're being very careful and judicious with your words-

Joel Muddamalle: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: ... Which I appreciate. Now, we're gonna come to how the New Testament uses it and what that would mean for 1 Enoch, but we've done three interviews before this. We had the live stream.

Joel Muddamalle: Oh, yeah.

Sean McDowell: We did the one on angels and Demons.

Joel Muddamalle: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: Our very first interview on your book, The Unseen Battle. I got a question back that somebody emailed me, and, here's what they wrote, 'cause this ties to how Heiser helped bring 1 Enoch into mainstream evangelical discussion. This person said, "Thanks for the episode with Joel Mudamali. Really enjoyed it. My biggest critical point is how heavily Dr. Heiser relies on 1 Enoch and acknowledges that it isn't Scripture, but treats it almost with the same authority. 1 Enoch is an apocalyptic text written hundreds of years after Genesis, so giving it interpretive authority suggesting that the community that produced 1 Enoch somehow had special access to the original meaning of Genesis 6, especially written in apocalyptic genre, involves a methodological assumption that is worth questioning." So partly, I wanna know, where do you agree and disagree with Heiser? And do you agree with this email that it's at least worth questioning? Give us your response.

Joel Muddamalle: I think, I, one, I think this was, like, a class act in question-asking that is, thoughtful, charitable, but critiquing, right? Like-

Sean McDowell: And to the point.

Joel Muddamalle: And to the point

Sean McDowell: Not six pages of text like I sometimes-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah So kudos. Like, we should teach a class on this. In fact, we should teach everybody who does social media comments about this [laughs] right here, 'cause that would, that would make the world a better place. I would say, yeah, absolutely it requires us to question the methodological kind of assumptions. I'm not Mike. I can't speak for him.

Sean McDowell: Fair.

Joel Muddamalle: I wish he was here-

Sean McDowell: Me too

Joel Muddamalle: ... To be able to answer this question. I believe that he would have a coherent answer or at least response to this. So I'm gonna tap into my inner Mike the best that I can, and the good news is that, Mike wrote a lot, and there's so many- ... Interviews that are out there that, you may be able to find some clarification on this. But I would say that your instinct, for the person who wrote this, the instinct to question the methodological, emphasis on the, on 1 Enoch as an authoritative, interpretive, resource-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Is valid. I would push back and ask another point of consideration, and it goes back to what I said earlier. What if part of the authoritative nature of this is less about Enoch in isolation, but more about the representative literary framework that it puts in front of us that is a retrieval of the Mesopotamian ancient Near Eastern context that was presumed in the Genesis 6 narrative? So, I know 1 Enoch.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: I believe 1 Enoch. What do I wanna say? I believe 1 Enoch, I think is the right phrase. I believe 1 Enoch is doing three things. I believe 1 Enoch is preserving a oral tradition that was representative of the timeframe of Genesis 6. Absolutely, 1 Enoch was written well after Genesis. I still go back to the first interview that we did, and there was a clip that was posted, and there was, like-

Sean McDowell: That's right

Joel Muddamalle: ... A famous historical... And he, like, critiqued, like, something I said. I was like, "That's a good critique." Like, I really appreciate that. Because the misunderstanding could be I'm saying that 1 Enoch provides on its own background context to Genesis 6. But how could 1 Enoch provide context to Genesis 6 when it's written way after Genesis 6? And my response to that is, it's less about providing background context and more about, representing to us a oral tradition and a literary framework that Enoch keeps preserved for us. So Enoch is doing three things. It is, preserving a Apukallu Mesopotamian story of a deluge and a flood. If you were to take verse for verse, Genesis 6:1-4, and then you took the Apukallu narrative of the, of the Ummu-Elish, the, Mesopotamian mythic story, and then you take the Enochic story,

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Of the Book of the Watchers, and you lined them up, they have all correlation with each other. They're all hyperlinking back together. The difference is Genesis 6 and the Enochic tradition are critiquing the Mesopotamian mythic story. And the reason why they're critiquing it is because in the Mesopotamian story, the Apukallu are good guys. The Apukallu are, like, these- ... Culture heroes. They're these people that are saving humanity. They're being framed as positive beings that are for the good of humanity. Whereas Genesis 6 and the Enochic tradition are saying, "Hey, don't be deceived. Those folks or those types of spiritual beings, they're not after your good. They're actually after your destruction, and so you should care deeply about that." And so I would say that if you interject the Mesopotamian context that 1 Enoch is retrieving, preserving, and now transmitting to us. Those are the three things. It's retrieving a story, it's preserving that story, and now it's transmitting that story to us. It then gives more authoritative, interpretive evidence for what's taking place with Genesis 6.

Sean McDowell: Now, this might lead us astray, but I would wanna see some of the historical case lined up, lined up for the existence of that oral tradition to be convinced of this. And maybe it's, maybe it's just the way you described. It's just comparing the texts the way we compare other texts. Maybe there's other strains to this tradition. I don't know. Maybe someone's done that work. Maybe they haven't done that work. But I think the-

Joel Muddamalle: Or maybe that's a dissertation to be, to be done, right?

Sean McDowell: It would be fascinating.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Even if somebody... And I don't know anything about Enoch and tradition and research. But even if somebody came back and said, "This is something we cannot ascertain historically," there's value in that. I conclude that about a few of the apostles. I'm like, "We literally don't know where history ends and tradition begins-

Joel Muddamalle: Right

Sean McDowell: ... As far as I can tell." But that feels like a very valuable piece of the contribution-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, I would agree

Sean McDowell: ... That could make the case for Heiser and the understa- your case even stronger if it was potentially there. So if somebody's watching this is aware of somebody who's done that or tried to do that, write it in, put it in the comments. We would love to pull that up. And if you have a case for it or against it, we could get your take on

Joel Muddamalle: I'd love that

Sean McDowell: ... As well. Okay, so one of the big reasons people read 1 Enoch is because of Genesis 6. So we talked about it a little bit in our last interview. We've been talking about some here. What are the major interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4? What do you find most convincing, and how does Enoch play into your interpretation?

Joel Muddamalle: So, I go through this in in pretty detail in Dun and Battle.

Sean McDowell: You do.

Joel Muddamalle: Okay?

Sean McDowell: You lay it out.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So maybe just kinda give us the bullet point main ones. Fair.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, I do, I do want, I want everybody to go look at it. Follow the footnotes 'cause I do, one thing that, Sean, that's very important to me, is I want to represent the opposite position or an opposing position, not as a straw man but as a steel man.

Sean McDowell: That's fair.

Joel Muddamalle: Like, I wanna give it the best, fair reading, that we possibly can. So, you know, you've got the Sethite view, which is one-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Of the popular ones.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: You've got a divinized ruler view, as well. And, then you have the supernatural reading view, that these are spiritual beings. So I opt for the spiritual beings, view. The, Sethite view, for me, there's a lot of things about the Sethite view that are challenging, extremely challenging. One of them is that Sethites are never referred to as sons of God. There's a, there's a linguistic, absence of connecting the righteous line of Seth with the phrase sons of God, that they are equal to the sons of God. The other problem that you have is the question about the daughters of Cain. How do we know that these women are coming from the unholy, unrighteous line of Cain? We're having to impose, other traditions or other- ... Ideas into the text. Then the divinized ruler view, I think Meredith Kline is the one who really popularized this. Once again, I find that unconvincing, both for the human ruler view, but then also the lack of the reference to the sons of God. And then also the big one with the divinized ruler view, and same with the Sethite view, how do you have a human-to-human cohabitation equal the Nephilim, which are translated in the Septuagint as giants, as, these massive figures that- ... Cause chaos and problems? So you have almost a genetic kind of, inconsistency or incongruency that takes place. So my the option that I opt for, the Enochic view elaborates on, is a spiritual beings view. And the reason why is there's a hermeneutical method where you wanna take the clear reading of scripture, and you wanna apply that to the unclear reading of scripture.

Sean McDowell: Agreed.

Joel Muddamalle: I wanna actually apply that right here. What is the clearest reading that we have of the Hebrew phrase bene ha-elohim, in the context that it's used? The clearest reading is Job 1. And Job 2. In both Job 1 and Job 2, the Hebrew phrase bene ha'elohim is used in reference to the sons of God who present themselves in the divine council of Yahweh, where the ha-satan shows up. In both passages, chapter 1 and chapter 2, in the opening scene, you have their presence. But the real kingpin is Job 38, because in Job 38, you have the morning stars. They're shouting for joy with the sons of God, who are singing, this exact same Hebrew phrase, bene ha'elohim. Now, we're gonna have to do a lot of theological linguistic gymnastics in order to make an argument that the sons of God in Job are human beings.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Joel Muddamalle: Then you're saying that there's a subset of human beings that somehow got transported into the divine council of God in Job 1 and 2.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Joel Muddamalle: And so now you've got a co-mingling of human beings and spiritual beings, where the ha-satan shows up. And then secondarily, in the beginning, at the creation of all existence, right, there's a subset of human beings that were with the morning stars, that gave witness to Yahweh creating and these... Right? So you have some incoherence. Actually, not some. You have a significant incoherence. So if the sons of God are clearly spiritual beings in Job 1 and 2 and Job 38, then I want ... Take the clear reading and say, "Well, what happens if we allow the clear reading in this passage to be applied in Genesis 6?" It creates challenge. There's no doubt about it. But the challenge, I would argue, is less about the coherence of the text and much more about our comfortability with what the implications are. And so the coherence of the text is, well, how do you have spiritual beings who procreate with human women and then produce these hybrid beings? This sounds like a scene out of the Greek mythology. We talked about this a little bit-

Sean McDowell: It does

Joel Muddamalle: ... In the angels piece, right? But I would use the same rhetorical argument of, how do you have spiritual beings who, walk and talk with Abraham? How do you have spiritual beings that sit and eat with Abraham? Which presumes that they take on corporeal form, and in their corporeality, they then have a digestive system [laughs] in order to be able to eat. How do you have spiritual beings with Lot, where they can be recognized when they walk into Sodom, they're recognized as masculine figures, masculine beings, so much so that the men want to do harm to them, want to assault them. But then how do you have them grab Lot, physical, there's a physicality to it, and drag him back into the room? So you have examples-

Sean McDowell: And then blind everybody with supernatural power, clearly.

Joel Muddamalle: Exactly. So it's not either/or. It's a both/and.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Joel Muddamalle: So, all I'm saying is just because it's uncomfortable for us to consider- ... Doesn't demand that it is, it is, it is not true. It probably means our paradigms are being challenged. Now, the most common response to this is, "Well, don't you know Jesus says that we'll be like the angels in heaven, not given over to marriage?" Notice what Jesus says and what He doesn't say. This is one of the things that Mike said that I thought was so winsome. Jesus says, they're not given over in marriage. He doesn't say anything about their ability or inability of procreation or physicality.

Sean McDowell: That they're not sexed beings in heaven.

Joel Muddamalle: Exactly.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Joel Muddamalle: And here's the other huge one. Look at the locale of these beings. ... Heaven. So in heaven is a location that is not consistent with on Earth. So it is possible that as part of the transgression of boundaries, there's an abdication of their spirituality or the, you know, the nature of what they have, and they take on a corporeal form, which is what makes it a different, contextual situation for the, "we'll be like the angels in heaven" versus what about those angels that fell [laughs] and went into rebellion on Earth, you know?

Sean McDowell: Now, that's actually a real interesting point. I hadn't thought about that, because we're pulling from the Book of Genesis, not from other biblical books, when we say that angels took on corporeal form, or these spirit beings took on corporeal form.

Joel Muddamalle: See, look at you.

Sean McDowell: Recognized.

Joel Muddamalle: Good job. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: I'm working on it.

Joel Muddamalle: Look at you.

Sean McDowell: I'm working on it. That were recognized as male.

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: Ate food. So that breaks down the barrier of sexual relations at least being possible, although clearly twisted. The Book of Genesis kinda presents other parts of being corporeal that would seem to lend towards that being possible. Our resistance to that is probably right, that it's either weird or we have a naturalistic understanding, which, for those of us following the Bible, shouldn't be what motivates us.

Joel Muddamalle: And, just really quickly, the Sodom and Gomorrah one is really important, 'cause the argument could be made, "Well, you're talking about a digestive system versus a reproductive system. Those two things seem to be very different." Yes and no. We're still talking about what makes humans humans, right? Like, what makes us interact with each other. But the Sodom and Gomorrah situation actually, brings us into the sexual orientation situation, where there is... Like, if that was not possible, why would- ... The spiritual beings blind the the community that shows up at the house, right? So now it puts all of the context clues in place. You've got a gendered spiritual being.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: The community's able to see them. You've got physicality of touch, where they grab, Lot and pull him back in, and you have a supernatural act of blinding that takes place, that categorically places these beings as not human.

Sean McDowell: And the evil ones want to sexually take advantage of them. Like, it moves it even [laughs] one bar closer, arguably, in terms of intent.

Joel Muddamalle: And some might even argue, and this is kind of a thought that I have, is that it's in a, it's a bit of a reflection of the Genesis 6 narrative, because in the Genesis 6 narrative, it's the spiritual beings who want to take the human women. And so here in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, you have an inversion of that.

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's interesting.

Joel Muddamalle: You've got the humans that go, they're seeking after, and trying to, sexually assault.

Sean McDowell: That's,

Joel Muddamalle: How cor-

Sean McDowell: ... Arguably they had become That's a really interesting connection.

Joel Muddamalle: Exactly.

Sean McDowell: That's fascinating. Okay, now, what you're arguing is less controversial within the history of the church as far as I understand, at least the first 300 years or so, or more leading into Augustine, was this supernatural interpretation, sons of God-

Joel Muddamalle: Yes

Sean McDowell: ... Spirit beings violating daughters of men, real women. Where it gets controversial is where the Book of First [laughs] Enoch comes in and ties it to the Nephilim-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... And demons today.

Joel Muddamalle: Sure.

Sean McDowell: Make that connection. Tell us where you land with that.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, so first I think it's helpful for us to recognize that the church also, the first century church also has, a variety of views on this. The, once again, they were not monolithic in their interpretation of this. I wanna start with the Biblical text. Let's start with the New Testament. You've got Jude 5 through 7. And you've got 2 Peter 2:1 through 10. I'll just read 'em really quickly for us. Jude 5 through 7 says, well, I'll summarize. It refers to the angels who did not keep their domain. So where do we find angels who don't keep their domain? Genesis 6. "But transgressed boundaries and who are kept in

Joel Muddamalle: deep gloom until judgment." Here's the challenge that we have. The angels who did not keep to their domain, you can draw a direct hyperlink line to Genesis 6. This transgression of boundaries conceptually also works in Genesis 6. This question of eternal bonds is, like, wait a minute, what? What happened to those Genesis 6 beings? We we're not told, right? Like Genesis 6:1 through 4 doesn't give us that. And then the context in Jude 5 through 7 interestingly shifts to the context of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the issue of sexual immorality and unnatural desires and the judgment that's connected to it. So where do you have sexual impropriety that takes place? Do you find that in Genesis 6:1 through 4? Well, yeah, if you take a spiritual reading, but then it gets elaborated where else? In the Enochic tradition. How about this, 2 Peter 2? In this passage, Peter's talking about God who "does not spare the angels who sinned." What angels are these? "But are held in captivity in Tartarus with," and the language is, "chains and in darkness until they will be handed over for judgment." And then Peter connects that section right away with the angels, right, at the time of Noah and the flood. Well, what happens in Genesis 6? Genesis 6:1 through 4. Sons of God, human women, Nephilim. You go right into the flood narrative. So, the early church actually interacts with Enoch, First Enoch, pretty, intentionally, and we have a summary of important early church fathers that, patristic scholars would recognize that either... I'm gonna be careful.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: Either give a high level of authoritative respect and influence, or even some that refer to it and viewed it as canonical. Now, a summary of these, would be you've got the Epistle of Barnabas, which might be the earliest Christian source that cites the Enochic material. You've got Justin Martyr in, The Second Apology, who opts for a supernatural reading of Genesis 6. He's drawing on the Enochic tradition. You've got Tertullian, who's the, early Christian writer from Carthage. And, he was actually the more aggressive, proponent of Enoch being inspired. So in his work On the Peril of Women in Book One, Chapter 3, he actually calls First Enoch scripture and defends its status using 2 Timothy 3:16.

Sean McDowell: 3:16.

Joel Muddamalle: You've got Irenaeus, Bishop of, Lyon. He was clearly aware of Enoch, and he referenced the tradition in Chapter 10 of Against the Heresies. And you know, you go on and on. You've got Origen, you've got Clement. And what you find is a summary of these early church fathers who, and patristic, influential, teachers that were at the very least, at the minimum floor level aware of the Enochic tradition, enough so to presume in their writing interpretive benefit of understanding what's taking place with Genesis 6 in light of the Enochic tradition. At the highest level, you have inspiration. A claim for inspiration. This should be on par with the canon of scripture. And this is where I would say church history wins out. What does church history- ... Leave us with? Didn't make it [laughs] into the canon. And so I would say that First Enoch should not be canonical. It should not be, included in the canon of scripture. I also strongly believe it is a, it's an error. It is a, it's shortsighted to not give it...

Joel Muddamalle: How do I say it? To not authoritative, but,

Joel Muddamalle: informational context, that helps us explain these other passages of scripture. Like the best way I could do it is, you've heard of the Dream Team. Heard of the Dream Team?

Sean McDowell: Are you serious?

Joel Muddamalle: I'm

Sean McDowell: Have I heard of the Dream Team?

Joel Muddamalle: Have you heard of the... I'm, no, I know you've heard of the Dream Team.

Sean McDowell: Come on, man. [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: What? [laughs] Who am I talking to?

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: You hear about that hidden video, that video of their scrimmage that they did. I believe it was the Dream Team.

Sean McDowell: Oh

Joel Muddamalle: ... There's a scrimmage that came out much later-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Joel Muddamalle: ... And it was, like, them. It was, like, the iconic who's whose of that era ever, the greatest of all times, right? And they scrimmage each other. One team is led by Jordan, the other team is led by Magic. And, Christian Laettner, is on the bench the [laughs] entire time. He never gets any-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... Playing time, right? And it's this, like, video that surfaced years and years later, and it's, like, bootlegged and looks, like, grainy, but you can clearly see them, and it's like- The most important game to answer so many questions of who the greatest is. But it wasn't on ESPN [laughs] , it wasn't on NBC, it wasn't on... Right? But we as enthusiasts would say that's a data point that we wanna consider. And we don't throw it out the window because it's not got a NBC or, you know, sports analyst host, with production that we wouldn't throw it out the window. We'd say, "Oh, yeah, this is a data point that we put into that reminds us Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time." Because walking out of that, I believe this is where Larry Bird said, like, to Magic, "It's his." Like, we've handed over the, we've handed over the keys, and Jordan's taking the league now, you know? And so in the same way, I really do believe that there is interpretive help that comes from Enoch that, First Enoch, that will be beneficial to us, and we shouldn't extend it beyond what even the early church extended it to.

Sean McDowell: On The Last Dynasty, which was, I think, the 10-part series about the '98 season with Jordan, there was one great-

Joel Muddamalle: The Last Dance.

Sean McDowell: Well, oh, yeah, Last Dance.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Good correction.

Joel Muddamalle: They are the last dynasty.

Sean McDowell: All

Joel Muddamalle: That's [laughs]

Sean McDowell: ... That would, that would be another show.

Joel Muddamalle: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: There is a grainy video, it might be a different one, in which Magic is leading one team against Jordan.

Joel Muddamalle: I think that's the one.

Sean McDowell: And Magic-

Joel Muddamalle: Yep

Sean McDowell: ... He says, "We're up by, like, eight or something." And he says something to Jordan, and he just switches a gear, scores nonstop, beats him, and you just see Magic booting the ball into the stands of like-

Joel Muddamalle: Yes

Sean McDowell: ... What is happening?

Joel Muddamalle: Yes.

Sean McDowell: And there were some comments of like, "That's when we realized there's great and there is another level."

Joel Muddamalle: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: So your argument with First Enoch is not that it's inspired, not that it's canonical.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So you'd say Tertullian got it wrong, and there's maybe a few other texts, like at times, say, Shepherd of Hermas. There's a handful of times, as far as I'm aware, people say it should've been canonical, but that's the exception.

Joel Muddamalle: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: And so there might be some exceptions with First Enoch, but it wasn't largely accepted as canonical outside of that inspiration and authority, but still valuable.

Joel Muddamalle: Yes.

Sean McDowell: And certainly, the early church, Irenaeus, I think you mentioned,

Joel Muddamalle: Tertullian

Sean McDowell: ... Obviously Tertullian

Joel Muddamalle: Origen

Sean McDowell: ... Origen.

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: These are some early-

Joel Muddamalle: Clement

Sean McDowell: ... Significant writers considered the tradition of First Enoch. Now, do we know if they had the writing or, like, the oral tradition, or it'd be hard to just decipher exactly what they were using and referring to?

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, I think they would've had the writing because the, you've got, the community that has, the written work, at least the Greek text, is available at the time. The Second Temple specialists typically say that because of what we found in Qumran, that they're Aramaic, the, it's probably Aramaic originals. There's some who still opt out for a Hebrew original. We just haven't found any Hebrew originals. So it seems that, it was written in Aramaic, and they're found in the Qumran caves. And so those, accessible to them around the time. At least accessible- ... To Jude and Peter, for them.

Sean McDowell: Well, that makes sense.

Joel Muddamalle: And there's also-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... The other really interesting thing about this, Sean, too, is, in Peter, there's a ling- the linguistic connection between what, Peter is saying about the angels, trapped in Tartarus. The tighter linguistic connection is to Enoch, not to Genesis 6. So that's also fascinating.

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's super interesting. Okay.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So this is, this is really, like, the rub where the debate is at.

Joel Muddamalle: Yes.

Sean McDowell: And obviously, where you're seen here with yourself, with Heiser, people like Clint Arnold differing on this.

Joel Muddamalle: Mm-hmm.

Sean McDowell: Which is fine. I would love people watching this for or against to list your questions, list your arguments for or against, including, the account in Enoch of the Nephilim, reliable or not. And we'll come back and we'll respond to them. We'll interact with them.

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: If there's a point you think, hey, you've missed this, throw it in there, and we'll come back on our kinda Talbot Tuesday, interact with it. But this is where the debate rests. Do we trust it as an account of the source of the demonic, or is it more a tale that we can't trust? Now, tell me how this fits into your work, The Unseen Battle.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah. I mean, one of the big things that it does for us is that it, provides the playing ground, essentially, for Paul's language of powers, principalities, and authorities. So the sons of God language of Genesis ... Maps onto the sons of God language in Deuteronomy 32:8-9. So we're building almost, like, these dominoes that are going together, where the consequence of the sons of God of Genesis 6 is with, in light of the Enoch tradition-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... They're cast into Tartarus, into Hades, and they're imprisoned there until the time of judgment. So that's a distinct group of spiritual beings, the these sons of God. The sons of God of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, they are the false gods of the nations.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: So Enoch gives us a spiritual being reading of the Genesis 6 sons of God-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... Which linguistically and conceptually should then be translated over to how we understand the sons of God, Deuteronomy 32:8-9. While they are same types of beings, their judgment is different in that they're not trapped in Tartarus, which means where are they now, and what are they doing now? So in my book, The Unseen Battle, the second half of the book, what I try to argue for is that Paul has particular language that he uses when he's referring to the gods of the nations. And Paul's language of powers, principalities, authorities, he uses the Greek term stoicheia, elemental spirits. When he's referring to them in Colossians and and Ephesians, the beings that he's talking about are not the beings of, the demons of the Gospels. So you can refer to the angels episode that we, that we did.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: But he's actually talking about the sons of God of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. These are, ... Spiritual beings over geopolitical areas that have a level of authority that are creating chaos, in the world. And then you have Colossians 1, that says that the dark powers, these powers, spiritual powers, and authorities, have been stripped and disarmed. So then the question is, what have they been stripped and disarmed of? But they're still active, and they're working, and we feel their oppressive power-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... In our world together, right? So in my work, I try to point out spiritual warfare is actually about the Gospel proclamation. The thing that they've been stripped and disarmed of is their ability to blind the nations. They can no longer blind the nations. And in light of that, this is why Jesus gives us the Great Commission. And so, the background that Enoch does for us in creating clarification for Genesis 6 and those spiritual beings can be mapped onto Genesis 11 and the Tower of Babel story and the division of the nations, which just reinforces a supernatural reading of what's taking place, that these are- ... Mythic stories that were well understood in the time of the Greco-Roman worldview. Ephesus, Temple of Artemis, the Artemision. I mean, all of these things are interrelated and interconnected. These are not new and novel ideas.

Sean McDowell: Man, this is such interesting stuff. All right. So I have, I have some apologetic questions for you. In some ways, you may have kind of answered these.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So you could just say, "Hey, let me, let me sum up what my response would be here." But if we're looking at 1 Enoch, how does it compare and contrast with the books of the Bible?

Joel Muddamalle: It compares and contrasts in that it's literature. It

Sean McDowell: Okay

Joel Muddamalle: ... Referring to a Biblical figure, in Enoch. It is, different in that it's a product of a period of time, and the, it's a product of the Second Temple period, roughly the time of Alexander the Great to AD 70 with the destruction of the- ... Second Temple. And in light of that, we have to be aware of any literature, any writing, of what is happening historically, socially, and culturally of that time period. So the Hebrew Bible is essentially closed by the time that, the Enochic tradition, Second Temple literature, is being put together, and writing. And so it is drawing on an earlier Biblical tradition, and which is part of the reason why, I think, to the next question we're gonna get to, is you get to issues of canonicity, of how-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... Do you understand and give value and authority to a work that is essentially in between the times.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's the trick. And I remember when I was, I don't know, maybe I was in junior high or high school, and I was like, "Wait, Catholics have different books?"

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: And the Orthodox Church, they have different books, and there's these deuterocanonical, pseudepigraphal. My automatic mind was like, "Oh, they're bad 'cause they're not in the Bible." And I was like, "That's such an immature [laughs] simplistic response."

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: So you've said that you don't think 1 Enoch should be included in the canon. I'd be curious why, and then if not, how should we view it?

Joel Muddamalle: Because I think we need to take church history seriously, and I think we should trust the providence of God and the sovereignty of God, that the earlier that we get to there, while we get the canon list coming together. And again, Gavin Orland has done such excellent work-

Sean McDowell: He's done great work on this, yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... On just, you know, the canon of Scripture, how it's come together. There's great books that have been written on it, but you know, important for everybody to realize, it wasn't like, we woke up one day, and it's like, done. All of these are are set, established-

Sean McDowell: Right

Joel Muddamalle: ... 66 books, and we're done. There was a process that had to take place, to present and putting these lists together. And so I think we should take that seriously. And we are products of a tradition. That's part of an, I think, an apologetic, that- ... We're not creating new, novel ideas, that we have been recipients of a tradition that has been passed down to us. And I kinda love the fact that Tertullian at some point has to back down. Like, he's like, "Hey, I I think this needs to be Scripture." And he's like, "Nobody else."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: It's kinda like the guy, it's the guy who says LeBron's the GOAT.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: And it's like he's by himself, you know, and nobody... It's like at some point, you just gotta back down, bro.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: You just gotta back down. And it's like-

Sean McDowell: You just lit

Joel Muddamalle: [laughs]

Sean McDowell: ... My followers that care about that stuff. They're dying. Now they're commenting.

Joel Muddamalle: Ooh, I know, now they're commenting.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: But yeah, so that's what, that's where I'd say that, we should, we should trust the tradition and respect that. And not overreact to that either. ... We ought to, read it in its appropriate setting.

Sean McDowell: So you fear being misunderstood on your views on 1 Enoch on social media, but you're making 'em very clear on LeBron and Jordan.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, ... I'm a Chicago kid through and through.

Sean McDowell: Yeah. That, okay, that explains it. All right. So we did, you hinted at this earlier, that we have both in writings of Peter and in Jude a reference to or a quote of 1 Enoch. What does that tell us about 1 Enoch, and why would they quote this if it's not a canonical book?

Joel Muddamalle: So again, Jude and Peter are aware of Second Temple literature. They're products of their time.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: They are reading and understanding. And once again, I think that it's important for us to recognize this is not something that is new and isolated to the New Testament, the idea of the Biblical writers and authors being literate individuals. For instance, the Old Testament covenants that you have.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Joel Muddamalle: They're actually structured based off of different types of ancient Near Eastern treaties. It's kind of fascinating. There's a brilliant scholar, Dr. Instone-Brewer, who's done a lot of work on, ancient Near Eastern treaties, particularly divorce certificates. And, in some of the work that I've done at Proverbs 31 Ministries, we've done a lot of work on, marriage rites and contracts, and kinda what does that look like. And there were contracts that were written and established in a very certain way amongst the ancient Near Eastern people groups of the Mesopotamians and, Assyrians and the Hittites. And the divorce certificates that was unique to Israel, [laughs] the other nations didn't have this. They're drawing on ... Other writing, other contracts at the time, so Old Testament covenants. The prophets and the psalmists are actually, at times quoting, like Psalm 74, they're quoting from the Baal cycle. There's literary work [laughs] that's around there. You've got Solomon, who borrows material from the wisdom of Amenemope. I can never say that word. Proverbs, 22. And then in the New Testament, this is famous, most people know this, right? Paul's quotations of the Greek poets-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Joel Muddamalle: ... Is so well known. Acts

Sean McDowell: That's right

Joel Muddamalle: ... Epimenides and Erastus, in 1 Corinthians 15, Euripides and Menander. So this isn't isolated. This isn't an isolated idea. And by the time we get to, Jude and Peter, we go, "Oh, they were literate, they were reading, they were aware of the writing of the time," and they didn't find it a problem of as they're drawing on and doing a biblical theology, pulling from these, this issue of spiritual, rebellion and the contamination that it produces in the earthly environment, in our world and amongst people, in our society and our culture. They're like, "This, we can trace this back to an origin story. It's in Genesis 6, and there's an elaboration to the story." And- ... We find those details of Tartarus and imprisonment in the Enochic tradition. Does Jude, do Jude and Peter treat Enoch as inspired? That is a question for debate.

Sean McDowell: Oh.

Joel Muddamalle: That is a question-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Joel Muddamalle: ... For consideration. I don't know that I'm convinced that they, that just because it's quoted, that they viewed it as inspired. In the same way I don't think that Paul views-

Sean McDowell: Right

Joel Muddamalle: ... Euripides-

Sean McDowell: Of course

Joel Muddamalle: ... And Menander as inspired just 'cause they quote them, right? And so, in fairness, I think that we should have some caution when we think about how they're using it. They're contextualizing it, they're understanding it, and they're saying, "This provides some explanatory power for this." And so, that's one area that I'd wanna be careful about.

Sean McDowell: It just reminds me of a distinction that William Lane Craig will make as it's tied to the historical Adam. It's, in certain figures will be referenced, like say Job or Jonah, and the question is are they referring to the way you and I might quote a movie, or are they quoting them as if they're real historical figures that existed?

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: And a quote itself doesn't answer that. You have to look at how it's quoted, how it's referred to. So in Paul's writings, of course, when it's like the first Adam and the second Adam, there's some serious parallel being made here, which points towards a historical Adam.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Or even in Acts 17 again, which you brought up earlier. "From one man we all

Joel Muddamalle: Came

Sean McDowell: ... Seems to indicate this is historical. So we don't have to answer this now, but I'd be curious, people could weigh in and give their two cents in terms of the way Peter and Jude quote, not just quoting, but is there reason to think that the way they quote or reference 1 Enoch is not just as the tradition of it, but this is inspired and this is genuinely, objectively true, one or both of those. I don't have an answer to that. I don't know if there's literature of people debating this, but that would be really interesting to know. Do you have a sense of that or, you know-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah, I think one of the big questions that comes up in this conversation is the, is the nature of direct quotations of Scripture-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Joel Muddamalle: ... And the introductory formula that's used when you're quoting something. So, "As the Scripture says," or, "As the word of God says," you find that missing in these. And so there's a distinction between echoes, allusions, and,

Joel Muddamalle: quotations. So you've got quotations, echoes, and allusions. And, this is not a quotation, this is clearly an echo. And there's elsewhere throughout the Gospels particularly that an argument can be made for other allusions to Enoch. Again, Loren Stuckenbruck has written, a pretty, I think, helpful summary of where he sees echoes and allusions of the Enochian tradition in the Gospels-

Sean McDowell: Oh, wow

Joel Muddamalle: ... Themselves. And so this moves beyond just Jude and Peter, but it still centers in on the question of how do we understand it? Do we view it as inspired? What makes it tricky is you do then have someone like Tertullian, and, others, that are patri- in the patristic era that do view it as Scripture, and they do give it introductory, an introductory formula- ... And give it as the, you know, as the Scriptures say-

Sean McDowell: That's interesting

Joel Muddamalle: ... Or as the, as the Holy Spirit wrote. And you know, so what gets authority?

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: What, who gets, who gets to win, on that? Or could it be that, and this is where I land, nuanced, that if you have enough folks on both sides, at the very, like where do we put the bar at the minimum is we'd say it's helpful, it has some level of authoritative, contextual clues, but it's not inspired, you know? And so that's where I would leave it as.

Sean McDowell: That's really the interesting question to me. How does Peter and Jude and the rest of the New Testament reference 1 Enoch as authoritative, as inspired? How do the early church fathers reference as a whole? So if somebody's watched this, like, wait a minute, you missed this quote, you missed this point, this study, tag it in there, throw your questions in there.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: I would love to get your thoughts on that, for so many different reasons. And of course, as it ties back towards, 1 Enoch, do we go to the position, Clint Arnold was much more skeptical of relying upon 1 Enoch-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... As a source to fill in the gaps. You and Heiser are on board with it. What questions do people have or criticisms of that position? Throw your questions in there, and we're gonna do a live Q&A. We will circle back, to that. I'm looking forward to that 'cause I'm trying to make sense of this in my own mind. All right, so last question. What would you, would you encourage Christians to read 1 Enoch? Why not? And should, if they read it, keep anything in mind as doing so?

Joel Muddamalle: Okay, I'm gonna say something that I think is important. You should only read or even consider this question if you've been reading your Bible.

Sean McDowell: Oh, I like that.

Joel Muddamalle: Like, honestly, you know? Like, this is human nature. We have a tendency to be enamored. This is a personal conviction of mine, Sean. I find myself often reading more words about God than God's words Himself. And I just want to be a person who's passionate about the scriptures. Like, I wanna know the Bible on its own terms. I wanna read the text. And so there's a part of this that, like, I'm passionate about it. I love it. I think you have access to it. Why not go after it? And then at the same time, if you aren't just reading your own Bible, like, that's the place to start, you know? And then the second thing, too, is I would say, yeah, if you have access to it, why why wouldn't we want to? Again, I've got a sidebar in The Unseen Battle, where I talk about our approach to non-canonical scripture, to Second Temple literature, you know, and why should we read it, why should we not read it, and what cautions to have along the way, and I think that'll be helpful for you as well. If you have a tendency, so here's, like, a pragmatic one. If you start to read it and you have a sense of fear, anxiety- ... Like, stop reading it. [laughs] You know, like-

Sean McDowell: Good word

Joel Muddamalle: ... It's probably not gonna be helpful for you. But if you get in there and you go, "Wow, this has some explanatory help. It's giving me context. It makes me wanna read Genesis 6:1-4 closer. I think I wanna study the original languages. Heck, I might wanna go to Talbot School of Theology."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: Like I think this is a really... I would say, oh yeah, those are some good indications that you're reading in such a way that it is stirring your affections for Jesus, and so I want that to be the litmus test along the way. Should you read it? Sure. Contextually, is it the best thing for you, and what is it producing in you? What is it creating in you? But the first things first, man. Read your Bible.

Sean McDowell: Joel, I love it. Both our last two interviews, at the end, you really brought it back to Jesus [laughs] and so thank you. Love that about your writings, love that about your ministry. I wish I had been more aware of 1 Enoch, when I taught Old Testament for a decade in high school. We would've studied this passage in Genesis 6 and probably pulled some snippets and said, "What do you make of this?" Like, it would've-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Just created interest and drama, introduced intertestamental literature and how we know it's historical. Just would've raised really good historical, theological questions.

Joel Muddamalle: Yep.

Sean McDowell: So I agree with you. I I wanna encourage Christians against, A, feeling like, wow, 1 Enoch. It's almost like you have this Gnostic-

Joel Muddamalle: Hidden knowledge. I know

Sean McDowell: ... Secret knowledge. That's really why there's so much talk about this on the internet. So I was curious, hence I wanted to do this, but also calm things down a little bit.

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Put it into perspective. So I wanna lean away from that, but I also wanna tell people, like, sometimes the forbidden fruit-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Just read it and let's look at it. I would read atheist books to my students and say, "Let's just talk about it," 'cause they were-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Interested. So read it, but in light of kinda the conversation that we've had, and definitely in light of scripture as priority, I think that's a great word. You have a good section in this. You covered in terms of the three battles. You walk through 3, 6, and 11 in Genesis and talk about it as it lays into the rebellion in Genesis 6. I think it's really well-written, super fascinating. Love it. Good conversation. Wanna invite people to write in their questions, 'cause we're gonna come back on a Tuesday soon. We'll give the date, and we'll take your questions on our last interview on angels and demons, your questions on 1 Enoch, and we will be here live soon to discuss this. Make sure you follow Joel. You don't have a YouTube channel, do you?

Joel Muddamalle: I do. It's just at, all my stuff-

Sean McDowell: You don't post it much

Joel Muddamalle: ... Is moodamally. I do. There's stuff that goes on there.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Joel Muddamalle: It's just not as cool.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Joel Muddamalle: I gotta do more cool stuff on there like you're doing. Most of my stuff is Instagram and Substack. But yeah, everything is moodamally.

Sean McDowell: You're killing it on Substack, by the way.

Joel Muddamalle: Oh, thank you.

Sean McDowell: Your Instagram is awesome, and check out-

Joel Muddamalle: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Unseen Battle. We will definitely have you back for a third time. Folks, make sure you hit Subscribe, and let me know, this kind of in-depth conversation that I wanna have here with scholars like Joel, with faculty here, like at Talbot, what other topics could we explore? Is this a helpful thing on my channel? Let me know, and we can do some more of this. We'd love to have you come study with us at Talbot. Would be amazing. Joel, thanks, brother. This was fun.

Joel Muddamalle: Always. [upbeat music]