Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Hidden Enoch Scroll

The Aramaic Enoch Scroll is a non-published, privately owned, complete copy of the Book of Enoch.

There is no absolute public proof of its existence, but according to the former chief editor of the official Dead Sea Scrolls editorial team, John Strugnell (deseased 2007), the scroll is well preserved, and microfilmed. Strugnell was shown the microfilm in 1990, during the Kuwait crisis, but was never able to buy it for the editorial team.

Another person who has stated having seen the scroll or the microfilm, is Gerald Lankester Harding, who was the director of Jordan's Department of Antiquities (1936-1956).


The scroll is said to have been found in the Qumran "Cave 11", in 1956, together with the other, already publicized scrolls and fragments. This cave was found by the same Bedouin, Abu Dahoud, who found the first cave in 1947.

Apart from this and another scroll from Cave 11 that Strugnell had seen personally, he had heard Harding speak of at least 2 never published scrolls from the same find. These, or some of them, were at that time (the Kuwait crisis) about to be bought by private, probably European collectors or bankers. The reason for buying them was for investments. Although Strugnell had arranged with serious buyers who would publicize the scrolls, he was not able to convince the owners to sell.

Abu Dahoud has confirmed that he and 10 other men found the cave, and sold the scrolls to many different people.


The importance of a complete Aramaic manuscript of the Book of Enoch could be immense. A DSS scholar writes: "No trace of the Parables of Enoch has been discovered at Qumran, and it is widely considered today to be a composition of the later first century C.E. If a pre-Christian copy of the Parables were ever discovered, it would create a sensation".

The Parables is a part of the Ethiopian translation of the Book of Enoch. It is disputed how old it is and if it was originally a part of Enoch (although today most scholars believe it to be pre-Christian). If it was proven to have been a part of the original Aramaic book, it would mean that all of its prophecies concerning the coming Son of Man, which no one can mistake for non other than Jesus, would have been written before Jesus was born.

A complete aramaic book of Enoch would also correct possible translation errors in the Ethiopic versions.

1. "An Interview with John Strugnell", Biblical Achaeology Review, july/aug 1994.
2. Avi Katzman, Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 262.
3. N. Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism & the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls (1994), p.162.
4. g-megillot - Scholarly discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls
5. Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls
6. A New Translation - The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 279
7. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, (1985), p. 89.


  1. Thanks for your post about the Aramaic Enoch Scroll. This really would be of immense value if it were published. If only scholars of these Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts would open the source documents to the public! Instead they jealously guard them for their careers.

    1. Well, I agree, but they aren't guarding it them for themselves, unfortunately.

      They're guarding them from the public eye.

      If a pre-Christian copy were ever published, it would prove the Messianic claims of Christ without the ability to argue against it, the false understanding of the Jewish people about who the Messiah would be, what His role truly was, the corruption of the paleo Hebrew old testament when the unvowelled masoretic text was created, their rejection of many other books of scripture that were in the septuagint, their murder of the innocent, meaning early Christians, their blasphemy against God, and put everyone on earth in full view of the accuracy of not only the book of Enoch, but the words and teachings of Christ. The book of Enoch forces a singular conclusion to be drawn, which is that the gospels are true, Christ was the Jewish Messiah, and that God is not only real, but everything written is real and accurate and the Jewish people are not (currently) highly favored or in a place of honor with God, but rather in exile for their murder of Christ and their position has been given to gentiles, exactly as 2 Esdras ch. 1 says (minus the few Jewish converts to Christianity).

      It carries a lot of heavy and embarrassing implications for the Jewish leaders and people and it would shatter all Abrahamic religions, because they all speak of Christ, but only one says He's the Messiah, so it would prove Christianity to be the truth of God and the true new covenant spoken of by Jeremiah. What jew would want that? That's who holds the scrolls, so why would they ever let that out? There is abundant evidence that Enoch was not only inspired, but that it predates the entire old testament by a very long time. That's why you see the Azazel ritual in Leviticus 16 and why Christ and the Apostles teach so heavily from the book of Enoch. It's no coincidence. I love this book so much.

  2. you might want to check out the hebrew restoration work done over @ www.thechronicalproject.org

  3. ***A complete aramaic book of Enoch would also correct possible translation errors in the Ethiopic versions.***

    😕😕what a conclusion😕😕

    You guys are dying to mislead the majority, showing the opposite direction of the truth.
    How on earth could anyone try to correct the only complete scripture based on a version that doesn't exist in the first place?

    Anyone who've got the chance to read the Ethiopic version of Enoch and refer it with the bible can easily understand the authenticity of the Geez version which had been protected and hidden from the rest of the world by the Holly fathers of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for a delebret GODLY reason.

    For those of you with clean and honest heart, seeking for the righteous words Please Come and share this priceless scripture with us, Ethiopians,

  4. It would correct the Ethiopian version IF it differed from the other Aramaic scrolls, because they're much older than the Ge'ez version, at least according to what's said about the history of the Ethiopian Bible. I'm not doubting the accuracy of the Ethiopian version, but IF it did differ from the Aramaic versions, it would strongly suggest the Ethiopian version had some errors in it. I'm not saying it does have errors, I'm just saying that's how it would prove it one way or the other. Do you know how old the Ethiopian book of Enoch truly is? I'm asking sincerely, because I do believe these Aramaic Enoch scrolls exist. It would only make sense in order for your Ethiopian version to be authentic, because if they don't exist, and the Parables were written after the death of Christ, that would discredit the Ethiopian version of Enoch as having added to the book things that weren't originally written in it.

    I'm not saying that's the case at all, because I can't read ge'ez, but I would love to learn and be able to, so I can study some older languages than our English translations of Enoch.

    Ive learned not to trust translations of scripture. That's a very easy way to be misguided, because you are only reading someone else's interpretation and understanding of the book, you're not reading the original language.

    I highly suspect the Ethiopian version is accurate, because it contains the original books of the septuagint, which was clearly used in Christian evangelism after the death of Christ, so the Ethiopian Bible gives us a clear view of what Christian evangelism looked like in the early years following the death of Christ, which supports the septuagint being more reliable and a more complete volume of scripture than the 66 book modern day bibles, and especially the masoretic Hebrew text that is divergent from the paleo Hebrew manuscripts of the old testament.