The modern hesitation toward Enoch is often less textual than philosophical. Since Hume, readers have been trained to treat miracle-laden or cosmically charged testimony as inherently suspect unless it clears an unusually high evidential bar. But Hume’s argument against miracles is not a settled philosophical law; it is a contested framework. That matters because Scripture itself assumes a world of divine action, rebellious heavenly beings, judgment, vision, and apocalypse. Once that biblical ontology is granted, Enoch’s content is no longer "extraordinary" in the relevant sense. The real question is not whether Enoch sounds too strange for modern readers, but whether it preserves traditions that Scripture itself presupposes and occasionally invokes directly.
