William Whiston in His Time
William Whiston, the sometime friend and colleague of Sir Isaac Newton, succeeded Newton as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. Yet physics and mathematics were not their only shared interests. Both men were enthusiastic believers in the Bible as the revelation of God’s word, and both pursued a speculative, futurist study of biblical prophecy and the end times.
Whiston’s defense of Enoch is especially striking because he lived in an age when prominent intellectuals and scientists were not hesitant to speak openly about faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the supernatural character of Scripture.
Why His Writing Still Matters
Whiston’s work also complicates a common modern assumption: that futurist interpretations of biblical prophecy began in nineteenth-century America with figures such as John Nelson Darby or C. I. Scofield. Newton and Whiston were European scholars articulating futurist perspectives long before a distinct American identity had fully formed.
Whiston reminds modern readers that rigorous intellectual inquiry, biblical faith, and serious engagement with prophecy were not once regarded as incompatible pursuits.
Two Books He Believed Had Become Alienated from Scripture
The restored volume brings together two works Whiston regarded as legitimate Scriptures that had become separated from the Bible: the Book of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Both belong to the apocalyptic genre and claim to draw back the veil on unseen spiritual realities and events yet future.
The Testaments are particularly important to Whiston’s case because they repeatedly refer to Enoch as a book used by the biblical patriarchs for insight into future events.
The Great Obstacle of His Century
Whiston strongly supported Enoch’s authenticity, but eighteenth-century investigation faced a severe limitation: the complete book was believed lost. Only a few Greek fragments survived in the work of the ninth-century chronographer George Syncellus.
Whiston therefore stands at a crucial point in the narrative. He argued for Enoch before the complete Ethiopic manuscripts were brought to Western attention, and before the modern field of Enochic studies could properly begin.