Book of Enoch?

[BackwithJesus24]

As we all know, the book of Enoch was excluded from both Catholic and Protestant bibles: Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Any ideas?

 

[brinny]

Enoch walked with God. The book of enoch has nothing to do with the man of God, Enoch.

The book of enoch appears to be a gnostic consortium of writings, at the very least.

 

[PropheticTimes]

As we all know, the book of Enoch was excluded from both Catholic and Protestant bibles: Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Any ideas?

The canonized Scripture is a fluent storyline of God's active love and saving grace for mankind. Extra-Biblical texts, such as 1 Enoch (not including 2 Enoch or 3 Enoch), Jasher, Jubilees, and more are mentioned in Scripture and run true to Scripture. I see them as important documents not related to the story of salvation, but full of truth nonetheless.

 

[Sanoy]

Although the Book of Enoch is used in Peter and Jude (and possibly Galatians), most of the church fathers could not accept the idea of giants. Tertullian defended it but bowed to the acceptance of the majority.

Here is the transcript of a podcast dealing with the early church fathers and the Book of Enoch.

 

[1213]

...
Any ideas?

Difficult to know. I think it is in line with Bible, therefore it could as well be in the Bible, in my opinion. But I think it is not necessary, in my opinion Bible has all important things without Enoch also.

 

[geiroffenberg]

As we all know, the book of Enoch was excluded from both Catholic and Protestant bibles: Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Any ideas?

just want to point out that the catholic or the protestant canon didnt exlude the book of enoch, it is of course not a new testament book, so it wouldnt be in there, and in the old testament these most common christian canons simply follows the masoretic text of judaism, and they do not have the book of enoch, even if the book probalb y is not regarded as heretic by most (mainly because it has a historic record as being regarded as valuable in the first centuries of christianity as well as in judaism).
But when Jesus and Paul referes to their scriptures, they talk about tanakh, and it didnt have the book of enoch. Josephus says teh spetugaint, the greek translation of the jewish scriptures from few centuries before jesus, was as good as the hebrew/arameic texts. But it does not have enochs book. So since jesus apparantly several places confirms the scriptures, the tankach (or the "law and the prophets" etc) as the word of god, and since enoch isnt in that collection of scriutpures he refers to, we can assume enoch is not conrifmed by jesus as 100% inspired by God.
Its still a good read and can clearify ltos of things, but it doesnt qualify as scripture.

 

[Dave-W]

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Enoch lived thousands of years before the book with his name was written - therefore it is called pseudopigrapha - false writing. It was written between 100 bc and about 40 ad.

 

[geiroffenberg]

Enoch lived thousands of years before the book with his name was written - therefore it is called pseudopigrapha - false writing. It was written between 100 bc and about 40 ad.

it is not a common sensus that the book of enoch is pseudopigraphic or "false writing". There are very old christian traditions that still regards it as canonical and have it in their bibles, the ethopian canon claims it was written by enoch. Hisotically the book of enoch (the first one) was defeneded as real by some of the early prominent church fathers.

 

[JoeP222w]

As we all know, the book of Enoch was excluded from both Catholic and Protestant bibles

Yes, it was, because it was never part of the canon of scripture.

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Not everything that Old Testament Patriarchs wrote were God-breathed scripture. And it is not likely that Enoch wrote the book of Enoch.

I would venture a guess that Moses wrote many things that were not scripture.

The book of Enoch is inconsistent with scripture, that is why it is not part of the canon.

 

[geiroffenberg]

The book of Enoch is inconsistent with scripture, that is why it is not part of the canon.

hi,
what part of enoch is inconsistent with scripture?

 

[Sanoy]

If it is a valid book, which I believe it is, then it is very important because in the first chapter it declares that it is written for a future generation living in the tribulation.

 

[geiroffenberg]

If it is a valid book, which I believe it is, then it is very important because in the first chapter it declares that it is written for a future generation living in the tribulation.

thats right, the new testament validates that these prophecies as truth since it quotes it as if it is truth.

 

[geiroffenberg]

Think on this; many believe there are only like 66 books of the Bible right? and they deny the books of Enoch, jasher, jubilees, etc etc. yet they fail to see that the Bible specifically references other books that are not contained in the modern bible. Why is that? With that being said I personally have concluded that there is more books out there. I also must openly admit I have read and rather enjoyed the book of Enoch and so forth, and I believe it could be canon.

theres really no problem in honoring the canon, specially the new testament canon which is the same in all major christian bible collections, and still appreciate some of the books the bible quotes. I mean, really, we are definitly allowed to listen to teachers and prophets outside of scripture, it doesnt mean everything is 100% pure tho. its ok.

 

[TheNorwegian]

The apostle Paul quotes two secular Greek writers: Epimenides (Acts 17:28 +Titus 1:12) and Menander (1Cor 15:33). No one would suggest those writers should be included in the Bible! This shows that the Bible quote many books that are not - and should not be - part of Canon

 

[Sanoy]

The apostle Paul quotes two secular Greek writers: Epimenides (Acts 17:28 +Titus 1:12) and Menander (1Cor 15:33). No one would suggest those writers should be included in the Bible! This shows that the Bible quote many books that are not - and should not be - part of Canon

I agree with you, that we cannot take the fact that it’s quoted to mean it is scripture. We need to see how it is quoted and Acts 17 and Titus 1 are being used very differently than in Peter and Jude.

First lets look at how Acts and Titus are used…

Acts: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Titus: One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

In the case of acts Paul was using culturally relevant material to appeal to the Athenians. In the case of Titus he is referring to the Cretens and uses their own testimonies to prove his point. The purpose is very clear, and the speaker is in no way authorizing or using or bringing up the content of those sources.

That is not the case for Jude and Peter. Jude is accessing the content of those books. They don’t just quote the Book of Enoch they speak from it’s content, from it's elusive system of beliefs. For example “And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. “ 2nd Peter relates the same message. They are not just quoting Enoch they are founding their message on the specific content of the book. The content of their preaching is not found anywhere else in the Bible to that specificity, it comes from Enoch.

So I think the distinction here is that Jude and Peter rely on the doctrinal content of Enoch. But I must also say that Jude and Peter are not directly calling it scripture, so there is that distinction as well. What we can say is that the content of the Book of Enoch informed the theology of Jude and Peter, and they relied on that content to a great measure that may obtain to scriptural level but not necessarily. At the safest we can say there is something important in the content of Enoch that we as Christians should be aware of because Jude and Peter were aware of that content, it shaped their theological understanding, and they found it to be very important to Christianity.

 

[1stcenturylady]

From what I've heard, there have been additions made to the Book of Enoch, but I believe the original is important enough to the apostles to quote portions in their writings, by both Jude and Peter.

Another book I absolutely, without question believe to be canonical is the Epistle of Barnabas. Seeing as there are only 27 books in the current New Testament, the addition of the EoB would be 28, exactly divisible by 7. Let's face it, 66 is not a godly number, telling me there are missing books being preserved by God, possibly for last days.

 

[sparow]

As we all know, the book of Enoch was excluded from both Catholic and Protestant bibles: Book of Enoch - Wikipedia

Why is that the case though? Enoch was listed as an Old Testament Patriarch, and many of the names of God's angels are listed in it.

Any ideas?

My previous study revealed that the Jews had only written down the previous oral book of Enoch around the same time as the Talmuds were written down; Why the Book of Enoch was omitted from the Jewish Cannon I do not know; but the book of Enoch was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[TheNorwegian]

That is not the case for Jude and Peter. Jude is accessing the content of those books. They don’t just quote the Book of Enoch they speak from it’s content, from it's elusive system of beliefs. For example “And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. “ 2nd Peter relates the same message. They are not just quoting Enoch they are founding their message on the specific content of the book. The content of their preaching is not found anywhere else in the Bible to that specificity, it comes from Enoch.

So I think the distinction here is that Jude and Peter rely on the doctrinal content of Enoch. But I must also say that Jude and Peter are not directly calling it scripture, so there is that distinction as well. What we can say is that the content of the Book of Enoch informed the theology of Jude and Peter, and they relied on that content to a great measure that may obtain to scriptural level but not necessarily. At the safest we can say there is something important in the content of Enoch that we as Christians should be aware of because Jude and Peter were aware of that content, it shaped their theological understanding, and they found it to be very important to Christianity.

Your argument is based on silence, since we do not know what Jude and Peter felt about the rest of the Book of Enoch. It is not necessary so that Jude and Peter base their theology on the Book of Enoch. All we know is that Jude and Peter agrees with some of the contents of the Book of Enoch. We do not know whether they agreed on other parts of that book. All three writers (Peter, Jude, Enoch) shared a common religious environment and history, so it is not surprising that they agree with one another in certain aspects.

I assume that even today a Jewish writer could agree with some of the statements of Jesus - and even quote the New Testament. But that would not mean that a Jewish writer would acknowledge the New testament as Scripture. The same is true for how Jude and Peter quotes the Book of Enoch

 

[TheNorwegian]

My previous study revealed that the Jews had only written down the previous oral book of Enoch around the same time as the Talmuds were written down; Why the Book of Enoch was omitted from the Jewish Cannon I do not know; but the book of Enoch was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls was a library with many different kind of books - not a collection of canonical writings. Therefore, it is misleading to say that a certain book "was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls"

 

[sparow]

The Dead Sea Scrolls was a library with many different kind of books - not a collection of canonical writings. Therefore, it is misleading to say that a certain book "was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls"

I certainly do not see any problem in saying what I said; I thought the topic was what was wrong with the book of Enoch and who considers it wrong. I do not believe it is the word of God, but it is a history (not necessarily accurate) like the Talmuds or Acts.