Why was the Book of Enoch not canonized...

[BradtheImpaler]

...by any of the major Churches, when it is quoted in Jude?

I believe it is in the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox canon, though - is that correct James(OC)? That would seem to make the decision even more arbitrary?

One explanation I have heard is that the authorship is questionable, but heck, that didn't stop any other book of the bible from being canonized :wink:

 

[kwag_myers]

According to this article http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm the book (along with some others) never made it past the Council Of Laodicea in 364 A.D. http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm and was actually banned. I couldn't find the exact reason, but I know that the council had specific criteria that had to be met, such as known authorship (as you've mentioned) and the writings had to be discerned (by the council) to be inspired by God.

From Revelation 3:14-16 we know that it didn't take the Laodiceas long to get complacent. My guess is that they missed the "inspired by God" part 'cause their "discernerators" were rusty.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

According to this article http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm the book (along with some others) never made it past the Council Of Laodicea in 364 A.D. http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm and was actually banned. I couldn't find the exact reason, but I know that the council had specific criteria that had to be met, such as known authorship (as you've mentioned) and the writings had to be discerned (by the council) to be inspired by God.

From Revelation 3:14-16 we know that it didn't take the Laodiceas long to get complacent. My guess is that they missed the "inspired by God" part 'cause their "discernerators" were rusty.

Interesting, Kwag. Are you saying you feel the book should have been canonized?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

It is my understanding that it is canonical in the Coptic canon. It was not included in the Canon of scripture ultimately because it was clearly written in the so-called inetrtestemental period, and not by who it purports to be written by. But- if you have read it, you will see where much of John's imagery of heaven comes from.

Enoch is a prime example of pre-Christian apocalyptic literature. I've read it through a couple of times, and find it absolutely fascinating.

 

[Green^Horn]

...by any of the major Churches, when it is quoted in Jude?

i have no idea, but i would like to point out that, there are many questions raised in genesis chapter 6 and many other places in the bible where it talks of giants that cries out for answers, and the only satisfactory answers i can find to these questions are in the book of enoch.

i have studied it quite a bit, and i can't find anything in it contradictory to the rest of the bible, but rather it answers many questions, and unlocks quite a few mysteries. and i'm lead to believe that since jude quotes from it(and almost word for word i might add) i believe that it is just as inspired as any of the books in the bible,

also i find that some other books are(i believe) just as valueble, like jubulees and the book of jasher(or little genesis as it is sometimes called), also my 100+ year old 1611 KJV has about 13 other books and 3 more chapters of daniel in it, that are no longer included in the KJV, i would have liked it much better if they had left them in it myself, it is very old and the pages are very brittle, i'm almost afraid to open it for the damage i might do in reading it, but thanks to the guys at http://www.e-sword.net and their free e-sword software, and the addon KJVA module, i can read those other books on my computer without the fear of damaging my old 1611 KJV left me by my dad, but every once in a while i still use it to proof read other texts, i have thought about having it re-bound, but i'm afraid it will get accadently lost on purpose(if you know what i mean).

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Well, if you're going to include the Book of Enoch, might as well include the protoevangelion of St James. It answers a few questions also. :wink:

 

[kwag_myers]

Interesting, Kwag. Are you saying you feel the book should have been canonized?

Actually, I've never read it. We discussed the Lost Books of Eden in seminary, but never really got into them.

What I am saying is that the Council of Laodicea may not have been at the top of their game (spiritually) when they made the decision to ban the Book of Enoch.

We read books by contemporary and historical authors which help us in our Christian walk. There's no reason why the Book of Enoch should be excluded.

But getting back to your question as to why the book was not included in the Bible, I can only say that what's done is done. Since I can't find a specific record of why, I can only speculate.

My personal criteria is this; if the book lines up with the Bible, it's worth a read. If it doesn't, then don't.

 

[jamescarvin]

Re: Enoch

According to this article http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm the book (along with some others) never made it past the Council Of Laodicea in 364 A.D. http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm and was actually banned. I couldn't find the exact reason, but I know that the council had specific criteria that had to be met, such as known authorship (as you've mentioned) and the writings had to be discerned (by the council) to be inspired by God.

From Revelation 3:14-16 we know that it didn't take the Laodiceas long to get complacent. My guess is that they missed the "inspired by God" part 'cause their "discernerators" were rusty.

I know this is a response to a two-year old post, but since I found it on a look up on Enoch as I was looking for info on the council backdrop for its rejection and others may find it through the same Google search, I'll offer some comments.

First, the quotes you have were probably found by Googling the same way I did. They are the opinions held by some 7th Day Adventists, who have picked up on the Sabbath teaching in Enoch and find themselves in the ironic position of wanting to defend this book, calling on the authority of the Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Church to do so.

If anyone doesn't see the irony here I'm not going to bother explaining it.

Pentecostals are also now picking up on Enoch and calling on the Ethiopian authority for similar reasons. The world just keeps getting more bizarre. Just for the record, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the Ethiopians were ever Sabbath keepers or pro-Phrygian. While the canons of the Council of Laodacea were clearly written by ecclesiastical control-freaks and demonstrate a certain mentality, it is being proposed that that up until this council the book of Enoch had been accepted.

The Council of Laodacea (364 A.D.) came after Nicea (325 A.D.), that council made famous by Dan Brown for supposedly suppresing the authentic work of Mary Magdelene (are our memories so short?). It is amazing how people will attempt to revise history to support their views. Here is a list of Canon lists quoted in full by ECFs and Councils which I found convenient for any interested in pursuing this subject. http: // www. bible-researcher.com/canon8.html …

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170). Enoch not listed
Melito (c. 170). Enoch not listed
Origen (c. 240). Enoch not listed
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324). Enoch not listed
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350). Enoch not listed
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360). Enoch not listed
The Cheltenham List (c. 360). Enoch not listed
Council of Laodicea (c. 363). Enoch not listed
Letter of Athanasius (367). Enoch not listed
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380). Enoch not listed
Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380). Enoch not listed
The "Apostolic Canons" (c. 380). Enoch not listed
Epiphanius (c. 385). Enoch not listed
Jerome (c. 390). Enoch not listed
Augustine (c. 397). Enoch not listed
Third Council of Carthage (397). Enoch not listed
Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 400). Enoch not listed, but Two Ways and Judgment of Peter are
Codex Claromontanus (c. 400). Included Revelation of Peter, Hermas, and Barnabas, but Enoch not listed
Letter of Innocent I (405). Enoch not listed
Decree of Gelasius (c. 550). Enoch not listed
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (c. 550). Enoch not listed
John of Damascus (c. 730). Enoch not listed

Conclusion: decision not to include Enoch was not "decided at the Council of Laodacea." The Council's decision may have had some influnence on subsequent councils and opinions. However, Laodacea was not a great ecumenical council and did not have the level of authority over Christendom worldwide that modern proponents of Enoch are making out.

Bottom line: Jude may have been quoting from an oral tradition given to him by Jesus, which is what makes it inspired, not the book itself, which may contain the quote, but is itself not so inpsired.

Example: I tell you that Jesus loves you. You may quote me on that and this very thing is written in a book of mine I titled "How Jesus saved me." The notion that Jesus loves you is genuinely inspired. However, my little book, which contains this quote, is not an inspired book.

None of this is to say that the first book of Enoch, from whence this quote is found in its first chapter, is not inspired. It is simply to say that the fact that Jude, or some of the early fathers may have quoted from it, does not necessarily mean that it is inspired. And it certainly doesn't mean that the book is the authentic writing of Enoch himself.

One thing commonly ommitted in the discussion about Jude quoting Enoch is the fact that Jude does not refer to a book, but to Enoch himself, in his words "in the seventh generation from Adam" so that there can be no mistake about which Enoch he is referring to. It is not some disciple of his who recorded an oral tradition that was several thousand years old. Jude meant Enoch himself.

 

[mondar]

Why is the book of Enoch any different then the pantheistic greek poets in acts 17?

28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.

 

[Bick]

To me, that was an excellent analysis, James Carver.

As for the Scriptures using words used in other writings, words of other philosophies, etc, we know that when the Spirit of God inspired someone to use them, they are then pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, seven times (Psalms 12:6).

For example, in Greek religion and mythology, Hades (also called Pluto) was the king of the underworld, God of the dead. The underworld was a gloomy place of deakness where the souls of dead mortals went. Yet, in Greek mythology, the souls were really alive for they had to cross the river Styx by boat. Also, it was said, they would try to escape, if possible, but never could.
It came to be that the underworld, "the abode of the dead", was called Hades.

"Hades" (English form), "Ades" (Greek), "Haides" (transliteration) means "Unseen one", that is, Hades the god.

In the Scriptures, "Hades" is used four times in the Gospels, once each in Acts 2:27 and 31, and four times in Revelation.

"Hades" is equivalent to "Sheol" in the OT. This is proved when Peter on the day of Pentecost, quotes from Psalm 16:10, "you will not abandon me to the grave (Sheol), but using Greek, it reads, "you will not abondon me to the grave (Hades), NIV.

Both "Sheol" and "Hades" can be translated as "unseen" or "grave" depending on the context.

 

[MISFIT]

I love the book of Enoch, and can't see why it's not a part of the Bible.

 

[St Francis]

...by any of the major Churches, when it is quoted in Jude?

I believe it is in the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox canon, though - is that correct James(OC)? That would seem to make the decision even more arbitrary?

One explanation I have heard is that the authorship is questionable, but heck, that didn't stop any other book of the bible from being canonized :wink:

The only way to answer that question is to grapple with the bigger question: Who has the authority to say which books belong in the Bible and which do not?

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>I tell you that Jesus loves you. You may quote me on that and this very thing is written in a book of mine I titled "How Jesus saved me." The notion that Jesus loves you is genuinely inspired. However, my little book, which contains this quote, is not an inspired book.

None of this is to say that the first book of Enoch, from whence this quote is found in its first chapter, is not inspired. It is simply to say that the fact that Jude, or some of the early fathers may have quoted from it, does not necessarily mean that it is inspired. And it certainly doesn't mean that the book is the authentic writing of Enoch himself.

One thing commonly ommitted in the discussion about Jude quoting Enoch is the fact that Jude does not refer to a book, but to Enoch himself, in his words "in the seventh generation from Adam" so that there can be no mistake about which Enoch he is referring to. It is not some disciple of his who recorded an oral tradition that was several thousand years old. Jude meant Enoch himself.

First of all, quoting someone who said, "Jesus loves you", is not in any way equivalent to quoting someone who said, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude :14-15)

That requires either having the book from which it is a quote on hand, or else memorizing the verse from the book. If I were to quote a passage from a modern book of that length and claim "I knew I'd heard it somewhere, but was just giving the gist", I'd be no less a plagiarist.

Scholarship demonstrates the Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch, aka Ethiopic Enoch) was in wide circulation in the 1st century. It takes a lot less faith for me to believe Jude simply quoted it.

http://www.summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#1:9

Enoch 1:9, "Behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

Further, the assertion that Jude quotes Enoch and does not quote the book only strengthens the respect the Book of Enoch deserves. If the Book of Enoch accurately preserves a quote from an antediluvian, that's something truly amazing.

Despite trying to suppress it, as the majority of the Church has done for a long, long time, the Book of Enoch has made a comeback in the modern era that is nothing short of phenomenal. Its the book that won't get lost no matter how hard we try and no matter how hard we divert people away from reading it. But hey, that's what Enoch, the purported author of the book seems to have predicted when he wrote, "The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said- Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come."

 

[follower of Christ]

...by any of the major Churches, when it is quoted in Jude?

I believe it is in the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox canon, though - is that correct James(OC)? That would seem to make the decision even more arbitrary?

One explanation I have heard is that the authorship is questionable, but heck, that didn't stop any other book of the bible from being canonized :wink:

Hmmm.
Do we know for certain that Jude was literally quoting Enoch ?
Maybe Jude simply knew about the event that Enoch records ?
Enoch having some point of truth in it doesnt mean its 'inspired' or is accurate as a whole, kwim ?

If its not in there Id think it may mean that we simply dont need it for doctrine or understanding, assuming it was actually inspired