Yes, I just checked into the discovery and 1 Enoch and Jubilees were the only 2 books found with manuscripts in number similar to books of the Bible. On looking into the history of the book of 1 Enoch however, I find it interesting that it was quoted from by Jude and possibly Peter as well. I still don’t know that I think much of the other apocrypha, but I’m going to give serious consideration at least to 1 Enoch.
Because I am a firm believer in evidence for God’s Word being the state in which it is preserved, I will also have to look into the book of Jubilees as well. I have observed that the false gospels of philip, thomas, etc. are incomplete and knowledge of them consists of only a few incomplete manuscript fragments, while all 66 books of the Bible are VERY well attested to by manuscript evidence.
I have considered it a strong proof for God’s divine preservation of His Word. If you can show me proofs for any of the other apocrypha being close to well preserved in comparison to the books of the Bible, I will consider them too.
Well, I’m reading 1 Enoch for the first time… it is a very odd book. It is almost like the first chapter is by a different author. Chapters 2-4 seem almost a sloppy attempt to imitate the book of Job, just as the Quran is a sloppy attempt to imitate the Old Testament.
Furthermore, it is particularly noticeable how the focus of the chapters is on the natural world rather than the Creator of it, as differing from the 1st and 5th chapters (or at least some of the 5th chapter). This strikes me as dissimilar to the Bible where the natural world’s wonders are so set forth only as a way of constantly showing God’s power, and thus a focus is constantly put and kept on Him.
Furthermore, chapter 3 especially seems to make a special effort at presenting information that at the time must have seemed impressive, but we can now recognize many more than 14 species of conifers (around 700). And even if trying to group into sub-species, I think there would be a problem. The 2-3 year age limit set for conifers losing their foliage is likely wrong in some instances as well.
Chapter 4 seems to exaggerate in saying the heat during summer is so great that one can’t walk on the ground or rocks.
Chapter 7 again seems to offer unlikely measurements, something I don’t see occur in the Bible. 3000 ells for each giant? They were all the same height? Unlikely. And the lack of the use of this measurement (ells) in the Old Testament seems suspicious at best.
Chapter 8 provides a direct contradiction with the Bible. Azazel is said to have taught men the art of metals, but in Genesis 4:22 Tubalcain is said to have done that.
Chapter 9 seems to differ from God’s writing style in the Old Testament in providing a long clumsy list of 4 short names of God back to back, when in the Old Testament I see no precedent for this occurring (it seems an attempt to use the 2 names mentioned in Deut. 10:17 but then adding 2 more on).
Again the writing style differs in naming the number of ages as 5. The use of numbers in a passage describing the natural world seems dissimilar from God’s writing style in the Old Testament.
Furthermore, the co-mingling of prophetic passages and passages about the natural world seems odd, when in the Bible they are clearly distinguished.
Also, the writing style seems dissimilar at the end of the chapter in providing so extensive a summation of material already mentioned as being told to God. The wording also strikes me as very different from that used by angels in the Bible.
I could go on, but all in all the writing style seems VERY dissimilar from that seen in the Bible. Perhaps the 1st chapter is original and inspired, but I suspect different parts were authored by different people and added later.
Overall, what most makes me not want to read it is that it just isn’t God’s writing style. I’ve read the Bible enough to notice He has a distinctive, consistent tone throughout, and works like the Quran and 1 Enoch have a noticeably different one.
If it makes logical errors according to reasoning or science it invalidates itself. Ultimately, we will have to decide whether or not to rest upon God and His promises as presented in the Bible. We will each have to decide whether He and His promises are trustworthy.
Seriously, though, it’s not as if those Councils just went through a stack of books and said, “This one looks good. This one doesn’t. Oooh, this one supports my agenda, so let’s make sure to get that one in there!” The canon was largely agreed upon before the Councils. They were just confirming it. I’m sure there are others here who could give you more historical info on the subject. I know there’s a good book on the development of the canon, but I can’t think of it right now.