Why was the Book of Enoch excluded from Canon?

[iohannes13]

Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom, and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the “Angels” who fathered the nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their prior covenant with Yahweh (cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people who did not worship God.

This also is the view of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,[40] supported by their own Ge’ez manuscripts and Amharic translation of the Haile Selassie Bible—where the books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees, counted as canonical by this church, differ from western academic editions.[41] The “Sons of Seth view” is also the view presented in a few extra-biblical, yet ancient works, including Clementine literature, the 3rd century Cave of Treasures, and the ca. 6th Century Ge’ez work The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan. In these sources, these offspring of Seth were said to have disobeyed God, by breeding with the Cainites and producing wicked children “who were all unlike”, thus angering God into bringing about the Deluge, as in the Conflict:

I hadn’t read about the Seth interpretation. But I do remember reading an aprophycal OT book similar to the Seth story you just mentioned. I don’t remember the name of the group but they were in the holy mountain and came down and mixed with the daughters of Cain if I’m not mistaken. The conflict of Adam of Eve and Satan rings a bell it may of been that book. So this story I read, the story of Seth, and the Book of Enoch have parallels right. I read a different interpretation. I read the it was written by Hebrews that were not taken to Babylon into captivity and are more or less criticising the Hebrews that returned after their release. Theses Hebrews picked up aspects of Babylonion culture and religion. The evils were the Babylonion corruptions. But the Seth story of them mixing with Caanonites works too on a lot of levels as an explaination.

 

[iohannes13]

Is there any question whether the Book of Enoch was indeed authored by Enoch? Isn’t Enoch the only other “regular” person, aside from Elijah, to be raised to Heaven body and soul? Is he not believed to be one of the two witnesses written in Revelation?

In the book “The Mystical City of God” by the Venerable Mary of Agreda, it states he was present at the Last Supper and because he had his body, he and Elijah were able to receive the Holy Eucharist.

If there is no question of the Book’s author and Enoch is one of two very special people who have their body, then wouldn’t there be more credence put to his work? Is it possible that the Church did not want to confuse people with concepts beyond their understanding?

I’m just connecting some dots. Please correct me if I’m wrong as I have a limited understanding of this topic myself.

Peace.

+JMJ+

There were many Church Fathers that believed that it was written by Enoch. But if you read Patrick457’s post earlier, and read the Catholic resources like the encyclopedia, scholars believe that the book was written in sections over hundreds of years. So there is no way that the same person could have written it.

I actually saw a post last week asking the question whether Enoch was one of the witnesses in Revelations in the forum. A quick search, there are several topics asking this same question. Check them out. I don’t think that the Church has a defined who the two witnesses are. The book of Revelations is full of poetry and symbolism so the two witnesses may not be literal people.

Scott Hahn wrote a book called the Lord’s Supper. I can’t find my copy to tell you what the two witnesses were interpreted to be. In his interpretation, the Book of Revelations is about the Mass and not so much about the end of the world. It’s a very good read and interesting interpretation about the Book of Revelations. I lean on his interpretation because his interpretation places the book in its historical and cultural context and lines up with what the Church was experiencing around the year 90 AD. I don’t recall that in the context of the Mass, that Scott Hahn interpreted the two Witness as literal individuals. I sort of recall that one was the prophets (all) or the Old Testament. My memory could be wrong.

As to why it was rejected, Patrick457 wrote a nice post confirming my thoughts. This book does not say that sin came through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. It gives a different explaination.

 

[cjforJesus]

There were many Church Fathers that believed that it was written by Enoch. But if you read Patrick457’s post earlier, and read the Catholic resources like the encyclopedia, scholars believe that the book was written in sections over hundreds of years. So there is no way that the same person could have written it.

I actually saw a post last week asking the question whether Enoch was one of the witnesses in Revelations in the forum. A quick search, there are several topics asking this same question. Check them out. I don’t think that the Church has a defined who the two witnesses are. The book of Revelations is full of poetry and symbolism so the two witnesses may not be literal people.

Scott Hahn wrote a book called the Lord’s Supper. I can’t find my copy to tell you what the two witnesses were interpreted to be. In his interpretation, the Book of Revelations is about the Mass and not so much about the end of the world. It’s a very good read and interesting interpretation about the Book of Revelations. I lean on his interpretation because his interpretation places the book in its historical and cultural context and lines up with what the Church was experiencing around the year 90 AD. I don’t recall that in the context of the Mass, that Scott Hahn interpreted the two Witness as literal individuals. I sort of recall that one was the prophets (all) or the Old Testament. My memory could be wrong.

As to why it was rejected, Patrick457 wrote a nice post confirming my thoughts. This book does not say that sin came through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. It gives a different explaination.

I do not believe I agree with Scott Hahn that the Apocalypse is about the mass.
It is entirely possible that the two witnesses are Enoch and Elijah because neither one has experienced death yet.Seems I read somewhere that some of the church Fathers as well as a few saints posed that interpretation.

 

[patrick457]

I hadn’t read about the Seth interpretation. But I do remember reading an aprophycal OT book similar to the Seth story you just mentioned. I don’t remember the name of the group but they were in the holy mountain and came down and mixed with the daughters of Cain if I’m not mistaken. The conflict of Adam of Eve and Satan rings a bell it may of been that book. So this story I read, the story of Seth, and the Book of Enoch have parallels right.

The “sons of God (El)” = ‘sons of Seth’ interpretation is actually a later interpretation that tries to ‘historicize’ / ‘naturalize’ the passage in Genesis, thereby avoiding the by then already-becoming-problematic interpretation that angels could mate with humans and have children. Christians (and even Jews) adopted this interpretation as the standard one because their theologies had gone to the point that the idea of angels having children was unthinkable. But during the time when Enoch was written (early Second Temple period), it apparently still wasn’t problematic to suggest that these “sons of God” were ‘divine’-ish beings / angels of some sort.

(AFAIK it was actually Julius Africanus that first suggested the “sons of God” = line of Seth interpretation. He did so in order to expressly criticize the idea still common in his day (early 200s) that identified them with angels.

I read a different interpretation. I read the it was written by Hebrews that were not taken to Babylon into captivity and are more or less criticising the Hebrews that returned after their release. Theses Hebrews picked up aspects of Babylonion culture and religion. The evils were the Babylonion corruptions. But the Seth story of them mixing with Caanonites works too on a lot of levels as an explaination.

I think you’re getting it upside-down.

The thing is, Judaism as we know it today was really developed in Babylon. There is a Jewish tradition/legend which states that the Jews learned the names of the angels when they were in Babylon. Many scholars think that this legend has some truth in it: the developed angelology that appeared in post-exilic Judaism and Jewish apocalypticism and its dualistic worldview of good/light/truth vs. evil/darkness/lie were the Persian influences to Jewish thinking.

In other words, Jewish apocalypticism and angelology - the things you precisely see in the Book of Enoch - had their development while the Jews were exiled and came into contact with other peoples and religions, for example Persian Zoroastrianism. (There’s a very interesting relationship between these two religions: Zoroastrianism is said to have left its mark on Jewish thought, and at the same time it’s also possible the Jews had influenced the Persians as well.)

 

[thistle]

I was convinced about this after reading quite a few things, if you Google the topic of aliens are demons, there is quite a bit of information about this, when alien abduction is compared to demon possession, there are many similarities, the only difference is the appearance of the ‘beings’ in charge, the people are basically told aliens were the ones that created life on earth, God was made up, or some even claim they are told God WAS an alien being LOL Crazy stuff!

But when modern people see something or experience something like this and they see one of these things, it does make them question their faith and what the truth is…thats the exact goal satan and the demons desire, more and more people to stop believing God is who the bible claims he is.

*** I want to note that personally, Im not saying ALL of these aliens/UFOs are demons, I have no doubt that God likely created life in distant planets, I do believe God is the ultimate creator, if they exist…GOD created them. Im just saying its very convenient for demons to masquerade as something else in order to achieve their goal, and what better way, to convince people mankind was truly created by a race of advanced beings from a distant world…its really the perfect tool for Satan in the modern world.

While there may be life out there somewhere, aliens have never visited Earth and UFO’s are not alien spacecraft.

 

[mikekle]

While there may be life out there somewhere, aliens have never visited Earth and UFO’s are not alien spacecraft.

I strongly disagree, how do you explain the numerous US Govt documents released thru FOIA that talk about this?

Why would John Podesta, upon retiring, say his biggest regret during his career, was that the truth was not told to the public about this? Thats a pretty big indication imo.

 

[thistle]

I strongly disagree, how do you explain the numerous US Govt documents released thru FOIA that talk about this?

Why would John Podesta, upon retiring, say his biggest regret during his career, was that the truth was not told to the public about this? Thats a pretty big indication imo.

That is not an indication of anything.
No aliens have visited us and UFO’s are not alien spacecraft.

 

[MrSnaith]

From my understanding, the Canon of Scripture was determined based on which texts were being used in the Liturgy at the time. This suggests to me that the book of Enoch was NOT being used in this way, though some churches (such as those in Ethiopia) may have been.

How it was determined which Scriptures to use in the Liturgy… Not sure. It was probably a discretionary decision on the part of the local Bishops, since a council of that kind hadn’t been called yet. And since the Bishops each received the proper authority and protections from the Holy Spirit, those books that were allowed during the Liturgy, prior to a Council-determined Canon, would have been only those that were indeed inspired (the Bishops being guided by the Holy Spirit, and all). That’s my take on it anyway.

With regards to the question of the Nephilim. It’s an interesting one. We do know that Angels, throughout the OT, took on a human form. Some even ate food. That’s one of the mysteries of the OT that still exists. We know they weren’t truly human, as they do not have bodies by their own natures. But, how many bodily functions did such bodies have, that the angels took on? And if we have evidence of Angels coming in bodily form, real bodies that could interact with the physical world about them, then the question becomes, could demons also take on bodies, and if so, what could they do with them?

 

[TMC]

The “sons of God (El)” = ‘sons of Seth’ interpretation is actually a later interpretation that tries to ‘historicize’ / ‘naturalize’ the passage in Genesis, thereby avoiding the by then already-becoming-problematic interpretation that angels could mate with humans and have children. Christians (and even Jews) adopted this interpretation as the standard one because their theologies had gone to the point that the idea of angels having children was unthinkable. But during the time when Enoch was written (early Second Temple period), it apparently still wasn’t problematic to suggest that these “sons of God” were ‘divine’-ish beings / angels of some sort.

(AFAIK it was actually Julius Africanus that first suggested the “sons of God” = line of Seth interpretation. He did so in order to expressly criticize the idea still common in his day (early 200s) that identified them with angels.

I think you’re getting it upside-down.

The thing is, Judaism as we know it today was really developed in Babylon. There is a Jewish tradition/legend which states that the Jews learned the names of the angels when they were in Babylon. Many scholars think that this legend has some truth in it: the developed angelology that appeared in post-exilic Judaism and Jewish apocalypticism and its dualistic worldview of good/light/truth vs. evil/darkness/lie were the Persian influences to Jewish thinking.

In other words, Jewish apocalypticism and angelology - the things you precisely see in the Book of Enoch - had their development while the Jews were exiled and came into contact with other peoples and religions, for example Persian Zoroastrianism. (There’s a very interesting relationship between these two religions: Zoroastrianism is said to have left its mark on Jewish thought, and at the same time it’s also possible the Jews had influenced the Persians as well.)

On the Nephilim mating with humans, I recently read a modern day Jewish interpretation of the related passage in Genesis 6. That rabbi pointed out that the passages teach that all such beings are subject to death, and suggested that the passage was written in response to the popular pagan stories about Gods and Demigods. He believed the writer was saying “Hey, I know you have heard these stories about heroes, and demigods and whatever, but you need to remember that all of Creation is subject to God and to death.” Not necessarily endorsing his position, just throwing it out there. I certainly agree that Enoch and its remnants in Genesis show evidence of mixing and influence between early Judaism and other contemporaneous religious traditions.

 

[patrick457]

From my understanding, the Canon of Scripture was determined based on which texts were being used in the Liturgy at the time. This suggests to me that the book of Enoch was NOT being used in this way, though some churches (such as those in Ethiopia) may have been.

How it was determined which Scriptures to use in the Liturgy… Not sure. It was probably a discretionary decision on the part of the local Bishops, since a council of that kind hadn’t been called yet. And since the Bishops each received the proper authority and protections from the Holy Spirit, those books that were allowed during the Liturgy, prior to a Council-determined Canon, would have been only those that were indeed inspired (the Bishops being guided by the Holy Spirit, and all). That’s my take on it anyway.

I think that’s only one of the factors involved. The thing is, a number of early Christian writers were familiar with and quoted from or referred to Enoch: some even referred to it using terms such as ‘scripture’ or ‘prophet’/‘prophecy’ and claimed that Jews rejected it because it so obviously pointed to Jesus. (Which was a standard line of polemic among Christians back then.)

What’s interesting here is: out of writers who were familiar with Enoch, many of them (for example, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas) were somewhere from northern Africa - Egypt or Carthage. (Julius Africanus would also count.) Exceptions include St. Jude and St. Irenaeus, who were outside this geographic setting (Jude’s letter was likely written in Syria/Palestine, and Irenaeus was writing from Gaul, although he did come from Asia Minor).

So it’s probably likely that Enoch had a more positive reception among northern African Christians - and likely Palestinian Christians - than in other places. (In fact, Origen seems to have changed his mind about Enoch when he left Alexandria to live in Palestine: his thinking about the book shifted to the negative.) And since Ethiopian Christianity was for much of its history under the wing of the Church in Alexandria, it’s likely (just my theory here) that their reception of Enoch was influenced by that. The book’s status was simply ‘preserved’ even when it fell from grace in other places - probably not even actively, but just a ‘this is what we’ve received and we’re just sticking with it’-type situation.

 

[ericc]

Why Book of Enoch can’t be in the canon

1. Enoch is more ancient than Moses. But the Pentateuch does not contain Enoch. And Moses is attributed to the first 5 books of the Bible. Therefore Enoch must be written by someone elses other than Moses and way after Moses time. This is a anachronistic problem not easily explained away. Who is authorized after Moses, to write about Enoch?
2. The OT Canon is divided into Law, Prophets and Writings. Enoch doesn’t fit into any of these. And there is no “room” to squeeze in Enoch in the Pentatuech.
3. How did Enoch survive the Flood? Who kept it intact? It wasn’t in Ezra list of books that he recovered. And it couldn’t possibly contain the authentic words of the ancient Enoch since he lived several thousand years prior to the first known appearance of the book.
4. Enoch is reputedly written by a number of unknown writers.
5. It contradicts what Moses wrote. In Genesis, Noah was the one who built the ark. In 1 Enoch 67:2 angels were the one building the ark.
6. 2 Peter 2:4 angels who sinned were cast into hell and committed to pits of deepest darkness. But 1 Enoch 18:10 described the abyss with pillars of heavenly fire and with 7 stars like great burning mountains which seems to contradict Peter’s deep darkness of hell.

 

[ericc]

I strongly disagree, how do you explain the numerous US Govt documents released thru FOIA that talk about this?

Why would John Podesta, upon retiring, say his biggest regret during his career, was that the truth was not told to the public about this? Thats a pretty big indication imo.

The truth about UFO/aliens may be somewhere out there, but it can’t be found on Catholic Answers. It is a futile attempt to raise such questions here. Here you can find God, but not aliens. And I am pretty sure there are no aliens masquerading as posters here. Neither the Administrators here are aliens who wisely redirect talk about aliens to somewhere else. Please desist or the Administrator will pull the plug on another out-of-topic thread. Ahem, we are in the Apologetics/Holy Scripture sub forum.

 

[ericc]

Why Book of Enoch can’t be in the canon

1. Enoch is more ancient than Moses. But the Pentateuch does not contain Enoch. And Moses is attributed to the first 5 books of the Bible. Therefore Enoch must be written by someone elses other than Moses and way after Moses time. This is a anachronistic problem not easily explained away. Who is authorized after Moses, to write about Enoch?
2. The OT Canon is divided into Law, Prophets and Writings. Enoch doesn’t fit into any of these. And there is no “room” to squeeze in Enoch in the Pentatuech.
3. How did Enoch survive the Flood? Who kept it intact? It wasn’t in Ezra list of books that he recovered. And it couldn’t possibly contain the authentic words of the ancient Enoch since he lived several thousand years prior to the first known appearance of the book.
4. Enoch is reputedly written by a number of unknown writers.
5. It contradicts what Moses wrote. In Genesis, Noah was the one who built the ark. In 1 Enoch 67:2 angels were the one building the ark.
6. 2 Peter 2:4 angels who sinned were cast into hell and committed to pits of deepest darkness. But 1 Enoch 18:10 described the abyss with pillars of heavenly fire and with 7 stars like great burning mountains which seems to contradict Peter’s deep darkness of hell.

One more strike against Enoch.

In 1 Enoch 13:7 “And I went off and sat down at the waters of Dan, in the land of
Dan, to the southwest of Hermon: read their petition until I fell asleep.”

Dan in the Bible was the 5th son of Jacob (with Rachel) and the founder of the tribe of Dan. It is improbable that Enoch would use a name from the future which will not be in existence for at least a thousand years later. If he were to write about waters of Dan in the land of Dan, the more likely scenario would be to use the existing name of the place of his time rather than the future name. It therefore indicates than the author of Enoch would be post Dan era.