Why was the Book of Enoch excluded from Canon?

[iohannes13]

I couldn’t find the answer in other posts. If my question has been answered and I missed the post, please give me the link.

I haven’t been able to find the reason why the Book of Enoch was excluded from the Canon. Considering that it’s quoted in the Bible and it was very popular with many Church Fathers, I would say that it is at least validated. I can’t find anything reliable as to what were the arguments against it at the time that the Canon was established. I’ve read that it was not favored by St. Augustine for x reason and that’s why it lost favor with the Church. If this was true it would make sense since St. Augustine attended both councils in which the Canon were established right? He would have been a powerful voice against it. And his voice is very powerful in the Church. But the online Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent is silent on St. Augustine’s opinion of the book and only states that he believed that Enoch genuinely wrote the book. newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm.

I imagined that maybe the reason why it was excluded was because it talks about a fall of angels different than the Lucifer story. So it would make it sound like there were two episodes of fallen angels. But I also noticed this in the article:

The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents.

This tells me that the Book of Enoch contradicts the Genesis story’s explanation of the origin of sin and by extension the theology of Original Sin. Could this be a major reason why the Book of Enoch it was excluded from the Canon?

Any ideas or reference to the true reasons?

 

[thistle]

I couldn’t find the answer in other posts. If my question has been answered and I missed the post, please give me the link.

I haven’t been able to find the reason why the Book of Enoch was excluded from the Canon. Considering that it’s quoted in the Bible and it was very popular with many Church Fathers, I would say that it is at least validated. I can’t find anything reliable as to what were the arguments against it at the time that the Canon was established. I’ve read that it was not favored by St. Augustine for x reason and that’s why it lost favor with the Church. If this was true it would make sense since St. Augustine attended both councils in which the Canon were established right? He would have been a powerful voice against it. And his voice is very powerful in the Church. But the online Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent is silent on St. Augustine’s opinion of the book and only states that he believed that Enoch genuinely wrote the book. newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm.

I imagined that maybe the reason why it was excluded was because it talks about a fall of angels different than the Lucifer story. So it would make it sound like there were two episodes of fallen angels. But I also noticed this in the article:

The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents.

This tells me that the Book of Enoch contradicts the Genesis story’s explanation of the origin of sin and by extension the theology of Original Sin. Could this be a major reason why the Book of Enoch it was excluded from the Canon?

Any ideas or reference to the true reasons?

catholic.com/video/why-is-the-book-of-enoch-not-included-in-the-bible

 

[cjforJesus]

I couldn’t find the answer in other posts. If my question has been answered and I missed the post, please give me the link.

I haven’t been able to find the reason why the Book of Enoch was excluded from the Canon. Considering that it’s quoted in the Bible and it was very popular with many Church Fathers, I would say that it is at least validated. I can’t find anything reliable as to what were the arguments against it at the time that the Canon was established. I’ve read that it was not favored by St. Augustine for x reason and that’s why it lost favor with the Church. If this was true it would make sense since St. Augustine attended both councils in which the Canon were established right? He would have been a powerful voice against it. And his voice is very powerful in the Church. But the online Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent is silent on St. Augustine’s opinion of the book and only states that he believed that Enoch genuinely wrote the book. newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm.

I imagined that maybe the reason why it was excluded was because it talks about a fall of angels different than the Lucifer story. So it would make it sound like there were two episodes of fallen angels. But I also noticed this in the article:

The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents.

This tells me that the Book of Enoch contradicts the Genesis story’s explanation of the origin of sin and by extension the theology of Original Sin. Could this be a major reason why the Book of Enoch it was excluded from the Canon?

Any ideas or reference to the true reasons?

I believe it was omitted because it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The texts try to explain good and evil and that fallen angels are responsible for mans knowledge.

The whole thing is very much in line with the odd nephilim theory too where angels supposedly mated with humans and created some sort of demon hybrid offspring. I believe that is just fabrication and a futile attempt to explain why evil exists.

I read some of the book out of curiosity and see it as merely a myth of sorts that was in the Essene library.

 

[patrick457]

I imagined that maybe the reason why it was excluded was because it talks about a fall of angels different than the Lucifer story. So it would make it sound like there were two episodes of fallen angels. But I also noticed this in the article:

The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents.

This tells me that the Book of Enoch contradicts the Genesis story’s explanation of the origin of sin and by extension the theology of Original Sin. Could this be a major reason why the Book of Enoch it was excluded from the Canon?

Any ideas or reference to the true reasons?

That’s true. Enoch is one of those Jewish texts where the solution to the question of why sin and evil exists in the world is answered by attributing it to fallen angels mating with human beings and teaching them stuff (rather than Adam eating the forbidden fruit, which became the standard interpretation in Christianity under the influence of St. Paul), which was one of the various answers to the question you have during the Second Temple period, which was when this work was made.

Enoch is a work well within Jewish apocalypticism/mysticism - it’s really one of the granddaddy works. Since Christianity happened to be an offshoot of the ‘apocalyptic’ segment of Judaism (= it was originally an apocalyptic Jewish sect), it wouldn’t be surprising that Enoch found some use among some early Christians. (On the Jewish side, meanwhile, after AD 70 there was a conscious move among the Rabbis to reduce the apocalyptic / mystic strand of Judaism. The very apocalyptic Enoch would have been unacceptable…)

However, Enoch made it into the Christian canon because (note that here’s really so much that we don’t know about the whole process of the canonization of Scripture, so this is just my own guess), first, the book’s worldview is upon a closer look too curmudgeonly (the whole ‘humans actually learned technology from fallen angels’ bit). Second, it is not very compatible with the burgeoning Christian beliefs concerning angels and demons (angels are pure spirits, so how could they ever mate with human women?)

Third, as the title notes, the work attributes itself to Enoch (although in reality Enoch is a hodge-podge of originally-separate works dating from the 3rd to 1st century BC), but the nagging question is: if this book really was written by Enoch before the Deluge happened, how did it manage to survive the flood and all those hundreds of years? In other words, upon further reflection, most Christians just found the book too incredible to be taken seriously. And that’s why it never ended in the canon of most Churches. It was only good when Christians were trying to mine what they thought were hints and prophecies about Jesus from it. (Which was really the main reason they might use some works; when it had outlived its use, they abandoned it.)

 

[mikekle]

I dont think its that overly incredible, I mean, all it was, was Satans first attempt to corrupt the human seed so Jesus could not be born, but he was tricked thru the virgin birth, turns out Mary did not need any ‘male seed’ to have Jesus.

As a PHd priest once explained it to me, Satan used more ‘in your face’ methods back then, today of course, he is more sneaky, desires to stay in the shadows and have people believe he does not even exist. So there were giants running around back then…so what, big deal, Jesus did MUCH more incredible and unbelievable things during his time on earth.

The only thing I dont understand about this whole thing, it says ‘they were on the earth before AND after the flood’…that suggests that more than Noahs family survived the flood, no matter if you believe they were giants or not.

 

[iohannes13]

That’s true. Enoch is one of those Jewish texts where the solution to the question of why sin and evil exists in the world is answered by attributing it to fallen angels mating with human beings and teaching them stuff (rather than Adam eating the forbidden fruit, which became the standard interpretation in Christianity under the influence of St. Paul), which was one of the various answers to the question you have during the Second Temple period, which was when this work was made.

Enoch is a work well within Jewish apocalypticism/mysticism - it’s really one of the granddaddy works. Since Christianity happened to be an offshoot of the ‘apocalyptic’ segment of Judaism (= it was originally an apocalyptic Jewish sect), it wouldn’t be surprising that Enoch found some use among some early Christians. (On the Jewish side, meanwhile, after AD 70 there was a conscious move among the Rabbis to reduce the apocalyptic / mystic strand of Judaism. The very apocalyptic Enoch would have been unacceptable…)

However, Enoch made it into the Christian canon because (note that here’s really so much that we don’t know about the whole process of the canonization of Scripture, so this is just my own guess), first, the book’s worldview is upon a closer look too curmudgeonly (the whole ‘humans actually learned technology from fallen angels’ bit). Second, it is not very compatible with the burgeoning Christian beliefs concerning angels and demons (angels are pure spirits, so how could they ever mate with human women?)

Third, as the title notes, the work attributes itself to Enoch (although in reality Enoch is a hodge-podge of originally-separate works dating from the 3rd to 1st century BC), but the nagging question is: if this book really was written by Enoch before the Deluge happened, how did it manage to survive the flood and all those hundreds of years? In other words, upon further reflection, most Christians just found the book too incredible to be taken seriously. And that’s why it never ended in the canon of most Churches. It was only good when Christians were trying to mine what they thought were hints and prophecies about Jesus from it. (Which was really the main reason they might use some works; when it had outlived its use, they abandoned it.)

Very good explanation. This makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[cjforJesus]

That’s true. Enoch is one of those Jewish texts where the solution to the question of why sin and evil exists in the world is answered by attributing it to fallen angels mating with human beings and teaching them stuff (rather than Adam eating the forbidden fruit, which became the standard interpretation in Christianity under the influence of St. Paul), which was one of the various answers to the question you have during the Second Temple period, which was when this work was made.

Enoch is a work well within Jewish apocalypticism/mysticism - it’s really one of the granddaddy works. Since Christianity happened to be an offshoot of the ‘apocalyptic’ segment of Judaism (= it was originally an apocalyptic Jewish sect), it wouldn’t be surprising that Enoch found some use among some early Christians. (On the Jewish side, meanwhile, after AD 70 there was a conscious move among the Rabbis to reduce the apocalyptic / mystic strand of Judaism. The very apocalyptic Enoch would have been unacceptable…)

However, Enoch made it into the Christian canon because (note that here’s really so much that we don’t know about the whole process of the canonization of Scripture, so this is just my own guess), first, the book’s worldview is upon a closer look too curmudgeonly (the whole ‘humans actually learned technology from fallen angels’ bit). Second, it is not very compatible with the burgeoning Christian beliefs concerning angels and demons (angels are pure spirits, so how could they ever mate with human women?)

Third, as the title notes, the work attributes itself to Enoch (although in reality Enoch is a hodge-podge of originally-separate works dating from the 3rd to 1st century BC), but the nagging question is: if this book really was written by Enoch before the Deluge happened, how did it manage to survive the flood and all those hundreds of years? In other words, upon further reflection, most Christians just found the book too incredible to be taken seriously. And that’s why it never ended in the canon of most Churches. It was only good when Christians were trying to mine what they thought were hints and prophecies about Jesus from it. (Which was really the main reason they might use some works; when it had outlived its use, they abandoned it.)

I still believe the book was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and that is why it was not included. In some ways it appears very antichrist,like it was inspired by the evil one.
Lilith is along the same path,a Jewish myth about good and evil.

 

[iohannes13]

I dont think its that overly incredible, I mean, all it was, was Satans first attempt to corrupt the human seed so Jesus could not be born, but he was tricked thru the virgin birth, turns out Mary did not need any ‘male seed’ to have Jesus

When I was in High School and was searching for a book in the school library a particular book caught my attention. I don’t remember the name of the book. It turned out to be a ‘religious’ book. I skimmed it and there was the story of Pontious Pilots wife having the dream (per the devil according to this book) and trying to stop the crucifixion. It also had the story about the Devil being tricked but there was no mention of him trying to destroy the seed. This book claimed that the devil never imagined that God would lower himself to the level of a human. So he did not in a million years think that Jesus was God Incarnete. It said that the devil got the surprise of his life. That’s why this book probably interpreted Pontious wife’s’ dream as the devil trying to stop the Crucifixion.

I asked my priest who was In the Franciscan order about the Devil being tricked. He said the the devil knew that Jesus was God. But that didn’t stop him from trying to corrupt Jesus banking on his human weakness. He also said that the Franciscans have a theory that the reason that Lucifer fell was because God had revealed Jesus to the Angels and Lucifer lost awe and respect and everything for God. If God was a human he would be inferior to Angels in Lucifers mind. Whatever the truth is, my priests story has whispers of the Muslim story and matching apocryphal Jewish stories of God gathering the Angels to worship Adam and the Devil refusing to.

 

[iohannes13]

I still believe the book was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and that is why it was not included. In some ways it appears very antichrist,like it was inspired by the evil one.
Lilith is along the same path,a Jewish myth about good and evil.

Nah. I don’t think that it was inspired by the Devil. I’ve read interpretations that it’s sort of a criticism of the Hebrews that returned from Babylon after their release. The Hebrews that had not been taken into captivity continued the line of the “correct” way of worshipping and of their culture. The Hebrews in Babylon adopted many facets of Babylonian culture and religion. Hence all the evils were the Babylonian influences or corruptions. Whatever the truth is, the book should be viewed in its historical and cultural context. This book or sections were written way before Jesus’ time for a specific group of people at a specific time. The authors were trying to convey some information or impart some knowledge to them and they did it with a very cool story.

 

[cjforJesus]

Nah. I don’t think that it was inspired by the Devil. I’ve read interpretations that it’s sort of a criticism of the Hebrews that returned from Babylon after their release. The Hebrews that had not been taken into captivity continued the line of the “correct” way of worshipping and of their culture. The Hebrews in Babylon adopted many facets of Babylonian culture and religion. Hence all the evils were the Babylonian influences or corruptions. Whatever the truth is, the book should be viewed in its historical and cultural context. This book or sections were written way before Jesus’ time for a specific group of people at a specific time. The authors were trying to convey some information or impart some knowledge to them and they did it with a very cool story.

Cool story,yes,but you would be amazed at the number of people who interpret it as truth…
The book has a tendency to lend support to the alien creator theory for some susceptible .individuals.

Most all research on this literature includes much anti Catholic sentiment and implications the book was deliberately excluded by unscrupulous hierarchy.

 

[iohannes13]

Cool story,yes,but you would be amazed at the number of people who interpret it as truth…
The book has a tendency to lend support to the alien creator theory for some susceptible .individuals.

Most all research on this literature includes much anti Catholic sentiment and implications the book was deliberately excluded by unscrupulous hierarchy.

Hahahaha Ancient Aliens- so stupid but why can’t I stopping the show? I’m not saying its aliens, but it is aliens.

 

[mikekle]

Cool story,yes,but you would be amazed at the number of people who interpret it as truth…
The book has a tendency to lend support to the alien creator theory for some susceptible .individuals.

Most all research on this literature includes much anti Catholic sentiment and implications the book was deliberately excluded by unscrupulous hierarchy.

Thats because most people today dont make the connection between ‘aliens’ and demons…they are the same thing, demons just trying a new trick in order to fool more people, having them believing mankind was created as a kind of experiment by some distant advanced race, notice that this theory draws the credit away from God.

Ive always questioned when reading lots of UFO reports, most are similar, people see a strange craft, with no sound, they get creepy feelings, and eventually the craft just vanishes…that does not sound like something an advanced race of beings would do imo, its sounds more like ‘something’ trying to fool people, making them question reality by showing them strange things in the sky.

There is also a book Im trying to get my hands on, it was written by an old priest many years ago, he did a comparison on alien abductions compared to demonic possessions, in nearly every single way, they are pretty much exactly the same experience for the person…pretty strange coincidence imo.

 

[thistle]

Thats because most people today dont make the connection between ‘aliens’ and demons…they are the same thing, demons just trying a new trick in order to fool more people, having them believing mankind was created as a kind of experiment by some distant advanced race, notice that this theory draws the credit away from God.

Ive always questioned when reading lots of UFO reports, most are similar, people see a strange craft, with no sound, they get creepy feelings, and eventually the craft just vanishes…that does not sound like something an advanced race of beings would do imo, its sounds more like ‘something’ trying to fool people, making them question reality by showing them strange things in the sky.

There is also a book Im trying to get my hands on, it was written by an old priest many years ago, he did a comparison on alien abductions compared to demonic possessions, in nearly every single way, they are pretty much exactly the same experience for the person…pretty strange coincidence imo.

There is no connection between aliens and demons. They are not the same thing. From many threads you seem to be hung up on aliens. Talk of aliens is just nonsense.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I couldn’t find the answer in other posts. If my question has been answered and I missed the post, please give me the link.

I haven’t been able to find the reason why the Book of Enoch was excluded from the Canon. Considering that it’s quoted in the Bible and it was very popular with many Church Fathers, I would say that it is at least validated. I can’t find anything reliable as to what were the arguments against it at the time that the Canon was established. I’ve read that it was not favored by St. Augustine for x reason and that’s why it lost favor with the Church. If this was true it would make sense since St. Augustine attended both councils in which the Canon were established right? He would have been a powerful voice against it. And his voice is very powerful in the Church. But the online Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent is silent on St. Augustine’s opinion of the book and only states that he believed that Enoch genuinely wrote the book. newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm.

I imagined that maybe the reason why it was excluded was because it talks about a fall of angels different than the Lucifer story. So it would make it sound like there were two episodes of fallen angels. But I also noticed this in the article:

The narrative is intended to explain the origin of sin and evil in the world and in this connection lays very little stress on the disobedience of our First Parents.

This tells me that the Book of Enoch contradicts the Genesis story’s explanation of the origin of sin and by extension the theology of Original Sin. Could this be a major reason why the Book of Enoch it was excluded from the Canon?

Any ideas or reference to the true reasons?

Some churches (e.g., the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) do include it in their biblical canon. As you note, Enoch is quoted in the New Testament and was very popular in the early church.

 

[iohannes13]

There is no connection between aliens and demons. They are not the same thing. From many threads you seem to be hung up on aliens. Talk of aliens is just nonsense.

Let’s be fair to Mike. There might be aliens. When I was a kid one of my priests did give a sermon on the topic. He said that considering God’s imagination etc etc etc, it would be likely that He created life elsewhere in the universe. He made no comments about visitations by aliens. Back to current ideas of aliens, that they are coming here in search of the most idiotic people to stick cold objects up their bums to probe them is ridiculous. That they created people and ancient civilizations is baloney.

The pseudoscience documentaries on aliens do the opposite. They claim that the ancient ideas of demons were actually aliens.

Mike where are you getting the idea that aliens are demons?

 

[iohannes13]

Some churches (e.g., the Ethiopian Orthodox Church) do include it in their biblical canon. As you note, Enoch is quoted in the New Testament and was very popular in the early church.

Hi Dave, yeah your right about the Ethiopian Canon.

 

[mikekle]

Let’s be fair to Mike. There might be aliens. When I was a kid one of my priests did give a sermon on the topic. He said that considering God’s imagination etc etc etc, it would be likely that He created life elsewhere in the universe. He made no comments about visitations by aliens. Back to current ideas of aliens, that they are coming here in search of the most idiotic people to stick cold objects up their bums to probe them is ridiculous. That they created people and ancient civilizations is baloney.

The pseudoscience documentaries on aliens do the opposite. They claim that the ancient ideas of demons were actually aliens.

Mike where are you getting the idea that aliens are demons?

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.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

The Ethiopian Orthodox still consider Enoch scripture.

 

[cjforJesus]

Hi Dave, yeah your right about the Ethiopian Canon.

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:

 

[jmj777]

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+