All Doves:
Part 1 of this series offers an abundant picture of why Enoch was never seriously considered to be Canonical to begin with. The book of Enoch contained 108 chapters, made up of five sub-parts or books individually named sections. The dates of each is in question, and specialists on the book of Enoch ascribe its writings anywhere from as early as 200 BC to as late as 270 AD. As I noted in part 1, it is not considered as Scripture, for many reasons, and we will expose the why in the course of the coming weeks.
Enoch is not inspired of God. The book was quoted in another Apocryphal book called Barnabus; the book of Idolatry by Tertullian; and Ecclesiasticus Prophecies 3 (written by Clement of Alexandria). Numerous scholars have speculated that Biblical Jude 14-15 is a quote from the book of Enoch and is often errantly concluded that Jude regarded Enoch as Scripture. When one compares Enoch 1:9 against Jude 14-15, it becomes obvious that there are numerous disagreements. The differences are an indicator that it is inaccurate to conclude that Jude quotes Enoch. Since the book of Jude was written by Jude under the influence of God via the Holy Spirit, scholars for centuries have concluded that Jude is truth. Therefore, Enoch cannot be considered truth given numerous conflicts and specific facts.
Certainly a factor has to be the fact that Jesus Christ never referred to Enoch nor any of the other New Testament writers of Scripture; and, the book was not even included in the New Testament by the Apostles. It is commonly misunderstood that the content of the Bible simply evolved over a long period of time. But the New Testament clearly tells us that the Apostles were identifying Scripture as it was being written -(1st Timothy 5:17-18; 2nd Peter 3:14-16). The New Testament books were being distributed or circulated by the Apostles to the various churches to be read -(see Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:16; 1st Thessalonians 5:27; 2nd Thessalonians 2:2; 3:14). By the time the Apostles died, the New Testament Canon had been written and its books were known and established by the Muratorian Canon document. Several of the early church fathers have left us a list of books that were identified as belonging to the New Testament. The book of Enoch does not appear in any of those lists.
Why isn't this book of Enoch included in the Bible? It is important to note that a few early Church Fathers may have valued the book of Enoch but they never referred to it as Scripture. I realized that is not something that many who consider the book on a par with the book of Revelation or relevant to the Tribulation era or post Rapture, but it simply does not stand up to the scrutiny and criteria of being considered Scriptural. I will discuss these points which consequently lead to the rejection of Enoch being Scriptural. There is no conspiracy on this matter as some attempt to portray. The book of Enoch was a product of some extremely wild imaginations.
When you examine the book of Genesis, you immediately find a problem with Enoch. There are two men named Enoch in the Bible, one indeed from the lineage of Cain; and another from the lineage of Jared (Seth's side). Genesis 4 and 5 can cause some confusion if a person isn't really paying close attention. So many parallels exist. The mention of the name Enoch in the Bible does not lend credence to any document by that name. There are too many questions that cannot be reconciled on that kind of reasoning.
One reason that Enoch wasn't included in Scripture is because it wasn't written by either Enoch of Genesis' times and didn't appear until long after the events it describes. Also, theological errors led scholars to conclude that it wasn't an inspired writing. So, while there might be many interesting explanations of traditional Jewish beliefs, the book does not carry the weight to be called Scripture. As I noted, there was an Enoch as well as a Lamech in both the lines of Seth and Cain. One does not have to recognize the fact that many people carry the same name, even if the Bible does not differentiate between them.
By the 4th Century AD, the book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian Canon, with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. Many books can be classified quite easily to their exact date and origin but not with Enoch. As noted, Enoch is a composite work in five sections from the hands of at least five authors. Each of the five smaller segments shows a purposeful break from the previous chapters.
Multiple authors alone make the task of identification much more difficult. However, even with numerous authors, the book of Enoch still contains some internal unity with its themes o coming judgment, dualism, and salvation. The problem is that the book of Enoch, the authors wrote under an assumed name like their fellow apocalyptic author. Each author chose the name of an ancient because of an affinity with the character. The group who wrote Enoch seem more concerned with the Gentile world than their own contemporaries do and accordingly chose their hero form the ante-diluvian patriarchs. Obviously, Orthodox Jews, one can easily see how all the authors of Enoch share a concern that all mankind come to salvation. Furthermore, the authors present themselves as well-educated intellectuals. These positive points not withstanding, we will discover so many discrepancies that I did not cover them all in the first part of this series. We have much more to consider regarding Enoch's lack of credibility in so many other ways.
A few of these problematic issues are:
1. The book describes only one advent of the Messiah where a Christian Biblical view requires two advents.
2. The book makes no references to the Cross, the Messiah's scars, or the resurrection of the Messiah, all very prominent allusions in early Christian writings.
3. The portion of "Similitudes" contain too few Christological references.
4. There is another apocalyptic work, 'The Testament of Abraham' , chapter 11, which both quotes and refutes the book of Enoch in various parts.
5. No Christian author would identify Enoch as the "Son of Man". See Enoch 71:14 for this blatant discrepancy.
First Enoch (basically the entire book of Enoch) never made a viable bid for canonicity in the Jewish community. While it obviously shaped Jewish thought, only the Qumran community seemed interested in preserving it. But they saved all so-called sacred writings, good or bad. They viewed it as an appendix to and interpretation of Scripture instead of Scripture itself. As the apocalyptic works tended to stir national fervor, the rabbis suppressed them in normative Judaism after the failed Zealot revolt of 70 AD.
Enoch did enjoy a long history of various Christians arguing for its inclusion or exclusion. That early Christians shared the Jewish fascination with this man who never died cannot be disputed. No less than 24 ancient works identify Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses of Revelation 11. However, Enoch's place in the Canon was not assured at all.
While Tertullian argued that Enoch belonged in the Canon based solely on Jude's quotations, others argued that Jude should be removed from the Canon because of its quotations from non-Canonical works like Enoch. Agreeing with Tertullian, the Ethiopic Church canonized Enoch. Likewise, the Manicheans kept another related but separate work of Enoch, the Book of Giants. The Epistle of Barnabas and Athenagoras' 'Embassy for Christians' both allude to Enoch favorably. Clement and Irenaeus both quote Enoch favorably but not as Scripture. However, in spite of all those supporting Enoch did not prevail, and the early Church ultimately rejected Enoch from the Canon.
The early Church did not place books in the Canon haphazardly. This might be hard for some to grasp, but they examined each book and placed it in the Canon based on function, adaptability, and stability, and continuous use. In other words, a canonical work contains adaptable wisdom on how to live at any time. Other factors came into play, such as:
1. New Testament books had to come from the first century apostolic circle - either an apostle, companion of an apostle, or otherwise qualified individual (like a brother of Jesus).
2. They could not contain teachings that contradicted orthodox doctrine.
3. The person named as author must be the author.
4. The book must demonstrate inspiration from the Holy Spirit. This easily was the most difficult to determine, inspiration remains the ultimate factor.
Fortunately, the community of faith realized that Enoch's failings at several points along these tests. Obviously, no Apostle or companion wrote Enoch, so it could not be placed in the New Testament. While the ancient books genre almost required writing pseudo-anonymously. Any way you cut the pie, Enoch is one big lie. Enoch contains dozens of doctrinal differences with the Canon. Almost at the beginning of the book, Enoch blames the Genesis flood and the introduction of evil into the world at the feet of the fallen angels whom he calls Watchers" instead of humans as Genesis 1and 6 do. Sadly, Enoch's doctrinal aberrations do not end there.
Most importantly, Enoch's view on salvation kept it out of the Canon. Salvation comes to those who read the book and pay attention to heavenly secrets and no others based upon Enoch. Enoch presents a God so distant and aloof that He requires the un-fallen angels to inform Him of events on Earth. As might be expected with such a God, the book says very little about the central theme of Scripture, i.e., how the Holy God can change sinful humans into righteous beings. In fact, Enoch presents salvation in a way quite similar to the Gnostics of later centuries. On the other hand, the canonical New Testament writings teach about the transforming power of God and His desire to save repentant sinners. P.T. Barnum is supposed to have quipped that a sucker was born every minute and two to take his place. In the lies of Enoch, it truly shows that morons cannot seem to be able to differentiate between what is God-inspired and Satanic-inspired human lies.
Lack of inspiration determined Enoch's exclusion from the Canon. While no one factor can ever be determined to be the key reason for its exclusion, any of the factors I have noted would be more than sufficient for its being excluded. Even in the early Church were intelligent enough to discern the Gnostic nature of the book of Enoch. I say that because Enoch's teaching on salvation by "special knowledge" more than amply demonstrated his lack of inspiration.
Modern-day computer analysis of Enoch reveals an explicit absence of God's signature of authentication, namely the absence of the "Heptadic Design Feature". Apparently God foresaw a day when sinful man would attempt to pass off bogus writings as genuine Holy Writ, and thus to provide the Church a basis of deciding what was His and what was the imagination of man, and, God provided an "uncounterfeitable" method to prove His Own inspired documents were in fact, inspired of God. The fact is contemporary computer programmers and mathematicians have discredited Enoch and nearly all of these documents that have been defined by theologians to be spurious writings. The writers of these spurious writings like Enoch had no way of knowing that future methods like computer mathematical analysis would expose them for what they were, Satanic-inspired lies, hoaxes, and deceptions.
I will have more on this and other spurious pieces of bogus writing of the devil-inspired distractions from the Truth! It may surprise the reader who have been the biggest fans and proponents of the Apocryphal and other Pseudepigraphal writings, particularly the book of Enoch.
Maranantha, Lord Jesus Come Quickly,
Pastor Bob