Should 2 Enoch been included in the Biblical Canon?

Question

I know that the book is very esoteric and includes stories of angelic giants. However, the early church rejected its canonical status because of its bizarre nature. Should the early church included this book?

Answer 1

It's still in the Ethopian Orthodox Bible, which is closer, in practice, to early Christianity.

Take from that what you will.

Answer 2

And Enoch is quoted in Jude. But the argument that just because a portion of something is quoted in the Bible means the whole work is canonical does not follow. It isn't a logical necessity, and nothing within Scripture itself dictates this principle. To accept the Scriptures as inspired at all, one must rely on an authority outside oneself. Call it the witness of history, if you want, but no one has seriously proposed that Enoch be included in the canon on this basis, let alone any other non-biblical books that may be alluded to therein.

Answer 3

"It is reported in the supplement of the council of Nicaea that the fathers, being very perplexed to know which were the cryphal or apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, put them all pell-mell on an altar, and the books to be rejected fell to the ground. It is a pity that this eloquent procedure has not survived." -- Voltaire

Was it men with an agenda, total chance or Holy Spirit? Oh, if you see a fit for Enoch, why don't you just keep reading it for yourself and don't worry whether anyone else thinks it's canonical or not. After all, the Canon does reference "the book of Enoch." So, here's a thought: think for yourself.

Answer 4

primoa: Pray tell us how this was found to be "non God-breathed". Did the texts that made it into the Bible contain molecular evidence of God's breath on them? Some traces of the breakfast He ate that morning, perhaps?

Answer 5

No.....

It was found to be non-God breathed and therefore was left out to begin with.

The canon of scripture that we have is final.....and has been ordained so by God Himself.