[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I agree with Prax's caution, thus was the reason I said I wasn't sure. I just read through the book in question, and I thought some of it was interesting although I couldn't say that this was a legitimate work done by anyone we can give credit to. I also read the book of Enoch and I try to use caution with this book. I'd be interested to know why early elders decided that this was not to be canonized.

Just to make things messy... Tertullian's thoughts sort of sum up the most ancient of those "elders" who all seem to have accepted the authenticity of the Book of Enoch:

Chapter III.—Concerning the Genuineness of “The Prophecy of Enoch.”

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch,which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s “grace in the sight of God,” and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity.

Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that “every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.” See 2 Tim. iii. 16. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude. See Jude 14, 15.

Later Fathers such as Jerome questioned the canonicity of not only Enoch but also of the NT epistles that most obviously quoted it - Jude and 2 Peter. It all seems to have to do with the rather "fantastical" behavior of the angels that fell.

It is my opinion that this is an important intersection between the Judeo-Christian literature of antiquity and the writings of just about every other culture. Even if one wishes to dismiss the alleged conjugation between "angels" and the "daughters of man," there are still important and relevant cultural issues to be explored.