The book of Enoch has become increasingly popular among Christians in recent years. It is easy to understand the fascination. Reading the book of Enoch can sometimes feel like reading a science-fiction novel. Its elaborate accounts of fallen angels, giants, heavenly journeys, and the coming judgment naturally capture the imagination.
More importantly, New Testament authors such as Peter and Jude draw on traditions also found in the book of Enoch. For students of Scripture, the book provides valuable insight into the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism and can illuminate the historical and literary background of the New Testament.
But some Christians have gone much further. They argue that the book of Enoch is not merely interesting ancient Jewish literature but inspired Scripture that belongs in the Bible.
So, how should followers of Jesus approach the book of Enoch? Should we really consider it inspired Scripture, on par with Genesis, Isaiah, and Daniel?
In my book, Pseudo-Scripture: Why 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher Are Not Inspired Scripture, I examine this question in much greater detail.
When it comes to the book of Enoch, I believe there are three compelling reasons Christians should not consider it inspired Scripture.
1. Jesus did not consider the book of Enoch Scripture
Contrary to popular claims that the book of Enoch was “removed from the Bible,” there is no evidence that it ever belonged to the Jewish biblical canon in the first place.
By the first century, Jewish Scripture was recognized according to the familiar threefold division of the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Josephus, writing near the end of the first century, describes a fixed collection of 22 sacred books that Jews regarded as divinely authoritative. He distinguishes these books from later writings that were not considered to have the same authority (Against Apion 1.37–42). Notably, Josephus also begins his list with the five books of Moses. If he believed Enoch had written an inspired book centuries before Moses, we would expect him to include it before the books of Moses. However, the book of Enoch is nowhere mentioned.
More importantly for Christians, Jesus affirmed this same basic understanding of Scripture.
After his resurrection, Jesus told his disciples that everything written about him “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Luke immediately identifies this collection as “the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45). This corresponds to the traditional threefold Jewish canon — the Law, Prophets, and Writings.
Likewise, Jesus frequently appealed to “the Scriptures” in his disputes with other Jews (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39). The apostles did the same (Acts 17:2, 11). Yet neither Jesus nor his apostles ever disputed with their Jewish contemporaries over which books constituted Scripture. That silence is significant considering how readily they challenged prevailing Jewish opinions on other matters.
If the book of Enoch really belonged in Scripture but the Jewish community had wrongly excluded it, we would expect Jesus to correct them. Instead, he affirmed the Scriptures they already recognized.
For Christians, Jesus’s judgment concerning what constitutes Scripture ought to carry considerably more weight than the opinions of modern internet personalities.
2. The book of Enoch identifies Enoch as the Messiah
There is an even more serious problem.
The section of the book of Enoch known as the book of Parables (chapters 37–71) describes an exalted Messianic figure called the “Son of Man,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One,” and “Anointed One.” This figure brings salvation, sits upon a throne of glory, judges mankind, and receives universal worship.
Understandably, Christians who believe the book of Enoch is inspired often assume these passages are prophecies about Jesus.
But there is just one problem: the book of Enoch eventually tells us who this figure is. It is Enoch himself.
In chapter 71, Enoch is taken into Heaven, where the “Head of Days” comes to him accompanied by Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and innumerable angels. Enoch is then told: “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you” (book of Enoch 71:14).
Thus, the book of Parables identifies Enoch with the Messianic Son of Man described throughout the preceding visions.
Some defenders of the book of Enoch appeal to R. H. Charles’ old translation, which renders the statement, “This is the Son of Man,” making it appear that Enoch is being introduced to someone else.
But that is not what the Ethiopic text says. The Geʽez contains the second-person pronoun meaning “you.” Indeed, Charles himself acknowledged in his notes that the text actually reads, “Thou art.” He deliberately emended the passage because he believed the text should say something different. Subsequent scholars have rejected that emendation because it has no manuscript support.
For followers of Jesus, this creates an obvious theological problem. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messianic Son of Man and explicitly warns believers against accepting rival messianic claims (Matt. 24:23).
Christians cannot accept a book that identifies Enoch as the Messiah.
3. Jews and Christians historically rejected the book of Enoch as Scripture
If the book of Enoch belongs in the Bible, why did the communities responsible for preserving the Scriptures overwhelmingly reject it?
Jewish tradition never included the book of Enoch in the Tanakh. Early Christian writers likewise repeatedly affirmed an Old Testament canon that excluded it.
Origen, for instance, was familiar with Enochic literature but acknowledged that these books were not considered authoritative among the Jews. Even more explicitly, he wrote that “the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine” (Contra Celsum 5.54). Later Christian writers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, and Jerome likewise affirmed canonical lists excluding the book of Enoch.
There were exceptions. Tertullian accepted the book of Enoch, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church preserves it in its broader canon. But Tertullian himself acknowledged opposition to his position among other Christians. The historical evidence simply does not support the popular narrative that the book of Enoch was accepted as Scripture until someone later removed it from the Bible.
But doesn’t Jude quote the book of Enoch?
This is probably the strongest objection.
Jude 14–15 undeniably contains material also found in the book of Enoch, and Peter likewise draws upon Enochic traditions (1 Pet. 3:19–20; 2 Pet. 2:4). Does that prove that the apostles considered the book of Enoch inspired?
No, it does not.
First, the book of Enoch is not a single work written at one time. It is a collection of writings composed and compiled over centuries. Jude’s and Peter’s references are associated with the book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36), not every section of the collection now called the book of Enoch. Their use of those traditions therefore cannot establish the inspiration of the entire book.
More importantly, quoting a source does not canonize it. Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17:28 and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Nobody concludes that the works of Aratus and Epimenides therefore belong in the Bible.
The same principle applies to Jude. His use of an Enochic tradition can tell us that he considered that particular tradition useful and true without requiring us to believe that every text collected under the title “book of Enoch” was divinely inspired.
The value of the book of Enoch
None of this means that Christians should be afraid of the book of Enoch.
Quite the opposite. It is an important ancient Jewish work that helps us better understand the religious and intellectual world in which the New Testament was written. Christians interested in biblical studies can profit from reading it.
But appreciating an ancient text is not the same thing as recognizing it as Scripture. The historical evidence indicates that the book of Enoch originated in the Second Temple period rather than with the patriarch Enoch himself. Jesus affirmed a Jewish canon that did not contain it. One section identifies Enoch as the Messianic Son of Man. And Jews and Christians throughout history overwhelmingly declined to recognize it as inspired Scripture.
