Thanks, Adam. We needed this article for JUST such a time as this. So many of my seeker-friendly friends who always want to have the inside skinny on that little bit of extra wisdom – not for their own personal growth, but just so they can sound a little smarter than everybody else – want something extrabiblical– either so they can have something more than what all of us “limited-to-the-Bible“ scholars have, or perhaps (as I know is actually true for some of my brethren who are younger in the Lord) just want some form of easy “Cliff Notes” to catch up quickly to where the rest of us are. You said everything of which I have been trying to convince them – just more thoroughly and eloquently.
Here’s how I put it: there is nothing wrong with seeking knowledge or information, but if you are going to invest serious time in doing so, that time is better spent poring over reliable sources of absolute truth. We only *have* so much time, after all, to acquire wisdom and to win souls. Why just wallow in every random swamp of nonsense and deception – sowing our minds with fluff, at best, or the deception of the enemy, at worst?
What exactly is this expensive vault pamphlet and what all do you get out of it? Is this something that would be sent in the mail if I chose to purchase it?
The vault is every guide Christie and I have written. They are digital products, so that means you’d download them to your phone, tablet or computer. You have instant access as soon as you buy. This also includes all the guides we will put out in the future
You spent the first half of this demolishing the TikTok crowd. Fair. The "sealed for our generation" argument has no biblical foundation and deserves exactly what you gave it.
But then you carried that momentum into a different argument and hoped no one would notice.
Jude doesn't quote 1 Enoch the way Paul quotes Aratus. Paul uses a Greek poet to illustrate a point about general revelation - rhetorical citation. Jude says "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied." That verb is doing significant work. Jude is attributing prophetic authority to the source, not borrowing its language for effect. Your own Bible treats it as prophecy.
The pseudepigrapha charge and the council rejection both rest on the same foundation - the authority of the institutional process that assembled your 66 books. Those were Roman councils. Hippo 393. Carthage 397. The men who bled for the English translation were working from a canon Rome assembled. You can't use Rome's editorial decisions to reject Enoch and then treat Rome's other decisions as settled. Either the councils had the authority or they didn't.
You also didn't mention Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon has included 1 Enoch for two millennia, with apostolic succession traceable to Acts 8 - the same chapter your Bible preserved. On what authority does your booklet override theirs?
Your canon was assembled by Rome. Your brand is recovering what was hidden. The tension between those two things is 1 Enoch.
"Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied" attributes the prophecy to the man. Not the book. Numbers 24:17, Job 19:25, Genesis 49 all preserve prophecies the prophet never wrote down. Jude is doing the same.
The Rome-built-your-Bible move is the Knights of Columbus argument. Sheer nonsense. Three-quarters of your Bible was written before Christ called out one disciple. The oracles of God were committed to the Jews (Rom. 3:2), not to any church. Christ Himself ratified that Old Testament canon at Luke 24:44: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Enoch is not in any of the three.
Hippo and Carthage recognized the canon. They did not create it.
Ethiopia's canon also includes Sirach, Tobit, Maccabees, and Jubilees. If Ethiopia overrides my 66, you have just argued for 81 books, not Enoch alone. Pick.
The book itself dates to the second century BC. Enoch walked with God before the flood. He did not author it.
Where the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the Devil.
Before we get to Jude - Christ himself quoted 1 Enoch when he called himself the Son of Man. Not the Son of Man from Daniel 7 alone. The Son of Man from the Similitudes of Enoch: the pre-existent figure named before creation, seated on the throne of glory, coming to execute final judgment. Matthew 26:64 - "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." That is the Enochian Son of Man. Christ is not borrowing language. He is identifying himself as the figure 1 Enoch describes. If the author of your salvation treated 1 Enoch as prophetically valid enough to inhabit its central messianic figure, your canon committee's vote is of no concern.
The sola scriptura point is where I'll continue, because you handed it to me: Jude is in your Bible. Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 with verbal precision that scholars cannot explain as independent oral tradition. Bauckham and Davids have done the Greek comparison. If the Bible is your standard, the Bible just delivered 1 Enoch.
On "Jude cites the man, not the book" - oral citation drifts. This didn't.
On Luke 24:44 - you're importing a canonical boundary the text doesn't draw. "These prophecies concerning me are fulfilled" is not a sentence that says "and nothing outside this list has authority." That's a reading you're adding, not one you're finding.
On Ethiopia - fair point, and I'll take it further than you intended. I reject all definitions of a closed canon. The premise of your objection is that 66 is a settled number I have to defend against 81. I don't grant that premise. The question of which texts carry apostolic authority is not closed by a council vote, and Hippo doesn't get the last word simply because it went first. If accepting Enoch means reopening the question of Sirach and Jubilees, open it. I see no principled reason to reject any book from any canon. The burden of exclusion is on you, not me.
On "Enoch didn't write it" - I never claimed he did. Pseudepigraphy is ancient convention, not fraud. The question is apostolic endorsement, not authorship. Jude endorsed the tradition. Christ himself quoted it. That's what matters.
On Hippo and Carthage recognizing rather than creating - then explain Tertullian. He had apostolic tradition within reach and argued for 1 Enoch. The Spirit of recognition somehow missed him?
You closed with "scholarship can go plumb to the Devil." I agree completely. Which is why I'm citing Jude, and Christ himself.
I read it 14 years ago. It’s not that big of a deal as people try to make it and a big amen to this blog!
Thanks, Adam. We needed this article for JUST such a time as this. So many of my seeker-friendly friends who always want to have the inside skinny on that little bit of extra wisdom – not for their own personal growth, but just so they can sound a little smarter than everybody else – want something extrabiblical– either so they can have something more than what all of us “limited-to-the-Bible“ scholars have, or perhaps (as I know is actually true for some of my brethren who are younger in the Lord) just want some form of easy “Cliff Notes” to catch up quickly to where the rest of us are. You said everything of which I have been trying to convince them – just more thoroughly and eloquently.
Here’s how I put it: there is nothing wrong with seeking knowledge or information, but if you are going to invest serious time in doing so, that time is better spent poring over reliable sources of absolute truth. We only *have* so much time, after all, to acquire wisdom and to win souls. Why just wallow in every random swamp of nonsense and deception – sowing our minds with fluff, at best, or the deception of the enemy, at worst?
What exactly is this expensive vault pamphlet and what all do you get out of it? Is this something that would be sent in the mail if I chose to purchase it?
The vault is every guide Christie and I have written. They are digital products, so that means you’d download them to your phone, tablet or computer. You have instant access as soon as you buy. This also includes all the guides we will put out in the future
Hey Adam, the link you provided to the Bible guide leads to an empty page
I’ll look into this
Its an extra biblical resource. NOT Gods word.
You spent the first half of this demolishing the TikTok crowd. Fair. The "sealed for our generation" argument has no biblical foundation and deserves exactly what you gave it.
But then you carried that momentum into a different argument and hoped no one would notice.
Jude doesn't quote 1 Enoch the way Paul quotes Aratus. Paul uses a Greek poet to illustrate a point about general revelation - rhetorical citation. Jude says "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied." That verb is doing significant work. Jude is attributing prophetic authority to the source, not borrowing its language for effect. Your own Bible treats it as prophecy.
The pseudepigrapha charge and the council rejection both rest on the same foundation - the authority of the institutional process that assembled your 66 books. Those were Roman councils. Hippo 393. Carthage 397. The men who bled for the English translation were working from a canon Rome assembled. You can't use Rome's editorial decisions to reject Enoch and then treat Rome's other decisions as settled. Either the councils had the authority or they didn't.
You also didn't mention Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon has included 1 Enoch for two millennia, with apostolic succession traceable to Acts 8 - the same chapter your Bible preserved. On what authority does your booklet override theirs?
Your canon was assembled by Rome. Your brand is recovering what was hidden. The tension between those two things is 1 Enoch.
"Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied" attributes the prophecy to the man. Not the book. Numbers 24:17, Job 19:25, Genesis 49 all preserve prophecies the prophet never wrote down. Jude is doing the same.
The Rome-built-your-Bible move is the Knights of Columbus argument. Sheer nonsense. Three-quarters of your Bible was written before Christ called out one disciple. The oracles of God were committed to the Jews (Rom. 3:2), not to any church. Christ Himself ratified that Old Testament canon at Luke 24:44: the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Enoch is not in any of the three.
Hippo and Carthage recognized the canon. They did not create it.
Ethiopia's canon also includes Sirach, Tobit, Maccabees, and Jubilees. If Ethiopia overrides my 66, you have just argued for 81 books, not Enoch alone. Pick.
The book itself dates to the second century BC. Enoch walked with God before the flood. He did not author it.
Where the Bible says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go plumb to the Devil.
Before we get to Jude - Christ himself quoted 1 Enoch when he called himself the Son of Man. Not the Son of Man from Daniel 7 alone. The Son of Man from the Similitudes of Enoch: the pre-existent figure named before creation, seated on the throne of glory, coming to execute final judgment. Matthew 26:64 - "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." That is the Enochian Son of Man. Christ is not borrowing language. He is identifying himself as the figure 1 Enoch describes. If the author of your salvation treated 1 Enoch as prophetically valid enough to inhabit its central messianic figure, your canon committee's vote is of no concern.
The sola scriptura point is where I'll continue, because you handed it to me: Jude is in your Bible. Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 with verbal precision that scholars cannot explain as independent oral tradition. Bauckham and Davids have done the Greek comparison. If the Bible is your standard, the Bible just delivered 1 Enoch.
On "Jude cites the man, not the book" - oral citation drifts. This didn't.
On Luke 24:44 - you're importing a canonical boundary the text doesn't draw. "These prophecies concerning me are fulfilled" is not a sentence that says "and nothing outside this list has authority." That's a reading you're adding, not one you're finding.
On Ethiopia - fair point, and I'll take it further than you intended. I reject all definitions of a closed canon. The premise of your objection is that 66 is a settled number I have to defend against 81. I don't grant that premise. The question of which texts carry apostolic authority is not closed by a council vote, and Hippo doesn't get the last word simply because it went first. If accepting Enoch means reopening the question of Sirach and Jubilees, open it. I see no principled reason to reject any book from any canon. The burden of exclusion is on you, not me.
On "Enoch didn't write it" - I never claimed he did. Pseudepigraphy is ancient convention, not fraud. The question is apostolic endorsement, not authorship. Jude endorsed the tradition. Christ himself quoted it. That's what matters.
On Hippo and Carthage recognizing rather than creating - then explain Tertullian. He had apostolic tradition within reach and argued for 1 Enoch. The Spirit of recognition somehow missed him?
You closed with "scholarship can go plumb to the Devil." I agree completely. Which is why I'm citing Jude, and Christ himself.
Good clarification…always appreciated