Come, let us reason of Enoch of old

[Andrej]

But Jude quoting Enoch isnt the only reason why I believe Enoch is special. Its found in the DSS, so we know its ancient and was found with our other accepted books. Theres also the fact that scripture tells women to cover their heads because of angels (which dupes a lot of people but is accepted worldwide in Corinthians), that Jude AND 2 Peter specifically mentioned the chained angels (keep in mind that Satan is obviously not one of them, as he roams the earth to and fro, so who else could they be and for what major sin?), and that the term "sons of God" in Hebrew literature is always angels, bottom line. So Genesis already tells you.

i did not mean to invalidate your position, but i guess that anyone can come along and just say "those are not valid indications" and give examples of other books (like i did with shepherd of hermas, which was considered canon by many for quite a while back in the 3rd/4th century).

I just thought Id share with THIS particular forum cause thats the type of stuff peshitta.org/forum was made for!

i hope no one will take this the wrong way, but personally i had the impression this is more of a ACoE gathering than anything else. "Outsiders" like myself are wondering why certain manuscripts get less attention, and usually the ultimate manuscript test is Heb. 2:9. That sounds more like "i'm right so you're wrong" than "i want the truth" to me. Also, all the greek gets thrown together, but if there is another aramaic mauscript, everyone makes sure no one gets the idea to group together those.

rungold, you certainly made me to take a good look at enoch. i might even read it. Still i'd like a sure way of how to establish a canon :-).