If canonical status, -as you seem to view,... hinges on age or influence
you: Ethiopian bible is older than any other bible.
me: no it isn't
you: why are you worried about which is older?
Jude "quoting" (actually - paraphrasing) Enoch is not proof that the Book of Enoch is Canonical. I have read it as well as other Pseudo-scriptures and find them lacking. You assume that since I disagree with you I must never have studied them? Have you ever listened to or read anyone who gives evidence as to why they are not canonical? It's really an important point.
no one is saying you can't read those books.
the argument of this post is that they should be included in the canon of scriptures. They clearly do not rise to that level.
and the "Book of watchers from 3rd/4th century" is only fragmentary.
there are older "fragments" of the NT. Papyrus 46 and 52 as well as the Bodmer Papyri for instance.
you: Ethiopian bible is older than any other bible.
me: no it isn't
you: why are you worried about which is older?
Jude "quoting" (actually - paraphrasing) Enoch is not proof that the Book of Enoch is Canonical. I have read it as well as other Pseudo-scriptures and find them lacking. You assume that since I disagree with you I must never have studied them? Have you ever listened to or read anyone who gives evidence as to why they are not canonical? It's really an important point.