Most Christians assume the Bible has always contained exactly the books it contains now. In fact, the question of which books belonged in the canon was fiercely debated for centuries — and the answers varied significantly by time, place, and tradition.
The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) was largely settled by the time of Jesus, but even then, books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Ezekiel were debated. Rabbinic tradition records these debates without embarrassment: the sages disagreed, and they recorded their disagreements.
The New Testament canon was even more contested. Early Christians read and revered texts that didn't make the final cut: the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement. Texts that did make the final cut — Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John — were debated and doubted in various regions for centuries.
The formal process of canon decision-making happened through a series of councils spanning from the late 4th century to the early 5th century. The Synod of Hippo in 393 CE and the Council of Carthage in 397 CE produced lists that are close to the modern Catholic/Protestant canon. But the Eastern churches maintained somewhat different lists, and the Ethiopian church maintained a significantly different list, for centuries afterward.
The Book of Enoch didn't survive this process in the Western church. But it was part of the discussion — and the communities that excluded it did so for specific historical reasons, not because they'd unanimously concluded it wasn't ancient, authentic, or valuable.
Read it and decide for yourself.