Talk:Epistle of Jude

message: From the "Content and comments" section:
How can we say that the prophecy of Enoch is found "no where else"? Is it not found in the book of Enoch 1:9? Maybe we can say that the information contained in Jude appears nowhere else in the protestant cannon, or alternately, to not say that the prophecy appears no where else.
Suggestion:
"The book of Jude contains information from ancient times that is not found elsewhere in most bible cannons. The includes the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses (Jude 1:7). It also includes the prophecy of Enoch, who pre-dates Noah (Jude 1:14-15)."
Alternate suggestion:
"The book of Jude contains information from ancient times that is not found elsewhere. The includes the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil about the body of Moses (Jude 1:7). It also includes The prophecy of Enoch, who pre-dates Noah (Jude 1:14-15) appears no where else except in the book of Enoch which is not included in most bible cannons."
(Drewdafis 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just re-written the paragraph, without realising it's already been discussed here above. The issue of the two non-canonical quotes raises a lot of issues on canon and inspiration, so I've just said that, though no doubt it could be worded a lot better. (And a lot more could be said). Feel free to rewrite. One thing though: the reference to "apocryphal" writings I think is inaccurate because the 2 books are not even in the Apocrypha of most churches; so even if you throw the rest of my edit out, I think that change ("Apocryphal" to "non-canonical") should probably stay. Rocksong 11:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. 

message: To Codex Sinaiticus: by reverting back to the 28-Mar-2007 version, you have undone the good faith reverts of 5 different editors. If there's a part you don't like, change it. But don't revert the whole thing. And some of the comments on Enoch had to change, such as this unencyclopedic and unreferenced sentence: "is known to have been in regular use by Jewish and Christian groups alike, until c. 90, when the Pharisee Sanhedrin at Yavneh (which is disputed) declared it to be "no longer scriptural" and began its systematic suppression, practically erasing it from history". So please, edit constructively. I'm more than happy to discuss the content here. Rocksong 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see how calling Enoch "non-canonical" is not correct for all churches, and could be seen as POV, but that was an honest mistake. The comments on "suppression" still need to go, however, and I'll attend to that later, hopefully in a way that's acceptable to everyone. Anyway, I'm glad that you've allowed the edits since 28-Mar-2007 to stay. Rocksong 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, no discussion, so I'll try the rewrite again. Rocksong 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by Codex Sinaiticus 

message: Just out of curiosity, since I've seen this book referenced a couple times here of WP, what is the proper way to cite Jude? If I'm citing verse 3, should I say "Jude 3" or "Jude 1:3"? The more i think about it, the latter would be most clear (to avoid ambiguity in citing "Jude 1"), but are both forms acceptable? --YbborTalk 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the former more often, at least in books. Like you, though, I prefer the latter. It makes all book citations the same format, which is helpful in the computer age. Peter Ballard 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Jude 

message: I have revised the section on authorship as it does not appear to have used the most recent scholarship. If anyone knows of more recent work please add it in. Thanks. Mercury543210 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: There's material about the author, date, style and references to other books, but no section about the content? Shinobu (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add a "Content" section 

message: The page says "The Book of Enoch is not considered canonical by most churches, although it is by the Ethiopian Orthodox church." Is this the only church that does or are there others as well. It is ambiguous as is. Leefkrust22 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that this is ambiguous: being a little fuzzy is useful to avoid having to put in any minor or bizarre exceptions. The only church(es) that I can find positive evidence of accepting it (as secondary canon) is the Eritrean/Ethiopian church.   Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I've asked this at the page of the person who wrote the edit, but I'd be happy to hear from anyone...
The article currently says, "Others have drawn the opposite conclusion, i.e., that, as an apostle, he would not have made a claim of apostleship on his own behalf.(ref) Bauckham, R. J. (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.14f ".
My questions are:
* What does actually Bauckham say?
* Does he present it as his own view, or as someone else's?
I'd be a little surprised if Bauckham thought the author was the apostle, and not the brother of Jesus (assuming they're different people). Adpete (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship: what does Bauckham actually say? 

message: I think in any article involving Biblical Studies, editors need to be careful in asserting scholarly consensus or individual opinion as fact: very often a lot made to hang on very little, and there is a track record of archeological evidence proving academic speculation wrong.  This is not to put down academic speculation: they generate hypotheses and debate if these are plausible; however, speculation is not NPOV. The age of compilation of the Gospels is an example of something that has swung wildly. 
For example, the comment in the text that Jude could not have written Epistle of Jude as he would have been illiterate, because Gallilean peasants were illiterate seems mad to me: scribes were common and could be used both for reading and writing but also for good literary form. Even today busy people have secretaries or law clerks to take care of drafting. I have friends who are not confident writers and they get their friends to help them. (And, in any case, someone who starts life semi-literate or illiterate can gain skills over their lifetime. I happens all the time.) But we don't actually know that Jude was illiterate, it is just speculation: indeed, we don't actually know the state of literacy among Judean peasants, and we don't know that Jude was a typical Judean peasant or that his family was. It is reasonable speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
My concrete suggestion is that the word "speculates" should be used much more.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "scribes were common and could be used both for reading and writing but also for good literary form" That sounds like an amanuensis hypothesis. People writing down what someone else dictates. It was relatively commonplace in ancient Rome, and it was the method used by Paul of Tarsus for his writings:
**In ancient Rome, an amanuensis (Latin āmanuēnsis, “secretary”, from ab-, “from” + manus, “hand”) was a slave or freedperson who provided literary and secretarial services such as taking dictation and perhaps assisting in composition. Amanuenses were typically Greek, might be either male or female,Susan Treggiari, "Jobs for Women," American Journal of Ancient History 1 (1976), p. 78. and were among the higher-status slaves in ancient Rome who were considered to add valueClarence A. Forbes,"The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 86 (1955), p. 341. to their masters' lives rather than serving as mere instruments of production.Jakob Fortunat Stagl, "Favor libertatis: Slaveholders as Freedom Fighters," in The Position of Roman Slaves: Social Realities and Legal Differences (De Gruyter, 2023), p. 229 Literary slaves had certain privileges under the law and could be manumitted at a younger age.W. Martin Bloomer, “Schooling in Persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education,” Classical Antiquity 16:1 (1997), p. 76, n. 44, citing K. Bradley, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire (1984), p. 92, with reference to Gaius, Institutes 1.19; 39."
**"The Apostle Paul, though literate in Greek, made use of an amanuensis.Chris Keith, "'In My Own Hand': Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul," Biblica 89:1 (2008), pp. 39-58." Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship