Talk:Book of Enoch

message: There was a claim at Kingdom of Aksum that the book of Enoch mentions Axum. It was cited to someone named Murray “The Library: An illustrated history”. Any assistance in either assisting me in proving this wrong or else showing it to be somehow correct with an actual source on Enoch can head over there to the talk page. My removal has faced some resistance.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Unless it is a later Ge'ez translation, there would be no possible way the earliest versions of the book of Enoch would mention Axum. Africologist (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axum mention 

message: According to James H. Charlesworth in The Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha (vol. 1, p. 6) there exist also the following Ethiopic manuscripts:
* Kebran 9/II (Hammerschmidt- Tanasee 9/11), fifteenth century (Atiopischen Handschriften von Tanasee; Wiesbaden, 1973, pp.107f)
* Princeton Ethiopic 3 (Garrett collection -Isaac 3): eighteenth or nineteenth century (A Catalogue of Ethiopic (Ge'ez) Manuscripts in the Princeton University Library (Garrett Collection), Princ. Univ. Lib. 1973 p. 3)
* EMML 2080: fifteenth (possibly 14th) century (a microfilm copy is preserved at St. John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota. in addition to the 17th-century manuscripts EMML 4437 and EMML4750)
95.233.176.20 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopic manuscripts 

message: Text smells strongly of translation, possibly from Italian? Manuscript names don't follow standard English-language conventions. Bill (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  General problems 

message: This section needs some work. It's unclear exactly how the section is helpful as it doesn't really summarize the work or give important details, and it seems to be written from a religious perspective in some places (as well as, until I just changed at least some of it, seemingly using 'ancient aliens' nonsense as a source. Nefaeryous (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Description" section 

message: There is no possible way that the original Book of Enoch was written in Ge'ez. Translated into Ge'ez in the first millennium CE, yes. Africologist (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article currently say that it was originally written in Geez?—Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. It is absurd. Str1977 (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've repaired it. 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That was very obviously vandalism (someone just replaced all instances of Aramaic with Ge'ez).--Ermenrich (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

text: why is there no possible way and there is no evidence it was copied from Greek whatsover 149.90.75.126 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally written in Ge'ez?  

message: Updated the following section title and added an alternative perspective -- that is actually the more traditional, and that was completely missing:
Parallel New Testament passage
Many scholars promote the idea that  the Apostle Jude quotes the apocryphal book of Enoch, rather than having had direct revelation from the  Holy Spirit. The traditional Christian perspective follows  Jesus' saying, in , that the Spirit would reveal further truth to his Apostles, who then wrote the New Testament.
Many sections of Enoch are known to have been added later, and the passage that parallels  Jude's epistle has its literary style more in common with  prophetically-themed  biblical poetry than with the surrounding book of Enoch encapsulating it.
The  Gnostics proficiently  plagiarized the New Testament, using quotes from Jesus and the Apostles in their works to give a false sense of credibility to their  heretical teachings. They further developed revelatory concepts from the Apostles' writings into apocalyptic-style literature of their own making.
In addition to Enoch's prophecy, Jude also states, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam", likewise purported to be from another part of the book of Enoch, rather than being an  interpolated  emendation to Enoch from Jude.
The entire passage in question, , reads: ...etc...2600:8801:CA01:5950:8B4:AEEE:47D5:E4AA (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE the darn WP:RS or be gone from here. Since you are not WP:RS, we don't trust your own judgment, so we have no need of WP:OR performed by you. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Provided that it is not important what I say (but only what the mainstream scholars write), I checked in the book Dead Sea Scrolls - Revised Edition: A New Translation (ISBN 9780060766627) that I have at home, and at page 281 we have the translation of 4Q204 Frag. 1 Col. 1 with the 1Enoch verse that is quoted in Jude. A ntv (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternate view is that additions to the book of Enoch quote Jude