Talk:Epistle of Jude
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Misc.
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))
- 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)
[edit] Revert by Codex Sinaiticus
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)
- 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)
The following two sentences keep getting put back by Codex Sinaiticus ("This latter book" refers to the Book of Enoch, italics added for purposes of this discussion)
"This latter book, purporting to be the first book ever written, 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. Were it not for the Epistle of Jude, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Ethiopian Bible (see Ethiopian Orthodox), never affected by Yavneh, the Book of Enoch would be unknown today."
I believe it needs to be removed for the following reasons:
- 1. It contains unencyclopedic language: "systematic suppression, practically erasing it from history".
- 2. (Most seriously) It is unreferenced - the claim of "systematic suppression", and everything else in these sentences, is offered with no supporting evidence.
- 3. (Second most seriously) Even if the above two concerns were fixed, I would still be uncomfortable with it being in this article because it is off-topic - discussion on the canonicity and preservation of Enoch belongs at Book of Enoch, not here.
That is why I am rewriting it. If you disagree, argue your case here, or do your own improvements. Please don't continually do blanket reverts. Rocksong 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, no discussion, so I'll try the rewrite again. Rocksong 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citing Jude
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)
- 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)
[edit] Authorship
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)
[edit] Please add a "Content" section
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)
