----- Original Message ----- From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Bible translations Re: Tragedy in Israel
> > From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The Fool wrote: > > > > > >Non inspired books. Catholic versions of the bible contain Apocryphal > > >books (that are not considered to be inspired, but are of note). > There > > >are other books not in either cannon that are apocryphal, like the > > >'Gosphel of Thomas' and the 'Book of Enoch' (a glaring forgery written > > >well after christ). > > > > > But it can't be *that* well after, because The Book of Enoch is > mentioned in > > one of the letters. Or is the forgery the invention of a book just > because it > > was quoted and lost? > > The thing I was reading about it suggested it was written at least fifty > years (but more like 200) after Christ. Doubt I could find it again. It > _Is_ a forgery. Well, your opinion is not shared by mainstream scripture scholars. My daughter has it in her collection of inter-testiment literature which she studied as part of her theology degree at a Presbyterian school. I studied it as part of my course in Persian and Hellenistic Judiasm. IIRC, the general consensus is that it was written around 150 BCE...but I haven't dug my notes out on this. The quote in Jude is: "It was with them in mind that Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, made his prophecy when he said, 'I tell you the Lord will come with all his holy ones in their tens of thousands, to pronounce judgement on all humanity and to sentence the godless for all the godless things they have done, and for all the defiant things said against him by godless sinners.' " The Jerusalem bible has a foot note that states: Enoch 1:9, probably quoted from memory. Why would your one source have precidence over the consensus viewpoint of non-fundamentalist scholars? Dan M. BTW it contains the Julian calendar (Listed oddly > enough, backwards). > > I am unsure about the jude reference. There may have been a different > source, than that which is suggested. The OT contain references to > several books that seem to have been lost. > >
