Excellent - I am very partial to Enoch. Sadly, it is fairly far from it's roots, but I do think the roots are there. It would be interesting to find out what your final analysis is... And one should read Jasher right after Enoch - They kinda go together...
There was some talk of starting a thread on Enoch... Quite a few of the Protestants are reading it - Duno what happened to that idea.
[roamer_1:] So, until the original (Hebrew) texts emerge, It is my opinion that the “new” must be proved in the “old” - quite the reverse of what is commonly insisted upon.
Too true. Too true. Kindred soul here. Yes, it is most unfortunate that we do not possess hebrew originals. Even the earliest Greek stuff only goes back to mid 4th century. There’s a lot of miles left to go.
You may be interested in the Shem Tov Matthew. No doubt it is far from it's root too, but there are tantalizing bits and pieces that are really enlightening. This vid is very enjoyable - Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew and scholar, speaks about the implications wrt Matthew 23. Note that I do not endorse the Shem Tov in it's current form, but Gordon makes a lot of sense. Pop me a FRe-mail and tell me what you think.
... An Old Covenant seeking Catholic... Now THAT's interesting...
I’d be more comfortable with the Masoretic text if they had an earlier date. I’m not sure quite what Jerome used, but there is a fair gap from the earliest Masoretic texts we have and Jerome.
I find that to be less of a problem. The Pharisees are the single official body from the Temple proper, where the main (official) copies of the Tanakh were kept. Equally worthy of consideration, the solemn duty with which the Scriptures were kept - Especially in the Hebrew, and one would think, particularly among those of the Temple.
The Oracles of YHWH were committed to the Hebrews- Why would I be interested in translations rather than the existing source? And, as it turns out, the DSS support the Masoretic texts, almost exclusively - bumping them back (albeit fragmented in some/most cases) to the 2nd Temple period.
Thank you for your time sir, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
Same to you, and I mean that. I probably wouldn't see any reply today, as we are off to my mother's house for an early Christmas ... with dinner, and PIE. So I fully expect to be an over-stuffed sodden lump for the remainder of the day.
“Why would I be interested in translations rather than the existing source? And, as it turns out, the DSS support the Masoretic texts, almost exclusively - bumping them back (albeit fragmented in some/most cases) to the 2nd Temple period.”
I don’t disagree. My only qualm is the lateness of the Masoretic text in it’s entirety. The translation is only superior insofar as one assumes use of textual sources unavailable today. I don’t believe Jerome would have used anything but the best he had available, and sadly today we no longer have what he possessed.
Perhaps one day we will uncover his sources, as well as Origen’s Hexapla. That would push NT scholarship back another century.
I’m well into my 2nd version of Enoch 2.
When I get done, I expect to start the thread.
If someone wants to start it earlier, it’s OK with me.