Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anyone ever heard of the "Book of Jasher", and if so what did everyone think of it?
14 Feb 2013 | US Navy Vet

Posted on 02/14/2013 5:59:36 AM PST by US Navy Vet

I have been reading it, was kinda impressed.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: bookofjasher
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 02/14/2013 5:59:43 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Allow me:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/index.htm


2 posted on 02/14/2013 6:08:27 AM PST by WCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
18 books were deferred to in the Bible. I think one of them is the Book of Jasher. The books of Enoch, Jubilees and others are quite interesting. The book of Maccabees used to be included in the Bible. The book written by Josephus is quite a good history also.
3 posted on 02/14/2013 6:09:16 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

I thought that the part that coincided w/ Gen 6 provided some CREEPILY expanded info. The time right before the WORLDWIDE Flood was just WIERD!


4 posted on 02/14/2013 6:11:46 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

The Book of Maccabees is still in the Catholic bible; it was edited out during the Reformation. I


5 posted on 02/14/2013 6:12:52 AM PST by I-ambush (Don't let it bring you down, it's only castles burning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son: (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)” - 2 Samuel 1:17-18

Therefore, if your version of The Book of Jasher doesn’t contain David’s dirge over Saul, then that’s a good indication that it is not THE book of Jasher as referenced in the Bible.

Cheers!


6 posted on 02/14/2013 6:17:29 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

There are ancient legends of Giants and strange chimeras, man animal mixtures, in ancient literature. How much of that was real? We do not really know what went on.


7 posted on 02/14/2013 6:28:26 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

“We do not really know what went on” no BUT we DO know it was WIERD!


8 posted on 02/14/2013 6:30:11 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: I-ambush

I did not know that about Maccabees. My Great Grandmother must have been Irish Catholic. I need to check that out.


9 posted on 02/14/2013 6:30:36 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“We do not really know what went on” no BUT we DO know it was WIERD!

Jesus said how can I tell you of the things of Heaven when you do not understand the things of earth.


10 posted on 02/14/2013 6:34:07 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
The Book of Enoch is particularly strange.

BTW it was held in high regard by many at the time of Jesus birth. It was, as you probably know, among the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

11 posted on 02/14/2013 6:35:44 AM PST by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I read it years ago, and I thought it seemed pretty legit to me. I’m perusing it now, and this part is certainly relevant nowadays:

“19 For in those days the sons of men began to trespass against God, and to transgress the commandments which he had commanded to Adam, to be fruitful and multiply in the earth.

20 And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they might retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.”


12 posted on 02/14/2013 6:39:10 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

“It was, as you probably know” no in don’t know much about it. Please tell me about the “Book of Enouch”. I may want to buy it as well.


13 posted on 02/14/2013 6:41:02 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

The way I read that verse is that there is something about teaching children to use the bow in the Book of Jasher, not something about David and Saul.


14 posted on 02/14/2013 6:41:45 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

There are two versions of Enoch, the Ethiopian Enoch and the Slavonic Enoch. The Ethiopian version, or 1 Enoch, is the one in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the one that is quoted in the Bible. The Slavonic version is probably a more recent invention, and isn’t really considered legitimate by anyone. So, if you want to read Enoch, I’d start with the Ethiopian version.


15 posted on 02/14/2013 6:47:00 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

This is the one I will buy:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1480102768/ref=ox_sc_act_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
I think it is the “good” one.


16 posted on 02/14/2013 6:50:36 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Book of Enoch
17 posted on 02/14/2013 6:51:02 AM PST by OB1kNOb (On November 6, 2012 liberty was given the death penalty in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
I'll save you some money.;-)

Ethiopian Book of Enoch, R.H.Charles interpretation

That said, if you ever want the very best, here it is...

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ( 2 Volume set) [Paperback], James H. Charlesworth (Editor)

I have these two volumes and they are wonderful.

Their contents include (not necessarily in this order)...

Volume 1 -

APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE AND RELATED WORKS

1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch
2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch
3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch
Sibylline Oracles
Treatise of Shem
Apocryphon of Ezekiel
Apocalypse of Zephaniah
The Fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra)
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Vision of Ezra
Questions of Ezra
Revelation of Ezra
Apocalypse of Sedrach
2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch
3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch
Apocalypse of Abraham
Apocalypse of Adam
Apocalypse of Elijah
Apocalypse of Daniel

TESTAMENTS (OFTEN WITH APOCALYPTIC SECTIONS)

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Job
Testaments of the Three Patriarchs
Testament of Abraham
Testament of Isaac
Testament of Jacob
Testament of Moses
Testament of Solomon
Testament of Adam

Volume 2 -

EXPANSIONS OF "OLD TESTAMENT" AND LEGENDS

Letter of Aristeas
Jubilees
Maryrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Joseph and Aseneth
Life of Adam and Eve
Pseudo-Philo
The Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
4 Baruch
James and Jambres
History of the Rechabites
Eldad and Modad
History of Joseph

WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE

Ahiqar
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Pseudo-Phocylides
The Sentences of the Syriac Menander

PRAYERS, PSALMS, AND ODES

More Psalms of David
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalms of Solomon
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers
Prayer of Joseph
Prayer of Jacob
Odes of Solomon

SUPPLEMENT: FRAGMENTS OF LOST JUDEO-HELLENISTIC WORKS

Philo the Epic Poet
Theodotus
Orphica
Ezekiel the Tragedian
Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets
Aristobulus
Demetrius the Chronographer
Aristeas ten Exegete
Eupolemus
Pseudo-Eupolemus
Cleodemus
Artapanus
Pseudo-Hecataeus


18 posted on 02/14/2013 6:56:20 AM PST by RoosterRedux (Get armed, practice in the use of your weapons, get physically fit, stay alert!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

ping for later study.


19 posted on 02/14/2013 7:23:06 AM PST by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

ping


20 posted on 02/14/2013 7:39:54 AM PST by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Yes, that looks like it uses the better version of Enoch. There are some books you can buy that have all the versions included, though, just in case you are curious. Though, you can always read them online if you just want a peek.


21 posted on 02/14/2013 7:43:55 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Well...

The “Lament of the Bow” is a funeral dirge that David wrote to lament Saul. The children were NOT being taught to use a bow in that verse, they were being taught to sing a SONG!

The KJV version is inaccurate in its translation of that verse. It should have said that David taught the children to sing the “Lament of the Bow.”

By the way, the Lament of the Bow is also called the Song of the Bow.

I probably shouldn’t have used the KJV, but I’m accustomed to using the KJV version as a common reference point for everyone. I just naturally assumed that everyone knew that it was talking about the song, Lament of the Bow.

The NIV version does a great job of clarifying it:

17 David took up this lament concerning Saul and his son Jonathan, 18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar):

19 “A gazelle[a] lies slain on your heights, Israel.
How the mighty have fallen!
20 “Tell it not in Gath,
proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.
21 “Mountains of Gilboa,
may you have neither dew nor rain,
may no showers fall on your terraced fields.[b]
For there the shield of the mighty was despised,
the shield of Saul—no longer rubbed with oil.
22 “From the blood of the slain,
from the flesh of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied.
23 Saul and Jonathan—
in life they were loved and admired,
and in death they were not parted.
They were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
24 “Daughters of Israel,
weep for Saul,
who clothed you in scarlet and finery,
who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold.
25 “How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.
27 “How the mighty have fallen!
The weapons of war have perished!”


So, long story short, if the funeral dirge, the Lament of the Bow is not contained within this recently published Book of Jasher, then it is based on an obvious forgery.

Cheers!


22 posted on 02/14/2013 7:45:12 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
< sigh>

You might want to look at this: Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)

The Book of Jasher, or Pseudo-Jasher, is an 18th-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive.[1] It purports to be an English translation by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of a lost Book of Jasher. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the Sefer haYashar (midrash) (Naples, 1552) which incorporates genuine Jewish legend.

and Sefer haYashar (midrash)

The Sefer haYashar (first edition 1552) is a Hebrew midrash also known as the Toledot Adam and Dibre ha-Yamim be-'Aruk. The Hebrew title may be translated Sefer haYashar - "Book of the Upright Man" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.[1]

This is among several texts purporting to be the original "Book of Jasher." The text is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism.

The real Book of Jasher (Book of Jasher (biblical references)) was a local record, now lost.

These ought not to be treated as anything more than what they are -- a 18th century forgery, and a medieval Jewish work. Be as fascinated with them as you want to be, but I wouldn't put much weight on what they say.

23 posted on 02/14/2013 7:45:53 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
< sigh>

You might want to look at this: Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)

The Book of Jasher, or Pseudo-Jasher, is an 18th-century literary forgery by Jacob Ilive.[1] It purports to be an English translation by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus of a lost Book of Jasher. It is sometimes called Pseudo-Jasher to distinguish it from the Sefer haYashar (midrash) (Naples, 1552) which incorporates genuine Jewish legend.

and Sefer haYashar (midrash)

The Sefer haYashar (first edition 1552) is a Hebrew midrash also known as the Toledot Adam and Dibre ha-Yamim be-'Aruk. The Hebrew title may be translated Sefer haYashar - "Book of the Upright Man" - but it is known in English translation mostly as The Book of Jasher following English tradition. The book is named after the Book of Jasher mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.[1]

This is among several texts purporting to be the original "Book of Jasher." The text is not accepted as such in rabbinical Judaism.

The real Book of Jasher (Book of Jasher (biblical references)) was a local record, now lost.

These ought not to be treated as anything more than what they are -- a 18th century forgery, and a medieval Jewish work. Be as fascinated with them as you want to be, but I wouldn't put much weight on what they say.

24 posted on 02/14/2013 7:46:11 AM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog

ya, sure


25 posted on 02/14/2013 9:00:38 AM PST by conserv8 (Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I read a review of this book (I’ve never read it) about fifty years ago. The author of the review said it appeared to be authentic but had parts re-worked by “a professional (modern) writer.”


26 posted on 02/14/2013 9:05:51 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

I should have said “additions by a modern writer”.


27 posted on 02/14/2013 9:09:22 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Actually, the book of Maccabees was NOT part of the original Hebrew scriptures. I do not believe that is has ever been part of the Hebrew scriptures. The Reformation went back to the original Hebrew books. I know I will get several responses from Roman Catholics trying to say I am wrong on this. That is ok. I will let them post all they want. I am not here to argue - just to suggest that you do your own diligent research and not just take someone’s word. I hestitated to even mention it because that will likely mean an additional 500 posts to this thread to add to the thousands of other posts on this subject.

If you do accurate, non-emotional research, this is what you should find - that Maccabees were never in the Hebrew bible, or the scripture that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament knew as God’s Word. The book probably has lots of good and interesting things it in - it just was not inspired or breathed out by the Holy Spirit.


28 posted on 02/14/2013 9:27:12 AM PST by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lupie
The book probably has lots of good and interesting things it in - it just was not inspired or breathed out by the Holy Spirit.

'Zackly.

Analogous: The Histories of Tacitus are an interesting read, and may be very accurate, but to include them in a volume of Scripture would be doubleplus ungood.

29 posted on 02/14/2013 10:20:08 AM PST by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

There are ancient legends of Giants and strange chimeras, man animal mixtures, in ancient literature. How much of that was real? We do not really know what went on.

Some of that is eerily scary in terms with what we can do now with biotechnology....

Taken in that context either someone from our time or after our time TIME TRAVELED back in time to include it in the legends to try to prevent it from happening or, there were a LOT more advanced civilizations around that got wiped out by the last ice age/ flood....


30 posted on 02/14/2013 10:58:59 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lupie

What date and origin are you using for the official canon of “the original Hebrew scriptures”?


31 posted on 02/14/2013 11:04:02 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

32 posted on 02/14/2013 12:34:29 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

OK, what is it?


33 posted on 02/14/2013 12:36:51 PM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Very good. You sound like a very learned man.


34 posted on 02/14/2013 3:47:27 PM PST by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Good post. I was wondering when somebody would set the record straight on these bogus writings. Plus, Josephus didn’t include Maccabees as inspired scripture. I think we would do well if we stuck with the canon we have.


35 posted on 02/14/2013 6:19:18 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sasportas; ducttape45

Maybe I just notice it more (some kind of selection bias), but lately I see too many people chasing after really foolish things.


36 posted on 02/14/2013 6:49:40 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means." --I. Montoya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

I agree with you on ‘bogus writings’ however I believe Maccabees was part of the canon for all Christians until its removal for Protestants during the Reformation.

I think it is included because it is in the Septuagint, used by early Christians.

In any case I wouldn’t take Josephus (if we’re thinking of the same Josephus) as an authority on the canon.


37 posted on 02/15/2013 1:27:05 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I didn’t cite Josephus as a religious authority on the canon, he was not a Rabbi, he was only a historian. I cited him because, he, having lived in the 1st century, related what the Jews held to be inspired - not he himself - at that time. Maccabbes was not among the books he mentioned.

This is not to say that there isn’t historical value in the Maccabbees, I just don’t think it is inspired. The Jews probably didn’t hold it inspired in the 1st century - this is just my opinion - because of all the Pseudipgraphic writings around in their day that were not inspired. Perhaps they thought Maccabbes to have been embellished by later false additions, inserted by these same type of Jews who had written all these “pseudo” books.


38 posted on 02/15/2013 1:05:06 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Thanks for your reply. I’m curious how you would explain its inclusion in the Septuagint.


39 posted on 02/15/2013 1:39:27 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Just another thought. Here’s a list of references in the NT:

Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17
Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54
Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28

I took this from:
http://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament


40 posted on 02/15/2013 1:48:19 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
The Jews probably didn’t hold it inspired in the 1st century

If memory serves, there is some history of Jews removing books that Christians used to show Christ - for obvious reasons. And, if memory serves again, the argument usually goes: The Jews should determine the OT, vs. The OT used by the first Christians is the Christian OT even if Jews later remove parts. thanks for your discussion.

41 posted on 02/15/2013 1:52:01 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

The Book of Jasher (Hebrew ‘Sefer Hayashar’ transl. ‘Book of the Upright’) is an example of midrash (homiletics).

One collection of midrash, Me’am Loez, amounts to a total of 45 volumes translated into English!

http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=1&P_ID=174&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=75

It should be pointed out that the category of midrash includes some actual historical details that are not included in the Bible.

For some reason, the Book of Jasher has some special appeal to those from Christian backgrounds but it is not especially unique or authoritative from a Jewish perspective.


42 posted on 02/15/2013 4:50:27 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I think you are missing my point, D-fendr. Let’s take the book of Enoch, for example. We have Jude’s quote, but what about the rest of the book? Do you believe that bunch of over the top hokum is inspired? I sure don’t. I take that to mean that that part is, like the Peeudipigraphic writings, pseudo, false. What Jude quoted is not.

Same with Maccabees. The historical facts of what happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees was well known among the Jews, the pollution of the temple, for instance. But are we to believe that every detail in the book of Maccabees is true, or inspired? How do we know some of it was not interpolated? Falsified after the fact, in other words.

Since Josephus notes that it was not included among the books the Jews held to be scripture, this was probably the case. Holding SOME of it as agreeing with true history, but not other parts of it. Ruling it out as inspired.

As to the Septuagint, same-o. Josephus, and the Jews of his day, would have known the Septuagint well, it being written several hundred years before them...yet they did not count Maccabees as scripture. If it, indeed, was included in the Septuagint...in the Septuagint they had, that is.


43 posted on 02/15/2013 9:27:34 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

Thanks for your reply.

As for hokum and uninspired, I believe that’s used by some for other parts of Scripture, Luther on Revelation for example.

And, I’m not sure i understand the other argument to wit: too accurate to be inspired. :)

I thought the Septuagint was common until about 200 A.D. and its contents well known and agreed upon. Are you saying Josephus had a different one than others, including the New Testament authors?


44 posted on 02/15/2013 11:10:05 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

The Jewish (as opposed to Christian) Septuagint was the Five Books of Moses only, because that was the required reading in entirety.

None of that original survives except perhaps in fragments. Greek translations of other scrolls, however popular, were strictly unofficial.

The idea that the Jews had a single book containing the canon (’canon’ didn’t even mean the same thing to Jews then) is a relatively modern one.


45 posted on 02/16/2013 5:37:06 AM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Re: your screen name. Do I understand you right, you are a staunch defender of Maccabees but not the Revelation? And, the book of James? That’s all I need, I’m done with this.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were in cahoots with the RCC or something. They are at least as staunch about, if not more, defending Maccabees as you.


46 posted on 02/16/2013 1:48:13 PM PST by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sasportas
Do I understand you right, you are a staunch defender of Maccabees but not the Revelation?

No, you're not understanding me correctly.

47 posted on 02/16/2013 3:07:10 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jjotto
The Jewish (as opposed to Christian) Septuagint

I am thinking of the Septuagint used by Jews at the time of Christ, the Apostles, NT writers, early Church… I thought it was "Jewish" as it pre-dated Christ. Yes?

48 posted on 02/16/2013 3:08:54 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/index.php/judaism-articles/2011/06/2281/

...The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint.

The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.

Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.

Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Latseptuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes, “The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.”...


49 posted on 02/16/2013 3:34:17 PM PST by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Thanks for your reply.

No doubt Jews stopped using while Christians continued; I don’t think that is the dispute.

I looked up the reference to St. Jerome. He seems to be saying they were not included - again - because of their more (to come) Christian usage. If I’m understanding this right, I think we are again in the argument between what is true scripture for Christians and thus not for Jews.

Here’s St. Jerome:

“It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs. The fact is that they, since their work was undertaken for King Ptolemy of Alexandria, did not choose to bring to light all the mysteries which the sacred writings contain, and especially those which give the promise of the advent of Christ, for fear that he who held the Jews in esteem because they were believed to worship one God, would come to think that they worshipped a second. “

I think you wouldn’t disagree that the Greek Old Testament was added to after the translation of the Pentateuch - that Jews added other writings to it for the use of Greek-speaking Jews. And this is what is referred to as the Greek Old Testament and referred to as the Septuagint, used in the form and content it existed in the time and place of Christ, the Apostles and other NT authors and early Church.

Perhaps it comes down to is the point where it stopped being used by Jews, at least some parts of it that were now being fixed in the Christian OT cannon.


50 posted on 02/16/2013 6:40:06 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson