Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why is the Book of Jasher absent from the OT?

S

Soma-Sight

Guest
Is it not written in the Book of Jasher?" (Joshua 10:13)

"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher." (2Samuel 1:18)



Comments on this?
 
The Book of Jasher includes details about antediluvian patriarchs which are confirmed by modern revelation. The question arises of how the author of Jasher could have known specific facts from before the Great Flood, such as Cainan becoming very wise when he was forty years old. These correlations attest that it was composed from exceedingly ancient reliable sources.


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... asher.html[/quote]
 
Because the Church that Christ established (the pillar and foundation of truth) says so.
 
that is something that creeps me out.

how can men, NOT INSPIRED BY GOD, say what is, and what isnt gods teachings, what should. and what shouldnt be part of the bible.
 
From your link...

The L.D.S. Church has never taken an official stand on the authenticity of the Book of Jasher, but when apostles make lists of "lost books" from the Bible, Jasher is generally included.[4] One article in the "I Have a Question" column of The Ensign responded to the question of its authenticity.[5] After reviewing the standard scholarly analysis of how the book appears to have been composed of old Jewish legends, the article concluded with the wise injunction to treat it according to the Lord's advice on how to study the Aprocrypha:

Notice it says, " but when apostles make lists of "lost books" from the Bible, Jasher is generally included." Note that is speaking of LDS apostles, NOT NT Apostles.
 
peace4all said:
that is something that creeps me out.

how can men, NOT INSPIRED BY GOD, say what is, and what isnt gods teachings, what should. and what shouldnt be part of the bible.

Because the Church just defends, protects, and makes more clear the deposit of faith that was already laid down by the Apostles. You don't need to be inspired to do this because the insperation is already present in the deposit of faith. Like the Bible says.

Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught,
whether by word or our epistle" ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:15
 
but how can uninspired men, claim that text inspired by god, is false? or not worth teaching?

that is worse than an atheist, saying th ebible is false, or parts are..
 
Because the Church just defends, protects, and makes more clear the deposit of faith that was already laid down by the Apostles. You don't need to be inspired to do this because the insperation is already present in the deposit of faith. Like the Bible says.

Once again it all has to do with supporting pre - determined doctrine from how I see it!
 
Soma-Sight said:
Because the Church just defends, protects, and makes more clear the deposit of faith that was already laid down by the Apostles. You don't need to be inspired to do this because the insperation is already present in the deposit of faith. Like the Bible says.

Once again it all has to do with supporting pre - determined doctrine from how I see it!

Sure, the apostolic Tradition. :wink:
 
Cure of Ars said:
[quote="Soma-Sight":9bc5c]
Because the Church just defends, protects, and makes more clear the deposit of faith that was already laid down by the Apostles. You don't need to be inspired to do this because the insperation is already present in the deposit of faith. Like the Bible says.

Once again it all has to do with supporting pre - determined doctrine from how I see it!

Sure, the apostolic Tradition. :wink:[/quote:9bc5c]

Which of the 14+ apostles are you refering to?
 
ThinkerMan said:
Cure of Ars said:
[quote="Soma-Sight":2b1f8]
Because the Church just defends, protects, and makes more clear the deposit of faith that was already laid down by the Apostles. You don't need to be inspired to do this because the insperation is already present in the deposit of faith. Like the Bible says.

Once again it all has to do with supporting pre - determined doctrine from how I see it!

Sure, the apostolic Tradition. :wink:

Which of the 14+ apostles are you refering to?[/quote:2b1f8]

There are 12 of them, although it is a difficulty to figure out who is who. There are more than 12 names (Jews often had two names) but I am ignorant on how to resolve the dilemma conclusively. As a Christian I do not have the self-satisfaction of not having any difficulties, doubts, and having it all figured out. But I think we are in the same boat in a way. I cleave to Christ when I am tempted by doubt and you probably are tempted to doubt your doubt with a “yet perhaps its trueâ€Â. It’s just the human condition and we have to make the best of it. :wink:
 
Cure of Ars said:
ThinkerMan said:
Which of the 14+ apostles are you refering to?

There are 12 of them, although it is a difficulty to figure out who is who. There are more than 12 names (Jews often had two names) but I am ignorant on how to resolve the dilemma conclusively.

Actually Thinker was correct. There are 12 apostles (exact names up for debate) described in the Gospels. Then, in Acts 1 after Judas is dead, the remaining 11 apostles select a new one. Finally, Paul calls himself an apostle several times (e.g. Romans 1:1). So, there are at least 14 men who are apostles.
 
ThinkerMan are you Christian? If so I am way in right field with my response. :oops:
 
.


There are forgeries of this book.

There have been several translations and forgeries of this book. The Rosicrusians have accepted one version, and the Mormons accepted another version of several that were written. (see below)


The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith accepted a version that was translated by Moses Samuel, who sold it to a newpaper in 1839, which then was published by newspaper-owner and philanthropist Mordecai M. Noah in 1840 (see: last paragraph in this post) .





Read some of the research and History pertaining to this book as noted by some correspondence on the answers.org web site as follows:



The Book of Jasher
By John Baskette, © 1994, 2003
I am seeking information on any "book of Jashers" floating about. a friend says he has one, and though I have not seen it, I am assuming it probably a strecth of someones imagination. In the bible there are only two references to a "book of jasher" so it is actually a "lost book" it would be interesting to see if any one else has bumped into one.
The following book discusses the book of Jasher:

Modern Apocrypha, Famous "Biblical" Hoaxes by Edgar J. Goodspeed (The Beacon Press, Boston, 1956) the Library of Congress catalog card number is 56-10075

Goodspeed was a first rate Biblical scholar, professor emeritus of the University of Chicago. He made the first translation of the Apocrypha directly from Greek into English in The Apocrypha: An American Translation. He translated the New Testament in his The New Testament: An American Translation and has written a number of other books about the Bible or the history of Christian and Biblical literature.

Chapter Ten of the book discusses the book of Jasher.

According to Goodspeed there were Three medieval books name Jasher written by Jews in Hebrew as follows:


1. A 1391 version by Rabbi Shabbatai Carmuz Levita, preserved in a Vatican manuscript.
2. A book used as the introduction to the Hexateuch probably written by a Spanish Jew in the 13th century and published in Venice in 1625.
3. A treatise on Jewish ritual written by Rabbi Tham who died in 1171; it was printed in Italy in 1544.

The second of these (the 13th century version) was translated into English by a Mr. Samuel of Liverpool and published in 1840 in New York by Nash and Gould.

The version of the book of Jasher that you have seen is likely one that was produced by a Jacob Ilive, a London printer, who published his own version of the book of Jasher in 1751. This version has been reprinted and circulated by the Rosicrucian order.

Goodspeed cites several reviews from the late 18th and early 19th century that declared this book to be "a shameless literary forgery".

The book is described as "a condensation of portions of the first seven books of the Old Testament". One glaring omission is that nothing is said about David's dirge over Saul, which should be there according to II Samuel 1:18.

The title page of the book says. "translated into English by Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus, of Britain, Abbot of Canterbury, who went on a pilgrimage into the Holy Land and Persia, where he discovered this volume in the city of Gazna."

Alcuinus did live in Britain around 650. One problem with this manuscript is that it is written in an Elizabethan style English unknown to Alcuinus. The first edition of this book claimed that Alcuinus had "learned in the University of Oxford all those languages which the people of the East speak." The problem with that is that Oxford wasn't founded until 886, more than 80 years after Alcuin's death. Subsequent editions omitted this remark.

Goodspeed gives a number of other reasons based on internal evidences in the book why it is clearly an 18th century forgery and not genuine.


John Baskette


Addendum (2003):
I get emails regarding the book of Jasher from time to time asking about one publication or another. I have done some further research and have found everything I related from Goodspeed's book has held up. The above writing was originally a posting to the soc.religion.christian USENET news group back in 1994. One development on the Internet since that time has been the popularization on the web of a version of the book of Jasher promoted by the Mormons. This is the 1840 version mentioned by Goodspeed which Goodspeed says "appears" to be a translation of the 13th century Hebrew document. According to Bernard Wasserstein (In the Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England Vol. XXXV), this Samuel was Moses Samuel, a well respected 19th century Jewish Hebraist. He writes:

Samuel also translated into English the pseudo-biblical Book of Jasher, a supposedly ancient Hebrew text which Samuel convinced himself was authentic. After failing to persuade the Royal Asiatic Society to publish it, he sold his translation for £150 in 1839 to the American Jewish newspaper-owner and philanthropist Mordecai M. Noah. It appeared in New York the following year but with Noah's name and not Samuel's on the title page. "I did not put my name to it as my Patron and myself differed about its authenticity", Samuel later explained. This was odd since Noah seems to have had a lower opinion of the work's authenticity than Samuel. The translation was accepted as accurate, but the publication provoked criticism by scholars who rejected the claims made on behalf of the text. It won acceptance, however, by the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. (p. 2)
...

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.answers.org/bible/jasher-book-of.html


Also Note: I had to place this specific excerpt from the rest of that article here to avoid dispute about the mormons postition on this book of Jasher as follows:


"...The Spalding Studies web site contains the following comment regarding this version of the Book of Jasher and the Mormons:

Mordecai Noah was not unaware of the Mormon activities in building a temporary city of refuge at Kirtland in the 1830s. In a late 1835 issue of his Evening Star, Noah protested the Mormons' calling their nearly finished house of worship at Kirtland the "Temple of the Lord." The Jewish editor and would-be American zionist seemingly had no patience with what he termed the Mormons' "unhallowed purposes" in gathering around a "heathen temple." The Mormons never quite lose sight of Mordecai Noah's work, though they have long since forgotten his name. In 1840 the Jewish scholar translated into English and published the extracanonical Book of Jasher. The Mormons became fascinated with the book and have kept it in print and circulation wherever they congregate. The first of their reprintings of this strange volume was published by J. H. Parry & Company in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1887 and modern printings are always kept in stock at the LDS Church's Deseret Book Stores.

Note that the Mormon sources that I have read claim that the LDS church takes no official position on the authenticity of the Book of Jasher. ... "


=========

Read the whole article is is very interesting, indeed.


.
 
Cubed-B got what I was saying.

No, I am not Christian (though raised Catholic). I am an atheist.

I guess the point I was making is that it is difficult to ascertain "apostolic tradition".

At most, there are only 4 of which we have any writings from (Paul, Peter, John and Matthew). However, many scholars would contend we actually have writings only from Paul, who wasn't among the original 12/13.

That leaves a lot of unknown apostolic tradition. Plus, I doubt Judas' tradition bears much weight.

Additionally, what we do know of Peter and Paul from Acts and from Paul's writings certainly leaves a lot to be desired in terms of their relationship. (I know many would raise II Peter to counter this point, but evidence for authorship is the weakest in the bible for that epistle).

Anyway, I am sympathetic to tradition arguments, but to simply state "apostolic tradition" I think belies the fact that their were many of them, who often debated over the direction and form of the early Church.

Of course, we read these books back through the lens of those who won those debates (namely the Pauline Christians), relegating what we know about the Jewish Christians and the 12 apostles to be interpreted from that perspective.
 
Back
Top