the book of Jasher, should it be part of study ?

[SINNERSAVED]

okay we had a topic on the book of enoch, and so here is another book, the book of jasher ?

 would it be to use, with the bible, ? or any one know why it is not part of the bible ?

 and any comments on this Book, is it good or no good,  just asking, ?

 thank you

[coheir]

I read them both. I learned from both. I do not think they should be part of our Bible. I do think it would not harm anyone in any way to read them.

they both were used in early times I do believe.

[enoob57]

They were not in the original canonicals. This is good scholarship on the subject and I would highly recommend you understand the
why of through history rather than the self imposed (I like, I feel, it seems etc.)   Love, Steven
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm

[JohnD]

When you understand the record and canonization processes, you understand that certain books / writings referred to outside Biblical texts are only to corroborate what are written in the Biblical texts at a given point in time past while the revelation process of scripture was still ongoing. Some of the extra biblical writings may offer details omitted in the scriptures... but rest assured if the details were needed, the Holy Spirit would have insured their inclusion into the biblical text.

And, extra biblical writings are far more subject to tampering.

 

[OakWood]

20 minutes ago, JohnD said:

When you understand the record and canonization processes, you understand that certain books / writings referred to outside Biblical texts are only to corroborate what are written in the Biblical texts at a given point in time past while the revelation process of scripture was still ongoing. Some of the extra biblical writings may offer details omitted in the scriptures... but rest assured if the details were needed, the Holy Spirit would have insured their inclusion into the biblical text.

And, extra biblical writings are far more subject to tampering.

 

The Book of Jasher was never included in the canon because it was never considered to be scripture, it was merely considered to be a truthful historical account. Unlike Enoch which some consider to be scripture and others don't, Jasher has never made any scriptural claims, but it was endorsed by the Jews and by the apostles as being accurate and honest. From what we can gather, Jasher has never been tampered with.

What you are saying about the Holy Spirit is correct, but Jasher was never meant to be part of scripture, nor did any Church or committee ever expect it to be. It is not really a controversial book of the Apocrypha, it is simply a history book which expands on scripture. You have to remember that the Book of Genesis was written as recap of what was already known... a divinely inspired recap which highlighted the important bits, but left other bits out because the Jews already knew the story. Jasher tells us more of the story, not just of Genesis but a historical account up until the book of Judges or thereabouts.

I think that reading Jasher gives a better understanding of the Bible and a better understanding of the early history of humankind.

[Omegaman 3.0]

I'd probably just ignore it, as the 18th Century forgery/fiction that it is.

The supposed lost book was declared an obvious hoax by the Monthly Review in the December of the year of publication, and the printer Jacob Ilive was sentenced in 1756 to three years in jail for this fraud and for his radical anti-religious pamphlets.

In 1829, a slightly revised and enlarged edition was published in Bristol, provoking attacks against it. A photographic reproduction of this 1829 edition was published in 1934 by the Rosicrucians in San Jose, California, who declared it an inspired work.

Now, if you had a copy of the actual book of Jasher, mentioned in the Bible, I might answer differently, but even then it would be a curiousity, not in the same category as scripture.

[OakWood]

9 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

I'd probably just ignore it, as the 18th Century forgery/fiction that it is.

The supposed lost book was declared an obvious hoax by the Monthly Review in the December of the year of publication, and the printer Jacob Ilive was sentenced in 1756 to three years in jail for this fraud and for his radical anti-religious pamphlets.

In 1829, a slightly revised and enlarged edition was published in Bristol, provoking attacks against it. A photographic reproduction of this 1829 edition was published in 1934 by the Rosicrucians in San Jose, California, who declared it an inspired work.

Now, if you had a copy of the actual book of Jasher, mentioned in the Bible, I might answer differently, but even then it would be a curiousity, not in the same category as scripture.

Yes, there have been two forgeries, one in 1829 as you mentioned and a gnostic version from the Middle Ages. These have easily been proven to be forgeries, but the original book still exists (untampered) today. It is common knowledge that the book of 1829 was a forgery but this is NOT the book that I am talking about. Please don't confuse forgeries with the real thing. The Q'uran is a forgery of the Bible but you wouldn't claim that the Bible is untruthful just because somebody has created a false one.

[MorningGlory]

I'm not familiar with the Book of Jasher.  I also don't understand why all these extrabiblical books and theores are constantly being brought to this site. 

[OakWood]

11 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I'm not familiar with the Book of Jasher.  I also don't understand why all these extrabiblical books and theores are constantly being brought to this site. 

Why not? They are authentic and come from the same source as scripture does, especially Jasher which is even recommended by the Bible, being referenced in Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18 and Timothy 3:8. The word 'Jasher' by the way is not the name of a person, it simply means 'upright' because it is meant to be an accurate account of history.

It does not conflict with scripture, nor does it introduce any new doctrines, it merely fills in the historical gaps and explains some of the stories in more detail. For example it gives a deeper account of the Cain and Abel story, giving us an overview of what Cain said to Abel just before killing him and how he was killed. It also gives us more detail about the Tower of Babel and gives us a rough idea of the size of it. It also tells us that Noah's wife was called Namaah and that she was ninety-years older than him.

 

Now if we turn to the book of Enoch, there is also some evidence that Enoch was left out of the canon because it conflicted with Catholic ideology but it was widely read by Christian scholars even until the Middle Ages. It was not included in Protestant Bibles because by the time of the Reformation, the book had been lost and was not recovered again until the 1700s when it was brought back to Europe from Ethiopian Coptic Churches and then later on portions of it were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls confirming its authenticity.

Another reason that Enoch may have been left out of the canon is because the book itself states that it was only written to be understood by people living in the End Times. It's quite possible that the Church decided that it was best to leave the book out of the Bible for that reason.

You have to be aware of forgeries though and there are forgeries of both books but these have been proven to be false, they also conflict with scripture, and historically they are too young to be authentic.

[other one]

6 hours ago, enoob57 said:

They were not in the original canonicals. This is good scholarship on the subject and I would highly recommend you understand the
why of through history rather than the self imposed (I like, I feel, it seems etc.)   Love, Steven
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm

Enoob, I don't think this pertains to Enoch, Jasher and Jublees....   they were not part of the Catholic Bible