Jude quotes the book of Enoch. Is it Scripture?

[Tom Butler]

The Book of Jasher is also mentioned in Joshua 10:13

...Is this not written in the book of Jasher?

And in II Samuel 1:18-19

Behold it is written in the book of Jasher, the beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places; how are the mighty fallen!

There are several versions out there claiming to be the original book of Jasher.

The one I've read is actually a great read and fills in a lot of blanks not cited in the Scriptures. The accuracy of some passages has been challenged, though, and that could be a clue as to why it's not included in the canon.

 

[SummaScriptura]

It's too apocryphal and not in accordance with the biblical account. Take the flood as a good example. God says it was to punish MAN's sin, not the sin of 400 foot tall demon offspring who went around eating the flesh of all humans and beasts they could get their hands on.

Okay, now you are revealing more of your bias than your first-hand knowledge. The Book of Enoch, as well as the Book of Genesis show the flood coming for human sin. Also, both books show the flood coming for the sins of the giants.

Regarding Enoch 7:2, earlier you cited the Vanderkam commentary as something you view as credible, apparently. In that book, Vanderkam/Nicklesburg correct Enoch 7:2 per the extant Greek for the passage and it says nothing about the giants' heights, let alone the 400-ft.-high figure.

On a side note, the offspring of the Watchers are viewed as sinful men in Enoch, and the entirety of humanity is viewed as demoralized and inviting the judgemnt by flood.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Book of Jasher is also mentioned in Joshua 10:13


And in II Samuel 1:18-19


There are several versions out there claiming to be the original book of Jasher.

The one I've read is actually a great read and fills in a lot of blanks not cited in the Scriptures. The accuracy of some passages has been challenged, though, and that could be a clue as to why it's not included in the canon.

You're the only one discussing Jasher. It has no historical corroboration textually whatsoever.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Also, both books show the flood coming for the sins of the giants.

This is complete conjecture. Read John Gill, a good Baptist, for a more balanced view of the Genesis passage. Besides, if the flood was to destroy the giants, God didn't do a very good job.

 

[SummaScriptura]

This is complete conjecture. Read John Gill, a good Baptist, for a more balanced view of the Genesis passage. Besides, if the flood was to destroy the giants, God didn't do a very good job.

Its more than conjecture. Prior to 70 AD, it was the only way Genesis 6:1-4 was explained. That's right, everyone in Jesus' day explained the events described in Genesis 6:1-4 the same way the Book of Enoch does. Later ideas, (sethites, kings, etc.) were and are pure conjecture posited into a vacuum of evidence.

 

[gb93433]

Paul said in Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Just because someone quotes a source does not mean the source is scripture.

Scripture is dynamic (Heb. 4:12).

 

[SummaScriptura]

Obviously, the Book of Enoch is not Scripture to most Baptists. Whether Enoch is the authentic writer of the book is nevertheless an intriguing question.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Paul said in Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Just because someone quotes a source does not mean the source is scripture.

Scripture is dynamic (Heb. 4:12).

So was this a philosophical joke?

Cretan says all Cretans are liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This saying is true. = they are not all such and such since the Cretan who said it was lying!

 

[gb93433]

So was this a philosophical joke?

Cretan says all Cretans are liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This saying is true. = they are not all such and such since the Cretan who said it was lying!

What would lead you to ask such a question? Did you read the verse in its context?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Some Cretans must have been elder material. But the context is as you infer. But I think the Cretan who said that meant it as a joke, but Paul turned it over and said it was true.

 

[gb93433]

Some Cretans must have been elder material. But the context is as you infer. But I think the Cretan who said that meant it as a joke, but Paul turned it over and said it was true.

My point is that the original source was not scripture but it is included in scripture now.

 

[SummaScriptura]

So was this a philosophical joke?

Cretan says all Cretans are liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This saying is true. = they are not all such and such since the Cretan who said it was lying!

Yes, I agree, Paul is playing with the "prophesy" by a Cretan false prophet.

 

[Tom Butler]

You're the only one discussing Jasher. It has no historical corroboration textually whatsoever.

Actually, you are right. I was using it as another example of a book quoted in the Bible that is not in the canon.

It's still a great read, and if true, fills in some blanks.

 

[SummaScriptura]

<snip>It's still a great read, and if true, fills in some blanks.

But does it? Is there any historical corroboration to the text of that book older than a couple of centuries ago? If so, I am unaware of these. Anyone could have written it. Maybe its a good read, but it is unreliable since it is not attested anywhere outside of itself. Truly ancient books in circulation get copied repeatedly so there are multinple source texts. Any book which exists in one, complete copy with no other witnesses should be deemed unreliable.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Beyond this, the older the book and the wider its use, the text begins to show up in quotes and/or allusions in ohter ancient books.

For instance, the Book of Enoch is referrred to in dozens of ancient books and is quoted here and there and alluded to again and again.

By way of contrast, any book which exists in only one complete copy, like the so-called "Book of Jasher", from modern times with no external witness from ancient times should be deemed unreliable from the start.

 

[jonathan.borland]

By way of contrast, any book which exists in only one complete copy, like the so-called "Book of Jasher", from modern times with no external witness from ancient times should be deemed unreliable from the start.

You do know that at one time the same could be said about 1 Enoch, right?

 

[SummaScriptura]

You do know that at one time the same could be said about 1 Enoch, right?

No, I do not. What time was that?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Beyond this, the older the book and the wider its use, the text begins to show up in quotes and/or allusions in ohter ancient books.

For instance, the Book of Enoch is referrred to in dozens of ancient books and is quoted here and there and alluded to again and again.

By way of contrast, any book which exists in only one complete copy, like the so-called "Book of Jasher", from modern times with no external witness from ancient times should be deemed unreliable from the start.

You do know that at one time the same could be said about 1 Enoch, right?

No, I do not. What time was that?

My very point was the Book of Jasher falls flat where the Book of Enoch does not. The Book of Enoch has more than 2,000 years of external corroboration from other sources.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Beyond this, the older the book and the wider its use, the text begins to show up in quotes and/or allusions in ohter ancient books.

For instance, the Book of Enoch is referrred to in dozens of ancient books and is quoted here and there and alluded to again and again.

By way of contrast, any book which exists in only one complete copy, like the so-called "Book of Jasher", from modern times with no external witness from ancient times should be deemed unreliable from the start.

You do know that at one time the same could be said about 1 Enoch, right?

No, I do not. What time was that?

My very point was the Book of Jasher falls flat where the Book of Enoch does not. The Book of Jasher bears all the proper marks of a fraud, while the Book of Enoch does not have any of those indicators. The Book of Enoch has more than 2,000 years of external corroboration from other writers.

You appealed to Vanderkam/Nickelsburg for authority in a previous thread. Do they think the text of 1 Enoch has been fabricated to stand-in for the book mentioned ancient times? No.