Posted on 02/14/2013 5:59:36 AM PST by US Navy Vet
I have been reading it, was kinda impressed.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
ya, sure
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.”
I should have said “additions by a modern writer”.
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.
'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.
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....
What date and origin are you using for the official canon of “the original Hebrew scriptures”?
OK, what is it?
Very good. You sound like a very learned man.
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.
Maybe I just notice it more (some kind of selection bias), but lately I see too many people chasing after really foolish things.
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.
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.
Thanks for your reply. I’m curious how you would explain its inclusion in the Septuagint.
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
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.