The Book of Jashar

[eahaddix]

Joshua 10 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010:12-13;&version=31;) [Hebrew] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Joshua+10%3A12-13&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!


2 Samuel 1 [NIV] (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%201:17-18;&version=31;) [Hebrew] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=2+Samuel+1%3A17-18&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)
17 David took up this lament concerning Saul and his son Jonathan, 18 and ordered that the men of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar):
Notice that Joshua 10:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%2010:13;&version=31;) and 2 Samuel 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%201:18;&version=31;) quote "the Book of Jashar."

With this in mind, I have two questions:
[B](a) Why do the Biblical Scriptures quote from "the Book of Jashar," as if the said book is an important text? The mere fact that these two Scriptures even "give credit" to "the Book of Jashar" in the first place means that the Biblical Scriptures give some form of high regard to this book.

(b) Why is the Book of Jashar not a part of the Biblical canon, if YHWH 'El the Spirit inspired the author to mention "the Book of Jashar"?:tiphat: Thanks in advance for reading and answering.

[CoreIssue]

The OT references a few books that are not Bible. They are history or other such records.

It is legit to reference such if accurate. But that does not make them Bible.

[eahaddix]

The OT references a few books that are not Bible.

ApologeticsPress.org has posted a webpage (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/42) which contains a list of Scriptural references to such texts.


They are history or other such records.

How would you know that they are irrelevant documents?

You are missing the point. From the viewpoint of faith, we can be fully satisfied that YHWH 'Elohiym's promise to fully preserve his Word[1][2][3] is an adequate explanation. However, from the viewpoint of unfaithful intellectual inquiry, this issue presents a significant question which must be answered by proper inquiry.

So, instead of waving your hand and declaring that this issue is a non-issue, you should be inspired to research this issue further and post good material accordingly.

This represents the very purpose of Apologetics, no?


Foonote:
[1] Matthew 24:35 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:35;&version=31;), Mark 13:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:31;&version=31;).
[2] cf. Deuteronomy 8:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%208:3;&version=31;), Matthew 4:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:4;&version=31;).
[3] ref. Psalm 119:160 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20119:160;&version=31;), Isaiah 40:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:8;&version=31;), 1 Peter 1:23-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:23-25;&version=31;), etc.


It is legit to reference such if accurate. But that does not make them Bible.

Your reply raises two questions in my mind.
(a) Why would the Word of God need to "borrow material" and "cite its sources"?(b) The phrase "it is written" means something unique in the Biblical Scriptures, no?With these questions in mind, I must clarify that there is a difference between extra-textual confirmation and a text citing its sources. The latter situation simply serves to confirm what the text in question says, but the former situation implies that the text in question borrowed material from a source text.

[CoreIssue]

They are history or other such records.

How would you know that they are irrelevant documents?

You are missing the point. From the viewpoint of faith, we accept YHWH 'Elohiym's promise to fully preserve his Word as an adequate explanation. However, from the viewpoint of unfaithful intellectual inquiry, this issue presents a significant question which must be answered by proper inquiry.

So, instead of waving your hand and declaring that this issue is a non-issue, you should be inspired to research this issue further and post good material accordingly.

Easy. Christ called the OT canon as accepted by the Jews the Scriptures, God given and for our use.

No reference to any books missing.

It is legit to reference such if accurate. But that does not make them Bible.



Your reply raises two questions in my mind. (a) Why would the Word of God need to "borrow material" and "cite its sources"?
Because the Jews recognized the books. So, like the parables using farmers and such, a quick reference to that book said a lot with few words.


(b) The phrase "it is written" means something unique in the Biblical Scriptures, no?

With these questions in mind, I must clarify that there is a difference between extra-textual confirmation and a text citing its sources. The latter situation simply serves to confirm what the text in question says, but the former situation implies that the text in question borrowed material from a source text.
It means it was written. Does not say by whom or call it God breathed.

If it was scriptures it would be in the scriptures, since not one iota will fall or fail until all is complete.

If scriptures, then it fell from the scriptures. Meaning God failed to keep his promise.

It was not in the canon Christ called the Scriptures.

[eahaddix]

Easy. Christ called the OT canon as accepted by the Jews the Scriptures, God given and for our use.

No reference to any books missing.

And? The faithful grant this argument. However, from the perspective of the faithless, this argument simply begs the question by presupposing the authority of Mashiyach Yehoshua's teachings.


Because the Jews recognized the books. So, like the parables using farmers and such, a quick reference to that book said a lot with few words.

Yes, even if the contemporary Jewish population recognized the said books and their contents, the non-contemporary Gentile audience of today does not. So, as a result, the presupposed understandings in question would be lost without the availability of the said texts.

Now, how do you propose to replace the presupposed understandings of these "quick references"?


It means it was written. Does not say by whom or call it God breathed.

But, under this semantical objection, we could say that Mashiyach Yehoshua's usage of the phrase "it is written" means nothing in and of itself, except when we presuppose our current extra-Scriptural canon of Biblical Scripture.


If it was scriptures it would be in the scriptures, since not one iota will fall or fail until all is complete.

If scriptures, then it fell from the scriptures. Meaning God failed to keep his promise.

And? The faithful grant this argument. However, this is the exact foundational dilemma which the faithless would use against the reliability of the Biblical Scriptures.

[CoreIssue]

Easy. Christ called the OT canon as accepted by the Jews the Scriptures, God given and for our use.

No reference to any books missing.

And? The faithful grant this argument. However, from the perspective of the faithless, this argument simply begs the question by presupposing the authority of Mashiyach Yehoshua's teachings.
You know as well as I assumptions are not good arguments and hard to defend against.

I don't know any other answer than referencing a data book or a known reality such as farming does not constitute a missing book of the Bible.
Because the Jews recognized the books. So, like the parables using farmers and such, a quick reference to that book said a lot with few words.

Yes, even if the contemporary Jewish population recognized the said books and their contents, the non-contemporary Gentile audience of today does not. So, as a result, the presupposed understandings in question would be lost without the availability of the said texts.

Now, how do you propose to replace the presupposed understandings of these "quick references"? [/QUOTE]
I don't. When a known and accepted book references something not found, one has to either assume the validity of the reference or not.

It means it was written. Does not say by whom or call it God breathed.

But, under this semantical objection, we could say that Mashiyach Yehoshua's usage of the phrase "it is written" means nothing in and of itself, except when we presuppose our current extra-Scriptural canon of Biblical Scripture.

It means something was written. Context sets the significance.

If it was scriptures it would be in the scriptures, since not one iota will fall or fail until all is complete.

If scriptures, then it fell from the scriptures. Meaning God failed to keep his promise.

And? The faithful grant this argument. However, this is the exact foundational dilemma which the faithless would use against the reliability of the Biblical Scriptures.

Then one has to refute this notion from logic, semantics and grammar.