DrJim

SlaveofChrist says:
"Never"? Have you got the only canon? It seems to have been canonical in at least some sense to the folks responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls. They had at least 12 copies of it, and it is quoted as authoritative in the Damascus Covenant (16:3-4). It is still included in printed editions of the Eithopic Church's canon.

How does Jubiliees lead one to conclusions any more ridiculous by its rewriting Genesis-Exod. 12 than can be divined out of those books themselves?

Just because it was excluded from most Jewish and Christian canons is no reason to suppose the book leads only to 'ridulous' conclusions. In some respects, Jubilees makes MORE sense than the Bible, since it at least tries to answer the question of how the evil survived the flood.

It may have been exluded from most canons for any number of reasons: perhaps because in rewriting Genesis-exod 12, it injected too many changes to the biblical story to be compatible. Maybe the early Rabbis and church fathers had some subtle ideological differences with the book. Even so, Charlesworth (Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1) comments that Paul, Luke-Acts, James Hebrews and 2 Peter show some awareness of the book. He cites the earlier work of Charles in this regard, but I don't have a copy of it to hand. For one thing, the multitude of Watcher/angels who rebelled against God is frequently echoed in Christian thought.


JRL

Secular Pinoy

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 - For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 - Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

Sensei Meela

Matthew 18:6 was the closest I came, as well...essentially, you are 'bad' for causing or leading another to sin.

But is it 'good' to let someone sin? I mean, you aren't really interefering with their free will, so is it not a logical and moral consequence that you should (and are called to) prevent them from sinning?

Are we not called to 'turn' from sin...to stop sinning...to prevent ourselves from sinning?

Perhaps I've been thinking of a Voltaire quote ~ 'Everyman is guilty of the good things he failed to do'.

offa

DrJim,
How does Jubiliees lead one to conclusions any more ridiculous by its
rewriting Genesis-Exod. 12 than can be divined out of those books
themselves?

Offa,
I have Charles' Pseudepigrapha and I have studied Jubilees. You
wrote it seems to have been canonical in at least some sense to the
folks responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls. They had at least 12
copies of it, and it is quoted as authoritative in the Damascus
Covenant (16:3-4).

It is often written that Jubilees (Little Genesis) is a re-write
of Genesis, however, I am not familiar with sections of Genesis found
amongst the DSS, whereas, Jubilees has been discovered there and is
said to have been written in c. 108 b.c.e. Could Genesis possibly
have been a re-write of Jubilees?

DrJim

Good question

Just offhand, I'm not sure how much of Genesis or how many copies survived to be discovered at Qumran. I think it is pretty well attested however.

I don't think there would be many scholars who would hold that Jubilees is a product of the Qumran community, although they sure seemed to like it. There is apparently less overt sectarianism in it than other DSS. Yet, it affirms the solar calendar also described in Enoch, and that was important to the qumran folks.

By all reconning, Genesis is quite a bit earlier and although there is considerable debate just when Jubiliees was written, I think it safe to leave it to the Maccabean period and Genesis in the Persian period (while bits may be earlier yet).

Could Genesis be a rewrite of an EARLY Jubilees edition or source? I don't think so:

In the Jubilees account of creation, for example, the 7 day cycle of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is conflated with some elements of the Garden of Eden cycle which follows in Genesis 2:4b. It is much easier to conclude that Genesis was put together from 2 different stories, which were then conflated in Jubilees, than it is to see a Genesis writer cutting up Jubilees and then expanding it all to compose 2 fundamentally different narratives each with characteristic vocabulary etc.

Jubilees is integrating into its episodes details from other Torah passages besides Genesis.
Basically, the author is trying to show how his particular version of jewish law and tradition was obeyed by the patriarches and is so binding on everyone else. Therefore, Abraham et. al. are shown to perform rituals etc. not outlined in the Bible until Sinai. There is really too much of this in the book to think that Genesis was concocted out of a (early) edition of Jubilees.

Indeed, the premise of the book is that it is being revealed to Moses on the mountain, so it reviews how he got there, and all of history from creation to the revelation of the Law.

In the last few centuries bce there seems to have been a bit of a cottage industy of rewriting Genesis: also at qumran, the "Genesis Apocryphon". In Charlesworth, note all the "testaments" of hte partiarches, the stories of Adam and Eve.

7thangel

Sin, as revealed, is not actually the work that a person does, but refers to the nature of the man. Thus, having a lustful thought on a woman is sin by itself. And the law serves as mere mirror for us to understand such sinfulness. Paul said, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Thus, does not really get us away from sin, but rather gives us knowledge about sin. In fact, the law was actually made for sinners. Paul said, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, etc." Again, on another part, he said, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

I would say sinfullness and faithlessness is because of ignorance of sin. The truth is that, even if we follow the law, if we are ignorant of it, we are still sinful. Paul said, "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:"

What I am saying is that sin is not the action, but rather the ignorance. And it neccesitates us to experience the things of the law, the knowledge of the good and the evil, to get rid of such ignorance. This is actually a defense against the existence of evil in general. Concluding that if God will not make us expereince the law, the knowledge of good and the evil, man would remain ignorant, which is evil by itself.

Hoping this would make sense unto you.
God Bless,
7thangel

Sensei Meela

Careful. You make it sound as though God intended for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit and gain knowledge of Good and Evil. Hardly seems fair of Him to punish A&E for something He wanted them to do.

Plus you'd be making a liar out of God, or at least a deceiver, for while He intended A&E to eat the fruit, He asked them not to...kinda seems like He is guilty of scandal -- leading another to sin, no? Like a parent telling a child not to do something, knowing full well that by saying it they are all the more likely to do it?

7thangel

Too much to explain. But I am hoping that you read my recent posts at EoG to know what I really believe. Thanks for the warning too.

Sensei Meela

Woah...it's really been almost a year? Well, I've finally found the passage:

James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

Guess I just felt like sharing! :Cheeky:

WCH

So if you know someone is sinning and you don't tell him to turn from it, you're accountable for his blood.