Talk:Book of Jubilees

message: Can we get some quotes about the Nephilim as mentioned in Jubilees to give the following bit an air of relevance? Does Og even get mentioned in Jubilees? I have left this in the article, nevertheless:
: The Nephilim which were in existence during the time of Noah were wiped out by the great flood.  However, biblical accounts found in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua indicate that the Nephilim, as well as other races of giants who were the progeny of the Nephilim, were reconstituted after the flood, since at least one of the Nephilim, Og, had survived the flood. 
Why is this text in this article? --Wetman 20:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not Star Trek, where apparent mutual incoherences need to be explained away. These are two independent texts, separated by centuries, written from different cultural points-of-view. Like satyrs, nephilim have no existence outside these texts, and "respawning" and other pseudo-biographical imaginings are not with an encyclopedia's scope. --Wetman 01:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning the relevance

message: A Reliable Source describes this book as one of the Pseudepigrapha, and so should we. Please don't delete scholarly refrences from RSs. Leadwind (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already mentioned neutrally who considers it "pseudepigrapha", ref that of you want, To declare it "is" pseudepigrapha is antoi-EOTC POV, and taking sides.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing a Reliable Source isn't taking sides. Leadwind (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing a POV source as if there were no disagreement is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is NOT the Council of Nicea.  It isn't our role to issue pronouncements as to what books "are" properly to be considered canonical, what books aren't, and what books are to be considered "false writings" or "pseudepigrapha".  All we can do is faithfully and neutrally report what the various differing canons of the various bodies are, and how they differ, which can certainly be referenced, as long as the language remains neutral.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pseudepigrapha 

message: Is there any record of the suppression of this book or did it just gradually fade from use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any record of the suppression? 

message: This article ogn Jubilees in completely outdated. It repeats the scholarly position of Robert Henry Charles. Charles was an outstanding scholar but he wrote in 1912, one century ago, long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is no scholar today that claims that Jubilees was a Pharisaic document. The articles needs urgently to be updated. I could not help giving some suggestions, when a student brought to my attention the content of this article. Wikipedia is now currently used by University undergraduate students and must provide a basic, neutral position, reflecting the current status of research. Gboccaccini (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at some of the previous conversations here.  The status of this book, and theories about its origins are officially disputed.  The only complete copies were found in Ethiopia, where they are still regarded, to this day, as holy and canonical books.  The opinion of the Ethiopian Church regarding their own holy book constitutes, per WP:NPOV, a "significant POV" -- exactly as does the opinion of Muslims regarding the Quran, or the opinion of Mormons regarding the Book of Mormon, etc. Therefore any assertion that it "is" a first century "pseudepigrapha" / "false writing" / "forgery", that drops the necessary NPOV caveat "in the opinion of modern western scholars" is POV- pushing, and endorsing one POV above another, which is not neutral. If you want to include a detailed explanation in the article of how Charles' views differ from those of later European scholars, scribes and "experts", please keep NPOV in mind. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: It's a little bit shocking to me that someone has cut-and-pasted Charles' words without quotation marks.  And nobody caught that.  It's very bad citation practice to do such a thing.  I'll modify it shortly to show exactly what is being quoted with an accurate citation to the source. Wjhonson (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Citation

message: I took half the first two paragraphs about Charles out of the Message section. They're completely unreferenced.... That whole "Message" section needs serious revision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.194.70 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles references 

message: Please show me where it is stated that discussion is required before making revisions Til. Albeit my additions did contain personal research. But the only changes I made were conforming the article to the NPOV. Calling those men 'rabbis' is not NPOV. Thats the POV of the Jews who denied Christ. The other POV would be to call them anti-christs. But I changed it to 'jews' which is the neutral of those two POVs. Perhaps putting 'so-called Rabbis' would be another way of conveying this. I suggest that term also to be used in regard to the 'early church fathers', i.e. for it to be changed to 'so-called early church fathers'. My additions were all sound and weren't pushing a paticular POV. But they included my own research. They do not have to be included, then for that reason, yet take heed regardless.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BanahBen-Isra'el (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Revisions (BanahBen-Isra'el) 

message: I've edited the Origins section using VanderKam, as he's a lot more recent than Charles. Charles still gets mentioned, but only where VanderKam quotes him. I think this now gives a much better picture of contemporary understanding of the question.
I've also amended the lead slightly, adding the date of origin from VanderKam plus a little about canonicity. I'm not happy with the canonicity part - it apocryphal in many traditions, but not all. PiCo (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pushing a disputed POV.  Please stop.  It is laughable that you correctly write that VanderKam's hypothesis rests on what he regards as "cryptic references", in other words he can read whatever he wants between the lines.   The argument that it quotes from the Book of Dreams and this proves the age of the book is rubbish, because the Book of Dreams is part of the Book of Enoch, and no more lucid or compelling argument has ever been devised for the "scholarly" dating of that book either.  This is pure, unmitigated assertion about the age of the Ethiopian Bible by non-Ethiopian scholars who think their assertions and opinions and POVs are made out of gold, and therefore everyone else must be told to accept them on blind faith, nothing more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Til, we have to go by reliable sources, and VanderKam is a reliable source - one of the leading scholars specialising in Hellenistic-era Judaism. If you have reliable sources saying something different then by all means reference them, but you can't simply make assertions. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  You are pushing VanderKam's very sketchy hypothesis.  The text doesn't say "Maccabean" or anything of the nature, the only way it gets in there is if you write it in yourself as VanderKam has.  That is not "independent scholarship", get out of here.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to VanderKam, who is one of the leading modern experts on this subject, we have: The Oxford Bible Commentary, which on page 798 suggests the period 180-150 BC, and the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, p. 474, which says 161-140 BC with 170-165 as possible but less likely. Two respected general reference works, in other words. That sounds like a mainstream opinion to me. PiCo (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is attacking someone else's significant opinion so it cannot be neutral, and must be attributed. (Aside from the fact that it is a mere bald assertion arrived at by tampering with the text, and barely even qualifies as a "hypothesis"...)  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So VanderKam and Frank Moore Cross, and the Oxford editors and the Mercer editors, are all wrong, and Til and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church are right?PiCo (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No Pico, and neither is it the other way around.  There are different significant and conficting povs, we don't endorse any of them, just report what they are in neutral language. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised para 1 to put more emphasis on contemporary scholarly views (and incidentally to remove what looks like a confusion over dating), and added the beginning of a para about EEOC views, which I leave it to you to finish. PiCo (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I removed the assertion that the pseudepigraph designation is by various Christian churches because my textbook (Harris) and Encyclopedia Britannica Online make no such assertion. Another editor restored the text. I put a fact tag on the text, and the editor removed the tag without providing a citation (!). I put it back.
The burden of proof falls on the editor who adds or restores information to an article. If this editor can't provide an RS for the challenged assertion, then the challenged material should be removed. It's a straightforward application of WP policy.
Comments? Leadwind (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to be kidding.  The word "pseudepigrapha" is the historical term applied by Catholic and Protestant clerics as early as Jerome to works they consider "falsely ascribed", despite the fact that some of these are canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and ascribed to their purported authors.  It is not a neutral term, and wikipedia does not endorse or declare which sacred texts are false and which are not, for that is not NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Til has a point here. There are a number of books which are or are not accepted by one or more churches which have been labeled by others. This seems to be one of them. I would think that maybe something along the lines "the work is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (and whomever else), and regarded as one of the pseudepigrapha (or noncanonical) by the western churches (or Catholic Church, or whatever)", might be preferable language. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact tag in lead 

message: What evidence is there that it was "thoroughly suppressed" (as opposed to the rabbis merely having no particular interest in going to the effort of making new manuscript copies of it)? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "thoroughly suppressed"

message: Kugel is cited three times.  No bibliographic nor external reference is provided matching this name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.2.10 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: Any objection to moving this page to "Book of Jubilees"? Joefromrandb (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: In Origins: "While the oldest extant copies of Jubilees can be assigned on the basis of the handwriting to about 100 BC, there is much evidence to suggest Jubilees was written prior to this date. For example, the author of Jubilees seems to be aware of 1 Enoch's "Book of Dreams"; of which, the oldest extant copy (DSS-13 4Q208) has been carbon dated to ca. 200 BC."
This doesn't make any sense; referring to Enoch can only indicate that Jubilees was written after a certain time, not before. Am I missing something?
Benji man (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also any opinion on when it was first composed is just a point of view or hypothesis, because no one can prove when it was composed, even of they are right about the date of the oldest extant copy at Qumran. The groups that consider this scripture have a relevant point of view to this topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Jubilees and Enoch

message: So... did the Hebrew fragments found in Qumran account for only a portion of the (presumably those early-modern "complete" Ge'ez) text in the Ethiopian Orthodox canon? Does that canon include the text in those "four complete Ge'ez texts dating to the 15th and 16th centuries"? The lead should probably mention that we do have some apparently "complete" copies in at least one language, or not mention the relatively minor fact that no complete surviving copies in Hebrew, Greek or ... Latin (!?) survive; at present, it implies we don't have any complete copies of the text, which is bizarre because the very second line states that a certain church has it in their canon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of surviving copies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Book of Jubilees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu:80/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems like these year-weeks are actually referring to the Sabbath years, which were once every seven years. This is a strange translation. Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "Year-weeks" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Book of Jubilees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224002549/http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/ot/pseudo/jubilee.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1."As regards demonology, the writer's position is largely that of the deuterocanonical writings from both New and Old Testament times." Unsure what this means. The cannonical scriptures tend to steer away from any demonology, but why is the reader supposed to know what the position of deuterocanonical writings is [regarding demonology]? the sentence is poorly worded as well as vague. 
2. "Their hybrid children, the Nephilim in existence during the time of Noah, were wiped out by the great flood." is there a citation for this, especially within Jubilees, since this is the "Content" section? Jubliees 5:6-10 says they all die by the sword. Genesis says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward -", which would contradict the statement that they were completely wiped out. Although I understand there are many interpretations of this, and when you start adding unfamiliar words for races of people (Nephilim, Elioud) people tend to get confused about things. For instance, many people believe the fallen Angels are called "Nephilim" although the reading would suggest that the Nephilim are the offspring. The Elioud are from what I gather ¾ human/Cain offspring and ¼ watcher/angel/Seth offspring; Reminds me of the racial terms used by the Europeans in the Americas (Mestizo, Castizo, Quadroon)  Wcichello (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Content" section