Talk:Sayings of the Seers

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tags

Article contains no sources or verification. Furthermore, the contention that this is a "lost book of the Old Testament" would denote that at one point this book was part of the Old Testament or Talmud. This is not supported by any scholarly or archaeological evidence.--Isotope23 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source and verification for this "lost book" is the scriptural citation itself. Saying that it is lost in no way denotes that it was ever part of the Old Testament, rather, it means that it was not included among the canonical books that became the Old Testament. The lack of canonicity does not indicate lack of authenticity. Many other books are referenced by Biblical writers which are not part of the Biblical canon. For example, both the books of Kings and the books of Chronicles repeatedly reference such sources as "the book of the kings of Israel," or "the book of the kings of Judah," and refer the reader to them for further information about the king they are recording. Thus, there is a sublayer of primary sources from which the Biblical canon was formed which are no longer available to us. (See "Lost Books" in Wikipedia for an extensive list). There is much scholarly and archeological evidence that there is an huge body of Judeo-Christian literature that never made it into the Bible, yet is just as old. Personally having read much of this, I am satisfied that those who selected the canon did so in a very sober manner. Much of this literature is of inferior quality to Biblical books. Although we should not equate the antiquity of a book with its authority, they nonetheless should open our eyes to the possibility that the Bible as we have it is imperfect (that should illicit some comment!)