Deutercanonical books

A claim often made to undermine the logic of Sola Sciptura, especially towards KJV proponents, is that the KJV "originally had 12 extra books".

Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means.  They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.

It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament.  The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.

The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.

The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?"  While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority.  It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.

The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues.  If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.

While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt.  I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome.  I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.

2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras).  Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog.  But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.

Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of).  If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.

There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches.  They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting.  But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon.  150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.

4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.

3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think.  It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.

It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted.  Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.

Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon.  I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records.  Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.

So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha.  They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.

Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans.  However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality.  Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.

Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons

The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List.   It was possibly written in the late first or early second century.  The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books.  Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.

 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.

Melito's Old Testament Canon is the other oldest Christian one and is also pretty much ours but with Esther neglected.  Again Nehemiah and Lamentations are missing due to their sharing scrolls with Ezra and Jeremiah.  The only possible reference to a Deuterocanonical book there is Wisdom, but again that is disputed, it's possible he was still talking about Proverbs which is also largely about Wisdom.

Melito's list, as cited by Eusebius, as follows:

    Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.

The Murtarian Canon mentions Wisdom of Solomon but strangely does so in a New Testament canon list.  Wisdom seems to be the most popular for Christians to accept, and I think it was because many missed how Paul's use of it in Romans was to refute it.

It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not.  I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.

The Septuagint should not be trusted

We have lots of normal Christians using the Septuagint to make apologetic points.  We have people using the Septuagint rendering to support their particular interpretations of certain verses.  And we have some Christians (who clearly aren't KJV only) saying Christians should reject the Masoretic Text, that it was altered by "the Jews" after the NT was written to contradict Christianity.  Saying the Septuagint was what the New Testament authors and other early Christians used.

Claims are made that the DSS manuscripts often agree with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.  This is highly misleading and mostly based on nothing more then that the DSS contains some of the Apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.  Which includes stuff written to be added to Daniel and Esther.  The Isaiah Scroll certainly matches the Masoretic text far more then the Septuagint.

I defend Almah meaning Virgin without appealing to the Septuagint at all.  In fact using the Septuagint to prove that is undermined by the fact that the Septuagint also used Parthenos of Dinah after she is raped in Genesis 34.  The Hebrew uses neither Almah or Bethulah in that chapter.

I'm going to quote from a Jewish website incorrectly asserting that Almah doesn't mean Virgin because of some important facts it points out about the Septuagint.

The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of theSeptuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5

I btw believe Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic so certainly not quoting The Septuagint.

There are also quotes of the Septuagint version of the Torah in the Talmud that do not match the standard Septuagint texts we have today.

At any-rate it is wrong to claim that the Masoretic Hebrew text was written by the Rabbis, in fact they are Kariate texts, Kariate websites love to point out that the Hebrew Texts the Rabbis use today are based on Kariate preserved manuscripts.  Kariates can at times be just as hostile to Christianity as the Rabbis, but they are the Sola Sciprtura believers of the Jewish world, they revere The Word and would have preserved it accurately.  When it comes to respect for Scripture I certainly trust them more then the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Alexandrian Early Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit sometimes works through unbelieving individuals, like Balaam.  So I have no trouble believing He used the Kariates to preserve the proper Hebrew TNAK.

There is no manuscript evidence of Caiman in Genesis 10 or 11 till after 220 AD and there are old LXX manuscript that explicitly lack this Cainan including Codex Vaticanus and Papyrus 75, and the standard Septuagint doesn't have him in 1 Chronicles.  Cainan's numbers are exactly the same as Selah's, no where else does the LXX version of Genesis 11 repeats the same numbers like that. That's further evidence Cainan was added later. 

Likewise Josephus and many Early Church Fathers who seem to be using the Septuagint as their source for this genealogy don't include the added Cainan either. He's also not in the Samaritan even though it mostly uses the same numbers as the LXX..

This shows me that Cainan was added by Christian copyists who thought it's absence from Genesis 11 was a problem for Luke 3.  But I believe the issue is that Luke's is a genealogy that is willing to sometimes go through Women, but always naming the male of that generation.  I think Cainan was an older brother (or brother in-law) of Selah and that Selah married Cainan's daughter. Uncle-Niece marriages are not prohibited in The Torah which came later anyway. 

Even though some will say Jubilees chapter 8 is included in the DSS manuscripts of Jubilees, I have found no list of every DSS manuscript of Jubilees that includes chapter fragments of chapter 8. Odd details of the Jubilees chronology like Peleg begetting a son at 12 could be a product of trying to add Cainan while keeping the totally passage of time changed due to the whole Jubilees premise.  But it's also possible Cainain was always there but how he related to Salah/Shelah was changed, reading Jubilees 8 carefully the idea that Salah was originally another son of Aprhaxad by a second wife is a plausible reading, it would fit the patter of many parts of 1 Chronicles 2-7. And Salah does marry the daughter of a Son of Arphaxad, it's possibly that was originally Cainan rather then Kesed.

Demetrius the Chronographer is someone whose writing we don't have directly, the claim that he's a witness to Caiman being included is therefor dubious. In fact he is considered one of the sources Josephus uses so the lack of the second Cainan in Josephus is evidence he wasn't originally in Demetrius either. And our quotes of Demetrius don't Cainan by name, just the fact that he appears to give the same total timeframe from the Flood to Abraham as the versions of the LXX that include Cainan. It could be there was some other difference in his version which coincidentally the same total, it could simple matter of one name having an extra 100 years and another an extra 30 years, discrepancies like those are not unpremeditated in the known textual variations. It could be that total simply seen a symbolic number one would want to give that timeframe. 

People will also cite examples of Abraham being called the 10th generation after the Flood as witnesses to Cainan's inclusion. Abraham is the 10th Generation in both the Masoretic and Samaritan versions of the Genesis 11 genealogy because it starts with Shem not Noah or Arphaxad. Shem may have been born before the Flood but he still lived most of his life after it unlike Noah. When a generation is identified with the Flood it's Noah not Shem. Shem counts as a Post-Flood Generation. Genesis 6:9 says "these are the Generations of Noah" as it's chapter heading for the Flood narrative and then in Genesis 10 "these are the generations of the Sons of Noah" when it becomes truly talking about post Flood history. I believe this "generations of" phrase in Genesis are an example of the grammatical plural form being an emphasis not literal plurality like "Adam" being technically plural in Genesis 1, I would translate the phrase "This is the Generation of".  If you compare Shem's lifespan to modern life expectancies, how old he was during the Flood basically makes him an adolescent, as a Millennial who was an Adolescent when 9/11 happened I cna assure you we think of ourself as a Post-9/11 Generation. 

The main reason the New Testament often seems to match the Septuagint is because Christian copyists conformed the Septuagint to match the New Testament references.  

As for why they may seem to not match the Hebrew, I think many NT quotations of the OT were not meant to be exact word for word quotes.  If Deuteronomy can express The Ten Commandments differently then Exodus then I certainly have no problem with Jesus expressing things a bit differently during his ministry.  Jesus own quotes were expressed differently at different times He said them (and thus recorded differently in different Gospels).

And these people making a big deal out of where the Septuagint seems to match the NT ignore places where it doesn't.  

Like the spelling used for Solomon, Solomon is the spelling Luke used, no NT spelling puts an Alpha in there.  But the Septuagint spells it Salomon.  Not only does the NT disagree with the LXX but it explicitly agrees with the Masoretic, the Masoretic vowel indicators tell us Solomon's vowels are all Os, there are other names in The Hebrew Bible that are basically the same consonants but with an A between the S and L, they refer to different people and one is also in the genealogy of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke.

Also the Septuagint never uses the same word for Comforter that the Fourth Gospel and it's corresponding Epistles used.

The Septuagint "translates" Tarshish as Carthage, which is clearly wrong, Carthage didn't exist yet in Solomon's day and was a Canaanite/Sidonian colony in Phut's territory, not Japhethite.

Also I couldn't even find in the Septuagint the Elam Prophecy of Jeremiah 49.

Also the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 fail to match the meaning of Methuselah's name (his Death shall Bring) by having him die the same year as The Flood like other versions do.

The standard texts we have of the Septuagint are in the exact same Manuscripts as the Alexandrian Bibles used by modern Scholars to justify all kinds of mutilations to the New Testament.

Update November 2018: And further arguments against the Septuagint are my arguments against the Deutercanonical Books, since the LXX adds those to the Canon.  Particularly the section I just added proving the Earliest Christians didn't view them as Canon.

Update May 20th 2019: Here is a more recent Article on the Subject at least in regards to Genesis 5 and 11.
 https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

I have become more willing to accept alternate reading to the Masroetic then I used to be.  But there has to be an existing Hebrew text for that reading, or at least Semitic. I'll never support a change based on the Septuagint alone.

Update March 2023: Stephen's Speech is the exception, because the groups he disputed included Alexandrians he used The Text they prefer. Stephen is important as The First Martyr but he was not an Apostle so it's be iffy to build doctrine any details unique to Stephen. 

Update October 2023: Further conflict between the New Testament and the Septuagint is the use of the Greek word Baptizos/Baptismos.  Mark 7:4-8, Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10 confirm that these words should also be associated with cleansing rituals involving water in The Torah, that they should be used to translate the Hebrew word Rachats and maybe also Kabac, but in fact the LXX of the Pentateuch doesn't use Baptize or Baptismos at all.  The related Bapto is used to translate Tabal in verses associated with Dipping things in Blood which isn't wrong the NT also used Bapto that way.  But the New Testament authors clearly saw Baptismos in Torah passages like Exodus 29:4, 30:18-21 and Leviticus 15

Update December 10th 2024: I recently watched this Video and learned I gave the pro LXX position more credit then it ever deserved. Now for a disclaimer this speaker expressed early on a couple Conservative Political opinions I disagree with, but that's not the main point of the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8&t

The most important revelation is that "as it is written" is an expression never meant to inherently refer to a direct Word for Word quotation.

Update January 16th 2025: Here's another lecture, again with allusions to Politics I disagree with mainly in the adds for other lectures.

https://youtu.be/fB5izBva3Xc

Update April 2026: I have a few more things to add.

I'm sick of the debate about exactly when the 430 years of Exodus 12:40-41 should begin being framed as a Septuagint vs Masoretic issue. Every version of each verse mentioning this timeframe leaves room for interpretation.

The textual different between the Masoretic and LXX versions of those verses is only adding an "and the land of Chanaan".

Nothing in what Paul says in Galatians 3:16-17 is him quoting the Septuagint version, he makes no mention of "the land of Chanaan".

People going off only the Masoretic of KJV reading like Bishop James Ussher started the 430 years with Abraham in Genesis 12 because Abraham also traveled to Egypt then. 

But what everyone thinking Galatians is definitely starting it then are missing is that Galatians 3:16 refers to the multiple times God gave his promises to the Patriarchs. 

The point Paul is making in context is not an exact chronology but the fact that the Law of Moses is much younger then the promises to the Patriarchs. So I feel he is saying at least 430 years from the last time God made any Promise to any Genesis Patriarch (which I could argue is what Joseph says Prophetically right before dying in Genesis 50:24-25) till The Exodus.  So it's really ironic how many people now want to use these verses to shorten the timeframe between Abraham and Moses. 

While I believe this additional part of the verse in the LXX is an addition, perhaps originally marginal note that got confused with the text itself I don't think it was added for the purpose of starting the 430 years with Abraham.  It might have been because they knew about 1 Chronicles 7:24.  

So even if the LXX reading were the original, I would still not see it as starting the 430 years with Abraham. Egypt did no doubt control the land of Canaan at many points during this 430 years no matter when on the Biblical timeline you start it.  I think it's an oversimplification to assume no Israelites ever spent any time in the land of Canaan between the Death of Joseph and The Exodus. The Egyptians had copper Mines in Southern Canaan they no doubt used their slaves in for example.

Genesis 15:13 is the death nail for the shorter interpretation. The 400 years is being referred to as even it's start still well in the future, and as being entirely a time of affliction, in both the Masoretic and LXX versions. Stephen in Acts 7:6 says the same, if anything this might be the one time Stephen is closer to the Masoretic then the LXX in exact language. 

There are reasons I'd like to be able to start the 430 years with Abraham, but someone will have to offer an explanation of Genesis 15:13. 

Returning to the point of much of the LXX being more Targum like in intent and the NT likewise often paraphrasing and not making exact quotes.  Some similarities between what the NT and LXX does here can easily be a coincidence. 

Like James in Acts 12 quoting Amos 9:12 but saying Mankind instead of Edom as a play on how Edom and Adam are spelled the same in Hebrew. It's a natural choice to make if you want to take this originally more local in scope Prophecy but make it grander in application.

Some people, particularly KJV onlyists, do Strawman themselves denouncing the LXX. No the LXX was not created whole cloth by Origen, he just played an important role in how it reached it's final form. 

KJV onlyists are often the strongest critics of the LXX, because they are in willing ignorance of how some of the KJV's mistakes are lingering LXX influence. A good example is Genesis 10:11-12.  That verse reads how it does in the KJV because of bad decisions made in the Septuagint. A good direct English Translation of the Masoretic Text of that verse would be it's YLT version, which is a lot more clear and less confusing. 

Update April 21st 2026: I also recently learned how two of the four words the LXX uses for Kippur and Kaphar are not used in The New Testament including the by far most popular one.  The New Testament prefers to refer to the concept of Atonement with words that mean Reconciliation which is in my view and I'd assume most Jews a much better translation of Kapahr and Kippur. 

Update May 5th 2026: Not every discrepancy between the LXX and how we're used to reading certain Hebrew Bible passages is a completely inconceivable translation of the Masoretic Text. I already talked about the Almah=Virgin issue.

Some other differences could merely by different interpretations of what Vowel(s) a given Hebrew word has in a certain verse.

Ragau as a transliteration of Reu happens because of hard to explain linguistic regarding the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter Ayin.  It's not even that the name was ever spelled different in Hebrew.

Reading "High Oak" instead of "Plain of Moreh" is a valid interpretation of what the Masoretic says. And may even be correct at least on the Oak rather then Plain part, there are Hebrew words for Plain. We know for example that Mamre had until 1996 an Oak Tree that was 5000 years old traditionally identified with the LXX Oak of Mamre where the KJV says Plain. 

My view on this issue has become more nuanced then it was when I first wrote this. I am willing to consider some LXX readings possibly correct IF there is other precedent for it, especially Semitic precedent like the DSS manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch or the Peshita (Targums could be worth considering but remember they are paraphrases not claiming to be direct translations). Like reading Rodanim instead of Dodanim for one of the sons of Javan, or Numbers 24:7 saying Gog instead of Agag.

But in some cases those other witnesses side with the Masoretic over the LXX. Like interpreting Rosh in Ezekiel 38 as a word for Chief or Head not a proper Name.  And the "children of Israel' over 'Angels of God" reading of Deuteronomy 32:8.

I'm undecided on the over all numbers for Genesis 5 and 11, but am solid in my belief that Cainan is not originally part of Genesis 11.  The real Genesis 11 dispute to me is Samaritan vs Masoretic, with the LXX merely being a pro Samaritan witness on the over all longer number but pro Masoretic on the matter of how long Terah lived where the Samaritan was clearly seeking to resolve an apparent contradiction.

What I am against are Septuagint Cultists who want to change traditional readings based on no evidence but an LXX reading while spreading Antisemitic Conspiracy theories about the Masoretic Text.

Update May 9th 2026: Hebrew 11:17 tells me that Monogene should be the Greek word used to translate Yachid in Genesis 22.

Update May 13th 2026: Nahor ben Reu

Nahor's numbers are different in all three versions of Genesis 11:24-25. But in the Masoretic and Samaritan he winds up with the same total, 148, which is pretty a big argument against the LXX version being the original for those verses, which ever Hebrew version made the change felt compelled to keep the total the same. The LXX has Nahor begetting Terah at the same age the SP does 79 which suggesting it was using a source resembling the Samaritan but felt Nahor dying so soon was a problem since the LXX agree with the Masoretic lifespan for Terah so they inflated Nahor to 208. 

Genesis 5 observations.

For Genesis 5, or specifically the first 7 generations Adam through Enoch, every difference for the begetting years is a matter of either adding of subtracting exactly 100, (though Adam and Seth remain the same in all version so it's really Cainan-Enoch).  This suggests the Masoretic is the original for those 7 generations preciously because it looks less consistent, some copier felt the ages at which they had their kids should be more consistent.  

Update May 16th 2026: Matthew

When it comes to Matthew, I believe that text was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic so agreements between Greek Matthew and LXX could be the result of the LXX influencing whoever translated Matthew. 

But I already talked about the Almah issue and I likewise do believe what Ketos/Cetos/Cetus meant to the Ancient Greeks was fluid enough to be a valid interpretation of the Masoretic text of Jonah. 

Jude did not quote a Book of Enoch

Jude did not say "it is written in the Book of Enoch" he said Enoch said something.  And he presents that something as a specific Prophecy of the Second Coming of Jesus. Jude 14-15

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Paul once quotes Jesus as saying something The Gospels don't record in Acts 20:25.  Not every quotation is something found earlier in Scripture.  Jude as an Apostle may have been given a special Revelation about Enoch.  Or it may be a known Prophecy of Enoch from Antiquity that The Holy Spirit made sure Jude wrote down just before the Canon was closed.

What's in the so called Book of Enoch or First Enoch doesn't exactly match what Jude said.  It varies in different translations of Enoch, but in none is the context actually a Prophecy of The Messiah.  The first Chapter of Enoch includes a similar saying in a prophecy in the first chapter, but presents it's fulfillment as happening within the events documented in that book, in about chapter 14.

Now you could argue that the variations in the expression are no different from how New Testament quotations of the Old Testament seem to have variations (which I believe Christian copiers conformed the Septuagint to) or Deuteronomy expressing The Ten Commandments differently.  Or that the Book of Enoch has gone through scribal errors since our main text of it is Ehtiopian.  But the Ethiopic texts were preserved by Christians who did consider it canon, they'd have an investment in wanting this to match Jude.

BTW there are some variations in how Enoch's chapter divisions are handled.  In the 1880s translation this quote is the entirety of Chapter 2.

Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.

In the 1917 translation it is verse 9 of the first chapter.

And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ⌈His⌉ holy ones

To execute judgement upon all,

And to destroy ⌈all⌉ the ungodly:

And to convict all flesh

Of all the works ⌈of their ungodliness⌉ which they have ungodly committed,

And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners ⌈have spoken⌉ against Him.

I don't know why that Copy/Pasted that way.

More recently scholars have insisted both these are wrong.

"Behold, he will arrive with ten million [ten thousand times a thousand] of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him".-James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983).

I have not yet been able to verify if the quote in question is even attested among the Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic manuscripts of Enoch.   But the DSS discovery did happen between 1917 and 1983.  So that could be a factor in Charlesworth's differences.  And I notice that it is the least similar to Jude of the three variations.  Suggesting maybe the Ethiopians tried to conform it to Jude as much as they could.

Now that Jude says "The Lord" not "he" isn't a big deal.  But Jude has no reference to destroying wicked ones.  Jude makes clear the ones He will come with are Saints, resurrected believers,  Enoch doesn't directly contradict that, but plenty interpret the context in Enoch as describing Angels.

What they do have in common is more then enough to make me doubt it's a coincidence.  Satan wanted a kernel of Truth in this massive lie he constructed.

But First Enoch gets plenty wrong.

First Enoch has only 200 Angels fall in it's depiction of the Genesis 6 events, who later get chained in the Abyss.  Revelation 9 I firmly believe reveals at least 200 Million are imprisoned there.  200 Million fallen angels are used in Second Enoch/Slavonic Enoch/Book of Secrets of Enoch, the one no one thinks Jude quoted.  But that is in reference to a heretical Pre-Adamic fall of Satan, called there Satanel.

Also it's because of the Book of Enoch everyone thinks of Watchers (Grigori in Aramaic) as a term for a type of Angel is inherently bad, that they're fallen angels.  But the only time The Bible has an Angel called a Watcher it is a good Angel in Daniel 4.  Doesn't mean it's impossible that some fallen angels once held that same position, and I could certainly see a fallen angel wanting to claim to be the same Angel as Daniel 4.  But I find it interesting how Enoch is the opposite of The Bible here since it doesn't seem to have any good Watchers, Michael and Gabriel and Uriel are not called by that term and seem much higher ranked.

Speaking of them.  I find it interesting that the Old and New Testaments are consistent in only having two named Angels.  (contrary to popular views of Isiah 14, I don't think we know Satan's personal name).

Daniel introduced the idea of naming Angels, Gabriel in chapters 8 and 9, and Michael in 10-12.  The Book of Enoch and other inter-testamental apocrypha used those two names and added many more, often trying to keep a consistent pattern of ending the names with El.

But The New Testament, in-spite of how much skeptics claim Christianity simply evolved naturally out of the development of Hellenistic Judaism, or skeptics and certain believers both insisting the NT authors must have been repeatedly referencing Enoch.  Never uses any of the other Angel names, only Michael and Gabriel.  And the New Testament endorsements of those names are scattered across three different books.  At least 8 different Authors writing 27 books, plenty of appearances of unnamed angels.  But none of those Enochian Angel names are ever used.  I consider that a wonderful testimony to the consistently of Scripture.  But it's undermined when people want to make Enoch quasi-canonical.

The Book of Enoch also confuses the Lake of Fire and the Abyss.

The Book of Enoch also defines the Moon as being a Female entity.  This is further proof of how influenced it is by Greek Pagan and/or Philosophical thought.

The Hebrew word for the Moon is Yerach/Jerah, strong number 3394, it ends with Het/Chet not with Heh, it is grammatically Masculine.  It is also the name of one of the sons of Joktan in Genesis 10, which further proves it's a male name because Old Testament genealogies usually don't list females.  Another Hebrew word associated with the Moon is Kodesh, strong number 2320 is also grammatically masculine.

Thinking of the Moon as feminine rather then masculine is unique to the Greeks and the Romans who copied the Greeks (and Etruscans of northern Italy).  Linking the Moon to Pheobe, Selene, Artemis, Hecate, Diana, Luna, Trivia ect.

Everywhere else the pagan cosmologies either have both as male like the Sumerian cosmology (Ningal exists as a secondary moon goddess, but her only purpose is to be Nana's consort) and Egypt.  Or the Moon is Masculine while the Sun is feminine, like in Japan with Amatersu and Tsukuyomi, or the Germanic/Norse with Mon and Sunna (who were the basis for Tolkien's Tilion and Arien).  And from what I've read it was the same among the Arabs, though the "Allah is a Moon god" stuff is misleading with some bad scholarship..

The Hebrew Bible uses masculine words to refer to both the Sun (Shamash) and Moon.  The Pagan Canaanites and others around Israel that used essentially the same language, used the exact same name The Israelites did for the Moon but a feminine one for the Sun.

The Greek New Testament uses the Greek word for the moon which happens to be Feminine, Selene.  But the Hebrew is what I will consider God's original intent, if He intended us to think of them as having genders at all.

Still the NT authors could have easily made a masculine form of Selene if they wanted to, like Seleno or Selenos, like how they used Ge rather then Gaea for the Earth..  So for that reason I'm certain gender doesn't matter because the Sun and Moon are inanimate objects, not sentient beings.

Indeed whenever a pronoun is used of The Moon in The Bible it's "it" not he or she.  Like in Job 25:5 and 31:26.

The KJV adds "her" to Isaiah 13:10 and Ezekiel 32:7, but that is not in the Hebrew text, it shows how the translators were influenced by Roman thought.  Same with Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24, there the Greek word rendered "her" is really gender neutral.

The Book of Enoch was lost to everyone but the Ethiopians for over a Millennium, I don't think God would let that happen to something that was authentically His Word.

And since I know Enoch is popular with certain conspiracy theorists, I want to point out how it was devoted Freemasons who were the architects of it's rediscovery.  I know this because I remember it coming up in Graham Hancock's The Sign and The Seal, where he was speculating on the Masons inheriting their interest in the Auxumite claim to the Ark that he believes The Templars had.

And Enoch has become an important figure in Masonic Lore, and especially in heretical Christian doctrines inserted into Christianity by Masons.  Like the Giza Pyramid being built by Enoch heresy.

Update November 2019:  Here is another perspective on how Jude and Enoch relate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oLhayayb0

The so called Book of Jasher is not authentic

When it comes to the desire of some Christians to flirt with deeming certain Extra-Biblical texts quasi authentic, The Book of Jasher is the big one since it's the one perceived as being quoted by The Bible itself.

Now I don't know what the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18 was, but I know it's not any book available today with that name.

The main text people cling to is one that scholars recognize as a medieval rabbinic text.  That has 90 or so Chapters and chronicles the history of the world from Creation down to the time of Joshua.  It's dates seem to agree with the Masoretic text over the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch (which a Medieval Jewish produced text would) though it makes the mistake of viewing Abraham as born when Terah was 70 rather then 60 years later.  The New Testament in Acts 7 clarifies this by making clear Abraham left Haran at 75 when Terah died.

A lot of people like it.  They like it verifying the assumption that Nimrod was evil.  But it makes lots of claims about Historical Chronology that are frankly absurd.

Here is the death nail, on the subject of the two quotes, the Samuel one could make sense.  But with the Joshua one, you need to first understand that in Joshua 10 it's not the narrative voice citing Jasher it's Joshua's own quoted speech.

The Book of Jasher's narrative goes past the point in History where he made that Speech.  And the only thing in it that seems like what Joshua could have been quoting is Jasher 88:63-64, which is in fact it's own account of those same events.  Not a Prophecy of them written before they happened.  In fact it is recording the same speech minus the citing of Jasher.

So it makes no sense, it cannot possibly be what Joshua was quoting.

I would absolutely expect a forgery to include those quotes.  It's surprising to me how bad this forger was at deciding how to incorporate the Joshua one.

The so called Jashers are all collections of Jewish Fables.  Which Paul told us to pay no heed to in Titus 1:14.

Chapter 9 says Nimrod created 12 idols and named then after the 12 months of the year.  This clearly shows a post Babylonian Exile origin as it was after the Exile that the Hebrew months took their current names. some at least came from Babylonian gods, like Tammuz.  Those weren't their original names however.

Jasher identifies Nimrod with Amraphel which is stupid.  Also Jasher refers to Melchizedek of Genesis 14 not by that name but as Adonizedek, a villain from the Book of Joshua.  That I think is very suspicions.

In chapter 12 Jasher included the extra-Biblical legend of Abraham being thrown not a fiery furnace.  A legend that is known to have it's origin in an Aramaic mistranslation of "Ur Kassadim" (Ur of the Chaldeans) in Genesis 15.   Just read Abraham and the Flame of the Chaldeans.  I'm not sure how much I agree with the traditional assumption of which City, but it was a City.

This Jasher's author was clearly familiar with Manetho as he clearly wanted to make Melol seem like Pepi II.

But in chapter 77 this book claims it was the custom of all Kings of Egypt to take the name Pharaoh, that is wrong.  The Bible is a large part of why we use that word how we do, it wasn't till the 19th Dynasty that the Egyptians started using it as a name or title for their King.   Originally it was just a word for the house the King of Egypt lived in, The Bible using it how it does is basically the same as referring to The President of the United States as The White House.

If the real Book of Jasher whatever it was, was Inspired Scripture God would have preserved it.  And if He had preserved it, it would have been included in the Masoretic Hebrew Canon.  It is not so it was not.

Jasher 1:19-20 Contradicts Genesis teaching that Man was not allowed to Eat Meat before The Flood.

Update: InspiringPhilosophy has a done a video on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PhJNhBIDJ4