The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still more content forking by User:TheEditrix. The Book of Jasher, also Sefer haYashar and sometimes translated as Book of the Upright is what appears to be a volume of poetry and is mentioned twice in the Old Testament. We have an entry on that book already at Sefer haYashar (midrash) Sefer haYashar (Biblical references). Calling it Lost Book would be misleading and original research, so delete. Dr Zak 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tevildo 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sefer haYashar (Biblical references) or Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher). If it isn't redirected somewhere, we just go through this again in six months. BigDT 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Sigh. As with the rest of original proposer's rash of AfD proposals directed at every article I write, this article is neither original research nor misleading. Assertions above DO constitute original research; this article does NOT. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the problem is that this article is a fork. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. There are already articles on this subject - there is no reason for a separate article. You are welcome to edit Sefer haYashar (Biblical references), Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher), or any other article on the subject. Creating another one just means that there is one more thing to maintain. BigDT 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note talk page spamming [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Dr Zak 04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia is not a Paper encyclopedia This article is not even a week old, and has promise. Also, I have reason to believe User:Dr. Zak is targeting the author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) Delete Unorginized, hard to read, and confusing.False Prophet 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep this article at least until it is finished. shijeru 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please do not remove AfD prompt until its status has been decided! Em-jay-es 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the accepted rules of Hebrew transliteration, the pronunciation of this term should be sefer hayyashar. The first word is the common noun in Hebrew for “book”, while the second term (which is probably a verbal-adjective for “be straight / righteous”) is pronounced with an a-a vowel-pattern. Indeed, an article for the Sefer haYashar exists in Wikipedia, making EX’s creation of the Lost Book of Yasher redundant. The title that TheEditrix chooses, jasher, is the transliteration found in the King James Version, while the New Revised Standard Version has the correct form Yashar. However, several issues are raised by Yasher and TheEditrix seems unaware of them.

1. In some Greek translations (the Septuagint) we have the term translated “book of Songs,” which has led many biblical scholars to suspect that this “book,” in fact, represented an oral repertoire of songs. This idea is supported by the fact that the occurrences of sefer hayyashar appear in very archaic Hebrew (typically songs and poems preserved through oral tradition). Refer the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pages 646-647.

2. If this second lexical item is indeed pronounced jasher, as TheEditrix insists, then it is quite possibly yashir, the 3rd person masculine singular form of the verb shar, meaning “he sings / he will sing” (it may even have been the archaic prefix-preterite form = “he sang”). See also the other interesting translations found in the Aramaic (and Syriac) versions, discussed in Sefer haYashar. Over time, this meaning was probably “lost” (to use TheEditrix’s favorite word).

In other words, the Lost Book of Jasher, discussed by TheEditrix, exists primarily in the English of the KJV. There probably never was a “lost book” of such name, and the only thing lost would have been a long tradition of songs that were sung in the Temple of Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by the Babylonians. There is no reason for keeping this article, and I would suggest not merging it either. As it stands, it is a fork and it fails A. OR and B. WP:NPOV. Em-jay-es 06:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least until it is finished. It needs to be improved, not deleted. --Guinnog 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping in mind the comments above, how would you go about improving this article? Dr Zak 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note on Joshua 10.13 on p. 330 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The Book of Jashar, no longer extant, appears to have been a collection of poetry that extolled Israel's military victories and heroes (see 2 Sam 1.18). . . . ". Note on p. 351 of The Bible Knowledge Commentary edited by Walvoord and Zuck says, "(The Book of Jashar is a Heb. literary collection of songs written in poetic style to honor the accomplishments of Israel's leaders. cf. David's "lament of the bow" in 2 Sam 1:17-27)."--P Todd 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment Note additional citations added 6 July 2006. Concerns noted above are obviated. --The Editrix 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment - Please consider the types of sources added to the article. Smith's Bible Dictionary was originally published in the 1800’s and the second internet source is not appropriate for a credible encyclopedia entry. (Where does the pronunciation Jashur come from?) These sources only intensify my concerns.
  

This article seems to be motivated by a POV that interprets these ancient sources as lost books that (as “books”) are comparable with the books of the Bible. However, what does the common noun sepher mean in ancient Hebrew? A quick reference to Kohler-Baumgartner’s Lexicon will reveal that it has a wide semantic-range, all indicating a locus of writing. In other words, it can mean “letter,” “inscription,” or “scroll.” It could be written on parchment, papyrus, or potsherd (letters or receipts), or it could be inscribed in stone or metal (inscriptions) and even engraved in plaster. If one follows the prevalent scholarly interpretation of these sources (such as the book of Jashar) as records from either the Temple or palace archives of Jerusalem, how are does one interpret sepher? If these were records from archives of lost institutions, can we call them books in the classic sense of the term? This basic problem raises a whole series of questions:

• What were they written upon – scrolls, inscribed stele or plastered walls (see Deir Alla)?
  
• Did the ancient communities consider these sources “scripture” – as compared with, say, the Torah? :
  
• Were they written before the concepts of “scripture” and “canon” were operative in the various faith-groups?
  

All that to say this: this article (as well as the other “lost book” articles) operates according to a single POV that interprets them as books, in the modern sense of the term, and suggests that they were part of a once larger canon of scripture. Em-jay-es 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverified Original research. I agree completely with Em-jay-es who has summed up the issues surrounding this article and the sources provided quite nicely.--Isotope23 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.