Ely wrote:Evangelion wrote:it proves that the Old Testament canon was already complete and closed.
The only thing Josephus' words "prove" is what his own opinion was concerning the 'canon'. He presents an dea, a theory which we need to evaluate using all avaliable historical information to see if it is likely correct or not.
This is not merely his opinion. There is a wealth of historical evidence to support his claim.
Not least of which is the fact that some books of the
Apocrypha had not even been written by the time the LXX was translated.
How on Earth do you intend to get around that problem? How can a book which
isn't even written yet, appear in the LXX?
Evangelion wrote:Now, tell me why I should accept the subsequent (multiple) canons of Gentile Christians hundreds of years later, instead of the canon already produced by God's chosen people?
1. Because these Gentile Christians, like myself were confessed believers in Jesus. Josephus knew of the claims of Jesus and as far as I'm aware, he rejected them. This being the case, he was thus an unbeliever, a carnal man with limited spiritual understanding (
1 Corinthians 2:14)
What on Earth does this have to do with anything? How in the world does it prove that the
Apocrypha belongs in the Bible?
The OT was written by men inspired by God! The
Apocrypha was not. But you're telling me that it's OK for a bunch of uninspired men to come along (centuries later) and decide that a bunch of
uninspired works, which God did
not guide people to include in His Book, should be shoved into it just because they thought this was a good idea?
2. I asume you haven't really looked into this issue hat much.
LOL! You assume wrong, mate! You assume very wrong.
Nor have I really. But from what I've read, all commentators I have consulted thus far agree with the following facts. Parts or all of the apocypha are aceepted as scripture by the following Christian writings/ writers:
- The Didache (1st Century - i.e. contemporaneous with Josephus)
- The Epistle of Barnabas (Late 1st Century - i.e. contemporary of Josephus)
- Clement of Rome (Late 1st Century - i.e. contemporary of Josephus)
- Polycarp (c. 69-155, a disciple of John)
- Irenaeus (c. 120-202 a disciple of Polycarp)
I'm not interested in
Epistle of Barnabas, since this is an apocryphal work itself.
But please feel free to post those parts of the other works which you believe to be taken from the
Apocrhypha. And having done that, please explain to me how this proves that the
Apocrypha appeared in the original LXX.
Thankyou.
If in the face of such historical evidence you prefer to defer to the view of one unbeliever, against the views of several believers, all of whom were either contemporaries or one generation removed from the apostles, then that;s your prerogative.
I am not deferring to "the view of one unbeliever"; I am deferring to the clear and solid historical evidence.
Let's also remember that the Christians who moved the
Apocrypha into the canon were even
later than Josephus himself, and therefore
hopelessly removed from the apostles!
By contrast, Josephus was a
contemporary of the apostles.
And here's that quote from the
Jewish Encyclopaedia again:
- It is evident that Josephus, instead of counting Ruth and Lamentations as separate books, combined them with Judges and Jeremiah, respectively.
As historical books he considered all that narrated anything historical, and thus included Job. He considered Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes non-historical.
No other arrangement would have been possible for Josephus; for it is known from Talmudic and Midrashic literature that in his time, when the Tannaites flourished most, all the now familiar books were considered canonical.
For various interpretations of Josephus' narrative, see Strack, l.c. p. 752.
Did you see that? "it is known from Talmudic and Midrashic literature that in his time... all the now familiar books were considered canonical."
Talmudic and
Midrashic literature. Literature which
proves that the canon had been closed for a long time, and that Josephus is merely reciting a list which had been known and accepted by the Jews for centuries.
Remember, the Jews wrote their own Bible
under the inspiration of God. They also determined the canon of the Old Testament, which was established by the translators of the LXX.
By the time Josephus came along, the canon had been closed for generations - as he tells us himself. He is not giving us his own opinion; he is simply stating historical fact, and telling us what he has learned from his forefathers.
Evangelion wrote:The question of bias against the LXX does not arise, since (a) Josephus did not reject the LXX, (b) Josephus wrote before the Jews began to reject the LXX.
The unbelieving Jews apparently formally rejected the LXX in AD90. But this was no a bolt from the blue. It was no doubt the the product came but was likely the product of years of interaction with LXX-wielding Christian apologists. Josephus was a pharisaical Jew who wrote within this very same context.
Where is your evidence that the Jews "formally rejected the LXX in AD90"? And where is your evidence that the catalyst for this rejection was "LXX-wielding Christian apologists"?
Evangelion wrote:There is no evidence that the LXX originally contained the Apocrypha. Indeed, this would have been quite impossible, since some of the books within the Apocrypha were written after the translation of the LXX.
No evidence indeed, apart from:
1. All of the earliest extant copies of the LXX contain the apocypha.
This proves nothing.
As I have mentioned in a previous post,
none of the surviving copies of the LXX are old enough to prove that the
Apocrypha was included in the original LXX.
All of them date from
after the period when Christian versions of the LXX began to include the
Apocrypha.
And here's some more historical evidence for you to chew on:
- The books of the Hebrew Bible are divided up into three sections. That of (i) the Law - Penteteuch; (ii) The Prophets; (iii) The Hagiographa - writings.
This arrangement is often mentioned in the Talmud, but it goes back to an earlier period. There is evidence from long before the Christian era that the books were grouped into these three sections.
Jesus ben Sira, who translated his grandfather's book, Ecclesiasticus, from Hebrew into Greek, added a prologue of his own in which he makes mention of three parts of the Jewish canon three times.
"This passage can hardly have been written later than about 130 BCE". [Beckwith, p.110.]
He not only states that there is a threefold canon - that is closed and distinguished from all other writings - but he goes as far as to imply that this was also the case in his grandfather's time, this would give a date as early as the third century BCE for the canon.
The words of Jesus also suggest a tripartite canon when he spoke in Luke 24:44 of words written in the Law, Prophets and the Psalms.
There is some discussion as to whether or not 'the Psalms' refers just to the Psalms or whether it implies the whole Hagiographa: the latter seems to be the most likely. It would be surprising to think of Jesus meaning that the third section of Scripture was the Psalms alone since he regularly used the book of Daniel in the Gospels.
The De Vita Contemplatina mentions the threefold structure of the Bible. Authorship of the De Vita Contemplatina has been ascribed to Philo, an older contemporary of Jesus.
"Philo of Alexandria seems to have been the first to use the term, canon, to indicate the collection of books normative for faith". [Soggin, p.13.]
Also Josephus, Jerome and the Talmud all speak of the three divisions in Hebrew Scripture.
"It is thus a well-attested fact that, by the first century CE, the division of the canon into three groups of books was widespread in the Jewish world and that it was familiar to Jesus". [Beckwith, p.118.]
Reed, Peter (2000), The Old Testament Canon
2. Most Christians in the the first and second century were Greek-speaking and used the LXX almost exclusively.
This also proves nothing.
3. Their writings contain references to apocryphal books.
This, too, proves nothing.
4. These same writings show that these books were accepted (with some variations) as Scripture.
Evangelion wrote:We have no record of any alternative Jewish canon in Josephus' day, nor do we have any record of an alternative Jewish canon before or after Josephus' day.
No record? What about:
1. The Saducees were known to only accept the Torah as scripture.
There is no reliable evidence that they only accepted the
Torah. However, there is evidence that they rejected any
religious observance which was not found in the
Torah.
The two issues must not be conflated.
In any case, most of what we know about them was written by their enemies, in polemical treatises designed to paint them in the worst possible light.
The DSS collection is simply that - a collection of scrolls! There is no evidence that it was either used or considered as a proper canon.
Quite apart from the Biblical books (from which
Esther is omitted) the collection also includes a set of commentaries and sectarian tracts on prophecy and community life.
The DSS were not collated as a complete Bible, or used in this way by the people who collated them.
