Mosaic authorship of the Torah (from Jesus the messiah of the OT thread)

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Magus55
First of all, where is your 500 B.C date coming from in regard to the age of the Torah? Moses wrote the first 5 books ( well 4,plus most of Deutaronomy) in around 1400 B.C.
Please explain your proof for:

(1) Moses' existence
(2) Moses' literacy
(3) Moses' access to scribal tools
(4) Moses' authorship of the first 5 books
(5) Authorship of the Pentateuch around 1400 BCE

[Evangelion]

Are you going to answer his question, Celsus?

[Celsus]

From here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1057178#post1057178) (Dammit Evangelion, you're messing up my pretty little forum)
Originally posted by Evangelion
Mea culpa.

What date do you prefer?
For the composition of the Pentateuch, I'm pretty much in favour of Blenkinsopp's dating it as a post-Exilic Constitutional document reaching final form sometime in the 4th or 3rd centuries BCE, though I previously considered the evidence to point to a pre-Exilic compilation. As for the Old Testament, its final canon seems to have been decided at Jamnia in 90 CE. The last books to be written from the Protestant Canon (Daniel and Esther) would be 2nd to first century documents.

Joel

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Magus55
First of all, where is your 500 B.C date coming from in regard to the age of the Torah? Moses wrote the first 5 books ( well 4,plus most of Deutaronomy) in around 1400 B.C. And yes, while the Hebrews were worshipping false gods, Yahweh reprimanded them for it in Exodus, and made a law against it.

The fifth century BC (or maybe 4th century) is commonly accepted as when Jewish priests, in exile in Babylon, compiled a bunch of Hebrew writings, many of them written much earlier, into the Pentateuch.*

And no serious biblical scholar thinks Moses wrote any part of the first 5 books or any other part of the Bible.

Originally posted by Magus55
And there is no contradictory creation story. Its been explained many times. Its the same story, but Gen 2 is focused on day 6, while Gen 1 is an overview.
And that explanation has been refuted many times.

*Thanks for the correction, Celsus. I'm in over my head here. All I know of Biblical criticism comes from the PBS special "People of the Book" and memories from textbooks my religious studies minor roommate used to leave around. And yet I still seem to know more about it than most Biblical literalists.

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
*Thanks for the correction, Celsus. I'm in over my head here. All I know of Biblical criticism comes from the PBS special "People of the Book" and memories from textbooks my religious studies minor roommate used to leave around. And yet I still seem to know more about it than most Biblical literalists.
Well I think you mistyped by writing about the "Old Testament" being completed in 500 BCE rather than the "Torah" being completed at that point (in which that is an arguable position--one I wouldn't correct you on, though I would disagree with you on it). Around 500 BCE, we hadn't even heard from some of the minor prophets yet...

Joel

[Evangelion]

For the composition of the Pentateuch, I'm pretty much in favour of Blenkinsopp's dating it as a post-Exilic Constitutional document reaching final form sometime in the 4th or 3rd centuries BCE, though I previously considered the evidence to point to a pre-Exilic compilation. As for the Old Testament, its final canon seems to have been decided at Jamnia in 90 CE. The last books to be written from the Protestant Canon (Daniel and Esther) would be 2nd to first century documents.

If you believe that the OT canon was established at Jamnia and that Daniel & Esther were 2nd-1st Century documents, what do you do with...

Josephus' reference to the canon of his day (which agrees with our modern OT canon.

The LXX (which contains our modern OT canon.)

...?

[CJD]

Godless Dave wrote:
And no serious biblical scholar thinks Moses wrote any part of the first 5 books or any other part of the Bible.


You really should nuance such sweeping statements, Godless. There is no substantial reason whatsoever to deny that a Moses wrote at least a few jots and tittles in the Torah. Historians use sources. The putative Deuteronomist very well could have used Mosaic fragments in his compilation. Suffice to say that the exilic and the post-exilic writers refer to the Pentateuch as the Law, the Law of Moses, the Book of Moses, and the Book of the Law of Moses. Even Jesus refers to Exodus as the book of Moses. While these late titles do not probably signify that Moses wrote the extant books of the Pentateuch, in all probability they are conventional ways of referring to the Pentateuch's content and aim to underscore its authority, not the authorship of the book's extant form. This can go on and on, but I think I'll leave it by agreeing with Blenkinsopp's dating scheme (with some serious misgivings!), which, by the way, does not preclude the possibility that Moses wrote at least some sections of the Pentateuch (via internal authentication). If I were asked Celsus' OP, it would like this:

Please explain your proof for (assuming he's looking for external evidence):

(1) Moses' existence: yeah, right.
(2) Moses' literacy: sure.
(3) Moses' access to scribal tools: sounds good.
(4) Moses' authorship of the first 5 books: okay.
(5) Authorship of the Pentateuch around 1400 BCE: ahem.

Regards,

CJD

[Celsus]

Originally posted by Evangelion
If you believe that the OT canon was established at Jamnia and that Daniel & Esther were 2nd-1st Century documents, what do you do with...

Josephus' reference to the canon of his day (which agrees with our modern OT canon.

The LXX (which contains our modern OT canon.)

...?
LXX also contains the Apocrypha many of which date to the 1st century. I presume you are referring to the fact that the LXX was started before the 2nd century. The question is, when was it completed? Josephus' reference IIRC was that there were a certain number of books (he never listed them out specifically) in the Hebrew Bible. Does he even mention which of the Ketuvim are there? Either way, how does Josephus have any bearing on 2/1st century documents? The last decision on the canon was decided at Jamnia, though I am well aware that an unofficial canonisation was already in progress. See here (http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article5.htm) for what I mean:
Our modern use of the word "canon" has moved some way beyond its classical origins. Yet, if we want to approach Jewish canonizing from a historical perspective, we must ask ourselves what "canon" might mean in terms of Jewish writings, and return to the definitions that governed the earlier age. Indeed, we must go even further than the classical origins of the word "canon". For, even though the word (or its equivalent) may not have existed, a process of canonizing is also clearly at work in both Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures, and it is important to place Jewish canonizing historically in the wider context of the great literary cultures to which the classical world was also indebted. Millennia before the Greeks learned to write, the civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates and the Nile valleys had produced highly complex bureaucratic systems in which the art of writing was indispensable: this in turn necessitated a society of scribes, and over time this society defined and replicated itself through a body of literature that served as a kind of genetic blueprint of its own values and world-view, its theoretical and practical philosophy. By means of its own educational system and the constant copying and refining of this corpus, the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations produced, alongside the much more numerous but transient administrative literature which paradoxically has survived where so much creative literature has been lost, works that we would call canonical, even in the Greek sense.

...

The impossibility of dealing with canonizing in the shadow of later lists can be illustrated by the following scenario. If we were to find in some church's library in, say the second century CE, some codices of the Mosaic canon alongside a codex of some letters of Paul (let us say excluding Colossians and Ephesians), a scroll of Enoch and a codex of the letters of Ignatius, how would be decided which of these were canonical? We would have before us (a) a clearly recognized Mosaic canon (b) a collection of works that would be canonized in the Western "New Testament" but does not match the final list, (c) a work that was canonized but not in the Western church, and (d) a collection that was not later canonized. An illustration such as this shows not only how difficult it is to decide what "canonical" might mean at any given time or place, and indeed how inappropriate it is to allow the category "canonical" to get out of hand. "Canonical" does not imply only a fixed status in a list but can reflect a number of degrees of "canonization" prior to that. Even where it does make someone's list, it may fall out of another's.

Canonizing begins and continues as an open-ended process. To canonize a work is not an entirely conscious process at all stages and does not entail that other works have to be barred from being canonized, or definitely excluded from such a status. Only when definitive canonical lists emerge does the canonizing process stop. While canonizing does entail listing, organizing and labelling, a single definitive list is not, indeed, the purpose of the canonizing process, any more than death is the purpose of life: just its end.
Clearly, to answer the question, one must go into the cultural context in which "authoritative" decisions were made, and Jamnia is simply a convenient marker by which we believe that the canonisation process ended. The question of the formation and closing of the canon is as applicable to the Hebrew Bible as it is to the LXX.

Joel

[Evangelion]

LXX also contains the Apocrypha many of which date to the 1st century.

The Christian version did, yes. The original Jewish version did not. Many of the apocryphal books hadn't even been written by the time the LXX was completed.

I presume you are referring to the fact that the LXX was started before the 2nd century.

Correct.

The question is, when was it completed?

At some point between 250-200 BC.

Josephus' reference IIRC was that there were a certain number of books (he never listed them out specifically) in the Hebrew Bible.

He defines the parameters of the canon with particular care, and confirms that it is definitely closed.

Does he even mention which of the Ketuvim are there?

No, he doesn't need to. He refers to the books in accordance with their respective groupings: the Law, the prophets and the writings. These designations were already familiar to his audience, who knew exactly what they contained.

Thus:

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".

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".

[b]Reed, Peter (2000), The Old Testament Canon.

Either way, how does Josephus have any bearing on 2/1st century documents?

Because he writes before the 2nd Century AD, presents us with an OT canon which already contains both Daniel & Esther, and confirms that this canon is already closed.

In any case, 1st-2nd Century AD would seem to be a bit late for the composition of Daniel & Esther. Are you sure this is the date you're working with? Or did you mean BC?

The last decision on the canon was decided at Jamnia, though I am well aware that an unofficial canonisation was already in progress. See here for what I mean:

Josephus provides us with the parameters for canonicity:

From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, [he refers here to the period of the Maccabees, etc] but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.

[b]Versus Apion.

[Celsus]

Hi Evangelion,

Rather than getting into a mindnumbing debate on the dating of books, why don't we have a much more interesting debate on the issues about the Jewish canon as raised in the article I linked? As in: What are canons? What was the process of canonisation like to the Jews themselves? Was it a conscious act? It raises plenty of questions that your response ignores, and which seems to make the same mistakes as addressed in the Prolegomena. Again, if the Septuagint was open to Christian additions, how can you be confident that it was closed to the Jews c. 250-200 BCE (especially considering that the Christians and Jews weren't even distinguishable till at least the 70s)? And of course what Reed fails to mention is that while Sirach mentions the sections of the OT, he doesn't mention Daniel in his list of Biblical heroes. Further, since Sirach is writing from Egypt, to what extent is his writing authoritative? There are so many questions here that would make for a good debate.

(Yes, I meant that Daniel/Esther were 2nd/1st century BCE documents, hence the reversed order in numbering--as indeed were all my dates with the exception of the 90 CE date which was specified. Sorry to be unclear.)

Joel

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Evangelion
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.
Emil Schürer comments: "Περι βιου θεωρητικου η ικετωον αρετων. De vita contemplativa (Mangey, ii. 471-486).—Eusebius twice cites the title in the following form (H. E. ii. 17. 3 and ii. 18. 7): περι βιου θεωρητικου η ικετων. The αρετων added at the end must therefore be expunged. Eusebius, H. E. ii. 17, gives full information concerning the contents, comp. also ii. 16. 2. This composition has, since the time of Eusebius, enjoyed special approbation in the Christian Church, Christian monks being almost universally recognised in the 'Therapeutae' here described and glorified. The likeness is indeed surprising; but for that very reason the suspicion is also well founded, that the author's design was under the mask of Philo to recommend Christian monachism. But apart from this there are other suspicious elements, by reason of which even such critics do not regard the Therapeutae as representing a Christian, but as a Jewish ideal of life, have denied thea uthorship of Philo. Upon the ground of the identification of the Therapeutae with Christian monks, Lucius, after the precedent of Grätz and Jost, has declared this composition spurious. It is by his thorough and methodical investigation that the spuriousness of its authorship has been definitely decided." (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 357-358)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Evangelion]

Rather than getting into a mindnumbing debate on the dating of books, why don't we have a much more interesting debate on the issues about the Jewish canon as raised in the article I linked?

Can do. :)

As in: What are canons?

Lists of authoritative literature.

What was the process of canonisation like to the Jews themselves?

The preservation of authoritative literature.

Was it a conscious act?

Yes. The Biblical record makes this clear - particularly in the record of Josiah's reign.

It raises plenty of questions that your response ignores, and which seems to make the same mistakes as addressed in the Prolegomena.

What mistakes?

Again, if the Septuagint was open to Christian additions

It wasn't a case of being "open to Christian editions at all." As far as the Jews were concerned, the canon was definitely closed. The Christians simply came along and wrote their own translations. That was their decision, utterly independent of the Jews. But even then, it was not an official redefinition of the canon.

how can you be confident that it was closed to the Jews c. 250-200 BCE (especially considering that the Christians and Jews weren't even distinguishable till at least the 70s)?

Josephus confirms that the canon was closed by his time. This would not be greatly significant were it not for the fact that Josephus defines the canon by the trifold grouping of pre-Christian origin.

Again:

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".

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, [b]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.

This is evidence that the Jewish canon had already been defined and closed before the Christian era.

And of course what Reed fails to mention is that while Sirach mentions the sections of the OT, he doesn't mention Daniel in his list of Biblical heroes.

Irrelevant. There's a few other Biblical heroes he doesn't matter, so who's counting? The significance of Sirach is (a) that he refers to individuals who lived before his time (such as Elijah and Ezekiel), confirming that the record of their deeds was already accepted as authoritative by the Jews, and (b) that he alludes to the trifold grouping of the Jewish canon.

In any case, we have an alternative attestation for the book of Daniel from around the same time as Sirach:

I Maccabees 2:59-60.
Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame.
Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions.

This is doubly helpful, since it includes a reference to the "firey furnace" story of Daniel 3 and a reference to the "lions den" story of Daniel 6. Remember, Sirach does not claim to be listing a canon. But he does provide a useful reference point for the dating of canonical Jewish literature.

Further, since Sirach is writing from Egypt, to what extent is his writing authoritative? There are so many questions here that would make for a good debate.

*snip*

I don't see the relevance of geography in relation to the reliability of Sirach.

[Celsus]

Evangelion,

I am amused with your post. First you agree to discuss the issues raised about the idea of canons, and then you respond with simplistic assertions, seemingly unaware that your assertions are exactly the sort of mistakes pointed out in the Prolegomena to the article. Since you have no real interest in this issue (otherwise you might have read the article), except the rather tedious apologetic one, I don't see much further point in continuing this discussion.

Joel

[Evangelion]

First you agree to discuss the issues raised about the idea of canons

I was waiting for you to raise them.

and then you respond with simplistic assertions, seemingly unaware that your assertions are exactly the sort of mistakes pointed out in the Prolegomena to the article.

We shall see.

Mistake #1:

The persistence of the concept and evaluation of "canon" according to the Christian example of a closed and authoritative list.

Why is it wrong to defend the concept of a canon? A canon is simply a list of authoritative literature. Why is it a "mistake" to believe that the Jews attempted to collate a list of authoritative literature, when this is so obviously what they did? Their preservation of the Law of Moses is a case in point; these books were regarded as authoritative, and for this reason they were continually copied.

Your author observes:

The role of canons within the system of rabbinic Judaism, as well as in other ancient and modern societies has not been fully evaluated.

But so the hell what? Are we not permitted to advance any opinions on the subject because "the role of canons within the system of rabbinic Judaism... has not been fully evaluated"? That seems to be a rather facile objection. How is it a "mistake" to advance and defend the concept of a canon?

Mistake #2:

The inherited view of pre-rabbinic Judaism as having been, throughout its development, a unitary phenomenon, with a single line of evolution, and thus, implicitly, with a single canonizing process, leading to a single canon.

But I have never suggested any such thing. I have not claimed that pre-rabbinic Judaism was "a unitary phenomenon with a single line of evolution." This misapprehension is precluded by the record of history. Judaism became increasingly fragmented during the various captivities, with different branches of Jewish thought emerging left, right and centre.

Nor have I claimed that there was "a single canoninsing process, leading to a single canon." The canonisation process was gradual; it occurred over a long period of time and was completed in various stages, at various times.

Yes, there was a conscious decision to preserve authoritative literature (as indeed, there has been in most other human civilsations.) The members of each different era settled on the books they deemed to be authoritative, and collected them together in a single group. That group was subsequently inherited by the next generation(s), who added their own authoritative books to the list as they saw fit.

The process ended when the Jews decided that there were no longer prophets among them. Since divine inspiration was considered to be the benchmark of Scripture, the Jews would naturally exclude any uninspired work from their collection of authoritative writings.

This is often compounded by the teleological fallacy: that within the process of formation of a canon lie the seeds of the final canon itself

*snip*

I make no such assumption, nor have I claimed any such thing in this thread.

Mistake #3:

The assumption the scriptural canon provides clear and reliable evidence of its own history.

It is not an assumption. It is an interpretation of the textual evidence. Whether right or wrong, it is definitely not an assumption.

Even your author admits that...

We can find traces of the canonical process within the canonized texts of scripture.

I agree, of course, that evidence for the history of the canon is not entirely clear, but I believe there is sufficient information to constitute reliable evidence.

One obvious example of this is to divide the history of canonization into the rabbinic-Masoretic divisions of "torah", "prophets" and "writings", without considering that different groupings may have been in force at earlier stages;

I am quite happy to consider that different groupings may have been in force at earlier stages, and just as ready to believe it (if any evidence can be advanced in its favour.) Do you have such evidence? If not, this is merely pointless speculation. It neither proves nor disproves anything.

more generally there persists a tendency to accept canonical stories such as Ezra as being suitable evidence for the canonization of torah.

Until I am given a valid reason for discounting the story of Ezra (and any other canonical story that your author might have in mind) I'll stay with it, thanks. But even if I dropped it, the impact on my argument would be negligible. I don't actually need it.

Mistake #4:

Within biblical scholarship, it is rarely asked whether or not "canon" is a good thing; where the matter does get an airing, the answer is a ringing affirmation. Yet an ongoing controversy about whether or not canons do or should exist is raging in the field of English literature.

Relevance?

Some critics are saying that the notion of "canon" is no more than an attempt by educational (we could read "ecclesiastical") fascists to administer control of one's culture ("religion") and one's society, to preserve the values of a powerful few against the interests of the less powerful many. Others counter that excellence cannot be relativized and must be recognized, and that canons do and should exist because they testify to the self-authorizing nature of excellence.

Relevance?

But values do not lie in texts. Texts can only refract the values of writers and readers. Canons do not impose themselves.

Agreed. But... relevance?

[Evangelion]

Well, that was easy enough. I haven't actually committed most of these alleged "mistakes" - and as for the rest, your author has simply failed to prove that they are mistakes in the first place. So for the most part, Davies' spiel consists of little more than straw men and unproved assertions.

Since you have no real interest in this issue (otherwise you might have read the article), except the rather tedious apologetic one, I don't see much further point in continuing this discussion.

Suit yourself.

[Celsus]

Hi Evangelion,

Ok, I withdraw my remarks about you lacking an interest. However, I disagree with your conclusion that "haven't actually committed most of these alleged 'mistakes'." Let's begin.
[Josephus] defines the parameters of the canon with particular care, and confirms that it is definitely closed. ... He refers to the books in accordance with their respective groupings: the Law, the prophets and the writings. These designations were already familiar to his audience, who knew exactly what they contained.
Firstly, I should point out that this would not significantly influence my argument since Josephus is writing more or less near the final stages of the Hebrew canon (some 20 years before Jamnia). However, there are serious problems with your apologetic. For the benefit of onlookers, what Josephus does say in Contra Apion (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/apion-1.htm) 1.8 is this:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

The footnote states:
(8) Which were these twenty-two sacred books of the. Old Testament, see the Supplement to the Essay of the Old Testament, p. 25-29, viz. those we call canonical, all excepting the Canticles; but still with this further exception, that the book of apocryphal Esdras be taken into that number instead of our canonical Ezra, which seems to be no more than a later epitome of the other; which two books of Canticles and Ezra it no way appears that our Josephus ever saw.
Clearly, what books are included in Josephus' canon are a matter of conjecture (albeit with some high degrees of plausibility), since it is possible that 1/3 Esdras or Ezra (and it is a significant difference regardless of the origins of 1/3 Esdras) is the book refered to here. Furthermore, presumably either one of Canticles or Qoheleth make up the last of Josephus' 4 books consisting of the "hymns to God"/writings--the others being most probably Psalms, Proverbs and Job. The answer is at best conjecture. In other words, when you argue that for Josephus, the canon is "definitely closed" and he has only 22 books as opposed to 24, something is wrong with your idea of closed. Bringing back Davies into the picture, he writes:
Any history of canonizing, then, that we construct, though supposedly dealing with the backward-looking face, is being composed under the forward-looking gaze of a final, definitive and authoritative canon, which has helped to shape not just Christian communities, and not just the discourse of biblical scholarship (note the term carefully!) but also Western culture.
As we have seen with your example of Josephus, you are putting the cart before the horse (did you not realise his canon consisted of only 22 books?). Josephus' canon differed from Jamnia, and because of your apologetic need to have canonicity established as early as possible, you claim it was closed when in fact, it was still quite open.

Moving on to your definitions of canons:
What are canons?Lists of authoritative literature.
The rather obvious and mundane question then extends as: authoritative according to whom? As we have seen in the Josephus example above, the authority of Josephus is insufficient.
What was the process of canonisation like to the Jews themselves?The preservation of authoritative literature.
Again, it is insufficient to list it merely as preservation since you yourself quoted Josephus earlier as deeming certain writings of greater quality than others. And of course, as we have seen, his authority is unreliable, since it does not tell us nearly enough about the canon, and since he differs from the final canon as to raise unanswerable questions.
Was it a conscious act?Yes. The Biblical record makes this clear - particularly in the record of Josiah's reign.
This is exactly what Davies said was a conceptual problem in #3. Of course, you countered it by saying that it was not an assumption but interpretation, but your simple one-liner initially can lead to no other conclusion that it was an assumption--hence my charge (I will deal with your answer to #3 in greater detail later --Edit: scratch that, I'll let you respond first).

<snip the rest of your claims of Josephus' citing the canon as closed>

Joel

[Evangelion]

Firstly, I should point out that this would not significantly influence my argument since Josephus is writing more or less near the final stages of the Hebrew canon (some 20 years before Jamnia).

The point is, however, that Josephus clearly alludes to this canon as an old and well-established body of authoritative literature.

Thus:

From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets.

There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.

As far as Josephus is concerned: (a) the canon was closed after the time of Artaxerxes, (b) the canon was subsequently accepted as authoritative; (c) it has remained unaltered since then, and (d) a great deal of time has passed since the canon has closed.

Since Josephus wrote in AD 90, he is perfectly correct in saying that a great deal of time has passed - and he confirms that the canon has remained unchanged during that period. The canon is, according to Josephus, definitively closed.

However, there are serious problems with your apologetic.

We shall see.

For the benefit of onlookers, what Josephus does say in Contra Apion 1.8 is this:

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books,

[...]

The footnote states:

(8) Which were these twenty-two sacred books of the. Old Testament, etc....

*snip*

A single, unsubstantiated opinion from a 17th Century theologian does not a compelling argument make. You require much more than this.

Clearly, what books are included in Josephus' canon are a matter of conjecture

[...]

The answer is at best conjecture.

"At best conjecture"? Hardly.

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

Josephus (c. 38-95) enumerates 22 books, which he divides as follows:

5 books of Moses;
13 histories, containing the history of Israel from Moses' death down to Artaxerxes I., written by the Prophets; and
4 remaining books consisting of hymns and admonitions.

"It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time: and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them" ("Contra Ap." i. 8).

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.

The only difference between the 24-book canon and the 22-books canon therefore, is the arrangement of the canonical material (not the material itself.)

In other words, when you argue that for Josephus, the canon is "definitely closed" and he has only 22 books as opposed to 24, something is wrong with your idea of closed.

You have not even begun to prove this. Your "22 books as opposed to 24" objection is quite insubstantial. Not only that, but every time you refer to Josephus you somehow manage to overlook this bit...

...although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.

Now, what exactly do you make of this, Celsus? What is Josephus trying to tell us here? Is he saying "Sure, the canon looks great - but it's still open, so of course we're chucking in a new book every month"?

Or is he saying something rather different?

Bringing back Davies into the picture, he writes:

Any history of canonizing, then, that we construct, though supposedly dealing with the backward-looking face, is being composed under the forward-looking gaze of a final, definitive and authoritative canon, which has helped to shape not just Christian communities, and not just the discourse of biblical scholarship (note the term carefully!) but also Western culture.

Notwithstanding this, it is still not impossible to reconstruct the history of the canon.

As we have seen with your example of Josephus, you are putting the cart before the horse

How so?

(did you not realise his canon consisted of only 22 books?).

Of course I did. I've even written an article on the subject (which may be read by anyone who visits my own forum) in which I quote this very section of Versus Apion. Your "24 books vs. 22 books" objection just doesn't carry any weight.

Josephus' canon differed from Jamnia

In its arrangement? Perhaps. In its content? No. Jamnia merely reaffirmed the parameters of the traditional canon - the very canon which Josephus himself had already recognised as ancient. (The reaffirmation itself was most likely prompted by the rise of Christianity.)

and because of your apologetic need to have canonicity established as early as possible, you claim it was closed when in fact, it was still quite open.

You have not even begun to prove that it was still open. What do you do with Josephus' observation that the canon has remained untouched "for so great a time"? What do you do with his observation that this is due to the fact that the criteria for canonisation have not been met by any subsequent works?

Moving on to your definitions of canons:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are canons?
Lists of authoritative literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The rather obvious and mundane question then extends as: authoritative according to whom?

Obviously they are authoritative according to the compilers and anyone else who accepts them. What you should be asking is "How was that authority traditionally defined? On what basis was a book considered canonical?"

Well, Josephus provides with the parameters of his day - and guess what? The Council of Jamnia agreed.

As we have seen in the Josephus example above, the authority of Josephus is insufficient.

We have seen no such thing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was the process of canonisation like to the Jews themselves?
The preservation of authoritative literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, it is insufficient to list it merely as preservation since you yourself quoted Josephus earlier as deeming certain writings of greater quality than others.

Oh, I agree that a canon is much more than that. You see, I am actually using the term "authoritative" to denote the very superiority to which you refer. Josephus clearly believed that the books of his canon should enjoy precedence over other Jewish writings by virtue of their inspiration. He clearly states that they have been deemed authoritative on this very basis. That is one of his canonical criteria.

And of course, as we have seen, his authority is unreliable, since it does not tell us nearly enough about the canon

In fact, his testimony is quite sufficient (as the Jewish Encyclopaedia has shown.)

and since he differs from the final canon as to raise unanswerable questions.

*snip*

In fact, since you have not even defined what you believe to be Josephus' canon (much less that of Jamnia) this assertion remains unsupported.

[Evangelion]

<snip the rest of your claims of Josephus' citing the canon as closed>

I'd love to know how else these words might be interpreted:

From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets.

There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf.

What's that, then? A shopping list?

"Three pounds of butter, a quart of milk, a dozen eggs, a sack of potatoes and 22 authoritative books from the Jewish religious tradition. Signed, Josephus."

:rolleyes:

[Evangelion]

Emil Schürer comments: "Περι βιου θεωρητικου η ικετωον αρετων. De vita contemplativa (Mangey, ii. 471-486).—Eusebius twice cites the title in the following form (H. E. ii. 17. 3 and ii. 18. 7): περι βιου θεωρητικου η ικετων.

[...]

This composition has, since the time of Eusebius, enjoyed special approbation in the Christian Church, Christian monks being almost universally recognised in the 'Therapeutae' here described and glorified.

[...]

But apart from this there are other suspicious elements, by reason of which even such critics do not regard the Therapeutae as representing a Christian, but as a Jewish ideal of life, have denied thea uthorship of Philo. Upon the ground of the identification of the Therapeutae with Christian monks, Lucius, after the precedent of Grätz and Jost, has declared this composition spurious.

With respect, Schürer is astonishingly credulous (as are all those who believe that Philo's reference was to "Christian monks.") We do not, in fact, have a quote from DVC which makes any such claim. Philo doesn't even mention the Christians. He never even knew them.

The absurd claim that the Therapeutae were actually Christians does not come from Philo, but from Eusebius himself - and so we see that Schürer's principle error is his uncritical acceptance of Eusebius's testimony. He has taken a statement from Eusebius and (astonishingly) attributed it to Philo. This is very poor scholarship.

How do we evaluate Eusebius' identification of the Therapeutae as Christians? Was it accidental, or deliberate; mistaken or contrived? Should we give Eusebius the benefit of the doubt, or convict him as a pious fraud?

Professor Constantine Scouteris (School of Theology at the University of Athens) gives Eusebius the benefit of the doubt, arguing that his identification of the Therapeutae with Christians was an honest mistake:

It should be pointed out from the very outset that Philonian monachism has been seen as the forerunner of and the model for the Christian ascetic life. It has even been considered as the first picture of Christian monasticism.

Such an identification can already be found in Eusebius of Caesarea. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, referring first to apostolic foundations of the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, points out that Philo's Therapeutae were the first Christian monks.

He sees in their renunciation of property, in their chastity of life, in their severe fasting, in their solitary lives, in their devotion to scriptural reading and in other aspects of their ascetic life, the Christian monks.

Eusebius was so certain that Philo was describing the life of the first Christian monks that he argues that Philo himself, not only knew the life of the first Christian ascetics, but also had himself adopted it.

The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae (2002.)

Phillip Schaff (History of the Christian Church) is equally indulgent:

Eusebius (II. 17) mistook the Therapeutae for Christian ascetics, and later historians for Christian monks. It was supposed that Philo was converted by the Apostle Peter. This error was not dispelled till after the Reformation.

But Marian Hillar is far more skeptical - and IMHO, right on the money:

The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo's The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promotes the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 CE) even lists him as a church Father.

The Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity (2000.)

Eusebius' endorsement of DVC (combined with his hopelessly anachronistic claims about Philo and Peter in Rome) was largely responsible for the acceptance of the Alexandrian's work. Jerome's propaganda had a similar effect.

But neither man had any evidence to support his claims. (The simple reason for this, of course, is that they simply weren't true! They were, in fact, nothing more than Christian revisionist pseudo-history.) I therefore convict both Eusebius and Jerome as pious frauds, discounting their nonsensical "interpretations" of the Therapeutae.

Epiphanius (a later church father) is also deserving of comment. He perpetuates the myth of Eusebius in his own mention of the Therapeutae.

According to Shirley Jackson's thesis (available here (http://www.didjesusexist.com/case/ch4.html)):

Epiphanius adopts the Eusebian tradition that Christianity was planted in Egypt by Mark, and that Philo's Therapeutes were the primitive Christians. But the title of Philo's treatise was, according to Epiphanius, Concerning Jessees peri Iessaiwn.

In the opening paragraph of De vita contemplativa Philo speaks of the Therapeutes in a way to indicate that he regarded them as a type of Essees (Essenes). They were the Essees of the contemplative life in contrast with the Essees of the practical life. So it would not have been wholly incongruous to refer to his tractate as Concerning Essees peri Essaiwn.

[...]

Why are we here introduced to the Therapeutes? Evidently because the objective basis of the author's thought in this connection is Philo's Therapeutes, coupled with the Eusebian tradition that these were primitive Christians. Epiphanius wishes to find them a more appropriate name, and this he has done to his satisfaction in the word Jessees.

It answers his purpose in several directions. He can check it off theologically with Jesse, etymologically (through Therapeutes) with Jesus, analogically with Essees (the general class of which Philo speaks), and historically with Therapeutes (the specific term used by Philo).

Thus Epiphanius, as a witness for the pre-Christian date of Jesus and of Christianity, is a distinct failure.

It is by his thorough and methodical investigation that the spuriousness of its authorship has been definitely decided." (The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 357-358)

"Definitively declared"? I hardly think so.

Again, Shirley Jackson:

The authorship of De vita contemplativa, so long debated, seems finally to have been decided in Philo's favor.

See F. C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895); Massebieau, "Le traité de la vie contemplative et la question des thérapeutes," Revue de l'histoire des religions, XVI (1887), 170-98 and 284-319; Wendland, "Die Therapeuten" in Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, XXII (Suppl.), 1896, 692-770.

I find it difficult to believe that the "spuriousness" of DVC is currently accepted as the normative view.

[Peter Kirby]

Evangelion, you are begging the question. Of course the description of the Therapeutae was not based on Christian monasticism if Philo of Alexandria was the author. But the question is whether Philo was the author!

To Peter Reed's credit, he says only that attribution "has been ascribed to Philo." Can you present any arguments that Philo was actually the author? That would be more helpful than an opinion quotefest. Of course, I don't want anyone to take Schürer's statement at face value, only to indicate that authorship has been disputed.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Evangelion]

Evangelion, you are begging the question.

No I'm not. I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion.

The claim is that this account of the Therapeutae is actually a description of the early Christian community. Very well. So where is the evidence to support this asssertion? There's nothing uniquely "Christian" about the Therapeutae as Philo describes them, so why should I leap to that conclusion?

Of course the description of the Therapeutae was not based on Christian monasticism if Philo of Alexandria was the author. But the question is whether Philo was the author!

Haven't you got this the wrong way around?

Let's recap:

You raised Schürer to prove that the authorship is disputed. But on what grounds?

On the grounds that DVC contains a description of early Christian monks.

Very well. So you obviously need to prove that Christians are specifically mentioned before you can cast any aspersions on the authorship of DVC. But where is that proof?

To Peter Reed's credit, he says only that attribution "has been ascribed to Philo." Can you present any arguments that Philo was actually the author?

*snip*

I don't see any need to until I receive compelling evidence for the claim that Philo's account of the Therapeutae was based on Christian monasticism. To date, I have not received that evidence.

[Peter Kirby]

Evangelion: "I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion."

Ah, I see. The trouble with that is that I've not made an assertion (beyond that authorship of The Contemplative Life by Philo has been disputed).

Evangelion: "You raised Schürer to prove that the authorship is disputed. But on what grounds? On the grounds that DVC contains a description of early Christian monks."

In order to figure out what the grounds were, I would have to be able to read French and German. Schürer refers to Nicolas, Kuenen, Weingarten, Gr&auml;tz, Jost, and Lucius. None of them wrote in English. There does seem to be a study by Conybeare in English, which would be useful to track down to see what the arguments were. Schürer claims that scholars identified "other suspicious elements" which led them to consider the writing non-Philonic, without necessarily thinking that the description of the Therapeutae was based on Christian monasticism.

Instead of being punctilious about "burden of proof" and quoting century-old opinions without argumentation, one of us could actually do some research into what the reasons are for authenticity and pseudonymity, which might be worthwhile. I could place the results on my "Early Jewish Writings" web site.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Celsus]

Sorry Evangelion, but you still haven't explained the context by which a canon is formed. You are also still using the term "canon" in its modern sense--not even in the classical sense or in the pre-Classical sense. Quoting Josephus' opinion of what constitutes "closed" does not practically shed light on the question unless you look at the social context in which this takes place. We don't accept one person's opinion on anything today, and it would be a mistake to do so in the past. And as Davies has already noted (quoted above, see the monastry example), this exact same problem is encountered with the DSS. Obviously a canonisation process was underway. But how do we know what they considered to be canon or not?

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia you quote:
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.
Do you see the question begging that Davies warns about? You still have not risen above that level in determining non-circular methods of determining what was in Josephus' canon. It remains conjecture, and the combination of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah is still as I said, conjecture. Perhaps you can give me some good reasons why I should believe this arrangement, and that Josephus necessarily adopted it as such. Otherwise, conjecture. You seem to be of the opinion that we know much more about history than we actually do: this is the typical apologetic of filling in silence with pet theories.

However, as I already noted, Josephus does not severely influence the argument, because he is writing close to the time of the final canon. It was raised in an attempt to point out the question begging that goes on in studying the formation of canons. Obviously, the question of what constituted "closed" is not satisfactorally answered without some amount of circular reasoning. But we'll have to leave that for now or lose sight of the debate...

Now, let's move on to LXX and the Hebrew Bible. What was the process of canonisation like? When can we adequately determine when the Hebrew Bible was finally closed? Why did the LXX have the deuterocanonical books? Were they all first century Christian additions?

Davies writes:
There is sharp disagreement on this question. We can start by noting that scribal schools existed in the Hellenistic age, and E.W. Heaton's recent discussion of Jewish schools, in which he comes to the conclusion that the canon is the product of the scribal school system, takes as its starting ben Sira and Qoheleth.[8] He notes that ben Sira invites his readers to attend his school (bet midrash, 51:23), possibly even without payment (51:25). The range of topics in his book, however, makes it clear that he is not now training scribes, but offering an education to any who would acquire the Judean form of worldly wisdom, including the national literature, practical etiquette, sound ethics, piety, and so on. As Heaton says, the conservative scribal values "came to colour the whole ethos of educated society", the "mobile middle class".
The question that is trying to be answered above is: at what point are the material conditions in the Jewish society ready to begin formalising the canon? What was the original LXX, and when was it finally completed? How did the other books creep in? Are you going to argue that the LXX contained no Apocrypha originally? How are you going to demonstrate that without begging questions?

Joel

[Evangelion]

Ah, I see. The trouble with that is that I've not made an assertion (beyond that authorship of The Contemplative Life by Philo has been disputed).

Well then, if you're not raising an argument, I'm under no obligation to raise a counter-argument.

Evangelion: "You raised Schürer to prove that the authorship is disputed. But on what grounds? On the grounds that DVC contains a description of early Christian monks."

In order to figure out what the grounds were, I would have to be able to read French and German. Schürer refers to Nicolas, Kuenen, Weingarten, Grätz, Jost, and Lucius. None of them wrote in English.

That would make my task just as difficult, then.

There does seem to be a study by Conybeare in English, which would be useful to track down to see what the arguments were.

Conybeare is largely credited with the definitive verification of Philonic authority. I would certainly be interested to see how he does it. The only problem is that I don't know what his work is called, nor where it might be found.

Schürer claims that scholars identified "other suspicious elements" which led them to consider the writing non-Philonic, without necessarily thinking that the description of the Therapeutae was based on Christian monasticism. Instead of being punctilious about "burden of proof" and quoting century-old opinions without argumentation, one of us could actually do some research into what the reasons are for authenticity and pseudonymity, which might be worthwhile. I could place the results on my "Early Jewish Writings" web site.

Good call. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the necessary resources for such an endeavour.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not suggesting that you have any obligations here. I just wanted to bring attention to an issue of which many readers may not be aware; I know I didn't know anything at all about the controversy until recently. I now know next to nothing, which is a dangerous thing. F. C. Conybeare's work was entitled Philo About the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895). It's not a priority, but I might track it down at a future point in my life.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Evangelion]

I'm not suggesting that you have any obligations here.

It's OK. I understood this.

Thanks for the information re. Conybeare's book. If I manage to track it down at some stage, I'll let you know.

[Evangelion]

Sorry Evangelion, but you still haven't explained the context by which a canon is formed.

Don't you mean "process"? "Context" doesn't seem to fit here.

And yes, I have explained the process by which a canon is formed.

You are also still using the term "canon" in its modern sense--not even in the classical sense or in the pre-Classical sense.

Prove it. I have merely defined a canon as "a list of authoritative literature" - nothing more. If that's an inappropriate definition, please explain why.

Quoting Josephus' opinion of what constitutes "closed" does not practically shed light on the question unless you look at the social context in which this takes place.

Yes it does, because the rabbis of Jamnia followed the same basic criteria. If, then, you claim that the canon of Jamnia was definitive, you have no basis for objecting to Josephus' definition, since both authorities are in agreement.

We don't accept one person's opinion on anything today, and it would be a mistake to do so in the past.

But it's not just Josephus' opinion. There is external evidence; Talmudic evidence; historical evidence, as the Jewish Encyclopaedia observes.

And as Davies has already noted (quoted above, see the monastry example), this exact same problem is encountered with the DSS. Obviously a canonisation process was underway. But how do we know what they considered to be canon or not?

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia you quote:

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.

Do you see the question begging that Davies warns about? You still have not risen above that level in determining non-circular methods of determining what was in Josephus' canon. It remains conjecture, and the combination of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah is still as I said, conjecture.

It is not mere conjecture, but a valid conclusion on the basis of the evidence.

Perhaps you can give me some good reasons why I should believe this arrangement, and that Josephus necessarily adopted it as such.

*snip*

I might consider that if you ever get around to addressing the arguments in my previous post.

May I remind you of the following claim...?

Josephus' canon differed from Jamnia

I have already pointed out that I'm perfectly happy to accept a difference in grouping. But your argument requires a difference in content. Where, then, is the evidence to support this assertion?

I haven't seen any yet.

However, as I already noted, Josephus does not severely influence the argument, because he is writing close to the time of the final canon.

*snip*

He writes before Jamnia (when you claim that the canon was definitively settled) and observes that the canon had already been closed for "so great a time." Your only objection is "I don't believe him." Well, fine! That's your prerogative.

But you still haven't proved that he's wrong.

Now, let's move on to LXX and the Hebrew Bible. What was the process of canonisation like?

Generally? Already answered in previous posts. Specifically? (As in "precise names and dates.") Well, that is less clear. I don't believe the miraculous account in The Letter of Aristeas, but I see no reason to doubt that the LXX was compiled around that time.

Jamnia is arguably the most well-documented account of canonical definition, but if we accept this as the first attempt to ratify the canon we have no way of explaining Josephus' definition (much less his observation that there have been no additions to the canon since Artaxerxes.)

When can we adequately determine when the Hebrew Bible was finally closed?

Late 3rd to early 2nd Century BC.

Why did the LXX have the deuterocanonical books?

It didn't originally. That's the point.

Were they all first century Christian additions?

Yes.

Davies writes:

*snip*

Davies writes that Ben Sira had a rabbinical school. Well, that's terribly fascinating, but it doesn't add much to the debate.

The question that is trying to be answered above is: at what point are the material conditions in the Jewish society ready to begin formalising the canon?

They began to formalise their canon in the 3rd Century BC. (Hence the LXX.)

What was the original LXX, and when was it finally completed?

I've already addressed this in previous posts. The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC. There appears to be general consensus on this point.

How did the other books creep in?

They were later Christian additions.

Are you going to argue that the LXX contained no Apocrypha originally?

Yes.

How are you going to demonstrate that without begging questions?

By reference to Josephus' definition of the canon as he knew it (which precludes the inclusion of the Apocrypha, since it excludes anything written after the time of Artaxerxes.)

By reference to the trifold grouping (which predates Josephus.)

By reference to the fact that you can't actually include an as-yet-unwritten book in a collection of authoritative literature.

Approximate dates for the apocryphal literature are as follows:

The Hymn in the Song of the Three Holy Children - 200 BC.

Ecclesiasticus - 200 BC.

The Prayer in the Song of the Three Holy Children - 160 BC.

Judith - 150 BC.

Bel and the Dragon - 150 BC.

Additions to the Book of Esther - 140 BC.

I Maccabees - circa 120-90 BC.

II Maccabees - 50 BC.

The Wisdom of Solomon - AD 40.

Baruch - AD 70 or later.

II Esdras - AD 100.

The Prayer of Manasseh - late 1st to early 2nd Century AD.

These books clearly fall outside the historical range of the canon as Josephus knew it. Certainly, they could not have been included in the canon with which he was familiar since (a) most of them were written after the genrally accepted date for the composition of the LXX, and (b) Josephus affirms that the canon has been closed since Artaxerxes' day.

If you want to claim that Josephus' definition of the canon is somehow incorrect or unreliable, the onus is on you to prove it.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Evangelion
I've already addressed this in previous posts. The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC. There appears to be general consensus on this point. You state as a matter of fact that, "The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC." Can you show that the biblical books translated into Greek prior to 200 BC included anything more than the Pentateuch?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Celsus]

Hi Evangelion,

I see a big problem because you write in terms of distinct events whereas Davies (and myself) would be speaking of evolutionary processes (e.g. your dating of deuterocanonical books: Baruch at 70 CE? What nonsense is that from? The early part of Baruch is written in Hebrew and appears very ancient--surely not a Christian invention, let alone a 70 CE construct). The formation of books is itself a canonising process (pointed out by Davies of course) as we can see through textual variants (e.g. the Hebrew/Aramaic division, the narrative/apocalyptic division, deuterocanonical additions to Daniel, pseudo-Danielic writings in the DSS, etc.). You have still not escaped from this mindset--as when you tried to pigeonhole the dating of Daniel. Where would you date Psalm 151?

Secondly, it would appear that you are using the conventional fundamentalist dating of OT books, rather than that of scholarly consensus, yet not positing any proper arguments on which to base it. How do you fit Esther prior to 200-250 BCE when the canon was closed? Where do the Wisdom literature appear from if there were no schools of wisdom in which to compile them? How was Esther ancient and canonical if the feasts of 14-5 Adar (as prescribed in the book) were met with strong opposition well into the third century CE? Why no attestation at Qumran (here we see more problems with canonisation which you avoid)?

Thirdly, you are still citing Josephus as authoritative (i.e. Josephus claiming that nothing was written since the time of Artaxerxes--which is plainly wrong), yet you shift the burden of proof to say that Josephus should be accepted until proven otherwise. The same mistake is made by you citing rabbinical practice as authoritative (they make the same pre-450 BCE mistake as Josephus). Remember, a time scale of more than more than a century for the ancients is enough to be a really really long time--in which the sources are forgotten, and often extended (think of the Pseudepigraphia: did the ancients believe the Assumption of Moses was written by someone other than Joshua? When did they know?). Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to establish that Josephus and rabbinical tradition is authoritative. However, scholarly consensus on the dates of the (compilation of) books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, etc. point to Josephus (and rabbinical tradition) being wrong on additions "since Artaxerxes." Of course, the apologist must put great stock in the official propaganda of the time rather than examining the textual formation itself.

I feel we are still talking past each other because you are stuck in the apologetic post hoc ergo prompter hoc mindset.

Joel

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
You state as a matter of fact that, "The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC." Can you show that the biblical books translated into Greek prior to 200 BC included anything more than the Pentateuch? Evangelion, will you please answer this?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Celsus]

He must be busy writing a devastating refutation to our posts. Let's give him some time.

Joel

[Peter Kirby]

Bump.

[Evangelion]

You state as a matter of fact that, "The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC." Can you show that the biblical books translated into Greek prior to 200 BC included anything more than the Pentateuch?

best,
Peter Kirby

I already have. Look at the Josephus quote.

Here it is again:

We have not myriads of books, disagreeing and conflicting with one another, but only twenty-two [this number is arrived at by treating as one, certain books which Christian collators chose to define as two; for example, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles], containing the record of all time and justly accredited.

Of these, five are the books of Moses, containing the laws and the history handed down from the creation of the human race right to his own death. This period falls a little short of three thousand years.

From the death of Moses to the time of Artaxerxes, who was king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have written down in thirteen books the things that were done in their days.

The remaining four books contain hymns to God and principles of life for human beings. From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, [he refers here to the books of the Maccabees, etc] but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.

Now, if you think there's something wrong with that assessment, the onus is on you to prove it.

[Evangelion]

Hi Evangelion,

I see a big problem because you write in terms of distinct events whereas Davies (and myself) would be speaking of evolutionary processes (e.g. your dating of deuterocanonical books: Baruch at 70 CE? What nonsense is that from? The early part of Baruch is written in Hebrew and appears very ancient--surely not a Christian invention, let alone a 70 CE construct).

I didn't claim it was a Christian invention, and you are forgetting that Baruch was composed over time.

While the work on Baruch certainly began in the 3rd or 4th Century BC, the book did not reach its current form until somewhere in the late 1st Century AD. So I'm taking the AD date as the date of the completed book itself.

Sure, you can choose to run with the BC date if you like, but it leaves you with an incomplete Baruch. Is that really what you want to do?

The formation of books is itself a canonising process (pointed out by Davies of course)

*snip*

We have seen no such thing. I despatched Davies in this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1058780#post1058780) post, which is precisely why you narrowed the scope of your argument to a relentless attack on Josephus. Davies is a mere distraction and his argument is spurious. Forget him. It's over and I'm not offering a rematch.

Where would you date Psalm 151?

Absolutely no idea and couldn't care less. Next?

Secondly, it would appear that you are using the conventional fundamentalist dating of OT books, rather than that of scholarly consensus, yet not positing any proper arguments on which to base it.

You didn't ask for arguments, you merely asked for dates. Arguments to support these dates would require another thread entirely. Let's try and stick to the topic, shall we?

How do you fit Esther prior to 200-250 BCE when the canon was closed?

It's pretty simple, m8. If she lived during the time of Ahasuerus (or "Artaxerxes", as the LXX calls him) that puts her in the 5th Century BC. And unless my mathematics is even worse than I fear it to be, the 5th Century BC came before the 3rd Century BC, yes?

Yes?

Where do the Wisdom literature appear from if there were no schools of wisdom in which to compile them?

What on earth is this supposed to mean? The composition of the Wisdom books (a later title anyway) has nothing to do with "schools of wisdom." Can I have something a little more substantial than mere sophistry, please?

How was Esther ancient and canonical if the feasts of 14-5 Adar (as prescribed in the book) were met with strong opposition well into the third century CE?

It was met with opposition from some quarters because (like Hanukkah) it is a relatively recent institution when compared to the rest of Jewish tradition, being instituted by the Jews themselves, long after the receipt of the Law. This is why it is not considered one of the major feasts of Judaism.

The opposition to which you refer was advanced by Jewish ultra-conservatives on purely sectarian grounds; it had absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy (or otherwise) of Esther.

Why no attestation at Qumran (here we see more problems with canonisation which you avoid)?

Why should there be attestation at Qumran?

You seem to be labouring under the peculiar misapprehension that nothing is valid unless it was attested @ Qumran. But it is well known that the Qumran scrolls (http://www.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/caves.htm) did not contain a totally exhaustive array of OT literature, so any argument against Esther on this basis is utterly nonsensical.

Just to drive the point home, here's what you're effectively saying: "Well, if Esther is a legitimately ancient book, why doesn't it appear in this later, incomplete collection of Jewish literature?"

Now, can you understand why I'd reject this objection out of hand?

Thirdly, you are still citing Josephus as authoritative (i.e. Josephus claiming that nothing was written since the time of Artaxerxes--which is plainly wrong), yet you shift the burden of proof to say that Josephus should be accepted until proven otherwise.

Ah, so many mistakes... so little time. Where to begin?

Let's start with your blatant misrepresentation of Josephus. He does not say that nothing was written since the time of Artaxerxes.

Here's what he says:

From Artaxerxes to our own time a detailed record has been made, but this has not been thought worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because there has not been since then the exact succession of prophets.

Could it possibly get any clearer? And yet you somehow managed to bungle the entire quote. Wow, I'm impressed. :)

Now we move on to your objection to my argument that Josephus should be accepted until proven otherwise. Well, what's wrong with that? It's legitimate to presume innnocence until someone is proved guilty, isn't it? And since your repetition of this argument merely underscores your complete lack of evidence against Josephus, I can safely dismiss it as a pointless distraction.

You can't prove Josephus wrong, yet you claim (without evidence) that he is! Amazing! Would you let a Christian do this with evolution? I don't think so. You therefore deserve no special privileges on this score.

Incidentally, if Josephus is wrong, just where is he getting his canon from? Are you now going to claim that he simply made it all up on the spot?

The same mistake is made by you citing rabbinical practice as authoritative (they make the same pre-450 BCE mistake as Josephus).

What? And can we have a little more explanation as to why these rabbinical sources are wrong, please?

The standard "I'm an atheist and you're just a measly Christian, so you must accept that I'm right and you're wrong" isn't going to work, sorry. I'm holding you to the same standard that you've imposed on me.

Remember, a time scale of more than more than a century for the ancients is enough to be a really really long time--in which the sources are forgotten, and often extended (think of the Pseudepigraphia: did the ancients believe the Assumption of Moses was written by someone other than Joshua? When did they know?).

The ancients determined that the voice of God had ceased after the time of Artaxerxes. This was not only prophesied but also demonstrated by objective evidence, since the Law of Moses contained a list of benchmarks for testing the veracity of a prophet, nobody after Artraxerxes' time was able to meet.

Bottom line: the Jews already had a standard for determining when inspiration had ceased, and regardless of whether or not you accept that standard yourself, they did - and closed their canon accordingly.

Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to establish that Josephus and rabbinical tradition is authoritative.

Well, we have no record of any alternative canon in Josephus' day (and remember, I've already dealt with Jamnia) nor do we have any record of an alternative canon before or after Josephus' day. We do, however, have a record of an authoritative canon matching Josephus' description and a Jewish religious tradition to support it.

If that's not good enough for you, what is?

However, scholarly consensus on the dates of the (compilation of) books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, etc. point to Josephus (and rabbinical tradition) being wrong on additions "since Artaxerxes." Of course, the apologist must put great stock in the official propaganda of the time rather than examining the textual formation itself.

It's difficult to know exactly what you're claiming here. Are you trying to say that none of these books appeared in the original LXX, but were later additions which appeared after the 3rd Century BC?

If not, what are you saying and why should I care?

I feel we are still talking past each other because you are stuck in the apologetic post hoc ergo prompter hoc mindset.

I feel we are still talking past each other because you insist on making wild claims without ever substantiating them ("Josephus is wrong! No, really - he just is!") and playing the "modern scholars think" card without any elaboration.

Ah, same old IIDB; same old special pleading. :)

[Evangelion]

Evangelion, will you please answer this?

best,
Peter Kirby

He must be busy writing a devastating refutation to our posts. Let's give him some time

I last visited this thread on the 3rd of July, 2003. At that time I was under a great deal of pressure from various domestic issues, including chronic illness and severe depression. Astonishing as it may sound, I lost track of the thread after becoming more interested in my personal life than a debate @ IIDB. I trust that you will forgive me for this.

During the period July - October 2003, I...

* sold my house and bought an investment property

* moved from Western Australia to South Australia

* Spent three and a half weeks with my grandparents in Tasmania, helping them prepare for their move to South Australia


During the period October 2003 - January 2004, I...

* sold my car

* resigned from my job @ Australia Post

* moved from South Australia to the UK, where I currently reside


But now I'm back.

And I think I should @ least receive a little credit for picking up the thread after a year's absence, yes? ;)

[Evangelion]

BTW, I love the forum's new look - but you really should be using Invision Powerboard. http://www.iidb.org/ubb/icons/icon6.gif

[Evangelion]

Hi Toto. :) Remember me? :p

I remember you... ;)