Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Josephus, The Canon, And Historical Skepticism

An Eastern Orthodox poster by the screen name of Jimmy continues to post a lot of bad arguments and misinformation regarding the Old Testament canon in various threads. Below is a response I just posted in one of the threads that's no longer on the front page of this blog.

Jimmy keeps repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted:

"First century Judaism isn't monolithic!"

How many times have we explained to you that we're arguing for a majority view of the canon, not a "monolithic" Judaism?

You write:

"All you have is a witness to one sect of first century Judaism. The only thing we know about this sect is that it isn't the true people of God."

Josephus doesn't say that he's speaking for "one sect". And we know much more about Josephus than that he "isn't [part of] the true people of God". He was a Jew who lived during the apostolic era and had access to many sources relevant to the first-century canonical beliefs of the Jewish people. The fact that Josephus wasn't a Christian doesn't prevent him from having common human faculties, such as eyesight and memory. You don't have to be a Christian in order to be a credible historical source. That's why Christian historians frequently accept the testimony of Josephus and other non-Christians when reconstructing first-century Judaism or when discussing what historical sources said about Jesus, for example. The idea that Josephus can't be trusted to tell us about the canon of the Judaism he witnessed and that others he consulted had witnessed, because he wasn't a Christian, is absurd.

You write:

"Oh, and scholars recognize that he is speaking in apologetic mode, and can't be taken entirely seriously."

It was common for ancient sources to speak hyperbolically or exaggerate in some contexts, just as some modern sources do so. That's not just true of Josephus, but also of some of the church fathers, for example. Somebody like Basil of Caesarea or Augustine will refer to a belief as if it was universally accepted, even though we know from other sources that it wasn't, but their testimony still has some value in telling us what they believed and in telling us that their belief was popular enough to lead them to think that it was universal or to speak as if it was. We don't dismiss a source like Basil or Augustine just because he sometimes was inaccurate in speaking hyperbolically or exaggerating, for example. Steve Hays and I have already acknowledged that some Jews disagreed with Josephus. We're not arguing that Josephus' canon was universally agreed upon. But it's significant that Josephus thought that his canon was widely accepted, and other sources suggest that Josephus represented the majority of Jews in his rejection of the Apocrypha.

You write:

"How is it not comparable? An heretical sect is an heretical sect."

You're changing the subject. We were discussing whether Josephus' view represents the view of the majority of the Jews of that era. I was saying that you haven't demonstrated that Josephus and Mormonism are comparable in terms of their relative size. You haven't shown that Josephus was to first-century Judaism what Mormonism is to Christianity. I wasn't denying that Josephus and Mormonism are both wrong in their rejection of Christ.

You write:

"I've given you lots and lots of evidences that their canon doesn't line up with yours. Since it is not my position that there was a settled canon at this time, it is hardly something I need to document that there was a particular canon. The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't."

Again, since you've failed to make a case for Eastern Orthodoxy's alleged authority to settle the canon for us, you haven't given us any alternative that's as good as or better than following whatever Jewish canon Jesus and the apostles seem to have accepted in the first century. I disagree with your arguments about whether Esther was commonly accepted as part of the Jewish canon, but even if we were to accept your claims about Esther, the exclusion of Esther would do nothing to add the Apocrypha to the canon. In other words, whether you want to argue that all 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament were part of the Jewish canon of the first century or argue that less than 39 were part of it, you've given us no reason to think that the Apocryphal books were part of the mainstream canon, and you've given us no reason to think that Eastern Orthodoxy had the authority to add those books later.

And your claim that "The fact we can both cite sources shows there wasn't [a canon]" is ridiculous. If most Jews followed canon X, the fact that you can cite some sources disagreeing with that canon doesn't prove that there was no majority canon. As we've explained to you many times, we're not arguing that our canon was universally agreed upon. That's not the issue, and the fact that you keep trying to make it the issue, even after being corrected so many times, doesn't reflect well on you.

You write:

"Philo was found to quote the apocrypha. Josephus quotes it. Neither says that the canon excludes these books. In short you've got nothing."

Again, the issue isn't whether Apocryphal books are quoted. A source can quote a book without considering it canonical.

And your claim that Josephus doesn't exclude the Apocrypha is absurd. It's reminiscent of your ridiculous claim that Jerome and Rufinus excluded Esther, even though both men include Esther. Do you consult these sources before you make claims about them? Josephus refers to twenty-two books, which wouldn't include your Apocrypha, and he comments that the canon was closed prior to the time when the Apocryphal books were written (Against Apion, 1:8). He comments, in the passage I just cited, "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". Other Jewish sources also refer to such a cessation of prophecy and refer to the canon's closure prior to the time of the Apocryphal books.

You write:

"You haven't shown your position is a majority position either in reality or in the evidence."

We've cited far more Jewish support for the exclusion of the Apocryphal books than you've cited for the inclusion of them. If Josephus and the other sources we've cited from Roger Beckwith's book and elsewhere don't represent a majority, then how did the Jewish people get to the point of accepting their present canon that excludes the Apocrypha? Are you suggesting that they previously accepted some or all of the Apocrypha, then stopped doing so? If so, why are we supposed to believe that? If not, then what's your point? Are you suggesting that the evidence doesn't favor either conclusion? If so, that's a ridiculous position to take. If so many Jewish sources refer to the canon as closing prior to the time of the Apocrypha, whereas not nearly as many include one or more of the Apocryphal books, and the large majority of Jews from antiquity until today have excluded the Apocrypha from their canon in practice, the simpler and preferable explanation of the data is that most Jews excluded the Apocrypha during the timeframe in question. It would be much less likely that some shift took place in which a majority in support of the Apocrypha changed into a majority in opposition to it.

You write:

"Transmission of 2000 year old information is not even nearly uniform. That's why they can dig up tons of previously unknown information at Qumran. This is especially so for Judaism which has suffered a number of continuity breaks since 20 centuries ago with limited means and desire to copy obscure sources."

Speculating that the historical record might be distorted doesn't prove that it is. If the record is distorted, we still have to rely on it when researching historical issues like the ones we're discussing. You want to cast doubt on the credibility of the historical record, since the record doesn't support your position on the issue under discussion. But anybody with a losing position in a historical argument could take the approach you're taking. A Gnostic, Mormon, or Roman Catholic could claim that any evidence you cite for Eastern Orthodoxy or against his belief system comes from a distorted historical record. Would you accept that sort of argumentation if it was turned against Eastern Orthodoxy?

You write:

"If you ask Mormons in centuries from now, yep you'll probably turn up things that agree with Mormonism! So if you quote Jewish sources, you'll find things that agree with later Judaism, because that is the material that interests later Judaism."

First of all, Jews weren't the only people who preserved Jewish documents.

Second, Jewish sources aren't the only ones who commented on issues related to Judaism. Many patristic sources, for example, confirm that the Jews of their day excluded the Apocrypha from their canon.

Third, even if we only had Jewish documents that the Jewish people had selectively preserved in some distorting manner, the fact would remain that those would be the documents we have access to. Speculating that there might have been other documents that would support your position, but that the Jewish people didn't preserve those other documents, doesn't give us any reason to think that such documents actually existed. If they did exist, then why didn't the more honest Jews or non-Jewish sources refer to those documents? Or were all Jews dishonest? Were all non-Jews who knew of such documents too apathetic or incompetent to preserve references to those documents?

Fourth, I want to note, once again, that your comparison to Mormonism assumes what needs to be proven. You keep describing scenarios in which a source like Josephus might have been comparable to Mormonism, yet you never give us evidence leading to the conclusion that such sources were comparable to Mormonism. You just speculate that they might have been.

You write:

"Judaism was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple. There is no need for more information than this."

If we have so little information about ancient Judaism, then how do you know that ancient Judaism "was being turned upside down in this period, by Christianity and by the destruction of the temple"? How can you trust the ancient sources who provided you with such information if the historical record is as unreliable as you've been suggesting?

11 comments:

  1. First the claim was that Philo never quotes the apocrypha. Now when I showed that he quoted it, that isn't the issue anymore, the issue is what he considers scripture. Fine, where is Philo's list? There is none, right?

    Then the claim was Aquila, but then I showed that he has no list either, and all the remains of his translation is 2 or 3 books.

    Then the claim is "Josephus refers to twenty-two books, which wouldn't include your Apocrypha". But virtually all the "twenty-two" book lists from antiquity DO include at least some of the apocrypha.

    Now we've got a new argument from Josephus "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"

    1) What is an "exact" succession? That sounds to me exactly like a canon in progress, since there is a succession but the "exact" succession hasn't been agreed on. He doesn't say anything about cessation of prophesy, only a lack of clarity about exact succession leading to less recognition of authority. I don't doubt that books have less authority when the canon is still in formation.

    2) If we are to interpret him as arguing for cessation of prophesy, we certainly know as Christians he was wrong. Even if Jews, even most Jews were making decisions based on this false belief, then that would mean we can't trust their canon since it is based on a false criteria.

    3) Statements about "exact succession" and "like authority" are so completely vague in nature that we have to question whether he is reporting on something people agree on or are certain about. What is "like authority" anyway?

    4) If prophesy ceased after Artaxerxes, that again rules out Esther!

    We're told that my arguments against Esther don't lead to a positive argument for the deuteros.

    Oh but they do, because if protestants are happy to draw a line in the sand at a particular cut off point of time or evidence or arguments, and if both Esther and the deuteros fit within that line, then I've shown there is sufficient evidence for protestants to accept them.

    The problem is, protestants are still stuck in the Jewish fable of a cessation of prophesy and a settled canon in the 1st C. The former is incompatible with Christianity, and the latter is refuted by Jews arguing continuously for nearly another millenium about the canon.



    We're told there is no reason to believe Josephus is just part of one sect (like Mormonism). But we know quite well there were multiple sects. Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots, Qumran, etc etc. And that was before the temple was destroyed and everything became even more confused.

    You can't assume Josephus is an independent voice any more than you could assume that Joseph Smith was an independent voice in Utah. If he was independent then he would be telling us about the Saducees and Qumran and the sects he doesn't associate with. Then we might consider him independent.

    Now where is this supposed majority that you keep claiming? Just claiming a majority doesn't prove a majority. Even if I gave you Josephus that gives you one, and I've cited Simeon Shetah, who being earlier your episemology demands you prefer.

    So far you're running far behind in this "majority".

    ReplyDelete
  2. First the claim was that Philo never quotes the apocrypha. Now when I showed that he quoted it, that isn't the issue anymore, the issue is what he considers scripture. Fine, where is Philo's list? There is none, right?

    You never demonstrated that. You simply said, "Philo was found to quote the Apocrypha." Perhaps I missed where you quoted Philo and demonstrated this assertion.

    You stated:

    Philo quotes from Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon and gave McDonald as a reference.

    1. You fail to note that these connections are debateable at best.

    2. The alleged allusion to Wisdom repeats standard OT formula, and is dependent on the OT. So Philo would be quoting the OT, not Wisdom or Wisdom where it is coincident with the OT canon.

    3. The dating of Wisdom is a problem too.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/wisdom-of-solomon.html

    4. Ecclesiasticus denies its own canonicity. So, why would Philo quote it as canonical?

    Then the claim was Aquila, but then I showed that he has no list either, and all the remains of his translation is 2 or 3 books.

    You made claims about the Talmudists. The Talmud approves Aquila's translation; you'd have to posit that Aquila's canon differed from that approved by the Talmud, and the Talmud lists the canon of the Jews.

    Where's the supporting argument?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And McDonald gives two references, one of which is Beckwith your favourite quote source. So if you won't accept this from Beckwith, why should I accept anything else you push from Beckwith?

    Ecclesiasticus denies its own canonicity. So, why would Philo quote it as canonical?

    No it doesn't. And even if it did the fact that so many Christians and Churches consider it canonical means that a typical human being doesn't seem to see what you see, meaning that your supposition about Philo is groundless unless you prove he is more perceptive than typical.

    The Talmud approves Aquila's translation; you'd have to posit that Aquila's canon differed from that approved by the Talmud, and the Talmud lists the canon of the Jews.

    The Talmud dates from 300 years later. To assume that the Aquila texts actually used by the authors of the Talmud corresponds with the Aquila text of 300 years earlier would be like me assuming that the LXX text of 350 AD corresponds with the form approved by the apostles 300 years earlier. If you want to make these kinds of broad assumptions, I can do it to and it gives me game set and match, because it gives me freedom to assume the LXX canon is apostolic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jimmy,

    If you post again, the first issue you need to address is whether you're the same person who used to post here under the screen name of Orthodox. He was banned from posting here because of his behavior. If you're him, or if you decide to not tell us, your posts will be deleted.

    You write:

    "First the claim was that Philo never quotes the apocrypha. Now when I showed that he quoted it, that isn't the issue anymore, the issue is what he considers scripture. Fine, where is Philo's list? There is none, right?Then the claim was Aquila, but then I showed that he has no list either, and all the remains of his translation is 2 or 3 books. Then the claim is 'Josephus refers to twenty-two books, which wouldn't include your Apocrypha'."

    You're misrepresenting the history of our discussions with you. I didn't cite Philo and Aquila. Steve Hays cited some Jewish sources relevant to the canon, including Philo and Aquila, and you ignored most of what he cited and made some assertions about some of the other sources, often without any documentation. And as we've explained to you many times, a source can give us information about the canon without providing a list of books. Asking for a list from somebody like Aquila or Josephus, as if only a list would be relevant to this discussion, is ridiculous, and you've been corrected on this issue repeatedly. Furthermore, it's misleading to say "Then the claim is" with regard to Josephus, as if Josephus was just recently brought into the discussion. I've been discussing him for a long time, and I repeatedly explained to you how his comments are relevant to the canon without his having listed all of the books of his canon. For you to act as though I hadn't mentioned these things before is absurd. And if you didn't know what I was referring to in Josephus previously, then why are you participating in this discussion? If you're so ignorant of the subject as to be unfamiliar with Josephus' comments against the Apocrypha (much as you didn't know that Jerome and Rufinus included Esther in the canon), then shouldn't you first familiarize yourself with that sort of information? Why are you posting on these issues you know so little about?

    You write:

    "Now we've got a new argument from Josephus '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'"

    Comments like those are part of the reason why I think that you might be Orthodox posting under another screen name. Orthodox would often accuse me of making a "new argument" when I repeated something I had said previously. I would say something three or four times, then Orthodox would respond to it with the claim that I had never said it before. Here's an example of my referencing these comments of Josephus in our previous discussions:

    "He doesn’t have to list every book of the canon in order to make comments relevant to the extent of the canon. He refers to the closing of the canon as predating the Apocrypha, and he refers to widespread agreement about that canon. Neither fact (a pre-Apocrypha closing of the canon and widespread agreement about the canon) favors an Eastern Orthodox canon that includes Apocryphal books." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/history-of-apocrypha.html)

    Why, then, are you claiming that this is a "new argument"?

    You write:

    "What is an 'exact' succession? That sounds to me exactly like a canon in progress, since there is a succession but the 'exact' succession hasn't been agreed on."

    Instead of attempting to read what I quoted from Josephus in a way that's consistent with what you want to believe, why don't you interpret the passage in light of the surrounding context? Perhaps because you've never read the surrounding context? If you had read the larger passage in Josephus, you would know that the interpretation you're proposing above is implausible. Josephus refers to having a particular number of books, without anybody adding to or taking away from those books. For you to ignore those comments made by Josephus, then tell us what impression you get from the phrase "exact succession", is ridiculous. You give us no reason to agree with your impression of that phrase, and your impression contradicts the surrounding context. But did you even read the surrounding context before posting your comments above?

    You write:

    "If we are to interpret him as arguing for cessation of prophesy, we certainly know as Christians he was wrong. Even if Jews, even most Jews were making decisions based on this false belief, then that would mean we can't trust their canon since it is based on a false criteria."

    You're not giving us any reason to agree with your definition of the succession of prophets. Why are we supposed to believe that Josephus meant what you're suggesting? Even if Josephus and the other Jewish sources were wrong in the manner you're suggesting, the fact would remain that the Jewish canon didn't include the Apocryphal books. Similarly, if one church father accepts Hebrews based on Pauline authorship, while another church father rejects Pauline authorship while accepting Hebrews on other grounds, the fact would remain that both sources reflect Christian acceptance of Hebrews as part of the canon. If the Apocryphal books had been widely accepted as part of the canon, why would Josephus refer to a consensus that the canon was closed prior to the time when the Apocryphal books were written? Arguing that some Jews excluded the Apocrypha for a bad reason doesn't change the fact that the Jewish people excluded the Apocrypha.

    You write:

    "Statements about 'exact succession' and 'like authority' are so completely vague in nature that we have to question whether he is reporting on something people agree on or are certain about."

    If most Jews were including the Apocrypha in their canon, Josephus would have been in a position to know it. Objecting that you aren't sure how to interpret some of his terminology doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly states, not just with the terminology you're questioning, that the canon was closed prior to the time of the Apocrypha. He refers to a consensus on the issue. We don't have to know every detail surrounding every phrase he used in order to understand what he said about the timing of the closing of the canon. That timing contradicts your canon.

    You write:

    "If prophesy ceased after Artaxerxes, that again rules out Esther!"

    How so? Again, you need to interact with the material on Esther that we've cited from Beckwith and other sources. You're not giving us any reason to agree with your interpretation of Josephus. Instead, you just assert it.

    You write:

    "The problem is, protestants are still stuck in the Jewish fable of a cessation of prophesy and a settled canon in the 1st C. The former is incompatible with Christianity, and the latter is refuted by Jews arguing continuously for nearly another millenium about the canon."

    You've been corrected on these issues repeatedly. Why would there be a Jewish consensus about a canon excluding the Apocrypha if the Apocrypha was initially accepted by most Jews? If it wasn't initially accepted by most, then you need to give us a justification for accepting the Apocrypha on some other grounds, such as the alleged authority of Eastern Orthodoxy. But you haven't done that. You've been asked to, but have repeatedly failed to do so.

    And, as we've told you many times, the issue isn't universal agreement among the Jews. The issue is what the majority believed. The fact that a book like Ezekiel would sometimes be questioned doesn't prove that it wasn't accepted by the mainstream. If minority disagreements invalidate the majority point of view, then do you accept the same principle with regard to the Eastern Orthodox canon? We've given you examples of Eastern Orthodox who reject the canonicity of the Apocrypha. If the Jewish canon wasn't "settled" in the first century, then should we conclude the same about Eastern Orthodoxy's canon? You make higher claims about Eastern Orthodoxy than we make about first-century Judaism, yet you seem to expect more of first-century Judaism than you expect of Eastern Orthodoxy.

    You write:

    "We're told there is no reason to believe Josephus is just part of one sect (like Mormonism)."

    No, that's not what we've said. You keep misrepresenting our initial discussion about your Mormonism comparison, apparently because you know that you can't defend what you initially argued. If Josephus was a member of a group within Judaism, it doesn't therefore follow that the group in question is as unrepresentative of Judaism as Mormonism is of Christianity. And even if Josephus had belonged to a group comparable to Mormonism, he could still credibly report about what the larger Jewish population believed at the time. You've given us no reason to accept your original comparison to Mormonism. It was a bad comparison. That's why you keep trying to redefine it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the prologue:

    The knowledge of many and great things hath been shewn us by the law, and the prophets, and others that have followed them: for which things Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom, because not only they that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both speaking and writing, may by their means become most learned. My grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books, that were delivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something himself, pertaining to doctrine and wisdom; that such as are desirous to learn, and are made knowing in these things, may be more and more attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the law. I entreat you therefore to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Evergetes was king, and continuing there a long time, I found there books left, of no small nor contemptible learning. Therefore I thought it good, and necessary for me to bestow some diligence and labour to interpret this book; and with much watching and study in some space of time, I brought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them that are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to conduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the law of the Lord.

    ...It appears then,that for this writer there are 3 groups of bookswhich have a unique authority, and that his grandfather wrote only after gaining great familiarity with them, as their interpreter not their rival. The translator explicitly distinguishes "these things" (i.e. Ecclesiasticus) from the Law itself and the Prophets and the rest of the Books. Moreover, he regards even the Hagiographia as "ancestral" books, long enough esteemed to have been translated into Greek, and their number as complete ("the others that have followed in their steps") the other Books of the Fathers, 'the rest of the books.) Andnot only does he state that in his own day there was this 3fold canon, distinguished from all other writings, in which even the Hagiographia formed a closed collection of old books, but he implies this was the case in his grandfather's time also. (Beckwith, OT Canon of the NT, 117)

    You have been arguing for the LXX as Scripture. This book, and its prologue are part of the LXX. So, if Ecclesiaticus is canonical Scripture because of its inclusion in the LXX, this puts you in a bind. You'll have to deny the prologue is canonical, yet its part of the LXX, in order to maintain your position on the canonicity of Ecclesiasticus. But if you do that, that's a tacit admission that not everything in the LXX is canonical.

    Similarly 2 Macabees preface has the author apologizing for certain errors. Are seriously going to argue that such a statement would be found in a book of canonical status. That's completely out of character for inspired Scripture. God does not apologize for any possible errors His Spirit may have inspired.

    Does your theory of inspiration include forgeries. From the standard commentary on Wisdom. We've been over this ground before here:

    “Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.

    “These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.

    Now the book clearly intimates Solomonic authorship. But I don’t think one can seriously contend that Solomon wrote in Greek—especially the kind of Greek we encounter in Wisdom.

    So that would make the work of forgery.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you're him, or if you decide to not tell us, your posts will be deleted.

    So as soon as the challenge gets too much we get this? No, I'm not he, but where are these postings?

    Steve Hays cited some Jewish sources relevant to the canon, including Philo and Aquila, and you ignored most of what he cited and made some assertions about some of the other sources, often without any documentation.

    No I didn't ignore it. I posted the source saying Philo quoted the apocrypha. I stated the fact that since Aquila does not survive it is up to the person making a positive assertion about Aquila to support it. In short I rebutted, documented and asked for documentation of claims but didn't receive it.

    Asking for a list from somebody like Aquila or Josephus, as if only a list would be relevant to this discussion, is ridiculous

    Well you have to show how they support you and not just claim it.

    And if you didn't know what I was referring to in Josephus previously, then why are you participating in this discussion?

    Since few of your claims are documented and you refuse to document, why should this be any different?

    If you're so ignorant of the subject as to be unfamiliar with Josephus' comments against the Apocrypha (much as you didn't know that Jerome and Rufinus included Esther in the canon), then shouldn't you first familiarize yourself with that sort of information?

    I knew about these statements (I wouldn't characterize them as "against" the apocrypha). I don't have to enumerate what I know.

    Why, then, are you claiming that this is a "new argument"?

    How am I supposed to know this undocumented claim refers to that comment by Josephus? Josephus emphatically does not say that the canon is closed in that quote.

    le. Josephus refers to having a particular number of books, without anybody adding to or taking away from those books.

    He says that nobody added or took anything away from the books, not from the list of books. In other words they copied them accurately like Rev 22:18, not adding or taking away.

    If he had meant to say there were no more prophets, he could have said that, or he could have said there was no succession. Instead he says there is non exact succession.

    Even if Josephus and the other Jewish sources were wrong in the manner you're suggesting, the fact would remain that the Jewish canon didn't include the Apocryphal books.

    1) I've demonstrated, and you have I think agreed that the Jews aren't monolithic. Instead you have appealed to an alleged majority.

    2) Therefore, even if we accept your majority theory, if we know this majority were wrong on Christian principles, then we know it was a minority of Jews who held the correct canon.

    If most Jews were including the Apocrypha in their canon, Josephus would have been in a position to know it.

    You assume when he says "Jew" he is willing to include anyone who identifies themself as Jewish and not who he thinks are true Jews keeping the true faith as he sees it.

    Obviously the Jewish Christians don't hold to these 22 books. I've quoted scholars who don't think Qumran kept to 22 books. He must know it is not all Jews he is talking about. He is willing to smooth over or else is ignorant of Jews who do include extra books. That is unless you think the Jews thought the extra book were scripture before him (Simeon Shetah) and after him (whatever Jews informed the Church Fathers), but there is some anomaly right at the time Josephus writes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If you're him, or if you decide to not tell us, your posts will be deleted".

    So as soon as the challenge gets too much we get this?


    Join the club!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jimmy writes:

    "So as soon as the challenge gets too much we get this?"

    No, we "get this" because Orthodox has repeatedly posted after having been banned and because you're acting like him.

    You write:

    "No I didn't ignore it. I posted the source saying Philo quoted the apocrypha. I stated the fact that since Aquila does not survive it is up to the person making a positive assertion about Aquila to support it. In short I rebutted, documented and asked for documentation of claims but didn't receive it."

    Steve's citations from Beckwith, as well as my citation of Beckwith that followed, referenced much more than Philo and Aquila. You ignored most of the sources we referenced, you didn't even attempt to interact with most of the arguments Steve cited with regard to Philo and Aquila, and you criticized Steve for his citation of scholars. You didn't even attempt to interact with his citations of Beckwith, for example, but instead made comments like "Don't run scaredy cat back to some scholars." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/orthoducks-hunting.html) For you to now act as though you've been asking for documentation on these issues, but wasn't given any, is ridiculous. Steve repeatedly gave you references to sources that you didn't consult. If you want him to write out his sources' arguments, so that you don't have to consult the sources yourself, it doesn't therefore follow that he didn't provide any documentation.

    You write:

    "How am I supposed to know this undocumented claim refers to that comment by Josephus? Josephus emphatically does not say that the canon is closed in that quote."

    Josephus says that no books had been added during the time when the Apocrypha was written. He also describes the books without listing all of them. Neither the timing he refers to nor his description of the canon is consistent with your canon. Whether Josephus thought that the canon was closed in the sense of no possibility of future additions isn't the issue. The issue is whether he thought that the Apocrypha had become part of the canon. He didn't.

    You write:

    "He says that nobody added or took anything away from the books, not from the list of books. In other words they copied them accurately like Rev 22:18, not adding or taking away."

    No, Josephus is addressing the number of books. Here's how the section of his work that I cited begins:

    "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" (Against Apion, 1:8)

    Josephus goes on to say that the books addressing Jewish history after Artaxerxes (such as the books of the Maccabees) aren't included. He repeatedly, in multiple ways, contradicts your canon.

    You keep making demonstrably false claims about the sources we're discussing. I would again advise the readers to consult the sources themselves rather than assuming that Jimmy is representing them accurately.

    You write:

    "Therefore, even if we accept your majority theory, if we know this majority were wrong on Christian principles, then we know it was a minority of Jews who held the correct canon."

    Again, you haven't shown that Josephus meant what you claim he meant regarding a succession of prophets. You've made some dubious assertions about what impressions you get from the text and what you think Josephus should have written. You've made no effort to interact with the contrary arguments found in sources like Roger Beckwith and F.F. Bruce. You don't seem to have much familiarity with the issues involved.

    You write:

    "You assume when he says 'Jew' he is willing to include anyone who identifies themself as Jewish and not who he thinks are true Jews keeping the true faith as he sees it."

    Again, how could you make such a ridiculous comment if you had read the passage in Josephus? He doesn't just use the phrase "Jew". And when he does use that term, your suggested definition isn't the more natural way of reading it. We don't normally assume that "Jew" has your suggested meaning. Josephus repeatedly refers to "our nation" and uses other such terms, and he compares the Jewish people to "the Greeks". He's speaking of Jews in general. In the section just before the one I cited, he writes that "we have the names of our high priests from father to son set down in our records for the interval of two thousand years; and if any of these have been transgressors of these rules, they are prohibited to present themselves at the altar, or to be partakers of any other of our purifications". He's not limiting himself to Jews he considers faithful. He's writing in response to criticisms of the Jewish people in general, not just a minority within the nation.

    Regarding Josephus' use of exaggeration concerning how widespread his canon was, see my earlier comments about hyperbole and exaggeration. Josephus' canon wasn't universally accepted. But the fact that he referred to it in such terms is better explained if the canon was held by a large majority than if it was held by a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, we "get this" because Orthodox has repeatedly posted after having been banned and because you're acting like him.

    Hey Jimmy,

    relax, they've said the SAME thing about me also. :-) It's like they seem to have this fixation or obsession with the guy. (Seriously)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually,

    1. Orthodox has posted pseudonymously before.

    2. Which is dishonest.

    3. Given the amount of dishonesty we've seen from him, we have reason to suspect it is.

    4. And Jimmy has, in fact, tipped his hand. He's familiar with the McDonald/Sanders book on the canon. Where else have we seen that discussed within the past month or so? Try Orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com

    Indeed, it's on his front page. Moreover, we can find, nearly verbatim, some of the same observations that article makes within Jimmy's own comments in the comboxes in which he's participated here.
    http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/canon-debate-mcdonald-and-sanders.html

    Orthodox isn't the brightest crayon in the box. He has a nasty habit of trying to hide his identity in defiance of his ban in order to post here while posting the same ideas on his own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gene, two questions:

    -- have You watched Fight Club one too many times?

    -- who taught You this ungraceful habbit of closing comments on posts that attack people? Haven't You heard of the right to a reply? (Well, ... this AND deleting people's comments).

    ReplyDelete