Apocrypha and the "intertestimental gap" between OT and NT

[BobRyan]

Are you saying that the Hebrew Scrolls were kept in the Temple that was destroyed by the Romans as prophesied by Jesus? That Temple?

Yes - the one God commanded them to build under Ezra and and Nehemiah.

You don't know what was contained in those Scrolls to be honest with you

I was not alive in the first century but Jesus was and Josephus was. So when Josephus reminds his first century readers that the Hebrew Bible was in the Temple and unchanged for over 300 years - we have a better "source" for that info -- than if you or I started making stuff up here in 2022.

Josephus if I remember correctly refers to the 22 scrolls of Scripture, since the Jews at that time in Palestine were still using Scrolls not Codexes.

Their grouping was different but the content is still the same as what we have in the OT.

What does that have to do with what is being discussed.

You mentioned that the Pharisees had a canon of scripture like our OT - so I was simply posting in agreement that Jesus Himself sided with the Pharisees on doctrine and the Bible as did Paul who said that even after so many years as a Christian "I AM a Pharisee'.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 22 we see that Jesus sided with the Pharisees.

In Acts 23:6 - Paul declares that even so many years after accepting Christ "I AM a Pharisee" and the Pharisee's response to him was "we find no fault with this man".

This is consistent with the NT references to "scripture" where the Jews and the Christians are using terms like "scripture" and "all of scripture".

Not true in the case of Jesus in Mark 7:6-13,
Not true in the case of Jesus' disciples in Luke 24:27,45
Not true in the case of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:2, Acts 18:28, Rom 1:2


Acts 18:28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.

Paul as the text above shows is referencing "the scriptures" using the definition that the Jews also accepted for that same term. We see it again in Acts 17:11 - where "the scriptures" is a term that even non-Christian Bible students understood and accepted.

Bob, even Protestant scholars no longer toe that line any longer. You need to look up a list of quotes and/or references from these Sacred books. There are some on line I would imagine.

It's in the Bible which is the point that remains no matter that a liberal group here or there rejects scripture on some point.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Trivia question: What does the canonical New Testament refer to "non-Hellenistic Jewish Scholarship" of 90 AD as?

It's worth also noting that there was no such thing as "the Council of Jamnia". Jamnia was, for a time, the center of Jewish rabbinical learning after the fall of the Temple, but there was no such thing as a Jewish council which determined the Tanakh. No evidence for this exists anywhere in the historical record--it exists purely as conjecture.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Erose]

Yes - the one God commanded them to build under Ezra and and Nehemiah.

So that Temple was completely destroyed in 70AD. If there was a set of Hebrew Scripture that were 300 years old within that Temple we no longer have them. So again you have no clue what was there, and no one else does as well.

I’m curious where in Josephus’ writings is this 300 years claim located?

I was not alive in the first century but Jesus was and Josephus was. So when Josephus reminds his first century readers that the Hebrew Bible was in the Temple and unchanged for over 300 years - we have a better "source" for that info -- than if you or I started making stuff up here in 2022.

Josephus claims that there were 22 scrolls that were within the Jewish canon 5 of Moses, 13 of the Prophets and 4 of the Writings. That leaves what 9 writings that are unaccounted for in the Writings. So, Josephus does not outline what exact writings are in what scroll, so this leaves us with a ton of speculation.

Their grouping was different but the content is still the same as what we have in the OT.

Again you don’t know that. There is no evidence whatsoever that you can go to for confirmation.

You mentioned that the Pharisees had a canon of scripture like our OT - so I was simply posting in agreement that Jesus Himself sided with the Pharisees on doctrine and the Bible as did Paul who said that even after so many years as a Christian "I AM a Pharisee'.

. Our Lord Jesus sided with the Pharisees when they were correct about something. When they were not, He called them out. If Jesus and the Pharisees where lock step doctrinally then the Pharisees would not have conspired with the Sadducee’s and Herodians to have Jesus killed. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Josephus does not argue "I myself view the Hebrew canon as fixed and unchanged for 300+ years" -- rather he points out the historic fact that the Hebrew canon had been kept in the temple unchanged for that length of time.

"fact"?
It is a claim, not a fact. Just a claim that is not substantiated by any evidence beyond the word of Josephus' book.

 

[BobRyan]

The temple God ordained - Yes - the one God commanded them to build under Ezra and and Nehemiah is the one that Josephus is talking about in the first century A.D.

So that Temple was completely destroyed in 70AD. If there was a set of Hebrew Scripture that were 300 years old within that Temple we no longer have them.

Manuscripts are funny that way -- they get copied over time.
Josephus is writing after 70 A.D. and pointing out that they still affirm that same canon of scripture. The point remains.

I’m curious where in Josephus’ writings is this 300 years claim located?

"We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

"And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609).​

There are at least four important things can be derived from this statement of Josephus.

1. Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scripture, as had the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and Philo.
2. He limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two. This would be the same as the current twenty-four – Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentation attached to Jeremiah.
3. He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament.
   We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule. The Bible says:

Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of the king (Ezra 7:8).
Nehemiah came in his twentieth year:

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before (Nehemiah 2:1).

Therefore the last canonical books were composed in this period.

1. Between the time of Malachi and Josephus’ writing (425 B.C. to A.D. 90) no additional material were added to the canon of Scripture. Consequently there was the notion of a long period of time without a divinely authoritative Word from God.

 

[BobRyan]

"fact"?
It is a claim, not a fact. Just a claim that is not substantiated by any evidence beyond the word of Josephus' book.

We call that evidence in history - the work of a first century historian about current conditions on the ground in his day -- as opposed to a 21'st century comment on a discussion board.

And so do you also argue that now after so many centuries the Jews "still just so happen to agree with Josephus" on the content of the Hebrew Bible? seriously?

 

[HTacianas]

It's worth also noting that there was no such thing as "the Council of Jamnia". Jamnia was, for a time, the center of Jewish rabbinical learning after the fall of the Temple, but there was no such thing as a Jewish council which determined the Tanakh. No evidence for this exists anywhere in the historical record--it exists purely as conjecture.

-CryptoLutheran

You're right that there likely was no "Council of Jamnia" per se. But after the destruction of the temple there was some group or groups who made basically the same decision as a Council of Jamnia would have made and thus began Rabbinic Judaism. But note that prior to the destruction of the temple someone somewhere at some time compiled the Septuagint. So prior to the destruction of the temple there was a body of acceptable books then after its destruction there was a different body of acceptable books.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We call that evidence in history - the work of a first century historian about current conditions on the ground in his day

It is called a claim, it can be used as evidence yet it is the only evidence of this specific claim is it not? That is to say, Josephus alone makes this claim and no one else in antiquity offers anything to support his claim.

 

[Arctangent]

It's worth also noting that there was no such thing as "the Council of Jamnia". Jamnia was, for a time, the center of Jewish rabbinical learning after the fall of the Temple, but there was no such thing as a Jewish council which determined the Tanakh. No evidence for this exists anywhere in the historical record--it exists purely as conjecture.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree. It was an influential center of Jewish thought, and after the fall of Jerusalem, their standards became everyone else's standards.

 

[BobRyan]

It is called a claim, .

some may choose to take first century historians reporting on historic fact well-known to his own first century contemporaries - and cast it as "a claim" such that it also "just so happens" that the same Hebrew Bible affirmed by Josephus and kept by the Jews in the temple is what the Jews still use, is what the Pharisees 2000 years ago admitted to - and is what the Protestants and the Vulgate translator "Jerome" all "just so happen" to all agree on...

Or as you say -- "a claim"..

Ok well that demonstrates that everyone has free will and can choose as they wish.

My objective is to present the facts - and let people decide for themselves. I am not trying "decide for someone else"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

some may choose to take first century historians reporting on historic fact well-known to his own first century contemporaries

If it were well known then it would be widely reported but it isn't so it wasn't.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree. It was an influential center of Jewish thought, and after the fall of Jerusalem, their standards became everyone else's standards.

They did not become the Christian standards because they ruled out ALL of the Christian books. Which is why the Christians developed a different canon including Septuagint and NT.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Paul as the text above shows is referencing "the scriptures" using the definition that the Jews also accepted for that same term. We see it again in Acts 17:11 - where "the scriptures" is a term that even non-Christian Bible students understood and accepted.

Which Jews? Sadducees, who accepted only Torah? Essenes? Alexandrian Jews with the Septuagint text? You make it sound like a done deal. It became a done deal when those messianics were kicked out of the synagogues and a pure canon was established which excluded every mention of Jesus. Why should I follow that canon? How do they have any authority over me?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is "not true" that NT saints were unwilling to accept as "scriptures" that which the Jews of their day called "scriptures".

It is "not true" that the Bible shows them as waiting a few centuries for a more catholic symposium/council to convene so they could be informed as to what the term "all the scriptures" means when it comes to the OT.



yes you are correct -- and also Paul as the text above show them all referencing "the scriptures" using the definition that the Jews also accepted for that same term. We see it again in Acts 17:11 - where "the scriptures" is a term that even non-Christian Bible students understood and accepted.

Which definition of Scriptures? The Sadducee definition? The Essene definition? The Pharisees ‘won’ but only by shutting down every dissent including expelling the Christians from Judaism. With the new Jewish canon you get the exclusion of Christians from Judaism. They didn’t want to have anything to do with us. So why should we follow their canon?

 

[Arctangent]

They did not become the Christian standards because they ruled out ALL of the Christian books. Which is why the Christians developed a different canon including Septuagint and NT.

That is correct, and I worded that poorly.
I meant that it was influential in Judaism and became the standard for the Jews.

 

[Arctangent]

They did not become the Christian standards because they ruled out ALL of the Christian books. Which is why the Christians developed a different canon including Septuagint and NT.

That is correct, and I worded that poorly.
I meant that it was influential in Judaism and became the standard for the Jews.

I will never suggest that post-Apostolic non-Christians have any say in what is or isn't the Christian faith.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is correct, and I worded that poorly.
I meant that it was influential in Judaism and became the standard for the Jews.

Ok. That is true. My point is in doing so they also excluded every book of the NT. They engineered a split and kicked us out. So WHY should we follow their canon?

 

[Arctangent]

Ok. That is true. My point is in doing so they also excluded every book of the NT. They engineered a split and kicked us out. So WHY should we follow their canon?

Yes. Judaism evolved over the following several centuries in response to and in reaction against Christianity, and became defined to a large extent by their rejection of Christianity, and their canon reflects that.

 

[BobRyan]

Which definition of Scriptures? The Sadducee definition? The Essene definition? The Pharisees ‘won’ but only by shutting down every dissent including expelling the Christians from Judaism.

Apparently the NT writers and contemporaries had absolutely no such confusion. We see them using the term "all of scripture" and "the scriptures" repeatedly without any reference to "of course we don't actually know what that is" - as we just saw in post #42.

in the case of Jesus in Mark 7:6-13, Matt 22:29
in the case of Jesus' disciples in Luke 24:27,45
in the case of Paul in 2 Tim 3:16 and Acts 17:2, Acts 18:28, Rom 1:2


Acts 18:28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
Paul as the text above shows is referencing "the scriptures" using the definition that the Jews also accepted for that same term. We see it again in Acts 17:11 - where "the scriptures" is a term that even non-Christian Bible students understood and accepted.