This is my dialog with a Catholic on Youtube about the
Old Testament canon of Scripture.
Me:
The 1st century Jewish historian Josephus recognized as Divinely
authoritative the same Old Testament books that are the protestant
recognized books. Some OT books were grouped together and counted as
one book, such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. When Jesus spoke of
the scriptures, he was referencing those writings understood by the
Jews as divinely authoritative.
Catholic: That's absolutely not true. Josephus is blatantly not
giving a canon list, the entire context of Against Apion is against
Greek historiography and promoting Jewish historiography, hence
"among us there are not thousands of books in disagreement and
conflict with each other, [referring to the Greek historiography] but
only twenty-two books, containing the record of all time, which are
rightly
trusted.”
Catholic:
Why on earth would he suddenly go from talking about Greek history
books to which books were in the inspired canon? And why would he do
this writing something aimed at Greeks? He doesn't even give a list
(the aim of a canon) or name a single book anyway, so citing Josephus
in support of the Protestant OT canon is just to not understand the
source. I could go over it thoroughly but it's just a YouTube
comments section so I'll keep it very brief unless you want further
information. Kind regards, Isaac.
Me: He said there were only 22 books. He recognized a specific set of
writings. The Jews recognized a specific set of writings of certain
divine authority. When Jesus spoke of the "Scriptures,"
there was no debate with him as to what those were. Jesus' reference
to the "law, the prophets, and the psalms" were those
specific books of divine authority recognized by the Jews. Josephus'
recognized count of 22 books is the same as our 39 books.
Me: The Jewish historian Josephus, states:
"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, 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. 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 has been so bold as either
to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any
change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and
from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine
doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to
die for them."
Catholic:
You didn't interact at all with what I said. No Josephus scholar or
scholarly work about Against Apion holds that he is giving or
referring to the canon of Scripture because Against Apion is about
Greek and Jewish histories written with Greeks in mind. Furthermore,
as I said before, he doesn't say which books, so you still don't have
the Protestant canon, which wasn't proposed until over 1,500 years
after Christ. In AA 1.40, he clearly refers to the books the Prophets
wrote in regard to contemporary history (the entire point of AA) and
there are exactly 22 of those books. The phrase "to be divine"
are not part of Josephus writings, this was a very poor translation
by William Whiston and no translation of Against Apion after 1900
until modern day includes those words or the concept of writings
being divine. The idea that Josephus is referring to the Old
Testament canon is a great example of eisegesis and taking a portion
of a wider text without being familiar with the full text. Also, you
said "the Jews recognised", which is immediately a red
flag. There was absolutely no consensus on the canon or one unified
canon until well after Jesus, and there was wide debate about some
Protocanon and Deuterocanonical books in the centuries following
Jesus.
Me:
I'm confident that neither will be persuaded by what the other will
say--though you have corrected me on at least one issue, and I had to
go back and look at a book I read about 40 years ago on Inspiration
and Canonicity of the Bible (by R. Laird Harris, an Old Testament
Scholar).
I
will respond to a few complaints you made.
You
said, "The phrase "to be divine" are not part of
Josephus writings." I looked at a Greek text of Josephus
online, and could not find a Greek word that could have been
translated as such, so thanks for pointing that out. The Greek text
I used was here:
http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=josephus/Apion-Gk1
You
said, "No Josephus scholar or scholarly work about Against Apion
holds that he is giving or referring to the canon of Scripture
because Against Apion..." I can't verify that, but I'll take
your word for it.
I
am looking at what Josephus said and how it fits with what Jesus said
in Luke 24:44-45 concerning a 3-fold classification of "Scripture."
Both Josephus and Jesus were first century Jews. Jesus used the
word "Scripture" quite often, and he appealed to its
authority. He quoted from many of the Old Testament books and called
them the "Law," the "prophets," and the "Psalms,"
and Jesus would appeal to what was written by Moses, or the Prophets,
or a particular prophet, or "Scripture." We are even told
in the book of Acts that the apostle Paul went into the synagogues
and "reasoned with them [Jews] from the Scriptures" that
the Christ had to suffer and rise again, and that Jesus was the
Christ, Acts 17.1-4. There definitely were Hebrew writings that were
recognized as Scripture by the first century Jews of Jesus', Paul's,
and Josephus' day.
You
said, "There was absolutely no consensus on the canon or one
unified canon until well after Jesus." But how could Jesus
appeal to their authority or Paul reason from them with the Jews if
the Jews didn't know which were the Scriptures? How could Jesus say
that the "Scriptures" can't be "broken"
(John10.30) or must be "fulfilled" (Matthew26.5; Mark14.4;
Luke24.4) if they didn't know what they were? It appears to me from
Scripture itself that these first century Jews knew what the
Scriptures were, even if some did not--but they would have been
wrong. It would be no different than with the case of the Sadducees
who said that there was no resurrection, but Jesus said that they
were deceived and did not know the Scriptures, Matthew22.29.
You
asked, "Why on earth would he suddenly go from talking about
Greek history books to which books were in the inspired canon? "
It sounds to me like he was boasting, took pride, about the
superiority of these particular writings compared to the Greek
writings. For he makes this claim: "We do not have thousands of
discordant and conflicting books, but only 22..." This was
copied from http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=josephus/Apion-Gk1
Josephus
speaks of how those particular 22 books were highly esteemed by the
Jews by their belief about and handling of them: ""042 How
firmly we trust in these books of ours is proven by what we do, for
in the many ages that have passed, nobody has dared either to add
anything to them, or take anything from them, or make any change in
them. From their earliest childhood, all Jews believe that these
books contain the very decrees of God, and hold firmly to them, and,
if necessary, will gladly die for them. 043 Many captives have endure
racks and all kinds of death in the theatres, rather than say a
single word against our laws and the records that contain them. 044
But who among the Greeks would suffer for theirs? They would rather
let all their writings be destroyed than suffer any harm, ..."
This was copied from
http://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=josephus/Apion-Gk1
You
said, "He doesn't even give a list (the aim of a canon) or name
a single book anyway." It's true, Josephus did not
specifically name the books, but he does give a 3-fold classification
being the 5 books of Moses, 13 books by the prophets, and 4 books of
hymns to God and precepts for human living. This looks the same as
the 3-fold classification Jesus gave for the Scriptures: "44
Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you
while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which
were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms
concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they
might comprehend the Scriptures." Luke 24:44-45
The
determining factor for canonicity would be if the writings had divine
authority, and that authority would be determined if they were
written by prophets of God. Moses was a prophet from which we have 5
books (Genesis through Deuteronomy), and then the prophets who wrote
the 13 books (according to Josephus' count) were prophets, and if the
hymns of God and precepts for human living were Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and the song of Solomon, then they too were written by
prophets of God. This would be why Josephus limited it to 22 books
and between the time frame of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes (5th
century BC), because, as he said, "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."
R.
Laird Harris points out in his book on Inspiration and Canonicity of
the Bible that Josephus, according to his autobiography, was given
the sacred scrolls by Titus after the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple, so he would have been in a position to know the books
and their order.
Harris
also lists the number of books in the canon by others: Eusebius said
there were 22 Hebrew books in the canon. Jerome said 22 or 24.
Origen said 22. Tertullian said 24. Melito said 22. The Talmud 24.
If you join certain books, you can get a different count, for
example, if you join Lamentations to Jeremiah or Ruth to Judges. So
there was some flexibility as to the count being 22 or 24, depending
on the grouping, and there could be flexibility as to grouping in 2
categories (the Law and the prophets, see Matthew7.12) or 3 (the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms). But there were these counts given of
22 or 24, just like Josephus giving a specific number of 22.
In
conclusion, it is evident that Josephus is referencing a specific
collection of writings that were esteemed by the Jews of Divine
authority--as he boasted about concerning their treatment by the Jews
in contrast to the Greeks' attitude towards their histories--limiting
them to those writings that were written by prophets within a certain
time frame, from Moses to Artaxerxes in the 5th century. Concerning
the 13 books written by prophets, since we know the writings of Moses
(5 books) and I listed the other 4 books, they would have been
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel (1 and 2 combined), Kings (1 and 2 and 1
and 2 Chronicles), Ezra (and Nehemiah), Esther, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah
(with Lamentations), Ezekiel, Daniel, and final the Twelve ( the 12
minor prophets). So, 22 books, of which Josephus said: "From
their earliest childhood, all Jews believe that these books contain
the very decrees of God, and hold firmly to them, and, if necessary,
will gladly die for them."
