Josephus against apion

[sambos671]

I’m wondering about this quote from Josephus against the apocrypha or the DC inclusion into the OT what is the reasoning to include them if this is the case?

“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, … only 22 books. which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be Divine;…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;…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 anything to them, or to make any change in them.” (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8)

 

[cfrancis]

I’m wondering about this quote from Josephus against the apocrypha or the DC inclusion into the OT what is the reasoning to include them if this is the case?

First, any time you see an excerpt with ellipses, you need two things:

1. source citation (hopefully, with a link)
2. the stuff edited out of the excerpt

Here’s a link to the work: Against Apion, Bk 1
Here’s the section; actually, I begin in section 7:

1. …But what is the strongest argument of our exact management in this matter is what I am now going to say, 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; and this is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also.

1. 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. **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. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, 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; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.

If someone is passing this off as proof against the deuterocanonicals, they need to present how that is to be done based upon this work.

 

[sambos671]

Thanks for the whole quote but I’m still stuck that it seems to be against inclusion of the DC. How do you argue for the inclusion of it?

 

[cfrancis]

Thanks for the whole quote but I’m still stuck that it seems to be against inclusion of the DC. How do you argue for the inclusion of it?

Would you please articulate as to how one comes to the conclusion the section given speaks against the deuterocanonicals?

 

[sambos671]

Would you please articulate as to how one comes to the conclusion the section given speaks against the deuterocanonicals?

yes Particularily this section

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. 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,

It seems to say the 22 books are accepted and books after Artexerxis are not as authoritative nor considered equal. am I wrong?

 

[cfrancis]

It seems to say the 22 books are accepted and books after Artexerxis are not as authoritative nor considered equal. am I wrong?

OK - which 22 books?
Also, given the Jew/Greek distinction in the writing, there should be no surprise in a difference of canon.

 

[sambos671]

OK - which 22 books?
Also, given the Jew/Greek distinction in the writing, there should be no surprise in a difference of canon.

Well, the Jews for the most part hold to the Tanakh which are all the books up to Malachi but organized differently than the Greeks system. Greek writings should be obviously as those from Alexandria ie the DC.

 

[cfrancis]

Well, the Jews for the most part hold to the Tanakh which are all the books up to Malachi but organized differently than the Greeks system. Greek writings should be obviously as those from Alexandria ie the DC.

So, are Josephus’ remarks a surprise?
The next question to ask would be, which canon do you accept as authoritative for Christians?

 

[sambos671]

So, are Josephus’ remarks a surprise?
The next question to ask would be, which canon do you accept as authoritative for Christians?

It seems that there is no question to the 39 books of the OT the question is the DC should they be included as canon and why? Most will state that the OT wasn’t closed by the time of Jesus but Josephus seems to indicate that it was and if that is the case then why include the DC as authoritative rather than interesting?

 

[cfrancis]

It seems that there is no question to the 39 books of the OT the question is the DC should they be included as canon and why? Most will state that the OT wasn’t closed by the time of Jesus but Josephus seems to indicate that it was and if that is the case then why include the DC as authoritative rather than interesting?

Josephus speaks of two camps: Greek and, what should we call it…Hebrew?
He speaks of a more inclusive Greek canon, and a restricted Hebrew canon (he makes no mention of a “closed” canon, or a closing of the canon).

 

[sambos671]

Josephus speaks of two camps: Greek and, what should we call it…Hebrew?
He speaks of a more inclusive Greek canon, and a restricted Hebrew canon (he makes no mention of a “closed” canon, or a closing of the canon).

Sure but if the Hebrew canon was convention in his day then it seems that Jesus being a rabbi may have held to that convention. The convention holding out the DC as excluded. He does not quote or refer to the DC in any of his discources. The only real substantive use of the DC in the NT seems to be in Hebrews 11.

 

[utunumsint]

Sure but if the Hebrew canon was convention in his day then it seems that Jesus being a rabbi may have held to that convention. The convention holding out the DC as excluded. He does not quote or refer to the DC in any of his discources. The only real substantive use of the DC in the NT seems to be in Hebrews 11.

But the very fact that Josephus is mentioning this point means there was a debate over this issue, as the council of Jamnia in 70 AD after the destruction of the temple testifies. Josephus was also writing his works after the destruction of the temple, after the Jewish nation had been destroyed. We cannot just assume that Josephus’ attitude concerning the Greek cannon applied to the time of Jesus. In fact, based on the council, you can deduce that it was against the groups like the Christians who were using the Greek cannon that this council was directed against.

God bless,
Ut

 

[cfrancis]

Sure but if the Hebrew canon was convention in his day then it seems that Jesus being a rabbi may have held to that convention. The convention holding out the DC as excluded. He does not quote or refer to the DC in any of his discources. The only real substantive use of the DC in the NT seems to be in Hebrews 11.

Based on what we know, he probably wrote from Rome; he definitely wrote about 35-40 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, during the rise of Christianity. We may surmise he was not a supporter of this new “sect”.
Nothing from Josephus’ writing mentions what would have been the convention in Judea during Christ’s lifetime (some 35-40 years prior). The Hebrew canon may have been convention for Roman Jews when Josephus wrote, but says nothing about what Christians in Rome used.
The ‘not quoting’ argument is spurious, as it excludes at least 5 OT books from the Hebrew canon.

 

[sambos671]

Based on what we know, he probably wrote from Rome; he definitely wrote about 35-40 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, during the rise of Christianity. We may surmise he was not a supporter of this new “sect”.
Nothing from Josephus’ writing mentions what would have been the convention in Judea during Christ’s lifetime (some 35-40 years prior). The Hebrew canon may have been convention for Roman Jews when Josephus wrote, but says nothing about what Christians in Rome used.
The ‘not quoting’ argument is spurious, as it excludes at least 5 OT books from the Hebrew canon.

This is true but that would mean that while in Rome Josephus had information that allowed him to know and accept the Jamnia Council and apart from this supposition there are no other connections with Josephus to Jamnia. Is it possible that Christianity became overwhelmingly under Greek influence since it spread out from Judea during Vespasian assult on Jersusalem and the Alexandrian Jewish thought highly connect to greek especially if you read Philo. I mean would it necissarily become a Greek church and took on Greek views rather than the original Hebrew? Where Josephus may have held to original Hebrew views?

 

[utunumsint]

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was earth shattering for Jewish and Christian culture. The Jews that remained became less and less tolerant of all that was not explicitly Jewish, and for that matter, Hebrew…and they had to be. They needed to do this to protect their sense of identity, and to differentiate themselves on all the new Jewish sects that were emergine, including the Christians.

This was a very different environment than the one that Jesus lived in.

God bless,
Ut

 

[cfrancis]

This is true but that would mean that while in Rome Josephus had information that allowed him to know and accept the Jamnia Council and apart from this supposition there are no other connections with Josephus to Jamnia.

Not necessarily. Josephus can make his statement (recall, he does not mention a closed canon, only a restricted canon) without knowledge of Jamnia, as he’s juxtaposing the Hebrew and Greek canons. If he had known of Jamnia, he could easily have said the Hebrew canon was settled, closed.
His statement clearly reveals competing canons, without providing information on the regions associated with each.

Is it possible that Christianity became overwhelmingly under Greek influence since it spread out from Judea during Vespasian assult on Jersusalem and the Alexandrian Jewish thought highly connect to greek especially if you read Philo. I mean would it necissarily become a Greek church and took on Greek views rather than the original Hebrew? Where Josephus may have held to original Hebrew views?

Possible. Many of the OT quotes in the NT are from a Greek OT; and the writing of the epistles in Greek reveal Greek has the lingua franca of the day for the area.

 

[utunumsint]

This is true but that would mean that while in Rome Josephus had information that allowed him to know and accept the Jamnia Council and apart from this supposition there are no other connections with Josephus to Jamnia. Is it possible that Christianity became overwhelmingly under Greek influence since it spread out from Judea during Vespasian assult on Jersusalem and the Alexandrian Jewish thought highly connect to greek especially if you read Philo. I mean would it necissarily become a Greek church and took on Greek views rather than the original Hebrew? Where Josephus may have held to original Hebrew views?

The pressures against Jewish cultural identity that affected those at Jamnia would have been just as powerful against Josephus. In fact, probably more so since Josephus had to live in a very pagan environment.

I agree that the church became more and more Greek in influence, especially since the Jewish converts quickly became outnumbered by Gentile converts, thus necessitating the council of Jerusalem under the apostles concerning specifically Jewish customs. How the Christian church dealt with Greek cultural pressures after the destruction of the temple was very different than what Jamnia decided.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

This is true but that would mean that while in Rome Josephus had information that allowed him to know and accept the Jamnia Council and apart from this supposition there are no other connections with Josephus to Jamnia.

It should be noted that Josephus had good connections to the home land. Specifically, Agrippa II, the king of Isreal edited his histories. Agrippa would have had intimate knowledge of Jamnia, or any other kind of conservative move among the Jewish people of the day.

God bless,
Ut