P
patrick457
Guest
(continued)
Yeshua ben-Sira (Joshua/Jesus son of Sirach), the author of the book of Sirach, had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets.
His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel, and Job, suggesting that he either did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira’s work, his grandson, dated at 132 B.C., mentions both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi’im), as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim, the “Writings” (the prologue simply identifies “the rest of the books”). Based on this evidence, some scholars have suggested that by the 2nd century BC the books of the Torah and Nevi’im were considered canonical, but that the books of the Ketuvim were not.
A bit later, by the time the Septuagint was produced (3rd to 1st century BC), the Torah and Nevi’im are already established as canonical, but, the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet. For instance, some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I–IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras. The authority of the larger group of writings, out of which the Ketuvim were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as the Book of Enoch or Jubilees or others. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the Law and the Prophets.
The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus even ascribed divine inspiration to its authors, early Christians quoted from it, and many early translations of the Bible used this as their source. While Jews have not used the Septuagint in worship or religious study since the 2nd century AD (due to various factors), recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in some cases, these newly found texts accord with the Septuagint.
The Dead Sea scrolls refer to the Torah and Nevi’im (the Prophets) and suggest that these portions of the Bible had already been canonized before 68 AD. A scroll that contains all or parts of 41 Biblical psalms, although not in the same order as in the current Book of Psalms, and which includes eight texts not found in the Book of Psalms, suggests that the Book of Psalms had not yet been canonized in the form that we know today.
At the time of Jesus, there was still no definitive “canon” among many Jews. Different Jewish sects used different canons; for example, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah and believed in a literal interpretation of it, while the Pharisees accepted some more, while other communities may have accepted further. Philo discussed sacred books, but made no mention of a tripartite division of the Bible; he almost always exclusively quoted from the Torah, but also occasionally cited Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The Mishna, compiled by the second century, describes some of the debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular whether or not they render the hands “impure”. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to the debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta’anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, this view increasingly came into question.
Rabbi Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud and the midrashim.
Yeshua ben-Sira (Joshua/Jesus son of Sirach), the author of the book of Sirach, had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets.
His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel, and Job, suggesting that he either did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sira’s work, his grandson, dated at 132 B.C., mentions both the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Nevi’im), as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim, the “Writings” (the prologue simply identifies “the rest of the books”). Based on this evidence, some scholars have suggested that by the 2nd century BC the books of the Torah and Nevi’im were considered canonical, but that the books of the Ketuvim were not.
A bit later, by the time the Septuagint was produced (3rd to 1st century BC), the Torah and Nevi’im are already established as canonical, but, the Ketuvim appear not to have been definitively canonized yet. For instance, some editions of the Septuagint include, for instance I–IV Maccabees or the 151st Psalm, while others do not include them, also there are the Septuagint additions to Esther, Jeremiah, and Daniel and 1 Esdras. The authority of the larger group of writings, out of which the Ketuvim were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as the Book of Enoch or Jubilees or others. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the Law and the Prophets.
The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus even ascribed divine inspiration to its authors, early Christians quoted from it, and many early translations of the Bible used this as their source. While Jews have not used the Septuagint in worship or religious study since the 2nd century AD (due to various factors), recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in some cases, these newly found texts accord with the Septuagint.
The Dead Sea scrolls refer to the Torah and Nevi’im (the Prophets) and suggest that these portions of the Bible had already been canonized before 68 AD. A scroll that contains all or parts of 41 Biblical psalms, although not in the same order as in the current Book of Psalms, and which includes eight texts not found in the Book of Psalms, suggests that the Book of Psalms had not yet been canonized in the form that we know today.
At the time of Jesus, there was still no definitive “canon” among many Jews. Different Jewish sects used different canons; for example, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah and believed in a literal interpretation of it, while the Pharisees accepted some more, while other communities may have accepted further. Philo discussed sacred books, but made no mention of a tripartite division of the Bible; he almost always exclusively quoted from the Torah, but also occasionally cited Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon.
The Mishna, compiled by the second century, describes some of the debate over the status of some books of Ketuvim, and in particular whether or not they render the hands “impure”. Yadaim 3:5 calls attention to the debate over Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Megillat Ta’anit, in a discussion of days when fasting is prohibited but that are not noted in the Bible, mentions the holiday of Purim. Based on these, and a few similar references, Heinrich Graetz concluded in 1871 that there had been a Council of Jamnia (or Yavne in Hebrew) which had decided Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century (c. 70–90). This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, this view increasingly came into question.
Rabbi Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a notion of Torah was expanded to include the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud and the midrashim.
T_Study.pdf