Question about Josephus

[Humble_Pie]

This is an offshoot of several current threads.

Whenever questions of canonicity come up, supports of a 66 book Bible usually envoke Josephus or Philo as proof of a shorter OT.

My question is this: What’s the fascination with Josephus? Is it a relationship of convenience (it happens to support their conclusions) or is there an inherant value to Josephus’ opinions?

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why the opinion of a man who clearly rejected the Divinity of Christ (and subsequently any NT books) would hold so much water for some people, whereas the opinion of the Catholic Church is utterly rejected.

Can someone shed some light on this?

 

[Hecares]

The fact that Josephus was not a follower or even a believer gives more credulity to his reports. He wrote historical fact as he saw it. He provides a non-biblical reference to Jesus and to historical events of that era.

 

[Humble_Pie]

The fact that Josephus was not a follower or even a believer gives more credulity to his reports. He wrote historical fact as he saw it. He provides a non-biblical reference to Jesus and to historical events of that era.

What do you mean by “more credulity”?

My specific question is regarding his assumed rejection of the deuterocanonical text. Why is Josephus’ opinion relevant?

 

[Waiting]

What do you mean by “more credulity”?

My specific question is regarding his assumed rejection of the deuterocanonical text. Why is Josephus’ opinion relevant?

As Humble Pie said, Josephus, a historian, is believeable to everyone, since he is not promoting a cause, but speaking objectively about a fact of history.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m guessing because some Protestants feel they can justify their shorter canon by appealing to “someone” who they feel could be interpreted as saying a shorter OT canon was closed prior to Christ. This requires reading into his statement: “It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time.” From this, some try to deduce something to the effect of “See, he says there hasn’t been an exact succession since the time of Artaxerxes, therefore all those Deuterocanonical books that came later are not by prophets!” (reference from columbia.edu)

The problem with this reasoning seems to be multi-fold.

1. 
   *]“like authority” and “exact succession” are imprecise terms. Was there another pedigree of authority to the Deuterocanonical books such as that espoused by such ECFs as Athanasius who still considered the books as divinely inspired?
   *]Josephus’ canon did not include Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs which Protestant as well as Jewish canons do today.
   *]The rationale for absolutizing Josephus is specious. Why would his statement trump the books of the Septuagint, copies of which included the Deuterocanonical books?
   *]The argument also does not address the longer Ethiopian Jewish canon which is longer. Why would the Palestinian canon trump those of Jews who were in the diaspora?
   
   I don’t have it with me, but Gary Michuta discusses with some length this argument in the book Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger.

 

[EricFilmer]

This is an offshoot of several current threads.

Whenever questions of canonicity come up, supports of a 66 book Bible usually envoke Josephus or Philo as proof of a shorter OT.

My question is this: What’s the fascination with Josephus? Is it a relationship of convenience (it happens to support their conclusions) or is there an inherant value to Josephus’ opinions?

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why the opinion of a man who clearly rejected the Divinity of Christ (and subsequently any NT books) would hold so much water for some people, whereas the opinion of the Catholic Church is utterly rejected.

Can someone shed some light on this?

Due to the Jewish War of the 1st Century (and the resulting destruction), we don’t have many historical records surviving from that period. From a historical perspective, Josephus is greatly prized in that he was an eye-witness of the Jewish War (I think he fought in it as a general) and other 1st Century events. He wrote lengthy accounts of these things, and they have survived down through the ages.

But there is a problem with using Josephus in an attempt to say that the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament are not inspired. Being a Jew, Josephus would say the same thing about the entire New Testament. So how far does a Christian want to take his opinion?

Those who want to discredit the Deuterocanon usually try to make the argument that the ancient Jews did not truly consider it inspired, and that we should go with what the Jews taught (at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned). But in truth there was no universal agreement among the ancient Jews as to how one determined whether or not a certain text was divinely inspired (the Sadducees, for example, only accepted the five books that comprised the Torah, while other Jews accepted the books of the prophets in addition to the Torah). It was not until the end of the 1st Century that the Jews tried to foster some sort of universal standard of agreement regarding inspired text. If I recall correctly, one of the requirements was for a book to have its origins in the Hebrew language, and the Deuterocanonical Books were originally penned in Greek.

And whereas I am interested in what Jews have to say about Sacred Scripture, I am more interested in what the Holy Spirit has to say. And within the context of the ecumenical councils of Carthage and Hippo, the Holy Spirit told us what books to put into the Bible, and that list included the Deuterocanon.

 

[Big_Ro]

I think that the reason that Josephus is so often used as a historical reference for this time period is because it’s one of the very few we have. However, to say that Josephus was without bias is, IMHO, utterly wrong. To suggest that any historical writer of this period was writing an objective, “Just the Facts”, type of history in in my mind preposterous. This concept of historical writing is a very, very recent development and, again, IMHO, a farce. All historical writing has a bias regardless of how deeply buried. We tend to view historical accounts with a juandiced eye. Those accounts that tend to uphold our own biases are considered true and accurate. Those that do not are suspect and assumed unreliable. Also, he regularly refers to other writings and texts that we have lost or may not have existed. For all we know, he could have gotten a good deal of his information word of mouth. We all know how that can alter truth. I’m not suggesting that his writings should be totally disregarded, but they need to taken with a grain of salt.