spin

Yo A.
I think you're retrojecting later understanding into what the Ben Sira prologue actually says. A "tripartite" division as we see it today is based on a collection of texts, the which is not visible in the Qumran texts. You'll note that the prologue simply says "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books" and does not imply a collection.

The historical books have an exceptionally poor showing among the DSS such that one has to label a forerunner to Chronicles as that text, whereas the fragment doesn't evince a Chronicles text, but a form with features of both Chr & Kgs. Who benefits from the writing of the histories but kings? Which kings? Well, we only have Hasmoneans. No-one before them would benefit in a work on royal traditions, the good, the bad and the ugly. (The Jeremiah suggestion yields nothing credible. Why would priests -- and that's what a Jeremiah implies here -- write royal history rather than priestly history? Look at how little there is about priests. Besides who had texts copied during the period from the "return" to the period of the Hasmoneans?)

I see no reason to disbelieve Josephus and the best way to understand him is that the history books were not included in the list in the prologue of Ben Sira. The only reason to think that the third category contains histories is through later understanding. I think you are reading more into the text than is there.


spin

Notsri

Hey, spin. Might not 4QMMT refer to the traditional tripartite collection of texts, albeit with "David" presumably serving as a synecdoche ultimately for the whole of the ketuvim?—

[Indeed,] we [have written] to you so that you might understand the book of Moses, the book[s of the Pr]ophets, and Davi[d…] […all] the generations.

spin

The first thing that I note is that it's the "book of Moses" (the singular appears in two manuscripts), though certainly those books that are the pentateuch didn't circulate at the time of the DSS as a single collection, so it was not inclusive of the pentateuch, where were the rest of those books? One of the most copied books from the Qumran corpus was Deuteronomy, a good bet for the "book of Moses", while the second most copied was the book of psalms, my best bet for the reference to David here in MMT c.

There is no claim that the writer is including everything. He says "we have [written] that you might understand the book of Moses...", just as in another fragment, "we have written to you some of the works of the law..."


spin

Notsri

Well, I suppose I can't really argue, since I'm not terribly well-versed on such matters. (Besides, I'm not sure that I find anything particularly disagreeable in your response.) Thank you for your thoughts.

I am a bit curious, incidentally: have you written anything in which you've spelled out your ideas on this subject* in more detail? Maybe something I might find in the archives?

I mean, I'm curious to know, is it your contention that prior to Josephus Hellenistic Jews, particularly those in the Diaspora, were in fact without the benefit of a Greek version of the nevi'im and ketuvim, that until Josephus' supposed efforts only the torah had been translated into Greek?

How does your theory address the appearance within the NT of LXX and even proto-Theodotionic readings from the extra-pentateuchal scriptures? Wouldn't they most probably imply the existence of a complete or, at any rate, a fuller Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible prior to Josephus' publication of the Antiquities?

Anyway, perhaps I'm getting a bit ahead of things.


*ETA: By "this subject" I mean Josephus' translation of the prophetic and other biblical books into Greek, and that apparently for the first time.

spin

No, I'm giving not particularly well-researched opinions with what evidence I find.

I would think that there was no coherent approach to the issue in ancient times. I think Philo of Alexandria used Greek translations of more than the Torah. I can imagine that when someone with enough power wanted a text, they'd have it translated. Pseudo-Aristeas only talks of the books of the law and it's hard to date the period of this translation of the law, but it was the LXX, the core of what would become a larger collection which reflected that which would become the collection of the Tanach. Once this small corpus existed it would stimulate the translation of more of the Hebrew texts. One can imagine a community having a different collection from another community.

You seem to have an image of an already closed collection in early christian days. Would that collection include Enoch which is cited in Jude? What about Esther or song of Solomon which were only late accepted by the rabbis?

One of the things that was noticed in the variations in the DSS, was that there were Hebrew texts which foreshadowed LXX texts, ie some variation, thought once to have been introduced into the LXX versions through the process of translation, were already found in Hebrew texts. (There are even elements which reflect the Samaritan pentateuch at Qumran.)

My original line of thought was that the histories are late texts and not considered sacred, just as with the books of the Maccabees (all four).

That wouldn't stop any "worthy" text being translated ad hoc, which of course might mean different flavours of the same translated text, if more than one diaspora community felt the need to any particular text..

Josephus says nothing about translating prophetic books and he certainly knew and used Daniel (if he considered it prophetic), so at least it apparently was already available. The major works he uses are Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel*, Kings* (* not in the current form of these books), 1 Esdras, a form of the Nehemiah memoir, 1 Maccabees, and Nicolaus of Damascus. Remove Gen & Ex and still he doesn't need much in the way of prophets, so his translations, if he is trusted, didn't touch any prophets.


spin

Apikorus

I think that Sirach's reference to "the law" is clearly to a collection, i.e. to the Torah/Pentateuch. This contrasts with many inner biblical references to things like sefer torat moshe which probably means Deuteronomy (or some notional core thereof).

I certainly don't take seriously the rabbinic ascription of Kings to Jeremiah. My argument there, which I may have expressed too economically, is that the rabbis identified the "prophetic books" (nevi'im as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (nevi'im rishonim) as well as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Kings is among the prophetic books not because it itself is prophetic, but because it was believed to be authored by a prophet. I further presume that the issue of the authorship of biblical books did not begin with the rabbis, and that traditions of authorship, e.g. of David writing the psalter, etc., are untraceably old. Therefore, Sirach's reference to "the prophecies" could well have referred to a collection, consistent with the later rabbinic usage. Note also that the prologue to Sirach refers to the threefold group Law / Prophets(ecies) / Other Books not once but twice. Furthermore, the author distinguishes the text of Sirach itself (which is among "these things") from the Law / Prophets / Other, which I do believe is reference to a protocanon.

Luke 24:44 also refers to a tripartite division, of "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms." (Many scholars believe the reference to psalmoi here includes the rest of the Hagiographa/ketuvim.)

Spin is 100% correct in that we have no manuscript evidence for Greek translations prior to Josephus. At Qumran the Greek biblical fragments include pap4QLXXLev, 4QLXXNum, 4QLXXDeut, pap7QLXXExod, but nothing from outside the Torah that I know of.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Great discussion, one of the best on IIDB.
One quick note.

Almost zilch.
However, there is a smidgen.

A minor prophets scroll from Naval Hever with a bit of Habbakuk and
Zechariah dated dated to the "turn of the era".
8HevXIIgr

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/ear...lypaplist.html
Chronological List of Early Papyri and MSS for LXX/OG Study
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsA.jpg
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/MPrsB.jpg

A book on it by Tov/Kraft/Parsons.

http://www.dovebook.com/new/bookdesc.asp?BookID=15510
DJD VIII, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr)

Also a Job fragment from the 1st century is in the time period.

- POxy3522
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/lxxjewpap/POxy3522.jpg

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chris Weimer

The DSS isn't exactly high and mighty for Greek anything. And why should it be? I don't think the DSS lacking Greek scrolls is indicative of anything.

And believe it or not, spin, your statement that the canon was lacking in the DSS is not verified by the scrolls themselves, especially considering the plethora of books of the Torah found there. I think it's pretty clear which were considered the Law and which were not.

spin

You'll note what Greek fragments there were are all Torah fragments.

No, I don't believe it. When the third most popular work in the corpus is CD and texts like 1QS, the Enochic pentateuch, Jubilees also take starring roles, we clearly don't have a selection that looks like a canon. There is also no indication of any collection of texts. I'll agree that the individual books of the Torah are already highly important, but not as a collection. You need a collection before you can have canonization of the texts within it.


spin

S.C.Carlson

For Biblical materials, yes, but the Greek fragments 7Q4,1&2, 7Q8, 7Q11, 7Q12, 7Q13, and 7Q14 have been identified as belonging to 1 Enoch.

Stephen