Steven Avery

Hmm.. Stephen, why are the posters (apparently) using the distinction between DSS and Naval Hever - if the time period is before Josephus (one point of the thread) for both ? Seems a bit artificial.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

S.C.Carlson

Isn't Nahal Hever the cave where they found the Bar Kochba letters, which postdate Josephus?

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Peter Head writes:

The first is the Greek Minor Prophet scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr), dated by most scholars between 50 BC and AD 50.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Then the restriction to Qumran is artificial.

Stephen

Steven Avery

Hi Ben, welcome.

Apparently Jonah is there too.
David Washburn references it, and this article.

http://students.washington.edu/garmar/AnglesonJonah.pdf
8Hev1 LXX (XIIgr) fragments of the Septuagint of Jonah, Col. 2: Jon 1:5–2:7a;Col. 3: Jon 2:7b–4:5a; Col. 4: Jon 4:5b–end, DJD 8 (1990), 84ff., plates I–III. Dated to 1st century B.C.E. (DJD 39, pg. 371).

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

spin

Yes, that's right, but I doubt that the 7Q fragments had anything to do with the scrolls deposited in 4Q and the other major caves such as the other nearby cave 5Q, which had nothing but some scrolls in it. 7Q (as with 8Q and 9Q) was for habitation and located at the end of the Qumran spur.

ETA: I don't dispute the dating of the Nachal Hever 8HevXII text. I was interested in the fact that there were no other Greek texts in the Qumran deposit. What is interesting about 8HevXII for canonicity purposes is the fact that it apparently had all the minor prophets in the one scroll.

(This is all unrelated to my discussion about the history texts and Josephus's claim of having translated them himself.)


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

I think I will point out that the definition issue about the DSS is common.
Here is David Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
speaking to the issue -

http://www.mail-archive.com/g-megill.../msg00364.html
In general parlance, "Dead Sea Scrolls" refers to any of the scrolls found at
sites on or near the Dead Sea. This includes Murraba`at, Nahal Hever,
Masada and several others ... all the sites are within reasonable proximity
to each other.

The term DSS can be used more restrictively, however that is
better specified when General Parlance is taking roll call. Above
with Stephen the issue was a concern of date, not locale, ergo
different. While Spin's statement above "what Greek fragments
there were are all Torah fragment" would only be accurate
using the restricted sense of DSS. And that restriction would not
be in synch with the question of what Greek OT is extant from
before Josephus.

And here is a page that has a few of the Josephus, Ben Sira and DSS and
other statements together on the Tanach canon.

http://www.karaites-usa.org/Target_T..._nehemia_g.htm
Canon of the Tanach by Nehemia Gordon Part 1

Part II is 'under the rubble' and the NT is omitted, however it is a nicely-done collection with some commentary.

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

Apikorus

I had to cut short my last post and I wanted to add some remarks. First, though, there's no "restriction to Qumran." 8HevXIIGr is somewhat relevant to the discussion, but spin's contention, if I understand it, is that Josephus may have been the first to translate the histories into Greek. The Nahal Hever scroll would fall under the classification of "prophecy". As I've emphasized, rabbinic tradition, which almost certainly has roots extending throughout the late 2nd Temple period, lumps the Deuteronomistic History in with the "Prophets" (Heb. nevi'im). But to be fair to spin we should allow for the possibility that Sirach's grandson was referring strictly to prophetic texts.

At any rate, I do believe that the prologue of Sirach refers to a proto-canon, and that pretty much all of the Hebrew Bible had been translated into Greek well before Josephus.

There's a well-known point regarding Matt 23:34-35 (|| Luk 11:51), where Jesus says,

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

The superscription to the Book of Zechariah identifies the prophet as the son of Berechiah. However, there is no record of thie Zechariah having been murdered in this way. So many scholars think that the author of Matthew goofed (Luk 11:51 omits the patronym) and that he was instead referring to Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. This Zechariah was indeed stoned to death "at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of YHWH" (2 Chr 24:20-22). The context would seem to suggest this is the Zechariah whom Matthew meant (cf. Matt 23:34). Indeed the "blood of Zechariah" is also an image straight out of the Talmud::

[After that] he saw the blood of Zechariah seething. 'What is this?' cried he. 'It is the blood of sacrifices, which has been spilled,' they answered. 'Then,' said he, 'bring [some animal blood] and I will compare them, to see whether they are alike.' So he slaughtered animals and compared them, but they were dissimilar. 'Disclose [the secret] to me, or if not, I will tear your flesh with iron combs,' he threatened. They replied: 'This is [the blood of] a priest and a prophet, who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem to the Israelites, and they killed him.' (b. Sanh. 96b)

So, the story goes, Jesus may have been referring to the breadth of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, from Genesis (Abel) to 2 Chronicles (Zechariah ben Berechiah). It seems likely that the bible which the NT authors drew upon was in Greek, and certainly 2 Chronicles would count as a "historical book". (Truth be told, the position of 2 Chr at the end of the Hebrew Bible was not stable, even through the middle ages.) On the other hand, in the LXX, Chronicles appears with Samuel and Kings and not at the end, so maybe the reference here is to the Hebrew Bible itself. Or maybe the author of Matthew simply invoked a contemporary Jewish theme in referring to the blood of Zechariah.

Another point is the apparent use of LXX Chronicles by Eupolemus ca. 150 BCE. This would seem to be a slam-dunk, but I haven't seen the primary sources and I prefer to be circumspect.

Philo's description of the Therepeutae in On the Contemplative Life, refers to

...(the) laws, and (the) oracles given by inspiration through (the) prophets, and (the) psalms, and the other books whereby knowledge and piety are increased and completed...

As with Sirach, there seems to be a reference to a multipartite canon here, although there is no specific reference to historical books.

spin

As I use the term "Dead Sea Scrolls" to refer to those scrolls deposited at Qumran, please read my earlier comments that way. I had no intention to comment on scrolls found outside the ambit of Qumran.

Why do you dispute the fact that Josephus claims to have translated the historical works used in his text?

Your source's view on what Josephus understood to be those books held in esteem is only guesswork and contradicted by Josephus as I have already cited from his prologue to AJ.


spin

Steven Avery

I made a comment on that quite a bit earlier in the thread, post #69, wondering if the historical works could have been "Jewish Wars". However I did not see a response from you or anybody. In the context right above I made no comment on Josephus possibly translating the historical scriptures. It would be very fine with me if that could be demonstrated to a good probability. At the moment the 'fact' is your assertion, your understanding. Since you seemed to be claiming that no Greek OT except Torah was extant from before Josephus, and that is not the case, I became a little extra wary of your lines of argumentation on the Greek OT and Josephus. Anyway, your argument is worthy of consideration but far from a 'fact'.

On the Josephus prologue and the canon and 22 books agreed upon by the sects of Jews you really will have to spell out why you claim the Prologue contradicts the breakdown of books that Nehemiah gives.

One strong evidence, way beyond guesswork, is that we know the sects of Jews did agree upon the books in that list. Historical fact, even if seen clearly post facto a statement, is a real evidence.

Shalom,
Steven Avery