Evangelion

No I'm not. I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion.

The claim is that this account of the Therapeutae is actually a description of the early Christian community. Very well. So where is the evidence to support this asssertion? There's nothing uniquely "Christian" about the Therapeutae as Philo describes them, so why should I leap to that conclusion?

Haven't you got this the wrong way around?

Let's recap:

• You raised Schürer to prove that the authorship is disputed. But on what grounds?
  
• On the grounds that DVC contains a description of early Christian monks.

Very well. So you obviously need to prove that Christians are specifically mentioned before you can cast any aspersions on the authorship of DVC. But where is that proof?

*snip*

I don't see any need to until I receive compelling evidence for the claim that Philo's account of the Therapeutae was based on Christian monasticism. To date, I have not received that evidence.

Peter Kirby

Evangelion: "I'm simply asking you to prove your assertion."

Ah, I see. The trouble with that is that I've not made an assertion (beyond that authorship of The Contemplative Life by Philo has been disputed).

Evangelion: "You raised Schürer to prove that the authorship is disputed. But on what grounds? On the grounds that DVC contains a description of early Christian monks."

In order to figure out what the grounds were, I would have to be able to read French and German. Schürer refers to Nicolas, Kuenen, Weingarten, Grätz, Jost, and Lucius. None of them wrote in English. There does seem to be a study by Conybeare in English, which would be useful to track down to see what the arguments were. Schürer claims that scholars identified "other suspicious elements" which led them to consider the writing non-Philonic, without necessarily thinking that the description of the Therapeutae was based on Christian monasticism.

Instead of being punctilious about "burden of proof" and quoting century-old opinions without argumentation, one of us could actually do some research into what the reasons are for authenticity and pseudonymity, which might be worthwhile. I could place the results on my "Early Jewish Writings" web site.

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Sorry Evangelion, but you still haven't explained the context by which a canon is formed. You are also still using the term "canon" in its modern sense--not even in the classical sense or in the pre-Classical sense. Quoting Josephus' opinion of what constitutes "closed" does not practically shed light on the question unless you look at the social context in which this takes place. We don't accept one person's opinion on anything today, and it would be a mistake to do so in the past. And as Davies has already noted (quoted above, see the monastry example), this exact same problem is encountered with the DSS. Obviously a canonisation process was underway. But how do we know what they considered to be canon or not?

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia you quote:

• No other arrangement would have been possible for Josephus; for it is known from Talmudic and Midrashic literature that in his time, when the Tannaites flourished most, all the now familiar books were considered canonical.

Do you see the question begging that Davies warns about? You still have not risen above that level in determining non-circular methods of determining what was in Josephus' canon. It remains conjecture, and the combination of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah is still as I said, conjecture. Perhaps you can give me some good reasons why I should believe this arrangement, and that Josephus necessarily adopted it as such. Otherwise, conjecture. You seem to be of the opinion that we know much more about history than we actually do: this is the typical apologetic of filling in silence with pet theories.

However, as I already noted, Josephus does not severely influence the argument, because he is writing close to the time of the final canon. It was raised in an attempt to point out the question begging that goes on in studying the formation of canons. Obviously, the question of what constituted "closed" is not satisfactorally answered without some amount of circular reasoning. But we'll have to leave that for now or lose sight of the debate...

Now, let's move on to LXX and the Hebrew Bible. What was the process of canonisation like? When can we adequately determine when the Hebrew Bible was finally closed? Why did the LXX have the deuterocanonical books? Were they all first century Christian additions?

Davies writes:

• There is sharp disagreement on this question. We can start by noting that scribal schools existed in the Hellenistic age, and E.W. Heaton's recent discussion of Jewish schools, in which he comes to the conclusion that the canon is the product of the scribal school system, takes as its starting ben Sira and Qoheleth.[8] He notes that ben Sira invites his readers to attend his school (bet midrash, 51:23), possibly even without payment (51:25). The range of topics in his book, however, makes it clear that he is not now training scribes, but offering an education to any who would acquire the Judean form of worldly wisdom, including the national literature, practical etiquette, sound ethics, piety, and so on. As Heaton says, the conservative scribal values "came to colour the whole ethos of educated society", the "mobile middle class".

The question that is trying to be answered above is: at what point are the material conditions in the Jewish society ready to begin formalising the canon? What was the original LXX, and when was it finally completed? How did the other books creep in? Are you going to argue that the LXX contained no Apocrypha originally? How are you going to demonstrate that without begging questions?

Joel

Evangelion

Well then, if you're not raising an argument, I'm under no obligation to raise a counter-argument.

That would make my task just as difficult, then.

Conybeare is largely credited with the definitive verification of Philonic authority. I would certainly be interested to see how he does it. The only problem is that I don't know what his work is called, nor where it might be found.

Good call. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the necessary resources for such an endeavour.

Peter Kirby

I'm not suggesting that you have any obligations here. I just wanted to bring attention to an issue of which many readers may not be aware; I know I didn't know anything at all about the controversy until recently. I now know next to nothing, which is a dangerous thing. F. C. Conybeare's work was entitled Philo About the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895). It's not a priority, but I might track it down at a future point in my life.

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

It's OK. I understood this.

Thanks for the information re. Conybeare's book. If I manage to track it down at some stage, I'll let you know.

Evangelion

Don't you mean "process"? "Context" doesn't seem to fit here.

And yes, I have explained the process by which a canon is formed.

Prove it. I have merely defined a canon as "a list of authoritative literature" - nothing more. If that's an inappropriate definition, please explain why.

Yes it does, because the rabbis of Jamnia followed the same basic criteria. If, then, you claim that the canon of Jamnia was definitive, you have no basis for objecting to Josephus' definition, since both authorities are in agreement.

But it's not just Josephus' opinion. There is external evidence; Talmudic evidence; historical evidence, as the Jewish Encyclopaedia observes.

It is not mere conjecture, but a valid conclusion on the basis of the evidence.

*snip*

I might consider that if you ever get around to addressing the arguments in my previous post.

May I remind you of the following claim...?

• Josephus' canon differed from Jamnia

I have already pointed out that I'm perfectly happy to accept a difference in grouping. But your argument requires a difference in content. Where, then, is the evidence to support this assertion?

I haven't seen any yet.

*snip*

He writes before Jamnia (when you claim that the canon was definitively settled) and observes that the canon had already been closed for "so great a time." Your only objection is "I don't believe him." Well, fine! That's your prerogative.

But you still haven't proved that he's wrong.

Generally? Already answered in previous posts. Specifically? (As in "precise names and dates.") Well, that is less clear. I don't believe the miraculous account in The Letter of Aristeas, but I see no reason to doubt that the LXX was compiled around that time.

Jamnia is arguably the most well-documented account of canonical definition, but if we accept this as the first attempt to ratify the canon we have no way of explaining Josephus' definition (much less his observation that there have been no additions to the canon since Artaxerxes.)

Late 3rd to early 2nd Century BC.

It didn't originally. That's the point.

Yes.

*snip*

Davies writes that Ben Sira had a rabbinical school. Well, that's terribly fascinating, but it doesn't add much to the debate.

They began to formalise their canon in the 3rd Century BC. (Hence the LXX.)

I've already addressed this in previous posts. The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC. There appears to be general consensus on this point.

They were later Christian additions.

Yes.

• By reference to Josephus' definition of the canon as he knew it (which precludes the inclusion of the Apocrypha, since it excludes anything written after the time of Artaxerxes.)
  
• By reference to the trifold grouping (which predates Josephus.)
  
• By reference to the fact that you can't actually include an as-yet-unwritten book in a collection of authoritative literature.

Approximate dates for the apocryphal literature are as follows:

• The Hymn in the Song of the Three Holy Children - 200 BC.
  
• Ecclesiasticus - 200 BC.
  
• The Prayer in the Song of the Three Holy Children - 160 BC.
  
• Judith - 150 BC.
  
• Bel and the Dragon - 150 BC.
  
• Additions to the Book of Esther - 140 BC.
  
• I Maccabees - circa 120-90 BC.
  
• II Maccabees - 50 BC.
  
• The Wisdom of Solomon - AD 40.
  
• Baruch - AD 70 or later.
  
• II Esdras - AD 100.
  
• The Prayer of Manasseh - late 1st to early 2nd Century AD.

These books clearly fall outside the historical range of the canon as Josephus knew it. Certainly, they could not have been included in the canon with which he was familiar since (a) most of them were written after the genrally accepted date for the composition of the LXX, and (b) Josephus affirms that the canon has been closed since Artaxerxes' day.

If you want to claim that Josephus' definition of the canon is somehow incorrect or unreliable, the onus is on you to prove it.

Peter Kirby

You state as a matter of fact that, "The original LXX was identical to what we now know as the Protestant OT, and it was finally completed between 250-200 BC." Can you show that the biblical books translated into Greek prior to 200 BC included anything more than the Pentateuch?

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Hi Evangelion,

I see a big problem because you write in terms of distinct events whereas Davies (and myself) would be speaking of evolutionary processes (e.g. your dating of deuterocanonical books: Baruch at 70 CE? What nonsense is that from? The early part of Baruch is written in Hebrew and appears very ancient--surely not a Christian invention, let alone a 70 CE construct). The formation of books is itself a canonising process (pointed out by Davies of course) as we can see through textual variants (e.g. the Hebrew/Aramaic division, the narrative/apocalyptic division, deuterocanonical additions to Daniel, pseudo-Danielic writings in the DSS, etc.). You have still not escaped from this mindset--as when you tried to pigeonhole the dating of Daniel. Where would you date Psalm 151?

Secondly, it would appear that you are using the conventional fundamentalist dating of OT books, rather than that of scholarly consensus, yet not positing any proper arguments on which to base it. How do you fit Esther prior to 200-250 BCE when the canon was closed? Where do the Wisdom literature appear from if there were no schools of wisdom in which to compile them? How was Esther ancient and canonical if the feasts of 14-5 Adar (as prescribed in the book) were met with strong opposition well into the third century CE? Why no attestation at Qumran (here we see more problems with canonisation which you avoid)?

Thirdly, you are still citing Josephus as authoritative (i.e. Josephus claiming that nothing was written since the time of Artaxerxes--which is plainly wrong), yet you shift the burden of proof to say that Josephus should be accepted until proven otherwise. The same mistake is made by you citing rabbinical practice as authoritative (they make the same pre-450 BCE mistake as Josephus). Remember, a time scale of more than more than a century for the ancients is enough to be a really really long time--in which the sources are forgotten, and often extended (think of the Pseudepigraphia: did the ancients believe the Assumption of Moses was written by someone other than Joshua? When did they know?). Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to establish that Josephus and rabbinical tradition is authoritative. However, scholarly consensus on the dates of the (compilation of) books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, etc. point to Josephus (and rabbinical tradition) being wrong on additions "since Artaxerxes." Of course, the apologist must put great stock in the official propaganda of the time rather than examining the textual formation itself.

I feel we are still talking past each other because you are stuck in the apologetic post hoc ergo prompter hoc mindset.

Joel

Peter Kirby

Evangelion, will you please answer this?

best,
Peter Kirby