43 replies to this topic

[Ryan H.]

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 May 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

What, then, of the contrast (acknowledged in the NT) between the Sadducees, who were affiliated with the Temple establishment and regarded only the five Books of Moses as canonical (and thus did not believe in the Resurrection), and the Pharisees, who were more of a lay movement and had a considerably bigger canon (and thus did believe in the Resurrection)?

Not sure. As I said, this whole subject gets murkier and murkier the more you spend time with it.

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

AFAIK, the earliest editions of the LXX was indeed just the Torah, and then other books were added, but by the first century the LXX included the full canon of protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.

In my reading, that seems to be a contested idea.

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

The NT bears witness to the presence of the deuterocanonical books in the texts known to the NT writers. For example, Hebrews 11:35 alludes to the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees 7 who accepted torture and martyrdom for the sake of a better resurrection.

That the NT writers knew the texts does not necessarily signify that the texts were packaged in the Septuagint at that time. Nor does it signify that these texts were seen as being on the same level as the Law and Prophets.

Now, you rightly point out that there are books in the current OT/NT that were similarly contested in the way that the Apocrypha was. Sure. And there are books that some supported that never quite made the cut. But the Protestant POV has been to stand with the Hebrews in their definition of the canon of Scripture, and it nevertheless remains unclear how the Deuterocanonicals were received by the Hebrews in the first century, before their gradual lack of respect for the LXX--which was, from what I understand, first and foremost grounded in a dislike for what was seen as its faulty translation of the Hebrew--was confirmed.

[SDG]

Ryan H., on 24 May 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

But the Protestant POV has been to stand with the Hebrews in their definition of the canon of Scripture, and it nevertheless remains unclear how the Deuterocanonicals were received by the Hebrews in the first century, before their gradual lack of respect for the LXX--which was, from what I understand, first and foremost grounded in a dislike for what was seen as its faulty translation of the Hebrew--was confirmed.

A dislike for the translation of the LXX is an odd criterion, considering it's the preferred source for most of the NT's quotations from the OT! The NT writers obviously had no trouble with the translation; indeed, statistically, one could say they preferred it to the Hebrew. Without the LXX, for example, we have no "voice crying in the wilderness," only a "voice crying 'In the wilderness...'" Call it a translational error if you like, but the NT writers considered it inspired.

Ryan H., on 24 May 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

AFAIK, the earliest editions of the LXX was indeed just the Torah, and then other books were added, but by the first century the LXX included the full canon of protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.

In my reading, that seems to be a contested idea.

First I've heard of it. Sources?

[Peter T Chattaway]

Ryan H. wrote:
: But the Protestant POV has been to stand with the Hebrews in their definition of the canon of Scripture, and it nevertheless remains unclear how the Deuterocanonicals were received by the Hebrews in the first century, before their gradual lack of respect for the LXX--which was, from what I understand, first and foremost grounded in a dislike for what was seen as its faulty translation of the Hebrew--was confirmed.

And what if the rabbinical Jewish lack of respect for the LXX was grounded also in a dislike for the Church with which the LXX was so popular? What if the Protestant canon has been defined, in some sense, by an anti-Christian sensibility?

[Ryan H.]

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

Call it a translational error if you like, but the NT writers considered it inspired.

No disagreement there. But we must also note that there were multiple versions of the Septuagint, and the later versions, such as Theodotion's version, were seen by the Hebrews as increasingly corrupt.

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

Ryan H., on 24 May 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

SDG, on 24 May 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

AFAIK, the earliest editions of the LXX was indeed just the Torah, and then other books were added, but by the first century the LXX included the full canon of protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.

In my reading, that seems to be a contested idea.

First I've heard of it. Sources?

The strongest advocate of the POV that the Septuagint as we know it formed after the time of Jesus appears to be German scholar Paul Kahle. It's also found in the work of W. H. Green, in his admittedly pretty old write-up Introduction to the New Testament.

Coming from a different POV, Michael Barber, a Catholic, argues that it is virtually impossible to make a real conclusion as to when which book made its way into the Septuagint, going as far as to suggest that "there was no normative Jewish canon in second Temple Judaism," and that "rabbinic debate over the canon continued to rage on until 200 CE."

Peter T Chattaway, on 24 May 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

And what if the rabbinical Jewish lack of respect for the LXX was grounded also in a dislike for the Church with which the LXX was so popular? What if the Protestant canon has been defined, in some sense, by an anti-Christian sensibility?

While it's clear anti-Christian sentiment sealed the deal, it's more ambiguous as to whether anti-Christian sentiment was at the root of distrusting the Deuterocanonicals. But then again, it seems the entire concept of canon was still in flux for Jewish communities (some Jewish communities, it seems, continued to use the LXX and Deuterocanonicals even after it was largely rejected), so, admittedly, we may question whether it matters at all what the Hebrews thought at any point.

And, for the purposes of this conversation, let me remind us all that it was all prefaced with my disapproval of the Protestant abandonment of the Deuterocanonicals, so I'm not necessarily arguing against their authority. I'm just trying to get a sense of the ambiguities of canon formation.