Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: The OT? - evidence for canon of Hebrew Scriptures by DSS and Josephus

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman AT ix.netcom.com>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The OT? - evidence for canon of Hebrew Scriptures by DSS and Josephus
  • Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:36:41 -0400

At 09:59 AM 8/27/02 +0200, you wrote:
What is interestng about the Talmud's attitude towards Ben Sira is that he is ignored in the Mishan, but frequently refered toin the Gemara. Moreover, he is referred to as if he were a biblical book: "as it is written".

It really is not so interesting in that the Mishnah does not have much Aggaditah.



----- Original Message -----
At 07:41 PM 8/26/02 +0200, you wrote:
There's a discussion on "defiling the hands" (tum'at yadayim) in Mishna Kelim in which R. Akiva (early 2nd century CE) figures prominently. In other words, those books which "defiled the hands" were canonical, those that didn't - weren't. With no books handy, I remember that Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, perhaps others, were being discussed. Talmon is of the opinio that these books had actually already been canonized and the discussion was pro forma. Whether this is true or not, it means that by the erly second century, all the books of the Tanakh had been canonized, and they are all mentioned in the Baraitha from B.T. Baba Bathra 14b, which dates, according to what I have read, from the last quarter of the second century. This Baraitha states the tripartite division of the Tanakh, but Latter Prophets and Writngs are in a different order.
Josephus is not 1005 clear on what books he considered canonized, though he is often adduced.
As for Qumran, I'm not up to date. Though all the Biblical books were found there, others were as well (Community Rule, Damascus Covenant, etc.), so there's no cleari ndication, as far as I know, as to which books were actually considered canonized there. But please correct me if I'm not up to date. Last I heard, Daniel existed in papyrus but not on leather, perhaps indicating that it wasn't considered canonized.
That's why I didn't write that the books of the Tanakh had been canonized by the first century CE, and stuck with the more certain second century date.
Any comments?
--------------


We might add the commentary on Ben Sirach in the talmud to this mix. I think the solution is in a different direction. I believe that the concept of 'canon' is not Jewish on origin, and we use it today looking backward. The concept of holy vs. profane with regards to writings, is one in a Jewish context. Ben Sirach seems to have changed status over time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach AT messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach AT messiahtruth.com 718-436-7705
Messiah Truth/Judaism's Answer:  http://www.messiahtruth.com/
Outreach Judaism:   http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com


  • Re: The OT? - evidence for canon of Hebrew Scriptures by DSS and Josephus, Moshe Shulman, 08/30/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page