Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Thank you, Ian. But all of these seems quite compatible with my own 
theory:

1) Josephus was brought up with and knew fairly well the 22 books 
(according to his reckoning) in Hebrew corresponding to the whole of 
the existing MT, including Ezra.

2) Josephus when composing his writings used the best available Greek 
translations of these books, namely the Septuagint (or something 
similar). Either he did not have the Hebrew text available in the 
Gentile setting in which he was working, or he chose to work from the 
Greek text because he was writing in Greek. (If you, Ian, were writing 
a paper on the Bible in Italian, would you have open in front of you 
an Italian Bible or an English one?) Obviously he followed the Greek 
text in front of him when spelling names.

In the Greek translation which Josephus used, significant amounts of 
extra material were added to some of the books and some reordering too 
place, including the changes from Ezra to 1 Esdras, similarly long 
interpolations in Daniel and Esther, considerable reordering in 
Jeremiah, and significant variants in other places. By the way, can we 
tell whether Josephus followed the Greek or the Hebrew in Daniel, 
Esther and Jeremiah? Presumably Josephus, as an intelligent (even 
crafty) man, recognised the differences between the Hebrew and the 
Greek versions. Perhaps he even quite deliberately chose to follow the 
Greek version, because to follow the Hebrew would have left him much 
more open to the charge from his Greek-speaking readers that either he 
or someone else had distorted the Scriptures. Well, we can only 
speculate on Josephus' motives. But there are certainly more ways to 
read the data than the one you are putting forward.

As for your corollary on Nehemiah, I think this question depends on the 
obviously complex textual history of the Greek Esdras materials. The 
Greek text of 1 Esdras as we have it ends abruptly (see the NRSV 
footnote) in the middle of a sentence, whereas the text continues both 
in the Hebrew Nehemiah 8:13 and in the Greek ESDRAS B 18:13. Apparently 
the whole of Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah is reflected in ESDRAS B, and 
presumably you would suggest that Josephus did not have ESDRAS B. 
ESDRAS A = 1 Esdras, which Josephus apparently had in front of him, 
starts with material not found in Hebrew followed by something similar 
to the whole of the Hebrew book of Ezra, and then the last half chapter 
is similar to part of Nehemiah chapter 8. But how much more of Nehemiah 
was in the original text of 1 Esdras, or in the version in front of 
Josephus which may not have been truncated? Perhaps Josephus' version 
included Nehemiah chapters 1-6, following chapters 8 and 9. For that 
matter, perhaps Josephus chose not to use the Nehemiah 7-13 simply 
because much of the material is lists of names which were of little 
interest, or perhaps his copy of Nehemiah was defective. Too many 
perhapses I'm afraid to draw any real conclusions, certainly for 
someone with your rigorous approach to history.

By the way, what is the date of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus or 
other definite evidence of his existence? How can you use him as a 
source for anything earlier than that? Surely, by your exacting 
standards, the dating of his writings to any date before those earliest 
manuscripts and his very existence are pure speculation and should be 
ruled out of court in any discussion of anything. To quote your other 
E-mail in the similar context of the NT, "1) you don't know when the 
texts were written; 2) you don't know who wrote them; 3) you don't know 
the connection between the writers and Palestine." Except that at least 
we can date much of the NT before the end of the 2nd century as we have 
dateable manuscripts, whereas I guess the deadline for Josephus is much 
later. So why do you treat the (alleged) works of Josephus as a good 
source but reject my parallel use of the NT?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: Josephus & 1Esdras (Peter)
Author:  mc2499 AT mclink.it at internet 
Date:    15/07/1999 17:02


Peter asked:

>Can you please clarify one point here. Did Josephus have in front of 
>him the Hebrew of the books (or most of them) now in the Tanakh, or 
>might he have had them only in Greek translation (LXX or something 
>similar)? Is there any clear evidence on this point? If he did not 
>have the rest of the Tanakh in Hebrew, it is hardly significant that 
>he did not have the Hebrew version of Ezra.

I don't know. Josephus says that he is much more at home with Hebrew and I 
would think that he had copies of the available Hebrew texts -- what does 
it take for a well-connected soul like him to get the texts he wanted? 
However, in the one case regarding Ezra, he seems to be using 1 Esdras in 
Greek.

But, the fact that he was using the Greek text of 1 Esdras -- which is 
obviously a translation from a Hebrew source which is not the canonical 
book of Ezra -- when he had a good idea of which texts were available, 
including numerous other sources of Hebrew knowledge, brings into doubt the 
existence of the canonical book, especially when you look at the evidence 
for the existence of the book of Ezra prior to the second or third century. 
Josephus is the evidence that 1 Esdras existed.

>Also, do you have the reference in Josephus to a supposed list of 
>books which excludes Ezra?

As you note below, I didn't mention a list of book names.

>I refer to what you wrote: "He gives us an
>outline of the most accepted Jewish works that seems to reflect some 
>notion of canon, but he didn't have Ezra!" The nearest I can find is 
>from "Against Apion" 1:8:

Yes, this is the indication that there was a restricted selection of books 
that were recognised as -- for want of better words -- authoritative.

>     but only twenty-two books,
>
>     and of them five belong to Moses... 
>     the prophets, who were after
>     Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. 
>     The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for
>     the conduct of human life
>
>This seems to show that the Hebrew scriptures (which Josephus is 
>contrasting with unreliable Greek writings) consisted of a series of 
>reliable books covering the period up to Artaxerxes - which is the 
>time of Ezra (according to MT).

Yup. That's what it seems. Josephus believed that sorta stuff. Josephus 
lived 500 years later. His outline was at most valid for his own times.

>This strongly suggests to me that
>Josephus knew of some form of the story of Ezra in Hebrew, though this 
>was probably not what was in front of him when he wrote.

Unfortunately there is nothing to help you with this theory. Josephus knew 
a *text* which he had before him, whose strict order he followed and that 
order was exactly that of 1 Esdras. He used the specific Greek forms of 
names found in 1 Esdras that were very different from those of canonical 
Ezra. It would be good for you to check this out for yourself.

>And then what
>exactly were the 22 books he had in mind?

He didn't say. He did however follow 1 Esdras closely, for it was evidently 
authoritative for him.

>Later Jewish sources count
>24 books, including Ezra and Nehemiah together. "New Bible Dictionary" 
>refers to Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome in suggesting that Josepus 
>counted togther Judges and Ruth, also Jeremiah and Lamentations, and 
>on this basis Josephus must have counted Ezra/Nehemiah, as a single 
>book, as part of his presumably Hebrew canon.

By the time of Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, Ezra was a canonical book. 
There testimony is irrelevant for any time prior to their own experience. 
If you want to show that the canonical book of Ezra was around earlier, you 
need earlier testimony. Josephus, as I have said, is testimony for the 
existence of 1 Esdras.



Cheers,


Ian


---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org 
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.