Schmuel This may or may not be wrong, but you
have not given even a single
counter-verse-indication. Do you have any ?
Isn't it a primary issue to find out if, in
regard to Josephus and Philo..
a) they give any support to the Greek OT
variants that are in the 4th century and later
manuscripts now called the "LXX".
So far, not only do they give no support to
(b), we don't even have examples for (a). In
fact at the very least we can say that they
give much more support to the Masoretic Text
than the Greek texts (as do most of the DSS,
especially the Penteteuch and Isaiah and many,
but not all, books). You can see that yourself
by simply opening up the works of Philo and
doing your own comparisons. Imho, the lack of
a simple scholarly paper in this regard is due
to some of the blindnesses in modern
scholarship, where the arcane can trump the
simple and clear.
5. Lastly, the Jewish Historian Josephus
(A.D. 37-100?) is often cited as having used
the Septuagint. However no quotes of his
having done so are ever offered to certify
such a claim. . . .
HH: However, I just cited an authority
yesterday who shows it is common knowledge
that we have many quotes of the Septuagint
from Philo and Josephus: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/journals/kraftpub/Judaism/Septuagint%20(Old%20Greek)
Extensive quotations and allusions in Greek
are also preserved in Philo (ca. 30 CE), Paul
(ca. 50), Josephus (ca. 80), 1 Clement (ca.
95), and a number of other Christian texts
from the early [[813]] period.
You are misreading and/or misusing this quote.
It is discussing their writing in Greek and not
directly addressing what Bible(s) they read.
Hebrew, Greek, Latin or some combinations.
Perhaps different for different sections,
perhaps they even made ad hoc translations to
Greek. There are many variables.
Robert Kraft (an excellent scholar, very much
appreciated, unlike your earlier Richard
Anthony, whom you would do well to disown
rather than be linked) may believe that
Josephus and Philo used a Greek text but the
quote above is a cart before the horse approach
for your argumentation.
Also .. don't you see some circularity by using
Paul as a reference in this discussion ?
This begs the question of whether 400 AD
'smoothed' passages, (e.g. the obvious changing
of Psalms to match Romans from Paul) can be
used as an evidence in reverse. Just because
some scholars don't consider the 'smoothing',
despite such clear evidences, doesn't mean that
you should adopt their lack of knowledge and/or
insight circularities as your own deliberate,
conscious circularities.
What is your explanation for that ? If Philo
was using the "LXX" why are his quotes much
closer to the Hebrew MT than what is now called
the "LXX" ?
HH: It is evident that Floyd Jones is
contradicting common knowledge when he
suggests that neither Philo or Josephus used
the Septuagint.
Each case is complicated. Here is an example.
Are you aware that Philo is 90%+ quoting only
the Penteteuch. And that his background in
Hebrew is a subject of much discourse. An
example.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n2_v44/ai_17379714/pg_8
Probably the most recent and extensive brief
for Philo's use of Hebrew sources for his
etymologies, is Hava Schur's recent doctorate
entitled Hebrew Names in Philo's Allegorical
Exegeses, (Heb.) (Tel-Aviv: 1991). Schur not
only recognizes the existence of a midrashic
tradition in Philo's day with which he was
familiar, but goes so far as to consider
Philo's Hebrew etymologies to be proof of his
knowledge of Hebrew.
With Jospehus we have the Aramaic component as
well, and the fact that he complained about
difficulties with Greek. And his quotes again
do not line up with what is called the "LXX"
The whole situation was dicey.
http://www.nndb.com/people/631/000101328/ Sometimes, also, he gives proof of some
knowledge of Hebrew and supplements his
scriptural authorities, which include 1 Esdras,
from general Greek histories.
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/1999-July/003580.html
- courtesy of Ian Hutcheson :-) I have no doubt
that both languages (Aramaic and Hebrew), plus
Greek, were in use at the time of Josephus....
I see no reason to believe that he was not a
speaker of Hebrew. In fact, given the
statements I've mentioned from his works, I
think the onus is on anyone who believes the
contrary to provide some evidence.
Perhaps a knowledge of Hebrew by Josephus
(and/or Aramaic) would go a long way to
explaining why you have not given us any actual
statements from Josephus that line up with what
is now called the LXX, versus the Masoretic
Text.s
btw, the Ben Sira situation is interesting ..
and I may agree that it is a stronger evidence
than Floyd Jones gives credit to, for some
earlier Greek Tanach texts. I was researching
this a while back but let it drop off.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.