Actually, according to Josephus it was pretty well settled at 22 books (combining certain books, such as the Twelve Minor Prophets, together as single volumes) by the first century (Against Apion, 1.8), which would leave out the Apocrypha. This is substantiated not only from the Apostolic Scriptures (the NT), which never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture, but also from the witness of Philo, Ben Sira, the authors of the Maccabees, Hillel, and Shemmai, which also never cite the Apocrypha as Scripture!
The DSS can't be used to establish normative canon, since in addition to a number of apocryphal works which no current body of the Ekklesia accepts as canon (e.g., the Book of Enoch), they also contain personal letters, practices and standards of the Qumram group, and non-canonical commentaries on the Scriptures. It'd be like finding a Bible with a copy of Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and the "Gospel" of Peter and assuming that just because they were found with the acknowledged Scriptures that those who collected them believed the latter three to be canon as well!
The same problem occurs when trying to cite collections of the LXX from the fourth or fifth century as establishing the normative canon of the Tanakh from the first.
If it's good enough for the Apostles, it's good enough for the Apostolic Church.
But then, that's the point: It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same.
But then, that's the point: It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same.
= = =
Trying to be sensible and logical again, are you! And on a religion forum thread! Nice miracle that you seem to work above average.
Josephus is pretty much the only source available to peek into that era. The bad part of it is that he was a spineless character who, like Eusebius (the first Church historian), was prone to to things that make both of them highly unreliable. I would never take what Josephus (or Eusebius) says as normative.
The same problem occurs when trying to cite collections of the LXX from the fourth or fifth century as establishing the normative canon of the Tanakh from the first
But the same could be said of the oldest Hebrew Bible which is a 10th century (AD!) copy of the originals. The problem with LXX is that it demonstrates clearer than other sources the corruption of Scriptural content (and, by the same token, the uncertainty as to which copy is "truer"), because evidence of tampering and personal additions and deletions of various authors is more evident and traceable.
But, indirect evidence suggests that the older versions of the LXX may be closer to the original (based on such comments as made in the 4th century by +Augustine in his Retractions, etc.). The unfortunate part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the 5th c. Alexandrian Codex as normative, which seems to be the least reliable of the oldest three known.
It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same
Just out of curiosity, which Apostles quote from the Hebrew text? +Paul is a special case, and it does not surprise that he would quote from the Hebrew text. First, he was a Pharisee, and he claims he studied Scripture in Jerusalem under a prominent Jewish biblical authority.
But I would be curious, if you have such information, as to which other writers of the NT use the Hebrew Text in addition to LXX.
Truly, I am a sponge for ancient manuscripts, but I take nothing as words of God without the direct authentication of the Holy Spirit! He brings His own words alive within, the words of man are dead by comparison.
It amazes me that so many Christians who confess that Jesus Christ is God from the beginning, that everything that was made was made by Him and for Him, that He was born of a virgin, made the blind see, turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, healed the lame, died on a cross and was resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father and will come again --- believing all of these supernatural truths ---- would nevertheless demand empirical evidence (archeology, carbon dating, etc.) and a “chain of custody” before they will take the plugs out of their ears to listen for the words of God!
As if it were possible for science to authenticate God’s words. Jeepers… talk about an observer problem.
Only God knows Himself and there is only one way to know Him:
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – 1 Cor 2:11-14
Jesus, The Word of God (John 1, Rev 19) was speaking to those who were physically hearing Him but could not spiritually hear Him (“ears to hear”) in this passage – but these words are recorded for our benefit, so that we will understand the power of God:
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matt 22:29