Don't get me wrong, I'm not presenting the guy as a source of inspiration. I just don't see any point in demonizing him either.
Josephus was following his own agenda. He did and wrote what was good for him.
And pray-tell, what is your evidence that the matter of the Jewish canon was something that he saw fit to lie about for his own purposes? And exactly what would those alleged purposes be, anyway?
The unfortunate part is that there is almost nothing to go by to corroborate his writings from independent sources.
The unfortunate part is that about 90+% of what we know about ancient history is single-sourced. So what then is your point?
Even the one piece that exists about Christ is rendered in four versions.
Thanks to Christian scribes who saw fit to interpolate their own prejudices into Josephus' writings and thereby almost destroy the value of the earliest non-Biblical source on the existence of Yeshua the Messiah.
I don't see how the stupidity of later Christians in regards to one passage of Josephus somehow discredits his comment on the canon of the Tanakh in a completely different work. Nor for that matter do I see how Josephus' undeniable knack for spinning the Jewish wars in favor of his Roman patron and the party of the Pharisees has anything to do with his ability to report the established Jewish canon of the first century--a matter that the Romans wouldn't have given two shakes about and which those Jews who would not have been happy about him "turning traitor" would have been happy to rip him on (a rip which would have been recorded in the Talmud, most likely) had he been inaccurate.
Do you have any alternate evidence to present that the Apocrypha were widely accepted by any Jewish group in the first century? Or for that matter by any Christian group in that period? No? Then stop wasting my time with poisoning the well techniques and just admit it.
Apprently not if "There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic" as you point out.
As opposed to dozens of places where the LXX is less accurate?
Look, the differences in the LXX are often due to the fact that the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation. That's actually one of the things that makes it so useful as a historical resource, since it gives us insight into the understandings of the translators. However, to rely on it is like relying solely on the NIV instead of taking the time to learn Greek and Hebrew and study the Bible in its original languages--you limit yourself.
Other reasons for the differences are discussed here--it seems that there were multiple textual traditions, all of which were found among the DSS.
Now, if you wanted to use the LXX as a guide as to which textual tradition to follow (the Egyptian as opposed to the Masoretic, for example) in places where the existent Hebrew manuscripts were in dispute, okay, fine. That's normal textual criticism, and we do it all the time with the LXX, the Targums, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac text, the DSS, etc. I think it's foolish to rely too much on a single tradition, but I can understand your reasoning.
But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that the Greek translation of the LXX is actually superior to and should be referred to instead of any Hebrew manuscript of the Tanakh. You're not just using it for a guide, you're pretending that God came down and gave the Torah in Greek on Mt. Sinai.
Well, He didn't. He chose instead to give the Scriptures in Hebrew to men of Oriental culture and thought. Instead of reading the Scriptures in their original context, you're filtering them through your own Western prejudices--and not interpreting them correctly.
Paul preached his own gospel. I will leave it at that.
And . . . ? Not seeing a point here.
It seems to me that the Gentiles should have been preached the same Scripture preached by Christ in the Gospels, which is LXX.
If you think Yeshua was preaching in Greek in Galilee and Judea, you don't know enough about the history and sociology of the area to even be having this conversation with. Do you know why the Romans let Josephus live? Two reasons: A) He "prophesied" Titus' ascendancy, and B) they needed someone to translate for them because most Judeans didn't speak Greek!
Well, I was right--this has indeed been every bit as fruitful as debating with a KJV-Only fanatic would be. "If the King James' was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me!"
I just don't see any point in demonizing him either
No need to demonize anyone; but a balanced profile is good for a fair discussion. What a person does often makes him reliable or unreliable in general. Saying that Hitler liked animals doesn't make him any less of a monster (and, no, I am not comparing Josephus to Hitler!)
And pray-tell, what is your evidence that the matter of the Jewish canon was something that he saw fit to lie about for his own purposes?
I didn't say he saw fit to lie about it. I was only wondering if his choice corresponded to others' and why. What was the reason for him to spell out the Jewish canon? To the best of my knowledge, few people considered it closed.
Thanks to Christian scribes who saw fit to interpolate their own prejudices into Josephus' writings and thereby almost destroy the value of the earliest non-Biblical source on the existence of Yeshua the Messiah
Exactly! And not only into Josephus' writings but into the Bible itself! As a result, there is no way of knowing which came first, what was added, what was deleted, what was not there to begin with.
The Scripture have been tampered with. That much is clear. Subtle words change whole meanings; missing one accent can change the whole word. Different words lead to different beliefs and concepts. That's why corroborating evidence is needed more than ever.
The unfortunate part is that about 90+% of what we know about ancient history is single-sourced. So what then is your point?
Uncertainty.
As opposed to dozens of places where the LXX is less accurate?
No, in response to your claim that the Hebrew version has been "perfectly" persevered. Even a 'handful' makes it not perfect.
Look, the differences in the LXX are often due to the fact that the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation
Agree. The only reason the Orthodox Church uses LXX is because it is by far the most predominant version of the OT used in the Gospels. We don't know which version they used, however. The Sinai and Vatican Codices being the oldest actually differ quite a bit from the Alexandrian version (which is the one used by the EOC and is least reliable of the three).
I don't think anyone in the EOC would claim that any one version is absolutely faultless.
If you think Yeshua was preaching in Greek in Galilee and Judea
I wold never think that. But the earliest Gospel fragments we have are in Greek. Until such time that we discover Aramaic versions, Greek will be the original language of the NT. The references made to the OT in the Gospels are made with respect to LXX (in a vast majority of cases).
Well, I was right--this has indeed been every bit as fruitful as debating with a KJV-Only fanatic would be. "If the King James' was good enough for Peter and Paul, then it's good enough for me!"
I am sorry, that's a poor comparison. KJV was created for political purposes and is based on a "Greek" text retro-translated into Greek from a Latin translation from Greek. It also contains numerous documented errors and very strong pro-Protestant vocabulary and concepts.
Anyone who uses any single source as the Bible is guilty of self-deception. But it is also a stretch to assume that absolutely nothing changed in the Old Testament from Exodus until Babylon and that 'oral tradition' maintained a faultless version of the truth delivered to Moses when there is ample evidence of variations and changes in scriptural texts elsewhere.
So, the best way to approach any Scripture, in my opinion, is one of open minded doubt, and consider all source.