Chp.72 - Apologetics Are Necessary When The Prophet's Authority Is Questioned

Justin has given us a credible testimony, above and beyond, most of the other early fathers. So far in my personal studies of the fathers I find Justin standing above the rest in defending the integrity of the Scriptures. Justin is obviously a hard working laborer, in Word and prayer, to do so much exposition and so much proclamation of the Word. This whole dialogue began with Justin open air preaching in public. Justin believed in proclaiming the full counsel of the Word, first; before giving a defense of his summation of the Word. Therefore, while being careful not to idolize a hardworking saint, Justin must be given the highest benefit of the doubt concerning any dirty stains we may find on his bright and white writings that have clothed the church for centuries. In this chapter we are confronted with a question of canonicity regarding a standardized objective truth.

Justin has been laboring to set the standard upon the Septuagint, but against the oral traditions of the Jews. In effect, this history of debate has helped lead the church to establish grounds upon which a canon should be established. The canon of early Christianity, for the most part, were the Septuagint and the gospels among the letters of the Apostles. But the Septuagint wasn't a recognized canon to the Jews. Some argue that the Old Testament was not yet canonized, which may be true, because the major sects of Judaism (the Pharisees and Sadducees) differed on what was the inerrant Word. Nevertheless, the Pharisees did have a canon that was considered the Word of God. These of which Jesus used to defend his ministry. Therefore, there was an OT canon that was to be divinely authoritative, but was not recognized by all Jews.

But, here, in our study of Justin's dialogue, we come across a question of canonicity between Jew and Gentile traditions. Working through this together is positive and good, as iron sharpens iron. But the goal is not that the two remain hard and contrary opposites, but rather to obtain an equal understanding and unity on the divine authority to establish objective truth, as two iron bars can be forged into one double edged sword. Justin claims that the Jews have removed some texts from Esdras and Jeremiah in the new versions of the Septuagint translation. In Justin's day there must have been a more reliable version of the first Greek translators (the Septuagint) of the Hebrew Bible. I am not an expert or master of the history of the formation of the OT canon, but I know enough to discern my way through this question. "And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras [Ezra] made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and9 thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’10" Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 234). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. This proposed portion cannot be found in the Masoretic Text, nor is it found in the Apocryphal tradition. Some believe the editor of the Chronicles is also the author of both Ezra and Nehemiah. And Justin doesn't even hint of which book of Esdras he is quoting from. This makes it difficult to find, like a needle in the haystack of an already confusing canonical question. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are together called Esdras B in the Septuagint, which Justin most likely believes this portion was removed from. Justin's accusation may be true, but if it was in the first version of the Septuagint it was removed because it just didn't fit. First, if we look at how this was written, it creates a confusion as to whose word is being brought forth, Esdras's or the God of hosts'. The quotation begins with, "Esdras said to the people," but concludes with, "says the God of hosts." This is written in a fashion that assumes that Esdras's word is synonymous with the God of hosts' Word. But this cannot be, for this would make Esdras and God as one, but this is not how the prophets spoke the Lord's Word. The prophets always spoke God's Word "after" Him; never did they speak as one with Him. This is what made Christ unique above all the prophets, for he spoke as one with the Father. Therefore, there is good reason, in this, by which this did not survive the tests of canonicity over the course of centuries of scrutiny. In fact, it was in the days of Ezra that the Jewish community began to canonize the Scriptures. Upon returning from the captivity the book of the Law was found in the house of God, which can only be referring to the Torah/Pentateuch. This was already established as the inerrant written Word, but in the days of Ezra the writings of the Prophets and the Wisdom literature are beginning to be canonized along with the historical accounts of the kings of Israel. "For Christians, especially around the second century AD, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures ordered by Ptolemy Philadelphus ca. 309–246 BC) also played a role in the canonization process. It originally included only the books of the Torah but was later expanded. Some first-century Jews of the Diaspora respected this translation and considered it to be divinely inspired. Over time other Jewish works, probably originally written in Greek, also came to be associated with the Septuagint." "The Septuagint became the Scriptures of the early church in part because it provided a translation of the Jewish writings for Gentile converts. The New Testament writers often quote from its translation. Some of the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts agree with the text of the Septuagint, others with that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, but most show agreement with the Masoretic Text." Raquel, S. T. (2016). Canon, Old Testament. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. The Word has within itself a high standard which cannot fail and always delivers on its promises. There is a sense in which the Word is exalted to the equality of the name of the LORD, because it is the Word which defines the most holy name of the LORD. Nevertheless, while Trypho has reasonable doubt regarding the Esdras passage, Justin has warrant to be suspicious of the Jeremiah passage that has been removed. "And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’11 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy." Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 234–235). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. Notice that Justin points out that it was only recently, that is to say in the days of this dialogue, that this passage of Jeremiah was cut out of the new version(s) of the Septuagint. Justin wants Trypho to see the maliciousness of the Jews to cover up the reputation of Christ Jesus the LORD, whom they crucified, giving themselves over to apostasy. For of these Scriptures are the vindication of Christ's death as a substitution for those who call on His name. Therefore, Justin uses the Esdras passage, which is not to be regarded as inerrant, to show how Christ is the end and purpose of the passover in his death. Justin then concludes his point with another passage that cannot be found in the Scriptures, except by a recognition of Irenaeus, another church father, who also attributes Jeremiah saying, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation," which was most likely a paraphrase that got passed off as inerrant through the majority acceptance of the Septuagint. But again, Justin is using it to make the same point that he had already been making using the prophet Isaiah and the Psalms of David.

Though what Justin has used to make his point can't be trusted as the inerrant Word of God, we can still trust Justin to draw a fair conclusion from his accusations that the Jews, who were working to retranslate the Septuagint, did have malicious motivations to undermine the facts surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of the LORD. Why go through all the trouble to blackout passages that refer to the Lord's crucifixion upon a tree (wood)? Jesus himself confirmed the OT canon as Scripture (Jn.10:35) supporting that they have been fulfilled in his life, death and resurrection (Matt.26:56;Mk.14:49;Lk.4:21;24:27;Jn.2:22;5:39;19:24). The term Scripture is used by Christ and the Apostles in two senses. In one sense it is a general term for the whole collection (complete) of books (Jn.10:35), while the second sense it is used to single out a particular passage (Lk.4:21). But the phrase 'the Scriptures' is used mostly of only the OT canon that consisted of what Jesus called 'the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms' (Lk.16:16;20:42;24:44;Matt.5:17;22:40). Sometimes he even singles out the prophet or the title of the prophet's book (Matt.15:7;Lk.3:4;Rom.9:25). After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and until the Bar Kokhba revolt, Jamnia became the Jewish intellectual and spiritual center (b. Giṭ. 56b; m. Ros̆ Has̆. iv.1–3; b. Ros̆ Has̆. 31a—b). The rabbis wrestled with the growth of Christianity and the widespread acceptance of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, in Hellenistic Judaism. In their situation of diminished political and religious power, they recognized the urgency of protecting their sacred writings. Although no clear evidence points to a Council of Jamnia around AD 90, the rabbinic school worked toward closing the Jewish canon, debating remaining issues on books such as Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. By the end of the first century, the process of Old Testament canonization had approached completion. Raquel, S. T. (2016). Canon, Old Testament. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. While the Jews do not decide on a canon until long after the death and resurrection of Christ, our Lord already had confirmed those which are, even now, canonized by both Judaism and Christianity. But the oral traditions by which we understand these Scriptures are where we find our separation.

Later on, Josephus and the rabbis estimated that the writing of Holy Scripture ceased with what they deemed the closure of the prophetic era, around the time of Artaxerxes’ death during Ezra’s ministry (Against Apion 1.41; b. Sanhedrin 11a; S. ’Olam Rab. 30; b. Soṭah 11a—b), yet this view was not universal. Raquel, S. T. (2016). Canon, Old Testament. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.