[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion 4QMMT (c)
First you'd have to try to substantiate the existence of an Ezra. Garbini
thinks the Aramaic is rather confused and not representative of letters
written at a single period (read "faked"). (Others feel that the linguistic
debate is not conclusive, but that's indicative in itself.) Ben Sirach
doesn't know anything about Ezra whereas he does know of Nehemiah. In fact
no other source knows anything about the figure (outside the also
heterogenous book of Nehemiah) until late in the first century. Josephus
doesn't use the "canonical" book in his history, preferring the apocryphal
If Ezra is a Pharisaic development, then it's unlikely that he can help.
Canon is clearly later than Qumran (but I'd think that people would be tired
of fruitless dicussions on canon).
> I am also popping into the middle as well, but what about the
>traditional view of Ezra developing the cannon. Is this a valid view, or
>is it too traditional?