What happened at Jamnia?

[spiritmech]

So I did a google search on Jamnia, and I'm getting conflicting results. One article says it never happened or that the decisions weren't important. Another says it did. Which is it?

The assertion is that the Deuterocanonical books (and the Septaguint in general) were de-canonized by Jewish leaders after the sack of Jerusalem in AD70.

SM

[Anoetos]

It's not that they were 'de-canonized', they were never canonical at least in the opinion of the Jerusalem rabbinate.

The Palestinian Rabbinate basically, at Jamnia, decided to kill two birds with one stone:

1) It struck a blow at hellenism, the 'greekification' of diaspora Jews especially but also those who remained in the homeland.

2) It distanced itself from the nascent Christian movement, still considered a sect of Judaism (the Church was using the LXX since it was already written in the lingua franca of the gentiles).

In one sense, the decision represents a certain cultural elitism on the part of the Jerusalem rabbis. They, essentially, taught that the Bible they used must needs have been composed and must needs remain in either Hebrew or Aramaic in order to be truly canonical and authoritative. There isn't much different in this than what Muslims say about their Q'uran.

On the other hand, it was a very necessary bulwark against the inclusion of texts of questionable origin. They drew the line at books of recent composition and which were not originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic.

[spiritmech]

Just thinking offhand, it seems to me that for a 2nd temple to be considered valid (politically and religiously), they had to at least pay some amount of lip service to recent (by 1st cent. standards) religious works. If the Holy Spirit stopped moving 400 years before the temple was razed, then it's hard to make a case (not that you are, just in general) that the 2nd temple was ever consecrated by God.

It also seems that the Jewish rabbis had very powerful reasons for invalidating the Septuagint which may or may not align with the interests of Christianity.

I haven't really fleshed it out, but it seems Jamnia is very important if one looks at the period from a preteristic perspective.

SM

[Anoetos]

Just thinking offhand, it seems to me that for a 2nd temple to be considered valid (politically and religiously), they had to at least pay some amount of lip service to recent (by 1st cent. standards) religious works. If the Holy Spirit stopped moving 400 years before the temple was razed, then it's hard to make a case (not that you are, just in general) that the 2nd temple was ever consecrated by God.

Just so I understand you, are you suggesting that for Herod's Temple to be valid there must have been some oracular mandate? If so, what I would suggest is that it is more likely that the Jews would have understood the site to have had such a mandate (since it was where Solomon raised his temple) while the building itself needn't have provided it was constructed in accordance with Mosaic and historical considerations, which it was.

In a nutshell, a mandate was given several centuries earlier for the building of a temple at that location, no new mandate was necessary.

It also seems that the Jewish rabbis had very powerful reasons for invalidating the Septuagint which may or may not align with the interests of Christianity.

I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the Rabbis' interests aligned with those of Christianity or that their decision probably had no reference at all to the interests of Christianity?

I haven't really fleshed it out, but it seems Jamnia is very important if one looks at the period from a preteristic perspective.

SM

Yes, it's important though not IMO from a specifically preterist viewpoint.

The problem we seem to have is that we want to paint these first century Rabbis as fundementalists and while there may be some points of convergence (they were motivated by a desire to preserve a strict Orthodoxy), there really was a far more nuanced view of revelation prevalent at the time.

I am not an expert on Jewish studies so I won't dilate too much except to say that the Rabbis always recognized secondary authorities whether they were Talmudic, Midrashic or whatever. That these Rabbis singled out the LXX, and therefore specifically those books of the "Deutero-Canon" for explicit exclusion from primary or even secondary status is significant and forms a large part of the reason why these books have always been under some suspicion as to their canonicity and why Protestants have, historically, followed Jerome in rejecting them as such.

[Timothy Leary]

The parts of the Yavneh stuff that are seen by some to be a debate over cannonization actually have nothing to do with the cannonization of the Tanakh.

See http://www.karaites.org/articles/how_the_bible_came_to_be.htm

[Dcn_Athanasius]

The assertion is that the Deuterocanonical books (and the Septaguint in general) were de-canonized by Jewish leaders after the sack of Jerusalem in AD70.

SM

Christ is risen!

Parts of the deuteros have now been found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls in hebrew. Defeating any idea that they did not exist amongst the Hebrew speaking Jews in jedea/Palestine circa 30 AD.

Jesus and the Apostles quote profusely from the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament books. This again shows the copious use of the septuagint amongst the jews of Judea ajnd palestine not just the Greek speaking Jews of alexandria.

Rabbinical Judaism has been charged since the ancient Church with purposely adjusting their OT canon so as to deny Christ. A charge that has some literary evidence behind it as well. "The virgin will be with child" is a perfect example.

Jerome followed Jamnia, Luther followed Jerome. In this matter, both were wrong because their foundational premises was wrong (trust the Rabbis to tell the historical truth regarding the times and history regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The Church, neither Orthodox nor Catholic followed that mistake and thus have not ended up with a reduced canon.

Peace and grace.

[Anoetos]

Christ is risen!

Parts of the deuteros have now been found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls in hebrew. Defeating any idea that they did not exist amongst the Hebrew speaking Jews in jedea/Palestine circa 30 AD.

Jesus and the Apostles quote profusely from the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament books. This again shows the copious use of the septuagint amongst the jews of Judea ajnd palestine not just the Greek speaking Jews of alexandria.

Rabbinical Judaism has been charged since the ancient Church with purposely adjusting their OT canon so as to deny Christ. A charge that has some literary evidence behind it as well. "The virgin will be with child" is a perfect example.

Jerome followed Jamnia, Luther followed Jerome. In this matter, both were wrong because their foundational premises was wrong (trust the Rabbis to tell the historical truth regarding the times and history regarding Jesus of Nazareth. The Church, neither Orthodox nor Catholic followed that mistake and thus have not ended up with a reduced canon.

Peace and grace.

Deacon,

I get what you're saying. I tend to think that part of what the Rabbi's were doing was distancing themselves from the nascent church, while the biggest point seems to have been dealing once and for all with 'hellenism' generally. It is entirely possible that they saw Christianity to be the logical and unacceptable outcome of 500 years of hellenism.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls containing parts of the Deuteros in Hebrew or Aramaic; I have never heard that. Could you perhaps point me to some website or book giving evidence of the claim?

[Dcn_Athanasius]

Deacon,

I get what you're saying. I tend to think that part of what the Rabbi's were doing was distancing themselves from the nascent church, while the biggest point seems to have been dealing once and for all with 'hellenism' generally. It is entirely possible that they saw Christianity to be the logical and unacceptable outcome of 500 years of hellenism.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls containing parts of the Deuteros in Hebrew or Aramaic; I have never heard that. Could you perhaps point me to some website or book giving evidence of the claim?

Christ is Risen!

Dead Sea Scrolls (http://byubroadcasting.org/deadsea/book/chapter2/sec1.html)

That link refers directly to the Deuteros found in Aramaic and I also found this while surfing:

Dating of the scrolls was done using carbon dating.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include:

Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Biblical Understanding

According to the above link, the following books were found in the DSS. Number of copies and fragments in parentheses. Esther is the only OT book of which there is no copy or fragment from.

Genesis (15)
Exodus (17)
Leviticus (13)
Numbers (8)
Deuteronomy (29)
Joshua (2)
Judges (3)
1-2 Samuel (4)
1-2 Kings (3)
Isaiah (21)
Jeremiah (6)
Ezekiel (6)
Twelve Prophets (8)
Psalms (36)
Proverbs (2)
Job (4)
Song of Soloman (4)
Ruth (4)
Lamentations (4)
Ecclesiastes (3)
Esther (0)
Daniel (8)
Ezra-Nehemiah (1)
1-2 Chronicles (1)

Commentaries were found for the following books
Isaiah
Habakkuk
Hosea
Micah
Nahum
Psalms

Deuterocanonicals (Protestant Apocrypha) that were found
Tobit
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
a Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6)

Pseudepigrapha (Catholic & Protestant Apocryphal books) that were found
Psalm 151
Enoch (1 Enoch)
Jubilees
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Additionally found among the DSS were other apocryphal writings that were previously unknown to biblical scholars including statements of belief, regulations and membership requirements for the Jewish sect believed to be the Essenes that left us the DSS.

And from this (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107fea2.asp) website

When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the late 1950s, parts of these deuterocanonical books were found among the other ancient manuscripts. This shows that many of them once existed in Hebrew. It is interesting that the text of the Catholic Old Testament, which was taken from the Septuagint, follows the text of the Dead Sea scrolls more closely than some other translations. This exhibits the care the Church has taken over the centuries to preserve the authenticity of Scripture. Some Jewish and Protestant Bible scholars have taken a renewed interest in the deuterocanonical books since their discovery among the Dead Sea scrolls.

And from this (http://fcnforums.christianity.com/m_1599/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm#27255) webpage:

Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls were found to contain the Book of Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew; and Wisdom or Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew. This is according to page 11 in "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" by Geza Vermes.

Said book is advertised for sale by Penguin here (http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0140449523,00.html).

Peace and grace to you.

[Anoetos]

Deacon,

The page indicated at your first link contains no reference to Hebrew deuteros having been found at Qumran. I will look at the rest of the website, though. I note however that it is a mormon site, not exactly a people known for archaeological rectitude.

The second link is to an article written by a laywoman with no footnote referencing an authority for the claim. I can't really give much credence to it; not only does it contain no reference, it's written in a e-magazine whose stated purpose is polemical. This certainly doesn't mean the information is necessarily spurious but it does rather obviate it as an unbiased source.

The third link holds more immediate promise than the first two. I have located Vermes' book at my local library and will go there today to look at it.

I will admit this, if Vermes not only indicates that there were such books but that they were in fact Hebrew or Aramaic originals; i.e. not likely translations back into those languages from Greek texts, you will have given me a great deal to think about.

[Rusty T]

Not that it is directly related but this is from the notes of the Oxford Annotated Bible:

Greek-speaking Jews in the Diaspora granted this Greek Bible an authority equivalent to that of the Hebrew texts. The legend that God had directly inspired its seventy translators was familiar to Alexandrian Jews (Philo, Life of Moses, 2.40). Manuscripts discovered at Qumran include Greek texts as well as a Hebrew text closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic text (4QSam; 4Q121 Num 3.30-4.14 . . . .) Toward the end of the first century BCE, some books of the Septuagint were revised in Palestine to bring them closer to the known Hebrew text. Some New Testament citations whose wordings are between the Greek and Hebrew texts that we have today may also reflect local revisions.

. . . . Jewish revisions in the second century CE sought to bring the Greek text closer to the Hebrew and in some cases to replace terms that Christians had seized upon in disputes with Jews, such as 'virgin' in Isa 7.14.

[Anoetos]

"Furthermore, the caves have yielded some of the Apocrypha, i.e. religious works missing from the Hebrew Scriptures but included in the Septuagint, the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews. Caves 4 and 11 revealed the book of Tobit in Aramaic and in Hebrew, Psalm cli, described in the Greek version as a 'supernumerary' psalm, and the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew."

This is what Vermes says in the introduction.

So, it would appear that Tobit and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) may have been written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Psalm 151 isn't included in the RCC canon, I regret that I know so little of the EO canon to say whether it is in that one or not.

I willingly withdraw the implication that all the books commonly called deutero-canonical were composed in Greek.

As to whether composition in Hebrew or Aramaic was a test for the Jamnian rabbis I would suggest that they may not have known of the existence of Hebrew and/or Aramaic editions of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus.

Or, even if they did, the test may have not been primary, the presence of these books in the Greek canon and their absense from their own may alone have been sufficient for them to be considered apocryphal.

It probably bears noting that this is a far cry from the conclusion that this ought to put to rest all debate on the matter.

In the third link you posted the authoress tells us that, because Tobit and Ecclesiasticus are found in the DSS' "This shows that many of them once existed in Hebrew" and that "the Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew text into Greek".

In the first instance, she implies a great deal more than the evidence will actually support; i.e. that at least these two books may have been originally composed in Hebrew, there is no warrant for assuming that 'many' of them were.

In the latter, while technically true, is perhaps disengenuous in that it remains incomplete; it is far from established that the books other than Tobit and Sirach were in fact translated from Hebrew or Aramaic.

But, I realize you didn't write the "This Rock" article and I certainly won't hold your feet to the fire as to it's specific points.

I appreciate your comments though and your help here.

Grace to you,
Mike

[Dcn_Athanasius]

Deacon,

The page indicated at your first link contains no reference to Hebrew deuteros having been found at Qumran. I will look at the rest of the website, though. I note however that it is a mormon site, not exactly a people known for archaeological rectitude.

The second link is to an article written by a laywoman with no footnote referencing an authority for the claim. I can't really give much credence to it; not only does it contain no reference, it's written in a e-magazine whose stated purpose is polemical. This certainly doesn't mean the information is necessarily spurious but it does rather obviate it as an unbiased source.

The third link holds more immediate promise than the first two. I have located Vermes' book at my local library and will go there today to look at it.

I will admit this, if Vermes not only indicates that there were such books but that they were in fact Hebrew or Aramaic originals; i.e. not likely translations back into those languages from Greek texts, you will have given me a great deal to think about.

Christ is Risen!

Forgive me Mike for any sloppiness in what I posted. regarding the first link where you said there was no mention, this paragraph appear about half way down after the list of Books:

Most of the biblical scrolls are written in Hebrew,12 the language of the ancient Israelites and the sacred language of the Jews. A few manuscripts including the book of Daniel, the apocryphal book of Tobit, a fragment of a targum (translation) of the book of Job, and fragments of the book of Enoch are written in Aramaic (a language that resembles and is closely related to Hebrew), the language adopted by the Jews after seventy years of exile in Babylon. In addition, a number of Old Testament manuscripts are preserved in Greek.

Is that paragraph not of some interest to this subject? As for the other links I apologise if any were from unreliable sources like the Mormons, I was really just scanning for the words dead sea scrolls and hebrew and did not pay too much attention to who composed the pages. Forgive the sloppiness, it was late last night.

Thank you again. Peace and grace

[Dcn_Athanasius]

[box]
So, it would appear that Tobit and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) may have been written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. Psalm 151 isn't included in the RCC canon, I regret that I know so little of the EO canon to say whether it is in that one or not.
I willingly withdraw the implication that all the books commonly called deutero-canonical were composed in Greek.
I appreciate your comments though and your help here.
Grace to you,
Mike

Christ is Risen!

Psalm 151 is extensively used among the Orthodox Churches. FYI.

This issue alone has major implications in the Protestant-Orthodox/Catholic dialogue regarding the Books of the Bible. If the Jews at Jamnia were wrong or inconsistant in even two or three of the debated books then this shows that the historical Church in this matter has been protected and has held the complete Bible throughout the Churches history.

Add to that the facts that the Greek Septuagint is quoted extensively throughout the NT books then you have in my humble opinion a watertight case..a slam dunk as it were. :lol:

Peace and grace.