I read somewhere that Jewish scholars made changes to scripture

[Big_Dummy]

Is this true? what is the evidence?

 

[Big_Ro]

What changes? Which Scripture? Are you asking about the so called Apocrypha?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

pretty open ended question, we need more details.

 

[Muze]

It’s called “redaction”, and essentially Jewish religious leaders edited the text to reflect changes in cultural understanding or language to keep the story accurate.

For instance, if we had a text from 100 years ago that said that Abraham Lincoln was a gay man when at home. Well, 100 years ago, they’d say he had a happy home life. Today, we’d say he kept a male partner there.

So, a redaction would include changing “gay” to “happy” to retain the meaning.

That kind of thing.

 

[turtleoompa]

Didn’t Jewish scholars change or omit some scripture in the year 90 AD so it wouldn’t refer to Jesus in some way?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Didn’t Jewish scholars change or omit some scripture in the year 90 AD so it wouldn’t refer to Jesus in some way?

Yes. At Jamnia.

A Table of contents was never determined for the Jews before this. But this is irrelevant for Christians, the Church had already been established long before 90 A.D.

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

According to Rumor their is a book called the the book of Generations that was removed by the Jews because if provided more evidence that Jesus was/is the messiah so the Jewish religious leaders removed it to preserve their power .

But to the best of my knowledge this is just a Rumor

 

[Big_Ro]

Yes. At Jamnia.

A Table of contents was never determined for the Jews before this. But this is irrelevant for Christians, the Church had already been established long before 90 A.D.

At the risk of sounding argumentative, there are some that believe that the Council of Jamnia never took place or that it’s importance and influence was overblown by the internets. But, yes, I agree that it was moot because Mother Church had already been established and the Canon as we know it was already mostly formed. Besides, why should we hold the opinions of a Jewish council as being more authoritative than our own Magestrium? No disrespect to my Jewish brothers and sisters, but they are welcome to their own Canon.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

At the risk of sounding argumentative, there are some that believe that the Council of Jamnia never took place or that it’s importance and influence was overblown by the internets. But, yes, I agree that it was moot because Mother Church had already been established and the Canon as we know it was already mostly formed. Besides, why should we hold the opinions of a Jewish council as being more authoritative than our own Magestrium? No disrespect to my Jewish brothers and sisters, but they are welcome to their own Canon.

Hmm, I was under the impression that while it’s unknown if there was a council held at Jamnia, there was at least a school for rabbis, and that this school would’ve determined the list of books for itself.

Yes, our fathers in the faith are welcome to their own canon, but I heartily invite everyone to partake of the collection that have 73 books in it.

 

[Big_Ro]

Hmm, I was under the impression that while it’s unknown if there was a council held at Jamnia, there was at least a school for rabbis, and that this school would’ve determined the list of books for itself.

Yes, our fathers in the faith are welcome to their own canon, but I heartily invite everyone to partake of the collection that have 73 books in it.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. I’m sorry if I gave a wrong impression. I think, from what I read, there is some question as to whether or not the Council gave the subject more than a passing thought. The thing about Jamnia that struck me though is that apparently the Council took up the subject because they felt threatened by the encroachment of Christianity. In other words, they were trying to remove the parts of Scripture that tended to support Jesus as the Messiah. So, there are two very good reasons to dismiss Jamnia as a reason to reject the books in question. As a Catholic, I’m glad we have the full truth.

 

[PUP]

I could not tell you if this is true or not but I have read that the oldest Masoretic Text or Jewish Hebrew/Arabic text we have only dates to 900 AD and therefor many claim that since there is such a large time discrepancy from when original would have been written to 900 AD then one may assume that Jewish scholars made changes to make Jesus and Christianity look implausible. They say this because the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Jewish Old Testament made before Christ’s birth) has verses more predictive of Christ’s coming. For example, in Isaiah Mary is called a Virgin in the Greek Septuagint but in the 900 AD Masoretic Text Mary is called a young maiden.

 

[steve53]

Hagan in “Fires of Rome” suggests that either someone changed “Acts of the Apostles”, or that Luke was wrong.

The High Priest who Paul insulted in A.D. 58 should have been Ismael, and not Ananias, the one who is identified in Acts.

Through Ismael, you can link the Second Temple High Priesthood to the later persecutions of the Christians in Rome, and the death of Paul. If true, this is not something the Jews would want widely known for obvious reasons.

 

[Big_Ro]

Now, that’s interesting and something new. thanks.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is this true? what is the evidence?

since we don’t know what you read or where you read it how can we possibly answer?

 

[Bible_Reader]

I could not tell you if this is true or not but I have read that the oldest Masoretic Text or Jewish Hebrew/Arabic text we have only dates to 900 AD and therefor many claim that since there is such a large time discrepancy from when original would have been written to 900 AD then one may assume that Jewish scholars made changes to make Jesus and Christianity look implausible. They say this because the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of the Jewish Old Testament made before Christ’s birth) has verses more predictive of Christ’s coming. For example, in Isaiah Mary is called a Virgin in the Greek Septuagint but in the 900 AD Masoretic Text Mary is called a young maiden.

No, this is not correct.

We have the “Great Isaiah Scroll” as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which carbon dating identifies as being around 100 BCE. It includes the world *almah *(young woman), not virgin. You can read the relevant passage with a photograph of the original manuscript here.

While various Septuagint translations were undoubtedly done earlier, the earliest manuscript evidence we have for the Septuagint dates from around the 4th century.

 

[Big_Dummy]

What changes? Which Scripture? Are you asking about the so called Apocrypha?

Apocrypha, from the Greek word apokruphos, meaning “hidden.”

Tobit
Judith
1st Maccabees
2nd Maccabees
Book of Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
107 additional verses in the book of Esther
Three additional chapters in the book of Daniel (174 verses)
Also, in orthodox
1 Esdras
3rd Maccabees
4th Maccabees
Odes
Letter of Jeremiah
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

 

[Big_Dummy]

pretty open ended question, we need more details.

Really, Really

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yes. At Jamnia.

A Table of contents was never determined for the Jews before this. But this is irrelevant for Christians, the Church had already been established long before 90 A.D.

The Jamnia claim as you understand it, is outdated, and not true.

blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=386

Speculation regarding a "Council of Jamnia"Heinrich Graetz introduced the notion in 1871; based on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, he concluded that there must have been a Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of Jack P. Lewis, Sidney Z. Leiman, and others, this view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely.

Jacob Neusner published books in 1987 and 1988 that argued that the notion of a biblical canon was not prominent in second-century Rabbinic Judaism or even later and instead that a “notion of Torah” was expanded to include the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and midrashim.[5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

 

[Big_Dummy]

In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don’t want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics and Orthodox leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is as absurd as it is wishful thinking. Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon.
There was clearly a fixed canon long before Jesus was born and when Jesus was tempted by the Bible three times, he did not reply, “human, man-made church tradition says Satan” Rather all three times Jesus replied, “It is written”, (Matthew 4:1-4) referring to the Old Testament canon. In other words, the Devil didn’t ask, “Written in what?” for everyone, including even the Devil knew what books were included in the Old Testament.
A. Discussion:

Frank M. Cross designates the Council of Jamnia “a common and somewhat misleading designation of a particular session of the rabbinic academy (or court) at Yabneh.” He adds, “Recent sifting of the rabbinic evidence makes clear that in the proceedings at the academy of Yabneh the Rabbis did not fix the canon, but at most discussed marginal books, notably Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and the Song of Songs. . . . Moreover, it must be insisted that the proceedings at Yabneh were not a `council,’ certainly not in the late ecclesiastical sense.” Cross sees Josephus, independent of any Jamnia proceedings, reflecting “a clear and coherent theological doctrine of canon that must stem, we believe, from canonical doctrine of Hillel and his school.” Albert Sundberg recognizes that the “Council of Jamnia” hypothesis is dead. At the same time, still contending that the Hebrew tripartite canon was probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., he suggests that my own view of the hypothesis may have been too quickly accepted. He asks, “What alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue?” Lee McDonald summarizes the case, “There is evidence that a discussion was held at Jamnia on the canonical status of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, but this is not enough to suggest that any binding or official decisions were made regarding the scope of the biblical canon at Jamnia.” (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Jack P. Lewis, Jainnia Revisited, p 161, 2002)
“it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture.” (The Council Of Jamnia And The Old Testament Canon, Robert C. Newman, 1983, abstract)
A basic feature of most liberal theories of the Old Testament canon is an alleged council held at Jamnia about AD 90 which is supposed to have canonized or at least finalized the Writings or Hagiographa, the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament. In this paper–a reprint of the article appearing in the Westminster Theological Journal 38 (Spring, 1976)–the Talmudic evidence for such a council is surveyed. It is concluded that there is no real evidence for such a council nor for any binding canonical decisions at that time. Instead there appears to have existed a consensus on the content of the Old Testament in the first century AD which was already ancient at that time. (The Council Of Jamnia And The Old Testament Canon, Robert C. Newman, 1983)
From these sources, as well as from the statements in Josephus, 4 Ezra and the Talmud regarding the cessation of prophecy about the time of Ezra (cited above, notes 1, 4, 7, 9), and in view of the New Testament use of “Scripture” as though it were a recognized body of material, it seems that there was a popular consensus on the books belonging to Scripture even before the end of the first century A.D. This consensus did not extend to the question of how these books were to be ordered or counted, but it did seem to be combined with the belief that these books had been known publicly since the time of Ezra. (The Council Of Jamnia And The Old Testament Canon, Robert C. Newman, 1983, conclusion)

bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm

 

[Big_Ro]

So, this whole thread was designed for you to be able to show off your knowledge? Or are you trying to bait an argument?