Jamnia

[bpbasilphx]

They’re translated slightly differently, but our English translation of Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Greek LXX is a little bit different, too.

---

**Jerome’s Vulgate was not rendered from the LXX, but from the Hebrew as far as it went.

However, St. Jerome DID have access to Hebrew mss OLDER than the Masoretic text.

This is assuming that the Clementine Vulgate is the same as it left the pen of St. Jerome.**

 

[Peter_Dawson]

They’re translated slightly differently, but our English translation of Jerome’s Vulgate translation of the Greek LXX is a little bit different, too.

---

**Jerome’s Vulgate was not rendered from the LXX, but from the Hebrew as far as it went.

However, St. Jerome DID have access to Hebrew mss OLDER than the Masoretic text.

This is assuming that the Clementine Vulgate is the same as it left the pen of St. Jerome.**

You’re right. I stand corrected. My memory failed me on that one.

 

[patrick457]

**Jerome’s Vulgate was not rendered from the LXX, but from the Hebrew as far as it went.

However, St. Jerome DID have access to Hebrew mss OLDER than the Masoretic text.

This is assuming that the Clementine Vulgate is the same as it left the pen of St. Jerome.**

Correct. But Peter still gets one thing right in this: the Psalter included in most versions of the Vulgate were at least rendered from the LXX (the so-called “Gallican Psalter”) - in fact St. Jerome made three versions of the Psalms: the Versio Romana, the Gallican, and the Versio juxta Hebraicum. The Juxta Hebraicum, made from pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts around the late 4th-early 5th century is included in a few early MSS, but it is not clear whether it was ever used in the liturgy as the Versio Romana and the Versio Gallicana had been.

Here’s one example of differences between the three (Psalm 94/95):

Versio Romana: Venite, exsultemus Domino; iubilemus Deo salutari nostro. Praeoccupemus faciem eius in confessione, et in psalmis iubilemus ei. Quoniam Deus magnus Dominus, et rex magnus super omnes deos. Quoniam non repellet Dominus plebem suam, quia in manu ejus sunt omnes fines terrae, et altitudines montium ipse conspicit; quoniam ipsius est mare, et ipse fecit illud, et aridam fundaverunt manus eius.

Come, let us exult in the Lord; let us shout joyfully to God, our Savior; let us anticipate His presence in acknowledgement, and let us shout joyfully to Him with psalm: for the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all gods. Because the Lord will not drive off His people, for in His hand are all the ends of the earth, and He sees the heights of the mountains; for His is the sea, and He made it, and His hands established the arid land.

Versio Gallicana: Venite, exsultemus Domino; jubilemus Deo salutari nostro; praeoccupemus faciem ejus in confessione, et in psalmis jubilemus ei: quoniam Deus magnus Dominus, et rex magnus super omnes deos. Quia in manu ejus sunt omnes fines terrae, et altitudines montium ipsius sunt; quoniam ipsius est mare, et ipse fecit illud, et siccam manus ejus formaverunt.

Come, let us exult in the Lord; let us shout joyfully to God, our Savior; let us anticipate His presence in acknowledgement, and let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms: for the Lord is a great God, and a great King over all gods. For in His hand are all the ends of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His; for His is the sea, and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.

Versio juxta Hebraicum: Venite, laudemus Dominum; iubilemus petrae Iesu nostro. Praeoccupemus vultum eius in actione gratiarum: in canticis iubilemus ei. Quoniam fortis et magnus Dominus, et rex magnus super omnes deos. In cuius manu fundamenta terrae, et excelsa montium ipsius sunt. Cuius est mare; ipse enim fecit illud, et siccam manus eius plasmaverunt.

Come, let us praise the Lord; let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our Jesus. Let us anticipate His face in deeds of thanks: let us shout joyfully to Him with songs: for the Lord is strong and great, and a great King over all gods. In His hands are the foundations of the earth, and the heights of the mountains are His; His is the sea, for He made it, and His hands fashioned the dry land.​

Interesting how St. Jerome rendered the Hebrew tzur yish’ainu (“Rock of our salvation”) as petrae Iesu nostro, taking the word yesha, ‘salvation’, as a proper name - in this case, connecting it with ‘Iesus’.

 

[Ginger2]

Back to the OP…“When is the first mention of the Council of Jamnia by church fathers?”

I did not see the council mentioned. Am I correct it is not mentioned in this document?

Also, I did not see any mention of books being removed, is this also correct?

And finally, I found this in the New Advent:
On the other hand one finds in Justin some apocryphal texts: pseudo-Esdras (Dialogue with Trypho 72), pseudo-Jeremias (ibid.), Psalm 96:10 (Dialogue with Trypho 72; I Apol., xli);

**Why was Justin citing pseudo texts? **

 

[Ginger2]

Another question…

Is there any evidence this Trypho was a real person? I heard it is believed he was the Rabbi Tarfon, but Tarfon died in 135. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts the date at around 155 making Tarfon deceased for twenty years at the time of the alleged discourse.

Are there any other theories?

 

[Ginger2]

Also, The CE says the comment by Justin in Chapter 72 concerning Esdras is “attributed to him by mistake”.

If it is in the document that Justin wrote, how can it be “attributed to him by mistake”?

 

[Ginger2]

Oops, the discourse was written down twenty years after it supposedly took place at Ephesus shortly after the sack of Jerusalem in summer 135. The rabbi is said to have died in 135 by the fall of Bethar.

Question still stands as is this rabbi the man thought to be the same person in Justin’s dialog?

 

[patrick457]

Another question…

Is there any evidence this Trypho was a real person? I heard it is believed he was the Rabbi Tarfon, but Tarfon died in 135. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts the date at around 155 making Tarfon deceased for twenty years at the time of the alleged discourse.

Are there any other theories?

AFAIK, recently scholars have begun to question and reject the once-popular theory during the 19th century that Trypho is supposed to be Rabbi Tarphon. Some take a middle road and say that even if Trypho is not Tarphon, he may have been an actual - albeit obscure - person; others think that Trypho and his dialogues are merely literary inventions of Justin’s to drive his point home - a sort of an extended parable, if you will. Justin’s emphasis after all is not so much on the person of Trypho himself or on Judaism, but on how Christianity is the new law, and how Jesus is the Christ.

In fact, one should take some of the biographical details contained in Justin’s works with a grain of salt, as they may not actually reflect reality (they seem to be arranged with a view in mind), but a sort of a partly-idealized picture. Yet one should also take care not to dismiss the account as wholly fictitious, as there is a grain of truth there.

 

[patrick457]

Also, The CE says the comment by Justin in Chapter 72 concerning Esdras is “attributed to him by mistake”.

If it is in the document that Justin wrote, how can it be “attributed to him by mistake”?

I think you got the subject of the phrase wrong. The “him” in that phrase does not refer to Justin, but to Esdras/Ezra. This is made clear by showing the sentence in context:

For Philo the Bible is very particularly the Pentateuch (Ryle, “Philo and Holy Scripture”, XVII, London, 1895, 1-282). In keeping with the difference of his purpose, Justin has other preferences. He quotes the Pentateuch often and liberally, especially Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy; but he quotes still more frequently and at greater length the Psalms and the Books of Prophecy – above all, Isaias. The Books of Wisdom are seldom quoted, the historical books still less. The books that we never find in his works are Judges, Esdras (except one passage which is attributed to him by mistake—Dialogue with Trypho 72), Tobias, Judith, Ester, Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Abdias, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus.

 

[Ginger2]

OK, that makes sense. Justin was in error on several other references, too.

 

[patrick457]

Back to the OP…“When is the first mention of the Council of Jamnia by church fathers?”

I did not see the council mentioned. Am I correct it is not mentioned in this document?

Also, I did not see any mention of books being removed, is this also correct?

As far as we can see, no. Unless somebody proves me wrong on this, I guess there’s just really no mention of the Synod of Yavneh somewhere in the ECF’s.

And finally, I found this in the New Advent:
On the other hand one finds in Justin some apocryphal texts: pseudo-Esdras (Dialogue with Trypho 72), pseudo-Jeremias (ibid.), Psalm 96:10 (Dialogue with Trypho 72; I Apol., xli);

**Why was Justin citing pseudo texts? **

Here are the quotes within the chapters in question:

And Esdras said to the people, “This passover is our Savior and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we are about to humiliate Him on a sign, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place will not be forsaken for ever, said the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His teaching, you shall be a laughing-stock of the nations.”

-Attributed to Esdras/Ezra

I was like a meek lamb that is brought to the slaughter; they devised counsels against me, saying, “Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us cut Him off from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.”

-Jeremiah 11:19

“The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.”

-Attributed to Jeremiah

“Say you to the nations, that the Lord has reigned from the tree.”

-Psalm 96:10;

It has been hypothesized that the supposedly “expunged” passage from Esdras is actually a Judeo-Christian midrash on the books of Ezra-Nehemiah. As for the one attributed to Jeremiah, another Church Father, St. Irenaeus also quotes it but attributes it to Isaiah in one place (Against Heresies 3.20) and Jeremiah in another (Against Heresies 4.22; Preaching 78).

The quote from Jeremiah 11 is rather easy; Justin notes that there are still copies which have them “for it is only a short time since they were cut out”. Eventually they managed to survive into our Bibles today.

As for Psalm 95 [96]:10, two Greek MSS, the main Coptic versions of the LXX, and a few Vetus Latina translations all have the phrase “from the tree”. We could not know whether it is just a gloss Justin took at face value or an actual phrase left out, but there is no denying that it had been influential in the later Christian church.

 

[gamesport]

**Why was Justin citing pseudo texts? **

Not really sure where you are getting at with this question. Many of the Church Fathers quoted some non-canonical text. Like the shephard of Hermas and the Didache. There was really no set canon until ~381AD

 

[mjakemccoy]

No “Synod of Jamnia” ever occurred, as far as anyone knows.

With no Synod of Jamnia, under what guidance did Jerome not include the deuterocanonical books?

 

[PeterK]

With no Synod of Jamnia, under what guidance did Jerome not include the deuterocanonical books?

His contemporary Jewish associations could have provided that guidance. He actively sought their (name removed by moderator)ut.

P

 

[wmscott]

Ginger,
In another Catholic forum one of the moderators evidently tired of always debunking the alleged ‘Council of Jamnia’ and posted a permanent ‘sticky’ dealing with this aspect of the canonical-books issue.
Here is a link to his post. Jamnia

Hope this helps,
Peter

I was under the impression that the Council of Jamnia was not even a Christian council and if so why would we (Christians) place stock in it.

 

[Ginger2]

Many of the Church Fathers quoted some non-canonical text. Like the shephard of Hermas and the Didache.

That’s seems irrelevant to the point. Jerome was not just quoting useful writings and saying, he was claiming inspired writings were changed or removed.

I asked for the earliest mention of a council in Jamnia. Altho the earliest mention is not until the 1800’s, The Dialog with Trypho was cited.

If this document is supposed to support the hypothesized Jamnia council, or at least the accusation of Jews tampering with Holy Scriptures, where is the connection?

From chapters 72 -73 Justin shares which Scriptures were supposedly changed and ends saying these verses are, “those which are retained by us (Christians),” Yet none of the verses cited are found in the Catholic Bible.

**That’s why I ask “why was Justin quoting pseudo texts to prove his point?”

Is there a specific verse Justin mentions that is part of today’s RC canon?**

 

[PeterK]

I was under the impression that the Council of Jamnia was not even a Christian council and if so why would we (Christians) place stock in it.

Hardly Christian. And hardly a council. Luther needed something on which to base his omissions. What ever it was would have to predate the Catholic Church’s formation of the biblical canon. Luther excavated his cornerstone at Jamnia.

It’s probable the rabbis meeting at Jamnia would have had associations with the temple in Jerusalem destroyed 30-some years earlier. This rabbinic connection to the Jerusalem temple provided the authoritative pedigree Luther needed to counter Rome.

Did a decidedly anti-Christian attitude permeate the Jamnia gathering? That I don’t know. My guess would be that in the wake of the destruction of the all-central Jerusalem temple other matters centering on their very existence would dominate.

In the light of the Jamnia facade I am at a loss as to how Protestants defend their canon.

Old habits die hard.

Hope this helped,

Peter

 

[PeterK]

All,
Pardon me. That last post was a bit irrelevant to the discussion. :sad_yes:

PeterK

 

[PJM]

=Ginger When is the first mention of the Council of Jamnia by Church Fathers?

I do not intent to discuss this matter, only read responses and visit links.
(I am only interested in specific quotes from early church fathers on Jamnia, not commentaries from modern times)

Thank you for your assistance.

It was not a Catholic Council, nor were the Early THEE [Catholic] Church Fathers involved with it’s formation or suppositions.

***QUOTED… "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***

*** Mt. 16: "17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven*. And I [Jesus} tell you, you are Peter, {singular] and on this rock I [JESUS] will build my [singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I {JESUS] will give you {PETER] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **
As you may know the terms “bind and loose” were common Rabbinical terms BINDING in Jewish Law relating to unlimited, unimpeded governance. Everyone there understood what Jesus was saying and doing; it’s only those who today refuse to do so that are in the very warm dark.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

With no Synod of Jamnia, under what guidance did Jerome not include the deuterocanonical books?

First, there really is no evidence that a “Synod of Jamnia” ever took place.

Second, the mythical Synod which probably never occurred was supposed to have been a gathering of JEWS, NOT CHRISTIANS. Jerome would have accepted no guidance from Jewish leaders in Palestine.

Third, Jerome did not include the Deuteros in the Vulgate, but the Church did.