The Jews DID NOT define their OT Canon at Jamnia!

[DavidFilmer]

In Another Thread it was claimed that the Jews somehow fixed their version of the Old Testament Canon at their Council of Jamnia in AD 95. I wanted to dispel this in a different thread, as it’s getting a bit off-topic for the original thread.

There is NOT ONE BIT of evidence to support this popular misconception. I do wish that apologists (both Catholic and protestant) would QUIT saying this - it gets tiring seeing this over and over again. Especially from Catholics - we’re supposed to be the ones whose positions are always grounded in truth.

So how did this very widely accepted but completely non-credible idea come about?

In 1892, a learned and respected English scholar, Herbert Edward Ryle (1856-1925) published a book called The Cannon of the OT in which he advanced the notion that the Jews somehow established a “Canon” of the OT at Jamnia (or, more specifically, that they had determined criteria for canonical inclusion - including a “Hebrew Only” policy). Actually, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim, but (owing largely to Prof. Ryle’s lofty credentials) the idea was accepted at face value for many years and still enjoys wide circulation. Nobody knows for sure how Ryle came up with this idea, but it appease this highly respected scholar simply made it up!

See THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OT CANON for a good discussion on Jamnia.

Actually, the Jewish church has NEVER (and still does not) have any sort of formal mechanism for determining the criteria of canonization. Their notion of a “canon” of Scripture was really a “tradition of popular consensus” of rabbis (sort of a sensus fidei basis). During the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin enjoyed considerable influence (and perhaps could have claimed the authority to define the Jewish Canon, though they did not), but the Council at Jamnia lacked the representative character and national authority of the Sanhedrin (and thus was significantly less influential). It would not be correct to equate (in any meaningful way) the Jewish Council at Jamnia with a Catholic Ecumenical Council - at best, it might be considered a local pastoral synod. It did not have the authority to define the Jewish Canon, and there’s no historical evidence that it even tried.

 

[michaelp]

As a Protestant, I thank you for this post. I get a bit frustrated reading others who make such misconceptions. I do appreciate your desire to be fair with regards to this matter. Hopefully, others will read this and stop making such claims.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I understand however that the Council of Jamnia did have the purpose of using Scripture to distance the Jews from the Christians. It may not have had any authority for establishing a “Jewish canon”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

michaelp:

As a Protestant, I thank you for this post. I get a bit frustrated reading others who make such misconceptions. I do appreciate your desire to be fair with regards to this matter. Hopefully, others will read this and stop making such claims.

My favourite ignorant habit - not a claim exactly, but an expression implying ignorance of history - is the habit some Catholics have of referring to “Pope Peter”. He was not a pope. The Roman Papacy is simply a development - whether legitimate or not, is another question - of the authority of the Roman bishop. And Peter was not a bishop - he was an Apostle; which is a very different thing. That He was an Apostlem, does not in the slightest alter the Petrine office in the Church. All that is lost is some bad history - and good riddance to it. God has no need of our lies or fictions or exaggerations or mis-statements.​

Apologetics based on shoddy scholarship deserves to fail; it’s no better to spread fake history in order to spread Catholicism, than it is to spread fake history in order to slam Catholicism. Truth, and nothing less, is needed. ##

 

[Ghosty]

In all fairness, I don’t think that people are refering the office as we understand it today when they refer to people as the first pope, but rather the position as head of the universal Church. The fact that the position as we understand it today has different traits in other regards today is rather irrelevant. Pope means a lot more in modern parlance than “bishop of Rome”, and should rather be understood as “head of the universal Church”, which is exactly what the Petrine Office is, and Peter was the first.

 

[michaelp]

What great comments that you all make. This is very refreshing to hear this type of tone on this forum. Intellectual honesty is something that is really needed by both Protestants (with their MANY misconceptions) and Roman Catholics alike. Thank you both for your desire to represent the Lord of history and not misrepresent issues to make a point.

Frankly, I was getting bored with this website because of the misunderstandings that people seem to enjoy to have (I know, it is the same on Protestant discussion boards). After seeing both of these posts, I will continue to endure knowing that there might be some honest discussion that will provide fruit and edification for God’s people. God bless you and brovo to you both (Gottle and David).

Michael

 

[FelixBlue]

Have you read Brian Tierney’s study on the development of the idea of papal primacy? If so, what do you think?

Sorry…this is off topic from the other. Thanks, by the way, for the info on Jamnia. It is a fascinating but sad fact that much of scholarship works in this sort of “he’s got credentials” fashion.

 

[metal1633]

**THERE WAS NO COUNCIL AT JAMNIA. IT WAS A SCHOOL.

THE ONLY BOOKS THEY DISCUSSED AS BEING IN DISPUTE WERE SONG OF SOLOMAN AND ECCLESIATES.
**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ghosty:

In all fairness, I don’t think that people are refering the office as we understand it today when they refer to people as the first pope, but rather the position as head of the universal Church. The fact that the position as we understand it today has different traits in other regards today is rather irrelevant. Pope means a lot more in modern parlance than “bishop of Rome”, and should rather be understood as “head of the universal Church”, which is exactly what the Petrine Office is, and Peter was the first.

Then maybe there has been a simple bit of non-communication.​

If the office as we understand it today is not being referred to, all the more reason for not using the word “pope”; it’s too ambiguous.

It would be too dreadful, if anyone thought that Church historians were “modernists” (the usual word !) for denying that Peter ascended the gradines of the altar in St. Peter’s, intoning the Psalm “Introibo” before offering the Mass.

One of the relics of the Apostle was the altar he used. I wonder what has become of it ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

FelixBlue:

Gottle of Geer:

The Roman Papacy is simply a development - whether legitimate or not, is another question - of the authority of the Roman bishop.

Have you read Brian Tierney’s study on the development of the idea of papal primacy? If so, what do you think?

I haven’t read that. I would like to. I have read his book on infallibility - fascinating​

Sorry…this is off topic from the other. Thanks, by the way, for the info on Jamnia. It is a fascinating but sad fact that much of scholarship works in this sort of “he’s got credentials” fashion.

Without credentials, though, the world of learning would be exposed to all manner of charlatans. Instead of the occasional scholarly mistake being given a credit it does not deserve, there would be illimitable cataracts of nonsense. And at least the learned can correct the learned, even if the unlearned hear only of the thing that needed correction.​

Not all errors are evidently such when made. Not all errors are recognisable as errors, unless one is equipped to recognise them as what they are. Sometimes, something is right in its time, and an error only later.

Credentials no more make the scholar than the cowl makes the monk; but that does not mean they are valueless. They are evidence of human sinfulness, but not on that account useless. ##

 

[FelixBlue]

## I haven’t read that. I would like to. I have read his book on infallibility - fascinating ##

Credentials no more make the scholar than the cowl makes the monk; but that does not mean they are valueless. They are evidence of human sinfulness, but not on that account useless. ##

It’s been a decade since I read the book. Perhaps it was on infallibility. Is it the one proposing that infallibility/primacy grew out of the spiritual franciscans problem and Peter Olivi (sp?) etc.?

True…I didn’t mean to imply that credentials are useless.

 

[Maccabees]

DavidFilmer:

In Another Thread it was claimed that the Jews somehow fixed their version of the Old Testament Canon at their Council of Jamnia in AD 95. I wanted to dispel this in a different thread, as it’s getting a bit off-topic for the original thread.

There is NOT ONE BIT of evidence to support this popular misconception. I do wish that apologists (both Catholic and protestant) would QUIT saying this - it gets tiring seeing this over and over again. Especially from Catholics - we’re supposed to be the ones whose positions are always grounded in truth.

Well the truth is more nuanced that to either write off Jamnia or to refer to Jamnia as the de facto Jewish Council the truth lies in between.
Jamnia does point to the opinion of a small group of influential rabiis and shouldn’t be entirely written off. But it shouldn’t be regaded as a ecunemical council that was binding on all Jews we know the Essenes, Ethopians and Jewish Christians were not envited to this council.
Most apologetic books focus on quick facts to throw back at the other side and not in depth research the subject of the OT canon is a deep and complex one. Jamnia deserves its place in the context of the conversation but it was not the end all the Jewish canon wasn’t really closed till the late 2nd century however it was the earliest evidence we have for a complete Jewish canon. In a way its similar to the Catholic Synod of Rome 382AD canon a first stab at the complete canon which was followed by subsecquent councils that came to the same conclusions. Jamnia was very inflential and it does hold the complete Jewish canon as we know it however it did not dogmatically close the issure for all Jews. But you aren’t going to win any apologetic points when you present this so people just ratlle of Council of Jamnia as the end story of Jewish canon and while its not entiely true its not entirely a lie either. In the same way the Synod of Rome did not close the case for Rome it is far more nuanced Hippo and Carthage followed and to make de fide it was once again brought up at Trent and officially closed. The truth is far more complex than either side cares to admit.

 

[yinekka]

Steve Ray wrote an article for This Rock entitled ‘The Council That Wasn’t’. The article can be read online on the Sept 2004 issue of This Rock.

 

[anon50111284]

yinekka:

Steve Ray wrote an article for This Rock entitled ‘The Council That Wasn’t’. The article can be read online on the Sept 2004 issue of This Rock.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[RobedWithLight]

In Another Thread it was claimed that the Jews somehow fixed their version of the Old Testament Canon at their Council of Jamnia in AD 95. I wanted to dispel this in a different thread, as it’s getting a bit off-topic for the original thread.

There is NOT ONE BIT of evidence to support this popular misconception. I do wish that apologists (both Catholic and protestant) would QUIT saying this - it gets tiring seeing this over and over again. Especially from Catholics - we’re supposed to be the ones whose positions are always grounded in truth.

Very good David. However, in that same post of mine you quoted, I likewise never claimed that it represented the entire Jewish Community, nor did I assert that they had the authority to do so, either from the Christian perspective or from any other. The early Christians in any case practically ignored Jamnia.

I also used the term “Jewish religious leaders”, for purposes of linguistic convenience, and in a subsequent post I referred to them as Pharisees, which is in actuality just one Jewish party, though well-known to us from scriptural accounts. In any case, it is quite clear though that those rabbis really intended to distance themselves from the Christians, through their scriptures.

Gerry

 

[SteveT]

I believe the origin of Ryle’s hypothesis is found in St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialog With Trypho”, LXXI,

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.”

Justin’s Dialog, an apologetic defense of the faith against Judaism, was written within living memory of Jamnia. Though Justin never mentions Jamnia by name, the repudiation of the formerly revered Septuagint seems to be a fairly recent innovation made by “your teachers”, now accepted by “all of your nation”.

 

[RobedWithLight]

SteveT:

I believe the origin of Ryle’s hypothesis is found in St. Justin Martyr’s “Dialog With Trypho”, LXXI,

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy[king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you.”

Justin’s Dialog, an apologetic defense of the faith against Judaism, was written within living memory of Jamnia. Though Justin never mentions Jamnia by name, the repudiation of the formerly revered Septuagint seems to be a fairly recent innovation made by “your teachers”, now accepted by “all of your nation”.

Interesting. Justin Martyr was born only a few years after Jamnia. In that dialog, Justin would quote from the Septuagint, after which Trypho, a Jew would reply that the quote is “not an accurate translation from the Hebrew” and would at times say that “You Christians have been tampering with the texts!”.

Gerry

 

[DavidFilmer]

RobedWithLight:

… in that same post of mine you quoted, I likewise never claimed that it represented the entire Jewish Community, nor did I assert that they had the authority to do so

My intent was not to take issue with your post specifically, but to address one small aspect of it (another reason why I opened a different thread to discuss it). I see the Jamnia thing over and over again (even in recent material from reptuable scholars).

As the saying goes, “if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it’s the truth.” This particular misconception about Jamnia is so often repeated that it’s easy to understand why so many people still believe it to be true.

 

[RobedWithLight]

DavidFilmer:

My intent was not to take issue with your post specifically, but to address one small aspect of it (another reason why I opened a different thread to discuss it). I see the Jamnia thing over and over again (even in recent material from reptuable scholars).

On my part, I mentioned Jamnia only to emphasize a point I was trying to make with a fellow poster. I was in fact questioning its use as an excuse by non-Catholics during the Reformation to justify the removal of certain books from the bible.

Peace

Gerry

 

[SteveT]

Gerry:

The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following regarding the Septuagint relative to later Hebrew versions:

“The importance of the Septuagint Version is shown by the following considerations: A. The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.”

It seems it was a fair question in Justin’s day, who it was who had really tampered with the text. Still a fair question today, too. I was in a debate with a convert to Judaism about a year ago, and his major objection to Christianity was that it’s arguments for Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecies was based on faulty translations of the OT. I pointed out that that “faulty translation” predated his Hebrew version of the OT by almost 1000 years, and that it was an open question whether the far more ancient translation was faulty, or the modern Hebrew text had been corrupted in the interim. I cited the passage from Justin as evidence to support the latter hypothesis, leaving him with something to think about.