jimmy:
You can find this information anywhere. Do a search for it on the internet. You will find the same thing I put here. What I posted did not have any Catholic slant to it.
Actually Jimmy, you’ll have to try a little harder. The council of Jamnia didn’t change or throw out anything. They questioned some canonical books (Ecclesiastes, maybe Song of Songs) to see if “it made the hands unclean”, but as to throwing out Deuterocanonicals and such, they did no such thing. This debate carried over until the 2nd century, but again nothing changed as evidenced by the fact that the Jews today still include these books in their canon. There were some discussions at various times regarding some Deuterocanonicals, such as Sirach and Baruch, but nothing changed and they kept their status. It is safe to say that the uncanonicals remained
uncanonical and the canonicals remained
canonical. Regarding Jamnia, Anglican scholar Roger Beckwith states:
The assumption that the canon was closed at Jamnia about AD 90 has been elaborated by different writers in various ways. Some have seen it as part of the reorganization of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem; some, as part of the polemic against Christianity; and some, as of a piece with the standardization of the Massoretic text. If, however, the canon was not closed about AD 90 but a long time before, all these corollaries lose the premise on which they depend. Similarly, any inference that the canon was decided by councils must be abandoned.
The session at Jamnia was not a council, and the decision it made was not regarded as authoritative: and, in so far as the earliest important Christian council to deal with the canon was the third Council of Carthage, as late as AD 397. ***The role of councils, therefore, was not so much to decide the canon as to confirm decisions about the canon already reached in other ways *** (Roger Beckwith,
The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, p.276-277).
Well here is something for you. The fact that “Justin’s Horatory adress to the Greeks” describes the History of the Septuagint in chapter XIII as if it is
the scriptures.
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-49.htm#P5378_1238424
This doesn’t mean anything really, Jimmy. There were some church fathers and other prominent Catholics who believed the Deuterocanonicals to be Scriptures and, thus, held to the LXX and others that didn’t. A cursory scan of the web page you submitted says nothing of what you claimed earlier, that
Jesus taught from the LXX. Care to try again?
Read above Justin thought it was authoritative enough when he described the History of it.
Well, maybe
Justin did, but that’s hardly evidence that the Deuterocanonicals were accepted canonically. The plain truth of the matter is that there were some who did and others who didn’t. It hardly makes a case for authority.
Here is an epistle of something by Justin that talks about it in chapter 71. This is the second part of a larger work.
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/justinmartyr04.cfm
Already responded to.
…continued…
urgatory), and I have heard people say that Purgatory is also a Jewish Belief, so I just don’t understand?
