When was the Jewish Old Testament Canon Finalized

[ericc]

That’s why the Pharisees were able to found Rabbinic Judaism - their Judaism was not centered so much on the priests and sacrificial rituals in the Temple but on the laity and teaching. That’s what enabled them to get over the Temple’s destruction.

But is that God-given authority? Does it mean as long as the majority practices it, it is authorized? Or is that self-given authority? If it is self-given, then it is no better than churches who created their own authority.

The RCC has apostolic succession. Wouldn’t Judaism require succession/edict from a Aaronic/Levite priesthood for it to be valid?

The Men of the Great Assembly around 410 BCE to 310 BCE have supposedly determined the Jewish Bible. However, I have not found documentation that the canon is closed and finalised by them. Perhaps forumers with such knowledge can share their data?

Finally, I still haven’t sort out the implications of the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees on what accounts for canonical books. The Sadducees subscribing only to the first 5 books of OT as canonical. My question is who has authority? Even during the time of Jesus, there is still disagreement between the 2 factions. Hence, how can the OT cannon be considered closed then and acceptable to all parties? And if it is not closed, then proclamations of closed cannon is moot because there were no authorised Jewish councils tasked to do that job. All you have is some reputable rabbis saying it is so.

 

[Kaninchen]

But is that God-given authority? Does it mean as long as the majority practices it, it is authorized? Or is that self-given authority? If it is self-given, then it is no better than churches who created their own authority.

This is a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem.

 

[ericc]

This is a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem.

Regardless of who sees it as a problem, do you have the answer to the OP’s question?

No, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem. It took what was pre-existing and used it as it is. The Dead Sea Scrolls sort of confirmed it.

 

[Kaninchen]

Regardless of who sees it as a problem, do you have the answer to the OP’s question?

No, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem. It took what was pre-existing and used it as it is. The Dead Sea Scrolls sort of confirmed it.

I apologize for the interrupting you, I won’t do it again.

 

[fred_conty]

I apologize for the interrupting you, I won’t do it again.

It isn’t an interruption but just a comment. And thank you for your comment.

 

[Kaninchen]

It isn’t an interruption but just a comment. And thank you for your comment.

It’s just that I think that, when discussing topics like this, Christians might bear in mind that the question has a very different significance in the two religions.

At the risk of serious oversimplification, to Christians, there’s a kind of seamless flow between the Old and New Testaments - a historical/prophetic progression, add another ‘book’ and it has to have significance in that flow. Whereas, in Judaism, everything not Torah is about Torah (something reflected in the ‘Jesus as rowing rabbi’ scenarios in your own New Testament), another ‘book’ would just be another source of interpretation of ‘the Law’.

Hence my suggestion that the question of the Canon, while undoubtedly important, is more a Christian problem than a Jewish problem - it has a different significance because the religions ‘work’ differently.

 

[fred_conty]

It’s just that I think that, when discussing topics like this, Christians might bear in mind that the question has a very different significance in the two religions.

At the risk of serious oversimplification, to Christians, there’s a kind of seamless flow between the Old and New Testaments - a historical/prophetic progression, add another ‘book’ and it has to have significance in that flow. Whereas, in Judaism, everything not Torah is about Torah (something reflected in the ‘Jesus as rowing rabbi’ scenarios in your own New Testament), another ‘book’ would just be another source of interpretation of ‘the Law’.

Hence my suggestion that the question of the Canon, while undoubtedly important, is more a Christian problem than a Jewish problem - it has a different significance because the religions ‘work’ differently.

But wouldn’t another book in or concerning your sacred writings have to be approved first before it would be considered to be worthy of interpreting the Torah? Because there must have been other authors who wrote concerning the Torah.

What criteria did they use to allow them “in” or “out”? And that is the central point. In both Christianity and Judaism it would seem this would hold. So where or how does this come into play in Judaism?

 

[Kaninchen]

But wouldn’t another book in or concerning your sacred writings have to be approved first before it would be considered to be worthy of interpreting the Torah? Because there must have been other authors who wrote concerning the Torah.

What criteria did they use to allow them “in” or “out”? And that is the central point. In both Christianity and Judaism it would seem this would hold. So where or how does this come into play in Judaism?

Oh, we’re beyond all that because we believe that you have to take into account ‘Oral Torah’ (think ‘Mishnah’ and ‘Talmud’) which isn’t to be found in the Tanakh (Old Testament to you) in order to understand our scriptures in the first place.

Why are books ‘canonical’? Because the ancient sages saw them/accepted them (after arguing about them endlessly) as ‘canonical’. That’s it.

You really do have to step back a bit and stop thinking that Judaism ‘works’ like Christianity. Christianity has a primary focus on ‘orthodoxy’, correct belief, whereas Judaism has a primary focus on ‘orthopraxy’, correct conduct and the significance of things like the ‘canon’ have to be viewed in that kind of light. Judaism is a bit like a country and its legal system - there’s a Constitution and a whole pile of case law, statute law, precedent, jurisprudence, commentary and so on, from ancient times to now, all to help to discern how to live ‘ethical monotheism’ day to day (rather than have some ultimately correct belief).

I would suggest that Christians are only really interested in the ‘Jewish canon’ and what’s in it/what they think should be in it because of the conflict between Christians about what should be in their canon - hence it’s a Christian problem not a Jewish problem.

 

[fred_conty]

originally posted by Kaninchen
Why are books ‘canonical’? Because the ancient sages saw them/accepted them (after arguing about them endlessly) as ‘canonical’. That’s it.

Could you put a final date on that? Or is this an open issue?

I would suggest that Christians are only really interested in the ‘Jewish canon’ and what’s in it/what they think should be in it because of the conflict between Christians about what should be in their canon - hence it’s a Christian problem not a Jewish problem.

Protestants are taking the finalized canon of the O.T. based on Judasim’s final number of books.

The Septuagint was a greek translation from the Hebrew O.T. and was used by Judism from before Christ to about the end of first century AD.

So this is way the final date is important. As well as what books were considered to be a part of scripture.

 

[Kaninchen]

Could you put a final date on that? Or is this an open issue?

Protestants are taking the finalized canon of the O.T. based on Judasim’s final number of books.

The Septuagint was a greek translation from the Hebrew O.T. and was used by Judism from before Christ to about the end of first century AD.

So this is way the final date is important. As well as what books were considered to be a part of scripture.

As I said originally, this is a Christian problem not a Jewish problem.

 

[fred_conty]

As I said originally, this is a Christian problem not a Jewish problem.

I agree. So then there is not final date in Judaism since there is not problem? And can I quote you?

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree. So then there is not final date in Judaism since there is not problem? And can I quote you?

There not being some precise date is not a consequence of it not being a problem. There is no precise date and it’s not a problem.

 

[fred_conty]

There not being some precise date is not a consequence of it not being a problem. There is no precise date and it’s not a problem.

I am going to make your kind words into gold letters and hang them on my front door.

And just by the way so everyone will give you the credit…I will need your SSN. :flowers:

 

[God_I_Love]

Well from my understand of things the canon determined by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, was that in examining all the New Testament quotes from Jesus when he referenced scripture, they all pointed to the Septuagint. Which in turn determined that being the OT canon to use.

 

[cottice]

Here is my take on this. There must have been some point in Jewish history that the Hebrew scriptures were revised. Whether this occurred at the alleged ‘council’ at Jamnia or elsewhere we apparently do not know. But, none the less, a revision must have been done for this simple reason. The Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, was made approx 200 years before the christian era during which the controversy over the canon commenced. So if the Septuagint contained the books in dispute (the Deuterocanonical) when did these books come from if not from the Hebrew scriptures at the time the Greek translation was made? Seems to me those arguing for their exclusion from the Christian Bible must answer that question. Where is the evidence that these books were not translated into Greek at the same time the other books were?

On another point I have heard that the Jewish scriptures have never been ‘finalized’. In other words the Jews have never said that the scriptures, as they presently have them, are complete. Christians, on the other hand say that the with the coming of Christ the public revelation is complete.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Jewish Encyclopaedia is, as ever, a wonderful source of knowledge and confusion (“on the one hand, while on the other hand, while on yet another hand . . . .”). Here it is on the Canon and the Septuagint.

Enjoy.