Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Dec 6, '09, 2:00 pm
aggiecatholic85's Avatar
aggiecatholic85 aggiecatholic85 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic and Whovian
Default The Council of Jamnia

I'm very curious to see how others view this "council."

My understanding is that the Council of Jamnia is cited as the justification of the Protestant biblical canon, namely that this "council" established the Jewish Canon and rejected the "Apocrypha" (i.e. most of the "missing" books from the Catholic Bible or the original Hebrew texts). This supposedly is the foundation on which the Protestant bible. Jewish scholars claim that the Jewish canon was established well before this. Christian scholars claim the Old Testament was established. During the Protestant Revolt, this council of Jamnia was Luther's basis for the rejection of certain biblical texts. What conclusions can be drawn if this "council" never existed, yet is the basis of the Protestant bible?

For example:

New Testament writings (included in the Protestant bible) reference Jesus as quoting or alluding to several Deuterocanonical books (i.e. the Apocrypha)....it's a confusing post, sorry.
__________________
"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." ~ G.K. Chesterton



In love with my faith, the Doctor and Spock. Raising a herd of fellow Catholic nerdlings.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Dec 6, '09, 2:05 pm
kepha1's Avatar
kepha1 kepha1 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 10, 2004
Posts: 1,398
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

This "council's" rejection of the Deuterocanonical books was not Luther's reason for rejecting them, it was an excuse. Jamnia was a school, not a council, and they rejected the message of the New Testament. How does that qualify them to determine the Christian canon of the Bible?

It doesn't. It disqualifies them totally. Luther was wrong, and many Protestants know it.
__________________
<img src=http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6171262410_63c439459b_m.jpg border=0 alt= />
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Dec 6, '09, 2:09 pm
aggiecatholic85's Avatar
aggiecatholic85 aggiecatholic85 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic and Whovian
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by kepha1 View Post
This "council's" rejection of the Deuterocanonical books was not Luther's reason for rejecting them, it was an excuse. Jamnia was a school, not a council, and they rejected the message of the New Testament. How does that qualify them to determine the Christian canon of the Bible?

It doesn't. It disqualifies them totally. Luther was wrong, and many Protestants know it.
I agree it was an excuse....but why continue to assert "sola scriptura" with a faulty biblical canon?
__________________
"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." ~ G.K. Chesterton



In love with my faith, the Doctor and Spock. Raising a herd of fellow Catholic nerdlings.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Dec 6, '09, 3:33 pm
NHInsider's Avatar
NHInsider NHInsider is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 2,492
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
I agree it was an excuse....but why continue to assert "sola scriptura" with a faulty biblical canon?
Because without it your whole construct falls apart?

Because by now most Protestants honestly believe that the Catholic Church "added" books to the Bible (possibly even that the Catholic Church wrote them . . .)

Because accepting the authority of the Church to define Scripture but rejecting her authority to define anything else is a very weak stance that requires an elaborate explanation about how God protected the definition of Scripture while allowing the incorporation of all kinds of pagan practices at the same time. . .

Mostly just because.
__________________
"Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Heb. 12:14

Crossed the Tiber 1980 (no, I can't swim)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Dec 6, '09, 4:18 pm
SemperReformada SemperReformada is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 798
Religion: soon to be Catholic...
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
I'm very curious to see how others view this "council."

My understanding is that the Council of Jamnia is cited as the justification of the Protestant biblical canon, namely that this "council" established the Jewish Canon and rejected the "Apocrypha" (i.e. most of the "missing" books from the Catholic Bible or the original Hebrew texts). This supposedly is the foundation on which the Protestant bible. Jewish scholars claim that the Jewish canon was established well before this. Christian scholars claim the Old Testament was established. During the Protestant Revolt, this council of Jamnia was Luther's basis for the rejection of certain biblical texts. What conclusions can be drawn if this "council" never existed, yet is the basis of the Protestant bible?

For example:

New Testament writings (included in the Protestant bible) reference Jesus as quoting or alluding to several Deuterocanonical books (i.e. the Apocrypha)....it's a confusing post, sorry.
There is no evidence that the Council of Jamnia even discussed the deuterocanonical books and as far as I know most scholars (Catholic as well as protestant) have abandoned the theory that the rabbis at Jamnia made binding decisions on the deuterocanonicals.

Please go to Gary Michuta's website and look at two articles there concerning the "Council" of Jamnia, one written by Gary and the other by Steve Ray.

www.handsonapologetics.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Dec 6, '09, 7:18 pm
aggiecatholic85's Avatar
aggiecatholic85 aggiecatholic85 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic and Whovian
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperReformada View Post
There is no evidence that the Council of Jamnia even discussed the deuterocanonical books and as far as I know most scholars (Catholic as well as protestant) have abandoned the theory that the rabbis at Jamnia made binding decisions on the deuterocanonicals.

Please go to Gary Michuta's website and look at two articles there concerning the "Council" of Jamnia, one written by Gary and the other by Steve Ray.

www.handsonapologetics.com
Exactly my point! So why did Luther use it as an excuse to remove the books!? No Jewish canon was set....they only discussed like two books....
__________________
"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." ~ G.K. Chesterton



In love with my faith, the Doctor and Spock. Raising a herd of fellow Catholic nerdlings.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Dec 7, '09, 3:46 am
SemperReformada SemperReformada is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 798
Religion: soon to be Catholic...
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
Exactly my point! So why did Luther use it as an excuse to remove the books!? No Jewish canon was set....they only discussed like two books....
Why did Luther say he excluded the books? Did he say it was because of Jamnia? Is their a primary source you can provide?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Dec 7, '09, 4:35 am
fdesales fdesales is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2009
Posts: 229
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
I'm very curious to see how others view this "council."

My understanding is that the Council of Jamnia is cited as the justification of the Protestant biblical canon, namely that this "council" established the Jewish Canon and rejected the "Apocrypha" (i.e. most of the "missing" books from the Catholic Bible or the original Hebrew texts). This supposedly is the foundation on which the Protestant bible. Jewish scholars claim that the Jewish canon was established well before this. Christian scholars claim the Old Testament was established. During the Protestant Revolt, this council of Jamnia was Luther's basis for the rejection of certain biblical texts. What conclusions can be drawn if this "council" never existed, yet is the basis of the Protestant bible?

For example:

New Testament writings (included in the Protestant bible) reference Jesus as quoting or alluding to several Deuterocanonical books (i.e. the Apocrypha)....it's a confusing post, sorry.
On such questions, I transcend these concepts by merely stating that the Jews rejected the Gospels as Scriptures... Thus, anyone who uses the Jews as an authority on the what is the Word of God must also reject the Gospels.

Any Protestant Christian about to do that???

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Dec 7, '09, 4:49 am
SemperReformada SemperReformada is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 798
Religion: soon to be Catholic...
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdesales View Post
On such questions, I transcend these concepts by merely stating that the Jews rejected the Gospels as Scriptures... Thus, anyone who uses the Jews as an authority on the what is the Word of God must also reject the Gospels.

Any Protestant Christian about to do that???

Regards
Not really.

The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and we see that in the New Testament Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what was and what wasn't scripture. Turning to the Jews to see what they accepted as scripture (OT) does not force one into rejecting the NT. Different covenants.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Dec 7, '09, 5:17 am
patrick457 patrick457 is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: September 7, 2006
Posts: 12,970
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
I'm very curious to see how others view this "council."

My understanding is that the Council of Jamnia is cited as the justification of the Protestant biblical canon, namely that this "council" established the Jewish Canon and rejected the "Apocrypha" (i.e. most of the "missing" books from the Catholic Bible or the original Hebrew texts). This supposedly is the foundation on which the Protestant bible. Jewish scholars claim that the Jewish canon was established well before this. Christian scholars claim the Old Testament was established. During the Protestant Revolt, this council of Jamnia was Luther's basis for the rejection of certain biblical texts. What conclusions can be drawn if this "council" never existed, yet is the basis of the Protestant bible?

For example:

New Testament writings (included in the Protestant bible) reference Jesus as quoting or alluding to several Deuterocanonical books (i.e. the Apocrypha)....it's a confusing post, sorry.
Based from some former posts of mine:

The idea that there was a council in Yavneh/Jamnia, where a school of Halakha (Jewish religious law) existed, was only officially formulated by German historian Heinrich Graetz in 1871 based on what he thought was clues within the Mishna and the Talmud. This idea became popular for a while, but came increasingly into question from the 1960's onwards. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz's sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all. So, no, Luther did not have the luxury of claiming the authority of a rabbinic council - he simply moved the Deuterocanon in another section simply because they were absent in Hebrew Bibles.

Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set, some fixing it as early as the Hasmonean dynasty (37 BC-AD 92) and others pointing toward a later era. Jews were only starting to have an idea of a fixed, closed canon when Christianity emerged; while the Torah was universally accepted, what went in after that was a hotly debated point among the various Jewish sects and groups, the 'Judaisms' (as some label them), of the period. The Tanakh most likely only reached its present 24-book*, three-part form after decades of consolidation, discussion, decisions, and even opposition, long after Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became separate from one another - and long after the hypothetical Synod of Yavneh. It, like the development of the Christian Biblical canon, was a gradual process, not something that merely popped out of thin air one day.

*In Jewish reckoning, there are 24 books of the Old Testament, counting the books of Samuel, Kings, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles as one book each:
TORAH (Genesis to Deuteronomy)
NEVI'IM (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Twelve Minor Prophets)
KETUVIM (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Dec 7, '09, 6:00 am
aggiecatholic85's Avatar
aggiecatholic85 aggiecatholic85 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic and Whovian
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperReformada View Post
Why did Luther say he excluded the books? Did he say it was because of Jamnia? Is their a primary source you can provide?
To produce a primary source would require the extensive original documentation of the writings of Luther, perhaps a trip overseas, etc.....however, there are secondary sources that assert this claim. My question really is if this was the point, because it seems a serious problem for the Protestant canon.....

Example: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...igacp8gcrkBdGA

I think I'm asking for refute/confirmation of this claim......

Because some obviously believe it is the case..... http://minds2mentes.wordpress.com/20...old-testament/
__________________
"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." ~ G.K. Chesterton



In love with my faith, the Doctor and Spock. Raising a herd of fellow Catholic nerdlings.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Dec 7, '09, 6:03 am
aggiecatholic85's Avatar
aggiecatholic85 aggiecatholic85 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2009
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic and Whovian
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick457 View Post
Based from some former posts of mine:

The idea that there was a council in Yavneh/Jamnia, where a school of Halakha (Jewish religious law) existed, was only officially formulated by German historian Heinrich Graetz in 1871 based on what he thought was clues within the Mishna and the Talmud. This idea became popular for a while, but came increasingly into question from the 1960's onwards. In particular, later scholars noted that none of Graetz's sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions of the rabbis were about canonicity at all. So, no, Luther did not have the luxury of claiming the authority of a rabbinic council - he simply moved the Deuterocanon in another section simply because they were absent in Hebrew Bibles.

Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set, some fixing it as early as the Hasmonean dynasty (37 BC-AD 92) and others pointing toward a later era. Jews were only starting to have an idea of a fixed, closed canon when Christianity emerged; while the Torah was universally accepted, what went in after that was a hotly debated point among the various Jewish sects and groups, the 'Judaisms' (as some label them), of the period. The Tanakh most likely only reached its present 24-book*, three-part form after decades of consolidation, discussion, decisions, and even opposition, long after Christianity and rabbinic Judaism became separate from one another - and long after the hypothetical Synod of Yavneh. It, like the development of the Christian Biblical canon, was a gradual process, not something that merely popped out of thin air one day.

*In Jewish reckoning, there are 24 books of the Old Testament, counting the books of Samuel, Kings, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles as one book each:
TORAH (Genesis to Deuteronomy)
NEVI'IM (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Twelve Minor Prophets)
KETUVIM (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles)
Didn't he also claim St. Jerome's writings justified the removal?
__________________
"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." ~ G.K. Chesterton



In love with my faith, the Doctor and Spock. Raising a herd of fellow Catholic nerdlings.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Dec 7, '09, 8:43 am
fdesales fdesales is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2009
Posts: 229
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperReformada View Post
Not really.

The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and we see that in the New Testament Jesus held the Jews accountable for knowing what was and what wasn't scripture. Turning to the Jews to see what they accepted as scripture (OT) does not force one into rejecting the NT. Different covenants.
Sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking, friend. The OT and NT differentiation came about as a result of the Jewish rejection of the Gospels, not because of the Old/New Covenant. The first four books of the NT include largely the time frame of the OLD COVENANT! Thus, your logic fails here.

The Scriptures do not state that with a New Covenant would come a New set of Scriptures and a new authority to authoritatively determine them. Thus, it was the Church that ignored the Jewish former authority to declare Scriptures, not the Scriptures giving anyone a warrant...

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Dec 7, '09, 12:37 pm
SemperReformada SemperReformada is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 798
Religion: soon to be Catholic...
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdesales View Post
Sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking, friend. The OT and NT differentiation came about as a result of the Jewish rejection of the Gospels, not because of the Old/New Covenant. The first four books of the NT include largely the time frame of the OLD COVENANT! Thus, your logic fails here.
I don't see it as Monday morning quarterbacking nor do I see how the logic fails.

The first four books of the NT describe events at the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant but were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit during the New Covenant.

As for the OT / NT differentiation it seems to me you are making a distinction without a difference. Can one be a part of the New Covenant and reject the gospels? Isn't the New Testament an account of the New Covenant which Jesus mediates?

I don't see how accepting the OT which was entrusted to the Jews means you have to then accept the Jewish decision to reject the NT.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Dec 7, '09, 12:45 pm
SemperReformada SemperReformada is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2009
Posts: 798
Religion: soon to be Catholic...
Default Re: The Council of Jamnia

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggiecatholic85 View Post
To produce a primary source would require the extensive original documentation of the writings of Luther, perhaps a trip overseas, etc.....however, there are secondary sources that assert this claim. My question really is if this was the point, because it seems a serious problem for the Protestant canon.....

Example: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...igacp8gcrkBdGA
The material you reference above has many problems.

For example, as best I know most scholars (Catholic and Protestant) have abandoned the two canon theory which espouses an Alexandrian canon and a Palestinian canon. If you got to the www.handsonapologetics.com page I referenced in an earlier post both Gary Michuta and Steve Ray have an article or two about this very issue.

Additionally, it's simply not true that the canon which the Catholic Church accepts as the OT canon was uncontested between Jerome and Martin Luther. Simply read the article at www.newadvent.org on the canon of the OT for a Catholic refutation of that idea.

My suggestion would be to try to do a little reading out of the apologetics realm on this subject.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8350Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: awsiukiewicz
5089CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4409Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3858SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3677Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3268Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3245Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3218Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3085For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:28 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.