If your point is to argue that there was a Jewish canon set long before Jamnia, the proliferation of both non-canonical and incomplete Bible texts should immediately rebut that, as well as Jesus referring to texts not accepted by Jamnia more than a dozen times as “scripture.”
In fact, there are three canons referenced by Jesus, “the law,” “the prophets and the law” and “scripture” and none of these three is at all similar to the canon that was known after Jamnia as the Jewish bible. Today, “the law,” “the prophets” and “the scripture” give their names to the initialization “the TaNaKh,” but we know that the “K” part of the Tanakh, the “Ketuvim” is not the same canon as “the scripture” because of the many times Jesus cites scriptures which are not in the Ketuvim. To those whom Jesus appeals to “the law,” Jesus reports that they deny the prophets.
Wrong and wrong. The fact that there was no universally settled canon does not refute the manifest fact that, as said, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings,
In fact, there are three canons referenced by Jesus, “the law,” “the prophets and the law” and “scripture” and none of these three is at all similar to the canon that was known after Jamnia as the Jewish bible. Today, “the law,” “the prophets” and “the scripture” give their names to the initialization “the TaNaKh,” but we know that the “K” part of the Tanakh, the “Ketuvim” is not the same canon as “the scripture” because of the many times Jesus cites scriptures which are not in the Ketuvim. To those whom Jesus appeals to “the law,” Jesus reports that they deny the prophets.
That is not 3 canons, but 3 divisions, all referred to as "Scripture," (Lk. 24:27,44,45) while alluding or referencing some writings that were not part of the Palestinian canon nor even that of the Orthodox simply does not make them scripture proper. To argue that what the Lord referred to as Scripture was not Scripture, is to impose your chosen sources over the Holy Spirit.
The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists [that] Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books, while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below, is considered to be theoretical, and with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.), - though not universally (nor is it today). — (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon)“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
In 1871, H.H. Graetz (a Jewish writer) propounded the theory that the Jewish canon closed at Jamnia in AD 90.[1] After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jewish religious leaders relocated to a town on the Judean coast called Jamnia (a.k.a. Yavneh). Some critical scholars claim that the OT was finally canonized in AD 100 at the Council of Jamnia.Even though the story about a council at Jamnia is widely repeated in college textbooks about the Bible, the truth is, there is no evidence to support that a council was ever convened! The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explains,
The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had wide currency, there is no evidence to support it.[2]
Scholars did gather at Jamnia over a long period of time to discuss many things, but to call this a “council” is really a misnomer. Critical scholars read a “religious council” into this meeting. However, many meetings were held at Jamnia, and these were certainly not a “council” in the sense people think of church councils. The concept of a Jamnia Council has suffered from a “complete refutation” from scholars like J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman.[3]
Furthermore, the rabbis at Jamnia never discussed adding books to the canon, but whether or not they should remove certain books: namely, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, and Esther. Geisler and Nix write, “The discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean. i.e. are divinely inspired… The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.”[4] = https://www.evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/the-apocrypha/wasnt-the-ot-canon-determined-at-the-council-of-jamnia-in-ad-90/
Note that even some RC sources state: "Dr. Pitre shows not only is there zero evidence for any such Council at Jamnia in 90 AD." - The Myth of the Council of Jamnia and the Origin of the Bible (https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-myth-of-the-council-of-jamnia-and-the-origin-of-the-bible
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)
Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)
The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century BC onward were convinced that "the voice of God had ceased to speak directly." (Ewert, FATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without proph-ets, there can be no scriptural revelation. Concerning the Intertestamental Period (approximately four hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament)
Many refer to a Council of Jamnia as authoritatively setting the Hebrew canon around 100 A.D., but modern research research no longer considers that to be the case, or that there even was a council, while some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Robert C. Newman writes,
Among those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these were written several centuries before the beginning of our era.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti- Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:
“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred writings."
"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time."
Newman concludes,
"In this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activity at Jamnia in view of liberal theories regarding its importance in the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the following conclusions are defensible in the light of this study.
The city of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha- Midrash) and court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical convocations there. The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia period. No books are mentioned in these discussions except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content...
But no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students). Rather, it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348. ^
Christ's Witness to the Old Testament Canon
Luke 24:44: In the Upper Room Jesus told the disciples "that all things most needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me" (Asv). With these words Jesus indicated "a threefold categorization of the sacred Scriptures [the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), the third part of which is identified by its longest and presumably most important book, the Psalms." (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)
John 10:31-36; Luke 24:44: Jesus disagreed with the oral traditions of the Pharisees (Mark 7, Matt. 15), but not with their concept of the Hebrew canon.
Luke 11:51 (also Matt. 23:35): "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah." With these words Jesus confirms his witness to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Abel was the first martyr recorded in Scripture (Gen. 4:8) and Zechariah the last mar-tyr to be named in the Hebrew Old Testament order, having been stoned while prophesying to the people "in the court of the house of the LORD." (2 Chr. 24:21). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and Chronicles the last. Jesus, then, was basically saying, "from Genesis to Chronicles," or, according to our order, "from Genesis to Malachi," thereby confirming the divine authority and inspiration of the entire Hebrew canon. (Bruce, BP, 88)
Philo "Around the time of Christ, the Jewish philosopher Philo made a three-fold distinction in the Old Testament speaking of the '[1] laws and [2) oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and [3) psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety (De Vita Contemplativa 3.25)." (Geisler and Nix, BFGU, 103) (Last 10 excerpts above transcribed from "Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World," By Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, pp. 34-36)
"The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible..."
"The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward 'rewritten Bible.' In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ..." (From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991) )