It is disputed that this Jamnia council ever took place.
Those scholars who delve into such things, cannot precisely and irrefutably agree exactly when and where the Hebrew "canon" was closed, even as the idea of "canon", though not a word of their making, can be shown to be a principle of their own making.
What can otherwise be found, is of course the historian/explainer Josephus, pointing to those number which later are known to us as what is contained in the present Hebrew canon, with quite early on Melito agreeing, followed by Jerome, whom confirmed Melito.
What comes earliest, should be given great consideration.
We see too, that the apocrypha doesn't quite fit. It is neither "Law", the history related to the giving of the Law, including the consequences for both obeying or disobeying, nor is it Psalms, nor books of the minor prophets.
What is of no slight consideration, is just what the Sanhedrin held as being canonical, at the very moment when Jesus stood in the flesh before them.
Nothing else counts. Who else but the Pharisees in Jerusalem were the "foremost"? Would Christ have come and showed himself to any lessor? That was the Jewish religious "Supreme Court". There was no higher authoritative body on earth at the time, in matters regarding the religion of the Jews.
Pointing to the Septuagint as "end of story" is quite problematic, for a host of reasons. First, could be "which version"? Then one would need to irrefutably show that the foremost Jewish authorities, those in Jerusalem, accepted that translation and collection as being canonical. Such has not been accomplished.
Since it is in dispute that this precise Jamnia council even took place (though something of the sort quite possibly did) by what authority can it be claimed that they
hence by implication, that was the motive behind their removal of what should have been known to them as "Scripture" from that work?
If not arguing "perfidious Jews" perfidious even to their own collection of Covenant with G-d, guided by G-d;
Here one must argue "stupid Jews" coming from what is now Israel, stupid since they didn't know what their own Holy Writ contained, and what it did not.
But on the other hand, "smart, well informed Jews" living for enough generations back in Egypt to have all but entirely lost their ability to understand Hebrew, as the ones who were "smart".
Just the symbolism alone of such an idea is problematic, and that before delving into whether or not those Jews whom were actually adequately informed among the Egyptian Jewry, themselves accepted the work without reservation. I do seem to recall there being found in the historic record, some quibbling regarding this very thing, there in Egypt at that time, but have lost the thread, mentioning it here as something for other readers and searchers to be on the lookout for.
Is there something "the Jews" would see magical in the apocrypha, that does the trick, turning people into Christians? Were those books in and of themselves the key to it all? Would "the Jews" be motivated to meddle with their own Holy Writ, just to meddle with and/or "get back at" early Christians in some way?
What a preposterous proposition, but one found hidden in the mention of "Jamnia" and vague allusion to nefarious motives attributed to those dad-gum, perfidious Jews of Israel who "edited out" what is still here now in dispute... and what was long termed 'apocrypha', even by early Catholic scholars.
By What logic would Jewish scholars of that time, those whom actually knew the Hebrew, and were well apprised of tradition, knowing what was considered to be properly seen as Scripture, and what was not --- throw out portions of what was Holy to themselves?
Along those lines, why would later Hebrew language scholars do the same?. Answer that please, but show it from tracing through the most ancient Hebrew sources available, while also explaining why Josephus got it wrong (but certain details of Christ correct!) along with why Melito and later Jerome, should not be seen as authoritative and best informed, coming as they did before the later councils (which you seem to favor).
Why would they do such a precise thing, rejecting certain late-in-the-making written works, (and other works considered by them to be spurious?). Would they do so just to frustrate those irritating Christians? To confuse Jewish converts to Christianity, even at the cost of confusing wider Jewry, by removing the "rabbinical period" and other writings, which otherwise should well enough have been considered by themselves to be sacred, set apart from all else?.
If we are to make assumption concerning the issue, it is much more logical to assume (if Jamnia occurred) they were making clear statement to the Jews in Egypt and elsewhere, to not use the Septuagint unreservedly, for it was contaminated to a degree, in and of itself. The spread of Christianity undoubtedly highlighted the use of that work, possibly contributing to a sense of urgency in their own work aimed at correcting the Septuagint. (not only are they converting to that cult of Christ, but they are perverting our own Scriptures while they are at it!).
It is no wonder then, that there would have been those Jewish scholars, from those whom were left alive after the destruction of the Temple and their Institutes of Learning, whom would desire strongly to set the record straight. Their point of view at that juncture of history, as to what Holy Writ was, and was not, is not to be taken lightly.
Jews truly "in the know" one can surmise, would desire very much to reestablish proper canon, for reasons contained within Judaism, itself.
To argue that the Hebrew canon (what can be properly considered to be what we know of today as the Old Testament) should unreservedly be some version of the Septuagint, is an argument one should take up with Jewish scholars.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, about Jamnia, note that I wrote ""IF" it could be said..." I regret not having made the "iffiness" of this reputed council even more explicit. I cannot vouch for the historicity of what is called the "Council of Jamnia" --- and so it's even more nebulous as to why the Masoretic canon should be preferred to the Septugint canon.
I do think the authenticity of the LXX rests, not on our objections against this "iffy," historically dubious "Council of Jamnia," but on the fact that 80% of the OT quotes found in the NT itself, are taken from the LXX.
I don't think ou can throw out the LXX without throwing out the NT. It's very obviously the version of Scripture that the Evangelists and the Epistle-writers used. St. Paul tells Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...", and the Scripture he quotes in his own Epistles is the LXX. "ALL Scripture therefore is not limited to just the 39-book "short version" OT. The LXX also includes the 7 books you call Apocrypha.
Both the Catholics and the Orthodox have faithfully preserved, and taught from, the LXX, just as the Apostles did. So, are you saying that it was some other group of Christians (other than the Cath/Orthodox) who were preserving the Bible? I would like to know more. Who were they?...When did this ancient "Bible preserving" happen, apart from the Catholic Church? and where? Did they produce an official 66 Book OT/NT Canon? When was the earliest 66-Book Canon list written and where is it to be found?
You can see I am eager to know more about your historic Bible sources.
Eak perked (\..\)
Always left out of the discussion is mention that the hypothetical Council of Jamnia determining canon is NOT some hoary tradition. It was made up about 140 years ago.
You have made some brilliant points! Thank you. It is especially noteworthy that the Catholic Church chose to append those books to the Old Testament even though they had NOT been considered part of that canon EVER by the Jews - of whom are committed the Oracles of God per the Apostle Paul Romans 3:2. These books contain NOTHING whatsoever to do with the era of Christianity and I suspect the only reason they are defended today by Catholics is due to having to stand behind whatever their "magesterium" deems is true. Even the few obscure references that were used to develop a few doctrines are shaky at best and downright laughable at worst. I don't understand why this issue has to be such a big deal worth arguing about seeing as we ALL agree with the 66 books that ARE within the common canon.