Posted on 11/07/2009 9:04:48 AM PST by GonzoII
I find it hard to believe, based on the strength of Jewish tradition, that the members of the council would be ignorant of an existing fixed canon...
"After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it" (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).
Source: This Rock
Apparently there were questions about certain books at the end of the 1st century A.D. thus another opinion besides Josephus'.
Did Jabneh have authority?
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the "council" in Jabneh in 90 was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision:
"After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it" (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).
Source: This Rock
You seem to be missing the point.
It is precisely the strength of Hebrew tradition that I am pointing to, and the singular authority thereof. The Sanhedrin was that singular authority throughout time - Even the Babylonian books were not admitted (considered as Scripture) until after there was a Temple and a sitting Sanhedrin again.
There are reams and reams, literally libraries full of writings... But the Torah IS the Torah. The Tanakh IS the Tanakh.
Of course they had a fixed canon. What I am getting at is that the canonization process was so ingrained, ancient, and inbuilt that the idea of assembling a "synod" for a "council" to determine "canon" is simply absurd.
What existed at Jamnia was what was left of the Sanhedrin. It certainly had no national authority, but it certainly had Rabbinical authority. It is highly unlikely that they would do other than what they had always done.
In fact, the historians most likely to know are the Rabbinical authorities. I will accept the Talmud over secular historians any day. The record of the assembling of the Tanakh and the doings at Jamnia are recorded by the Hebrews at the time that they happened.
And as you note, Ryle has been largely discredited.
Good Night!!! It may be morning, but it's really late... I don't know where my brain was at when I wrote this...
*Corrected*
Therefore, what did flow from Jamnia, not in a single council, but all the way along, was a denouncement of the Old Testament as found in the Septuagint- as derived from Greek and Syriac sources... and a confirmation of the Proto-Masoretic (original Hebrew), and Arabic and Babylonian Targumim, of which the Masoretic survives intact.
That is an analogous statement. You might as well make your case by saying both the Apocrypha & Scriptures say God is eternal, so the scriptures are quoting the Apocrypha. Or find a verse in the Apocrypha about the frailty of man, and then say any NT verses talking about man’s frailty is a ‘quote’.
Sorry, that is not a quote. A quote USES the Apocrypha for authority. Expressing similar ideas just means Jews wrote both.
Wisdom 2.13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
St. Matthew 27.43 ... for he said: I am the Son of God.
Wisdom 2.14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
St. Matthew 9.4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Wisdom 2.16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
St. John 8.54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.
Wisdom 2.18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
St. Matthew 27.43 He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God.
2 Maccabees 7 is referred to by:
Hebrews 11.35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.
etc., etc.
Yes, there are analogous thoughts expressed in the Apocrypha and the NT. They were both from the Jews. But you still don’t have a single citation where Jesus quotes the Apocrypha.
You could pull a thousand quotes from various heathen writers, and find analogous statements in the NT...but that wouldn’t make the heathen writings scripture. Analogous thoughts are not quotes.
Compare what you quoted to:
Mat 12:3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
Mat 12:5 “Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?
Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 21:16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?”
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
Mat 21:13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Mar 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
Mar 7:6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
By that standard, you can toss Ezra, Nehemiah, Song of Songs, Esther, etc.
Wisdom 2 is not an analgous thought, but the clearest prophecy of the Passion in the Old Testament. The Evangelists clearly had it in mind when they wrote their turns of phrase.
Wisdom 2 is not quoted anywhere, is it?
Not once does anyone write, “As it is written...”, or “As scripture says...”
Your own claim refutes you. If Wisdom 2 was “the clearest prophecy of the Passion in the Old Testament”, SOMEONE would have quoted it. But not one did.
Turns of phrase are analogous thoughts, NOT quotes. The difference is important. If they considered the Apocrypha scripture, they would not have hesitated to quote it as proof. That they did not means it either had no relevance (and you say it does), or that it wasn’t considered authoritative.
There is no suggestion, in any passage you cited, that the NT writers either A) had it in mind, or B) considered it scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.