Talk:Council of Jamnia

Untitled

can we mark this to be cleaned up? it's not organized and that huge paragraph loses interest. -- paul

"Speculation.."

I am shocked, the very first topic of discussion is one that places an air of doubt even before the reader even begins to understand what it is all about.

It is fine to disagree, however, placing commentary debasing a well accepted concept even before the reader knows what is discussed is wrong and inapproprate. If Wikipedia wants quote from author's which disagree the Council even occured, it should at least provide equal support for the concept. Possibly quoting H. Graitz', book History of the Jews, were he formulates this hypothesis(an educated guess-see below) from direct Hebrew texts.

It is very simlar to a response by Hanina(Jamnia Jumble) in the Septuagint discussion board( Talk:Septuagint ), and is personaly patronizing, as it quotes Jack P. Lewis which I provided against speculation in my response below:

Jamina Jumble of the Jumble:

Please refer to "Council of Jamnia"(already removed, and placed in the main article under "Speculation...") for background regarding this "Jamnian" controversy. You see, it appears Hanina's remark " as modern scholars doubt any Council of Jamnia ever convened!" was a gross mis-interpretation. Actually, if there is any consensus it is that Jamnia, by most modern scholarly works whether over a 1 year period or a 30 year period, is that it did occur. The little speculation that has arisen, comes via the works of a few. One of these skeptics Jack P. Lewis, in his book The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7, specifically, makes the following weak statements in attempting to discredit any "Council of Jamnia"...

"The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion. "

Upon reading, Mr. Lewis, makes several scholarly errors and mis-definitions.

Right from the start, Mr. Lewis, points out a "paucity of evidence". Well, if there was direct evidence then he should not be calling this a "hypothesis". For the definition of hypothesis is an educated proposition accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. Understanding this we realize that , Mr. Lewis' statement "unestablished hypothesis" is a true oxymoron. If it was firmly established with evidence (in essence a smoking gun) then it would not be called a hypothesis.

However, lets look at the established facts which does make the Council of Jamnia and this Phariseal Jew Canonization highly probable and legitimate hypothesis for the time of the canonization of what is referred as the "Hebrew" Scriptures.

1. There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. However, we do know it must have been set some time between 60-200 BC(during the formation of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls), and the 10th century - the date of the Masoretic Text. With this in mind we need to understand certain pivotal periods in Hebrew/Phariseal Jewish history and the time most likely for this to occur would require the congregation of Phariseal Jews in the Holy Land. Additionally we must understand that even thought there may have been various Jewish divisions of differing powers there was no one single Jewish sect which had superior powers above all other and each utilized various books as scripture. The Saducees held only the Pentatuch(1st five books) as their lone scripture, Essenes to a larger volume of books than the Pharisees, diaspora/Hellenist Jews, Ethiopian Jews and the grand majority of Jews including Christ himself and his Early Church used the Septuagint canon, naturally including Christian Jews.

2. The grand majority of Jews, including those in the Holy Land, at least 200 years before Christ and centuries after did not speak Hebrew they spoke Aramaic (with Greek as the official language), as Christ. Therefore, the predominant use of the Septuagent Old Testament.

3. The destruction of the Temple at 70 AD left Phariseal Jews of Palestine with little to identify themselves and the last they needed is to abide by an exact canon and language used by the newly converted Christian Jews. Thus, a need to discard themselves of any canon connected with the Septuagint canon. (again I remind you it was the Septuagint canon of Old Testament scriptures utilized by Christ and the apostles, as a matter of fact, it is quoted over 300 times in the New Testament included many of Jesus' very own words.) Additionally, the Pharisees realized that the conversion of many Jews to Christianity was directly related with the Septuagent version of the Old Testament with the more explicit language regarding the coming Messiah- for an example see the Book of Wisdom 2:13 and compare it to Matthew 27:43 and Psalms 22:8. Even more reason to hastily establish and close a "Hebrew" (Phariseal) canon to deal with this Christian conversion problem among their very Jewish brethren now that Jews had lost the very central tenement of Judaism, the Temple at Jerusalem.

4. With all this in mind one must question...whom has place the Pharisees, those that rejected Christ and their offspring, Rabbinic Judaism in a position of primacy regarding Hebrew Canon and much less Christian Old Testament Canon? Additionally why could it not be inferred that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai one of the original founders of Rabbinic Judaism ,whom left to Jamnia after the temple was destroyed and was a central figure in the codification the Mishna oral law during the late 1st century did not also at the very least initiate the formulation of the Hebrew (truly a "Phariseal" Hebrew) Canon during that same time. Consequently, the "hypothesis" of the Council of Jamnia and the establishment of the "Hebrew" canon.

Lastly, the bottom line is that the Pharisees had no more say with regard to the final codification of Old Testament Scripture than any other Jewish sect of Jesus' time and neither one of these groups had any superior authority among themselves even less-so over the Early Christian Church which WAS give the authority- by Christ- to bind or loosen as is well documented in scripture in Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Wikipedia should correct this ASAP, or simulaneously quote H. Graitz book, History of the Jews, where he formulates his hypothesis directly from the Hebrew texts.--Micael 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is No Original Research. Heinrich Graetz is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources and is cited in the article, but other reliable sources should not be thus excluded, because another Wikipedia policy is NPOV. 75.0.14.27 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Judaism and the afterlife

The last paragraph has this sentence:

Some of the books not admitted into the Hebrew canon, such as the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees (originally Greek compositions) gave the only textual support for the common first century Jewish belief in the after-life.

That is simply not true. Amongst the references, Daniel 12:2-3 and other in Isaiah and the Psalms I'm positive mention an afterlife. The Jews did not abandon a belief in an afterlife in the 2nd century or after the books Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees were rejected from the canon, because as was found by Solomon Schechter, who examined the documents of the Cairo Geniza (13th? century), the Jewish theologians of the 19th century were the ones who did this. (Hershel Shanks, Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls). In addition to this, the Talmud relates the story of Aqiba who began learning the Torah at age 40, saying that those who neglect the Torah are eternally whipped in the afterlife and have no excuse saying they were too old, because Aqiba started when he was 40. Cornelius (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

some confusion that needs clarifying

The intro and most of the article refers to the canon of the Tanach, but suddenly there is "the inclusion of a curse on the Minim". This is in the prayer book and not in the Tanach. I don't know enough to know if the alleged Council of Jamnia is relevant but some words of explanation are required to clarify this. Or it should be deleted: the only source given provides very weak support for this material being here at all (look for "Jabneh", which is another name for Jamnia). Zero^talk 07:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I'm going to bring in superior verbiage from the Development of the Hebrew canon article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AD/CE

There has recently been an edit that changed "CE" to "AD", but "AD" is, in fact, the historical usage in the article, and so it should stay. This seems to have been the edit that initially contravened WP:ERA. StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No longer plausible?

The article was changed here from "is no longer considered plausible" to "many scholars no longer consider it plausible". There are indeed tany scholars who do not consider it plausible - the question is, are there any scholars who do? I am not aware of any, and in the absence of a name being offered, the wording should revert back to what it was. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe Sundberg tries to argue in favor of some sort of council that determined the canon: [1] . 75.15.197.0 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sundberg's summary statement from the above reference: "Are there alternatives to Jamnia (or later Usha)? As we have seen, it was at Jamnia that the tradition says the Hillelites gained the ascendancy over the house of Shammai. It was the school at Jamnia that became a substitute for the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. It was at Jamnia that the third section of the Hebrew canon was first named. It was the Jamnia decisions that, while not "official," came to be generally accepted in post-destruction Judaism. It may be that we have followed too quickly after Lewis in his attack upon Jamnia in order to foster his belief in a Hebrew canon from pre-Christian times. But that case, as we have seen, is confounded by numerous difficulties. With the time of canonization of the Hebrew tripartite canon now probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., and as a triumph of the Hillelite Pharisee in post-destruction Judaism, what alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue? "

I believe it was once part of this article but was deleted in some edit war somewhere. 75.15.197.0 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Lewis in "The Canon Debate", page 162, summarizes Sundberg's position as follows: "Albert Sundberg recognizes that the "Council of Jamnia" hypothesis is dead. At the same time, still contending that the Hebrew tripartite canon was probably fixed between 70 and 135 C.E., he suggests that my own view of the hypothesis may have been too quickly accepted. He asks, "What alternatives are there to Jamnia as the venue?"" 75.15.197.0 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What about Jewish sources?

As a theologian, I find it alarming this article only features Christian (gentile) scholars. In fact, only one sampling of liberal Bible scholars are listed here with the obvious agenda of discrediting the Council of Jamnia as a hypothesis. If we go by the usual claims of liberal scholarship, nothing ever happened, never existed, nor ever coincides with a conservative paradigm. I find the lack of Jewish sources or scholars problematic, which lends to my concern about antisemitism. It takes a lot of audacity for a Western gentile to tell a Jewish person something from their history never happened. This is gaslighting at best or cultural genocide at worst. To the contrary, this is what the Jewish Virtual Library (citing rabbinical sources) says,

After the fall of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin was reconstituted at Jabneh, first under R. Johanan and then under the patriarch Rabban Gamaliel II (Tosef., Ber. 2:6). The Sanhedrin met in the upper story of a house or in a vineyard near a pigeon house. In some respects, the city was now regarded as the equal of Jerusalem: there the year was intercalated and the shofar blown, and pilgrims from Asia visited the city three times a year (Tosef., Ḥul. 3:10; RH 29b; Shab. 11a). Among the most important decisions made at Jabneh was the arranging of the definitive canon of the Bible. Between 70 and 132 C.E., Jabneh was "the great city, the city of scholars and rabbis"; most of the tannaim of this period taught there and Rabban Gamaliel was buried there. The city is described as being situated near a stream of water; its wheat market was well known and cattle and poultry were raised in the vicinity.

The Talmud citations are Rosh Hashanah 31a, Sanhedrin 31b, and Song of Songs Rabba II.5. This here is a Messianic Jewish source that does not question the Council of Jamnia, but talks about its purpose as a historical fact. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Britannica mentions it as history without question.

I suggest a complete rewrite of the article from a Jewish perspective citing rabbinical texts. I would be glad to get started, but I would prefer a Jewish writer to finish it. The liberal Western gentile viewpoint should be in its de-emphasized paragraph further down the page. It is the liberal scholarship that is out of whack here. This is not a matter of liberal vs. conservative, but Jewish vs. Western gentile with some imperialistic agendas.

James Miko (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: I think your final two sentences contradict each other, your "imperialistic agendas" is waffle, and your "concern about antisemitism" something that will get you blocked if you keep it up. You misunderstand the rules here, which are to present all mainstream viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in modern scholarship. Of your sources, none are of the type we use when there are copious scholarly treatises to select from. You are also severely mistaken in presenting the two viewpoints (to oversimplify) as Jewish versus "Western gentile". Here is the Jewish scholar Yehoshua M. Grintz writing in Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edn. (article Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha): "There are those who assume that even in Ereẓ Israel the Apocrypha was for a certain period (until the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e.) considered part of the canon, and that the canon as known later was fixed only in the days of the synod of Jabneh (first century c.e.). All these views, however, are erroneous, based as they are upon a series of faulty premises." Or the renowned expert on the history of the bible text Emanuel Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pp195–196): "We do not possess evidence on whether during this period some sort of official meeting took place during which a decision was reached on the authoritative status of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible according to [Masoretic text]. Various scholars have mentioned in this context a meeting or council that was held at Jabneh, Jamnia, between the years 75 and 117 CE. In the ancient texts, however, we find only references to a beth din, "law court," a metibta', "academy," a yeshivah, and a beth midrash ("school" or "college") at Jabneh. There is no reference to any convention or council. In addition to this, according to Leiman, the only decision reached at Jabneh was that "the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean" (m. Yad. 3.5). No decision was taken on the authoritative (canonical) status of all of the biblical books and it is hard to know whether the activities of the rabbis at Jabneh had any influence on the position of the text during that period." The debate is absolutely not one of Jewish versus non-Jewish. Note that I am not defending the current text of our article. All articles can be improved including this one. Zero^talk 13:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User_talk:Zero0000, I wasn't even talking to anyone specific on WP or anywhere else. I'm addressing an existing bias, which is totally in line with WP policy. Most articles having to do with Judaism or Israel have to be protected because of antisemitism, which comes in various forms, to include academic bias. For example, it is fashionable for liberal scholars to question whether King David existed or whether the Jews ever lived in ancient Canaan without considering the Jewish people. This is, in fact, imperialistic as it tries to push a Western paradigm where it doesn't belong. Imagine telling a Mexican or a Japanese person you know about their country even more than they do! It's wrong. To clarify, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used by scholars themselves to delineate their biases outright. A liberal scholar emphasizes the historical-critical method while conservatives use the historical-grammatical method. This was no slander on my part, and having concern for antisemitism is not wrong, either. I am not talking about political viewpoints.

There are two separate issues here being conflated: 1) Did this council happen? 2) Did this council decide on the Hebrew Bible canon? Even with what you posted, you use words that are synonymous with a group of Jewish scholars meeting for an instructive purpose. This means some kind of meeting did take place at Jamnia. However, there should be a pro side as well as a con side from both Jewish and gentile perspectives. With the historical data available, it's easy to defend either position because both deal in speculation. There should be an empirical interpretation of all available material from late antiquity and early medieval Judaism. Problem is, the current article only seeks to debunk an older but modern view. The academic answer is not to simply provide the other side of the argument, but to present the best evidence closest to a primary source. As it is, whether liberal or conservative, we're only reading secondary sources.

James Miko (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)