If you ever read anything about the differences between the Protestant and Catholic canon, you will most likely see mention of the Council of Jamnia. At this council, the first century AD Jewish leaders are supposed to have thrown aside the deutero-canonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach and parts of Esther and Daniel) as non-Scriptural since they were preserved only in Greek and Aramaic, not in Hebrew.

But what if the Council of Jamnia never happened?

I asked myself this question and went to the Anchor Bible Dictionary to take a look. I found a great article by Jack P. Lewis who explains the intellectual history of the Council of Jamnia hypothesis. Yep, hypothesis! The Council of Jamnia has always been a hypothesis.

Here’s the scoop: A German scholar, Heinrich Graetz, introduced the idea in 1871 based on a tiny passage in the Mishnah, m. Yadayim 3:5. Yadayim is one of the last sections in the sixth order (part) of the Mishnah, called Tohorot. Since then, tons of scholars have repeated over and over and over that the exclusion of the deutero-canonical books relies on the Council of Jamnia’s decision. But very few scholars go back to Graetz’s work and take a look at m. Yad. 3:5. I was curious, so I took a look.

Guess what I found? Nothing. Exactly, nothing.

m. Yad. 3:5 presents a few rabbis’ arguments about whether Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are canonical or not. That is, whether they “render unclean the hands.” (If a book is canonical then it “renders unclean the hands.”) After a few arguments are presented, then votes are cast and both books are considered canonical. That’s it. There is no discussion of the deutero-canonical books. There is no definitive list of the canonical books. There is nothing that indicates they made more decisions. It only presents two sides of an argument over the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

So what the heck is going on? Why do people use this tiny passage to make a huge argument when the two have nothing to do with each other? And what happened at Jamnia anyway?

After the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and before the Bar-Kochba rebellion of 135 AD, Judaism underwent huge changes. There was no Temple, so Judaism had to be re-thought. Some Jewish scholars, scribes, priests, rabbis and theologians lived in Jamnia (a.k.a. Yahvne)–a small coastal town in Judah. They formed an academy of sorts which had theological discussions and began many of the traditions in the Mishnah. They helped re-create Judaism without a Temple. But there was nothing official. They were scholars, not officials. None of them were voted in by other communities. And they did not have a formal system for establishing orthodoxy. They voted on certain things, but were free to disagree. But most importantly, they did not fix or establish a canon of Scriptures. They had a debate over the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, but we have no record at all of them debating or establishing the canonicity of ANY OTHER BIBLICAL BOOK. There were no official sessions, no formal power. Just scholars trying to rethink Judaism. That’s it.

So, yes, Jewish thinkers were gathered at Jamnia, but not for a “Council.” They were there for an academy, a school, a community of scholars not a body of official decision makers. And we have no record of them working on the canon except for the two books mentioned above. THEY DID NOT ESTABLISH A CANON. They did not throw out the non-Hebrew books and repetition of the saying will not make it so. For all intents and purposes, the so-called “Council of Jamnia” never happened. It is a fiction proposed by a nineteenth century scholar. There is no historical basis for the claims made about it.

People use it as an argument because they’ve heard about it. They’ve read it. But that doesn’t make it true. People use it because it’s ancient. It sounds credible, but it’s not. So next time you hear someone cite the “Council of Jamnia” to support a Hebrew-only Old Testament canon, just remember Heinrich Graetz and m. Yad. 3:5.

Wikipedia articles:
-Council of Jamnia
-Mishnah

**Update**
I tracked down the place where Graetz makes his claim. J.P. Lewis points to Graetz, Heinrich. Kohelet, oder, Der salmonische Prediger. Leipzig, 1871. Unfortunately very few libraries in the United States have this book and my German is poor. But I did find Graetz making the same claim in his History of the Jews, vol. II, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893, p.343-4.

Graetz is narrating the events at Jamnia based on m. Yad. and he states, “The second question concerned the holiness of the two writings ascribed to King Solomon, Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim). The school of Shammai had not recognized them as holy. This old contest was now taken up by the College of the Seventy-two, which had not approved of the decisions of Hillel, but it is not clearly known with what result. Later on these Halachas were included in the collection (Canon) of the Holy Writings, after which the Canon was completed and several writings in the Hebrew language were rejected as Apocrypha, such as the proverbs of Sirach, the first book of the Maccabees, and several others.”

There are no citations or footnotes in the book. Clearly, Graetz is relying on m. Yad. 3:5, but he offers no back-up for his huge claim that the Canon–capital “C”–was established at Jamnia. There is no back-up. Period.

I came across a relief at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City that was taken from Persepolis. It depicted two men carrying gifts–a lamb and a loaf of bread–to the Persian king Darius. After 2500 years, it’s not in great shape. I didn’t take a picture of it, but here’s a picture of part of the same relief.

You might be thinking, “Hey! I thought this blog was about the Bible, not ancient art.” And you would be right. Persia was one of the many empires that dominated Ancient Israel in Biblical times. Here’s a super brief overview of the empires: Assyria–> Babylon–> Persia–> Greece–> Rome.

Persepolis was supposedly chosen by Cyrus (yep, the same one who’s all over the book of Isaiah). Two kings later, the palace complex was constructed under Darius, the guy who threw Daniel into the lions’ den. Of course, Daniel lived at Persepolis and as one of Darius’ officials. Both Ezra and Nehemiah lived at Persepolis under Artaxerxes I who reigned there and sent both of them to Jerusalem at different times, 458 and 445 BC, respectively.

The complex itself is amazing. It’s in ruins today, but very impressive ruins! Check out the wikipedia article and some pictures. You can just picture Ezra and Nehemiah walking among the pillars of the palace and thinking about the plight of Judah.

Manasseh was king of Judah a few generations before the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile to Babylon. He is a “micro-type” of Israel. That is, he embodies in his life the spiritual path that Israel and Judah take into and out of exile.

He begins his reign as an evil king, practicing the most abominable forms of pagan worship including child sacrifice (see 2 Chr 33:6). He even boots worship of the Lord from the Temple and sets up pagan idols there. His evil is so extreme that the Lord lets the Babylonians carry him off into exile with a hook in his nose. Yet there in Babylon, a change occurs. Manasseh is so humbled that he prays to the Lord for deliverance. The Lord has mercy on him and brings him back to Jerusalem to be king again. Then the Chronicler presents the most profound statement in his story: “Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.” (2 Chr. 33:13)

Manasseh’s story closely parallel’s the nation’s. Over the generations, Israel fell deep into sin, breaking its obligation to keep the Lord’s covenant over and over. Finally, the Lord fulfills his promise of punishment for their sins by bringing the nation into exile in Babylon. But after 70 years, the people are humbled, praying, fasting and asking the Lord to return them to the land of Judah. The Lord hears their prayers, brings them back and even helps them rebuild the Temple (Ezra) and the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah).

Manasseh engaged in his own reconstruction projects. First, he rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem, then he cleaned the pagan idols out of the temple. One man, one king foreshadows the fate of the nation.

[The picture is from Michaelangelo’s Hezekiah – Manasseh – Amon on the Web Gallery of Art.]

As a young Christian, I often think about my generation–the “Y” Generation or the “Promise Generation” or whatever you want to call it. Undoubtedly my generation has “walked in the ways” of our fathers, the ’60’s generation. Sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll are still the order of the day. Nothing seems to be on its way to changing the moral state of my generation anytime soon. Certainly there are movements of young Christians in the United States, both Protestant and Catholic, which are bringing about some level of spiritual health and conversion to my generation. But on the whole, my generation is still sliding down the slippery slope of moral decline.

So what gives?

A lot of people say we are in the Post-Modern era (whatever the heck that means!) or even the Post-Christian era. But where are we really? Is our generation a fallen away generation that knows the right thing to do but refuses to do it like Jeroboam–who set up golden calves at Bethel for the Israelites to worship? Have we rejected the Lord and followed the ways of the other nations? Or are we more like Assyria, simply lost in a pagan world with no point of reference? The Assyrians (and the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, etc.) had no clue. They weren’t as culpable for their immorality as Israel because they weren’t in a covenant with the Lord.

Are we a generation of rebels or pagans? If I had to wager, I’d say pagans. I think the ’60’s generation was a generation of rebels trying to bring about the upheaval of Christian morality in the name of “freedom.” But my generation is a different story. We haven’t really rebelled at all. We’ve simply bought the whole lie–the sex, the drugs, the whole package–hook, line and sinker. We’re simply a generation of groupies and copy-cats. There’s nothing our generation is doing that our parents didn’t do.

Yet in the midst of such moral decline, people have simply lost a point of reference. There is no sense of national identity, universal morality or even a common language. Everyone is left to pursue whatever they feel like, especially because we are so wealthy as a nation. But I think my generation and the ones following it will be desperate for a point of reference. Riches and immorality only please for a season and then give way to disaster, as in the case of the Roman Empire. Eventually our prosperity will be our downfall. We’ll become so lazy and happy as a nation, drunk on our own sin, that we won’t know what to do when disaster strikes.

In Ancient Judah, King Hezekiah sought the Lord in prayer when Assyria came against the nation and the Lord delivered Jerusalem. But our generation won’t even know who to pray to when we confront a crisis. We won’t have someone to “return” to because we weren’t with him in the first place.

I was reading 1 Chronicles yesterday. Well, actually I was listening to 1 Chronicles while I was driving. And I thought, “You know, it’d be really nice to have a family tree that makes sense of all these genelogies.” And Voila! I found one today online.

Check out this biblical family tree by Jim Belote. It must have taken forever to do this. But it sorts through all the complications of the Old Testament genealogies. It includes complex diagrams for polygamous relationships, indications of firstborn where appropriate and it is color-coded for kings and priests. Take a look at it next time you try to read 1 Chronicles!

Update:
I found more genealogical charts which specfically lay out the genealogies of the first part of 1 Chronicles. These charts are more clear than the one on the website listed above and they are directly related to 1 Chr rather than a general biblical genealogy. Yet the charts are not connected to one another, so distant connections are harder to make. They are in Myers, Jacob M. II Chronicles. Anchor Bible, vol. 13. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

I came across a very unusual website today. That is the Temple Institute of Jerusalem, Israel. It is located in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. The Institute is slowly preparing for the construction of the so-called Third Temple. They not only are doing in-depth research into all the particulars of the ancient temple, but they are actually making vessels, musical instruments, priestly vestments and other implements used in the service of the temple. Their most prized and recent creations are the Table of the Shewbread, and the pure gold Lampstand. Very interesting, check it out.

If you were paying attention last time you read the book of Judges you would have noticed that the men of Jabesh-gilead get a bad wrap. Remember, the Levite’s concubine gets raped and murdered by a band of men in Gibeah of Benjamin (Judg 19). Then all Israel assembles to declare war on the Benjamites for their behavior. Except the men of Jabesh-gilead were a no-show (Judg 21:8-12).

After the war with the Benjamites, the tribes send an army against Jabesh-gilead and kill every man and woman except the female virgins because the men didn’t show up for military service. The virgins are given to the tribe of Benjamin for wives.

Weirdly enough, the men of Jabesh-gilead make a comeback. Don’t ask me how. But at the beginning of Saul’s reign they request military help against the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:1). Saul roundly whoops the Ammonites and Jabesh-gilead is very grateful.

So, you guessed it, they make one final appearance. After Saul has committed suicide and the Philistines hang his body and his sons’ bodies on the wall of their city, the men of Jabesh-gilead make a sortie to steal the bodies. They rescue the bodies from the public display and give them a burial of honor (1 Sam 31:11-13).

I just added a few Bible links on the right hand column. There’s a link for the major Catholic translations in use that are web-published: New American Bible (1970), Revised Standard Version (1951), New Jerusalem Bible (1985) and Douay-Rheims (1609). The NAB is the one used for all Catholic liturgy in the US. It was translated by members of the Catholic Biblical Association in the US. The RSV was originally translated by English Protestants as a revision of the King James Version. The English Catholic bishops approved its use among Catholics, but it is not to be used for liturgy in the United States. The Douay-Rheims version was the first major English translation of the Bible, preceding the King James by 2 years. It is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The New Jerusalem Bible is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible, which was translated by English Catholics in the mid-twentieth century.

I also added a link and search bar to the English Standard Version, my favorite translation. It is a fresh translation, produced in 2002. It follows the traditional theological language of English Bibles (KJV, ASV, RSV) and prizes word-for-word accuracy. I think it is the best translation on the market and look forward to the day when it is produced in a Catholic edition.

A notable feature of early Hebrew narrative is the “intractable vow.” When someone made a serious vow in the Ancient Near East, its consequences could be mortal. We find many stories in the Bible where people take great lengths to avoid breaking a vow. Check out these examples:

Joshua 9 – The Gibeonites pretend to be people on a long journey from a faraway land. They ask for a covenant with the Israelites who are currently taking over the land of Canaan by military conquest. Thinking them to be foreigners, Joshua and the Israelite people make a covenant with them. For the Lord had forbidden them to make a covenant with anyone in the land. The notable feature is that though the Israelites were greviously deceived into making this covenant, they keep their word. They do not attack the cities of the Gibeonites who had deceived them even though the Lord had commanded them to drive out all the peoples in the land. They viewed the covenant they had made with the Gibeonites as intractable.

Judges 11 – Jephthah, one of the Israelite judges, makes an odd vow. He vows that he’ll offer up as a sacrifice whatever or whoever comes out of the door of his house first when he returns from war. He makes the vow in the heat of battle to win the Lord’s favor. But I call the vow “odd” because the things and/or people most likely to be coming out of his house are his immediate family members. I don’t think this vow was inspired by the Lord. Nevertheless, when Jephthah eventually does return home, his daughter, his only child comes running and dancing out of the house to greet him. He tears his clothes and tells her of his vow. Another suprise: she asks him to fulfill his vow. So he offers her up as a human sacrifice. Yuck.

Judges 21 – When all the tribes of Israel decided to war against Benjamin for its crimes, they make two vows: First, they vow not to offer their daughters to Benjamin in marriage. Second, the vow to kill anyone who didn’t show up at the muster. After the combat, Benjamin can’t reproduce because it has no women. So the Israelites find the only people who didn’t come to the muster–the people of Jabesh-gilead. They kill all the men and non-virgin women. Then they take all the virgin women and give them to Benjamin for wives. But that’s not enough for Benjamin, so the Israelites devise a complicated plan to give Israelite women to Benjamin without breaking their original vow. They have the men of Benjamin hide in the woods when the Israelite women come out to dance for a religious festival. Then the Benjamite men jump out of the woods and carry off women to be wives. Wild!

I think we can see the importance of taking one’s word very seriously in this idea of the intractable vow. We can also see the irrevocability of God’s promises to us, which St. Paul points out in Romans. Yet I think we can look to Catholic moral theology to realize that if we vow something and to fulfill it would be objectively sinful then we are not obligated to fulfill it. So if you find yourself in Jephthah’s shoes, DO NOT sacrifice your daughter. Rather, you should repent to the Lord for making such a foolish vow in the first place. Jesus actually tells us not to make vows at all: “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. ” (Mat 5:33-37 ESV)