Scribes And Rabbis - History?

[Cure of Ars]

Oh no, Cure, look out!

Cool I'll be an online Martyr. :rolling:

[Anna]

"The historical record of the Jews was written down in leather scrolls and tablets over centuries, and the authors included kings, shepherds, prophets and other leaders inspired by God. In Exodus, God tells Moses to write the Law (Torah) in a book. About 450 BC, all of the Jewish scriptures were collected and arranged by councils of rabbis, who then recognized the complete set as the inspired and sacred authority of God.

Beginning as early as 250 BC, the Hebrew Bible (Tenach) was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt.

The translation became known as the Septuagint, meaning 70, and referring to the tradition that 70 or 72 men comprised the translation team.

At this point, the books of the Hebrew Bible were arranged by topic, including history, poetry, and prophecy.

In 90 AD, at the Council of Jamnia, the Jewish elders established the final Hebrew Bible canon."

http://www.holy--bible.com/

Now, again, here is Bruce S's version of history. Something doesn't add up:

Never once was a council established that definitively agreed, what books and authors were authentic. Nor did they have theologians to tell them all what the nation/state/religion agreed.

That ragged disjointed band of misfits produced a series of books that all now concede is remarkable for it's clarity, when read as a continuation of history and theology.

No one cannonized those for that group, not for 2000 years. And even then, it was only a translation effort that set forth any agreed set of books, till then, they were consistantly agreed upon for the most part.

How was that possible? And why is a central authority even needed if God did so well with that earlier version of his word?

The Jews did have a hierarchy.

They did have a high priest.

And they did have councils which determined which writings were inspired, and which were not.

It was not until 90 AD, nearly a century after the Crucifixion of Christ, in the Council of Jamnia, that they removed the deuterocanonical texts, precisely because of their concern over the great amount of conversions to Christianity. That same council imposed great punishments upon those who converted to Christianity.

Edited January 12, 2004 by Anna

[Anna]

Of course, I got that info above from what appeared to be a protestant source, (http://www.holy--bible.com/) so it may be wrong...

Feel free to correct me, anyone.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited January 12, 2004 by Anna

[Bruce S]

Today's Jews may be fragmented, via cultural vs. religious standards, etc.

But I think that in Christ's time, they were quite united, and there was definitely a hierarchy.

You honestly believe that? Read the bible, the story about the woman who died after having seven husbands. Jesus used the division WITHIN Judasim, against them on that one. One faction believed there was not even a HEAVEN, the other did. Now THAT is what I call a fundamental divide.

Though the Scribes and Pharisees may have abused their authority; they certainly did have authority.

Grin. OK, if you say. How come the Jews didn't think so?

And who said they never had any councils?

The council of Jamnia around 100 AD got rid of the deuterocanonical books because they contained to many references pointing to Christ as the Messiah.

If you carefully REREAD my postings, I specifically stated there were NO councils until the time of Christ. So, you set up a strawman, asking me to defend something I speficially said wasn't true. Sorry.

About 450 BC, all of the Jewish scriptures were collected and arranged by councils of rabbis, who then recognized the complete set as the inspired and sacred authority of God.

They just tried to agree on what they all agreed upon before then. And note the date. How was agreement even possible for almost a THOUSAND years without those Rabbi's?

Now, by the time of Jamnia, ALL the books were written, all of them. They were deciding how to respond to Christianity. Not to cannonize official doctrines that were NOT all accepted generally. That happened completely without human control or authority.

Sorry.

It is strange how God decides things, with or without us, what He wants in those books more or less get there. Sure, there are MINOR differences, but given the massive scope of works, by Jews and Christians alike, what got in there, and what didn't, OT and NT is a fascinating study.

Edited January 12, 2004 by Bruce S

[Anna]

Now, by the time of Jamnia, ALL the books were written, all of them. They were deciding how to respond to Christianity. Not to cannonize official doctrines that were NOT all accepted generally. That happened completely without human control or authority.

Sorry.

So, are you saying that God inspired the decisions and proclamations that came out of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, after they had crucified His Son?

It is strange how God decides things, with or without us,  what He wants in those books more or less get there. Sure, there are MINOR differences, but given the massive scope of works, by Jews and Christians alike, what got in there, and what didn't, OT and NT is a fascinating study.

No, Bruce, I disagree. We don't have MINOR differences. We have major differences. We have seven more books than protestants do.

God said that not a single jot or tittle would pass away, and I earlier described to you that a jot is the smallest letter of the alphabet, and a tittle is just a little line or squiggle on a letter. If jots and tittles are that important to God, then protestants are being cheated out of a whole heck of a lot God breathed, Divinely inspired jots and tittles there!!!

Pax Christi. <><

[Bruce S]

No, Bruce, I disagree. We don't have MINOR differences. We have major differences. We have seven more books than protestants do.

God said that not a single jot or tittle would pass away, and I earlier described to you that a jot is the smallest letter of the alphabet, and a tittle is just a little line or squiggle on a letter. If jots and tittles are that important to God, then protestants are being cheated out of a whole heck of a lot God breathed, Divinely inspired jots and tittles there!!!

Do you eat pork?

Do you have mixed fibers in your clothing?

Do you RETURN any land you have bought to the original owner every 50 years?

If not....

Some "jots and tittles" passed away....lots of J&T's

You have books, fine, books are great, read them.

I'm sticking with Jesus and the RED LETTERS, not this or that book.

Ain't no book from the OT that defines who Jesus is or said, they allude to, seem to prophesy, and give great history and instruction.

I'm not a SOL***O**** not, Sola Scriptura guy, did you forget?

It is the story and the message IN TOTALITY, with the totality of history, and AGREEMENT that counts.

Actually, Protestants and Catholics agree on a LOT. Only Catholics demand 100% agreement from everyone that they are 100% right.

OK. Fine.

You win. Everyone is going to become a Catholic because you yell that loud enough...

Grin.

[Cure of Ars]

You honestly believe that? Read the bible, the story about the woman who died after having seven husbands. Jesus used the division WITHIN Judasim, against them on that one. One faction believed there was not even a HEAVEN, the other did. Now THAT is what I call a fundamental divide.

The Samaritans only accepted the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch Bible. They rejected all the other Old Testament Books.

The Sadducees only accepted the written Law of Moses as scripture.

So I don’t know how this fits into your view that the Old Testament Books were agreed upon “for the most part.” If anything it shows how important following the authority that God has set up is.

Edited January 12, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Anna]

oh thanks, Cure.

I'm not well versed in ancient Jewish history!

It has also been pointed out to me privately that the protestant source I cited above was in error about rabbinical councils canonizing OT Scriptures prior to the Council of Jamnia.

So, don't believe everything you read!

Anna is fallible, very fallible, indeed!

Pax Christi. <><

[Bruce S]

the Samaritans were never considered Jews.

They were a blend of Judaism with other cultures.

I guess they were just the Jewish version of a Protestant [catholic definition style here]

However, you do make my point for me.

Despite all these competing groups, none in agreement, scripture WAS preserved, and we have it for our educational use.

That was my original point, that God must have had a role, certainly man didn't do it, nor does He now.

[ironmonk]

if anyone mentions the "chair of moses" i'll bite them and then proceed to rip them apart

(not literally! sheesh)

From the Chair of Moses means the "office" or "position" of Moses.... Likewise, the Catholic Church has the Chair of Peter.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[ironmonk]

There once was a body of literature, intially written by a wandering band of misfits, fleeing from a superpower, who began writing things down, journaling their history, their wars, their stuggles for national identity. Some even said that God was foretold in their books.

They even were disbursed over the nations of the day, authors wrote without attribution often, from various times and places. Never once was a council established that definitively agreed, what books and authors were authentic. Nor did they have theologians to tell them all what the nation/state/religion agreed.

That ragged disjointed band of misfits produced a series of books that all now concede is remarkable for it's clarity, when read as a continuation of history and theology.

No one cannonized those for that group, not for 2000 years. And even then, it was only a translation effort that set forth any agreed set of books, till then, they were consistantly agreed upon for the most part.

How was that possible? And why is a central authority even needed if God did so well with that earlier version of his word?

Scribes and Rabbis were expected to squabble.

Even the name, Isra-el means..."He who wrestles/struggles/fights with God"

It is in the NON agreement that the understanding was worked out, but without a definitive national church, this never could have happened?

Right?

Bruce,

The OT was canonized. It was the Head priests and pharisees that where guided by God to choose the OT books.

Many of them were written hundreds of years apart.

There is a great resource called Encyclopedia Britannica... you can search it online... http://www.Britannica.com

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Bruce S]

From the Chair of Moses means the "office" or "position" of Moses.... Likewise, the Catholic Church has the Chair of Peter.

[edited by Foundsheep:Negative Criticism of Other Religions ]

Sheesh. :sadder:

[Cure of Ars]

However, you do make my point for me.

Despite all these competing groups, none in agreement, scripture WAS preserved, and we have it for our educational use.

The issue is not if scripture was preserved or not. We agree on this. This issue is how it was preserved. What mechanism did God use to preserve his Word? And how do we know that we have it right? Did God use people who have been given Divine authority to protect, recognize, and “bind” what is scripture? Or is scripture just a matter of survival of the fittest and because it has been handed down by ones own group it is therefore scripture?

Lets think outside the Box. How do we know that the Ethiopian Orthodox church is wrong when they recognize 81 books as scripture? The Syrian church only has 22 books in its New Testament? Greek Orthodox Church has more books in the Old Testament than Catholics. And the Russian Orthodox Bibles is different than both the Greek Orthodox and the Catholics. Then maybe the Protestants are right? Or maybe the Jews are right when the defined scripture as only the Hebrew Bible. Who has the authority to bind this truth so that we can submit to it while avoiding submitting to something that is not scripture and at the same time not ignoring scripture?

That was my original point, that God must have had a role, certainly man didn't do it, nor does He now.

No one is saying that man did this. But by following man made authority and not Christ established authority there is a lot of confusion on what God’s Word is.

Those who are wrong are not free to submit to God's word completely. If you think about this, it is sad.

[ironmonk]

the Samaritans were never considered Jews.

They were a blend of Judaism with other cultures.

I guess they were just the Jewish version of a Protestant [catholic definition style here]

However, you do make my point for me.

Despite all these competing groups, none in agreement, scripture WAS preserved, and we have it for our educational use.

That was my original point, that God must have had a role, certainly man didn't do it, nor does He now.

Why was Scripture preserved?

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John

God Bless,

ironmonk

:deal: :peace: :tiphat: :: :afro: :gotee: :wavey: :preacher: :priest:

[Truth]

There once was a body of literature, intially written by a wandering band of misfits, fleeing from a superpower, who began writing things down, journaling their history, their wars, their stuggles for national identity. Some even said that God was foretold in their books.

They even were disbursed over the nations of the day, authors wrote without attribution often, from various times and places. Never once was a council established that definitively agreed, what books and authors were authentic. Nor did they have theologians to tell them all what the nation/state/religion agreed.

That ragged disjointed band of misfits produced a series of books that all now concede is remarkable for it's clarity, when read as a continuation of history and theology.

No one cannonized those for that group, not for 2000 years. And even then, it was only a translation effort that set forth any agreed set of books, till then, they were consistantly agreed upon for the most part.

How was that possible? And why is a central authority even needed if God did so well with that earlier version of his word?

Scribes and Rabbis were expected to squabble.

Even the name, Isra-el means..."He who wrestles/struggles/fights with God"

It is in the NON agreement that the understanding was worked out, but without a definitive national church, this never could have happened?

Right?

True that the OT just some old Jews took very good care of that old book. I can see that the CC try to take credit for every thing in the Christian faith.

Thank you,