• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured What Christians have authority over Jews and the Jewish Bible - Jewish texts?

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by BobRyan, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. BryanJohnMaloney

    BryanJohnMaloney Active Member

    United States
    No, the protestants removed them.
  2. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    The oldest complete Hebrew Bible manuscript is the Leningrad Codex dated to 1008 AD. When I lived in the DC metro area I heard a lecture by Hershel Shanks a previous editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review. He said the Christian copies of the Septuagint were more accurate than the Leningrad Codex when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  3. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    There are other apocryphal Hebrew texts the Catholics exclude as well. Some do not believe Revelation should be canon. The Gospel of Thomas is not canon even if some of the verses seemed relevant.
  4. visionary

    visionary Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I. Supporter

    Interesting that you say that the copies of the Septuagint are more accurate than the Hebrew transcripts as it came from the Hebrew Bible manuscripts of its day and is just a Greek version.

    Oldest is not necessarily the most accurate. Lots of burnings of Jewish manuscripts/bibles made the Septuagint the oldest. The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the third century BC and was completed initially in Alexandria but in time changes were made elsewhere as well. Like any translation the Septuagint has its limitations, but it was the first translation of any part of the Hebrew Bible into another language, aka Greek in this case.
  5. BryanJohnMaloney

    BryanJohnMaloney Active Member

    United States
    So, let's throw everything out.
  6. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    As Jesus says, unless someone gives up everything, they cannot <CANNOT> by Jesus' student.(disciple)
  7. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    If you go to the world’s largest library and look through hundreds of books, you might find paragraphs you like and paragraphs you do not like. One book might be high enough quality to continue reading. Upon sampling another book you might glance at ten or twenty pages and find nothing and set it down. So it is with research. Read much, find a little and not read all the world’s books cover to cover.
  8. BryanJohnMaloney

    BryanJohnMaloney Active Member

    United States
    So, you claim that Christ says to destroy all Scripture.
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  9. rnmomof7

    rnmomof7 Legend

    The Jews have the authority over the OT..it is Gods revelation to them .

    The New Testament is Gods revelation to the church.

    Jerome affirmed that fact and placed the non canonical readings at the end of his translation for "spiritual reading"
  10. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    oops.... why go that direction instead of towards Scripture and the LIGHT ?
  11. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    I heard or read somewhere that the Reformers accepted the "extra books".
  12. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    The Church had the Authority to accept which books they decided was Scripture. The Church along with those in the Jewish Religion made copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. Copying the Hebrew Scriptures was simply common sense preservation of the OT.
  13. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    Please provide those quotes with links so what you say can be verified. Until then what you said, should be treated as hearsay.
  14. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    Council of Jamnia only reviewed a few disputed books that were already considered to be part of the cannon.

    quotes in next post
  15. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    Among the books for which we have rabbinical discussion of
    canonicity none is more prominent than Ecclesiastes.126 Next in
    frequency of discussion is Song of Songs.127 Several others are
    discussed in a single passage (though not necessarily only once
    in rabbinic history): Ruth,128 Esther,129 Proverbs,130 and
    Ezekiel.131 It is possible that Ezra and Daniel were also discussed, although the only reference to them in this sort of material does not seem to deal with the question of whether or
    not they belong in Scripture.132 The only extra-canonical books
    mentioned in these contexts are the "books of Hamiram"
    (Homer?) mentioned below, but the context seems to imply
    that they are not under consideration for canonization.
    In the rabbinical discussions of the canonicity of the Old
    Testament, the term "canon" and its derivatives are only used in
    periphrastic English translations, as this is a later technical
    term developed in Christian circles. Although the word "Scripture" already seems to be a technical term with the required
    significance, our extant reports usually give the discussions in
    terms of two other concepts: "uncleanness" and "hiding."
    Those books which we would call canonical or scriptural were
    held by the rabbis to confer uncleanness on the hands of those
    touching them.133 According to a late tradition, the rabbis declared uncleanness upon the Scriptures:
    Because originally food of terumah was stored near the Scroll
    of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy.
    But when it was seen that they (the Sacred Books) came to
    harm (apparently because of mice), the Rabbis imposed un-
    cleanness upon them.134
    From its context, this particular distinction seems to go back
    to the period when the temple was still standing. This seems to
    be supported by the presence of Sadducees in a similar type of
    passage in the Mishnah:
    The Sadducees say: We complain against you, 0 ye Phari-
    sees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures render unclean
    the hands, but the books of Hamiram do not convey unclean-
    ness to the hands. R. Johanan ben Zakkai said: Have we
    nothing against the Pharisees excepting this? Behold they
    say that the bones of an ass are clean, yet the bones of
    Johanan the High Priest are unclean. They said to him:
    Proportionate to the love for him, so is their uncleanness, so
    that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father
    or mother. He said to them: So also the Holy Scriptures
    proportionate to the love for them, so is their uncleanness.
    The books of Hamiram which are not precious do not convey
    uncleanness to the hands.135
    Such a passage also seems to indicate virtual identity between
    the concepts “Holy Scripture” and "books which render the
    hands unclean." Certainly it is true that a book which is not
    Scripture does not defile the hands, but another passage shows
    us that the converse is not necessarily true:
    If an Aramaic section was written (translated) in Hebrew,
    or a Hebrew section was written (translated) in Aramaic, or
    Hebrew (Phoenician) script, it does not render unclean the
    hands. It never renders unclean the hands until it is written
    in the Assyrian (square) script, on hide and in ink.136
    Thus "defiling the hands" is a ceremonial concept which does
    not apply to translations. It would seem that the stipulations
    regarding type of script and writing materials indicate that only
    scrolls which would be fit for reading in a worship service can
    defile the hands. So "books which defile the hands" is a somewhat narrower concept than "Scripture."
    Another concept common to rabbinical discussions on the
    canon is that of "hiding" certain works.137 Unfortunately this
    concept is not explained as thoroughly as that of "books which
    defile the hands," although it is clear that "hiding a book" indcates disapproval. It is possible that a book is considered hidden
    when its reading in public worship is forbidden, but it may be
    that even private reading of the book is thereby discouraged.
    R. Akiba is reported to have denied a place in the "world to
    come" to those who read non-canonical books.138 The connection of "hiding a book" with the synagogue geniza (hiding
    place, at least for worn-out copies of Scripture) or with the term
    "apocrypha" (hidden books) is not clear.
    Having looked at the terminology used in discussing the question of the canonicity of various books, let us consider the arguments presented for questioning various books. Only one work
    is ever explicitly charged with heresy, the book of Ecclesiastes.
    The third verse, "What profit has a man in all his labor which
    he does under the sun?" was thought to deny the value of
    studying the Torah. This was reconciled by suggesting that
    man's profit from Torah will be given him "above the sun."140
    Similarly, the writer's exhortation to a young man to "walk in
    the ways of your heart" (11:9b) seemed to violate God's command to follow His law rather than one's own desire (e.g.,
    Num. 15:39). These were brought into agreement by noting the
    context (Eccl. 11:9c): "for all these things God will bring you
    into judgment."141
    Several books, however, are charged with lesser or internal
    contradictions, namely Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. In
    the case of Ezekiel, the contradiction is said to be with the
    Torah.142 No details are given, but the problematic material
    seems to involve the predicted temple and liturgy foreseen in
    chapter 40 and following. Hananiah the son of Hezekiah is
    blessed for having expended three hundred barrels of "midnight oil" successfully to reconcile them, but his arguments are
    not recounted.143
    Proverbs was claimed to be self-contradictory because of
    Proverbs 26:4,5:
    Answer not a fool according to his folly
    lest you also be like him;
    Answer a fool according to his folly,
    lest he be wise in his own conceit.
    Here, too, the rabbis managed to find a way to bring these words
    into agreement.144
    Ecclesiastes was seen as both self-contradictory and in disagreement with other Scripture.145 In addition to the passages
    mentioned above, Ecclesiastes 4:2 and 9:4 seemed divergent,
    as did the former when set beside Psalm 115:17. R. Tanhum of
    Neway solved these with a long explanation.146 Another rabbi
    explains that Ecclesiastes was not hidden because "it began and
    ended with words of Torah."147
    A third reason for rejecting a book is charged against Ecclesiastes: it has only Solomon's wisdom rather than God's.148
    It is significant that some Bible-believing Christians today say
    the same thing. But the "words of Torah" with which Ecclesiastes closes do not allow them this solution:
    The preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that
    which is written is upright, even words of truth (12:10).

    The subject matter of Song of Songs was apparently responsible for the questions raised regarding it. R. Akiba's reactions
    suggest the nature of the problem. "All the Writings are holy,"
    he says, "and this is the holy of holies,"149 implying that some
    felt the Song of Songs was not so holy. Similarly, "he who, at
    a banquet, renders the Song of Songs in a sing-song way, turning it into a common ditty, has no share in the world to
    come."150 Again it is significant that, even today, some Biblebelievers are embarrassed by this book, feeling that allegorical
    exegesis is necessary to justify its canonicity.
    The only problem mentioned in connection with Esther is its
    post-Mosaic establishment of a religious festival,151 although
    both Esther's Purim and 1 Maccabees' Hanukah were then
    being observed. Perhaps the lack of any specific reference to
    God was also a problem.
    No discussion arises over Ezra and Daniel, but the citation
    given above regarding translations and unclean hands (p. 26)
    is immediately preceded by the remark, "The Aramaic sections
    in Ezra and Daniel render unclean the hands."152 Apparently
    the presence of long Aramaic passages concerned some. But
    the Mishnah here seems to affirm the belief that Aramaic was
    the original language of these passages, that therefore that language was to be used in their public reading, and that not even
    a Hebrew translation of such was an adequate substitute.
    For the book of Ruth, the remaining work which may have
    come under discussion,153 nothing is said of the problem involved. Perhaps the difficulty was reconciling Deut. 23:3 with
    the fact that Ruth was a Moabite.
    Let us now attempt to date these rabbinical discussions on
    the canon. Although a number of the references are too vague,
    saying only that the "Sages" gave some opinion,154 others are
    more specific.
    Even while the temple was standing (before A.D. 70) it
    seems that the rabbis discussed the extent of the canon. According to the Mishnah:
    R. Ishmael cites three instances of lenient rulings by Beth
    Shammai and rigorous rulings by Beth Hillel. The Book of
    Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands according to the opin-
    ion of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel says: It defiles the
    R. Simeon, a student of Akiba,156 reports the same opinion,
    adding that Ruth, Song of Songs, and Esther are to be considered Scripture.157 As Hillel and Shammai were active at the
    beginning of our era, their schools were in existence before the
    fall of Jerusalem, and no known rabbis of Jamnia are mentioned
    here, it is probable that these discussions pre-date Jamnia.
    A stonger evidence of early canon discussion is given in the
    In truth, that man, Hananiah son of Hezekiah by name, is to
    be remembered for blessing: but for him, the Book of Ezekiel
    would have been hidden, for its words contradicted the Torah.
    What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were taken up
    to him and he sat in an upper chamber and reconciled them.158
    According to the Mishnah at this point, eighteen halakoth were
    enacted on one day in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekaih ben Garon when Beth Shammai outvoted Beth Hillel.159
    The Gemara further informs us that one of the rulings was that terumah is made unfit by contact with Scripture.160 Since
    this ruling is presupposed in the argument between Johanan ben
    Zakkai and the Sadducees quoted above (note 135), it was probably enacted before Jamnia. Since also Hananiah ben Hezekiah
    is connected with the authorship of Megillat Ta'anit,
    161 and the
    appendix of that work mentions his son Eliezer, who is thought
    to have been one of the leading rebels in the first revolt against
    the Romans,162 it appears that this discussion occurred in the
    last generation before the destruction of the temple.163
    Thus it appears that there was at least one discussion regarding canon, involving two groups, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,
    and one named individual, Hananiah ben Hezekiah, which gives
    every indication of having occurred before the fall of Jerusalem
    in A.D. 70.
    In the period of Jamnia's prominence we also find such discussions. The most specific statement comes from R. Simeon
    ben Azzai, a contemporary of Akiba,164 who says that he has a
    tradition "from the seventy-two elders on the day when they
    appointed R. Eleazar ben Azariah head of the Academy" that
    both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.165 This
    specific (though undated) day166 seems to have occurred some
    time after the death of R. Johanan ben Zakkai. The number
    seventy-two suggests that the action was taken by the Great
    Beth Din rather than the Beth ha-Midrash (presumably the
    "Academy" mentioned here) or the special (?) group of 120
    elders who drew up the Eighteen Benedictions.l67
    R. Judah, a student of Akiba,168 reports that Samuel rejected
    the Book of Esther.169 Presumably this is Samuel the Little, a
    contemporary of Gamaliel and Eleazar ben Azariah,170 so this
    could easily be the same incident mentioned above. Strangely enough, Samuel did not deny that Esther was inspired by the
    Holy Spirit, but rather he felt that it was not supposed to have
    been written down, presumably remaining as oral tradition.
    In addition to these, we have the remarks of R. Akiba on the
    Song of Songs171 and his condemnation of those who read noncanonical books.172 As Akiba was already a prominent rabbi
    when Gamaliel II was temporarily deposed,173 these statements
    in themselves need not imply any later discussion. Elsewhere,
    however, we have R. Akiba's statements on both Ecclesiastes
    and Song of Songs174 in a context which seems to be a discussion between himself, R. Simeon ben. Azzai mentioned above,
    and three of Akiba's later students, Judah, Jose, and Simeon.175
    In a sense this is a discussion about the two previously-mentioned discussions of the canon, as the controversy between
    Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, and the making of R. Eleazar
    ben Azariah head of the Academy are both mentioned. Yet the
    disagreement among these men on just what was disputed and
    what was decided in these previous discussions seems to belie
    any widely-publicized decision. Presumably this last discussion,
    involving Akiba and his students, is set in the Beth ha-Midrash
    rather than the Beth Din.
    Thus Jamnia saw at least one discussion of canon in the Beth
    Din and, later, another in the Beth ha-Midrash. Probably there
    were even more discussions among the rabbis on these matters
    during the Jamnia period, but there is no indication of a special
    council for this.
    But discussions and even arguments on canon did not cease
    with Jamnia. About A.D. 200,176 R. Simeon ben Menasia
    claims that Ecclesiastes is not Scripture, as it contains only
    Solomon's wisdom.177 R. Tanhum of Neway is still discussing
    apparent contradictions in Ecclesiastes178 a century and a half
    beyond this.17Likewise the inspiration of Esther, though favored earlier by
    such as Eleazar, Samuel, Akiba, and Meir, is still being argued
    by Raba, Rabina, Joseph, and Nahman ben Isaac180 late in the
    fourth century of our era.181 It does not appear, therefore, that
    any earlier rabbinical decisions were viewed as ending all discussion.
    So far, we have seen that the canonicity of from six to eight
    books was discussed by the rabbis, all but one of which are in
    the third of the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Unless
    one considers the books of Hamiram to have been real candidates for canonicity, only books in the present canon were even
    The defensive nature of the discussion suggests that the rabbis
    were trying to justify the status quo rather than campaigning
    for or against candidates for admission. There is no hint that
    any of the books discussed was of recent vintage or of any other
    than traditional authorship. The questions which are raised, in
    fact, are just the sort that are still being raised today among
    people with similar theology and interests. These involve internal considerations only, and it appears that no other lines of
    questioning were pursued.
    Although the rabbis occasionally refer to "decisions" in regard to the canon, reported discussions of these matters go backward to early rabbinical times (before A.D. 70) and forward
    nearly to A.D. 400. The question therefore arises whether the
    rabbinical discussions really contributed decisively to the acceptance of the works discussed as Scripture or whether the
    rabbis were merely seeking to understand and defend their prior
    acceptance. To attempt to answer this, let us consider other early
    Jewish and Christian evidence regarding the Old Testament
    canon. that all were in existence nearly two centuries before Jamnia.182
    Instead let us examine early statements regarding the extent
    of the canon and groupings of the books included in it.
    Among the oldest sources which give numbers for the books
    in the Old Testament, at least two different enumerations are
    found. A twenty-two book count is given by Josephus183 (see
    above, note 1) as well as by several church fathers (Melito,
    Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, and
    Augustine) who seem to be reporting Jewish enumerations.184
    On the other hand, 4 Ezra seems to picture twenty-four
    books185 as known to the Jewish public. Such a count is also
    seen in the Talmud186 and in the Midrash Rabbah on Numbers.187 It is probable that, as suggested by Bentzen:
    The difference is accounted for by assuming that Josephus
    combines Ruth with Judges, Lamentations with Jeremiah,
    and takes Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while 4 Esdras
    probably regards Ruth and Lamentations as separate books.188
    Whether it is also probable that Josephus's count was artificially reduced to twenty-two to match the number of letters in the
    Hebrew alphabet, as Bentzen further suggests,189 is not so clear.
    The Midrash Rabbah on Numbers associates the twenty-four
    books with the twenty-four priestly divisions.190 Eissfeldt, for
    instance, believes that the twenty-two book count is the older.191
    A third, rather peculiar numbering of twenty-seven is found
    in an eleventh-century Greek manuscript containing the Didache
    and 2 Clement.192 Here the books of the Old Testament are
    given in Greek together with a transliterated name for each,
    some from Hebrew and some from Aramaic. ... around pages 20-27 of this article: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...tion/Text/Articles/Newman-CanonJamnia-WTJ.pdf
  16. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    The Greek word κανών, meaning primarily a straight rod, and derivatively a norm or law, was first applied by the church fathers (not earlier than 360) to the collection of Holy Scriptures, and primarily to those of the so-called Old Testament (Credner, "Zur Gesch. des Canons," pp. 58-68). But although the older Jewish literature has no such designation for the Biblical books, and it is doubtful whether the word was ever included in the rabbinical vocabulary, it is quite certain that the idea expressed by the designation "canonical writings" (γραΦαὶ κανονικαί), both as including and as excluding certain books, is of Jewish origin. The designation "Apocrypha" affords a parallel instance: the word is Greek; the conception is Jewish (compare the words "Genuzim," "Genizah").

    Origin of Idea.
    The idea of canonicity can only have been suggested at a period when the national literature had progressed far enough to possess a large number of works from which a selection might be made. And the need for such selection was all the more urgent, since the Jewish mind occupied itself in producing exclusively writings of religious import, in which category, however, were also included various historical and didactic works. Which writings were included in the recognized collection, and in what manner such collection was made, are questions belonging to the history of the canon, and are discussed in this article: the origin and composition of the separate books come under the history of Biblical literature.

    § 2.
    The oldest and most frequent designation for the whole collection of Biblical writings is , "Books." This word, which in Dan. ix. 2 means all the sacred writings, occurs frequently in the Mishnah, as well as in traditional literature, without closer definition. The expression ("Holy Books") belongs to later authors. It is employed first by the medieval exegetes; for instance, Ibn Ezra, introduction to "Yesod Morah" and "M'ozne Lashon ha-Ḳodesh"; see also Neubauer, "Book of Tobit," 43b, Oxford, 1878; Grätz, "Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., vii. 384; Margoliouth, "Cat. Hebr. and Samaritan MSS. Brit Mus.," Nos. 181, 193; and elsewhere infrequently, but never in Talmud or Midrash. This fact goes to show that the ancients regarded the whole mass of the national religious writings as equally holy. The Greek translation of the term is τὰ βιβλία, which (as maybe seen from the expressions καὶ τὰ λΟιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων and καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων) is used by the grandson of Sirach in the introduction to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) to designate the whole of the Scriptures.

    "Outside" Books.
    The canonical books, therefore, needed no special designation, since originally all were holy. A new term had to be coined for the new idea of non-holy books. The latter were accordingly called ("outside" or "extraneous books"); that is, books not included in the established collection (Mishnah Sanh. x. 1)—a distinction analogous to that afterward made, with reference to the oral law itself, between "Mishnah" and "Outside-Mishnah" ( and , or its Aramaic equivalent , "Baraita"). Possibly this designation was due to the fact that the Apocrypha, which in popular estimation ranked nevertheless with religious works, were not included in the libraries of the Temple and synagogues (for illustration of this see Books, and Blau, "Zur Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift," i. et seq.). Another designation, ("that which is read"), applied to the whole of Scripture, is founded upon the custom of reading the Holy Scriptures to the people on Sabbaths and holidays: it is a term frequently opposed to and , which designate oral teaching (Ned. iv. 3; Ḳid. i., end; Abot v., end). A third designation is ("Holy Scriptures," Shab. xvi. 1; B. B. i., end, and elsewhere), the Greek equivalents of which are ΓραΦαὶ ἄγιαι (Rom. i. 2) and ιηρ1F70 γράμμαια (II Tim. iii. 15). This term indicates, not the writings belonging to the sanctuary, nor of Israel (Geiger, "Nachgelassene Schriften," iv. 12), but holy writings in contradistinction to profane works ( and , Tosef., Yom-Ṭob, iv.; ed. Zuckermandel, p. 207, 12), perhaps works inspired by the Holy Spirit. This interpretation is also favored by the expression πᾶα γραΘὴ Θηόπνηυστοç (II Tim. iii. 16; compare Eusebius, "Eclogæ Propheticæ," ed. Gaisford, p. 106).

    A fourth designation for the entire Bible is ("Law") (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 9; ed. Friedmann, pp. 34b, 40b; Pesiḳ. R., ed. Friedmann, 9a, and elsewhere), also found in the New Testament under the form νόμΟς (John x. 34; II Esdras xix. 21). This designation owes its origin to the opinion that the entire Holy Writ is the Word of God, and that the Prophets and the Hagiographa are included in the Torah (see below). It is also possible that, since "Torah" was the title of the first and principal part of the Biblical writings, it was transferred to the entire collection.

    The fifth designation, (literally, "it is written"), frequently found personified (as, for instance, , etc. = "the 'Katub' saith"; compare Bacher, "Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," p. 90), is, strictly speaking, an abbreviation, and should be supplemented with the name of the book in which "it is written." The Greek equivalent is γραΦή; π1FB6σα γραΦ1F74 (II Tim. iii. 16), a translation of , which, strange to say, is found in the works of Profiat Duran, though certainly it is very old. The sixth designation is διαΘήκη ("covenant"), from which the term πλλα1F77α διαΘήκη (Vetus Testamentum = Old Testament) in the Christian Church has been derived. Even in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxiv. 23 the Pentateuch is called βίβλος διαΘήκης, and the term ("Book of the Covenant," Ex. xxiv. 7; II Kings xxiii. 2, 21) is similarly translated in the Septuagint. Though "diathēkē," like "Torah," came to be applied to Holy Writ (first by Paul, II Cor. iii. 14; compare Matt. xxvi. 28), the expression ("Book of the Covenant") is never found with this significance in Jewish tradition, except in an apparently polemic utterance of Simon ben Yoḥai (about 150), where a reference to the name "diathēkē" for the Torah occurs (Yer. Sanh. 20c; Lev. R. xix.). In all probability this designation, which, like the term "Old Testament," involves a Christian point of view, was used very rarely.

    Other Expressions.
    In post-Talmudic times other designations were employed; e.g., ("The Twenty-four Books") (see G. Margoliouth, "Cat. Hebr. and Samaritan MSS. Brit. Mus." i. 22b, 25a, 27a, 35a); ("the cycle," in the Masorah; in a codex of the year 1309; and in Ginsburg, "Introduction," p. 564); (Ginsburg, l.c. p. 748). Medieval authors called the Holy Writ also , which originally meant "verse" (Bacher, "Rev. Etudes Juives," xvi. 278). Another very common designation is , the initials of ("Law, Prophets, and Holy Writings"), an expression frequently occurring in Talmud and Midrash. A similar acrostic name is , an abbreviation of the words . In the Middle Ages these mnemonic terms were conveniently regarded as real words, and received translations; namely, "ear-tips" and "plumb-line" respectively.

    In the Mishnah (compare Yad. iii. 5) the canonicity of the Holy Books is expressed indirectly by the doctrine that those writings which are canonical "render the hands unclean." The term connoting this quality, , thus comes very near to the technical equivalent for the word "canonical." The nature of the underlying conceit is not altogether clear. It is most likely that it was meant to insure greater caution against the profanation of holy scrolls by careless handling or irreverent uses (Yad. iv. 6; Zab. v. 12; Shab. 13a, 14a). It is an open question whether this capacity to render "the hands unclean" inhered in the scroll kept in the Temple. It appears that originally the scroll in the Temple rendered food unclean; while only outside the Temple were hands made unclean (Kelim xv. 6; R. Aḳiba, Pes. 19a). At all events, the term was extended to all the writings included in the canon, and designated ultimately their canonical character or its effects as distinguished from non-canonical books (Yad. iii. 2-5; iv. 5, 6; Tosef., Yad. ii. 19; Blau, l.c. pp. 21, 69 et seq.; Friedmann, "Ha-Goren," ii. 168, but incorrect).

    § 3.
    Contents and Divisions.
    The Jewish canon comprises twenty-four books, the five of the Pentateuch, eight books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets), and eleven Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther,Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles). Samuel and Kings form but a single book each, as is seen in Aquila's Greek translation. The "twelve" prophets were known to Ecclus. (Sirach) as one book (xlix. 10), and the separation of Ezra from Nehemiah is not indicated in either the Talmud or the Masorah. A Bible codex written in Spain in 1448 divides Samuel, Kings, and Ezra into two books each (Ginsburg, l.c. p. 586). These books are classified and arranged into three subdivisions, "Torah," "Prophets," and "Hagiographa"; Greek, νόνος καὶ προΦῆται καὶ βιβΛία (Ecclus. [Sirach]). In Yalḳ. ii. 702 they are styled as abstracts, "Law, Prophecy, and Wisdom," ; compare Yer. Mak. 31d, below, and Blau, l.c. p. 21, note. The division of the Prophets into ("Earlier Prophets") and ("Later Prophets) was introduced by the Masorah..

    Earlier and Later Prophets.
    By the former expression the Talmud understands the older Prophets, such as Isaiah, as distinguished from the later Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (see Sifre, Deut. 27, 357; Yer. Ber. 8d, 23, etc.). In contradistinction to the last three, Samuel, David, and Solomon are sometimes called the old Prophets (Soṭah 48b, top). The entire Holy Writ is also designated by the term "Torah and Prophets" (R. H. iv. 6; compare Meg. iv. 5; Tosef., B. B. viii. 14; Sifre, Deut. 218), and the same usage is found in the New Testament (Matt. v. 17, vii. 12, xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16, 29, 31). The abstract terms "Law and Prophecy." are found once in Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, 111a.

    Another division is that into "Torah and Ḳabbalah" found in Ta'an. ii. 1; Tosef., Niddah, iv. 10; Sifre, Num. 112, 139; "Ḳabbalah" signifying tradition, which is regarded as having been carried on by the Prophets. The Aramaic equivalent for is , the Masoretic name for the Prophetical Books, and Hebraized into by Ben Asher ("Diḳduḳe ha-Te'amim," p. 2).

    Still another division is "Torah" and "Miḳra." In Sifre, Deut. 317 "Miḳra" is used as a general term for the Prophets and the Hagiographa—a usage which may also underlie Gen. R. xvi. (ed. Wilna, 75b) and Cant. R. xvi. 6, below (see, however, Bacher, "Aelteste Terminologle," p. 118, note 7). The Midrash on "plena et defectiva" opposes "Torah" to "Miḳra" (Berliner, "Peleṭat Soferim," p. 36), as does also Ben Asher (Blau, "Masor. Untersuchungen," p. 50). The Masorah and Spanish authors use the word in the same sense (Bacher, l.c. pp. 118 et seq.; also in "Ḥuḳḳe ha-Torah," in Güdemann, "Gesch. der Cultur der Juden in Deutschland," p. 268), and it probably came to have this meaning because it is abbreviated from the expression "the remaining Miḳra."

    The Hagiographa.
    The third division, "the Holy Writings," may have received its name in a similar way. Originally, the whole Bible was called "Holy Writings," but subsequently men perhaps spoke of the "Law and the Prophets," and the "other holy writings," and finally briefly of the "Holy Writings." Similarly, the current name "Ketubim" (Writings) is probably also an abbreviation of the fuller expression, "the other writings," or the "Holy Writings." This etymology is supported by the usage of Sirach's grandson, who calls the Hagiographa τά λοιπὰ, τῶν βιβλιωνand of Ben Asher a thousand years later, who speaks of "the Law, the Prophets, and the other books" (l.c. 44; emended text in Blau, "Zur Einleitung," p. 29, note 3). This is not the only instance of Asher's fidelity to older traditions. Characteristic evidence of the threefold division may be noted in the following citations:

    "In the New-Year's prayers, ten passages of the Bible (from the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa) must be introduced at least three times" (Tosef., R. H. iv. 6). "Ben Azzai connected the words of the Torah with those of the Prophets, and the latter with those of the Hagiographa" (Lev. R. xvi. 3). "This is the progressive method of studying: first, a primer (passages of the Pentateuch) is read; then the Book (, Torah), then the Prophets, and finally the Hagiographa. After completing the study of the entire Bible, one took up the Talmud, Halakah, and Haggadah" (Deut. R. viii. 3). "To be considered conversant with the Bible one had to be able to read accurately the Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographa" (ḳid. 49a). "Just as the Torah is threefold, so Israel is threefold, consisting of priests, Levites, and Israelites " (Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, 105a). "Blessed be God, who gave the threefold teachings to the threefold nation, by three persons on the third day of the third month" (Shab. 88a). In answer to the question of the Sadducee, concerning the Biblical basis for the belief that God causes the dead to rise, the patriarch Gamaliel sought proof "in Torah, Prophets, and Holy Writings" (Sanh. 90b). "This doctrine is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and a third time in the Hagiographa" (Meg. 31a; compare Mak. 10b, 15). Hanina set up the rule that "kesef" (silver) means simply a "selah" in the Torah, a "litra" in the Prophets, and a "talent" in the Holy Writings (Bek. 50a; Yer. Ḳid. 59d; see also M. Ḳ. 21a; Ta'an. 30a; Sanh. 101a).

    For passages of similar import from the Jerusalem Talmud and from the Midrash, see Blau, p. 22, note 5; p. 23, note 1.

    § 4.
    Number of Books.
    Tannaite literature makes no mention anywhere of the number of the Biblical books, and it does not seem to have been usual to pay attention to their number. This was felt to be of importance only when the Holy Writings were to be distinguished from others, or when their entire range was to be explained to non-Jews. The earliest two estimates (about 100 C.E.) differ. II Esdras xiv. 44-46 gives the number as 24; all variant readings of the passage (94, 204, 84, 974 books) agree in the unit figure, 4.
    the rest of this article is at BIBLE CANON - JewishEncyclopedia.com
  17. Daniel Marsh

    Daniel Marsh Well-Known Member

    United States
    What I posted was informational only
  18. Hawkins

    Hawkins Member Supporter

    Not true. It's compiled by the 70 or 72 Greeks by using the Jewish Bible as a reference. It has more books because originally it's for the Greek speaking Europeans to have a understanding of the Jewish religion. Canonization serves one of its purposes of guarding the Bible from being altered. Only the scribes designated by the Great Sanhedrin can publish the canonized books in Hebrew/Aramaic. The publication of LXX with its contents were not controlled, it's all up to the individual publishing agencies to maintain its accuracy. To the Jews, LXX was basically used for two purposes. It's for the Hellenistic Jews who don't read Hebrews, and for the Jews to quote verses when speaking in Greek. Instead of fabricating a translation by their own, they may choose to use LXX if the part to be quoted is properly translated.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  19. All4Christ

    All4Christ ✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙ Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Both proposed histories of the initial Septuagint say that it was translated by Jews.

    A lot of your post has information I’ve never seen in any of my readings about this history of the LXX. Do you have academic sources for it?
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  20. DamianWarS

    DamianWarS Follower of Isa Al Masih Supporter

    we have to be careful with these types of symbolism because people will use it to say whatever they wish and it makes it sound good. For example, you speak of a brief history of the pictographs then use that as a segway to say we need to follow the longhorn, not the shorthorn. The problem with the last part is it might make for a good devotional but it's anecdotal and has nothing to do with the ancient Hebrew pictographs because there is no contrast of a long/short-horn or God/Satan in this way.

    Aleph represents the ox as you indicated which has an abstract meaning of power and strength and combined with another character it can form a meaning but alone it simple means ox or power isolated.

    For example, the character "bet" which has a pictograph of a tent can abstractly represent the home. so together aleph-bet means a pole because the centre pole of the tent held up the tent as it was its literal strength, it also can abstractly mean "father" because the father is the strength of the home.

    when we combine it with lamed, which is a pictograph of a staff or a shepherd crook it abstractly represents authority as the one who held the staff had authority over the sheep. Over time this staff became more ornate and shorted and kings adopted it as a sceptre which was a completely arbitrary thing but it still carries the symbol of authority, he who holds the sceptre is the in charge. alpeh-lamed is "el" and it is the Hebrew word for God as God has both the power and the authority.

    these pictographs went through a lot of changes but a lot of them are from east/west changes. the east reads from right to left, the west left to right so many of the characters took its mirror form (and even turned) in greek from Phoenician. Hebrew eventually adopted the Aramaic square script alphabet so it has it's own evolution