Saturday, April 27, 2013


In two of my previous essays, at least, I had presumed as correct an information I got from a Catechism for converts, namely that "it was the council of Jamnia, which excluded Christians from the Synagogue, that also excluded the Septuagint from the status of Holy Writ". I have today learned that some scholars deny that tehre ever was a rabbinic council in Jamnia. It is sure that after the destruction of Jerusalem a Yeshiva was set up there. It is possibly that setting up of the Yeshiva in a new place which narrowed the scope of Jewish tolerance after the Destruction of Jerusalem, or possibly something other that made them less willing to accept Septuagint as Canonic Translation or Christians of Jewish origin as Jews. But that something did so around the time is pretty obvious. It explains why Apocalypse of John still calls the Rabbinic Jews persecuting Christians "they say that they are Jews but are not [so but liars and]* a synagogue of Satan", whereas Gospel of same author, every author's comment uses the word Jew already as a name for the enemies of Christ. But the words of Christ Himself in the Gospel do not so use the word Jew, up to His dialogue with Pilate. So, whether I was right or wrong about there having been a rabbis council in Jamnia, I think what I said about Josephus and about the dates of the Gospels related to this still stands, though there is less of a fixed point in time./HGL

Updates, Sunday (before Ascension, or fifth fourth after Easter)

I So, council of Jamnia (after destruction of the temple in year 70, assembled between years 80 and 90 in what is now called Yavne) was just a theory, proposed in 1871. In that case, why was it never contradicted by Jewish scholars who might presumably have known better? It was only put in doubt these last few years, over one hundred years later. And if that were the case, why did Jews hide the truth, whatever it is? And how were things like final exclusion of Christians, like rejection of the Seventy's Translation (implying not only rejection of 6-7 books - depending on whether you count Baruch as a book or as an appendix - but also a shorter chronology for instance between creation and flood, making the difference between St Jerome's Christ born Anno Mundi 5199 and Usher's Anno Mundi 4004), as well as mitzvoth replacing those previously enacted in the temple?/HGL

II I looked things up a bit, and here are the wiki articles I consulted:

John ben Zaccaeus? Like son of the tax collector of the Gospel? I simply do not know./HGL

III I would of course not like to, if my father had been saved from unjustice by Jesus, not be accepting him as the true Messiah.

Also, if the Yeshiva in Jamnia may have been peaceful to Christians, it seems not to have been the case with the Sanhedrin. Some agression against Christians was alluded to in Apocalypse, from I think year 90. It seems hard to imagine the Sanhedrin would not have been involved, though it is possible it was involved later.

And, of course, if Christians were praying in synagogues "for centuries" according to Wylen and the others, it does not say if they were Catholics or heretics./HGL

*I was conflating 2:9 with 3:9 while quoting from memory.

1 comment:

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

There is also, if there was no council of Jamnia, a question of how substitutional mitzvoth were decided.

I suspect the denial is a canular.

Spelling corrected from earlier version of April 27, 2013 at 8:50 AM.