The Jewish “Council” of Jamnia
and Its Impact on the Old Testament Canon
and New Testament Studies
By
Timothy Gordon
Boise, Idaho
Copyright © 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Contents
INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________________________________ 2
Historical Background ____________________________________________________________________________ 2
Purpose of the Jamnia “Council” ____________________________________________________________________ 3
Issues Discussed at Jamnia_________________________________________________________________________ 4
THE IMPACT OF THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA ______________________________________________________ 7
The Impact on the Old Testament Canon _____________________________________________________________ 7
The Impact on New Testament Studies _______________________________________________________________ 7
CONCLUSION _____________________________________________________________________________ 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY __________________________________________________________________________ 10
2
INTRODUCTION
This paper is about the Jewish "Council" of Jamnia and its impact on the Old Testament canon and New
Testament studies. In this introductory section an historical background, purpose, and issues discussed at the council of
Jamnia are reviewed. The main body of the paper examined the work of the “council” of Jamnia that is specifically
relevant to New Testament and its corollary, the Old Testament canon. For the purpose of this paper, the name Jamnia
was primarily used for consistency instead of the other place names for which Jamnia may be known such as Jabneh,
Yavneh (Yavne), and Javneh. Additionally, the word “council” is enclosed in quotes because the resemblance is only
superficial.
Historical Background
Jamnia was an ancient city located near the coast of Palestine, south of Jaffa. It was a small town near the coast
about fifteen miles south of modern Tel Aviv and about twenty-five miles east of Jerusalem. It is still inhabited and called
Yavneh (Yavne) today. It was mentioned both in the Old Testament and in records of the Intertestamental period.
Jamnia was a gentile city before the Hasmonean period and did not become thoroughly Jewish until the reign of the
Roman emperor Tiberius. As a Judean town, it was designated by the Romans as a detention center. According to the
Talmud, Jamnia was twice the home of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which initially moved there during the siege of Jerusalem,
then to Usha, and back to Jamnia until shortly after AD 135 when it went back to Usha. 1
In contemporary studies of Jamnia, the seminal work on the nature of this “council” and the issues regarding the
Old Testament canon has been done by Jack P. Lewis in a series of articles over the last 45 years. Lewis was the first to
question the popular theory that the “council” of Jamnia met to put the finishing touches on the canon of the Old
Testament. 2 Lewis noted that prior to the period of critical scholarship, the formation of the canon was attributed to
Ezra, Nehemiah, or the men of the Great Assembly. He added that many scholars repudiated these traditions and
affirmed that a meeting was held in Jamnia that closed the canon ca. AD 90. 3 In a recent survey of Jamnia research over
the last 40 years, Lewis noted that it is now more frequently acknowledged that our information about Jamnia
proceedings is quite sparse. The results of the gatherings at Jamnia have been made more difficult because they are
known only from rabbinic writings—they are unmentioned by Josephus, patristic, and classical writers. What is new
about Jamnia since Lewis published his first work in 1964 is that collections of traditions dealing with the Jamnian sages
have been issued in English, thanks to Jacob Neusner and his students. Lewis says the striking thing about these studies
has not depicted Jamnian scholars as being concerned with the closing of the Old Testament canon, the stabilizing of the
text of Scripture, or with the break in Christianity that some ascribe to the “council” of Jamnia. 4
N. T. Wright noted that the period following AD 70 was of great significance for the future direction of Judaism
as well as early Christianity. In this section he called Judaism Reconstructed (AD 70-135), Wright discussed how the new
rabbinic movement, which was grieving over the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple, met and organized itself into a great
synod at Jamnia and introduced directions which effectively excluded Christians. Wright sadly noted that within this
period in both Jewish and Christian history there are theories that the events begun at Jamnia were crucial in the final
break between Judaism and Christianity. In what he referred to as “scholarly scapegoating,” Wright noted that the early
church responded to this Jewish polemic with its own polemic by introducing sayings put in the mouth of Jesus which
1
Robert C. Newman, "The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon," Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 3
(Spring 1976): 327-330 CD-ROM (Theological Journal Library 9, Galaxie Software, 2006) (Libronix Digital Library System 3.0d, 2000-
2006).
2
Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132.
3
Ibid., 125.
4
Jack P. Lewis, "Jamnia After Forty Years," Hebrew Union College Annual 70-71, no. 1 (1999/2000): 233-235, 242,
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
2
3
reflected these conditions of the 80s and 90s rather than the period of Jesus own ministry and the first generation of the
church. 5
Out of the cultural and historical milieu that resulted during these post-destruction years, Johanan ben Zakkai,
as the new founder of Judaism, established an academy at Jamnia. In a gradual process over the period AD 70-135, the
Jamnia academy began to exercise an authority over Palestinian Jews in the same way as the old Sanhedrin in
Jerusalem. 6
D. E. Aune has concluded, in his short critical monograph on the origins of the “Council of Javneh” myth, that the
evidence that has been presented for the third division of the Hebrew canon (Hagiographa or Writings) is a distortion of
the evidence in the rabbinic sources. 7 Aune noted that this story originated from the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz
who had argued in an excursus dating back to 1871 that the third and final stage of canonization of the Jewish scriptures
had taken place at Jamnia. Subsequent books by H. E. Ryle 8 and Frants Buhl 9 writing about twenty years later, had read
Graetz’s work and both arrived at the conclusion that a rabbinic council meeting at Jamnia had made the decision to
close the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures. Aune noted that Joseph Blenkinsopp was the first to trace the origin of this
Christian myth back to H. E. Ryle. 10 Graetz argued that the Hagiographa was defined in a two-stage process. The first
stage occurred just before the first Jewish revolt about AD 65 while the second stage occurred at Jamnia about AD 90.
Graetz used the term “Synode” to denote the canonical decision made by a group of Jewish sages (the same term later
used by Buhl). What Aune noted about Graetz’s research is significant—that he did not engage in any debate with other
scholars nor did he cite any other scholarly authority for his view. 11
Though Graetz did not quote any sources for his view of canonization, Aune argued that he may have used
Spinoza’s writings in support of his view. 12 Writing about 1670, Spinoza proposed that the authority of each separate
book in scripture must be established independently and argued that the Jewish selection of sacred books was achieved
by a “concilium Pharisaeorum” (council of Pharisees). Spinoza concluded that the Pharisees of the Second Temple period
used conciliar activity to delimit the actual time and place to determine a Jewish canon (Jamnia is never mentioned).
Aune noted three similarities of Graetz and Spinoza: (1) the Jewish canon was defined at a specific time in the late
Second Temple period; (2) the selection was determined by a group of Pharisees; and (3) the Pharisees acted officially as
a “council” in making the final determination of the Hebrew canon. Aune concluded his essay in noting that Spinoza and
Graetz after him, conceptualized the process whereby Judaism achieved a final definition of the extent of the Hebrew
Scriptures based on the model of the conciliar processes used by the Christian church to decide the extent of the Old
and Testament canon. The myth of the “council of Javneh” appears to be of Jewish rather than Christian origin. 13
Purpose of the Jamnia “Council”
According to Lewis, the initial purpose of the Jamnia “council” was to relocate the rabbinic school or academy to
Jamnia after the siege of Jerusalem. 14 When Johanan escaped from the Jerusalem siege, he asked permission of the
Roman general Vespasian to reestablish his school at Jamnia. Josephus recorded 15 that Vespasian marched southward
5
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 161-162.
6
Ibid., 163.
7
D. E. Aune, "On the Origins of the "Council of Javneh" Myth," Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 491,
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
8
H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (London and New York: Macmillan, 1892).
9
Frants Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes (Leipzig: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1891).
10
Aune, 491.
11
Ibid. 492.
12
Ibid., 492-493.
13
Ibid., 493.
14
Lewis, “What Do We Mean By Jabneh?” 126.
15
Flavius Josephus, Josephus: Wars of the Jews, 4.8.1, Translated by William Whiston, CD-ROM (PC Study Bible, version
5.0E, 2003).
3
4
from Caesarea in AD 68 to Jamnia where he quartered a number of surrendered Jews and so Jamnia became a place of
internment for pacified Jews in addition to a place of learning during the Jewish Wars. The school did not take the name
of Sanhedrin but began to exercise the same legal functions as the great Jewish law court. Johanan possibly lived a
decade after the destruction of Jerusalem and there is no record of any official canonical debate held at Jamnia during
his leadership.
In light of the national catastrophe to the Jewish commonwealth, Asher Finkel noted that the new academy at
Jamnia would assure the survival of Judaism through the following means: (a) the consolidation of Torah legislation
through oral tradition, despite serious Pharisaic differences; (b) the centralization of the prayer service, despite the lack
of a temple; and (c) the promotion of “love deeds” without sacrifices that would be based upon Hillel’s guideline,
“Consolidate in time of scattering.” 16
Gamaliel II succeeded Johanan as the leader of the group at Jamnia from ca. AD 80-117. It was during this period
that the earliest known use of the term Kethubim for the third section of the Hebrew Bible occurs in his tripartite answer
to the Sadducees about where scripture taught the resurrection of the dead. Gamaliel’s reply was: “in the law, prophets,
and writings.” Lewis noted there were seventy-two judges in the assembly, frequently referred to as “the vineyard at
Jabneh.” He noted that the Gemara interprets the phrase to refer to the seating arrangements where the disciples sat in
rows. 17
Apparently, Gamaliel was relieved of his leadership duties when he attacked Joshua b. Hananiah which aroused
the anger of the sages present. Eleazar b. Azariah was appointed to take his place and according to Lewis, it was this
action that produced the tradition which traces the decision of the group on certain biblical books as well as many other
items. Lewis noted the first problem dealt with at Jamnia was one of terminology. Terms such as beth din, methivta,
yeshiva, and beth he-midrash were used to designate the meetings which are commonly translated as academy, court,
or school. When the canon is discussed the group becomes a “council” or “synod” which Lewis argued is not appropriate
for Judaism in the same way as the Christian councils at Nicea, Hippo, or Trent. In fact, Lewis maintains that it is a fallacy
to superimpose such Christian concepts upon Judaism. 18
Issues Discussed at Jamnia
In evaluating the decisions of the group at Jamnia regarding the Old Testament canon, Lewis noted eight items
or issues that should be considered: 19
1. Jamnia did not initiate a new division of the canon. There was no list of books that has survived from this period.
Noting that there were already witnesses to the threefold division of Scripture such as Ecclesiasticus, Luke 24:44,
Josephus (Apion I:8, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, the New Testament, and Josephus, Lewis added that any activity at
Jamnia only affirmed the established usage.
2. The evidence of a list by Josephus of twenty-two books and twenty-four books by IV Ezra already implied a well-
defined canon. There is no evidence that either Josephus or IV Ezra are an echo of a binding decision made at
Jamnia. The passage in Josephus which dates to about AD 90, implied that the canon was already one of long
standing.
3. Jewish rabbinical sources contain issues of debate over biblical books wherein canonicity is not the issue but this
debate is not connected with Jamnia.
16
Asher Finkel, "Yavneh's Liturgy and Early Christianity," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 231-232,
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
17
Lewis, “What Do We Mean By Jabneh?” 126-127.
18
Ibid., 126-128.
19
Ibid., 128-132.
4
5
4. There is no evidence from any specific text to support the assumption that the Book of Esther was debated at
Jamnia.
5. A specific canonical discussion at Jamnia exists only for Koheleth and the Song of Songs though each of these books
had circulated prior to Jamnia. The evidence of Koheleth included the Koheleth scroll from Cave IV at Qumran,
citations from the Gemara attributed to Simeon b. Shetah (ca. 104-79 BC), Baba Ben Buta during the time of Herod,
and a disciple of Gamaliel I (ca. AD 44). Evidence for the Song of Songs is the famous citation of Johanan b. Zakkai.
Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel argued vigorously over both Koheleth and the Song of Songs with Hillel affirming that
both books “defile the hands.” There continued to be debate over these books after Jamnia though no authority is
cited as evidence that it does not defile the hands. There are voices of debate as far back as Jerome.
6. Only Ben Sira of the apocryphal books is mentioned by name in rabbinic sources though Ben Sira continued to be
circulated, quoted, and copied. There is no book mentioned as being excluded from the canon at Jamnia.
7. Rabbinical sources quote individual pro and con opinions on certain biblical books by Jamnia authorities. Rabbi Akiba
vigorously opposed the reading of “outside books” which were identified in the Babylonia Gemara as heretical books
while the Palestinian Gemara identified them with outside books like Ben Sira. Some such as G. F. Moore and L.
Ginsberg see Akiba’s statement as a polemic against Christian writings rather than against apocryphal writings as
such.
8. Near the end of the second century both rabbinic and Christian authorities became explicit in giving the number of
Old Testament books as twenty-two or as twenty-four. Evidence from Melito and the Church Fathers such as Origen
and Jerome were influenced by Palestinian sources. Jewish texts such as Baraita, Baba Bathra 14-15 and a host of
Midrashim also speak of twenty-four books.
Lewis noted that the early sources of the traditions and sages of Jamnia need to be considered to understand
the issues. In pre-AD 70 Judaism the high priest had been the leader of the nation. Rabbi Yohanan apparently was not
supported by the priests though he had his disciples. Yohanan ordained Eliezer and Joshua giving them the title “Rabbi”
in an academy type of structure. Rabbi Yohanan was already an old man of seventy plus years and he began building the
authority of sages in Jamnia by enacting the methods of Hillel. He made Jamnia the new center of Jewish life by
exercising privileges that were previously peculiar only to Jerusalem. Among these was control of the Jewish calendar
which essential to Jewish life. After the destruction of Jerusalem Yohanan and Joshua tore their garments and Yohanan
said, “We still possess a means of atonement which is higher than sacrifice, good deeds.” 20 There are no historical or
rabbinic sources that speak of Yohanan’s supervision of communities in the land of Israel, or of civil law.
After Yohanan’s death his successor Rabban Gamaliel II of the house of Hillel took the tile of nasi which Yohanan
had not assumed. Under Gamaliel, questions of halakic practice including circumcision were dealt with. He alienated the
rabbis by humiliating Rabbi Joshua with whom he differed over the evening prayer. The rabbis revolted and deposed
Gamaliel and selected the tenth generation descendant of Ezra, Eleazar ben Azariah as nasi. The Mishnah records
traditions of seventy-two elders on that day after numerous scholars and three hundred benches to accommodate them
were added. Gamaliel continued to attend the sessions and was reinstated to share leadership functions with Eleazar.
Gamaliel II lived on through most of the Jamnia period until his death in AD 114. 21
Akiba rose out of poverty and became the leading scholar during the Jamnia period with his own school in Bene
Berak. It is perhaps hyperbole but Akiba is credited with being one of the three persons who snatched the Torah from
oblivion. He feared that after the destruction of the temple the Torah would be forgotten so he made a collection
arranging material. He endeavored to arrange the material properly in Midrash, Halakah, and Haggadah, seeking to
20
Lewis, “Jamnia After Forty Years,” 236-241.
21
Ibid., 238-241.
5
6
eliminate controversies by establishing a correct version. Simeon ben ‘Azzai, though never ordained, handed down the
tradition from the seventy-two elders that Song of songs and Ecclesiastes made the hands unclean. 22
22
Ibid., 247-248.
6
7
THE IMPACT OF THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA
The Impact on the Old Testament Canon
In a recent essay Lewis stated that surveys of the traditions connected with each of the Jamnia figures that has
been published in the last generation only confirm that Mishnah Yadaim 3:5 (and its parallels) is the only extant early
text which deals with the discussion of the standing of biblical books at Jamnia. He noted that a discussion is recorded
between Yohanan and a certain Sadducee over whether the Scriptures “defile the hands” but there is no preserved
record of any canonical debate during Yohanan’s leadership at Jamnia. 23 It was Simeon ben ‘Azzai who handed down the
tradition from the seventy-two elders that Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes made the hands unclean. 24 Lewis noted that in
the forty years after his initial study, there is still no evidence for terms or descriptions of the gatherings at Jamnia that
justify the use of the Christian terminology such as “synod” or “council” for them. 25
Lewis noted that with regard to new “Council” of Jamnia canon theories, there is little that is new in this area.
Lewis cited the work of Sid Leiman in support to the challenge of the hypothesis that the “Council” of Jamnia closed the
Old Testament canon. There is no text that speaks of apocryphal books or the Christian Gospels as being considered or
excluded in discussions at Jamnia. Lewis concluded his remarks on the canon issue by noting that the studies of Neusner
and his students have made these early traditions of Jamnia accessible in English and there is no new light on the canon
question. 26 In his work on The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce noted regarding the scriptures, that the rabbis at Jamnia
introduced no innovations, having reviewed the tradition they received and left it basically as it was. Bruce cautioned
that it unwise to talk as if there was a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament
canon. 27 In another recent essay, Lewis cited the work of James Sanders who declared that we cannot let the Jamnia
mentality dominate the way we now think about the canonical process up to the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. 28
The Impact on New Testament Studies
One of the theories regarding the proceedings at Jamnia is the case that the sages originated the birkat ha-minin
(curse against heretics) to drive the Jewish Christians out of the synagogues. This interpretation rests upon a passage in
the Talmud which speaks of Gamaliel II in Jamnia asking the sages who would formulate the curse against heretics. This
view is also supported by the fact that Justin, Epiphanius, and Jerome speak of Nazarenes being cursed in the synagogue.
It has been perpetuated by contemporary Christian theologians such as Herford, Parkes, Jocz, Davies, Matsunaga, and
even some Jewish scholars. In fact, Lewis noted Davies’ suggestion that the author of the Gospel of Matthew felt
compelled to formulate a parallel attraction to Pharisaism at Jamnia and was led to his presentation of a New Moses
with a new messianic torah. 29 According to Finkel, Davies maintains that the Gospel of Matthew was published ca. AD 85
as a Jewish-Christian reaction to the Judaism of Jamnia. Davies argued that Matthew’s anti-Pharisaic tone can only be
seen in true perspective against the emergent rabbinic Judaism. 30
23
Ibid., 242-243.
24
Ibid. 248.
25
Ibid., 251.
26
Ibid., 251-253. See also Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, rev. ed. (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1986), 272.
27
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 34.
28
Jack P. Lewis, Jamnia Revisited, ed. Lee McDonald and James Sanders (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
2002), 161.
29
Lewis, “Jamnia After Forty Years,” 256-257
30
Finkel, 233-234.
7
8
Another widely accepted hypothesis by Frederic Manns considered Jamnia as the proper Sitz im Leben for the
Gospel of John. 31 In her review of Mann's work, Libby Garshowitz noted that his main thesis was that the permanent
schism between Judaism and Christianity occurred at Jamnia. Manns attributed Christianity's break with Judaism to the
harsh treatment given to the Jewish Christians by the rabbis. Manns also stated that the Christians returned the favor
with John condemning the Jews for their total refection of Jesus as Messiah, God, savior, and fulfillment of the law.
Consequently, the Jewish Christian's acceptance of these Johannine teachings from his gospel was anathema to the Jews
and they booted the Christians out of the synagogues. Apparently Manns did not date his midrashim sources other than
to say that they contain ancient traditions that found their way into the Johannine corpus. 32
Shaye Cohen has written an essay on the significance of the Jamnia period as the time when Jewish sectarianism
ceased. His main thesis is that there are no ancient texts that discuss the ultimate fate of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes. He argued that these sects as well as the disappearance of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai were a
consequence of the destruction of the temple. He noted that the usual view was that the Pharisees gathered at Jamnia
and excommunicated all who were not Pharisees including Christians and purged the biblical canon of works written in
Greek and apocalyptic style. Thus the goal of the rabbis at Jamnia, according to this view, was to define orthodoxy and
rid Judaism of all who were non-conformers. Cohen attempts to show this as a flawed view for the following reasons: (1)
it is overly simplistic; (2) it assumes Jamnia was pervaded by an air of crisis which demanded the expulsion of all
dissenters; (3) it presumes that we know more about the proceedings of Jamnia than we really do; and (4) the standard
view obscures the major contribution of Jamnia to Jewish history which was the creation of a non-sectarian Jewish
society. 33
CONCLUSION
This paper was about the Jewish "Council" of Jamnia and its impact on the Old Testament canon and New
Testament studies. In the introductory section the historical background, purpose, and issues discussed at the council of
Jamnia were reviewed. In spite of early popular views of both Jewish and Christian scholars, it was shown from the
available research that the “Council” of Jamnia should not be considered a council in the same sense as the councils of
the Christian Church. The evidence from the available rabbinic literature suggests that the proceedings that occurred at
Jamnia should be evaluated as those of an academy or school.
Another misconception that was examined in the research was that the Old Testament canon was finalized by
the “Council” of Jamnia. This is significant in light of the fact that the Old Testament is quoted or alluded to as
authoritative and historical by the New Testament writers numerous times. In my view, several recent works in the last
forty plus years by Christian scholars such as Jack Lewis and Jewish scholars like Jacob Neusner and others has revealed
that the Jamnia proceedings were not the final word on the Old Testament canon. Though the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes were discussed, there is no evidence that any official canonical position is taken on these or any other Old
Testament texts. Some Old Testament books continued to be disputed in rabbinic literature as late as the 4th century AD.
It seems fair to say that most Jews and Christians considered the Old Testament canon to be closed in the first century.
Josephus spoke of a Hebrew canon of twenty-two books which equates to the Christian number of thirty-nine books
today. Neil Lightfoot noted Jesus not only alluded to the threefold arrangement of the law, prophets, and writings in
Luke 24:44 but on another occasion noted in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:55, Jesus spoke of the time from the blood of
Abel to the blood of Zechariah as the first and last martyrs of the Old Testament. The martyrdom of Zechariah is noted in
31
Lewis, “Jamnia After Forty Years,” 256-257.
32
Libby Garshowitz, review of John and Jamnia: How the Break Occurred Between Jews and Christians, c. 80-100 A.D, by
Frederic Manns, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 28, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 163, http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 3 September
2007).
33
Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism," Hebrew Union
College Annual 55, no. 1 (1984), 27-53, http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
8
9
the book of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 which is the last book of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Jesus embraced the whole of the
Hebrew canon from Genesis to Chronicles with his statements. Lightfoot concluded his remarks by noting that the canon
was substantially fixed long before Jamnia. 34
Finally, there are theories by some church fathers and contemporary Christian scholars to fix late dates to the
Gospels of Matthew and John because of alleged anti-Jewish contents. A late date for these Gospels fits the profile of an
anti-Jewish rhetoric that retaliated against the Jews for kicking the Jewish Christians out of the synagogues. In my view,
recent works by Asher Finkel, Shaye Cohen, and Jack Lewis, among others have effectively rendered those theories of no
consequence when the extant Jewish rabbinic works have been examined closely. In the writer’s opinion, this is an
important study because it demonstrates the dynamics and multiple variables associated with the process of
canonization. Some problems associated with theories relating to Jamnia that impact both Old and New Testament
studies have been addressed which reveals that there is ongoing research that still needs to be done in this area.
34
Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003), 153-154.
9
10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aune, D. E. "On the Origins of the "Council of Javneh" Myth." Journal of Biblical Literature 110, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 491-
493. http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
Buhl, Frants. Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes. Leipzig: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1891.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. "The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism." Hebrew Union
College Annual 55, no. 1 (1984): 27-29. http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
Finkel, Asher. "Yavneh's Liturgy and Early Christianity." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18, no. 2 (Spring 1981): 231-250.
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
Garshowitz, Libby. Review of John and Jamnia: How the Break Occurred Between Jews and Christians, c. 80-100 A.D, by
Frederic Manns. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 28, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 162-163. http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/
(accessed 3 September 2007).
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Josephus, Flavius. Josephus: Wars of the Jews, 4.8.1. Translated by William Whiston. CD-ROM (PC Study Bible, version
5.0E, 2003).
Lewis, Jack P. "Jamnia After Forty Years." Hebrew Union College Annual 70-71, no. 1 (1999/2000): 233-259.
http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/ (accessed 13 August 2007).
Lewis, Jack. Jamnia Revisited. Edited by Lee McDonald and James Sanders. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2002.
Lewis, Jack P. "What Do We Mean By Jabneh?" The Journal of Bible and Religion XXXII, no. 2 (April 1964): 125-132.
Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. Third ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2003.
Newman, Robert C. "The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon." Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 3
(Spring 1976): 319-350. CD-ROM (Theological Journal Library 9, Galaxie Software, 2006) (Libronix Digital Library
System 3.0d, 2000-2006).
Ryle, H. E. The Canon of the Old Testament. London and New York: Macmillan, 1892.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
10
