I see both ur views are strong..no doubt its like clash between two super theological giants, I mean the greatest clash of 21st century..but I will also research on this topic and add it tomorrow, I want to add fuel to the fire..lemme see which is substance, I would love to learn about this topic
Third, the Council of Jamnia (c. 90–100 AD) did not invent the canon or “eject” books. It recognized what was already normatively received.
I just wanted to point out that the “Council of Jamnia” has no real basis in the historical record. There is no evidence that there was any rabbinic council held at Jamnia, it is wholly conjectural. First conjectured in the late 19th century, and is today now generally regarded as never having occurred. The city of Yavneh (Jamnia) was, after the destruction of the Temple, an important place of Jewish learning, but there is no evidence of a rabbinic council being held here which involved the Jewish Canon or Tanakh.
Further reading: Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia
Oh man, that’s another crucial point, man I really have to look into this but sadly I’m not at home, I’m traveling, so yes I like this fire, 
Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminar claims that the Canon was closed at Jabneh and that this was where the Deuterocanonical Books were ejected (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]).
Jimmy Swaggart wrote:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).
According to the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments -
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).
As to whether this rabbinical school had the Authority to close the Canon – they didn’t, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority . It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it ” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).
1 Like
You’re right that the idea of a formal “Council of Jamnia” is outdated, it was a scholarly construct from the 19th century, not an ancient rabbinic minutes-book. But that doesn’t help your case, it hurts it.
Because even without a council, the Jewish canon was already functionally closed before the end of the first century. There was no Deuterocanon in the Hebrew canon Jesus affirmed, no quotes from it by Christ, no “inspired” status ever given to Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, or Maccabees by the Jews or the apostles. And that’s the issue, not where the line was drawn, but what books Jesus treated as Scripture.
The reality is this: Josephus, writing around 90 AD (Against Apion 1.8), said the Jews recognized only 22 sacred books, exactly equivalent to the 39-book Protestant Old Testament when divided differently. He explicitly excluded later writings and stated they “have not the same authority.” That’s not a “Jamnia decree,” that’s first-century Jewish consensus.
Even the Catholic scholar Raymond Brown concedes that the Hebrew canon at the time of Jesus was already narrowing toward the threefold division of Law, Prophets, and Writings. Jesus Himself affirms this in Luke 24:44—not a word about Deuterocanonical books. And when Jesus used Scripture, He always referenced the Hebrew canon, not Greek expansions.
So yes, no formal “council” is needed to know this:
Jesus never cited the Deuterocanon as Scripture,
the apostles never preached from it with authority,
and the early Jews never received it as part of the Tanakh.
That’s not conjecture, that’s canon.
You agree?
J.
Citing Geisler, Swaggart, or even respected reference works only proves one thing: even Protestant scholars once misread the history of Jamnia. But the scholarly consensus has shifted, not toward affirming the Deuterocanon, but toward admitting that the idea of a formal Council of Jamnia (or Jabneh) “closing the canon” is speculative and unsupported by ancient evidence.
But here’s the irony: that doesn’t help your case, it crushes it.
If there was no council that ejected books, then the 7 Deuterocanonical books were never in the Hebrew canon to begin with. You can’t have it both ways. If there was no decisive rejection, then there was no prior acceptance. The Deuterocanonical books weren’t “booted out”, they were never canonized by the Jews, never accepted by the rabbis, and most importantly, never quoted as Scripture by Christ or the apostles.
Even the Oxford Dictionary you cited affirms that Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs were being debated, but never Tobit, Judith, Sirach, or Maccabees. Why? Because those books weren’t in the running. The discussion was about borderline books within the already recognized Jewish Scriptures, not the Greek Deuterocanon.
Josephus (Against Apion 1.8), writing before 100 AD, confirms the Jewish canon had 22 books, the exact content of the modern Protestant Old Testament, and that later writings (including the Deuterocanon) were not held to be divinely authoritative. This is first-century testimony from a Pharisee, not a 16th-century Protestant.
And the most decisive witness? Jesus. He refers to the threefold canon in Luke 24:44—“Law, Prophets, and Psalms”, a structure that excludes the Deuterocanon. He never quotes Tobit or Maccabees with authority, never treats Wisdom or Sirach as Scripture, and never affirms Baruch or Judith in His teaching. If those books had divine authority, Christ would have appealed to them. He did not.
So yes, the Jamnia theory may be outdated, but that doesn’t vindicate Rome, it simply removes a prop that was never needed. The Old Testament canon was already closed by usage, reverence, and Christ’s endorsement. Protestant Reformers didn’t adopt a canon from Jamnia or from Akiva, they returned to the canon Jesus used.
The real question isn’t what Geisler or Jamnia thought, it’s what Jesus used as Scripture. And His silence over the Deuterocanon is the loudest verdict of all.
Where to now?
J.
The subject of the Deuterocanonical books is messy and complicated, and everything I have read and studied on the subject has shown me that both Roman Catholic and Protestant apologetics over-simplify the subject.
There was no rabbinic council held at Jamnia, and there were lingering questions on some of the books of the Ketuvim or “Writings” among rabbinical authorities for some period of time even after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Christian Patristic sources on the Canon show a complex mix of opinions, not only on the Old Testament Canon, but even the New Testament Canon. The debates on the New Testament Canon centered upon those books which are called Antilegomena, i.e. “Disputed Writings” which include 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, 3 John, Jude, and the Revelation; as well as 1 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and a few others. Ancient canonical lists, such as the one found in the Muratorian Fragment (late 2nd century/early 3rd century) is an example of this early diversity of thought. The Antilegomena is contrasted with the Homolegoumena, those writings which were essentially universally accepted, the Four Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline Epistles, 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John. In the main the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it today evolved over many centuries, with different parts of the Christian world taking a little bit longer than others to fully embrace; as late as the time of St. John of Damascus the Revelation of St. John was still being disputed among some in the East. Somewhat fascinating is that the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, attributed to St. Paul, was circulated in the Vulgate as late as the 14th century, as it was included in John Wycliffe’s translation of the Vulgate into Middle English.
The matter of the Old Testament Canon was no less complicated. One cannot simply point to the regional councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome when equally ancient councils, such as the one held at Laodicea, continue to show diversity of opinion. The canonical list of St. Athanasius in his Paschal Epistle likewise represents the opinion and views of the See of St. Mark and those diocese under its jurisdiction.
The modern Protestant knee-jerk rejection of the Deuterocanonicals is just as over-simplistic and historically untenable as is the Roman Catholic (I reject Rome’s claim of monopoly over Christ’s Holy Catholic Church) attempts to over-simply and assert that there is some monolithic act of the Church which makes the Deuterocanonicals Canonical.
History and reality are far more complicated, and as far as I can tell, given all available data; the question of the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books is unsettled and unresolved within the Christian Church, not only because of the division within the Church; but because it has always been unresolved. Which is why Lutheranism does not take a dogmatic position, which I believe is wise.
I realize that kind of ambiguity doesn’t sit well with many Christians.
The Bible didn’t fall from the sky.
The Bible wasn’t decided by councils or churchmen.
The Bible is messy, complicated, and it is still God’s inspired and infallible word.
Also, isn’t this supposed to be about how tall Jesus is? If we go back to that, my vote is 5’ something, probably.
What I said all along, to stay on topic.
J.
ccording to Lewis:
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. …These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion.
The 20th-century evangelical scholar F. F. Bruce thought that it was “probably unwise to talk as if there were a Council or Synod of Jamnia which laid down the limits of the Old Testament canon.”[15] Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[1][2][3] Some hold that the Hebrew canon was established during the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE).[16]
From the same source.^^^^^
But here’s the dagger, if Jamnia never formally “closed the canon” or ejected books, then the Deuterocanonals were never considered part of the Hebrew canon to begin with. You just destroyed your own defense. No removal = no previous inclusion. If the Jews never received Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, or Wisdom as Scripture, and if Jesus never quoted them as such, then they were never Scripture.
What this shows is that the Jewish canon was already fixed in practice, not by rabbinic vote but by divine usage. Jesus refers to “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” in Luke 24:44—not to any “fourth category” containing the Deuterocanon. He quotes Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, and the Psalms as Scripture, but never quotes from Baruch, Sirach, or Tobit with divine authority. Not once.
Even if canon discussions continued in rabbinic circles after 70 AD, they weren’t re-shaping revelation, they were clarifying boundaries already understood. And the earliest Christian communities followed the same Hebrew canon used in the synagogue, not the wider Greek Septuagint in toto, which included non-canonical writings.
So if Jamnia is a myth, so is the idea that the Deuterocanon was ever “kicked out.” It wasn’t kicked out, it was never in. The Church didn’t inherit a flawed canon from Akiva; it restored the one Christ and the apostles actually used.
Jamnia is dead, but so is the claim that Rome’s 73-book canon represents the faith of Jesus. Christ’s canon was 39 books, the same 39 we defend today.
New Testament
Biblical and Quranic narratives
List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts
Expounding of the Law
Genealogies of Genesis
Law and Gospel
List of ancient legal codes
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible
Quotations from the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament
Back to the topic.
J.
My position is that the status of the Deuterocanonicals is unresolved.
Because, historically, that’s simply the case. There was no monolithic Judaism in the time of Jesus which had a ready-made Canon. And while I get the idea of “If Jesus quoted it, it’s authoritative”; the inverse “If Jesus didn’t quote it, it’s not Scripture” is a nonsensical argument. By using that metric then Esther isn’t Scripture. Esther is never quoted anywhere in the New Testament.
So we can’t make an argument from silence. If Tobit isn’t Scripture because Jesus/the New Testament never quote it; then the same is applied to Esther.
Likewise, we can’t make an appeal to an imaginary “Jewish authority” as though there was some clearly defined Jewish Canon–Tanakh–in the time of Jesus. Because there wasn’t. There wasn’t a monolithic Judaism, the New Testament itself records that fact: Pharisees, Sadducees, Judean Jews, Hellenistic Jews, etc. Jewish religion in the 2nd Temple period was diverse. We can, of course, note that it’s clear that Jesus aligned Himself most closely with Pharisaism, even saying that the Pharisees–the rabbis really–sit in Moses’ seat. But it’s also obvious the clash between the Pharisees and Jesus and the early Jesus movement, we see that throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
In the time of Jesus the Scriptures were literally still separate scrolls, and it would still be a couple centuries until the codex really gained traction–with Christians being major pioneers in the use of codices. We can, for example, look to Jewish opinions, like Josephus who near the end of the 1st century describes what kind of resembles the modern Tanakh, Josephus’ “Canon” contains 22 books, while the Tanakh as we know it today is 24 books–though there are questions, perhaps Josephus was combining Ruth and Judges together, and combining Jeremiah and Lamentations together.
Early Christians, comprised of Jewish and Gentile converts drew upon diverse people, even among Jewish converts there we are talking extensive converts drawn from the Jewish Diaspora, who were definitely working with the Septuagint, even if the Aramaic-speaking Jews in Palestine were probably relying more on the Targums. We see early Christians, like Clement of Rome in his Epistle (90-100 AD) refer to both Judith and Esther. The New Testament itself offers allusion to 2 Maccabees in Hebrews 11:35.
Early Christians, again, had diverse views. St. Athanasius presents a Biblical Canon most modern Protestants would recognize…mostly. Athanasius regards Esther as non-canonical, but does accept Baruch.
So, again, the point I’m making is this: It’s complicated. I’m not here to tell anyone the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture, because I’m not saying they are Scripture.
I hear you loud and clear, @TheologyNerd, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. That said, this might be better suited for another thread, not here.
Shalom to you and your family, and may you stand firm in Messiah Yeshua.
Johann.
Let’s see if your statement holds @TheologyNerd
And thanks for the thoughtful breakdown, but I believe your conclusion that the Deuterocanonicals remain “unresolved” doesn’t hold up when we consider the full weight of apostolic precedent, covenantal theology, and Scriptural usage. You’re right that Second Temple Judaism wasn’t monolithic, but Jesus wasn’t confused. He rebuked the Pharisees for not knowing the Scriptures (Matt. 22:29), not for lacking a canon.
Christ affirmed a known threefold structure, Law, Prophets, and Psalms (Luke 24:44). He and the apostles quoted from this Hebrew canon extensively, over 250 direct quotes and over 1,000 allusions. But not once do they quote the Deuterocanonicals with divine authority. No “it is written,” no “Scripture says,” no doctrinal dependence.
The absence of citation doesn’t prove something is uninspired, but the absence of divine citation across the entire NT does matter, especially when nothing in the NT builds doctrine on those books.
You mention Esther as an example, fair, but Esther was in the Hebrew canon Jesus affirmed. Tobit and Sirach were not. The issue is not silence alone, but the consistent pattern of what the NT treats as inspired. The apostles viewed Scripture as fixed and sufficient (2 Tim. 3:15–17). They didn’t leave this ambiguous.
Also, several Deuterocanonical texts teach doctrines contradictory to the Gospel, almsgiving atoning for sin (Tobit 12:9, Sirach 3:30), prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12), pre-Cross purgation. That’s not the message of Hebrews 10:14 or Romans 5:1.
And regarding patristic variety, yes, lists varied, but that proves the Church struggled to recognize canon, not that the canon itself was fluid. God’s Word was never left in limbo, even if councils took time to align with what was always apostolic.
So, respectfully, I’d say the status of the Deuterocanonicals is not unresolved. Jesus didn’t quote them, the apostles didn’t treat them as Scripture, the Jews rejected them long before Trent affirmed them, and the internal theology conflicts with the cross. That’s not a safe foundation to call inspired.
Let’s see where we disagree from here.
J.
This from Barnes.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures - That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at Jhn_5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject. Rabbi Judah says, “The boy of five years of age ought to apply to the study of the sacred Scriptures.” Rabbi Solomon, on Deu_11:19, says, “When the boy begins to talk, his father ought to converse with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law; if he does not do that, he seems to bury him.” See numerous instances referred to in Wetstein, in loc. The expression used by Paul - “from a child” (ἀπὸ βρέφους apo brephous) - does not make it certain at precisely what age Timothy was first instructed in the Scriptures, though it would denote an “early” age. The word used - βρέφος brephos - denotes:
(1) A babe unborn, Luk_1:41, Luk_1:44;
(2) An infant, babe, suckling.
In the New Testament, it is rendered “babe and babes,” Luk_1:41, Luk_1:44; Luk_2:12, Luk_2:16; 1Pe_2:2; “infants,” Luk_8:15; and “young children,” Act_7:19. It does not elsewhere occur, and its current use would make it probable that Timothy had been taught the Scriptures as soon as he was capable of learning anything. Dr. Doddridge correctly renders it here “from infancy.” It may be remarked then,
(1) That it is proper to teach the Bible to children at as early a period of life as possible.
(2) That there is reason to hope that such instruction will not be forgotten, but will have a salutary influence on their future lives. The piety of Timothy is traced by the apostle to the fact that he had been early taught to read the Scriptures, and a great proportion of those who are in the church have been early made acquainted with the Bible.
(3) It is proper to teach the “Old” Testament to children - since this was all that Timothy had, and this was made the means of his salvation.
(4) We may see the utility of Sunday schools. The great, and almost the sole object of such schools is to teach the Bible, and from the view which Paul had of the advantage to Timothy of having been early made acquainted with the Bible, there can be no doubt that if Sunday-schools had then been in existence, he would have been their hearty patron and friend.
Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation - So to instruct you in the way of salvation, that you may find the path to life. Hence, learn:
(1) That the plan of salvation may be learned from the Old Testament. It is not as clearly revealed there as it is in the New, but “it is there;” and if a man had only the Old Testament, he might find the way to be saved. The Jew, then, has no excuse if he is not saved.
(2) The Scriptures have “power.” They are “able to make one wise to salvation.” They are not a cold, tame, dead thing. There is no book that has so much “power” as the Bible; none that is so efficient in moving the hearts, and consciences, and intellects of mankind. There is no book that has moved so many minds; none that has produced so deep and permanent effects on the world.
(3) To find the way of salvation, is the best kind of wisdom; and none are wise who do not make that the great object of life.
Pearls of wisdom.
2Ti 3:15 And that from infancy you have known the Kitvei HaKodesh, which are able to make you chocham with a view to Yeshu’at Eloheynu through emunah in Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua.
2Ti 3:16 The entire Kitvei HaKodesh is Hashembreathed and useful for hora’ah (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for training in tzedek,
2Ti 3:17 That the ish haElohim may be proficient, having been equipped for every one of the ma’asim mitzvot.
Johann.
Here is what I have to say about this
Deuterocanonical vs Canonical
I researched about it, @Johann and i was surprised.
Let’s go to the time machine
Let’s begin with the historical reality. The deuterocanonical books were part of the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures used by the Hellensitc Jews and early Christian Church. The Septuagint, completed in 2nd century BC, was not a fringe text but the de facta scripture for Greek speaking Jews across Mediterranean, including in Judea.
The discovery of deuterocanonical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, like Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic at Qumran, confirms their circulation and reverence within the Jewish communities before Christ.
The Early Church rooted in hits milieu overwhelmingly adopted the Septuagint as its OT. Church Fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine explicitly quote or allude to deuterocanonical books as scripture. For exam
Wisdom 2:12-20 with its striking prophecy of a righteous man persecuted unto death, is cited by early Christians as messianic.
The Synod of Hippo and Council of Carthage, under Augustine’s influence affirmed the deuterocanon’s canonicity. The protestant canon, dervied from post-Christian Jewish Masoretic Text reflects later rabbinic reaction against Christian use of LXX, not the apostolic Church’s practice.
2. Jesus and Deuterocanon
Wisdom of Solomon and Christological Parallels8
Wisdom 2:12-20 describes a righteous man who call himself God’s son, persecuted and killed by the wicked, a passage early Christians saw as a clear prophecy of Christ. Jesus’ self-understanding as the Suffering Servant aligns with Wisdom’s portrayal and NT’s passion narrative echoes its language. FOr example
The mocking of Jesus on the Cross, Matt 27:43
“He trusts in God; let God deliver him”
parallels Wisdom 2:18
“If the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him.”
Sirach and Ethical teachings
Jesus’ ethical teachings resonate Sirach.
Compare
Sirach 28:2
“Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, then your sins will be pardoned when you pray”
with
Matthew 6:14-15
“If you forgive others their tresspasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you”
If one dismisses this, he dismiss the Second Temple Jewish Context where Sirach was widely read and revered as
evidenced by its use at Qumran and rabbinic tradition
My fav, Maccabees and Hanukkah
Jesus’ presence at the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22-23) presupposes the historical events of 1-2 Maccabees which recount the Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Temple. If Jesus rejected these books’ authority why participate in a feast grounded in their narrative?
His attendance implicity endorses their historical and theological weight.
Septuagintal Influence
Over 80% if the OT quotations in the NT comes from the Septuagint which includes deuterocanon. For example
Hebrews 11:35 alludes to 2 Maccabees 7, where martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother is described
“Others were tortured, refusing to accep release, so that they might rise again to a better life”
This clear reference to resurrection theology in 2 Maccabees undermines the claim that the deuterocanon was irrelevant to apostolic faith.
Very hard to understand
The Masoretic Text is the standardized Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Jewish bible, produced by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes, meaning tradition. Active primarily in the 7th and 10th century AD, the Masorestes meticulously preserved the consonantal text of the Hebrew Scripture, adding vowel points, accents and marginal notes to ensure the accurate pronunciation and interpretation. The most Authoritative MT manuscripts like Aleepo Codex and Leningrad codex are medieval, postading the apostolic era by centuries.
Late Standardization
While the consonantal Hebrew text predates the Masoretes, its final standardization occured long after the rise of Christianity. Before this the Second Temple Judaism lacked a fixed canon or uniform texts like those found at Qumran show significant textual diversity with Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek versions coexisting including proto-Masoretic, proto-Septuagintal and others
Rabbis
The Masoretes operated in a post-Temple, rabbinic Jewish world shaped by the destruction of Jerusalem and the need to consolidate Jewish identity against emerging Christianity and other sects. Rabbis, successors to the Pharisees prioritized Hebrew texts to preserve linguistic and cultural purity, sidelining Greek translations like LXX.
Canon Selection
The MT’s canon limited to 24 books equivalent to Protestant 39, due to different counting, reflects rabbinic decisions that crytallized after the 1st century AD. The so-called Council of Jamnia is often cited as moment of canon closure, but modern scholarship like Jack P Lewis, the Canon of the Old testament questions its decisiveness. Canon debates persisted into the Talmudic period with some rabbis questioning books like Esther or Ezekiel.
2. Rabinic Reaction
Christian Appropriation of the LXX
The NT quotes the LXX 80% of the time when citing OT like Isa 7:13 in Matt 1:23, using the LXX’s “virgin” rather than the Hebrew’s “young woman”.
Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr relied heavily on LXX to argue for Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy including Deuterocanonical texts like Wisdom 2:12-20.
Jewish Rejection
By the 2nd century AD, jewish scholars like Aquilia produced new greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures to replace the LXX, aligning more closely with proto-Masoretic texts. Aquilia’s transaltion commissioned by Rabbis DELIBERATELY AVOIDED LXX RENDERINGS THAT CHRISTIANS USED MESSIANICALLY LIKE TRANSLATING ALMAH AS “YOUNG WOMAN” IN ISA 7:14 (THAT’S THE SAD REALITY)
Rabbinic Emphasis on Hebrew
Talmudic sources like Megillah 9a-b express skepticism about Greek translations, including LXX, despite earlier Jewish reverence for it, as Letter of Aristeas, which celebrates the LXX’s creation. Rabbinic tradition increasingly prioritised Hebrew texts, partly to differentiate Jewish Scripture from Christian usage.
AND HERE COMES THE POINT THAT REALLY PIERCED MY HEART (@Soul, @TheologyNerd, @Johann)
The deuterocanonical books, written or preserved primarily in Greek (like Wisdom, 2 Maccabees) or with Greek associations like Tobit and Sirach, were marginalized in rabbinic Judaism. Their theological content like
Resurrection- 2 Maccabees 7
Intercession for the dead- 2 Maccabees 12:44-45
Wisdom as a divine attribute- Widsom 7-9
Aligned with Christian doctrines, making them suspect in a post-Christian Jewish Context
Jesus never directly quoted from the Deuterocanonical books, not once, not obliquely, not allusively in a way that establishes those writings as Scripture. Let’s make this surgically clear, backed with textual rigor, Second Temple context, and New Testament canon logic.
-
Jesus explicitly affirmed the threefold Jewish canon, Law, Prophets, and Writings, not a broader Alexandrian corpus
Luke 24:44 — “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
This is not a casual reference. It’s a structural reference to the tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures, Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings)-which excludes the Deuterocanonical books. The Psalms here represent the Writings, the final section of the Tanakh. The canon Jesus affirms here is the one recognized by the synagogue, not the expanded, Greek-influenced lists that would later emerge in the Christian West. -
Nowhere does Jesus ever cite Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, 1–2 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, or additions to Daniel and Esther
Search the red-letter verses. Not once do you find, “It is written…” followed by a quote from these. Jesus quotes Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalms, and other Hebrew canonical books repeatedly. But He never quotes from any Deuterocanonical source as inspired Scripture. That silence is deafening, especially from the One who said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). -
Jesus rebukes religious error by appealing to Scripture alone, not tradition or extra writings
When Satan tempts Him in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11), Jesus doesn’t rebuke with Sirach or Baruch. He answers three times from Deuteronomy. When confronted by the Sadducees over the resurrection (Matt 22:29–32), He appeals to Exodus 3:6 as authoritative, not 2 Maccabees 7, though that passage clearly teaches resurrection. That’s crucial. Jesus deliberately chooses the Torah, not the Deuterocanon, to establish doctrine. -
No apostle ever introduces a Deuterocanonical book with “It is written,” “The Scripture says,” or “As the prophet said”
These are formulaic introductions used throughout the NT to quote divine Scripture. But not once do any of them refer to Deuterocanonical writings using this formula. Paul, Peter, James, the writer of Hebrews, none treat these writings as inspired. At most, Paul loosely quotes pagan poets (Acts 17:28), and Jude references non-canonical traditions like 1 Enoch or the Assumption of Moses, not as Scripture, but as illustrative. -
Jesus held the Jewish leaders accountable to the Scriptures they themselves recognized, not a Greek-expanded corpus
In John 5:39, He says, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.”
Which Scriptures? The ones they acknowledged, the 22-book Hebrew canon (equivalent to our 39, due to counting differences). Not once does Jesus argue, “You’ve missed Me because you left out the Wisdom of Solomon or Tobit.” If those books were part of divine revelation, Christ would have upheld them, or rebuked their exclusion. But there is no such rebuke.
Jesus never quotes the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture. He never calls them γραφή (Scripture), never uses them to settle doctrine, never appeals to them to confound opponents. His canonical footprint matches that of the Hebrew Bible-Moses, the Prophets, and the Writings. And when it came time to explain the things concerning Himself, He opened those Scriptures, not apocryphal additions.
That’s not accidental. That’s canon clarity.
J.
Has reply from the thread and the chat
- Second Temple Context
You acknowledge that “there was no fixed, universally accepted Jewish canon” in the second temple period in our chat between us.
Textual Pluralism
Dead Sea Scrolls reveal a kaleidoscope of textual traditions at Qumran, including proto-Masoretic, proto-septuagintal and independent Hebrew/Aramaic texts. Deuterocanonical works like Tobit, Sirach and 1 Enoch were revered alongside Torah and Prophets. This shows no uniform canon existed even among Hebrew-speaking Jews. The Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees diverged on scriptural boundaries, where Sadducees accepted the Torah while Qumran’s broader corpus included deuterocanonicals.
The LXX translated from Hebrew into Greek by 2nd century BC, was not merely an Alexandrian phenomenon but a Jewish Scripture used across the Mediterranean, including Judea. Philo of Alexandria cites the LXX extensively and synagogue readings in Greek-speaking Jewish communities like Acts 6:9’s Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem, included it.
What i wanted to say is this:
The Second temple period’s canonical fluidity means Jesus’ ministry cannot be confined to a proto-Masoretic, 22-book canon. The LXX, including the deuterocanon, was a living Jewish Scripture and its adoption by the apostolic Church reflects its divine authority. - Luke 24:42
You argue that Jesus’ reference in Luke 24:44 affirms a Tripartite Hebrew Canon..
The mention of Pslams likely represents the Writings (Ketuvim) by citing its leading book, a common Jewish Shorthand. However’s Ketuvim’s contents were not fixed in Jesus’ day. Rabbinic debates like Mishnah Yadayim 3:5 on Esther’s status and Qumran’s broader texts show no consensus on the Writing’s scope. The LXX grouped deuterocanonical books like Wisdom and Sirach with the Ketuvim, meaning Luke 24:44 doesnt solve the problem, that what i feel sir.
Luke, writing for a Greek-speaking audience assumes the LXX which includes the deuterocanon. Over 80% of the NT-OT quotes align with LXX, not proto-Masoretic evidence. A good example is:
Can we compare Isa 61:1-2 with Luke 4:18-19, and check if it aligns with the Masoretic or LXX syntax and words?
Jesus’s teaching in Luke 24:44 aims to show messianic fulfillment not to define canon boundaries.
If Jesus intended to endorse a 22-book Hebrew canon, He would have clarified this against the LXX’s widespread use. His silence on the deuterocanon’s status and His LXX-aligned teaching, suggest acceptance of the broader corpus.
My fav is
Although Jesus doesnt quote deuterocanon explicitly like “In 1 Maccabees..” that’s true but i can provide parallels
Wisdom 2:12-20
For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him
And deliver him from the hand of his foes.
Matthew 27:43
He trusts in God; let God deliver him
Sirach 28:2
Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done,
and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray.
Matthew 6:14-15
We have 1-2 Maccabees, Jesus’s attendance at Hanukkah in John 10:22-23 presupposes the events of 1-2 Maccabees which narrate the Temple’s rededication.
@Johann
In Matthew 22:29-32, Jesus uses Exodus 3:6 against the Sadducees, who accepted only the Torah, to affirm resurrection. This reflects the polemical strategy, not a rejection of 2 Maccabees 7, which explicitly teaches resurrection.
Similarly in Matthew 4:1-11 Jesus quotes Deuteronomy to mirror the wilderness context, not to delimit the canon.
Jesus doesnt quote deuterocanons doesnt mean Jesus didnt accept them
Jesus never quotes Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon, yet we accept in Canon. He doesn’t reject the use of LXX in synagogues, despite its deuterocanonical content. If these texts were apocryphal, Jesus, who corrected Pharisaic errors (Matt 23) would have condemned them. His silence suggest their non-controversial status in some Jewish circles
At last can we take it as
Hebrews 11:35 we parallel with 2 Maccabees 7
James 1:19- parallel with Sirach 5:11
Romans 1:20-32 we parallel with Wisdom 13-14
If Jude’s use of 1 Enoch and Paul’s quoting of pagan poets can be cited illustratively, deuterocanonical allusions carry even greater weight, given their Jewish and Christian reverence
The absence of “It is written” as u say @Johann sir, for deuterocanonical texts reflexts their genre and the Apostles’ focus on messianic prophecy, not their non-canonicity.
I wanted to ask this @Johann:
I feel this is the core-issue exemplified by this question
Suppose a newly discovered manuscript from a 1st-Century BC Jewish community in Judea, predating the Qumran finds, contains a Hebrew text of the Book of Wisdom explicitly states as “Scripture” (ketuvim) in a liturgical context, alongside Torah and Isaiah, by a Pharisaic-leaning sect. This manuscript also includes a commentary linking Wisdom 2:12-20 to a messianic figure, predating Jesus’ ministry. If I assume, as you say that Jesus affirms tripartite canon in Luke 24:44, to which I found the answer, and engages Pharisaic traditions, would this evidence compel you to accept the Book of Wisdom as canonical Scripture, equal to Deuteronomy or Psalms? If not, explain how you reconcile this manuscript’s authority with Jesus’ silence on Wisdom, the apostolic preference for the Septuagint in the NT quotations as I showed before, and the Orthodox Church’s inclusion of Wisdom in its canon, *without appealing to post-70 AD rabbinic canon decisions or Protestant Reformation principles
What Bible Did Jesus Use?
According to Luke’s Gospel, Jesus taught from an Old Testament canon that began ‘with Moses and all the Prophets’ (Luke 24:27). As it turns out, the Law of Moses and the Prophets are the first two sections in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament but not in the Septuagint. The editors of the Septuagint text that included the Apocrypha placed most of the prophetic texts later in the Old Testament. A few verses later in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus described the Old Testament as a collection that consisted of ‘the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms’ (Luke 24:44). Once again, these words from the resurrected Jesus describe the three-part Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament — a collection that never included the apocryphal books.
In case it still seems uncertain whether or not Jesus received the Apocrypha as authoritative, consider this: Jesus never cited any apocryphal text as Scripture — and it’s not as if Jesus was unaware of the extra texts in the Septuagint! By the time Jesus began preaching and teaching along the Sea of Galilee, the Septuagint had already been in circulation for more than a century. And yet, even though Jesus cited Old Testament texts dozens of times in his teachings, he never once quoted any apocryphal text.
The first-century followers of Jesus seem to have followed this same pattern. The writers of the New Testament quoted the Greek Septuagint at least two-thirds of the time when they cited Old Testament texts. Yet none of them ever clearly quoted any apocryphal book as Scripture, even though the Septuagint included these additional texts. New Testament authors may have alluded to apocryphal texts from time to time, and they sometimes cited stories from Jewish tradition (see Jude 1:9–10, for example). Yet they never gave any hint that any apocryphal text might belong in the Old Testament canon.
Does the Apocrypha Belong in the Bible? | by Timothy Paul Jones | Medium.
My final stance on this matter @Samuel_23.
J.