Tanakh is canoned in AD90's? How about Falasha's

[Havah]

Tanakh is canoned in AD90's? Many claimed so!
I heard this many times and I don't know if this is really right.
I just thought the Jews of Israel accepted 24 Books many years ago before pronouncing them canonical in AD90.
Can anyone proves this is not very true the Jews threw away Christian deuterocanons from Tanakh in AD90?

Also, could anyone share the list of books of Orit(Beta Israel's Holy Book)?

[Dawid]

Tanakh is canoned in AD90's? Many claimed so!
I heard this many times and I don't know if this is really right.
I just thought the Jews of Israel accepted 24 Books many years ago before pronouncing them canonical in AD90.
Can anyone proves this is not very true the Jews threw away Christian deuterocanons from Tanakh in AD90?

Also, could anyone share the list of books of Orit(Beta Israel's Holy Book)?

Nobody can really prove when the canon was finalized. However, there is an audio teaching by Nehmiah Gordon that sets it at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah with some interesting evidence. It used to be here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.karaite-korner.org/audio/">http://www.karaite-korner.org/audio/</a><!-- m -->. Unfortunately it's gone now. I'll email Mr. Gordon and see if I can't get the mp3 file from him, if he still has it. It was pretty good, I thought.

As to the Beta Israel canon, I'm looking in the excellent book "Falasha Anthology" by Wolf Leslau. I highly recommend this book, by the way, and according to Professor Leslau, when he wrote his book they were still unable to make a thorough survey of their literature. Their canon was rather fluid, too. The Torah and the Book of Jubilees held the most sway, but they also had the rest of the TN"K, as well as large portions of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. But I don't think we could really say that they had a canon in the same sense that the rest of the Judeo-Christian world has a canon. It doesn't appear to have been set in stone.They also had a few works of their own that may have been considered canonical, but Professor Leslau was rather unclear and I've been unable to get a clearer picture than he did.

I hope this helps.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama all--

I think we need to take a step back and define things a bit better. The canon in Israel for Tanakh was not the same in Babylon or in Alexandria and, of course, Ethiopia.

In terms of the last one, this is another greatly neglected area of research. The Ethiopian Jewish and Christian communities have many legends between them, and while certain details of the Tebra Negast have been proven false, at their heart many truths are being ignored. The legends have obscured the real history of the matter.

Ethiopian Jewry is the oldest continuous Jewish community on earth. You heard me correctly. They have rituals that pre-date the oldest form of Rabbinic Judaism by at least 500 years. Their rituals are not just from the Second Temple times but EARLY SECOND TEMPLE times. There is no doubt in my mind that the source of their Judaism were Aaronic priests fleeing persecution, possibly during Manasseh's time or maybe earlier.

By the way, they don't like being called "falashas" any more than the COE likes "Nestorians". I know some of these people--they are quite sensitive on the matter. Beyt Israel is their proper name.

Now as for Jamnia and such, yes, the official pronouncement of canon in 24 books very likely came from that time. The Mishnaic record is close enough to the original time as to be credible here. The process, begun by people like Yochanan ben Zakkai, was likely not finished 100% on the Israel side until the middle of the second century. It was certainly completed well before Shimon bar Yonai begun the Mishnah itself by that century's end.

This type of "lag" happened on the Christian side as well. Constantine put out his "official" Bible in 325, but the list wasn't codified completely for Catholics until the 397 CE Council of Carthage, and in both cases, Jewish and Christian, debates erupted continuously during and after the matter was supposedly settled.

The Christian decision on what was in for the NT had largely to do with authorship and pedigree. Was it by an apostle or a known apostle's associate. A secondary consideration was if there was at least an oral understanding that said books were universally received/accepted by a majority of assemblies.

The Jewish decision IN ISRAEL was more about provenance and linguistics. Specifically, did it come from Israel and from the Hebrew language? In at least one case--Tobit--the rabbis guessed wrong and assumed a Greek original, but that was because the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found yet. The rabbis relied heavily on what we call MINHAG, or "custom" tradition (" a custom in Israel is counted as Torah"). If the books had a strong minhag that they were from the right author, language, time and place, they were in. Whether what got in was in each case the best version of that work is a matter for debate. MT Isaiah clearly gets a pass. MT Jeremiah--not so much.

The wild bunch though were the Hellenistic and Baylonian factions of Jewry. It seems clear they had a longer canon and in a few cases, different content in their books. I have already commented that the Babylonian division of the Tanakh superseded the earlier one done in Israel, but many other aspects to what they did back then and how it might apply now are shrouded in mystery. There aren't many Jews left in old Babylon or Persia (Iran and Iraq) and what the few old folks there now is dying out and not being passed down. If it keeps at this rate, their ancient voices will be gone within 2 generations forever.

In short, while we know there were strong ancient variants in Scripture and diversity in liturgy (look at Psalm 151) the precise details of what was where and when are elusive. If we look at how difficult it was for the Jews even in Israel to re-establish a Beit Din just for themselves, we can ust imagine applying that to all the Jews of the Dispersion. It is humbling to remember that 90% of the Jews in Babylon did NOT return to the Land under Ezra or any other Jewish leader. What secrets do their descendants still have and what has been lost? We may never really know for sure...

[Havah]

Does anyone here consider Tanakh canon outside Israel is holy?

[Dawid]

Does anyone here consider Tanakh canon outside Israel is holy?

I am, as usual, going to disagree with Mr. Roth on several levels.
First, I do not think that the Beta Israel community is that old. More likely, it is from the early Christian era. This is in keeping with the overwhelming weight of evidence and with the vast majority of scholars.

Next, the largest canon ever espoused was actually from the land of Israel. The Essenes believed in a 24-book canon, plus 70 additional secret canonical books that were only for the sectarians. They had a total of a 94-book canon, though it is almost certain that they never had 70 additional books. They probably believed that many of those had been lost. The Babylonian canon may have been larger, but probably was not. More likely it was in keeping with the 22/24 book canon of the Holy Land.

[Havah]

I think I have found a list of books of Orit in Hebrew wiki
???????? ????????

????????????: ???????????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ??????
??????????: ?????????? ??' ?? ?????????? ??' ?? ?????????? ??' ?? ?????????? ??'
????????: ???????? ??' ?? ???????? ??' ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????????
?????? ??????: ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????????
????????????: ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????????
???????? ?????????? ??' ?? ???????? ?????????? ??'
?????????? ????????????????: ???? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????? ?????????????? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??????
???????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ??????
????????????: ?????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????????????? ?? ?????????????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??????????
?????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ?????? ????????????

Hey! If you look at the column ??????????, they look the same as LXX(1st-4th)!

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I have deleted posts on this thread that I thought were either taken the wrong way and led to your very inflammatory post as well your most recent post and my own responses. I do not know where your rage comes from but I do want to try and help it. I will not respond back with my own anger and this is not the place for name calling and base accusations. I am hurt by what you said but also want you to know I did not mean to hurt you in any way with what I said.

Brothers should not act this way, myself included. I apologize for my part in enraging you so.

I think perhaps we are at cross-purposes. I don't understand you and you don't understand me. That's fine. But please don't say I shut down all debate. That's not true. And please don't bring Trimm into this as if he never did anythng wrong. That's not even appropriate to mention. As for Bauscher, I basically used his own posts here to make my case, and I was hardly alone in that endeavor.

But other than the plagiarism allegations, I think you will be hard pressed to find an example of me shutting you down and I don't really think I shut you down there either, to be honest. Those charges on AENT are deeply personal and hurtful and so yes, I fight them hard, as I think would anyone in my position.

I am sorry that we both happen to be under grievous circumstances, but to say that doesn't matter is wrong. And I fought you on the "shlama akhi" thing because, in addition to the religious reasons I mentioned, I knew you were hiding rage. And you proved me correct.

I have done nothing to try to hurt you and apologize for any statements or actions that you may have taken as such. It was not my intention. I vigorously contend and I just don't like it when people attack my integrity.

If you engage in the vicious name calling you did just now, I promise I will lock any thread you are on. If you wish to debate anything else with me, feel free. Just some kindness and respect from you would be nice. I will do my best to moderate my tone to you in return.

[Dawid]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

I have deleted posts on this thread that I thought were either taken the wrong way and led to your very inflammatory post as well your most recent post and my own responses. I do not know where your rage comes from but I do want to try and help it. I will not respond back with my own anger and this is not the place for name calling and base accusations. I am hurt by what you said but also want you to know I did not mean to hurt you in any way with what I said.

I did not intend to hurt you, either. But you did hurt me aswell.
How do you propose to help it?

Brothers should not act this way, myself included. I apologize for my part in enraging you so.

And I apologize for overreacting.

I think perhaps we are at cross-purposes. I don't understand you and you don't understand me. That's fine. But please don't say I shut down all debate. That's not true. And please don't bring Trimm into this as if he never did anythng wrong. That's not even appropriate to mention. As for Bauscher, I basically used his own posts here to make my case, and I was hardly alone in that endeavor.

But other than the plagiarism allegations, I think you will be hard pressed to find an example of me shutting you down and I don't really think I shut you down there either, to be honest. Those charges on AENT are deeply personal and hurtful and so yes, I fight them hard, as I think would anyone in my position.

I am sorry that we both happen to be under grievous circumstances, but to say that doesn't matter is wrong. And I fought you on the "shlama akhi" thing because, in addition to the religious reasons I mentioned, I knew you were hiding rage. And you proved me correct.

No, akhi. If you look, I don't greet anybody. Greetings are just not to be found in my recent posts. I used to include greetings, but I haven't in quite a while. It is truly nothing personal. Yes, you do frustrate me. But that's not what that is about.

I have done nothing to try to hurt you and apologize for any statements or actions that you may have taken as such. It was not my intention. I vigorously contend and I just don't like it when people attack my integrity.

I think we sometimes don't get along well because we're alike. I have also not intended to hurt you, and am sorry for anything that was hurtful. I also vigorously contend, and do not like it when people attack my integrity.
Please understand that what I have said about notation in your book is not meant to say anything about your integrity. I wouldn't presume to assign a motive to that. I have always thought that any issues were completely inadvertent. Absolutely innocent.

[enarxe]

Sorry to butt in, but can't you simply meet for a meal together or spend Shabbat evening? Internet is a deceiving medium of communication of anything more than facts, so easy to misinterpret/misunderstand/overreact cause we can't see the face of the guy saying "those things".
Jerzy

[Dawid]

Sorry to butt in, but can't you simply meet for a meal together or spend Shabbat evening? Internet is a deceiving medium of communication of anything more than facts, so easy to misinterpret/misunderstand/overreact cause we can't see the face of the guy saying "those things".
Jerzy

It would be nice if we could, but we live on opposite sides of the country.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Apology accepted.

I propose to help your rage through understanding, reaching out and listening. I can think of no better way to dispel the arrogance charge than by not being arrogant--hope that doesn't sound facetious or simplistic because it is not meant that way. I also intend to try and explain things better so we don't get into this rut again. We should agree to disagree and let the Ruach judge it.

I will repent of downplaying your scholarship. That was not worthy of me. I was wrong to do so. You did provide facts that I didn't agree with and I should not have attacked your methodology. The Ruach has been heavy on me to admit this regardless of your response. I am sorry for that.

In return, I need you to understand that it was totally non-helpful to me to even allow for the suggestion (right or wrong, but that's how I took it) that I should feel better that I only plagiarized instead of infringed on copyright, or that such fine semantics really make a difference in what is an extremely painful and difficult arena of accusation. A tiny theoretical middle ground I did NOT need. I understand you NOW brother, but you didn't exactly make it easy for me to understand you THEN.

You see, I think Dawid you only looked at what YOU SAID in isolation. I don't think you took into account how what OTHERS said aroused my passion before you chimed in with your distinctions which, by that time, were enough to push me over the edge. That's an explanation, not an excuse. My behavior was wrong, but so was yours.

Perhaps some day, when you do your Siddur and many other great things for the body of Messiah, you will understand how I felt when something that was many years in the making got attacked as if it was nothing. Or when people who told me in writing here and elsewhere that they hated my theology and my lineage seemed to get the benefit of the doubt while every little thing that could be held over my head was strained through a fine sieve.

In that context, I was in attack mode and I took the worst possible interpreation, especially when you said as you did, "I am not taking/supporting Mr. Roth's side" which to my mind gave creedence to excessively personal attacks that were more about theology and less about the facts on the ground. Once that got in my head the rest didn't matter to me.

As I said, maybe this view seems foreign to you now because you haven't walked in my shoes. I promise you though when you have for like 10 years or so with great works of your own that so many love, even if you don't respond as I did, you will understand my response in context better if this happens to you. For the present though, please accept my apology and let's move on. Life is too short and our brotherhood too small to allow this kind of divisiveness.

I respect your scholarship--and I hope you do the same with me. Let us agree to disagree on the remainder Akhi because to vent those differences as we did here is not edifying to the body of Messiah. Let's put name calling and base accusations ON BOTH SIDES into the grave where they belong.

Finally, I still say you should re-think the greeting situation. It may be out of your comfort zone but you are commanded to salute with peace the brethren. There are a dozen references to that command in Scripture, but I will leave that be moving forward, as I hope you will leave your bad feelings aside moving forward as well. We have said our piece. Now let us have peace.

Agreed?

[Dawid]

I'm sorry I've been slow to reply, and I don't have time to do this justice, but I just got back from a trip. I just want to let yo know for now that I'm not ignoring this thread or anything. I will reply as soon as I have a chance.

[Dawid]

Shalom, Akhi.

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Apology accepted.

I propose to help your rage through understanding, reaching out and listening. I can think of no better way to dispel the arrogance charge than by not being arrogant--hope that doesn't sound facetious or simplistic because it is not meant that way. I also intend to try and explain things better so we don't get into this rut again. We should agree to disagree and let the Ruach judge it.

That sounds like a good plan.

I will repent of downplaying your scholarship. That was not worthy of me. I was wrong to do so. You did provide facts that I didn't agree with and I should not have attacked your methodology. The Ruach has been heavy on me to admit this regardless of your response. I am sorry for that.

Thank you. All is forgiven. And I am sorry that my approach has at times been less than respectful.

In return, I need you to understand that it was totally non-helpful to me to even allow for the suggestion (right or wrong, but that's how I took it) that I should feel better that I only plagiarized instead of infringed on copyright, or that such fine semantics really make a difference in what is an extremely painful and difficult arena of accusation. A tiny theoretical middle ground I did NOT need. I understand you NOW brother, but you didn't exactly make it easy for me to understand you THEN.

I'm sorry that it was unclear to you. I also understand that the emotion of the moment made it difficult to understand. My only hope was to restore order and peace to the community of brothers by offering a reasonable middle ground that I had hoped everyone could agree on.

You see, I think Dawid you only looked at what YOU SAID in isolation. I don't think you took into account how what OTHERS said aroused my passion before you chimed in with your distinctions which, by that time, were enough to push me over the edge. That's an explanation, not an excuse. My behavior was wrong, but so was yours.

I understand how it may have appeared that way, but in truth my position was based entirely on what the others were saying. My position I felt, and still feel, was a compromise. I also tried to clarify why there was a lack of communication in that thread. Maybe I was doing what David objects to in Psalm 131. Maybe I was reaching beyond my bounds, but please understand my motive. My goal was to reach a compromise, and to explain why you and Mr. Bauscher were disagreeing over what plagiarism means.
I understand that I was, as David puts it, "Exercising myself in great matters, and in things too high for me." (adapted from KJV of Psalm 131:1)

Perhaps some day, when you do your Siddur and many other great things for the body of Messiah, you will understand how I felt when something that was many years in the making got attacked as if it was nothing. Or when people who told me in writing here and elsewhere that they hated my theology and my lineage seemed to get the benefit of the doubt while every little thing that could be held over my head was strained through a fine sieve.

You may not believe me, but I understand how you feel. I know what it feels like to be put through the meat grinder. My speeches and papers, narrow as their release and impact has been, have been picked to pieces, seemingly groundlessly. And I am very sorry that I contributed to that. Please forgive me for adding to your pain.

In that context, I was in attack mode and I took the worst possible interpreation, especially when you said as you did, "I am not taking/supporting Mr. Roth's side" which to my mind gave creedence to excessively personal attacks that were more about theology and less about the facts on the ground. Once that got in my head the rest didn't matter to me.

And I am sorry for my tactlessness there, and in other cases. I did not, as I should have, think about how it would affect you emotionally. It was very insensitive of me.

As I said, maybe this view seems foreign to you now because you haven't walked in my shoes. I promise you though when you have for like 10 years or so with great works of your own that so many love, even if you don't respond as I did, you will understand my response in context better if this happens to you. For the present though, please accept my apology and let's move on. Life is too short and our brotherhood too small to allow this kind of divisiveness.

I agree completely. Apology accepted. Consider all forgotten.

I respect your scholarship--and I hope you do the same with me. Let us agree to disagree on the remainder Akhi because to vent those differences as we did here is not edifying to the body of Messiah. Let's put name calling and base accusations ON BOTH SIDES into the grave where they belong.

Though I often have trouble seeing your point, I do respect your scholarship. And please understand that when I disagree with you it is because I believe that it is through disagreement that our minds are sharpened and our positions are strengthened. I am vocal about my scholarly disagreements with you because I believe in discussion and scholarly review as the best way to confirm to disprove academic theories.
Yes, let's agree to disagree. And I am sorry that I lost my temper here.

Finally, I still say you should re-think the greeting situation. It may be out of your comfort zone but you are commanded to salute with peace the brethren. There are a dozen references to that command in Scripture, but I will leave that be moving forward, as I hope you will leave your bad feelings aside moving forward as well. We have said our piece. Now let us have peace.

As with everything, there are many ways to understand these passages. I simply understand them differently than you do. I believe I have no more obligation to literally greet you by saying "peace" than I believe I am obligated to greet you with a kiss.

Agreed?

Agreed.