• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Intertestamental Period

pearl

Well-Known Member
I never notice much reference about this time period, but I would think it lends importance to both Jews and Christians.

The Intertestamental period refers to the years intervening between the closing of the OT canon(ca. 400–165BC and the composition of the NT (ca. AD 48-95)

Many scholars prefer to designate the era as the Second Temple period+ spanning the years from 58BC the destruction of the -first Temple down to the destruction of the second Temple in AD70 and its aftermath in the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132-135.

The importance of this era can scarcely be overemphasized for an in depth study of the NT because the roots of Christianity reach back into this formative period and significantly conditions meaning. since second Temple Judaism itself is rooted in the ancestral faith of Israel as enshrined in the Hebrew Bible. Hebraic thought is the matrix out of which the message of the NT emerges.
(DOC) Intertestamental History | Larry Helyer - Academia.edu
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
This is why the Deuterocanon is important. I find it a shame the Protestant Bible does not include those books, as that Biblical collection seems to be the most welknown one in the West. It's missing a lot of what I'd consider vital for Christian understanding.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
For Jews it's just Jewish history. Not intertestamental history.

True, but what are some of the more important historical, political movements developed during that period of history and to what affect?


The Great Assembly
- When Jonathan died (killed by a Syrian general) the Jews turned to (Hasmonean Family) the only son of Mattathias still alive, Simon. He was known for his calm wisdom though he was very old.
- Simon called together an extraordinary assembly of all leading Jews (important priests, prominent family members, known leaders, etc.) and this was the beginning stages of the great Sanhedrin.

Okay, I guess it is here where the importance to Christians is evident. But Christianity aside, this period certainly left its mark on today's Judaism?

Detailed Intertestamental Timeline With Notes on Judaism - Bible History (bible-history.com)
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
True, but what are some of the more important historical, political movements developed during that period of history and to what affect?
I am not arguing that it's not an important period. I simply stated that Jews don't regard it as "intertestamental". The terminology is important; it changes the way we view the era.
The Great Assembly
- When Jonathan died (killed by a Syrian general) the Jews turned to (Hasmonean Family) the only son of Mattathias still alive, Simon. He was known for his calm wisdom though he was very old.
- Simon called together an extraordinary assembly of all leading Jews (important priests, prominent family members, known leaders, etc.) and this was the beginning stages of the great Sanhedrin.
Here I would argue, but it's not a debate thread. Just note that there's enough evidence to show that the Great Assembly existed before Shimon.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
People who trust that the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures as well as the Christian Greek Scriptures are the collection of information that Jehovah wants to give to mankind, might wonder WHY it was not Jehovah's will to inspire by his holy spirit any other scripture in this period .

Had he disapproved of the Jews ever since?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
People who trust that the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures as well as the Christian Greek Scriptures are the collection of information that Jehovah wants to give to mankind, might wonder WHY it was not Jehovah's will to inspire by his holy spirit any other scripture in this period .

Had he disapproved of the Jews ever since?
Catholics and Orthodox do believe he inspired scripture in this period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KW

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Oh, yes, there was a very specific canon at that time. You should make a research about it. You can consult some useful information here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880 in the Biblical Encyclopedia of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have learned a lot from that encyclopedia ... Part of this specific article says:

The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was traditionally divided into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, or Hagiographa, contained in 24 books, as shown in the chart. By further combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah, some Jewish authorities counted 22, the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome, though seeming to favor counting 22, said: “Some would include both Ruth and Lamentations among the Hagiographa . . . and thus would get twenty-four books.”


The Jewish historian Josephus, in answering opponents in his work Against Apion (I, 38-40 [8]) around the year 100 C.E., confirms that by then the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed for a long time. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh, yes, there was a very specific canon at that time. You should make a research about it. You can consult some useful information here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000880 in the Biblical Encyclopedia of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have learned a lot from that encyclopedia ... Part of this specific article says:

The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was traditionally divided into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, or Hagiographa, contained in 24 books, as shown in the chart. By further combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah, some Jewish authorities counted 22, the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, Jerome, though seeming to favor counting 22, said: “Some would include both Ruth and Lamentations among the Hagiographa . . . and thus would get twenty-four books.”


The Jewish historian Josephus, in answering opponents in his work Against Apion (I, 38-40 [8]) around the year 100 C.E., confirms that by then the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed for a long time. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
Josephus is here being hyperbolic; he's using it as an apologetic against non-Jews. When one consults Jewish use of writings in this period, one will find more books being used. Esther is very late to be canonised and caused controversy; Ezekiel almost wasn't included etc. We see the Christian books quoting books not in the Jewish or Protestant canon. We see a lot of divergence of beliefs.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
What is VERY important during this time is the ongoing body of Jewish commentary [halacha], plus the diversification of beliefs also continued onward. For example, prior to this time period there was no particular belief in heaven, and yet even prior to the birth of Christianity it became believed by some.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Josephus is here being hyperbolic; he's using it as an apologetic against non-Jews. When one consults Jewish use of writings in this period, one will find more books being used. Esther is very late to be canonised and caused controversy; Ezekiel almost wasn't included by the Great Assembly etc. We see the Christian books quoting books not in the Jewish or Protestant canon. We see a lot of divergence of beliefs.
Excuse my honesty, but "he's using it as an apologetic against non-Jews" is not an argument to believe than he "is here being hyperbolic"; it is a somewhat childish pretext to justify that what Josephus says seems irrelevant to you...

In the Greek Scriptures it is repeated over and over again that what Jews call at that time "The Scriptures" were divided into the Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms ( or the Hagiographa or Holy Writings), and so it is known even to this very day.

Did you do any research on it, or not yet?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Excuse my honesty, but "he's using it as an apologetic against non-Jews" is not an argument to believe than he "is here being hyperbolic"; it is a somewhat childish pretext to justify that what Josephus says seems irrelevant to you...

In the Greek Scriptures it is repeated over and over again that what Jews call at that time "The Scriptures" were divided into the Law of Moses, the Prophets and Psalms ( or the Hagiographa or Holy Writings), and so it is known even to this very day.

Did you do any research on it, or not yet?
The fact that the NT writers quote scripture not in the Hebrew canon evidences that not all Jews felt bound by this collection.

1 and 2 Mac:
Both 1 and 2 Maccabees appear in most manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures.
2 Maccabees - Wikipedia

Sirach:
Some Jews in the diaspora considered Sirach scripture. For instance, the Greek translation made by Ben Sira's grandson was included in the Septuagint, the 2nd-century BC Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures used by Diaspora Jews, through which it became part of the Greek canon. The multiplicity of manuscript fragments uncovered in the Cairo Genizah evince its authoritative status among Egyptian Jewry until the Middle Ages.
Sirach - Wikipedia

Tobit:
For unknown reasons it is not included in the Hebrew Bible, although four Aramaic and one Hebrew fragment were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicating an authoritative status among at least some Jewish sects.
Book of Tobit - Wikipedia

Letter of Jeremiah:
Although the "letter" is included as a discrete unit in the Septuagint, there is no evidence of it ever having been canonical in the Masoretic tradition.
Letter of Jeremiah - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The fact that the NT writers quote scripture not in the Hebrew canon evidences that not all Jews felt bound by this collection.

1 and 2 Mac:
"Both 1 and 2 Maccabees appear in most manuscripts of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures."
2 Maccabees - Wikipedia

Sirach:
Some Jews in the diaspora considered Sirach scripture. For instance, the Greek translation made by Ben Sira's grandson was included in the Septuagint, the 2nd-century BC Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures used by Diaspora Jews, through which it became part of the Greek canon. The multiplicity of manuscript fragments uncovered in the Cairo Genizah evince its authoritative status among Egyptian Jewry until the Middle Ages.
Sirach - Wikipedia

Tobit:
For unknown reasons it is not included in the Hebrew Bible, although four Aramaic and one Hebrew fragment were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicating an authoritative status among at least some Jewish sects.
Book of Tobit - Wikipedia
You can say "some" if you want to, and that means what?

Do you know the meaning of "official"?

If the NT Jews recognized that the Bible was divided like that, Josephus confirmed it more than once, our modern Bible contained the same books in the OT ... What sense does it make for you to continue denying what is so obvious?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
You can say "some" if you want to, and that means what?

Do you know the meaning of "official"?

If the NT Jews recognized that the Bible was divided like that, Josephus confirmed it more than once, our modern Bible contained the same books in the OT ... What sense does it make for you to continue denying what is so obvious?
I'm not denying anything. There was no official canon pre 2nd century ce.

While virtually all the Writings were regarded as canonical by the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., arguments continued regarding the status of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, and these disputes are attested in rabbinic literature. Second Temple literature indicates that a collection of Writings existed as early as the second century B.C.E. but was not regarded as formally closed.


Creating the Canon | My Jewish Learning

The Pentateuch (Torah), as we know it today, was completed during the Babylonian exile, by the time of Ezra. The Neviim (Prophets) were finalized during the Persian era, approximately 323 B.C.E. The conclusion of the last section of the Bible, ketuvim (Writings) is debated; however, a majority of scholars believe its final canonization occurred in the second century C.E.

The canon of the Hebrew Bible is somewhat different than that of the Greek Bible (which is the basis for the Christian Bible). The Greek Bible includes several additional books, which were not accepted into the Hebrew Bible. These texts include – 1-4 Maccabees, Judith, and Psalms of Solomon. Furthermore, the two Bibles differ in their sequence of the texts and writings, as well as the order of importance in the placement of texts.


Canonization (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
And yet, our OTs have been composed the same way for thousands of years.
They haven't. The Protestants took books out of the canon they inherited from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. The Orthodox include many books the Roman Catholic Church doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KW

Eli G

Well-Known Member
True, they have included some here some there, with the pertinent clarifications, in case you have not checked it.
 
Top