"Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them inspired."
B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 210.
This will be our approach: Our first goal is to demonstrate by means of (external) EVIDENCE that the Scriptures are authentic, historically reliable, and generally trustworthy.
It should be noted that this topic is vast; the purpose of these notes is to give you a "thumb-nail sketch" of the subject with an emphasis on the problems you may encounter when talking with an educated unbeliever. For more details and documentation, please consult the many references cited.
I. There is reasonable cause to believe, based on history and science written in advance, that at least some of the Old Testament books are spiritually authoritative.
LOGIC: If a book is reliable in all areas that we can test, then it is reasonable to trust it when it discusses areas which we can not test - especially when testable evidence is explicitly given to verify spiritual claims.
a) Jesus used this same logic when he asked his audiences to believe that he was in fact the promised Messiah: Mark 2:1-12.
b) Fulfilled prophecy is the most reliable criteria: cf. Isaiah 44:6-8, 44:24-26, 45:21, 46:9-10.
A. Specific examples of external data testable today:
See sections below.1. Fulfilled prophecy:
a. The desolation of Palestine and the scattering of the Jews are predicted in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 28:58-68).
b. Isaiah and most of the other prophetic books contain prophecies which have clearly been fulfilled after the time of Christ (cf. Ezekiel 26).
References:
The Fulfilled Prophecy paper in the Doctrine class notes.
John Urquhart, The Wonders of Prophecy.
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol. 1, p. 277 ff.
2. Science written before technologically feasible.
a. The order of the creation account in Genesis.
cf. R. Newman and H. Eckelmann, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth.
b. Rules of hygiene.
cf. S. I. McMillen, None of These Diseases, p. 12 ff.
B. Archaeology has shown that modern liberal criticism is generally unfounded
in its attacks on the spiritual authority of the Old Testament.
1. The Pentateuch.
BACKGROUND: The JEDP theory (Evolutionary hypothesis).
This theory for the origin of the Pentateuch argues that several manuscripts containing various ancient oral traditions were gradually assimilated into one document after several centuries. Supposedly, four distinct oral traditions are traceable:
"J" - The "Jehovah" tradition for the name of God. This family of documents contained the oral traditions of the Southern Kingdom (Judah) which were finally commited to writing around 850 BC.
"E" - The "Elohim" tradition for the name of God. This family of documents originated from the oral traditions of the Nouthern Kingdom (Israel) which were finally written down around 750 BC.
The "J" and "E" documents were combined after the fall of Samaria, and around 700 BC.
"P" - The Priestly traditions of the Southern Kingdom. These were added to the "JE" document after the fall of Jerusalem in around 500 BC.
"D" - Deuteronomic traditions. This was a document of laws which was forged by Hilkiah the priest in order to start the revival during Josiah's reign (around 620 BC).
Is this merely some nice abstract theory which a few dusty professors hold to? No, this view can be found in the flyleaf of most modern liberal translations, and thus it has poisoned many people who view the editor's footnotes as being inspired.
Consider this example:
"The first five books of the Bible make up a group which was known to the Jews as "The Law" and for many centuries all five books were attributed to Moses as the sole or principal author. However, modern study of the texts has revealed a variety of styles, a lack of sequence and such repetitions and variations in narrative that it is impossible to ascribe the whole group to a single author.
"The original Ten Commandments of Moses, of which there are two distinct traditions in the Pentateuch, are certainly ancient; the rest of the large code of legislation found in the five books includes other elements of the greatest antiquity, but also laws from later times of the Judges and of the Monarchy and others again which show the development in social and religious customs which is traceable to the Exile.
Throughout, the hands of the Deuteronomic and priestly editors are often to be observed, annotating and adapting." from the "Introduction to the Pentateuch,"
The Jerusalem Bible (a modern Catholic version).
What are the implications of this theory?
1. The Pentateuch is then a book full of legends and fairy tales.
2. Some of these traditions when viewed critically must contain lies: cf. Deut. 31:9, Exodus 24:4, 7; 34:27.
3. There is no basis for trusting the Pentateuch's spiritual claims: cf. Exodus 20:1.
As anyone familiar with science is aware, theories in themselves are worth about as much as the paper they are printed on. The question which any theory is done, results are obtained which do not fit the theory. In fact, they contract the must be able to adequately answer is this: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS TRUE? Many theories are proposed which appear to fit the available data; however, when more experimentation reasonable predictions which were made by assuming that the theory was correct. What proves one theory to be more correct than another is not how much we like it or its implications, but rather how well it agrees with the available data and predicts the future results.
For lack of time and space, we will consider only a few of the archaeological results which have significantly weakened the feasiblity of the JEDP theory:
a. There is no need to propose "oral traditions" between Abraham and Moses, or between Moses and the "final writers," for the transmission of ancient data.
When the JEDP theory was first proposed, there was no evidence that man had invented writing in the time of Moses, much less of Abraham. However, archeaology has clearly shown that advanced alphabetical written languages were in existance at Abraham's time (these were not vague "symbolic" languages which would allow for imaginative readings and be very prone to copyist errors).
However, today it is universally accepted that writing was well established in Abraham's time; in fact, one archaeologist has commented that "The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated country than the England of George III" (Evidence vol. 2, p. 69).
b. Deuteronomy and the Hittite treaties.
Among the finds in the excavation of the ancient capital city of the Hittites were 16 international treaties made between the Hittites and their vassal nations, dating from 1400 to 1200 BC.
An analysis of them showed that they all followed this basic pattern:
1) PREAMBLE, identifying the author (king) of the treaty.
2) HISTORICAL PROLOGUE (most significant): the benevolent past acts of the king are emphasized. This section is detailed and quite accurate and is apparently intended to create a sense of obligation to the king.
3) STIPULATIONS: the BASIC and DETAILED obligations of the vassal are spelled out.
4) WITNESSES: the assorted gods of the Hittites and vassal nation are called on.
5a) CURSES were invoked for breaking the treaty: sterility, misery, poverty, plagues, and famine.
5b) BLESSINGS were invoked for keeping the treaty: divine protection, health, and peace.
The above points were common to all of the Hittite-vassal treaties; some treaties had noteworthy additional features:
1) A formal oath of obedience was pledged by the vassal.
2) Provision was made for a copy of the treaty to be placed in the vassal's sanctuary; it was to be periodically read to the people.
It is of interest to compare this outline with the book of the Deuteronomy, a document which claims to be written by Moses after Israel has just finished wandering for 40 years in the desert. The Israelites are about to enter their promised land with a new leader, Joshua. Moses in this document reminds the people of God's covenant (treaty) with them.
An outline of the book shows the following format:
1) PREAMBLE (Chapter 1:1-5)
2) HISTORICAL PROLOGUE (Chapter 1:6 - 4:49)
3) STIPULATIONS: BASIC (Chapters 4 - 11), DETAILED (Chapters 12 - 26)
4) BLESSINGS and CURSES (Chapters 27 - 30)
5) WITNESSES (Chapter 31:26,28). Since pagan gods are logically excluded, this section is short. Apparently the song of Moses (Chapter 31:16 - 32:47) is a part of this section.
In addition, directions are given for the deposit and public reading of the document (Chapter 31:9-12).
Conclusions?
It appears that the entire book of Deuteronomy in its present form exhibits the classic pattern of the ancient Hittite-vassal treaties. This makes the possiblity of later additions or editing unlikely.
Further, the Hittite capital was destroyed around 1200 BC and the Hittite treaty style was replaced by the Assyrian style, which was very different. For instance, there was never a historical prologue in an Assyrian treaty; allegience was motivated through fear rather than friendliness.
Thus this Hittite treaty style is unique to the time period of 1400 to 1200 BC, and is one that the people of that time would be famaliar with. Since Deuteronomy itself claims to written during this period, we have strong evidence that God (through Moses) presented His treaty to the people of Israel in a style which they could readily understand from analogy to human treaties.
But what if Hilkiah had a copy of an ancient Hittite-vassal treaty in the temple which he used as a model for forging Deuteronomy? This is a rather remote possiblity, since Israel never was a vassal of the Hittites and thus there never was such a treaty between the Hittites and Israel. It is unreasonable to propose that Hilkiah had some 600 year old copies of ancient Hittite treaties to nations other than Israel lying around the temple. Further, Hilkiah would have no motivation for carefully following a treaty style which had been publicly forgotten for 600 years, for if he presented his Hittite originals to "prove" that the style matched, people would just say that he had made a clever forgery.
That Hilkiah would have known the details of the Hittite treaties in 621 BC, 600 years after the Hittite empire was completely destroyed, requires a vast amount of blind faith; the objective data shows that Deuteronomy's style closely follows that of international treaties common around 1300 BC, thus the former document must be genuine.
References:
George E. Mendenhall, "Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East," The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, no. 3, (1954).
Meredith G. Kline, The Treaty of the Great King, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.
J. A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament, 1964.
Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, vol. 2, p. 95 - 99.
Note: Evidence, volume 2 is a "heavy" book in that it gives a thorough treatment and refutation of the JEDP and other liberal theories regarding the origin and authenticity of both the Old and New Testaments. For serious students, especially those who have taken religious studies courses at a University or College, this is well worth reading.
c. The Horses and Camels of Abraham.
See Biblical Archaeology, by Dr. A. A. MacRae, p. 12.
d. "Mythological" cities which really existed.
Perhaps no story in the first several chapters of Genesis is scoffed at more by liberals than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here we are told, is the perfect example of a legend mistaken as history. Sodom, meaning "scorched" or "burnt" in Hebrew; Gomorrah, meaning "heap;" and Zoar, meaning "small;" are obvious indicators to the "scholar" that these cities are fictious, and only find their place in history because some wandering herdsmen made up a story to teach their children about good morals, and it happens to be recorded in the Bible.
Unfortunately, theories made without clear external data to support them have a tendency to collapse; imagine the surprise to such Biblical "scholars" when some of the tablets recently discovered in Ebla (the capital city of a hitherto unknown Syrian empire dating back to around 2000 BC) proved to be the trade records between Ebla and Sodom, Gomorrah, and Zoar]
Reference: Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. II, no. 4, (Dec. 1976), p. 41-42.
2. General Historical accuracy of the Old Testament.
One collaboration of interest involves the names of the kings of various ancient empires. In recent times archaeologists have excavated ancient cities and have found many contemporary references to their great kings. What is of interest is that whenever their names happen to appear in the Biblical records (Wilson cites 24 names), their Biblical names are found to be transliterated and preserved with an accuracy that indicates an unparalleled care and access to original sources. The Greek historians are nowhere near as accurate as the Hebrew documents. To claim that the Hebrew people passed such information along by "oral tradition" is absurd. This external data indicates that the Biblical records must have been written by men who were contemporary with these kings.
Reference: R. D. Wilson, Is the Higher Criticism Scholarly?, p. 19 - 20.
3. The Book of Daniel.
"The book of Daniel was written between 167 and 164 BC, during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before the Maccabean revolt. The aim of the book was to sustain faith and hope among the Jews in their persecutions by showing them the triumph of Daniel over his own severe ordeals and temptations of the same kind; and to hold before them the vision of a time to come when the wrath of God would be satisfied; and the kingdom of the saints would begin under a "Son of Man" whose reign would endure forever.
The historical setting of the story undoubtedly disregards known facts, persons and dates and contains anachronisms in detail; the meaning of the book for its first readers was to be found in its insight into the present and the future in the purposes of God."
from the "Introduction to the book of Daniel," The Jerusalem Bible.
One note of interest about the book of Daniel which clearly demonstrates that it is the "scholars" who wrote the above assertions who "undoubtedly disregard known facts," concerns the story about Belshazzar in Daniel 5. Historians for centuries were puzzled by this reference to Belshazzar as the king of Babylon, for the Greek historians made no mention of a Belshazzar; instead, they clearly indicated that Nabonidus was the Babylonian king when the Persians conquered the city. Liberal "scholars" took this discrepency as proof that Daniel was a forgery, pawned off on the Israelites sometime during the early Maccabean period.
However, archaeologists have recovered tablets from the diggings at Babylon which fill in details of history that the Greeks had missed: Nabonidus was indeed the king of Babylon, but he had retired and had appointed Belshazzar his son as acting king. This insight also shows why Daniel was given authority as the third ruler in the kingdom (Daniel 5:29): that was the highest position after Belshazzar.
It is amazing that the alleged Maccabean author who forged this book had a far more accurate and detailed history of the events surrounding the fall of the Babylonian empire than was available to the Greeks. It is even more amazing that this knowledge, after being used in writing this forgery, was then lost. In light of the objective data, it requires more "faith" to believe in a fictious Maccabean author than it does to believe that the book of Daniel is genuine.
References:
R. L. Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, (1929)
See further details in:
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Eerdmans, p. 1112.
C. The theory that the Old Testament books were continually "edited" or added to receives no support from ancient Jewish historians.
Josephus (first century AD): "From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our conduct; for though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything in them."
Seder Olam Rabba 30 writes in the Talmud: "Up to this point (the time of Alexander the Great) the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit; from this time onward incline thine ear and listen to the sayings of the wise."
Thus modern "scholars" who claim that books were added after the time of Alexander the Great (around 330 BC) are implying that these ancient commentators are liars. Perhaps the question could be asked, which person is in a better position to know what really happened? The person who wrote a couple hundred years after the event, and who had much of the original data still available to him, or someone who writes several thousand years later? "Ahh, yes," the skeptic responds, "But perhaps these ancient men were biased!" Well, perhaps the modern "scholars" are biased too! Note this point: we are not asking Josephus or other ancient historians whether they personally think the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired or not; we are asking them how the Jews treated and valued the Scriptures. The later is a simple factual question the answer to which can hardly be effected by ones personal value judgments. Certainly Josephus and Olam, both having lived in Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 AD, were in a much better position to answer this question than we are today. Before one can call these men liars, one needs more than a theory and claims of bias: one needs the data which proves it.
Reference: Evidence, vol. 1, p. 35.
THE MIRACLES PROBLEM:
What is the major reason that the authenticity of the Bible is challenged? Because they record miracles as historical events. Everyone knows that miracles are impossible, and since they do not occur today, these ancient miracle accounts must simply be legends.
This is certainly an important question. What about the miracles? How do we know that they are historical events? After all, we were not there.
A first order answer is this: Miracles are by definition rare, so if they happened everyday, we would not call them miracles. Granted, many of the miracles we cannot personally check up on because we can no longer even cross-examine the eyewitnesses, however, there are prophecies given in the Scriptures that we can check up on today and see if they were or are truly fulfilled. Prophecy is the best test, because it can be so easily tested (cf. the Prophecy paper in the doctrine class notes).
A second order answer: No one has the right to say that miracles can never occur, for "the universe is no longer a tight, safe, predictable playing field in which we know all the rules. Since Einstein no one has had the right to rule out the possiblity of events because of prior knowledge of 'natural law.' The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of 'miracles,' then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation" (J. W. Montgomery, History and Christianity, p. 75).
It often happens in scientific research that brilliant researchers ignore important clues in their data because they have assumed that the result which the clues imply is impossible.
The problem of the Phoenix . . .
One justification for the refusal to accept the miracle accounts within an otherwise reasonable historical account is that many Greek historians did similar things: Tacitus, a very competant historian, appears to spend considerable time on the wonders of the Phoenix. Certainly we accept his accounts about life in Rome as true, but who trusts his account about the Phoenix?
There are two points on which the Scriptural accounts of miracles are unique:
1) The authors claim to be eyewitnesses.
This is especially evident in the case of the New Testament, for example, the leter of 1 John begins: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also . . . ."
To compare with the Greek historians, Herodotus, like Tacitus, also spends much time describing the Phoenix, but he is quick to add that he has never seen one.
2) The miracles were not done in a corner - the common people are called as eyewitnesses.
Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know . . . ."
Acts 4:16 "What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it."
Acts 26:26 "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."
cf. also John 3:2, Luke 19:37, Matthew 21:14-15, John 11:41-45.
3) These eyewitnesses exhort us to pay attention to things that we ourselves can check, like prophecy (cf. 2 Peter 1:17-19).
This means that we are not merely trusting in the eyewitness accounts of people who died two thousand years ago; we have evidence which we can examine for ourselves.
II. There is reasonable cause to believe, based on the fact that the apostles are the accredited agents of Christ (cf. John 14:26, John 16:12-13), that at least some of the New Testament books are spiritually authoritative.
A. No rational distinction can be made between the New Testament writers and secular historians of that time.
1. The manuscript evidence is better for the New Testament than for any other ancient literature.
It was popular to assert at one time that the New Testament books, especially the Gospels, were written hundreds of years after the events they describe actually took place. Given such a time gap, certainly the apostles themselves could not be the final authors, and surely the history they tell us must be distorted because of the legends and myths concerning Jesus that arose over the century before these stories were formally organized.
The problem with this position is that it is not supported by the evidence which we have available today:
The John Rylands papyri (around AD 130): A fragment, contains John 18:31-33, 37. The fact that this fragment was found in Egypt, and that John reportedly wrote his Gospel in Epheseus around 90 AD, demonstrate the early popularity and rapid spread of the Gospel accounts throughout the Roman empire.
The Bodmer Papyrus II (150 - 200 AD): Most of the Gospel of John.
The Chester Beatty Papyri (200 - 300 AD): Most of the New Testament. Includes the four Gospels and Acts, Paul's letters to churches, Hebrews, and Revelation.
The Codex Vaticanus (325 - 350 AD): Nearly all of the Bible.
The Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD): All of the New Testament (except for Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11), and over half of the Old Testament.
Considering the wealth of the manuscript evidence, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the original New Testament documents were written during the lifetime of the Apostles (before 100 AD).
References:
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 14 - 20.
Josh McDowell, Evidence, Vol. 1, p. 43 - 56.
2. The New Testament documents are not filled with inaccuracies; on the contrary their accuracy has been confirmed at numerous points by archaeology.
a. Luke's titles for rulers and governors as found in Acts are consistently correct. Considering how these titles would change with location and time throughout the Roman empire, it would be very difficult to forge these historical details (F. F. Bruce, p. 82-86).
b. The time of the birth of Jesus (around 6 BC) as reported by Luke has been the subject of much controversy. Luke mentions that Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and that Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem in order to enroll in a census. However, Josephus reported that Quirinius was governor around 6 AD, and further, no secular historians reported such a census. Since Herod died in 4 BC, it seemed that Luke had slipped up on his history.
First of all, recent archaeological discoveries demonstrate that the Romans did hold a regular census of taxpayers; the first of these began during the reign of Augustus in either 23 - 22 BC or in 9 - 8 BC.
Further, an inscription has been found in Antioch which indicates that Quirinius was indeed the governor of Syria in around 7 BC. Presumably then, he held this office twice.
Also significant is the fact that Egyptian papyri have been found (dated to 104 AD) which instruct families to return to her home cities in order to be enrolled in an upcoming Roman census.
Thus where confirmation is possible, the New Testament documents have been found to agree with archaeological discoveries. We would naturally expect this if these documents were written very near to the times which they describe, for such details of history would then be common knowledge to the average person.
Remember that we have manuscripts which date directly back to the Second and Third century AD; the people who copied these documents were very close the First centruy AD themselves and certainly had a greater knowledge of their recent history than we have been able to piece together two thousand years later. In light of these two points: the corroboration with archaeological findings, and their early acceptance as genuine, we have no rational grounds for doubting that the New Testament documents were written during the lifetime of the Apostles.
For a further discussion of the crediblity of the Gospel writers, see:
J. W. Montgomery, Christianity for the Tough Minded, p. 237 - 251.
F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Eerdman, 1975.
Up to this point we have attempted to demonstrate that at least some of the books in the Old and New Testament were geniunely written by recognized prophets and apostles. The question now arises, "How can we tell exactly which ones are trustworthy?"
III. THE CANON: The drawing of precise lines between those books which are spiritually authoritative and those which are not, is based upon justifiable criteria.
Definition: CANON, a "measuring rod", a standard against which other things are compared.
A. The Old Testament.
1. Only those books which Christ and the Apostles recognized as the Word of God are entitled to a place in the Old Testament canon.
a. Two thirds of the Old Testament books were directly quoted in the New Testament as being spiritually authoritative: cf. Romans 3:10-19. Many of the rest are indirectly refered to: cf. Luke 11:51 ("The blood of Zechariah" is a reference to 2 Chronicles 24:21).
Thus most of the Old Testament canon can be established on a direct book by book basis.
Reference: Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 152 - 153.
b. Jesus endorsed "The Scriptures" of the Jews (Luke 24:44, Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:16-17).
Thus the question becomes, "What would a Jew around 30 AD call 'The Scripture?'"
2. The Jewish canon, c. 30 AD.
a. From Josephus (first centruy AD), we find that the Jews considered "the Scripture" to be a well-defined body of books:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have) but only 22 books, which are justly believed to be divine . . . . 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" (p. 319 - 320).
Remembering that we quoted Josephus earlier as saying that no one had dared to add anything to them, or change anything in them, it appears that the Jews did indeed have a well-defined set of Scripture.
The logical question to ask then, is: "What are these 22 books?"
b. These 22 books are the same as the 39 OT books found in the contemporary Protestant Bible (the difference between 22 and 39 comes from the way in which the books were counted, ie., Ruth was considered a part of Judges, the books of I and II Samuel were not divided, etc.).
3. Problem: The Council of Jamnia.
Here we again find an area where liberals essentially call the ancient historians liars; since the liberals have disavowed the authority of true authorship with respect to the books of the Old Testament, they must propose some alternate means for the "evolution" and establishment of the OT canon. The most common theory is that the Jews finally argued out which books were to be considered inspired at a series of councils held in Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem. We find even the Encyclopedia Britannica (in its 1970 article on "Jamnia," by Edward Robertson) proclaiming:
"After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (AD 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting of Rabbis held there c. AD 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament."
The problem with this theory is that the objective data available to us about Jamnia gives no evidence that such a special meeting took place. Even liberals admit that "The Synod of Jamnia can be little else to us but a name" (p. 324).
From the records that we have, no books were discussed which are not a part of the present day canon. "None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a 'status quo' which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content" (p. 349).
Thus it appears that the "Council of Jamnia" is an argument from silence, a theory which many may wish to believe, but one which is not supported by the data available.
References:
Quotations are from R. C. Newman, "The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon", Westminster Theological Journal, p. 319 - 349.
N. L. Geisler and W. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible
R. L. Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible
Josh McDowell, Evidence, vol. 1
More on INSPIRATION, TRANSMISSION AND CANONICITY OF THE BIBLE
Click here for more information on this topic...