The Bible of Jesus?

Did Jesus authorize the Septuagint Bible?The Septuagint Bible was the New International Version of circa 250 BC and immensely popular in its time.

• The majority of Hebrew people in Jesus' day accepted the Septuagint as inspired by God.
• Jesus utilized the Septuagint in his ministry, even reading aloud from it in public.
• The apostles often quote from the Septuagint when citing passages of the Old Testament.
• Saint Paul, who often quotes the Septuagint, is famous for saying, "All scripture is inspired by God."

It is clear that Jesus and his apostles utilized the Septuagint Bible as if it were The Holy Scriptures.Thus the question: Edited by doctrbill, : A slip of the finger caused my unfinished proposal to post.

Yes, the statement does present problems in translation/interpretation. I know what you mean and I agree. And , I would like to say a little something about the word "scripture" because I have seen that word misused hereabouts.The word scripture literally means: something written. That is why we say "Holy Scripture," to indicate a sacred text. When we write it we capitalize it: "Scripture." In fact the 1611 edition of the King James Version does just that at 2Tim 3:15 (unhappily, it does it also at verse 16). It is important to understand the word scripture when one encounters seventeenth century lingo, such as that ensconced in the King James Version of the Bible. Remember, the thee's and thou's were not sacred usages. Those people talked that way all the time, even to their dogs.The Greek text is more careful than the English to draw a distinction between holy scripture and ordinary scripture. The prime example of this is seen in verses 15 and 16 of 2Tim 3. At verse 15 it reads: hiera grammata ("holy scriptures"); while at verse 16 it reads: pasa graphi ("All scripture"). Compare the Vulgate's: omnis scriptura and Darby's: "Every scripture." Our words "script," and "prescription" give testimony to the generic sense of the word "scripture." Thus: All scripture literally means: "anything written."So you see, while the author of the Letter to Timothy would not likely refer to his work as it were "Scripture" (grammata), he might correctly refer to it as "scripture" (graphi) i.e. "something written."And yes! This verse is not a good proof of what so many wish it to be; for all the reasons you have mentioned and a few more I could add. That is all very interesting and I would be glad to discuss it in a separate thread but for here and now it is rather off-topic. What I want to hear is your thoughts, if any, about the OP. To put it in a nutshell, if I have not already done so:Does Jesus' use of the Septuagint (reading it aloud in Synagogue) constitute his approval of that version?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I am assuming that Jesus did exist and that the gospel according to Luke is true and accurate.Given that, it is clear that Jesus did employ the Septuagint. He stood up to read from it - from a copy of Isaiah - which was present in the Synagogue at Nazareth. That much is evident on looking at Luke's report (4:18) as it appears in the Textus Receptus (therefore also the KJV), and comparing it with the Isaiah text (61:1,2), as it reads in the Septuagint. There is a word for word correlation between the two.You will notice that Luke's quote of Isaiah appears to be inaccurate. That, my friend, is because it is taken from the Septuagint Scripture, not the Hebrew. What Jesus reads aloud in the Synagogue that day, in Nazareth of Judea, is a direct quote from the Septuagint: a quote which does not conform to the Isaiah passage in the Hebrew version.Seems to me that if Jesus had any desire to favor the Hebrew Scriptures over the Greek, he might have assured that a line or two regarding that concern be inserted into the otherwise the tiresomely repetitive gospels. Instead, both he and the apostles make generous use of the Septuagint "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This is the answer I was seeking. I don't quite understand what this is about. Can you say a bit more on the subject? So, do you accept the Septuagint as a whole because Jesus quoted a part of it? Or do you accept only those portions of the Septuagint which Jesus is recorded as having quoted? I am not aware of any source which actually contradicts the Septuagint version of Isaiah 61:1,2. I am, however, wondering why the Septuagint version drops one of the lines found in the Hebrew version, and adds a couple not found in the Hebrew version. I am also wondering why the Luke version adds-in a line not present in either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. Any thoughts on that?I have uploaded this page to assist in the visualization of our comparison. Hope you find it useful.Thanks for participating.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Does this make the Hebrew version wrong where it differs from the Septuagint? I know of only one translation, that by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, in 1851. I know also of an interlinear Greek/English Septuagint which is a part of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot - First Edition, The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, 2006. But one can hardly call that a "translation."So, what are the others of which you speak? Yes they did. They also used the Syriac, the Vulgate, and others. The Septuagint was also created by a large committee. So, how do we know what Jesus actually said? If I understand correctly, you are asserting that the entire Septuagint is endorsed by the fact that Jesus read a few lines from it. So, how do you feel about the Apocrypha?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Your opinion rescinds on too prejudiced gumptions.Thus it flails.Seriously though: Can you handle it?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Greetings gluadys. Welcome to the forum. I cannot speak for others but here is how it happened for me: I am not expert in the linguistic situation of first century Judea but what I have read leaves me with the impression that Aramaic was a regional language which children learned and spoke in the home, while Greek was the language of commerce and culture, and the language taught in school (before the Roman occupation). Greek language allowed a Hebrew person to communicate with his fellow Jews whose regional tongues he did not know. And the Old Hebrew was known to only a few of the most dedicated scholars; much as Old English is known to a very few of us. That may, at first blush, seem to be a reasonable perspective but consider the purpose of synagogue (which is not a lot unlike Sunday school): to bring people together in a community building exercise. Now imagine the experience of a visitor attending a synagogue conducted in a foreign language; foreign to him. The people of Galilee were not isolated from the rest of the world. Judea was then, as always, a crossroads of international activity. On any given Shabat the synagogue may entertain Jewish vistitors from anwhere in the world. That is, in fact, why the Septuagint was produced in the first place: so that Jewish people everywhere could hear and read the Scriptures in a language they recognized and understood. It was, as I like to say, the NIV of its day.And besides that, if one is to accept the facts as written in the Gospel of Luke, then it would seem that at least one Synagogue, the one in Jesus' home town, had a Greek (Septuagint) Isaiah at hand. The alternative, I fear, would be to doubt the veracity of Luke's report and if we do that, then we have an entirely different discussion.Again: Welcome. And thank you for your response.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Your vision puzzles me. You claim Greek influence on Jews who lived in the far West, in Europe, which was never a part of Alexander's empire AND suggest that Babylonian Jews (living in the "Jewel" of Alexander's empire) were already exempt from such influence AND you see the Jerusalem congregation using Greek as a daily language, YET you think that Galilea, in the middle of all this, was somehow exempt?Is that what you are saying? "Likely?" "Probably?" Have you any evidence to support this view? Do you wish to deny that the Septuagint was widely used among the Jews of Jesus day? Consider the opinion of the only scholar, of whom I am aware, who has actually translated the Septuagint Scriptures: This is not about New Testament writers translating Old Testament quotes.This is about Jesus quoting the already translated Greek language version of Holy Scripture - The Septuagint. Exactly! I am NOT saying what you suggest. - I AM saying, that if you believe Luke’s report: Jesus read aloud from the Septuagint, If our speculation is to have any hope of accuracy, we must base it on the evidence at hand. The evidence I offer here (to those who believe Luke) is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint.Anything likely and/or probable regarding Jesus' use of language, must take this into account.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Luke's record (in Greek) of Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah has him quoting (word for word) the Septuagint. So YES. If you believe Luke. Jesus specifically reads from the Septuagint. Now, we can imagine that Luke is only aware of the fact that Jesus had read from the 61st chapter of Isaiah. We can imagine that Luke then looked it up in his own (Greek) Bible, to be sure he scribed the biblical quote correctly. We could imagine all that but what of divine inspiration? If it is important that Jesus be reading from a Hebrew text, then why does the Scripture record him as having read from a Greek text? If the matter of which language the scroll was written in were truly important, then Luke (and God) could have so indicated by inserting, in the gospel, a single significant word: Hebrew. Can you present chapter and verse evidence suggesting that the question of version was considered significant by Jesus or any of the Apostles?BTW: You seem to think Hebrew is the only language in which Holy Scripture may be considered truly accurate, yet I am quite sure that you personally read the Scriptures, and think of them, in terms of English. Yes? I remember when both priests and parishioners resisted the move to conduct Mass in English. Protests and trepidations notwithstanding, Mass proceeded to be conducted in English. Proponents of the changeover argued the value of hearing Mass in a language which one actually understands. The same could be said for the value of hearing Jewish liturgy in the common tongue and I'm sure there was initial resistance to bringing Greek language into the Jewish service. Writers of the New Testament did not mention it, however, and that suggests to me that it was for them at that time - a non issue.PS. There is a significant difference between "Temple" and "Synagogue."

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Luke suggested it by virtue of the fact that he quoted it as if it had been written in Greek.No evidence?! I have posted evidence. Here it is again for those who may have just tuned in: comparisonIf by some chance you were correct, and the scroll was actually written in Hebrew, then Luke’s report becomes false, for the Hebrew and the Greek read considerably different here; thus Luke would be putting words into Jesus mouth which Jesus could not possibly have uttered were he reading from the Hebrew version of Isaiah. The “obvious” is that the New Testament was written in Greek; by men whom you seem to suggest would not likely tell the story of Messiah in a language other than Aramaic or write the story of Messiah in a language other than Hebrew. What could possibly have motivated them then, to write the story in that crass commercial heathen language called: Greek?

• First, you say it was “likely” that Jewish education would be in Hebrew.
• Then, you say Jesus “probably” learned Hebrew.
• Now you say, the scroll in question was “almost certainly” written in Hebrew.

You make many assertions but so far offer no evidence to back them up. I asked you for evidence and you gave me more assertions and suggested I buy a book; a book you have presumably read and consider authoritative but from which you have offered no presumably persuasive facts. This is a science forum, you know? Likely, Probably, and Almost Certainly aren't much to go on; especially when talking about the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible. Says you. That may be true UNLESS you want to record what it was that Jesus actually said (AND believe he read it from a Hebrew scroll), - then there is a very good reason to go with the Hebrew because at this place in Scripture, the Septuagint reads differently. Did you not read the short analysis to which I linked? Does Accuracy and Inerrancy mean anything to you? The “good reason” is that Septuagint scrolls were: The "evidence" is that Luke puts the Septuagint in Jesus’ mouth.Do you wish to deny the veracity of The Gospel According to Luke?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I am not relying on the English translation.

quote:

---

“There is growing evidence in recent scholarship that, though the LXX was originally prepared for Alexandrian Greek-speaking Jews, it became common in the homeland also, and among the large Babylonian Jewish community.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century, Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins

---

Somehow you have gotten the idea that my research is limited to comparing an English Luke (KJV) with a Greek Isaiah (Septuagint). That is not the case. Let me make it perfectly clear: I am comparing the Greek Luke with the Greek Isaiah and the Greek Luke with the Hebrew Isaiah, AND, I am looking at what translations (English) have done with these ancient versions. If you have examined the comparison I posted then you should already know this. It is not “pure speculation.” I have Luke’s word on it.

quote:

---

“... the strong weight of evidence, and the prevailing opinion among both biblical and "secular" scholars seems to be that Hebrew had fallen out of general use much earlier, as a language of common, general use.” . “After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the general language of the Seleucid Greek empire, including Judea and the northern areas of Palestine.” . “It is probable that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, assuming the Gospels are reporting literal events.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins

---

And if you liked that, you’ll love this:

quote:

---

"there is no sign that the Jews of these places spoke or knew any Semitic language"
From the Maccabees to the Mishnah Shaye J. D. Cohen, 2006, pg. 39.

---

I don’t believe I have said that it was an “official endorsement.” That is the question of the OP, isn’t it?

quote:

---

Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint . ?

---

I believe your opinion in the matter is clear.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I have no problem with that thought but if Luke is quoting what Jesus said in a story about what Jesus did, and you cannot accept the fact that Luke is quoting Jesus accurately, then how can you be sure that Luke is telling the story accurately in any of its detail? How can this scripture be at the same time Accurate and Erroneous? I have already demonstrated that there is no homogeneity between the Masoretic and Septuagint in the first two verses of Isaiah chapter 61; and there are evidently many more discrepancies which I have yet to discover:

quote:

---

“Scholars have fairly well established that the Septuagint text is in many ways older than the later medieval Masoretic text. Sources from the early Christian era indicate that revisions were made to the Masoretic text from the 2nd century onwards.

​

It appears the purpose of the edits was to modify or even eliminate certain passages used by the Christians, in order to diminish the susceptibility to Messianic interpretation or defend against the Messianic claims of the Christians from the Old Testament scriptures.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century

---

The Septuagint and the Masoretic Text do NOT “line up very well.” - “evidence against Luke” - - What are you on about? How is your response at all related to what I have said? Perhaps your concern regarding my motives has blinded you to the evidence I have provided. In all this argument I have not once disparaged the apostle or his work but have rather simply revealed it in a way which you had apparently never considered. Apparently not you.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

To employ your analogy of a future vernacular version: I am sure you can think of verses where even a slight variation in wording can make a huge difference in theology. If you know of none then I, in my magnanimity, will assist you in finding them. Meanwhile I assure you that it really would matter which version Jesus quoted, whether the NIV or the NKJV. I’m sure you raise a valid concern but the validity of Luke’s report is another topic; and you, and others, have made it clear that the question at hand has difficulties enough (for Y’all ). I have presented objective evidence and corroborating testimony. The opposition here, including yourself, has not so much as offered a single supportive quote from a serious scholar; so why should I be concerned if you disagree with the quotes I bring? Here again: neither you nor anyone else opposing my premise has offered a single citing in support of his opinion. I have offered several - PLUS a number of hard-copy exhibits.And here is another quotation of opinion; from another ostensibly Christian source - this one suggesting that Jews of the first century had completely lost the ability and/or inclination to execute documents in Hebrew.

quote:

---

“The Jews made themselves notorious in Rome in propagating their religion by means of proselytizing . Notwithstanding the diffusion of Judaism by means of proselytism, the Jews themselves lived for the most part in isolation in the poorest parts of the city or suburbs, across the Tiber, near the Circus Maximus, or outside the Porta Capena. Inscriptions show that there were seven communities, each with its synagogue and council of elders presided over by a gerusiarch. Five cemeteries have been discovered with many Greek, a few Latin, but no Hebrew inscriptions.” V. ROME AND THE JEWS

---

It is certainly problematic to those who, like me, have been taught that the Septuagint is an inferior Scripture. That combined with a belief in Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible make for a mental state wherein the discovery that Luke has Jesus quoting the Septuagint creates quite a lot of excitement. Attacks on the OP reinforce my notion that Christians don’t want Jesus reading a Septuagint scroll. Opponents here seem to think that no such scroll could have existed in Galilee at that time. It is an apparently widespread and deep-seated opinion which, like most matters of faith, is not beholding to evidence. Those who bring it here have offered neither tangible evidence nor corroborating testimony in support of their counter-claim. I eagerly await as much.As to the question of the Dead Sea scrolls, all I can say is that the Essenes were a notoriously separatist society which rejected anything and anyone not aligned with the strictest tenets of traditional Judaic religion and culture. In other words, they were crackpots. If we take our clues from the Essene heritage then we might imagine that the people of Judea were familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic, and despised Greek. But the Essenes are a poor example of the population at large. Essenes cloistered themselves in desert caves; refused to accept the unfolding of history; and prayed for the overthrow of all things non-Jewish. Meanwhile, back in Judea, our friendly local apostles write the story of Jesus in Greek, depict Jesus speaking to Greeks in their own language, and place Jesus in the Synagogue reading from Greek Scriptures. You can imagine, if you like, that they did it this way for publicity sake and I wouldn't think you are wrong, but that pretty much obviates any hope of establishing a factual basis for biblical Accuracy and Inerrancy.Are you sure that is what you want to do?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

You keep saying this, even though I have cited experts who claim otherwise. We also do not have any record of Jesus speaking in Hebrew. Why does this not surprise me? My position needs a Gospel writer putting a word-for-word rendering of the Septuagint in Jesus' mouth. That I have. I have shown that there are a number of Christian sources which disagree with your position. It is your position which needs something. There is apparently no evidence for your position. You have presented assertions only. Your argument is going nowhere but into an uncorroborated corner. You have presented no evidence at all.Evidence for your position might consist of verifiably first century Aramaic and/or Hebrew language documents created by Judean and/or Galilean Jews. I venture to say that there are none. There are, on the other hand, verifiably first century Greek language documents created by ostensibly Judean and/or Galilean Jews (AKA "The Gospels").

quote:

---

“There is growing evidence in recent scholarship that, though the LXX was originally prepared for Alexandrian Greek-speaking Jews, it became common in the homeland also, and among the large Babylonian Jewish community. . After the time of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the general language of the Seleucid Greek empire, including Judea and the northern areas of Palestine.” Hebrew Usage in the First Century

---

Don’t tell me this doesn’t qualify as evidence. I already know that. I also know that in the absence of evidence, this man’s opinion is just as valid as yours. Your opposition, employing Bald (unsubstantiated and uncorroborated) Assertions, is inappropriate to this forum and annoying as hell.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

My bad. I was apparently unclear on that score. I still think of inerrancy in terms of Inerrancy. Is that clearer? I no longer need the Bible to be Accurate and Inerrant but sometimes I wish it were. If by “remarkable agreement” you mean that they agree most of the time then I would concede the point. The problem is they are sometimes in remarkable disagreement.People often comment on how life-like the dead man looks, lying there in his coffin. The resemblance to a living man is often remarkable and might be perfect except for that one little thing: HE’s DEAD! Put down the crack pipe and pay attention. You have perceived the quote entirely upside down. Your response has corroborated the author’s argument. You have said exactly what he is saying: Those Jewish editors did not like Christians. I can understand that, given you do not accept the Gospels as written. I have summoned several corroborating opinions to complilment by hardcopy evidence. Granted, one of the comments comes from a lowly Doctor of Theology, who quotes a hot new research by a fellow who is merely Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University. My third witnesses is a Knight of Her Magesty's Realm and the only person who has ever taken it upon himself to translate the Septuagint. You thumb your nose at them all.By contrast you have summoned exactly no one. Am I supposed to be impressed when you tell me that my case is a total loss? I have brought personal observation, provided hard evidence, and summoned the corroboration of imminent authorities who (I happily discover) happen to see it my way. Did you really think I would be impressed by your rejection?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -