The Bible of Jesus?

I am not debating whether Jesus “principle language” was Aramaic. I believe I stated earlier in this thread that Aramaic was a language which Jesus and his contemporaries probably learned and spoke in the home. Jenkins was an initial reference - by no means a “primary authority. ” Here’s a more thorough look at Cohen’s work, which, in some ways supports your stated perspective and in some ways supports mine:

quote:

---

“ In the diaspora the triumph of the Greek language was complete. . Virtually all the inscriptions engraved by diaspora Jewry, from Egypt to Rome to Asia Minor, were in Greek. .

​

In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated, because Greek had to compete with Hebrew and Aramaic, but even here many Jews spoke and wrote Greek. .

​

Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .

​

The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40

---

The linguistic situation in first century Galilee is clearly a debatable subject and I think it likely that your experts and my experts are going to end up duking it out. So, let’s get back to the original subject which is the textual evidence that Jesus read from and quoted the Septuagint version of Isaiah. I have, this morning, uploaded another instance of word-for-word identity between Textus Receptus and Septuagint; this time: between Mark 7:6,7 and Isaiah 29:13.It makes sense to me that Jesus would quote, and or read, the Septuagint because it was, after all, the popular Bible of his day, the First International Version, if you will. If Jesus had an important message for Jews everywhere, the least he could do is learn the language most commonly spoken among them. If Jesus wanted his own people to read the Holy Scriptures the least he could do is acknowledge the version of Scripture most widely available to them. I think most Christians want to believe that Jesus intended to reach “all the world” with his message. Had he avoided all things Greek, refusing to speak the language, refusing to read the Scriptures; then people might think his message sectarian and provincial; and for good reason. But the Gospels have him quoting Greek Scripture. More telling perhaps is the matter of Paul, the self-styled apostle whose writings dominate the New Testament. A master of Greek language and Christianity's first great apologist, Paul's influence is so huge (and so different from that of Jesus) that the Christian faith has been characterized by some as: Paulianity.Was Jesus less sophisticated than this, his self-proclaimed PR man?

---

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

Huh? FYIAs far as I know, there is only one complete version of the Septuagint available and only one translation of it in English: the one by Brenton.The Masoretic Text (MT) is a compendium of Hebrew Scripture which showed up many years later. The Old Testament of the KJV is taken primarily from the Masoretic Text. Masoretic Text - WikipediaThe New Testament is an entirely different issue. New Testament documents were written in Greek. They are not translations of earlier work but they do quote earlier work. For instance: they quote the Septuagint. The Textus Receptus is a Greek New Testament put together during the middle ages and considered authoritative by the King James translators. The New Testament of the KJV is a translation of the Textus Receptus.Understand?

---

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

Hell-O!! Did you happen to notice that this is NOT about LUKE!? I think you did not look at my online presentation. One reason I put arguments on line is that they are too tedious to be repeated often and too complicated for this format.As for the late arrival of the TR, consider the so-called superior texts available today. They have been established centuries later still. Besides: if these texts are unreliable then what does it matter when they were written, edited, translated, revised, or distributed? Are you saying it is unlikely that Jesus READ the scroll of Isaiah?Are you saying there was likely NO SCROLL in the synagogue at Nazareth?Are you denying a major authority on the subject? Or did you even read him?

quote:

---

Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. .

​

The Greek language, then, had an enormous impact in Palestine in both second temple and rabbinic times.” From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, J. D. Cohen, pgs 39,40

---

This I posted in response to your assertion that Greek had no impact in Palestine. You are either ignoring, or choosing to disbelieve:So, you have Jesus virtually illiterate. A provincial bumpkin who couldn't read the Seleucid road signs? What you call the "boondocks" of Nazareth are located on an interstate highway which has carried heavy traffic since the dawn of history. I do not say it is impossible for someone to grow up on a busy street without becoming worldly wise but if one did I would expect him to be a Dull boy; not the sort who would inspire a following and threaten the status quo.There are eighteen "dark" years during which we have no clue as to what what Jesus was doing. The majority of his life remains a mystery, so you are indulging in considerable speculation as conceded by your "so far as we know" ... "so far as we know."I expect you think it important to pretend that he was a backward man in a backward land.

---

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

My bad. Should have re-read your post rather than relying on memory. I'm sure you know where to search for it. But here, let me take you by the hand: another instanceNo one is trying to establish that Jesus read from either of these. You must deal specifically with the cases I am presenting. Otherwise your objections are merely smokescreen. You concede that Jesus was a rare person; And you have him reading and writing bilingually; Yet you cannot imagine him mastering a third, important language (Greek) from which he was reportedly reading and quoting!? So, you maintain that he could NOT read the foreign language road signs?! Poland is considered a “backwater” by much of the world, yet out of Poland have come a number of great men, including Copernicus and the late Pope. And this is precisely relevant to my hard (textual) evidence that he quoted (orally) the Septuagint.

---

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

Yet you assert that neither Greek nor the Septuagint had either presence or impact in the religion of Galileans!Jesus stated as a matter of fact that servants are not better than their master. Yet you would have his followers being superior to him. But these were Galileans. REMEMBER ??The Septuagint was not available to them. You say.They did not HEAR it in the synagogues of Galilee. You say.Because such scrolls were not present there. You say. And you know this - How?Because you read someone who professes to know? Thank you for saying it. And you know this How? Because an apostle quotes him using an Aramaic expletive on the cross?An apostle also quotes him speaking Greek (quoting Septuagint scripture); and another apostle quotes him reading Greek (from the Septuagint Isaiah).I think it is a given that we cannot know all the particulars regarding things which happened so very long ago. There is precious little evidence for any of it. Then again, even in modern cases where there seems to be plentiful evidence in favor of a particular point of view, that view may be wrong, and eventually: proven wrong. I believe I understand your position and I agree that given the facts at your disposal, the conclusions you reached were reasonable. I think, however, that much of your objection is based on an absence of evidence; and there is plenty of that to go around. On the other hand, I believe I bring a good argument for the opinion that Jesus was familiar with the Septuagint and that he both quoted from it and read it aloud to others. But that is not the question I posed in the original post. The question is: In my Christian experience (long ago now) the Bible was sacrosanct to my friends and family. As a young theology student studying Greek, I was expected to produce my own translation of the story of the wedding at Cana. It was a homework assignment. When I came home on break and tried to share that translation with the family, my father nearly blew a gasket. Red-faced he assumed a challenging posture and blurted out, "Do you think you are smarter than God?" Much later, when the shock and awe had worn off, I realized that my father was casting King James in the role of God. It would be nearly forty years before I discovered that "God" was a title which King James considered appropriate for himself and kings in general. But I digress.I suspect that you are somewhere beyond being interested in this, because it goes to a question of the Accuracy and Inerrancy of the Bible. My perception is that you do not require the Scriptures to conform to either of these standards.Am I wrong?

---

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

There is consensus among scholars that the New Testament was written in Greek NOT written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated to Greek. This would, by your reckoning, make those Galilean evangelist/writers more literate than their rabbi. But this is just the beginning of denial: And then: I think you are not sure what you have said.

---

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

I am saying that you are confused about what you think and it shows in your argument. - You have characterized Jesus as a Galilean country bumpkin who could neither read nor write any language other than Aramaic and/or Hebrew. You went so far as to suggest that he could not even read road signs if they were posted in Greek and further asserted that he would have no need to read road signs; presumably because, as you asserted, he never got out; well maybe once or twice. - Meanwhile you described Galileans in general (including apostles) as an illiterate bunch who never left the ghetto, had no local exposure to conversational Greek nor any pressure to learn the language, and no significant tutelege in the Scriptures (certainly not Greek scriptures). Yet, by some mysterious means which you do not explain, you have these illiterate Galileans writing books and letters in passable Greek while quoting the Septuagint from memory. You may split semantic hairs all you like but your message has come through loud and clear. You have no respect for the myth of a Jesus sufficiently worldly-wise to be a plausible contender for the throne of Israel. I have shown reason to believe that your opinion is less than secure.This thread is not about disproving the Gospels but it is about understanding them as written; and exploring the implications of the fact that Jesus is portrayed as reading from and quoting the Septuagint. That is the question posed in the Original Post. If you wish to continue our discussion, that will be its theme. Otherwise, g'day and,Thank you for your participation.

---

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

Your objection is duly noted, and you have had plentiful opportunity to state it. I respect your opinion but I am not persuaded that it is correct. As far as I am concerned you are beating a dead horse. Aren't you clever. You found a way to paraphrase my question.

quote:

---

Does this usage constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God?

---

Has it crossed your radar that many Bible thumpers are obsessed with the notion that there is no reliable text outside the "original Hebrew" scriptures? Use of the expression "Hebrew scriptures" would be misleading to such readers. They would likely take it to mean Hebrew language scriptures.In any case, this thread assumes that Jesus quoted and read from the Septuagint because that is how the New Testament writers present it. If you don't like it you can start a thread of your own and discuss the contrary to your hearts content with anyone who's interested belaboring it.I'm not.

---

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

Thank you for your response.I do not think anyone need challenge Bodmer. He echoes a consensus regarding the status of Hebrew and Aramaic in Palestine of the day. He is not addressing the question of whether Jesus was familiar with Greek and/or had access to the Septuagint. I have assumed, for purposes of argument, that the Gospel of Luke may be accepted as written, which assumes that Jesus did know Greek and did have access to the Septuagint. For whatever reason, y’all want to challenge this premise. That challenge has now turned to a comparison of experts. My guy: Cohen, does not disagree with Bodmer or Ostler. He does, however, assert that many Jews of the period were Universalist in philosophy and interested in blending their Judaism with the greater reality. I believe Jesus, his apostles, and every other Jew involved in taking the gospel to the gentiles, must also have been progressive in that way.On the subject of Greek language influence in Palestine, I offer these quotes from the book:

quote:

---

As far as we know, Greek was the exclusive language of literary expression for diaspora Jewry.

​

In the land of Israel the situation is much more complicated, because Greek had to compete with Hebrew and Aramaic, but even here many Jews spoke and wrote Greek. The Maccabees arranged for the translation of First Maccabees from Hebrew into Greek . A Jew from Jerusalem translated the book of Esther into Greek. The Wisdom of Ben Sira, a work written in Hebrew by a Palestinian sage around 200 B.C.E., was translated into Greek by the author's grandson. By the first century C.E., if not before, Palestinian authors like Josephus and his archrival Justus of Tiberias were writing original compositions in Greek.

​

From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, by Shaye J. D. Cohen, 1989. (Page 39)

---

Some have argued that despite this influence, the religion of these people was immune from the influence of Greek language. On the contrary, argues Cohen:

quote:

---

Even in rabbinic circles the Greek language had an enormous impact. This is evidenced not only by the thousands of Greek (and Latin) words in the rabbinic lexicon and by the fact that in a synagogue of Caesarea in rabbinic times the Shema was recited in Greek, but also by the fact that some rabbinic Jews needed a Greek translation of the Bible which was more faithful to the Hebrew text than was the Septuagint. ... Qumran fragments show that revisions in this direction were being done already in the first century C.E., demonstrating the existence in Palestine of a group of Jews who needed a Greek translation of the Bible, but a translation which would be closer to the Hebrew original than that produced by diaspora Jewry. (Page 40)

---

So how did we come to think otherwise? Cohen discusses this to some extent (which see) and briefly states the case with:

quote:

---

”The survival and later efflorescence of Hebrew and Aramaic are sometimes taken as proof that the Jews of Palestine both before and after 70 C.E. resisted the blandishments of Hellenism. There is some truth to this generalization, but we must avoid both simplification and exaggeration. Language certainly is a critical part of human identity, but the fact that some Jews continued their use of a Semitic language hardly proves that they sought to separate themselves from the culture of the world around them.” (Pages 40/41)

---

And regarding whether Jesus and/or the apostles could have been progressive, Universalist in philosophy, and interested in blending their Judaism with the greater reality; Cohen makes these observations:

quote:

---

“Both in the diaspora and in Israel, even in rabbinic times, there were always some Jews who were prepared to obliterate the distinction between Jew and gentile, and between Judaism and Hellenistic culture. Universalist trends had always existed in Judaism, even in pre-exilic times, especially in intellectual circles.” (Page 42)

​

”For most Jews the ideal solution was to create a synthesis between Judaism and Hellenism.” (Page 43)

​

“By Roman times the chief judicial body of the land was known by a Greek name (synedrion, or, in Hebrew pronunciation, sanhedrin) and perhaps was modeled on a Greek or Roman institution.” (Page 45)

---

Seems to me unlikely that the Jews would so name their ruling body if they were opposed to embracing Greek language - the universal language of their Jewish brethren, everywhere else in the world (diaspora).As to whether Cohen measures up to the stature of Bodmer or Ostler, one may care to review their respective resumes. And Now:Which of these "experts" is best qualified to explore the issues which underlie my question? The only one who discusses it, of course!So, What's the big fuss?Your concern regarding the historicity of the Jesus "myth" is duly noted. My concern, however, regards the ostensible fact of Jesus' reading the Septuagint and how knowledge of that "fact" might impact the sensibility of "believers" to whom the Septuagint has been presented as "flawed" and NOT inspired by God. If you have any thought along that line I would be happy to continue this conversation. Otherwise, I am done with defending my rather easily argued premise that (working within the myth, of course) Jesus read from a copy of the Septuagint Isaiah.

---

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

Thank you for your input. Would you say the same of the Hebrew scriptures? That they are NOT the official Word of God? I find it interesting that even those who would claim that the Hebrew scriptures DO represent the official Word must backpeddle in the face of its many defects. They recognize the defects; cannot abide them; and so assert that it is the "original autographs" which are inerrant and authoritative. Conveniently for these con-men (and women), there are no "original autographs" to be had.The Septuagint is the oldest version of any "Bible." As such, one might expect it also to be the most authoritative.

quote:

---

The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era:

​

The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, Introduction pg. i

---

But, actual copies of the Septuagint date from a much later time, and copies of the Masoretic Text: later still.

quote:

---

The oldest surviving codices of LXX (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD. ... the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century. Septuagint - Wikipedia

---

In fact, recent discoveries show that some of the Septuagint variants reflect Hebrew readings which predate the Masoretic text:

quote:

---

Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. ...

​

Early Christians”who were largely unfamiliar with Hebrew texts, and were thus only made aware of the differences through the newer Greek versions”tended to dismiss the differences as a product of uninspired translation of the Hebrew in these new versions. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. The discovery of many fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts. Septuagint - Wikipedia

---

Rather than "confirm" the wording of our Authorized Bible, these discoveries call it into question; thus, inspiring one who opposes the Christian Right in its bid to convert America from Democratic Republic to Theocratic Monarchy.There are moderns who vehemently oppose the very existence of the Septuagint. One rather venomous attack upon it reflects a certain amount of ignorance regarding the nature and content of the tome: imagining that it contains the New Testament; denying that it was written prior to the time of Jesus; asserting that the Apostles did not quote from it and, of course, asserting that it is NOT inspired. Perhaps those who have most vigorously opposed my premise have been reading this guy? What is the Septuagint?I just came upon a discussion which appears related to this one, at beliefnet.com.Best Wishesdb

---

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

I once knew a man who cared nothing for the ancient manuscripts but enjoyed proclaiming in a bombastic tone: If you mean: Do I know that the Septuagint is a translation? Yes I do; and that does not change the fact that it is the oldest "Bible," i.e. complete collection of the ancient scriptures. There is no ancient Hebrew "Bible" as such for there is no complete collection of the ancient Hebrew scriptures.

quote:

---

the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date ... from the first half of the 10th century.

​

The discovery of many fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts. Septuagint - Wikipedia

---

Interesting and informative but not to the point of this thread: which assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Gospels may be taken at face value. In order to clarify my question I might paraphrase it thus: If you missed the comparison: Septuagint versus Hebrew at Isaiah 66:1,2; you can view my comparison here. That is all well and good but in this thread I seek to explore the impact of the ostensible facts; how people respond when they learn what the scripture actually says. I want to know the reaction of people who believed the myth as it was told them by pastors and teachers but now, at last, have read it for themselves and see something entirely different from what they first believed.I once labored under the impression that Septuagint renderings are inferior and that Jesus could only have been reading Hebrew. Now I find myself with plausible arguments to the contrary: that Jesus could well have been doing exactly what Luke says he did (working within the myth of course). Any other explanation works to undermine the veracity of the text and ultimately to dismissal of the myth as a whole. For if one cannot trust that Jesus read what the Gospels say he read then why should one give any credence to those same writers when they tell us what Jesus said, or did, or intended? The story becomes increasingly implausible with each divergence from its face value until, ultimately, it is just another highly valued mythology collecting dust upon the shelf of human dreams.That may be its ultimate fate but for the time being it is very much alive, if not very well. What we present here may have little impact on the future of this myth but may, hopefully, stimulate some readers to walk the avenue of skeptical inquiry.

---

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

The only thing “non-vocalized” about the Hebrew text was the Tetragrammaton and that became the case some long time after it was first written.The difference between Qere and Ketiv is simply this: Ketiv (or Kethib) is the traditional, ancient, way of writing Hebrew - without vowel markings. This is how the ancient texts have come down and the way they are transcribed for public reading of the Torah.The Qere: Hebrew written with vowel markings, is a Masoretic interpretive tool dating from the ninth and tenth centuries. As if there were no other inflammatory passages in the Bible? As if the men who wrote Hebrew scriptures had no Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian “overlords” to fear? Is this why you have a low opinion of the Septuagint? Because you think God couldn’t get his message past “Hellenic” censors? And maybe he preferred the Septuagint.

---

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

Autumnman,Thank you for the information. You're not the only one slow to respond.From your post:

quote:

---

In The Jewish Publication Society’s Torah Commentary-Genesis, on page xvii, Professor Sarna states, “For nearly two millennia and a half...Jewish intellectual and spiritual history may be said to be essentially the record of the variegated attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents and applications of the biblical texts.”

---

Jews are not the only ones who are struggling to find meaning and context in the Bible.I have spent the past three days comparing 22 versions in five languages, including the classics (LXX, Vulgate & Tanach). I wanted to see how much variety of translation is associated with a handfull of ancient words; all of which have been "translated" by our word: "earth." In the course of this little Bible Study, I have observed a change in how translators have dealt with this word subsequent to the Copernican heresy and again after the dawn of the Space Age. This finding fits well with other evidences of Bible tweaking by persons with a vested interest in the business of religion. And, it does not bode well for those who wish to argue anything of "global" import from the Bible. This includes the Creation, the Flood, the Gospel Commission, and the bit about inheriting "the earth." Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you take all that away there's not much left for believers to get head-up about.So what's new? Nothing really. I merely wish to multiply the weight of evidence in anticipation of a tipping point at which that silly load of bull will slide out of the American conscience and leave us feeling lighter, stronger, and ready to become citizens of the real "Earth."Edited by doctrbill, : No reason given.

---

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