The Bible of Jesus?

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 - - -

Basically, I think you are trying to portray Jesus as something he was not, apparently in an attempt to give him a human dignity more befitting his divine origin. But that is a human dignity he never sought and it goes against the doctrine of kenosis as laid out by Paul who gives Jesus the status of a slave. (Legally, he was not of course, but the whole business of being born in a stable, and being a carpenter's son is to re-inforce the ordinariness and humility of his human estate.) And Jesus was not a contender for the throne of Israel. Who would believe a Galilean riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as king of Israel? Nobody was supposed to take him as a contender for kingship in any human sense of the term. The very fact that he was not a credible contender for king hid his identity as Messiah, for a king-Messiah was the popular expectation. And it was never Jesus' mission to fulfill that popular expectation. Galilee, like any region, had its class divisions; its rich and its poor; its illiterates and its educated; its peasants and its townsmen. And like most ancient societies, the poor, illiterate rural peasants accounted for around 90% of the population. Much of what you have offered in evidence for the presence of Greek in Galilee no doubt applies to wealthy educated city-dwellers like many of the Pharisees. But they are a tiny sliver of the total population. Jesus' ministry was primarily to the majority.It is likely that most people of the time never traveled more than 10 miles from their birthplace. This is still true of poverty-stricken peasants today, and was the norm even in Europe into the 19th century. However, you are probably wrong to say they had no local exposure to conversational Greek. I did not say that.Most did not have significant tutelage in the scriptures. And what they got would be in their native tongue: Aramaic.Jesus differs from the majority in that he did get significant tutelage in the scriptures. For one thing, he is a carpenter, not a peasant. According to the gospels he had four brothers as well, so the family was not dependent on his labour and he could devote time to study.As for his apostles, there is no great mystery: they received their instruction in the scriptures from Jesus himself. They may have learned to read & write, but it is not necessary to assume they did as even people who were literate often dictated their letters to scribes. Paul, on occasion,names his scribe. And any Greek-speaking scribe familiar with the Jewish scriptures would be familiar with the wording of the Septuagint. As a village artisan, Jesus would have more in common with the peasantry than with the elite. If that makes him a country bumpkin in your eyes, so be it. If God had wanted his Son to be incarnate among the elite, he could have chosen the wife of a Pharisee instead of a poor carpenter to be his mother. While class distinctions are an unfortunate matter of social and cultural fact, being disconcerted about Jesus' low socio-economic status smacks of snobbery on your part.Beyond that we simply have no evidence to say what languages, if any, Jesus could read beyond Hebrew. I have never insisted that he didn't read Greek. But you have no evidence to insist he did either. Actually, I was assuming he knew the lay of the land well enough not to need instructions on how to get from point A to point B. That's good, because I have no intention of disproving the Gospels. They are, after all, sacred to me. And so we get back to the main point. The scriptures do not portray Jesus reading from and quoting the Septuagint. The scriptures portray Jesus reading from a scroll written in an unnamed language (though most probably Hebrew) and quoting scripture while speaking to the common people, in which case he would be speaking in Aramaic, their common language. The basis of your question is unsupported by evidence and unlikely in the context of Jesus' ministry. I grant it is not an absolute impossibility, but I think it incumbent on you to grant that it is not an established fact as well.We could then discuss it properly as a hypothetical. Or you might rephrase it in the form: Does the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament constitute an endorsement of the Septuagint as the authoritative version of the Hebrew scriptures?

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 - - -

Sorry. Didn't mean to. Just didn't have the OP in front of me at the time.So my proposed question ought to have been: Does the apostolic use of the Septuagint in the New Testament constitute endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of God? This thread makes that assumption because you do, not because that is how the New Testament writers present it. They don't.

gluadys wrote: This thread makes the assumption that Jesus employs the LXX according to Luke 4:18’s citation of Isaiah 61:1 & 2.Accepting for the sake of discussion that the mythology we are examining - Jesus of Nazareth and Luke’s portrayal of him - can be grounded in a historical context (which I do not believe it can), the linguistic scholar, Frederick Bodmer, states in his book The Loom of Language © 1944:

quote:

---

“Aramaic, not Hebrew, was the mother tongue of Palestine during the period with which the gospel narrative deals. When the Evangelists quote the words of Christ, the language is Aramaic, not Hebrew. By that time the local Canaanite dialect in which the earlier parts of the Old Testament were written was already a dead language. The decline of Hebrew set in with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity which began in the sixth century B.C. It was soon superseded by Aramaic, which became the literary as well as the spoken medium of the Jews after the Maccabean period. Hebrew survived only as a language of scholarship and ritual, like Latin in medieval Christendom. It never quite ceased to be written or spoken” (Universal Library Edition, 1976; pg. 427).

---

I have not found any sources of linguistic study that challenge what Bodmer states above. And I think it is important to point out that Bodmer makes no mention of Alexandrian Greek, (Septuagint Greek), being a literary and/or spoken medium of the Jews “of Palestine during the period with which the gospel narrative deals.” Therefore, if Bodmer’s research still remains unchallenged, I find it doubtful that Jesus of Nazareth was actually quoting the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint in the synagogue at Nazareth as Luke 4:16 thru 18 proclaim.If there are any sources of linguistic study that challenge Bodmer and state that Alexandrian Greek was also a spoken and literary medium of the Jews of Palestine during the Gospel period I would be very interested in learning of them.Regards,
AM

So would I. Doctrbill has offered some links to sources that suggest more use of Greek in Palestine than Bodmer does, but even they do not dispute the predominance of Aramaic as the language of the people including Jesus.

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 - - -

Doctrbill:Thank you for the information.You then ask: And state: There is actually no “big fuss” as long as one remains “within the myth”, for “within the myth” of Luke, Jesus most certainly appears to “read from a copy of the Septuagint Isaiah.” That would be, in and of itself, the end of any discussion.If that is what you wish, then I am apparently unclear as to what you want to talk about.This is the question you posed in your opening statement: If the “God” you are referring to is the Hebrew God yhwh’elohiym? And I suspect you are, then I would have to say that the myth of Luke, the Septuagint Isaiah, Jesus of Nazareth being described as the Jewish mashiycha, and the entire New Testament in no way constitute an endorsement of the Septuagint as the official Word of The Jewish/Hebrew God yhwh’elohiym !But, if you or anyone wish to believe that such an “endorsement of the Septuagint” has been made you are, (“working within the myth, of course”), free to believe any thing you wish. Such is the beauty of “myth”.Regards,
AM

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 - - -

Doctrbill: The Alexandrian Greek Septuagint is regarded by all as “the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament” (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, back of cover-page), “...the translation was completed by seventy...scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, between 284 and 247 B.C.”What exactly does the word “translation” mean to you?The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has allowed scholars to compare the kethib {consonantal letter text} Hebrew Old Testament documents that were copied in the 3rd, 2nd, & 1st centuries B.C. to the consonantal letter text that constitutes the foundation of the Masoretic qare’ (vocalized) text, and these scholars have found no substantial variations between the two.It is also important to note that the Qumran Sect that is associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls were not awaiting a Jewish Messiah fitting the description of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament. According to the Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, the Qumran Sect, the Essenes, were awaiting two Jewish Messiahs: A kingly messiah who would drive the invaders from the Holy Land; and a priestly messiah who would correctly expound upon the Hebrew Scriptures.The books on which the above two paragraphs are based are: Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls; A reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review; Edited by Hershel Shanks, © 1992, & The Dead Sea Scriptures by Theodor H Gaster, © 1956.As for the “deviations from accuracy” found within the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures:

quote:

---

“One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather’s work, states: ”For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them’” (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English, Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, 1851, Introduction pg. iii).

---

In regard to the “divine authority” associated with any of the ancient Scriptures; I personally do not approach any of these ancient Scriptures from the point of view that they were “directly inspired by God.” I do approach these ancient Scriptures with considerable respect, and intense interest for they are at the very foundation of a worldview held by many Western cultures. I perceive these ancient Scriptures as being composed by human beings who were inspired to write by the situation of their lives and their circumstances. I also suspect that what these human beings composed in their time, if translated in the most accurate way possible, may well have a message or messages we in our more modern time could benefit from.Regards,
AM

Well,
There is a problem with saying Jesus read the scroll in Nazareth.There is no mention of the town of Nazareth in any census, any document, or anything before the 3rd century. The evidence has it that the current town of 'Nazareth' was renamed at that time to match the Bible.The towns that were big enough to have a synagogue were mentioned by a number of sources in the 1st century ... Nazareth was not one of them.

Nope. Never heard of this fellow until you put up this link.

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 - - -

Doctrbill wrote: So what? The age of the Septuagint does not change the fact that the Septuagint is a phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation of the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures. And just because the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures from which the phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation was made no longer exist does not mean that the phonetic, Alexandrian Greek translation was rendered in an accurate manner. All the Septuagint translation of the consonantal Hebrew Torah, prophesies, and scriptures indicates is that at the time the phonetic, Greek Septuagint was made in the 3rd century BCE all of these consonantal Hebrew Texts were in tact. The fact that the phonetic, Greek Septuagint survived and the consonantal Hebrew Texts did not attests to either the mishandling of the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures by the Hellenic Jews of Alexandria, a political move on the part of someone after the completion of the Septuagint, and/or the extreme duress that the Kethib {non-vocalized} Hebrew Scriptures were under from the end of the 3rd century BCE until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. In the NRSV of Luke 4:18 & 19 the text reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”The NRSV rendition of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 from the Masoretic Text reads: “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.”The KJV of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 reads: “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty tot he captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn.”The KJV of Luke 4:18 & 19 reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”The Brenton LXX version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken heart, to proclaim liberty tot he captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn.”The KJV, as well as the New American Standard; Open Bible version of Luke 4:18 employ the English term “gospel/GOSPEL” where the LXX employs “glad tidings” and the NRSV employs “good news.” The MT reads, “—‘ = ”regarding tiding’.” The LXX & English translations employing “glad, gospel and good” are not found in the Hebrew Text.Furthermore, the LXX version appears to be a toned-down version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2. The NRSV of the Hebrew Text presents a rendition of “ = ”spirit of the Lord yhwh’ presents, ”The spirit of the Lord GOD’.” The NRSV renders adoniy as “Lord” and the Sacred Hebrew Tetragrammaton yhwh as upper case “GOD.” I guess the rendering “Lord LORD” would have been awkward. The LXX does away with the Hebrew Tetragrammaton altogether and employs the Greek “Kuriou = a title of respect” which is more akin to the Hebrew adoniy = “my lord, or my Lord”. Had the LXX translation of Isaiah 61:1 intended to be more accurate the translation could have read Kuriou o Theos, thus indicating the Hebrew Deity. The Hebrew “tidings” are to the “oppressed, brokenhearted, captives, and prisoners.” Such “tidings” coming directly from the Hebrew Deity yhwh could be seen by Hellenic overlords as words that could insight upheaval and revolt among the Jews. Therefore, the translators of the LXX were instructed to replace such inflammatory language with “the poor; sight to the blind; to comfort all who mourn.” Such wording is far more comforting and soothing.That is my view of why the LXX version of the Hebrew Scriptures is so dramatically different than the Hebrew MT version. And it is my opinion that if Jesus of Nazareth were going to make a really solid point, he would have read the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:1 & 2 and not the Septuagint version.Regards,
AM

I would say that all that the use of Luke quote means is not that Jesus quoted the Septuagint or not, but that the author of Luke did.