# Did Jesus read from the Septuagint?



## Eoghan

Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Eoghan,

This has been fairly often discussed here at PB. Here's a thread with an extended discussion (I'd start around post #40):

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/

Here's an excellent ebook (in PDF) on the topic: _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Nolen Jones. (The hardcopy version of this book is out of print.)

Hope this helps.

Steve


----------



## BobVigneault

Why would he have to read it? He wrote the autographs and had a perfect memory.


----------



## TimV

Good one, Bob ;-)

You're not going to get a definitive answer anywhere. One one end, you'll get people saying He quoted the Septuagint far more than the Hebrew, and on the other end you'll get people who think the Septuagint was a complex conspiracy that didn't even exist. In the middle, which includes the great majority of experts, you get people who say Christ quoted from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint.


----------



## Pergamum

He does appear to quote from the LXX more - why is that?


Did Jesus have a perfect memory? Did he remember his own birth in the manger?


----------



## BobVigneault

Remember it? He planned and executed it. Does God have three minds?



Pergamum said:


> He does appear to quote from the LXX more - why is that?
> 
> 
> Did Jesus have a perfect memory? Did he remember his own birth in the manger?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Eoghan,
> 
> This has been fairly often discussed here at PB. Here's a thread with an extended discussion (I'd start around post #40):
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/history-authorized-version-31573/
> 
> Here's an excellent ebook (in PDF) on the topic: _The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis_, by Floyd Nolen Jones. (The hardcopy version of this book is out of print.)
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Steve



Not out of print, just kinda hard to find.

https://shop.avpublications.com/pro...d=124&osCsid=278e06b3e06ba962a78c674daf09ef80

CT


----------



## Grymir

Aw, I thought Jesus read the KJV just like the apostile Paul! 

Just kidding for those who don't know.

I wonder...When preaching, one of the guidlines is to open your Bible and read it even if you know the verse, so that the people can see you reading the words and giving them authority. Jesus knew it, but I wonder if this is what he did to and we get this from Him?


----------



## Pergamum

BobVigneault said:


> Remember it? He planned and executed it. Does God have three minds?
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> He does appear to quote from the LXX more - why is that?
> 
> 
> Did Jesus have a perfect memory? Did he remember his own birth in the manger?
Click to expand...


BAWB:

I'm serious.

Maybe I'll start a new thread.

If Jesus took on human flesh did he remember his own birth? At what point did he remember? Did he see the light at the end of the tunnel before he came out? Doeshe remember swimming in the womb? Or justpost-fetal stage?

It appears that He self-limited and one of these limitations might be memory. Thus huis memorieswould begin at 2 or 4 or whenever sharp people's memories begin. 

If not, if he has perfect memory, than would he remember back to birth, conception? 


......"WHen I was a little zygote..."


----------



## jwithnell

If Greek were the common language of the day, it makes sense that he would have quoted from the Greek text, just like we would quote from the English. He would likely have been taught the hebrew at home and in worship.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum, do start a new thread on that score. And remember Luke 2:52.


----------



## Pergamum

Ha, I don;t remember Luke 2, I need to look it up....


----------



## Eoghan

Jews traditionally read from the Hebrew parashat each week since the restoration of the second temple. Are we wromng in thinking that it was ALWAYS a hebrew text? I mean they did translate it into Greek! They must have read it in Greek - in the synagogue!


----------



## TimV

> Jews traditionally read from the Hebrew parashat each week since the restoration of the second temple. Are we wromng in thinking that it was ALWAYS a hebrew text? I mean they did translate it into Greek! They must have read it in Greek - in the synagogue!



I think I'm missing something. Wasn't your original question the translation of Scripture Christ quoted from? Are you now narrowing it down to the times He spoke formally in Synagogues?


----------



## Eoghan

FF Bruce (sorry) The Torah was translated into Greek by seventy elders (72) brought to Alexandria for the purpose of translating the law into Greek. The importance being in understanding what was read.

This supports my question so far but the subsequent translation of ALL of the Old Testament (i.e.) the rest appears to have been the work of later Jews and more specifically taken up by the Christians, as affirmed by Josephus and Philo.

The Synagogue of the Freedmen that Stephen belonged to used the septuagint and his speech quotes from it. 

The quotation from Isaiah that speaks of the virgin who will give birth is Septuagint.

So Jews (Hellenists) were unrolling Greek scrolls in their synagogues.

"The time came when one rabbi compared _'the accursed day whenthe seventy elders wrote the Law in Greek for the king' _, to the day on which Israel made the golden calf (Tractate Sopherim 1.8)


----------



## TimV

> So Jews (Hellenists) were unrolling Greek scrolls in their synagogues.



I don't dispute this because I don't know enough about the subject, but you didn't get there by anything that's been presented on this thread so far. Jews were allowed to read the Law even out of formal Synagogue settings.

Sorry in advance if I'm not understanding you!!!


----------



## MW

Eoghan said:


> The quotation from Isaiah that speaks of the virgin who will give birth is Septuagint.



I don't think this is verifiable. The Evangelist might have chosen "parthenos" because it is the natural rendering. At any rate, what is written in the Gospel of Matthew is on the narrative level, while the words of the Lord Jesus are on the historical level: one would need to confine his investigation to the historical level to discover what the Lord Jesus read from.


----------



## Thomas2007

Eoghan said:


> Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??



The historic Protestant position as contained in Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is that only the Hebrew Masoretic text is the genuine preserved word of God for the Old Testament. So, no, we don't assume Christ read a greek translation in the Synagogue, nor do we assume he quoted it simply because post-Apostolic copies of the Greek Old Testament match the New Testament.

We should, rather, remain consistent with our Confession.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Eoghan,

I guess you didn't check out the thread I mentioned above, and you have your own views.

The quotation of Isaiah 7:14 concerning the virgin is from the Hebrew, translated into the Greek by the apostle -- and if the Septuagint got it right, ok. This begs the question as to whether Isaiah was part of the translated LXX before the time of Christ (see this discussion, and my post 5). The Jones book in pdf linked to above explores the status of the LXX and when it was written, or when the various _parts_ of it were written.

This quote is from _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, Vol. 1, pp.129, 130; by Alfred Edersheim:

If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic. It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms. We know, that the language of the Temple and the Synagogue was Hebrew, and that the addresses of the Rabbis had to be “targumed” into the vernacular Aramaen – and can we believe that, in a Hebrew service, the Messiah could have arisen to address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis?​
The writing of the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) was given exclusively into the the care of the priesthood. From Jack Moorman's, _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_, Part I, chap 1,

*3. THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES PRESERVED BY THE PRIESTS*

The duty of preserving this written revelation was assigned not to the prophets, but to the priests. The priests were the divinely appointed guardians and teachers of the Law.

Deuteronomy 31:24-26 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites… Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.​
Thus the law was placed in the charge of the priests to be kept by them alongside of the most Sacred Vessel of the sanctuary, and in its innermost and holiest apartment. Also the priests were commanded to read the law every seven years.

Deuteronomy 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law.​
The priests were also given the task of making correct copies of the law for the use of kings and rulers, or at least of supervising the scribes to whom the king would delegate this work.

Deuteronomy 17:18 And it shall be, when he (the king) sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests and Levites.​
Apparently a goodly number of such copies were made. The numerous allusions to the law in all the subsequent books of the OT indicates familiarity with it. (p. 5 in hard copy)​
So the tale (for it is not verifiable historically) of the Seventy (72) would have those not authorized by the Lord to undertake this work (as the 70 were allegedly chosen from each of the 12 tribes, not the Levites exclusively).

Thanks, Hermonta (ChristianTrader); that certainly is not a reputable site! I hope Jones' book does not suffer guilt by (unwitting) association!

Steve


----------



## Eoghan

TimV said:


> So Jews (Hellenists) were unrolling Greek scrolls in their synagogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute this because I don't know enough about the subject, but you didn't get there by anything that's been presented on this thread so far. Jews were allowed to read the Law even out of formal Synagogue settings.
> 
> Sorry in advance if I'm not understanding you!!!
Click to expand...



Why was the Pentateuch translated into GreeK - already stated!
When was the Pentateuch read in the synagogue - already stated!

You seem to be overlooking the institution of Torah Study by Ezra and Nehemiah. You also overlook the importance of "understanding" which was behind the call to the seventy to translate - not dissimilar to the protestant view that people should be able to read the scriptures in church "in the vulgar tongue"


----------



## TimV

> You seem to be overlooking the institution of Torah Study by Ezra and Nehemiah. You also overlook the importance of "understanding" which was behind the call to the seventy to translate - not dissimilar to the protestant view that people should be able to read the scriptures in church "in the vulgar tongue"



Neither of us is understanding the other. Christ did quote from the Septuagint. About the only scholars who deny this are Independent Baptists. That doesn't mean it was used in formal Synagogue readings though. You are doing what Tomas is, and taking a general principle and using it to prove something it just doesn't. Although some Jews may very well have been using them in their Synagogues.



> If Greek was the language of the court and camp, and indeed must have been spoken by most in the land, the language of the people, spoken also by Christ and His Apostles, was a dialect of the ancient Hebrew, the Western or Palestinian Aramaic.



I've pointed out within the last year to Steve that Aramaic wasn't a dialect of Hebrew, no matter what Edersheim may have thought, but perhaps he's done some looking into the subject and if that's the case, I'm willing to learn.

You see, Edersheim's big point is that Christ wouldn't (he doesn't say why) press His claims on the Jews in Greek. Edersheim can't get out of the fact that He at the very least spoke often in Aramaic, so he conveniently sweeps Aramaic into this handy mythological language group where one was a dialect of the other. Yet everything I've ever read about it, and given the history of why the Jews spoke it, shows a close parallel with Hebrew and Yiddish.

Palestinian Aramaic was the Aramaic mentioned here in Isaiah 36



> 11 Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field commander, "Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don't speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall."


with some Hebrew phrases and grammar thrown in, just like Yiddish is German with some Hebrew phrases and grammar thrown in.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> You seem to be overlooking the institution of Torah Study by Ezra and Nehemiah. You also overlook the importance of "understanding" which was behind the call to the seventy to translate - not dissimilar to the protestant view that people should be able to read the scriptures in church "in the vulgar tongue"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of us is understanding the other. Christ did quote from the Septuagint. About the only scholars who deny this are Independent Baptists, i.e. people who aren't careful and systematic in their understanding of Scripture.
Click to expand...


I was not aware that Mr. Rafalsky was a Baptist! Good to have you in our camp, brother.


----------



## TimV

> I was not aware that Mr. Rafalsky was a Baptist! Good to have you in our camp, brother.



Ken, you took part in the very discussion I was referring to, and you know good and well Brother Steve admitted relying heavily on IBs for his theories about the Septuagint.

I trust, since he's brought the very same quote up again by Edersheim that he has done some further research into whether or not Palestinian Aramaic is just a dialect of Hebrew SINCE THAT IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF EDERSHEIM. Christ wouldn't have pressed His claims on His people in a foreign tongue.



> It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.



If Aramaic was (and it was and is and always has been) a foreign tongue, you could substitute Aramaic for Greek in the above quote, and it would be ridiculous, right? So Edersheim has to make Aramaic a form of Hebrew.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> I was not aware that Mr. Rafalsky was a Baptist! Good to have you in our camp, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, you took part in the very discussion I was referring to, and you know good and well Brother Steve admitted relying heavily on IBs for his theories about the Septuagint.
> 
> I trust, since he's brought the very same quote up again by Edersheim that he has done some further research into whether or not Palestinian Aramaic is just a dialect of Hebrew SINCE THAT IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF EDERSHEIM. Christ wouldn't have pressed His claims on His people in a foreign tongue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Aramaic was (and it was and is and always has been) a foreign tongue, you could substitute Aramaic for Greek in the above quote, and it would be ridiculous, right? So Edersheim has to make Aramaic a form of Hebrew.
Click to expand...


I am now understanding your objections better, brother. Thanks for the clarity. (Although it seems like you try to poison the well with your remark about IBs)

Mr. Rafalsky has been kind enough to provide some source/s for his argument. Can you provide some sources for this statement?



> If Aramaic was (and it was and is and always has been) a foreign tongue



What are the distinguishing factors between a 'language' and a 'dialect'? I know a lot of people argue that KJ English is a 'foreign tongue' as well.

I am not being argumentative, but would really like to understand.


----------



## TimV

> I am now understanding your objections better, brother. Thanks for the clarity. (Although it seems like you try to poison the well with your remark about IBs)



Yes, you are right, but I did edit that remark out 15 minutes ago.



> Mr. Rafalsky has been kind enough to provide some source/s for his argument. Can you provide some sources for this statement?



You may remember that I don't mind Edersheim as a source, at least when we're talking about the historical Septuagint (did you catch that, Steve ;-) )




> Quote:
> If Aramaic was (and it was and is and always has been) a foreign tongue





> What are the distinguishing factors between a 'language' and a 'dialect'? I know a lot of people argue that KJ English is a 'foreign tongue' as well.
> 
> I am not being argumentative, but would really like to understand.



There is no solid border between a dialect and a language, and people have been fighting over this for years, generally for things like national recognition etc... But for now, one can say that a dialect of a language is different, but still mutually intelligible with the main language. So, Dari, the main language in Afghanistan is different than Persian, but Iranians and Tadjiks can understand each other, so Dari is a dialect, i.e. a form of Persian.

I speak Afrikaans with an Elder of my church, who is Dutch, but that's only because he lived in Southern Africa for some years. I can read Dutch pretty well, but I can't speak to people from Holland, so Afrikaans and Dutch are separate languages.

As far as Aramaic and Hebrew, they are both Semitic languages, but different branches, as you can see from the Bible verse I quoted. The Hebrews in the city couldn't understand Aramaic at all. As for other sources, any good online article dealing with language trees will show you the history of Aramaic. There are several million people who still speak that language, and just like they couldn't understand Hebrew in OT times, they can't understand it now.

When you go online to look up things like this, avoid Wikipedia, since anyone can write anything there.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello again, Tim!

You said above,

Ken, you took part in the very discussion I was referring to, and you know good and well Brother Steve admitted relying heavily on IBs for his theories about the Septuagint.

I trust, since he's brought the very same quote up again by Edersheim that he has done some further research into whether or not Palestinian Aramaic is just a dialect of Hebrew SINCE THAT IS THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF EDERSHEIM. Christ wouldn't have pressed His claims on His people in a foreign tongue.​
I hope we don't have to wrangle about this _again_!

Edersheim's "main argument" was certainly _not_ concerning Aramaic being a Hebrew dialect (one can read the quote in post #19 above), but that Jesus did not 

address the people in Greek, or that He could have argued with the Pharisees and Scribes in that tongue, especially remembering that its study was actually forbidden by the Rabbis...​
_These_ are his main arguments. Now listen, Tim; Edersheim was a world-class and renown Hebraist (a converted Jew); if he chose the nomenclature, "a dialect of the ancient Hebrew" to describe "the Western or Palestinian Aramaic", I am willing not to bust his chops about it. He was a learned man in Hebraics, and in the knowledge of the Jews. *I would tend to agree with you* that it was more than a dialect, and a distinct language. It was, though, closely related to the Hebrew, being one of the Semitic language group, along with Assyrian, Arabic, etc. The later (from the time of Ezra?) Hebrew script was in the Aramean alphabet. But I do think you are right, it was another language, albeit close to the Hebrew. To me this is a minor point in this discussion.

When you say in post #23,

If Aramaic was (and it was and is and always has been) a foreign tongue, you could substitute Aramaic for Greek [in this] quote — "A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms" — and it would be ridiculous, right? So Edersheim has to make Aramaic a form of Hebrew.​
A couple of comments on this. First, we're talking about Jesus' using the Greek and not the Aramaic. The Aramaic increasingly became the language is Israel after the Babylonian exile. When Ezra and Nehemiah read from the book of the law of Moses to the assembled people of Israel, they translated it from the Hebrew into the Aramaic (Nehemiah 8) so they could understand it. It seems from that time the Aramaic alphabet was also used when writing the actual Hebrew, which is the square lettering used even to this day in modern Hebrew. So this was not a "foreign language" to the Jewish people, neither then nor in Christ's time, hundreds of years later. It was the language of the people. But the language of the Scriptures, and of the synagogues, and of the temple, was Hebrew. When the Scriptures were read in the synagogues, they were "targumed" (translated) into the Aramaic so the people could understand. Aramaic was not a foreign language to the Jewish people of those days when Christ walked among them. But Greek was! Although they spoke it — for it was the language of commerce, and of the occupying Roman forces, the lingua franca of the Roman empire — it was the language of the enemy, the oppressors, and not the language of Israel.

Second, you impugn Edersheim's motives and scholarship, over his use of nomenclature. This is not godly.

I _do_ use the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist scholarship a good bit when it comes to the Scriptures, seeing it is superior to much of what comes forth from the general evangelical community, including the Reformed. Do the IFBs err when it comes to their view of Calvinism? Indeed they do, and their teachings in this area must be fought as a perversion of the gospel. But we smart Presbyterian and Reformed folks have spawned (or furthered) heresies and aberrant doctrines of our own, to wit, FV, NPP, and "Theonomy" (sorry folks, about this latter, but more on that shortly).

The IFBs are genuine brothers and sisters (for the most part), and if one does not identify them with the bizarre and extreme among them, they are generally godly and kindhearted folks. It is a wicked bigotry to demean and hold in contempt those whom Christ has redeemed — has died for! — just because they err in some points, and because their church culture differs from ours. 

Ken, I'm not in the Baptist camp, although I am a lover of Baptists, for I am indebted to them for many things. It was in a Reformed Baptist church I first learned of the Doctrines of Grace, and the 1689 was the first Reformed confession I came into contact with (the 3FU the second, the WCF the third). The people there nurtured me during a difficult period in my life. It was a RB preacher who opened the heavens for me inaugurating a new work of grace in my heart (that was Al Martin, used by the Holy Spirit). The RBs are dear to me, and I have many friends yet among them.

When I go after the antipaedobaptist teachings, however, I do not let my love deter me from addressing that error. 

Tim, I hope we have come to some closure on the dialect issue. You are really not wrong in what you say about it.

Steve


----------



## TimV

> Second, you impugn Edersheim's motives and scholarship, over his use of nomenclature. This is not godly.



I didn't say anything at all about his motives!! And I can criticize his scholarship all I want, as long as I have good reason. And criticizing his scholarship is a whole lot more common among historians than you might think.



> A couple of comments on this. First, we're talking about Jesus' using the Greek and not the Aramaic.



Sorry, but there's no difference. If he says



> It seems strange that this could ever have been doubted. A Jewish Messiah Who would urge His claim upon Israel in Greek, seems almost a contradiction in terms.



One can twist and turn, but Aramaic is every bit as foreign to Hebrew as Greek. Many people spoke Aramaic, many people spoke Greek. The fact that Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than Greek is like saying Swedish is a dialect of English since Swedish is very closely related to English (it is) and Chinese is not close to English one can call Swedish a dialect of English. It makes no sense, just like it made no sense for Edersheim to call Aramaic a dialect of Hebrew. It is a false statement, and it doesn't make me ungodly to point it out.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

"...Aramaic is every bit as foreign to Hebrew as Greek."​
Not really, as it is from the same Semitic language group, but that's beside the point. The point is, Aramaic was not foreign _to the Jewish people_. It was not a foreign language to them, as Greek was.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "...Aramaic is every bit as foreign to Hebrew as Greek."​
> Not really, as it is from the same Semitic language group, but that's beside the point. The point is, Aramaic was not foreign _to the Jewish people_. It was not a foreign language to them, as Greek was.



This seems apparently obvious to the casual observer. I'm actually shocked that this discussion is still ongoing and don't know how this point is being missed. Aramaic was the language of the common people.

It is well documented in the Jewish traditions that Rabbis would read the Hebrew in the Synagogue and then targum (explain) the Scriptures in the common tongue. In fact, one can note some targumin by the Apostles in their Epistles in the way they quote the Scriptures.

It's not an aversion to any language than the Hebrew that is at the heart of this issue but whether or not the Synagogues in Palestine would have scrolls in the Greek language, whether the Rabbis would then read from the Greek, and then targum the Greek to people who spoke Aramaic.

If we can avoid getting distracted by the pretty ponies then we might remain focused on the issue here.


----------



## TimV

> The point is, Aramaic was not foreign to the Jewish people. It was not a foreign language to them, as Greek was.



Steve, you are just wrong on this. It depended entirely on where the Jewish people were living. Egyptian Jews from the third century BC spoke Greek, and no one spoke Aramaic except recent immigrants. Philo didn't speak either Aramaic or Hebrew. And the Gospel came to them in Greek, and the sermons were in Greek. And in some Palestinian areas it was the same.

And in the West as well. There is about Zero chance that Paul grew up having anything Targumed to his community in Tarsus in Aramaic. They were taught in Hebrew and Greek, and read the Bible in Greek. And the Gospel was brought to them in Greek.

I'm not sure what a pretty pony is, but the question of the thread was whether or not Christ read Greek from scrolls in Synagogue. The consensus is that the scrolls were normally read in Hebrew, then translated, when necessary. Most of us can agree up to this point. But some here have a philosophical objection to the historical use of, and even to the historical existence of, the Septuagint, and this is manifesting itself.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

BobVigneault said:


> Why would he have to read it? He wrote the autographs and had a perfect memory.



Are you a Docetist?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dieter Schneider said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he have to read it? He wrote the autographs and had a perfect memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a Docetist?
Click to expand...


Deiter,

Bob was joking.


----------



## bookslover

Thomas2007 said:


> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The historic Protestant position as contained in Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8 is that only the Hebrew Masoretic text is the genuine preserved word of God for the Old Testament. So, no, we don't assume Christ read a greek translation in the Synagogue, nor do we assume he quoted it simply because post-Apostolic copies of the Greek Old Testament match the New Testament.
> 
> We should, rather, remain consistent with our Confession.
Click to expand...


That's quite a load to place on the Confession. I don't think the Confession explicitly uses the term "Masoretic." It merely references the Old Testament in Hebrew - although what we call the Masoretic text may be what they meant.

The Confession's statement about the Hebrew of the Old Testament proves nothing regarding whether Jesus read from the LXX or not. In the historical situation, He could have read from it, just as He could have read from the Hebrew or Aramaic. Either is perfectly possible since the LXX was translated from the Hebrew before His incarnation. We just don't know.

And, I don't think it makes much difference either way, since the Holy Spirit made sure that the original Greek manuscripts were written accurately, so that we have a true account of what Jesus said and did - no matter what language He used when speaking to the people.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would he have to read it? He wrote the autographs and had a perfect memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a Docetist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deiter,
> 
> Bob was joking.
Click to expand...


Seemingly so!


----------



## Thomas2007

bookslover said:


> That's quite a load to place on the Confession. I don't think the Confession explicitly uses the term "Masoretic." It merely references the Old Testament in Hebrew - although what we call the Masoretic text may be what they meant.



No, that's not a "load" at all to place on the Confession. The center of the polemic with Rome over the issue of Authority, whether it be in Scripture Alone or in the Church Magisterium rested upon the determination of the Authentic texts of Scripture. Rome never denied that Scripture was the word of God, but that it was unreliable and therefore could not have authority independent of the Magisterium, the Protestants affirmed that Scripture Alone was authoritative and the Magisterium was subjective unto it.

The complexity of the textual problem that we debate today primarily in reference to the Greek texts was centered in the time of Reformation and Post-Reformation dogmaticians around the Hebrew text. Once that was settled then the identification of the authentic Greek texts of the New Testament is subjective unto the identification of the Hebrew. This was settled by the Protestants in terms of the Masoretic text and includes their rejection of the Greek Apocrapha, it's doctrine and dogma.

The Confession, 1.3, is explicit and leaves no wiggle room at all for the covert re-introduction of authoritative claims for the Greek old testament, only the Hebrew is immediately inspired and of authority (WCF 1.8). The perpetual re-introduction of authoritative claims for the Greek old testament purpose it to undercut the foundation of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura by stripping away the dogmatic foundation of Hebraic authority of the Old Testament upon which the authentic Received Greek text rests.

It is intentional philological surgery severing the arota to the heart of Protestantism.



bookslover said:


> The Confession's statement about the Hebrew of the Old Testament proves nothing regarding whether Jesus read from the LXX or not. In the historical situation, He could have read from it, just as He could have read from the Hebrew or Aramaic. Either is perfectly possible since the LXX was translated from the Hebrew before His incarnation. We just don't know.



We do know - our Confession is definitive, these issues are settled for orthodox Protestants.



bookslover said:


> And, I don't think it makes much difference either way, since the Holy Spirit made sure that the original Greek manuscripts were written accurately, so that we have a true account of what Jesus said and did - no matter what language He used when speaking to the people.



It makes a difference, either Rome is right or the Protestants are. Saying it doesn't make any difference is likened unto those that can't reconcile their soteriology at either the Arminian or Calvinistic position and want to synergetically hold to basic foundational principles of both positions. When it comes to these settled doctrinal issues over the authentic text of Scripture the modern reformed have redefined the terminology, dogmatically reasserting the Roman position and utilize the exact same weapons against Protestantism that the Romanist apologists like Bellarmine and Simon honed for that purpose and then claim they hold to the doctrines of Protestantism because they isolate their heterdoxy to linguistic arguments. But historically, the linguistic issues became highly charged doctrinal issues precisely because they matter.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

From Paton J. Cloag’s, _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles_, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, MDCCCLXX), vol 1, p. 202:

Speaking of the situation in Acts 6:1ff., “...the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews”, Cloag says,

...the Hellenists, then are contrasted with the Hebrews as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, or rather the dialect of it then current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hellenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts, had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek language—the Hellenistic Jews.​
In distinguishing between the two parties, F.F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary on Acts (Revised), says of the Jews, 

...the Hebrews spoke Aramaic (or Mishnaic Hebrew) and attended synagogues where the service was conducted in Hebrew. (p.120)​
--------

Re Mishnaic Hebrew:

“... From 1200 bc to c. ad 200, Hebrew was a spoken language in Palestine, first as biblical Hebrew, then as Mishnaic Hebrew, a later dialect that does not derive directly from the biblical dialect and one that gained literary status as the Pharisees began to employ it in their teaching in the 2nd century...” Britannica Online Encyclopedia

“The Mishnaic Hebrew language or Rabbinic Hebrew language is the ancient descendant of Biblical Hebrew as preserved by the Jews after the Babylonian captivity, and definitively recorded by Jewish sages in writing the Mishnah and other contemporary documents.” Nation Master Encyclopedia

“The term Mishnaic Hebrew refers to the Hebrew dialects found in the Talmud, excepting quotations from the Hebrew Bible. The dialects can be further sub-divided into Mishnaic Hebrew (also called Tannaitic Hebrew, Early Rabbinic Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew I), which was a spoken language, and Amoraic Hebrew (also called Late Rabbinic Hebrew or Mishnaic Hebrew II), which was a literary language.” Wiki

-------

J.A. Alexander, in his Geneva Series (BOT) commentary on Acts, distinguishes between the Hebrews and the Grecians and says,

...the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others...used the scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19). (p. 242)​
Commenting on that verse (Acts 1:19) he speaks of the phrase “proper tongue” (AV),

...i.e., their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers, Syro-Chaldaic... (p. 28)​
John Gill on “proper tongue” in this verse says,

...or in their own dialect, the Jerusalem dialect, which was now Chaldee, or Syriac... (_Exposition_, vol 8, p. 144)​
-------

Definitions:

“There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing _languages_ from _dialects_, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference.” Apple computer dictionary

“One of a group of closely related languages. _Ex. Some of the dialects descended from the Latin language are French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese._” World Book Dict.​
To sum: Looking at Acts 6:9, seeing mention of the synagogue of the Libertines (Freedmen), which were Hellenists / Greek-speaking, it may very well be they used a Greek version of the Torah, or even other portions of Scripture in their services. The fact is, however, we do not know what text(s) they had as there are none extant. The LXXs we find in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written in the Christian era, were back-corrected by Christian scribes, and are not reliable indicators of what the Hellenistic Jews in Christ’s time used.

It is arguing from sheer silence, with no supporting evidences, to say that Jesus, when arguing with the priests in the temple, or the scribes in the synagogues – in Jerusalem and Judea – read from the Septuagint and argued His points in Greek. In fact, it goes against the almost universal consensus that Hebrew and Aramaic were the languages used in Palestine, save – as noted above – in some of the Hellenistic synagogues, and we have no record of any such in the gospels. The first mention of one is in Acts.

No doubt that in Tarsus, and in Alexandria, and in other parts of the Roman world Greek was spoken, and read in the Jewish meetings. The OP, however, stated (in a rhetorical question) that “Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??” Then Mr. Eoghan expands his proposition in post #15, to assert that it was read in the _Hellenist_ synagogues in Jerusalem, and he’s no doubt right there. But we started by talking of Jesus and what He used and spoke. We have no warrant to assert He went into the Grecian synagogues and conversed with them in Greek. The Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox make up all kinds of stories out of left field to supplement their Biblical record, but we have no such liberty.

When Mr. Eoghan theorizes on the “call” of the Seventy to write the LXX, he indulges in myth; what the real Scripture terms fables. When he imagines Jesus reading and quoting the Scripture in Greek in the synagogue, ditto.

I think I’ve presented the case fairly well, and I don’t think I have much more to say on it. Onlookers can decide for themselves which view they prefer. If you’d like to have the last word, TimV, or Eoghan, feel free.

On another note, TimV, I have a flower here in my garden in Cyprus I cannot identify. I have for years thought it jonquil, but my sister-in-law showed me a picture of a real jonquil (and I have further looked online), and what I have is not that. Can you help me?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jerusalem Blade said:


> No doubt that in Tarsus, and in Alexandria, and in other parts of the Roman world Greek was spoken, and read in the Jewish meetings. The OP, however, stated (in a rhetorical question) that “Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??”



Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Finger on nose, other finger pointing to this quote.

Words flashing. Alarms sounding....

Ah, so much work just to stay on point!


----------



## TimV

> On another note, TimV, I have a flower here in my garden in Cyprus I cannot identify. I have for years thought it jonquil, but my sister-in-law showed me a picture of a real jonquil (and I have further looked online), and what I have is not that. Can you help me?



Could you have someone upload a picture of it?


----------



## Pilgrim




----------



## TimV

> Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
> 
> Finger on nose, other finger pointing to this quote.
> 
> Words flashing. Alarms sounding....
> 
> Ah, so much work just to stay on point!



So what's your thinking Rich? Palestine was multi-lingual, with demographic groups speaking Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and a few other languages.

Did the Christ quote from the Septuagint? And in every Synagogue in Palestine, were Hebrew scrolls read and "targumed" into Aramaic? And what of the Jewish people in general?


----------



## bookslover

It seems reasonable that Christ quoted from the LXX, although we have no proof of that one way or the other. It's also intriguing that many, if not most, quotations from the OT in the NT are from the LXX, not the Hebrew original. That alone shows the influence of the LXX in that multi-lingual first-century Mediterranean world the gospel was first spread in.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TimV said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
> 
> Finger on nose, other finger pointing to this quote.
> 
> Words flashing. Alarms sounding....
> 
> Ah, so much work just to stay on point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your thinking Rich? Palestine was multi-lingual, with demographic groups speaking Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and a few other languages.
> 
> Did the Christ quote from the Septuagint? And in every Synagogue in Palestine, were Hebrew scrolls read and "targumed" into Aramaic? And what of the Jewish people in general?
Click to expand...


I'm thinking of a very obvious question that you should have anticipated and, left unanswered, please continue to read that quoted portion.


----------



## TimV

Thanks, I started a new thread.


----------

