Did Jesus read from the Septuagint?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, so can we assume that He read it in the synagogue??:think:

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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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!
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

I'm thinking of a very obvious question that you should have anticipated and, left unanswered, please continue to read that quoted portion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top