Y
yinekka
Guest
I have read the Jesus quoted from the Septuagint but why would He, He wasn’t part of the diaspora. 
- Status
R
rtconstant
Guest
At the time of Christ it was the most widely used set of scriptures. Most Jews at the time used the Septuagint. The hebrew scriptures as you would know them today were organized well after Christ’s death. Part of the reason for the use Septuagint (assumably) would obviously have been the fact that Greek was common tongue of the day so it would have been practical. Also, it was the the most current set of authoritative scripture.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
It is possible that the current Hebrew text is corrupt, either intentionally or unintentionally, and that the Greek Septuagint, though a translation, is closer in meaning to the original Hebrew text. And so it only seems that Jesus, who probably spoke only Aramaic to his disciple, quoted Scripture from the Greek Septuagint when the Apostles and apostolic men later translated His words into Greek.
Z
Zooey
Guest
I would imagine that He quoted from the Septuagint (and He did!! Wherever there is a difference between the two, He uses the variation from the Septuagint over the Hebrew), because He knew & believed that it was a better text.
And,
considering Who He was & is, I
kinda suspect that He was right!!!
And,
considering Who He was & is, I kinda suspect that He was right!!!
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
The Hebrew Texts found with the Dead Sea Scrolls actually match the LXX translation.
V
Valke2
Guest
It seems unlikely that the Septuagint would be more accurate than the Hebrew text it was based on. What exactly do you mean when you say it is possible that the current Hebrew text is corrupt. My understanding is that the Septaugint that is used today is not exactly the best translation of the Septuagint that was created in 300-200 BCE.
M
mercygate
Guest
I am not an expert on this subject but the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures were “corrupt” would send up a red flag in my mind.
These uptight, compulsive people (that’s admirable, btw) who had two or three people check every single word when the Torah was copied. I would be surprised to learn that there was much less stringency with the rest of the Tanakh.
V
Valke2
Guest
I’m no expert either and I almost regretted posting anything about this subject. One of the problems is that the texts are so close but that such small differences result in such large discrepancies in interpetation. Just keep reading and do the occassional random act of lovining kindness, and everything else will take care of itself.
R
RCCDefender
Guest
Did Jesus quote from the Septuagint? Short answer: Of course!
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
What I meant is that it is possible that accidental or intentional changes were made by the human copyists to the ancient Hebrew text in the copies they made after the Greek Septuagint translation was created so that extant copies of the modern Hebrew text, which I understand date back only to about A.D. 900, may not be exactly the same as the ancient Hebrew text of 200 B.C. from which the Greek Septuagint translation was created. If this is the case, the Greek Septuagint translation may be closer in meaning to the ancient Hebrew text than the modern Hebrew text is. This would explain why, when Jesus’ words were translated into Greek in the Gospels that He seems to quote more often from the Greek Septuagint than from the modern Hebrew text. In fact, the posting above by Psalm45:9 would seem to indicate that this is the case.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Well I don’t think that the Hebrew texts were currupt I just think that at the time the Jewish leaders didn’t feel much pressure to work out which texts too use since there was an existing scripture that had served them well.
In terms of authority the fact that Our Lord and His Apostles used is all that I need to know. Truth be told the fact that Our Lord used it pretty much makes the Septuagint the most dependable text we have. The rest is theory.
The push to reastablish a Hebrew Scripture was actually instigated by the growth of the Church. As the Church spread it brought the sacred scripture with it. As such the septuagint was completely eclipsing the Hebrew scriptures in people’s minds. The rabbis feared that Greek would soon be seen as the language of the scriptures and not Hebrew. So they then set about compling an authroritative Hebrew scriptures.
My only problem with the Hebrew Scriptures (for use by the Church) is that they were compiled by non-Christians. I don’t say that with any venom I honestly get where the rabbis were coming from. In their shoes I’d probably want to do the same thing. For the Jews the scriptures aren’t just sacred they’re the record of their people. I can totally understand why that they wouldn’t want the record to continue to be associated with a foreign tongue.
Still, Jesus Christ approved the Septuagint by using it. The Apostles approved the Septuagint by using it. I personally don’t think you get a better recomendation than that.
In terms of authority the fact that Our Lord and His Apostles used is all that I need to know. Truth be told the fact that Our Lord used it pretty much makes the Septuagint the most dependable text we have. The rest is theory.
The push to reastablish a Hebrew Scripture was actually instigated by the growth of the Church. As the Church spread it brought the sacred scripture with it. As such the septuagint was completely eclipsing the Hebrew scriptures in people’s minds. The rabbis feared that Greek would soon be seen as the language of the scriptures and not Hebrew. So they then set about compling an authroritative Hebrew scriptures.
My only problem with the Hebrew Scriptures (for use by the Church) is that they were compiled by non-Christians. I don’t say that with any venom I honestly get where the rabbis were coming from. In their shoes I’d probably want to do the same thing. For the Jews the scriptures aren’t just sacred they’re the record of their people. I can totally understand why that they wouldn’t want the record to continue to be associated with a foreign tongue.
Still, Jesus Christ approved the Septuagint by using it. The Apostles approved the Septuagint by using it. I personally don’t think you get a better recomendation than that.
V
Valke2
Guest
How do you know that Jesus quoted from it. Is is possible that his disciples while writing their gospels quoted from it but that Jesus did not? Or are they giving direct quotes from Jesus?
R
rtconstant
Guest
Well I don’t know for sure it just seems reasonable since it was the dominant scripture at the time. If Jesus had preferred something else I think they would have noted it and it likely would have influenced the Church’s canon.
R
rr1213
Guest
Not to sound flip here, but why are we all giving our opinions as to whether Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, or would have, or should have, or whatever? Isn’t this a factual question that is capable of discernment and proof? What do the Greek and Hebrew experts amongst us (don’t look at me) say about this? Can’t we (or, rather, the experts) tell if there are any passages from Christ in the New Testament that are clearly from the Septuagint, as opposed to other sources, based on the words used?
V
Valke2
Guest
There’s nothing document wise prior to 300CE that can be used as proof that JEsus quoted from the Septuagint. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q10.pdf#search=‘did%20jesus%20quote%20from%20the%20Septuagint’
Did Jesus Recognize a Specific Text of Scripture?
**Did Jesus recognize a specific text form of scripture? **It does not appear so, for his usage of scripture is allusive, paraphrastic, and-so far as it can be ascertained-eclectic. We find agreement with the proto-Masoretic text, with the Hebrew under-lying the Septuagint (perhaps even the Septuagint itself), and with the Aramaic para-phrase. Several examples from each category will illustrate the phenomena. The examples that are chosen are the most obvious, in that they stand over against the readings in the other versions. bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm
Jesus’ scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew. Jesus’ quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7). But…
Some of Jesus’ quotations and allusions to scripture agree with the proto-Masoretic text against the Septuagint. In the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) Jesus alludes to Joel 4:13 (ET 3:13): “he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” Mark’s therismos (“harvest”) renders literally the Hebrew gsyr, unlike the Septuagint’s trygetos (“vintage”).
(same link)
Did Jesus Recognize a Specific Text of Scripture?
**Did Jesus recognize a specific text form of scripture? **It does not appear so, for his usage of scripture is allusive, paraphrastic, and-so far as it can be ascertained-eclectic. We find agreement with the proto-Masoretic text, with the Hebrew under-lying the Septuagint (perhaps even the Septuagint itself), and with the Aramaic para-phrase. Several examples from each category will illustrate the phenomena. The examples that are chosen are the most obvious, in that they stand over against the readings in the other versions. bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-favored-old-testament-textual-manuscript.htm
Jesus’ scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew. Jesus’ quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7). But…
Some of Jesus’ quotations and allusions to scripture agree with the proto-Masoretic text against the Septuagint. In the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) Jesus alludes to Joel 4:13 (ET 3:13): “he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” Mark’s therismos (“harvest”) renders literally the Hebrew gsyr, unlike the Septuagint’s trygetos (“vintage”).
(same link)
D
dosdog
Guest
latinvulgate.com/
What’s Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation
Search capabilities
one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.(hebrews 11)
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint
The Apocrypha
Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.
These books appear in the Bible as used by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Armenian and Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox churches. There are also a few other books (I & II Esdras, The Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Prayer of Manasseh) which are frequently lumped in with the apocrypha.
The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not.
apostate.com/religion/bible-versions.html
In the second century Bc, Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, had translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Tradition had it that this translation was the work of 70 (or 72) scholars, and accordingly the result was known as the Septuagint (often written as LXX). The LXX contains six or more books (there is some leeway here) not found in the standard Hebrew text, known as the Masoretic Text (or Mt),
The New Testament writers, except for Matthew, when they are quoting the Old Testament, usually quote from the LXX. The differences in readings between the Mt and the LXX were formerly explained by assuming that the LXX translators were sometimes not very good translators. However, very ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, recently found at Qumran and elsewhere, often agree with the LXX against the Mt. Accordingly, it is now generally supposed that the LXX is a fairly accurate translation of Hebrew manuscripts available at the time, and that sometimes the manuscripts that the LXX translators worked from differed from the manuscripts that became the basis for the standardised Hebrew text that we know today
The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha
ecmarsh.com/lxx/
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/256.html
What’s Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation
Search capabilities
one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.(hebrews 11)
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church—the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life—the Septuagint
The Apocrypha
Many people ask why the Bible used by the Roman Catholic church has more books in it than the typical Protestant Bible. These “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical” books are Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach), Judith, I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, and additional chapters of Daniel and Esther. The most religiously important of the books are Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, while the most historically important is 1st Maccabees.
These books appear in the Bible as used by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Armenian and Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox churches. There are also a few other books (I & II Esdras, The Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and Prayer of Manasseh) which are frequently lumped in with the apocrypha.
The early church was founded by Hellenistic Jews; naturally, they used the Septuagint. There are passages in the gospels and epistles where Jesus and Paul quote from the Septuagint: 300 of 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So while the Jews may have settled on the Palestinian canon by the early first century, the Christian church did not.
apostate.com/religion/bible-versions.html
In the second century Bc, Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, had translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Tradition had it that this translation was the work of 70 (or 72) scholars, and accordingly the result was known as the Septuagint (often written as LXX). The LXX contains six or more books (there is some leeway here) not found in the standard Hebrew text, known as the Masoretic Text (or Mt),
The New Testament writers, except for Matthew, when they are quoting the Old Testament, usually quote from the LXX. The differences in readings between the Mt and the LXX were formerly explained by assuming that the LXX translators were sometimes not very good translators. However, very ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, recently found at Qumran and elsewhere, often agree with the LXX against the Mt. Accordingly, it is now generally supposed that the LXX is a fairly accurate translation of Hebrew manuscripts available at the time, and that sometimes the manuscripts that the LXX translators worked from differed from the manuscripts that became the basis for the standardised Hebrew text that we know today
The Translation of the Old Testament, Including the Apocrypha
ecmarsh.com/lxx/
justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/256.html
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Tradition seems to indicate that the first gospel to be composed was composed by St. Matthew in the Aramaic language, the common language of the Jews of Palestine at the time of Jesus, and only later was it translated into Greek.Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote. (Eusebius, *Church History *3:24)
Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could. (Eusebius, Church History 3:39)
If this is the case, it would seem that Jesus did not quote Scripture to his disciples in Greek from the Septuagint but in an Aramaic or ancient Hebrew that was more alike in meaning to the Greek Septuagint than to the modern Hebrew version.
Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could. (Eusebius, Church History 3:39)
If this is the case, it would seem that Jesus did not quote Scripture to his disciples in Greek from the Septuagint but in an Aramaic or ancient Hebrew that was more alike in meaning to the Greek Septuagint than to the modern Hebrew version.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
In support of the notion that Jesus quoted Scripture to his disciples in Aramaic, and His words were later translated into Greek, consider Matthew 27:46 where, from the Cross, Jesus begins to recite Psalm 22 in Aramaic, saying: *Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani. *
- Status