Did Jesus speak Greek?

[FrJohnB]

Jesus read Greek in the synagogue from the Septuagint, for example, Luke 4:16-21.
The Greek Septuagint was considered “Scripture” and was used in the first-century synagogues of Palestine where Jesus and the Apostles were trained and later taught, but it was eventually rejected by the Jews (and even later by the Protestants). We assume Jesus understood what he was reading. Therefore, he probably spoke Greek.

Can you provide a link to the source of your statements where the Septuagint was “Scripture”?
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division.

I know that there are some scholars who think as you, but I am asking for a Catholic source to back this claim.

The passage you cite uses the phrase, “scrolls” ion referring to what Jesus read from, other writings in the Bible are referred to as “books” and “Parchments”

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Can you provide a link to the source of your statements where the Septuagint was “Scripture”?

I’m not sure what you’re asking, Father John. As you know, the Septuagint (LXX) quickly became the “Scripture” of the newborn, undivided Catholic Church and is still “Scripture” to both Catholics and Orthodox.

–quote–The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church . . . the church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities" Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York, 1998, p. 1048-49. This is a Protestant publication.

Luke 4:21: And he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Jesus was quoting from the LXX Isaiah.)

Here’s a chart of LXX quotes in the NT:

mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) “The Law and the Prophets” and (2) “The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms”:

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division.

I know that there are some scholars who think as you, but I am asking for a Catholic source to back this claim.

The passage you cite uses the phrase, “scrolls” ion referring to what Jesus read from, other writings in the Bible are referred to as “books” and “Parchments”

Excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org:

–quote-- The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, welcomed by the Alexandrian Jews, spread quickly throughout the countries in which Greek was spoken; it was utilized by different writers, and supplanted the original text in liturgical services. Philo of Alexandria used it in his writings and looked on the translators as inspired Prophets; it was finally received even by the Jews of Palestine, and was employed notably by Josephus, the Palestinian Jewish historian. We know also that the writers of the New Testament made use of it, borrowing from it most of their citations; it became the Old Testament of the Church and was so highly esteemed by the early Christians that several writers and Fathers declared it to be inspired. The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).
–end quote (color added)

Again, from the beginning, the LXX was “Scripture” to the first Christians and was formally made “Scripture” by the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419) and confirmed by the Pope.

“Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT it is estimated that about 300 are the same as the LXX [Greek Septuagint] and that the LXX was the principal source of these quotations” Dictionary of the Bible, John L McKenzie, S.J., MacMillan, New York, 1965, p. 119

Since the sacred authors of the NT used both the Hebrew and the LXX, but preferred the LXX,
we know that both the Hebrew and the Septuagint were considered “Scripture” in first century Palestine as well as in the Diaspora, and both were used by Jesus and the Apostles.’’

Of course, as the Church teaches, only the autographs (originals, in the handwriting of the authors) are “inspired,” not the copies or translations. And the originals did not survive antiquity.

Did I even come close to answering your question? I feel :whacky: writing this to you, Father, when you already know these facts much better than I!

Peace, Jim Dandy

Edit: to correct a date and add a sentence.

 

[Padrej]

I’m not sure what you’re asking, Father John. As you know, the Septuagint (LXX) quickly became the “Scripture” of the newborn, undivided Catholic Church and is still “Scripture” to both Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[FrJohnB]

I’m not sure what you’re asking, Father John. As you know, the Septuagint (LXX) quickly became the “Scripture” of the newborn, undivided Catholic Church and is still “Scripture” to both Catholics and Orthodox.

–quote–The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church . . . the church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities" Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Everett Ferguson, Editor, Garland Publishing, New York, 1998, p. 1048-49. This is a Protestant publication.

Luke 4:21: And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Jesus was quoting from the LXX Isaiah.)

Here’s a chart of LXX quotes in the NT:

mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

Excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org:

–quote-- The Greek version, known as the Septuagint, welcomed by the Alexandrian Jews, spread quickly throughout the countries in which Greek was spoken; it was utilized by different writers, and supplanted the original text in liturgical services. Philo of Alexandria used it in his writings and looked on the translators as inspired Prophets; it was finally received even by the Jews of Palestine, and was employed notably by Josephus, the Palestinian Jewish historian. We know also that the writers of the New Testament made use of it, borrowing from it most of their citations; it became the Old Testament of the Church and was so highly esteemed by the early Christians that several writers and Fathers declared it to be inspired. The Christians had recourse to it constantly in their controversies with the Jews, who soon recognized its imperfections, and finally rejected it in favour of the Hebrew text or of more literal translations (Aquila, Theodotion).
–end quote (color added)

Again, from the beginning, the LXX was “Scripture” to the first Christians and was formally made “Scripture” by the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419) and confirmed by the Pope.

“Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT it is estimated that about 300 are the same as the LXX [Greek Septuagint] and that the LXX was the principal source of these quotations” Dictionary of the Bible, John L McKenzie, S.J., MacMillan, New York, 1965, p. 119

Since the sacred authors of the NT used both the Hebrew and the LXX, but preferred the LXX,
we know that both the Hebrew and the Septuagint were considered “Scripture” in first century Palestine as well as in the Diaspora, and both were used by Jesus and the Apostles.’’

Of course, as the Church teaches, only the autographs (originals, in the handwriting of the authors) are “inspired,” not the copies or translations. And the originals did not survive antiquity.

Did I even come close to answering your question? I feel :whacky: writing this to you, Father, when you already know these facts much better than I!

Peace, Jim Dandy

Edit: to correct a date and add a sentence.

Jim Dandy
Please do not think that I have come to challenge you or your knowledge. I wanted to know where you were getting much of your info. You are pretty well right on. Padrej cited much of how I would have responded to you. Many times he has done this to chime in before I have the chance. He is OK and a pretty smart guy.
I apologize to you if it made you feel “whacky”. Where I have the area of what padrej referred to as “gray area” is the timing of when the LXX was on the way out of common use and into the Christian churches. As Padrej pointed out some Jews did not like the diaspora as not being purebred. so in some scholars minds the use was in question for some parts of Palestine. This is why I was questioning your sources only.

 

[domnicavila]

i don’t think it is impossible for jeus to speak any language

 

[Jim_Dandy]

FatherJohnB and Padrej,

Many thanks to each of you for your reply. I’ll do some additional searching and get back to you.

Jim Dandy

 

[roveau]

What is interesting is all the other information that is thrown up when discussing a topic such as this one.

I only want to say that Jesus was also ‘truly man’ and wouldn’t have been given short cuts to learning every language in the world… but since he could read the hearts of men he didn’t need to anyway.

I’m of the opinion that Jesus had a working knowledge of Greek since he spent his childhood years in Egypt among the mostly Greek speaking Jews there. Plus the Greek influenbces also in the Holy Land. I look forward to more in this debate.

 

[wwolverine]

Can anybody make a case as to whether or not Jesus spoke Greek? It seems generally accepted that he spoke Aramaic. Does it seem reasonable that he was multi-lingual?

When we look in chapter 2 of Luke, we find that Jesus was lost and when Mother Mary found Him, he was asking questions to the teachers. He was only 12 years old than, and it is said hat every one who heard Him were amazed. So do you think Greek language was something of a difficulty for Jesus?

[41] Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. [42] When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. [43] After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. [44] Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. [45] When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. [47] Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

[49] “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” [50] But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

 

[ufamtobie]

Can anybody make a case as to whether or not Jesus spoke Greek? It seems generally accepted that he spoke Aramaic. Does it seem reasonable that he was multi-lingual?

Eutychus, If Jesus Christ raised the dead, etc… I believe He know all languages:thumbsup:

Ufamtobie

 

[Erich]

I bow to your belief that the Catholic church may "officially’ endorse the belief of NT authorships as you outline…but the majority of NT scholars disagree…it is a nice clean religious tradition…but it is not based on scholarly evidence…it is more “faith based” than anything else.

Not at all “faith based”!

Why, How and When the Gospels provides a good summary.

The Authors of the Gospels provides all the scholarly detail.

 

[Erich]

But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said…

There are lots of examples of Jesus quoting from the Septuagint.

 

[FrJohnB]

There are lots of examples of Jesus quoting from the Septuagint.

You post quotes many passages of the Septuagint, only 6 of which are direct quotes of Jesus; it can be argued that those passages in question also mean the same in Hebrew. You also have to understand that the reason SO MUCH of the New Testament is quotes of the LXX is because it had gained popularity with Christians, most of whom spoke Greek; while by the time of Jesus the LXX was going out of favor with Jews. This was the point I argued. Your post is a good post and it has MUCH to say from Acts on which is understandably to Christians. What your post (link) does cite are from Matthew and Luke’s Gospel. Luke was not one of the disciples and was writing it to a Greek; Matthew was a Tax collector and would have known Greek as the language of commerce. Luke and John’s Gospel have only a couple of lines and the ones especially from John are so close in translation from Hebrew to Greek it is a 6 of one half dozen type argument as to HOW to translate the word.
For Example from your link:

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 - who has believed our “report?” Hebrew - who has believed our “message?”

“report and message” are interchangeable in Hebrew.

I have not said that the LXX was not ever quoted; what I question is the likelihood that Jesus did quote it.

The point of the thread is one of questioning if Jesus SPOKE Greek, Of that I have no doubt. The LXX we know was widely used by the Diaspora (Greek Speaking Jews not living in Palestine) but by the time of Christ many of the Jews of Palestine has preferred to go back to the Hebrew. Those who did not were labeled Hellenist.

I hope this makes my point clearer. I am not hear to argue the LXX (and its use in Palestine in Christ’s day) but rather did Jesus speak Greek.

 

[Nicea325]

You post quotes many passages of the Septuagint, only 6 of which are direct quotes of Jesus; it can be argued that those passages in question also mean the same in Hebrew. You also have to understand that the reason SO MUCH of the New Testament is quotes of the LXX is because it had gained popularity with Christians, most of whom spoke Greek; while by the time of Jesus the LXX was going out of favor with Jews. This was the point I argued. Your post is a good post and it has MUCH to say from Acts on which is understandably to Christians. What your post (link) does cite are from Matthew and Luke’s Gospel. Luke was not one of the disciples and was writing it to a Greek; Matthew was a Tax collector and would have known Greek as the language of commerce. Luke and John’s Gospel have only a couple of lines and the ones especially from John are so close in translation from Hebrew to Greek it is a 6 of one half dozen type argument as to HOW to translate the word.
For Example from your link:

“report and message” are interchangeable in Hebrew.

I have not said that the LXX was not ever quoted; what I question is the likelihood that Jesus did quote it.

The point of the thread is one of questioning if Jesus SPOKE Greek, Of that I have no doubt. The LXX we know was widely used by the Diaspora (Greek Speaking Jews not living in Palestine) but by the time of Christ many of the Jews of Palestine has preferred to go back to the Hebrew. Those who did not were labeled Hellenist.

I hope this makes my point clearer. I am not hear to argue the LXX (and its use in Palestine in Christ’s day) but rather did Jesus speak Greek.

Fr JohnB,

Do you have any evidence or sources supporting the following statement:

“…but by the time of Christ many of the Jews of Palestine has preferred to go back to the Hebrew.”

 

[FrJohnB]

Fr JohnB,

Do you have any evidence or sources supporting the following statement:

“…but by the time of Christ many of the Jews of Palestine has preferred to go back to the Hebrew.”

From the following site (I know this is protestant so don’t throw insults)
kencollins.com/question-04.htm
Septuagint
The name of the ancient Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It was translated in Alexandria, Egypt, by about 70 Jewish scholars with support from the Temple in Jerusalem. It is called the Septuagint from a word that means ‘seventy.’ In the first century, it was the Bible of Jews who lived outside of Palestine and it was the Bible of the Christian Church. It is still the official Old Testament of some Orthodox Churches today.

From the Orthodox:
acrod.org/readingroom/scripture/septuagint
“Already two centuries before the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jews living both in Palestine and those scattered throughout the Roman Empire found it necessary to have translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. This was because the Hebrew language, while still used in worship and perhaps in some rural villages, was no longer a widely spoken language.
In the synagogues, the Scriptures were still read in the Hebrew original but a translator would then render the reading into the Aramaic language, spoken in Palestine, or into the Greek language, spoken in places like Alexandria or Athens.
This is illustrated by the words of our Lord on the Cross. He quotes the first verse of Psalm 22, not in Hebrew, “Eli, Eli lema asavtani,” but in the Aramaic language He spoke daily, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.””
( I might add one of the pieces in ? on this thread is that of Jesus reading from a scroll in a synagogue, thus according to this site it would have been Hebrew read not the LXX)

From a Catholic site
users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the “Bible” for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church.

From: encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Septuagi.html
Septuagint [Lat.,=70], oldest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made by Hellenistic Jews, possibly from Alexandria, c.250 BC Legend, according to the fictional letter of Aristeas, records that it was done in 72 days by 72 translators for Ptolemy Philadelphus, which accounts for the name. The Greek form was later improved and altered to include the books of the Apocrypha and some of the pseudepigrapha. It was the version used by Hellenistic Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians, including St. Paul; it is still used in the Greek Church.

 

[Nicea325]

From the following site (I know this is protestant so don’t throw insults)
kencollins.com/question-04.htm
Septuagint
The name of the ancient Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It was translated in Alexandria, Egypt, by about 70 Jewish scholars with support from the Temple in Jerusalem. It is called the Septuagint from a word that means ‘seventy.’ In the first century, it was the Bible of Jews who lived outside of Palestine and it was the Bible of the Christian Church. It is still the official Old Testament of some Orthodox Churches today.

From the Orthodox:
acrod.org/readingroom/scripture/septuagint
“Already two centuries before the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jews living both in Palestine and those scattered throughout the Roman Empire found it necessary to have translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. This was because the Hebrew language, while still used in worship and perhaps in some rural villages, was no longer a widely spoken language.
In the synagogues, the Scriptures were still read in the Hebrew original but a translator would then render the reading into the Aramaic language, spoken in Palestine, or into the Greek language, spoken in places like Alexandria or Athens.
This is illustrated by the words of our Lord on the Cross. He quotes the first verse of Psalm 22, not in Hebrew, “Eli, Eli lema asavtani,” but in the Aramaic language He spoke daily, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.””
( I might add one of the pieces in ? on this thread is that of Jesus reading from a scroll in a synagogue, thus according to this site it would have been Hebrew read not the LXX)

From a Catholic site
users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
Before the 2nd century, most Palestian Jews preferred a canon loosely similar to the Protestant OT; however, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred the larger canon found in the Greek Septuagint Bible - a 2nd-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture. It was the “Bible” for the Greek-speaking Jews. When the Apostles began to evangelize the Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles, they used the already established Septuagint as their Bible. Using the Hebrew Scripture would have been as effective as using a Russian Bible to evangelize Americans. The Septuagint served to bridge the culture gap. Quickly the Greek-speaking converts outnumbered the Hebrew Christians. Scholars also recognize that the NT writers quoted extensively from the Septuagint, e.g. Matt. 1:23. The Septuagint became the OT of the early Church.

From: encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Septuagi.html
Septuagint [Lat.,=70], oldest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible made by Hellenistic Jews, possibly from Alexandria, c.250 BC Legend, according to the fictional letter of Aristeas, records that it was done in 72 days by 72 translators for Ptolemy Philadelphus, which accounts for the name. The Greek form was later improved and altered to include the books of the Apocrypha and some of the pseudepigrapha. It was the version used by Hellenistic Jews and the Greek-speaking Christians, including St. Paul; it is still used in the Greek Church.

Thank you Father John. I’ll check them out. Thanks!

God Bless you.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Father JohnB and Padrej,

I used this source in my earlier response, but I omitted the section in red:

–quote–The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church. The parting of the church from the synagogue was a bitter one. The Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God; Christians used such translations as parthenos (“virgin”) for almah at Isaiah 7:14, cited by Matthew 1:23 as proof of Jesus’ birth at the fulfillment of scripture in argumentation (Justin, Dialogue 43; 66f.). Further, Christian copyists tended to corrupt the text by introducting Christological data. So it was that the synagogue rejected the Septuagint and turned to more literal translations, especially that of Aquila. The church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. – end quote – Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, full citation in my prior post.

The article goes on to say: “Until the Reformation, the canon of the church was the larger canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.” But that isn’t at issue in this thread.

I take this to mean the LXX was regarded by the Jews in Palestine (“the synagogue”) as the inspired Word of God until well into the Christian era, and thus it would have been considered Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles. We know that approximately 86% of the quotes from the OT in the NT are from the LXX. There is no doubt that it was the “Bible” of Sts. Paul and Luke and the other Apostles, and that it was used to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world.

I read H.B. Swete’s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1902) long ago, which is where (I think) I first read about Luke 4:18-19 in the Septuagint being quoted by Jesus (if memory serves), and I’m trying to find it again. It is, however, shown in that chart I linked to in my previous post.

Do you think St. Luke attributed the LXX quote to Jesus, but He was really reading a Hebrew scroll in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21)? That’s certainly possible. Just trying to understand.

God bless you, Fathers! Thanks for your patience (and tolerance).

Jim Dandy

 

[Padrej]

Father JohnB and Padrej,

I used this source in my earlier response, but I omitted the section in red:

–quote–The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church. The parting of the church from the synagogue was a bitter one. The Septuagint had been regarded as the inspired Word of God; Christians used such translations as parthenos (“virgin”) for almah at Isaiah 7:14, cited by Matthew 1:23 as proof of Jesus’ birth at the fulfillment of scripture in argumentation (Justin, Dialogue 43; 66f.). Further, Christian copyists tended to corrupt the text by introducting Christological data. So it was that the synagogue rejected the Septuagint and turned to more literal translations, especially that of Aquila. The church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the world in its missionary activities. – end quote – Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, full citation in my prior post.

The article goes on to say: “Until the Reformation, the canon of the church was the larger canon of the Septuagint; only then did the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.” But that isn’t at issue in this thread.

I take this to mean the LXX was regarded by the Jews in Palestine (“the synagogue”) as the inspired Word of God until well into the Christian era, and thus it would have been considered Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles. We know that approximately 86% of the quotes from the OT in the NT are from the LXX. There is no doubt that it was the “Bible” of Sts. Paul and Luke and the other Apostles, and that it was used to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world.

I read H.B. Swete’s Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1902) long ago, which is where (I think) I first read about Luke 4:18-19 in the Septuagint being quoted by Jesus (if memory serves), and I’m trying to find it again. It is, however, shown in that chart I linked to in my previous post.

Do you think St. Luke attributed the LXX quote to Jesus, but He was really reading a Hebrew scroll in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-21)? That’s certainly possible. Just trying to understand.

God bless you, Fathers! Thanks for your patience (and tolerance).

Jim Dandy

Jim Dandy,
The passage in Luke’s gospel seems to add to the account of Mark in 6:1-6 adding that Jesus picked up the scroll/book that contained the passage from Isaiah 61. It is not clear that Jesus read in Hebrew, although it was likely that He did as the is in a synagogue service and not just some ordinary service. The problem comes into this at the location of this particular Synagogue, Nazareth, most likely Aramaic only speakers. It mentions after this that Jesus goes and does most of His ministry in the region around Capernaum, a territory with more Greek speakers.

Luke wrote this passage circa AD70, we figure this because the last event recorded in the book of Acts is around the year AD62 and Luke could not write Acts first as it starts out that it was written to the Greek Theolophilis. Most other NT writers being Christian quote the LXX heavily so as Luke was writing from the eyewitness accounts they COULD have said, “Jesus read from Isaiah 61” and Luke penned in what it said from the LXX. (I know that chapter numbers were not added until MANY years later, but I am trying to make a point.) Jesus could have read from the Hebrew scrolls as many scholars think that at that time the only Jews using the LXX were the Hellenist, or Greek speaking Jews.

NOW, Luke quoting from the Isaiah passage in question keeps a line from the LXX that is NOT found in the Mazoretic text; the reference to the ‘opening of blind eyes’ is, of course, not in the Masoretic text but is in the LXX. So it then falls to the question that did Luke use the LXX? Yes, as he WAS a Greek speaker who would have already been using such, AND Luke was a Gentile and likely NOT able to read what the Mazoretic (Hebrew) text would have been to have quoted it correctly. Isaiah 61:1-2 leaves out the “open the blind eyes” in the NKJV which also is not in the LXX. Luke’s account being written MANY years after the death of Jesus when Christians were starting to multiply, they would have used the LXX text to draw from. It is to me an either or argument as Luke quotes the LXX, but scholars believe that the LXX was not in use in many places by Jews of Jesus’ day with the exception of the Greek speakers or Hellenist Jews. Jesus was NOT a Hellenist so it is likely that he did not quote the LXX. The Gospel writers being Greek speakers would have and thus use the version of the OT they had at their fingertips, the LXX.

 

[cthulhubryan]

One wise man of the cloth I knew told me that in all probability Jesus spoke enough Greek to buy and sell fish and such but that He probably was only fluent in Aramaic and Hebrew.

 

[Petergee]

NO the preceding line Simon bar Jonah— Aramaic for Simon son of Jonah, That line would not be used that way were it written in Greek.

I disagree. If we were writing in English about say a Dutchman called Jan van den Berg, we would write it the same way it is written in Dutch, we wouldn’t translate it into “John Hill”. Patromymic names like Simon bar Jona were used as equivalents to modern surnames.

The Petros/Petra is in Greek.
Paul used Cephas to refer to Peter which is the Greek form of the Aramaic Kepha as Petergee points out.

And is I pointed out, this is evidence that Jesus originally spoke the word “Kepha” in aramaic, which fact Sts Peter and James passed on to St Paul.

The point is Jesus was changing an Aramaic/Hebrew name to one of Greek. similar to Abram to Abraham. The change denoted something spiritual.

Changing “Simon” to “Kepha” would denote just as much a spiritual change as changing Simon to Petros. The language is irrelevant.

Jesus would use Greek Phrases when they were more pointed in the message He wanted to get across. Take the title hypocrite that he called the pharisees, this word is only used in Greek dramas to denote one who wears one kind of face one minute and another face the next. You see this in the logo of thespians where you have one sad face and one happy. There would not be an equivalent in Aramaic or Hebrew for this word.

Many modern scholars conclude that the Gospel of St Matthew and perhaps one or more of the other Gospels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as ancient commentators attest. The fact that there is no ONE SINGLE word in Aramaic which can be transalted as “Hypocrite” in Greek, does not mean that Jesus could not have used a longer phrase in Aramaic to express the same meaning.

 

[Petergee]

Jim Dandy,
The passage in Luke’s gospel seems to add to the account of Mark in 6:1-6 adding that Jesus picked up the scroll/book that contained the passage from Isaiah 61. It is not clear that Jesus read in Hebrew, although it was likely that He did as the is in a synagogue service and not just some ordinary service. The problem comes into this at the location of this particular Synagogue, Nazareth, most likely Aramaic only speakers. It mentions after this that Jesus goes and does most of His ministry in the region around Capernaum, a territory with more Greek speakers.

Luke wrote this passage circa AD70, we figure this because the last event recorded in the book of Acts is around the year AD62 and Luke could not write Acts first as it starts out that it was written to the Greek Theolophilis. Most other NT writers being Christian quote the LXX heavily so as Luke was writing from the eyewitness accounts they COULD have said, “Jesus read from Isaiah 61” and Luke penned in what it said from the LXX. (I know that chapter numbers were not added until MANY years later, but I am trying to make a point.) Jesus could have read from the Hebrew scrolls as many scholars think that at that time the only Jews using the LXX were the Hellenist, or Greek speaking Jews.

NOW, Luke quoting from the Isaiah passage in question keeps a line from the LXX that is NOT found in the Mazoretic text; the reference to the ‘opening of blind eyes’ is, of course, not in the Masoretic text but is in the LXX. So it then falls to the question that did Luke use the LXX? Yes, as he WAS a Greek speaker who would have already been using such, AND Luke was a Gentile and likely NOT able to read what the Mazoretic (Hebrew) text would have been to have quoted it correctly. Isaiah 61:1-2 leaves out the “open the blind eyes” in the NKJV which also is not in the LXX. Luke’s account being written MANY years after the death of Jesus when Christians were starting to multiply, they would have used the LXX text to draw from. It is to me an either or argument as Luke quotes the LXX, but scholars believe that the LXX was not in use in many places by Jews of Jesus’ day with the exception of the Greek speakers or Hellenist Jews. Jesus was NOT a Hellenist so it is likely that he did not quote the LXX. The Gospel writers being Greek speakers would have and thus use the version of the OT they had at their fingertips, the LXX.

You seem to be suffering from the impression that the LXX was only ever written in the Greek language. Jesus was probably reading from a Hebrew/Aramaic tanslation of the LXX, which was the standrad version accepted and used by nearly all Jews at the time, in the Holy Land as well as abroad.