Which Canon did Jesus use?

[Deacon_Joseph]

Someone asked me once, which canon did Jesus use. The Hebrew Canon of 39 books of what we call the Old Testament today. Or did He use the Greek Canon with all 46 books we have in our Old Testament. Any information I could find on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[SemperReformada]

Someone asked me once, which canon did Jesus use. The Hebrew Canon of 39 books of what we call the Old Testament today. Or did He use the Greek Canon with all 46 books we have in our Old Testament. Any information I could find on this would be greatly appreciated.

If one examines the evidence I don’t think it’s possible to conclude what canon was used. This is true for many different reaons.

For example the only copies of the septuagint we have are all Christian copies and date back no earlier than around the 4th century and all vary as to the exact content. Simply saying “Jesus used the septuagint” is rather meaningless when trying to “prove” what books were thought to be canonical. Additionally I know of no Jewish source which indicates the deutero’s were thought to be canonical by the Jews so having the deutero’s and other books such as Mac 3 and Mac 4 included in a version or manuscript of the septuagint doesn’t necessarily establish the books canonocity.

Another issue which complicates things is the issue of whether or not a book was quoted. A simple quotation from a book by a NT writer does not establish the books canonocity nor does a lack of quotation exclude a book from the canon.

The fathers are a mixed bag. We have fathers such as Melito of Sardis, Jerome and others rejecting the deutero’s canonocity and other fathers such as Augustine affirming their canonocity.

I don’t think there is a scholar around who would make the claim that they could determine exactly what the canon was that Jesus used. But I bet there will be several posters here who try.

 

[NHInsider]

quick answer - the so-called “Hebrew canon” wasn’t set until the second century, and at least a part of the reason for establishing it was to eliminate perceived “Greek” influences which seemed to lend support to Christian doctrine. So if the question is phrased that way, Jesus’ “Bible” (obviously they weren’t bound into books so the word is an anachronism) would have been the longer, not shorter version.

(There were other “canon” disputes within Judaism as well – some Jews regarded only the Pentateuch as “inspired,” some included the Psalms and some of the other books of Prophecy, some regarded all of the books as inspired, different groups gave differing weights to the Talmud, etc. Just as in the early church there were differences over which of the NT books were inspired - some arguing for a “short” canon of just Luke/Acts and Paul’s letters, others believing that the Shepherd of Hermas and the letters of Clement should make the cut, lots of debate over John’s Apocalypse. . . .)

There is no question that the common Scripture translation of first-century Palestine (and hence Jesus and the Apostles) was the Septuagint (Greek). Precisely how many books that translation included varied from place to place (this is why the Orthodox have a couple of books that the Catholic Bible does not include).

 

[BrianH]

Taken from web site but its a book quote

A. Agreements with the Proto-Masoretic Text

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”). In Matt 11:29 Jesus bids his hearers to take his yoke upon them: “and you will find rest [anapausin] for your souls.” The saying alludes to Jer 6:16 in the Hebrew, where the Lord speaks through his prophet: “walk in (the good way), and find rest (nirgw`] for your souls”; and not to the Septuagint, which renders the passage: “and you will find purification [hagnismon] for your souls.” In Mark 13:8 Jesus warns his disciples that in the tribulation that lies ahead “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” He alludes to Isa 19:2 in the Hebrew, which in part reads: “city against city, kingdom against kingdom”; the Septuagint, in contrast, reads: “city against city, province against province.” In Luke 16:15 Jesus asserts that “what is exalted among humans is an abomination [bdelygrna] in the sight of God.” This alludes to Prov 16:5 in the Hebrew, where the wise man claims: “Every one who is arrogant is an abomination [tw’bh] to the LORD”; not to the Septuagint: “Every arrogant person is unclean [akathartos] before God.” Finally, In the words of institution, Jesus speaks of his blood, “which is poured out [ekchynnomenon] for many” (Mark 14:24), which alludes to Isa 53:12 in the Hebrew: “he poured out [h’rh] his soul to death”; not in the Septuagint: “his soul was given over (paredothe] to death.”

B. Agreements with the Septuagint

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). The identification of John the Baptist as Elijah who “restores” (apokathistanei) all things (Mark 9:12) seems dependent on the Septuagint form (apokatastesei), or at least a Septuagintal form of Hebrew, not the proto-Masoretic Hebrew, which reads hshyb (“return” or “turn back”). Curiously, both of these elements are found in Sir 48:10, in which the returning Elijah is expected “to turn [Septuagint: epistrepsai; Hebrew: lush},b] the heart of the father to the son, and to restore [Septuagint: katastesai; Hebrew: lhkyn] the tribes of Jacob.” Both elements may well have been present in the original Hebrew version of Sirach.22 The quotation of Ps 8:3 (ET 8:2) in Matt 21:16 follows the Septuagint. But this may be the work of the evangelist. Finally, the highly important allusions to phrases from Isa 35:5-6; 26:19; and 61:1 in Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22 agree in places with the Septuagint. Of course, agreements with the Septuagint no longer require us to think that Jesus read or quoted the Septuagint .23 Thanks to the Bible scrolls of the Dead Sea region, we now know that there were Hebrew Vorlagen underlying much of the Greek Old Testament. Indeed, there are examples where Jesus’ quotations of and allu-sions to scripture agree with some Greek versions against others. Jesus’ use of the Bible attests the diversity of the textual tradition that now, thanks to the Scrolls, is more fully documented.

C. Agreements with the Aramaic

There are also several important examples of agreement with the Aramaic tradition, which arose in the synagogue and eventually assumed written form as the Targum. These examples will be treated in more detail.

There are significant examples in which Jesus’ language agrees with the Aramaic tradition. The paraphrase of Isa 6:9-10 in Mark 4:12 concludes with " . . . and it be forgiven them." Only the Isaiah Targum reads this way.zb The Hebrew and the Septuagint read “heal.” The criterion of dissimilarity argues for the authenticity of this strange saying, for the tendencies in both Jewish-’’ and Christian 21 circles were to understand this Isaianic pas-sage in a way significantly different from the way it appears to be understood in the Markan tradition. The saying, “All those grasping a sword by a sword will perish” (Matt 26:52), has dictional agreement with Targum Isaiah 50:11: “Behold, all you who kindle a fire, who grasp a sword! Go, fall in the fire which you kindled and on the sword which you grasped!” The items that the targum has added to the Hebrew text are the very items that lie behind Jesus’ statement. Jesus’ saying on Gehenna (Mark 9:47-48), where he quotes part of Isa 66:24, again reflects targumic diction. The Hebrew and the Septuagint say nothing about Gehenna, but the targum has: " . . . will not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and the wicked shall be judged in Gehenna. . . ."

(Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Craig A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, p 191-194, 2002)

 

[bpbasilphx]

Whenever the NT quotes the OT, it’s in the LXX, including differences between it and the Masoretic Text (which was not stabilized until 1100 AD or so).

 

[BrianH]

Whenever the NT quotes the OT, it’s in the LXX, including differences between it and the Masoretic Text (which was not stabilized until 1100 AD or so).

So you are saying that the NT always favors the LXX over the MT? Always? Because you would then need to deal with my quote but perhaps I have not understanding.

 

[NHInsider]

I am not certain but I would have thought that the actual proclamation in the synagogue would have been in Hebrew (as it is today, this is why kids have to learn to read Hebrew to make their bar/bat mitzvah). But that since the universal language of the day was Greek, the scholarly work would have been done in the Septuagint Greek, and since Aramaic was the local dialect, plenty of the passing-on of the faith would have been in Aramaic. And I would presume, just based on the ways we humans talk among ourselves, that when people were commenting or discussing they would probably quote varying translations, consciously or unconsciously picking the wording that fit the subject best or sprang first to mind. While for a more deliberate, thought-out and then written essay, the writer/scholar might have actually gone and checked the text against whatever sources he had available (assuming access to the local shul or synagogue, as no one would have had Torah manuscripts at home . . .)