Old Testament, in Jesus time?
- Thread starter TM19782017
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
AFAIK there were only two: the original Hebrew/Aramaic faithfully copied for generations, and the Septuagint, which is the scriptures translated by 70 Jewish scholars into Greek in 3rd century BC, because many Jews did not speak Hebrew anymore in the Hellenized world of the time. it's also called 'LXX' Roman numerals for 70.
AFAIK we don't have any copies of original Hebrew versions of the scripture from that time period anymore - at least none known. we have what's called the 'Masoretic' Hebrew text, which dates from about 1,000 years later - which was copied by devout Jews between the 7th-10th centuries AD. if we assume that this is faithfully copied from originals that nobody has anymore, then we can tell whether a quote in the Greek NT is directly from the Septuagint or from the Hebrew. we can tell by comparing quotes that the apostles almost exclusively quoted the Septuagint. as an example, in Mark 7:6-7 Jesus clearly quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint:
there is a bunch of debate way above my pay grade about what's more reliable.
AFAIK we don't have any copies of original Hebrew versions of the scripture from that time period anymore - at least none known. we have what's called the 'Masoretic' Hebrew text, which dates from about 1,000 years later - which was copied by devout Jews between the 7th-10th centuries AD. if we assume that this is faithfully copied from originals that nobody has anymore, then we can tell whether a quote in the Greek NT is directly from the Septuagint or from the Hebrew. we can tell by comparing quotes that the apostles almost exclusively quoted the Septuagint. as an example, in Mark 7:6-7 Jesus clearly quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint:
And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
(Brenton's translation of LXX)
(Brenton's translation of LXX)
in the Masoretic this reads ". . . and their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote . . " instead of "in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men" there is a bunch of debate way above my pay grade about what's more reliable.
-
1
- Show all
Hello TM19782017, the Septuagint is the only OT translation (Hebrew into Koine Greek) that existed at that time (that I know of).
As for Jesus referencing the Scriptures, @posthuman had it right when he said, "like, almost always". Here are a few examples of Him doing so.
~Deut
As for Jesus referencing the Scriptures, @posthuman had it right when he said, "like, almost always". Here are a few examples of Him doing so.
Matthew 4
1 Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’ ”
5 Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple,
6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
‘HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’;
and
‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’ ”
7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.’ ”
8 Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;
9 and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”
10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’ ”
11 Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.
Mark 7
1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,
2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
5 The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?”
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;
11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Luke 19
45 Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,
46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,’ but you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”
47 And He was teaching daily in the temple; but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people were trying to destroy Him,
48 and they could not find anything that they might do, for all the people were hanging on to every word He said.
John 5
45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
~Deut
-
1
- Show all
Discussions on this subject usually degenerate into one side saying the other has abolished God's Law. That side usually reponds with yes we are and you people are legalist. Solving nothing. This passage comes from Galatians 3
15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
So many reasons give in these few verses for why the written Law does not have sway over believers, not unbelievers who remain under the written Law. God we are told design His Law to be in effect only until the Seed. The Son had come. If Christ has come and you stay under Law you are claiming the Lord has not come.
19Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
The word "added" above does not mean like 1 and 1 is 2 this added means to place alongside the written Law. It was never meant to be combined with the Abrahamic covenant.. To combine would make both covenants compromised.
Sorry hope I haven't hijacked your tremendous thread. Sorry. God bless.
15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
So many reasons give in these few verses for why the written Law does not have sway over believers, not unbelievers who remain under the written Law. God we are told design His Law to be in effect only until the Seed. The Son had come. If Christ has come and you stay under Law you are claiming the Lord has not come.
19Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
The word "added" above does not mean like 1 and 1 is 2 this added means to place alongside the written Law. It was never meant to be combined with the Abrahamic covenant.. To combine would make both covenants compromised.
Sorry hope I haven't hijacked your tremendous thread. Sorry. God bless.
-
1
- Show all
I have a book that covers the issue of what percentage of OT quotes in the NT were Hebrew vs Greek. The research done indicated that approximately 70% of all NT quotes of the OT were from the Septuagint.
Since all quotes were from these two languages it would infer that there were only two versions of Scripture available at that time, with the Greek version more prominent.
Since all quotes were from these two languages it would infer that there were only two versions of Scripture available at that time, with the Greek version more prominent.
That's the same attitude of modern critics to the corrupted NT manuscripts.
However, Alfred Edersheim was a Hebrew Christian scholar in the 19th century, who was familiar with both Hebrew and Greek, and very familiar with the Septuagint and the Talmud. In his classic The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he settled the question of the serious corruption of the Septuagint as below:
...These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament [the Septuagint], and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition....
From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch - for to it only the testimony refers - was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage - if not by direction - of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus). With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy - the Jerusalem Talmud in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian with additions apparently derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text.
The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely by several persons, the other books of the Old Testament would naturally soon receive the same treatment [i.e. corruption]... The version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX. - as some have supposed from the number of its translators according to Aristeas’ account - only that in that case it should have been seventy-two...
From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ‘inspiration,’ and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible.
Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets, and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.
What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars.
Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation.
The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic.
Difficulties - or what seemed such - are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in the Targum of Onkelos....
However, Alfred Edersheim was a Hebrew Christian scholar in the 19th century, who was familiar with both Hebrew and Greek, and very familiar with the Septuagint and the Talmud. In his classic The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he settled the question of the serious corruption of the Septuagint as below:
...These circumstances will account for the different elements which we can trace in the Greek version of the Old Testament [the Septuagint], and explain the historical, or rather legendary, notices which we have of its composition....
From this account we may at least derive as historical these facts: that the Pentateuch - for to it only the testimony refers - was translated into Greek, at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalareus, in the reign and under the patronage - if not by direction - of Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus). With this the Jewish accounts agree, which describe the translation of the Pentateuch under Ptolemy - the Jerusalem Talmud in a simpler narrative, the Babylonian with additions apparently derived from the Alexandrian legends; the former expressly noting thirteen, the latter marking fifteen, variations from the original text.
The Pentateuch once translated, whether by one, or more likely by several persons, the other books of the Old Testament would naturally soon receive the same treatment [i.e. corruption]... The version, as a whole, bears the name of the LXX. - as some have supposed from the number of its translators according to Aristeas’ account - only that in that case it should have been seventy-two...
From this it would, of course, follow that the Canon of the Old Testament was then practically fixed in Palestine. That Canon was accepted by the Alexandrian translators, although the more loose views of the Hellenists on ‘inspiration,’ and the absence of that close watchfulness exercised over the text in Palestine, led to additions and alterations, and ultimately even to the admission of the Apocrypha into the Greek Bible.
Unlike the Hebrew arrangement of the text into the Law, the Prophets, and the (sacred) Writings, or Hagiographa, the LXX. arrange them into historical, prophetical, and poetic books, and count twenty-two, after the Hebrew alphabet, instead of twenty-four, as the Hebrews. But perhaps both these may have been later arrangements, since Philo evidently knew the Jewish order of the books.
What text the translators may have used we can only conjecture. It differs in almost innumerable instances from our own, though the more important deviations are comparatively few. In the great majority of the lesser variations our Hebrew must be regarded as the correct text.
Putting aside clerical mistakes and misreadings, and making allowance for errors of translation, ignorance, and haste, we note certain outstanding facts as characteristic of the Greek version. It bears evident marks of its origin in Egypt in its use of Egyptian words and references, and equally evident traces of its Jewish composition. By the side of slavish and false literalism there is great liberty, if not licence, in handling the original; gross mistakes occur along with happy renderings of very difficult passages, suggesting the aid of some able scholars.
Distinct Jewish elements are undeniably there, which can only be explained by reference to Jewish tradition, although they are much fewer than some critics have supposed. This we can easily understand, since only those traditions would find a place which at that early time were not only received, but in general circulation.
The distinctively Grecian elements, however, are at present of chief interest to us. They consist of allusions to Greek mythological terms, and adaptations of Greek philosophical ideas. However few, even one well-authenticated instance would lead us to suspect others, and in general give to the version the character of Jewish Hellenising. In the same class we reckon what constitutes the prominent characteristic of the LXX. version, which, for want of better terms, we would designate as rationalistic and apologetic.
Difficulties - or what seemed such - are removed by the most bold methods, and by free handling of the text; it need scarcely be said, often very unsatisfactorily. More especially a strenuous effort is made to banish all anthropomorphisms, as inconsistent with their ideas of the Deity. The superficial observer might be tempted to regard this as not strictly Hellenistic, since the same may be noted, and indeed is much more consistently carried out, in the Targum of Onkelos....