What OT Bible Did Jesus/Apostles Use?

since jesus is god, and god is above time, jesus reached through time for his trusty kjv1611 and shared it with his apostles.

 

Was that a joke? I didn't see a little smiley face.

 

yeah, i was wondering if anyone would believe me

just because i'm kjvo, that doesn't mean i can't have a sense of humor!

 

The Apostles and Jesus quoted these OT passages from number 1.

 

When Jesus dealt with the Sadducees he dealt with them from the Torah but with the Pharisees he used the entire OT.

There were a number of Greek translations around just as we have several Engish translations today.

When we preach do we not also quote from outside sources? But the fact that we do, does not change the message. In fact if we are to reach people we start with what is credible in their eyes and then eventualy go to scripture.

Jesus did the same thing when he addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees.

I think one of the reasons we see those quotes as cavalier is that we are living in the jet age where things are measured in angstroms or smaller increments. But during the time of the Hebrews for example what were the elements then and the methods of measurement. I really doubt that there were exactly 4000 saved in one day. Most likely it was an approximation. The number is not as inportant as the people who were saved. The fact is that it was a great number. The message is not that there were 4000 saved but that through the preaching God's power was demonstrated.

I like to refer to Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

I don't ever see the message as a loose idea. We often do the same thing when we do systematic theology. We often says things like the Bible says followed by a paraphrase. We might say something like the Bible teaches that we are to go to church on Sunday. Our Sunday in America will be someone else's Monday.

Someone might say that women are not to wear pants because that is for men. Where does the Bible literally teach that? The men of old wore a robe. They had at least an outer garment and maybe an inner garment They did not wear pants.

 

The Apostles and Jesus quoted these OT passages from number 1. [/QB][/QUOTE]

can u list the exceptions, like when they quoted direct from LXX or when they loosely paraphrased from Hebrew or Greek with little regard for accuracy of the original?

it's important in life to know not just what one likes to think/imagine, but also the rest of the evidence.

 

Tee hee!

Yes, just because you are KJVO, you cannot
have a sense of humor Why do you
think they call them a FUN-DIE?

 

It is impossible for the Apostles to quote from the LXX in 300 AD.

Did they have Greek original texts before they wrote the NT in Greek?

 

Which is why the notion that the LXX did not exist until 300AD is absurd. They clearly quoted from a Greek copy of the OT. Therefore, that Greek copy of the OT had to be from at least the first century.

The Greek original texts are the NT in Greek. They did have other resources they used in some cases, such as citations. There are probably instances of hymns. Paul quoted from a Epimenides in teh 6th century BC (Titus 1). Judg references a non-canonical book. So they had other resources.

 

What OT Bible Did Jesus/Apostles Use?

Why, the 0011 Authorized King Herod Version (better known a simply the KHV) of course!

 

In 2 Peter and Jude there are quotations from the pseudepigrapha. For example from the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. When Paul talks about the resurrection he refers to a practice among non-Christians who baptize for the dead in support of there being a resurrection. He is saying that even non-believrs believe in a resurrection.

Personally I don't have a problem with loose or tight quotes because we do the same thing when we preach and witness to others. We might say the Bible says ... but we have not given a direct quote. I think that people back in the first century and before did the same thing we do today. I think the problem lies in our interpretation and understanding. If we look at the historical context first and all the things that surround the message, we will probably come away with a better understanding of what was recorded. We would not talk the same way to a child and an adult. Yet we would try to convey a similar nessage. But just because we use different language does not diminish the message. I think that is much of what the writers in the Bible did. They had an intended audience and tailored the words so the message could be best received. That does not take away form the message being from God.

If we look at Matthew we see two recorded of a number of things. Whereas in Luke and Mark it is one. For example in Matthew there are two demoniacs and in Mark and Luke there are just one. A strict literalist who would not look at historical context first would be overwhelmed by just that one example.

 

Dr. Bob
The Hebrew Masoretic Text did not yet exist during the lifetime of the apostles. It was compiled centuries later.
The Old testaments that were in use during the first century AD, had lots of tiny variations. It is impossible to precisely say what version Jezus was using. Because there weren't precise versions yet.

 

Askjo:

It is impossible for the Apostles to quote from the LXX in 300 AD.

And yet I am sure you would accept the antiquity of the works of Plato, whose earliest extant witnesses date from around AD 1000, or the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament, the earliest copy of which dates from around AD 900.

In fact, the evidence for the LXX being a pre-Christian-era translation of the Jewish Scriptures seems quite convincing by comparison.

Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

 

Isn´t it possible that they always quoted directly from the Hebrew (which they all knew!)? Sometimes it is the same wording as in the LXX sometimes it is not...

 

But they would have to translate it and in places where the LXX disagrees with the Hebrew, the apostles very often cite the LXX.

 

"Isn´t it possible that they always quoted directly from the Hebrew (which they all knew!)?"
That's probably what happened, plenty of times they simply quoted a turn of phrase that did not end up in the Masoretic Text, but was also used for the LXX translation.

The Hebrew Old Testament in Jezus his day wasn't uniform. There where a whole bunch of very similar but distinct versions floating about.

 

This is correct. Living in the post-Gutenberg era we are used to the idea of a "version" or an "edition" where thousands of copies are letter-identical. Prior to the introduction of printing each copy was, at least potentially, an edition unto itself. Each copy was hand copied, and was no more guaranteed by God or anyone else to be perfectly identical to its source than if you copy out a book of your favorite Bible (be it KJV or MV) by hand and then check it's guaranteed to be free of scribal error.

But the differences between the MT and the LXX are of a different order of magnitude; clearly they are a matter of editorial divergence, not merely scribal error, even though individual copies of each contain scribal errors (or variations).

I have seen it suggested that the very popularity of the LXX among Christians of the first couple centuries was the main factor that drove Rabbinical Judaism back to the non-LXX tradition that eventually, with vowel pointing, became the MT. (And then, of course, at the Reformation the Reformers "discovered" the "Hebrew Canon" and decided that these 66 were the truly inspired books of the OT.)

Douglas Akerman's Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds (click) is an interesting read in this connection.

Haruo