was the Septuagint the "bible" of The Apostles?

[preachinjesus]

Wouldn't their "memory" though have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and per jesus, they would have divine inspiration from God , so that the passages/verses quoted and written down by them would have had the Spirit interpretation of how the OT applied to fulfillment in the nt?

How did Jesus guide the memory of writers who were authoring text twenty plus years after His ascension? I think you've got some serious issues with your understanding of inspiration here.

Inspiration and illumination are important doctrines, and even more important to carefully define. Verbal dictation isn't a sound, imho, theory of inspiration because it can't account for the variety in the Scriptural text. While the Holy Spirit conditioned the authors it did not force the authors nor did it dictate to the authors.

The Apsotles were given "lee way" to see and read jesus in the OT passages that was not the immediate connection at time of the prophet speaking/writting?

Ah, now you've hit an interesting subject! So what do our charitable contributors think of the ole sensus plenoir vs. sensus literalis debate?

Actually, JesusFan (or whatever it is these days), you've touched on a significant issue in the theology of interpretation of these passages. There are typologies at play as well as various intertextual features which are dictating how the NT writers are coming to use an OT text. It pretty intriguing so let's see how it plays out with our venerable collaborators.

 

[Yeshua1]

How did Jesus guide the memory of writers who were authoring text twenty plus years after His ascension? I think you've got some serious issues with your understanding of inspiration here.

Would say that conservative Evangleicals such as myself also held to sources being used by the NT authors, but we also see the Holy Spirit overseering the finished product, that he made sure that when put to written form, ALL that was put down was fully accurate and true in all it affirmed!

Inspiration and illumination are important doctrines, and even more important to carefully define. Verbal dictation isn't a sound, imho, theory of inspiration because it can't account for the variety in the Scriptural text. While the Holy Spirit conditioned the authors it did not force the authors nor did it dictate to the authors.

He allowed them to write as they saw fit to, using the sources and their memories to write themessage down to print form, He just made sure was accurate and truth!

Ah, now you've hit an interesting subject! So what do our charitable contributors think of the ole sensus plenoir vs. sensus literalis debate?

Think that at times in Gospels they recorded fully theactual words, other times the meaning/intent of what Jesus spoke!

Actually, JesusFan (or whatever it is these days), you've touched on a significant issue in the theology of interpretation of these passages. There are typologies at play as well as various intertextual features which are dictating how the NT writers are coming to use an OT text. It pretty intriguing so let's see how it plays out with our venerable collaborators.

Didn't the NT authors of the sacred texts though have the benefit of having the Holy Spirit interpreting for us jesus in the OT, in passages that if we applied a literal understanding of those same texts, would not see them referring to jesus!

They have the authority to 'see jesus: as referenced in the OT, we do not!

So we are to take a plain and literal meaning to scriptures, but allow the Apostles to inteprete their OT in way given them by the Holy Spirit Himself!

 

[jonathan.borland]

You put the word "must" in quotes. Could you please point out where I used the word "must" in my response?

Good point.

 

[Eliyahu]

based upon thir frequent quoting/use of it in the NT letters/books?

NOPE!

Luke 24:44 disproves it.

Most of the quotations in NT disprove it.

 

[kyredneck]

NOPE!

Luke 24:44 disproves it.

Most of the quotations in NT disprove it.

???

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

....and that disproves the prevalence of the LXX among Christ and the apostles how?

 

[Yeshua1]

NOPE!

Luke 24:44 disproves it.

Most of the quotations in NT disprove it.

had a text book from Dr Archer showing the OT and The LXX and NT Apostles use of their listed quotes...

Wish could still find that, as remembered the Apostles seemed to quote from the LXX quite a bit!

 

[Eliyahu]

???

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

....and that disproves the prevalence of the LXX among Christ and the apostles how?

The law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms

This means " Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim" This composition of Bible is neither found among Ben Asher Masoretic Texts nor among LXX.

Both are similar to the composition as the modern bible composition like Genesis, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Isaiah, Malachi

Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts have the structure of

Torah : Genesis - Deut
Neviim : Joshuah- Malachi
Ketuviim : Psalms, Ruth, Chronicles

Jesus mentioned the first Martyr Abel and the last Martyr Zechariah in Mt 23:35. Zechariah was the last Martyr in 2 Chron 24:21, because the 2 Chron was the last book of the Scripture at that time.


LUke 24:44 tells us that Jesus read the Bible in the same structure as Ben Chayyim Masora as mentioned above.

LXX cannot be the Scripture used by Jesus or His disciples.

The Disciples quotations are different from LXX as the following post.

I have compared both about 20 verses for myself, but none of them coincide each other between LXX and GNT.

 

[Eliyahu]

1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου, ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιυιον, καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

Behold a virgin shall be with a child and bring forth a son, and Thou Shall call His Name Emmanuel


ιδουηπαρθενος
ενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιυιονκαικαλεσειςτοονομα
αυτουΕμμανουηλ

Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
Thou (feminine You) shall call his name


Masoretic Text and LXX are the same, but NT is different from them.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)
LXX

Καλεσαι (call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX


3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα….. αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος (- )
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα (

Masoretic Text

He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer





(quoted from Blueletterbible.com)

LXX used the synonym, but different word.

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
(delight in, pleasure)

LXX

Εζητησας

(seek, pursue)

Masoretic Text

Chaphatsta

(pleased to do, delight in)

Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is

5) Matthew 2:6 – too much different, Hegemosin-Arxnota

6) Matthew 2:15
My son – His son
διοτινηπιοςΙσραηλκαιεγωηγαπησααυτονκαιεξΑιγυπτου
μετεκαλεσατατεκνααυτου

Greek NT : τον υιον μου.

7) Mt 2:18 – couldn’t be found in LXX
(maybe because Jeremiah of LXX is much shorter than MT as we find it in Dead Sea Scrolls)
φωνηενραμαηκουσθη, θρηνοςκαικλαυθμοςκαιοδυρμοςπολυς, ραχηλκλασουσατατεκνααυτης, καιουκηθελεπαρκληθηναι, οτιουκεισι

8) Mt 3:2 – Isaiah 40:3

A) Isaiah 40:3 LXX:
ΦωνηβοωντοςΤηερημωετοιμασαταικαιεσταιπανταΤασκολιαειςευθειανκαιητραχειαειςπεδια

B) NT in Greek ( Textus Receptus=Other Greek Texts, No variance)
Φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον Κυριου, ευθειας ποιετε τας τριβους αυτου

Too much different !

 

[Eliyahu]

The claim, that NT quoted LXX, is a non-sense created by the people who try to advocate the Apocrypha and paganism, the prayer to the dead. It is a Hoax.


Acts 15:16-17

LXX Αmos 9:11-12

Εν τη ημερα εκεινη αναστησω την σκνην Δαυιδ την πεπωκυιαν και ανοικοδομησς τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αωνος

Οπως εκζησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ αυτους λεγει κυριος ο θεος ο ποιων ταυτα

Greek NT

Acts 15:16-17


Μετα ταυτα αναστρεψω, και ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαβιδ την πεπτωκυιαν, και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω και ανορθωσω αυτην,

17 Οπως αν εκζητησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων τον Κυριον, Και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ ουτους, Λεγει Κυριος ο ποιων ταυτα παντα

 

[Eliyahu]

And it seems the NT writers weren't nearly as worried about "literal translation" as we are. In all they seem to pursue dynamic equivalence more than anything. And pretty loose dynamic equivalence at that.

I think so.

At that time the language environment was different from that of today, and it would have been very difficult to get a copy of the scripture at that time.

There were much fewer manipulation by human beings to modify the Words of God, and therefore the loose dynamic equivalence was not a big problem.

 

[Deacon]

The law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms

This means " Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim" This composition of Bible is neither found among Ben Asher Masoretic Texts nor among LXX.

Both are similar to the composition as the modern bible composition like Genesis, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Isaiah, Malachi

Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts have the structure of

Torah : Genesis - Deut
Neviim : Joshuah- Malachi
Ketuviim : Psalms, Ruth, Chronicles

Jesus mentioned the first Martyr Abel and the last Martyr Zechariah in Mt 23:35. Zechariah was the last Martyr in 2 Chron 24:21, because the 2 Chron was the last book of the Scripture at that time.


Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus read the Bible in the same structure as Ben Chayyim Masora as mentioned above.

LXX cannot be the Scripture used by Jesus or His disciples.

The Disciples quotations are different from LXX as the following post.

I have compared both about 20 verses for myself, but none of them coincide each other between LXX and GNT.

Interesting observation.

IMO though, the structure of ancient scripture as reported by Luke doesn't really "prove" anything about whether the scriptures used by the authors were Hebrew in origin.

I think the phrase in Luke is an anachronism.

Many Hebrew and Greek writings at that time were written on scrolls; the modern book form that we are so familiar with was still many long years away.
Writings on paprii would be quite limited in size and scope, not encompasing the entire bible.

The scrolls or paprii, whether written in Hebrew or Greek, would be stored in a particular order.

The order of the Septuagint that we have today was a later development.

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

The law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms

This means " Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim" This composition of Bible is neither found among Ben Asher Masoretic Texts nor among LXX.

Both are similar to the composition as the modern bible composition like Genesis, Ruth, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm, Isaiah, Malachi

Ben Chayyim Masoretic Texts have the structure of

Torah : Genesis - Deut
Neviim : Joshuah- Malachi
Ketuviim : Psalms, Ruth, Chronicles

As far as I can tell, all Masoretic Texts of the Jewish Scriptures have the T-N-K structure regardless whether they belong to the Ben Asher, Ben Chayyim, or Ben Naphtali tradition. For examples, Codex Cairensis (AD 895) was penned by Moses ben Asher in Tiberias (father of Aaron ben Asher) and it is considered to be the oldest extant Hebrew manuscript containing the complete text of the Nevi'im; the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008) believed to be the oldest complete manuscript of the OT in Hebrew was copied from manuscripts written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the Tanak order; the incomplete Aleppo Codex (AD 920) is thought to be the most authoritative Tanak and was verified, vocalized, and provided with Masoretic notes by Aaron ben Asher. So, please provide some credible support for your assertion that "this composition of Bible is neither found among Ben Asher."

Of course, the structure of various extant Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures (commonly referred to as LXX) generally follow a 'logical' arrangement (as found in most modern Bibles).

Jesus mentioned the first Martyr Abel and the last Martyr Zechariah in Mt 23:35. Zechariah was the last Martyr in 2 Chron 24:21, because the 2 Chron was the last book of the Scripture at that time.

Luke 24:44 tells us that Jesus read the Bible in the same structure as Ben Chayyim Masora as mentioned above.

Again, I don't think it is possible to make this claim. Jews of the early 1st Century (Jesus and His disciples included) would have read from individual scrolls. Most scrolls could only contain the text of one 'book', although sometimes shorter books were combined on the same scroll (such as a Book of Twelve = our 'Minor Prophets'). Scrolls can be freely pulled out of their container (jars for the DSS) in any order. An established 'table of contents' was not necessary until after the further development of the codex in the late 1st Century (primarily by Christians).

 

[Yeshua1]

So did the Apostles actual use and quote the Lxx for one of their primary OT sources?

 

[preachinjesus]

I'd challenge those asserting Hebraic primacy to consider the case made by Ellis in The Making of the New Testament Documents and the collected essays in the Canon Debate. Just a thought.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'd challenge those asserting Hebraic primacy to consider the case made by Ellis in The Making of the New Testament Documents and the collected essays in the Canon Debate. Just a thought.

I had a Dr Gleason Archer text book that referenced all Lxx quotes used by Apostles, and compared to the OT text for same quotations...

Did remember them being quite a few verses cited with Lxx quote by Apostles!

 

[Eliyahu]

Of course, the structure of various extant Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures (commonly referred to as LXX) generally follow a 'logical' arrangement (as found in most modern Bibles).
Again, I don't think it is possible to make this claim. Jews of the early 1st Century (Jesus and His disciples included) would have read from individual scrolls. Most scrolls could only contain the text of one 'book', although sometimes shorter books were combined on the same scroll (such as a Book of Twelve = our 'Minor Prophets'). Scrolls can be freely pulled out of their container (jars for the DSS) in any order. An established 'table of contents' was not necessary until after the further development of the codex in the late 1st Century (primarily by Christians).

I would cover the arguments about LXX and Ben Asher both by several posts.
A. Septuagint (LXX)
(1) As for Septuagint (LXX), I hope there will be little argument about the sequence since LXX was not bound in threefold bundles.
There may be some variety of the sequence of the book orders in LXX, but in general they are more less the same as follows:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/index.htm

This kind of construction is far away from what Jesus said in Luke 24:44

(2) Mt 23:35 tells us Jesus mentioned the first martyr and the last martyr in OT, saying from the Blood of Abel to the Blood of Zacharias Son of Barachias. ( also in Lk 11:51)
I have never met anyone who oppose that this Zacharias is Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 or,
suggest that this Zacharias is anyone else than Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22.
Then who is Barachias ? This could be the nickname or the posthumous name of Jehoiada meaning Blessed by LORD.

The reason why Jesus mentioned Zechariah was because he was the last martyr in the last book of the Scripture at that time.
There must have been martyrs mentioned in the Bible later than Zechariah as we read the followings:

1) Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD ( 2 Kings 21:16)



2) And also for the innocent blood that he(Jehoiakim) shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. ( 2 Kings 24:4)
3) Gedaliah could be considered as the latest martyr in the Bible ( Jeremiah 41:6-7)
However, Jesus didn’t mention them, but mentioned Zechariah.

The force of the statement by Jesus in Luke 11:51 and 23:35 was that from the beginning to the end in the Bible, the people killed the innocent.
Zechariah in 2 Chronicles according to LXX cannot show such emphasis as the Chronicles were not the last book according to LXX.
Therefore LXX couldn’t be the one by which Jesus was mentioning the martyrs.

(3) I already pointed out the discrepancies between the Septuagint and the GNT. If you still believe any verses of Greek NT are the same and quoted from LXX, please let me know. We can check and discuss. I stopped the comparison because any verses were different each other between LXX and GNT.

 

[Eliyahu]

B. Ben Asher

Years ago, I read some useful article at Library of University of Toronto, which stated the structure of Ben Asher was different from that of Ben Napthali Masorah and Ben Asher Masorahs were not uniformly bundled in threefold and they don’t have the Psalm as the first book of the Kethuviim. At that time I didn’t copy it thinking that such article could be found somewhere else. Now I don’t have the access to that Library.

However, the key points can be confirmed by the Bible and the Leningrad Codex without difficulty.

(1) The Leningrad Codexis thought to be one of the Ben Asher Masoretic texts and it has the following sequence of Kethuviim

Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehmiah

This order is different from that of Ben Chayyim, which
Has the followings:

Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.

We must note that Jesus mentioned “ ψαλμοις” ( Pslams) not Kethuviim or Writing or Αγιογραφα(Hagiographa.)
Jesus mentioned Psalms specifically. Why didn’t Jesus mention Kethuviim but Psalms instead?
Because Psalms were the heading of the Kethuviim!
Could Kethuviim be called “ Psalms” while Chronicles were the heading of the book? I do not think so!
Read Matthew 27:9 which mentions Jeremiah who prophesied 30 Pieces of Silver price. It was not Jeremiah but Zechariah who mentioned it in Zech 11:12. Because
Zechariah was in the same scroll of Jeremiah and Jeremiah was the heading of the same scroll there.
I have never read any article that state any of Ben Asher Masorahs had Psalms as the head book of the Kethuviim. I believe Ben Asher is not strict to T-N-K structure and its K was headed by Chronicles as a whole.
If Jesus mentioned the scriptures based on the Kethuviim which has the Chronicles as the head book of Kethuviim, He wouldn’t have called it Psalms.
(2) Mt 23:35, Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel and unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias

As I said in the previous post, this tells us that Jesus was mentioning the first martyr and the last martyr in the Scriptures.
Abel was in the first book of Bible, and Zecharias was in the last book of Bible.

If Chronicles were the first book of the Kethuviim, could Zechariah be the last martyr mentioned in the last book of the Scriptures?

The Force of “Last Martyr” was from the fact that Zechariah was described in the last book of the Bible. Otherwise, if there were no such force, Isaiah who was killed by Mnasseh or any other martyrs who were killed much later, even John the Baptist.
Apparently Jesus was mentioning the last Martyr in the last book of the Bible which was Chronicles.

Therefore we can conclude that Jesus was reading the Bible in the same sequence as the Ben Chayyim Masorah, even if we do not talk about the contents here.

(3) As for the Scrolls and Codices
OT was written in the form of Scrolls, and therefore the sequence could be like “ fluid”, while codices were bundled in the fixed form of T-N-K
However, when LXX was copied, would they copy at random in their own choices?
This is explained by the following articles.


These observations are confirmed by F.F. Bruce in his excellent book The Canon of Scripture , in which he noted that there were probably two canonical structures held amongst the Jews before the advent of Christ:
The order of books in copies of the Septuagint which have come down to us differs from the traditional order of the Hebrew Bible, and lies behind the conventional order of the Christian Old Testament. The law, comprising the five books of Moses, comes first in both traditions; it is followed by the historical books, poetical and wisdom books, and the books of the prophets. As with the Hebrew Bible, so with the Septuagint, the order of books is more fluid when they are copied on separate scrolls than when they are bound together in codices [see The Scroll versus the Codex]. But there is not reason to think that the Christian scribes who first copied the Septuagint into codices devised a new sequence for its contents; it is more likely that they took over the sequence along with the text itself. It has been held indeed that the Septuagint order represents an early Palestinian order of the books in the Hebrew Bible, contemporary with, and possibly even antedating, the Hebrew order which became traditional. The evidence is too scanty for any certainty to be attained on this matter.
http://biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp

In addition, I would point out Mt 27:9 which mentions Zechariah 11:12 as there were certain orders of the Bible books.
Apparently, the Codex existed around the time of Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus Himself mentioned the bundling of 3 books in the Scriptures.
Should we believe that the Scrolls were stacked random without order?
There was the order of the books of the Scriptures and therefore Jesus Himself mentioned T-N-K and the last book of the BIBLE in Lk 11:51 and Mt 23:35.

 

[Eliyahu]

(5) Possibility of Ben Asher in the same order as Ben Chayyim
I don’t rule out that possibility, but what I am saying is that Jesus read the Bible in the same order as Ben Chayyim’s. In that case the people who support Ben Asher should bring the evidence of such order, because Leningrad Codex shows different order.

We must remember that there might have existed the 2 divisions of the Bibles even at the time of Jesus Christ as we read the followings:
(i.e. Palestinian Order and Babylonian Order.)
F. W. Bush presented the general scholastic consensus as supporting the "two canon" theory in his review of the position of Ruth in the canon in his book Ruth and Estherin the Word Biblical Commentary (page 8):
The implications for our question are obvious. The testimony of the ancient authorities cited above demonstrates that both arrangements of the canon — that with Ruth among the Prophets after Judges and that with Ruth among the Writings immediately before Psalms — existed among the Jews of Palestine, dating at least earlier than the first two centuries a.d. (see Beckwith, Canon, 181–222). It is simply no longer possible to posit that Ruth was moved to the Prophets by hellenized Jews whose canon is reflected in the Septuagint. It can only be the case that these different arrangements of the Prophets and the Writings arose among different elements of the Jewish community and existed side by side at least until the time of Jerome, late fourth century A.D.. How the one arrangement later became exclusive to the rabbinic tradition as reflected in the Talmud and the other to the stream of tradition ultimately reflected in the Septuagint is simply unknown. Nor do we have any information to decide which of the two may be earlier or original.

(6) Ginsburg Analysis


Ginsburg (l.c. p. 7) has collected, in the following table, eight varying sequences of the Hagiographa:

Varying Sequences of the Hagiographa.​

I.​

II.​

III.​

IV.​

V.​

VI.​

VII.​

VIII.​

​

​

Two MSS. Paris and London​

Add. 15252​

'Adat Debarim and three MSS.​

Ar. Or. 16​

Or. 2626-28.​

Or. 2201​

Five early editions.​

1
Ruth
Ruth
Ruth
Chronicles
Chronicles
Chronicles
Psalms
Psalms
2
Psalms
Psalms
Psalms
Psalms
Ruth
Psalms
Job
Proverbs
3
Job
Job
Job
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Proverbs
Job
4
Proverbs
Proverbs
Proverbs
Proverbs
Job
Job
Ruth
Song of Sol.
5
Ecclesiastes
Song of Sol.
Song of Sol.
Ruth
Proverbs
Daniel
Song of Sol.
Ruth
6
Song of Sol.
Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiastes
Song of Sol.
Song of Sol.
Ruth
Ecclesiastes
Lamentations
7
Lamentations
Lamentations
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiastes
Song of Sol.
Lamentations
Ecclesiastes
8
Daniel
Esther
Daniel
Lamentations
Lamentations
Lamentations
Esther
Esther
9
Esther
Daniel
Esther
Esther
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Daniel
Daniel
10
Ezra-Neh.
Ezra-Neh.
Ezra-Neh.
Daniel
Daniel
Esther
Ezra-Neh.
Ezra-Neh.
11
Chronicles
Chronicles
Chronicles
Ezra-Neh.
Ezra-Neh.
Ezra-Neh.
Chronicles
Chronicles


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon
Apparently, there existed another order of the Hebrew bible books despite that Bible was in scrolls. Even if they were all in Scrolls, there must have existed the order of stacking the scrolls, or Index in the cabinet. Actually, many books were written in one Scroll as we see them at Messianic Jewish Congregations today.
Among Hebrew OT ( Masoretic Texts), apparently there existed the Bibles in another order, other than that of Ben Chayyim. They couldn’t be read by Jesus.
As to whether there existed any other Bible other than Ben Chayyim contents or not, I do not know but my claim is that Jesus read the Bible in the same order as the order of Ben Chayyim!

 

[Eliyahu]

(7) Ben Asher family
In addition to the Biblical Background, Ben Asher family were heavily involved in Karaite as you may know, while Ben Chayyim Masorah was compiled by Messianic Jews who accepted Lord Yeshuah as their Messiah.

From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most famous masorete (and, possibly, his family for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.
It should not be surprising to discover that many masoretes, so involved in the Masorah, held Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the Karaites who placed such absolute reliance on the Torah text. It would be natural that they would devote their lives to studying every aspect of it.
The surprising element was that being a Karaite didn't disqualify Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of Rabbinic Jews (like RaMBaM).
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/benAsher.html

Was Ben Asher a Karaite?

Most scholars conclude that Aaron ben Asher was indeed a Karaite Jew, though there is evidence against this view (see suggestions for further reading). One of the strongest pieces of evidence is that it would be astonishing if Maimonides had followed the authority of a Karaite, even in the matter of open and closed sections. Be that as it may, it is a fact that all Jews, including those who followed the rabbinic tradition, revered his expertise and accepted his masoretic system. If Aaron ben Asher was indeed a Karaite, it may be argued that he was the most influential Karaite in world history.
In his critiques of Karaites, Saadia Gaon mentioned a "Ben-Asher." Until recently, it never occurred to scholars to associate the "Ben-Asher" of Saadia's diatribe with the famous Aaron ben Asher of Tiberias. Recent research indicates, however, that it is probable that the subject of Saadia's attack was Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher.
Documents found in the Cairo Geniza also indicate that ben Asher was a Karaite.
http://www.bibliahebraica.com/the_texts/leningrad_codex.htm

Moses Ben Asher, Aaron Ben Asher were Karaites while Daniel Bomberg, Jacob Ben Chayyim, Ginsburg were the Messianic Jews.
This is important background to be considered about the editors.

(8) Why do the most of Hebrew OT have the same sequence as Ben Chayyim? Doesn’t it prove that even Ben Asher used the same sequence?

Question : For example, JPS use the BHS ( Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) which is based on Ben Asher, but the order is the same as that of Ben Chayyim.
Then didn’t even Ben Asher have the same order?
Answer: When Rudolph Kittel published the Hebrew OT in 1906-12, his work was based on Ben Chayyim masorah though he modified it a lot.
Therefore the origin of BHS used the same order of Ben Chayyim.
When Rudolph and his son Gerhardt Kittel moved from Ben Chayyim to Ben Asher, they used the same sequence of Ben Chayyim though the basis was changed.

 

[Eliyahu]

I tried to post the table of the Ginsburg analysis separately but it doesn't work.

So please check the following site:


©2002-2011, JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon