More correctly I should have said Tanakh. What book did Jesus open and quote from if there was no written Hebrew text?
Where you go wrong is thinking the Tanakh has no bearing on Christianity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is in the Apocrypha?
- Thread starter SearchingForGod
- Start date
More correctly I should have said Tanakh. What book did Jesus open and quote from if there was no written Hebrew text?
Where you go wrong is thinking the Tanakh has no bearing on Christianity.
If the Christians only chose to use the books the Jews used, there would be no NT. Protestant cock-up alert
The fact remains that the New Testament quotes the Septuagint, rather than any Hebrew rescensions of the Old Testament. The Apostles and the Church use the Septuagint, and Jesus also alludes to the Deuterocanonicals. They are referenced by several people throughout the Gospels, such as Gabriel and Mary. Look up Codex Sinaiticus, which uses the entirety of the Septuagint for its Old Testament.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
If the Christians only chose to use the books the Jews used, there would be no NT. Protestant cock-up alert
There is an NT so that aint gonna happen.
No they didn't, you're lying. Just plain old logic tells me that Jesus and the Apostles did not quote a book that did not yet exist. Jesus does not Allude to Deuterocanonicals. That book with a Latin name is probably made by the Roman Catholics. Whatever the Jews were using when Jesus was around is the book Jesus and the Apostles were quoting, they were using it to convince the Jews about Jesus. Give me some examples of anything Mary or Gabriel reference in the bible, not the Roman Catholic Sinaiticus either. What good would it do to try to convince them by some book they did not know or use?
So, back to the question, what book were the Jews using when Jesus was around, which they referred to as "The Law and the Prophets" that is the legitimate Old testament.
The Septuagint was translated for Greek-speaking Jews around 200 BC, dude.
Septuagint - Wikipedia
"Septuagint" is Greek, not Latin.
Yes, and if you were a Jew living outside of Palestine, that was the Septuagint.
Will do once I have access to a computer and not an almost-dead phone.
In Judaea, it was most likely a Hebrew text. Everywhere else, like Corinth, Ephesus, Rome and Thessaloniki, it was the Septuagint.
Yeah ok the Septuagint is one of many translations of the Jewish Tanakh. Jesus would have been quoting the Hebrew version, the actual Tanakh which is the source of the translation called the septuagint. The spring of water is cleanest at its source so the writings of the Hebrew Tanakh would Trump any later translations. You know the old cliche' "lost in translation", because things tend to get worse by translation. So you would refer to the Tanakh as the superior source. Is the Apocrypha in the tanakh?
While that may be the case, it's also a fact that the Apostles quoted the Septuagint when writing the books of the New Testament (which were in Greek).
And for quotes and references to the Deuterocanonicals which I promised, here you are:
Deuterocanonical References (?) in the Gospels
Did the New Testament Quote the Deuterocanon and Does it Even Matter?
SEPTUAGINT QUOTES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic
In addition, compare a verse from Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1:52...
“He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
With Sirach 10:14...
The Lord hath cast down the thrones of proud princes, and set up the meek in their stead.
Except that there were multiple Hebrew traditions of the Tanakh. The standard Jewish Tanakh is based off of one tradition, whereas the Septuagint is based off another. Even in Hebrew, the wording (and content) can differ significantly; parts of phrases appearing in the Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated are completely absent in the Masoretic text upon which the modern Jewish Tanakh is based. We see both of these traditions present in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for instance.
You can find just a few examples here: Septuagint - Wikipedia
Check here as well: Bible Beatdown! The Septuagint Text VS. The Masoretic Text · Preachers Institute
And here: The Role of the Septuagint in the Transmission of the Scriptures
And compare the Septuagint to the New Testament: Comparisons between the Bible and the Septuagint
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Hebrew-Bible-and-Greek-septuagint
Firstly, as I said, there were multiple Hebrew traditions for the texts of the Old Testament. You cannot speak of the Tanakh during the first century as being one unified source, because it wasn't. Secondly, this is a moot question for Christians, because the Jewish canon for the Tanakh was only decided after Christianity came into existence (and thus had the practical consideration of resisting Christian proselytizing efforts in addition to the primary concerns for purity and unity within the textual tradition of the Tanakh). Why would we use a canon for the Old Testament coming from the Jews after Christianity had already separated as a movement from Judaism, especially when these two movements were in conflict with one another?
The Septuagint is the Tanakh written in Greek. So what your saying is, If the Apostles were speaking Greek they were quoting the Septuagint but if they were speaking Hebrew they were quoting the Tanakh. This is just getting silly. I'll take my old testament info from the Jews, even the Greek speaking ones, but not the Catholics. Once you start quoting Catholic sources I know I'm in for a wild ride, I think I'll pass thanks.
The text itself obviously does but specifically Jewish canons and or translations of those texts do not.
That doesn't make sense. What you seem to be saying is if they translate the scriptures into another language they no longer apply to Christianity. I'm sure you don't mean that. You mean? If they add to or take away from the scriptures by any means, that part which they add or take away are no scriptures at all. It's the same in Christianity, which is why most Catholic canons don't apply to Christianity either, according to scripture.
No, I am saying that the rulings of Rabbinic Judaism concerning which books are and are not Scripture and which manuscript traditions are authoritative hold no weight for the Christian.
Last edited:
True that they have no weight or authority over Christians but their opinions and knowledge could be helpful.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In Judaism, they were not accepted as part of our canon because of their relatively late writings and the danger that the Hellenization of Israel could possibly taint the texts.
Catholicism couldn't decide whether to accept the texts or not, so they were just sort of put "on the shelf" until later.
The reality is there's nothing that goes against the Tanakh since it covers a different time period in Jewish history. Some have questioned the praying for the dead that shows up, but that was a common practice anyway, and it really isn't controversial if one thinks objectively about it.
Dantedeven
Member
What Apocrypha are you interested in ?