www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Yet another question about the LXX

Hello all, Slava Isusu Christu

If the septuagint is the greek translation of the OT, was it read in the Israel of Jesus' times? Or was Hebrew/aramaic still flourishing there? If not, does this mean our lord spoke Greek?

Thank you

-Justin

<<<

In first century Palestine (Judaea, Samaria and Galillee), Hebrew had long since ceased to be the vernacular, and its use was limited to liturgy and law. Most of the people spoke Aramaic, a Semitic language related to northern (Samarian) dialects of Hebrew, but not so closely related that one who spoke Aramaic would understand Judaean Hebrew (the language of the Hebrew scriptures). A substantial minority of the people were "Hellenists" who spoke Greek (koine, not Attic), and it can be assumed that many people were functionally bilingual in Aramaic and Greek. Only a relative handful of people would know any Latin.

The Scriptures used by the Jews in Palestine were not yet canonized, and different sects had different canons. For those who spoke Greek, the LXX was the most popular edition, but there were others that more closely followed the Masoretic. There were also Hebrew editions closer to the LXX than the modern Hebrew Bible. There were apparently several Aramaic variants in circulation, as well as numerous apocryphal works that are not in either the Masoretic or the LXX, but which were nonetheless considered to be divinely inspired by at least some people.

Since most people in Palestine went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice at the Temple only once or twice a year, most Scripture reading was heard in the synagogues. Depending upon the community, this might be a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek version. If it was anything other than Aramaic, then the process, as given in the Gospels, was for the reader to read the selection in the language on the scroll, then to offer a translation or paraphrase in the vernacular of the congregation, and then to offer a targum or exegesis of the passage.

The canonization of the Old Testament really did not begin until after the destruction of the Temple, at which time both the Christian and Jewish communities began to separate and to seek out a firm basis for their identities. Christians chose to rely on the LXX, because that was the version overwhelmingly used by the Apostles and Evangelists. Jews, for their part, began to reject all books not in Hewbrew or which had a strong Messianic or eschatological message. The process for them began at the Council of Jamna (AD 90), but it continued for two centuries, and the Hebrew Canon cannot be called closed until the end of the Second Century AD.

>If the septuagint is the greek translation of the OT, was it read in the Israel of Jesus' times? Or was Hebrew/aramaic still flourishing there? If not, does this mean our Lord spoke Greek?

The Hebrew text is lost, and the Masoretic text was not completed, as I understand it, until the 9th century or so, leaving the lxx in common use during the time of our Lord, and indeed, the large majority of quotes in the NT of the OT are lxx, not Hebrew, quotes.

Given His [temple] parentage, I would be surprised if our Lord did not speak Hebrew and Aramaic, and given the culture and future of Christianity, I would be equally surprised if He did not also speak Greek.

The value of my 2 cents here is debatable!

geo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by George Blaisdell:


>>>The Hebrew text is lost<<<

Not entirely true. We have today many Hebrew texts, some of them from the first and second centuries BC. What is remarkable is that there are so many different variations--some seem related to the LXX, others to the Masoretic, and some are just plain different. Some of these early Hebrew texts probably served as the basis for the Masoretic text, and a few seem to resolve lacunae in the Gospels (because the Evangelists knew those texts, which did not survive in circulation).

>>>and the Masoretic text was not completed, as I understand it, until the 9th century or so<<<

That is the date of the final redaction, but the Masoretic canon was largely complete by the end of the Second Century AD. As noted, there were a number of proto-Masoretic variants in circulation during the life of Jesus, along with the LXX, other Greek variants, and several Aramaean variants. It is anachronistic to speak of any canon of Scripture, Old Testament or New, before the Fourth Century or so.

>>>leaving the lxx in common use during the time of our Lord, and indeed, the large majority of quotes in the NT of the OT are lxx, not Hebrew, quotes.<<<

About 90% of the Scriptural references in the New Testament are quotes or paraphrases of the LXX, but it was not the only Greek edition, merely the most popular. It was certainly the most popular in the Diaspora, but as to whether it was the most popular in Palestine is another matter. I suspect that most synagogues there used an Aramaic text.

>>>Given His [temple] parentage, I would be surprised if our Lord did not speak Hebrew and Aramaic, and given the culture and future of Christianity, I would be equally surprised if He did not also speak Greek.<<<

It's implicit in the way Christ read the Scriptures in the synagogue. Also, certain passages in the Bible indicate that Jesus spoke Greek (probably koine); e.g., the "Render unto Caesar" aphorism works as a Greek pun; also the Syrian woman encountered by Jesus is said to be speaking Greek. Jesus also speaks to Pilate without a translator. A man like Pilate would be unlikely to learn Aramaic, but every cultured Roman could speak Greek. On the other hand, the Beatitudes can be back-translated into very passable Aramaic poetry.

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: StuartK ]