Luke 4:16-21

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by HankD, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,154
    Likes Received:
    322
    This subject thread was closed before it could be thoroughly dealt with IMO.

    There is one important point that has not been made (as well as others).

    The passage:

    Luke 4:
    16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
    17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
    18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

    20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
    21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

    Here is the closest passage from “Esaias” (Isaiah) that is a match.

    KJV Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
    2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, ...

    Luke says “He stood up to read...”the book was delivered to Him” He found the place where it was written” Luke quotes the passage as you see it above. Isaiah 61:1-2 is only place where this passage exists that even remotely matches what Jesus read (or so says Luke).

    Nowhere does the Luke passage say that Jesus “preached”, it does however say that Jesus stood up “to read”.

    Verse 20 says that Jesus “closed the book and sat down”, then in verse 21 Jesus said (did not read) , “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears”

    Here is the important point I wanted to make: Here is the Septuagint version:

    LXX Isaiah 61:1
    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;
    2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, ...

    It is in closer agreement to what Jesus read than the KJV masoretic text.

    There are many other OT passage quotes in the NT which come from the Septuagint rather than the Masora.

    Certain KJVO leadership has gone on the record as proclaiming that the Septuagint is a fabrication. This of course is a smoke screen. What does it matter what name one gives it? It was a version which did not agree with the masoretic text and more importantly these OT quotes to not agree with the OT passages from very Bible out of which they are quoted, the KJV!

    Does God approve of the Septuagint (or whatever one wishes to call it) as a version, seeing He allows it to be quoted in the NT?

    HankD
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Good point. Lets keep this discussion on topic - Luke 4:16-21 - and not let it wander off into a KJVO debate.
     
  3. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can I respond here then, to the response I got when I posted on this passage?

    Of course. But Luke tells us specifically that Jesus was reading--not creating new scripture--and that the words on the page read exactly as Luke quotes them for us. Jesus held in his hands and read from a version different than the one we have. And he didn't correct it, even though it has a whole extra phrase. Why not? If there is only one right version, and Jesus approved of this one by reading from it and not mentioning that it was incorrect, why have we not corrected our OT texts?

    And what difference does that make in the interpretation of this passage?

    I have absolutely, positively, believe in God's preservation of His word.

    I believe that what we have--several faithful translations of different (but very similar) texts--is by his choice and by his hand--a hand that even sinful men and satan's corruption can't stay.

    Then you are disagreeing with what Luke tells us happened.
    Luke says that he read from the place where these word (quoted verbatim) were written. When Jesus begins to speak, Luke tells us, and according to Luke's account, he begins speaking after the words were read--words that Luke quotes verbatim for us. To try to twist the passage to make it say other than this is to disbelieve the plain teaching God's inspired word. It is making the clear teaching of God's word subordinate to one's preconcieved notion of how things ought to be.

    Except I don't think there's any mistake here. I think God has purposefully preserved his word in different versions. I think this passage teaches us that--as a side issue, perhaps, but its there nonetheless--along with the truth that Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophesy.

    Exactly. And he pointed it out using a "different version" of the scripture to show it.

    So, while pointing it out, he gave his approval to something other than the masatoric text of our Old Testament. By his actions, he told us something important about the version debate, too: that more than one version is perfectly acceptable.
     
  4. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Think this one through. Why would Jesus have to read Isaiah 61 from a scroll? I mean you all say scripture is preserved and inspired by God right? We all agree here right? Then why would Jesus need to read it. He already wrote it through inspiration! He requires no manuscript! The words he would read are his anyways. Saying that Jesus quoted Is 61 is not in scripture. Saying he taugh it is scriptural. Go back 3 verses to Luke 4:15. It states that at this point in scripture Jesus was teaching. Saying that this gives you authority to use multi-versions is absurd! I say it again, Jesus is the Authority over US and scripture! He can teach it any way he wants. Remember he was perfect, thus what he said was perfect. Not a scribal mistake.
     
  5. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely. I agree that he wouldn't have had to read. But I can't see that not having to read means that he didn't read.

    Do you disagree with Luke, then, on Christ's purpose for standing? Luke tells us that he "stood up for to read." Christ's purpose in standing, according to Luke, was to read. Did Christ intend to read, and not carry through on it?

    No, Luke doesn't say these were the words Jesus quoted. He doesn't even say these were the words Jesus said. What he does say is that these are the words that were written.

    Do you disagree with Luke when he says that those were the words written in the place Jesus turned to when he stood up for the purpose of reading?

    You got it. And one of the customary ways he had for teaching was going into the synagogue and standing up to read. Reading from the scripture--from the place where it was written--and then commenting on it was one of the ways he taught.

    When he was done reading, he sat down and after that he began saying.

    Really? I think not taking what Luke recorded for us at face value, because one doesn't like the implications of it is what is absurd.

    Absolutely. And that's why the fact that he stood up and read a version of scripture different from the one we have is something we shouldn't overlook. If the one who is both the authority over scripture and the authority over us didn't think the extra phrase included in the copy he read from was enough of an issue to even mention, why is anyone of us making a big deal over slight variations between our own different versions?

    Okay, if the way he said it when he read from the page where it was written in the way Luke recorded it was the absolutely perfect form (and the only perfect form) for the words, then why doesn't the KJV reflect those words in Isaiah?
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    mjwegs42:Think this one through. Why would Jesus have to read Isaiah 61 from a scroll?

    He didn't HAVE to read ANY Scripture. But Luke said He DID read it. Doesn't matter if He HAD to read it or not.


    I mean you all say scripture is preserved and inspired by God right? We all agree here right? Then why would Jesus need to read it.

    Again, He didn't HAVE to read it...but Luke said He DID read it. Now, isn't Luke's "Gospel" Scripture same as is Isaiah?


    He already wrote it through inspiration! He requires no manuscript! The words he would read are his anyways.

    I think His purpose in reading it aloud, verbatim, from the scroll He was given is because He was teaching a skeptical crowd who'd have gone ballistic had He recited any other form of the Scriptures other than that with which that audience was familiar...kinda like certain One-versionists of today.


    Saying that Jesus quoted Is 61 is not in scripture.

    Yes, it IS...unless you don't believe your version choice, the KJV. To-wit:

    Luke 4:16 "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
    17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

    Saying he taugh it is scriptural.

    Same as saying He READ it.


    Go back 3 verses to Luke 4:15. It states that at this point in scripture Jesus was teaching. Saying that this gives you authority to use multi-versions is absurd! I say it again, Jesus is the Authority over US and scripture! He can teach it any way he wants. Remember he was perfect, thus what he said was perfect. Not a scribal mistake.

    You've got a little prob. Luke said Jesus stood up to read...the Book of Isaiah was handed to Him...Jesus FOUND THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN...<the Scripture from Isaiah>...then Luke quotes Jesus as saying, "This day is THIS SCRIPTURE fulfilled..."

    Now, HOW would they have known WHAT Scripture was fulfilled if Jesus hadn't READ IT ALOUD? And HOW would that crowd have reacted...a crowd that thought Jesus was just another man...if He had changed just one little word from what was written in the synagogue's scroll?

    Nice try, but your explanation falls short. Sure, Jesus could've performed a great miracle for the crowd and then recited Scripture in any manner & they'd have believed him, but we all know He performed just enough miracles to establish that He was more than just another man, while choosing those who believed in Him by FAITH, by hearing about Him from someone who'd seen His miracles, or who had been healed by Him, such as those who saw the man born blind whom Jesus had given sight.

    Please read ALL of Luke 4 for the context and ask yourself if Jesus had changed one peep of the already-established Scripture as it was written in the copy handed to Him, if that crowd would've been happy.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I grew up Jewish. Each day there are different passages to be read in Torah, Haf-torah, prophets, etc.

    These are READ VERBATIM, exactly, every nuance. Then the shamash (think "deacon" in a synagogue that took care of the scrolls, etc) would put away the scroll and any male member of the synagogue could speak to that passage.

    In Nazareth, Jesus would have been a life-time member of the synagogue. I think it beautiful that He selected THAT day when THAT passage was the text to be read.

    The basic problem is that He read it in Hebrew in the synagogue. Then that Hebrew was translated into Greek by Luke (and from the Septuagint) so that a word-for-word translation is not possible.

    Another example of how difficult it is to translate one language into a receptor language.
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Maybe, and maybe not. Lucan Scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes that first century Palestinian Jews used Aramaic as the common Semitic language and it is believed by most that Jesus read from a targum (an Aramaic translation of Hebrew Scripture). Fragments of pre-Christian targums have been found in Qumran caves (4QtgJob, 4QtgLev, 11QtgJob), but none have been found of Isaiah. “However, the Isaiah Scroll A from Qumran Cave 1, which is complete and dated paleographically ca. 100 B.C., would be a good example of the sort of scroll that might have been used in a synagogue.”

    Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (Garden City, 1981), vol. 1, p.531.

    For a detailed discussion of the Greek text of this passage and the variants in it, and the problems and possible solutions, see the following:

    I. Howard Marshall’s commentary on Luke in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series, pp. 181-184, 1978.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Whatever language Jesus used when He read aloud in the synagogue was understood by the audience. Now, how Luke obtained his info isn't known, but I'd say he either was present or Jesus Himself told him.
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Luke is not mentioned in the Gospel accounts as a disciple, an eyewitness (or in this case, earwitness) of the events. This account may be from the Logia or the "Q" documents.

    Can't rule it out, though. Luke (unlike Timothy who later had problems) was Jewish with a Greek name.

    Or this text, along with many others in his Gospel account, may be pure revelation from God, word for word.
     
  11. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,

    Very interesting point about the language interpretation. Something I have heard, but as I don't speak any of the languages (like most every other person here). I did not want to take a false stance on the original autographs.

    Roby,

    You said I need to re-read the Chapter in question. I think you should take you own advice. You said:
    "Please read ALL of Luke 4 for the context and ask yourself if Jesus had changed one peep of the already-established Scripture as it was written in the copy handed to Him, if that crowd would've been happy."

    Check vs. 28-29, they were not happy with him, the "were filled with wrath" and wanted to hurt Jesus! You make a good point against yourself though. Maybe he didn't read it verbatim as you state and that is why they were filled with wrath!
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42 said "Maybe he didn't read it verbatim"

    He did. Verse 17 says that what Jesus read was "written". Verse 21 says that it was "scripture" (which is, by definition, written as opposed to spoken).

    The Jews were filled with wrath not because he misread the scriptures, but because of Jesus' comments afterwards, in verses 23-27.
     
  13. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    Again is says nowhere that Jesus read verbatim. In fact if you look it up, Jesus usually quoted scripture! I have posted this elsewhere. If you can't find the scripture on you own. I will be glad to give you references. So lets not dwell, we could argue this one all year. I see your point you see my point, we all see Dr. Bob's point. Which leaves us with one point. This proves neither MV or KJV. Which is why I don't bother to bring it! Why do you?
     
  14. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42 said "Again is says nowhere that Jesus read verbatim."

    Again, it says he read it, and that it was scripture. What is the definition of "scripture"? Scripture, by definition, is that which is written. If Jesus didn't read it verbatim, it would not be "scripture" for it would not have been written, but instead an spoken summary or paraphrase.

    Also note verse 17 says "where it was written". The KJV says the words were "written"!

    I believe the words were "written". I believe the words were "scripture". Do you?

    mjwegs42 said "This proves neither MV or KJV."

    I agree. It proves that the KJV's reading of Isaiah differs from Jesus' reading of Isaiah. It proves "KJV-Onlyism" false.
     
  15. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    natters,

    I you feel authoritative enough to tell us all what Jesus was doing here fine. That is part of your personal walk with the Lord. But as for me, I am not going to tell Jesus what he was or wasn't doing here. I am just going to see the prophecy fulfilled without any error to the prophecy. It is clear, pure, Holy and unchanged!
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Translation: I don't care what the evidence says, I don't care what Luke says, and I don't care what the Old Testament says! I am going to remain firm in my willful ignorance, and you can't make me move! [fingers in ears] La-la-la-la-la-la-la!!!

    mjwegs42, do you deny what Luke wrote? Do you call the testimony of the bible into doubt? Luke is very clear as to what was said and done. And you seem to be the only one who cannot fathom that Luke put down what transpired.

    Appartently not, since you reject what one of the gospels says about what Jesus said and did.

    Care to clarify?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  17. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42, this is not about telling Jesus what he was doing. This is about believing what the Bible says. The Bible says it was "written", and that it was "scripture". You can believe that, or you can't. It's that simple.
     
  18. mjwegs42

    mjwegs42
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trotter,

    You need to tread very lightly! You are on the border of saying Jesus made a mistake. If the original autographs were translated correctly, then you are saying Jesus was in error in this verse. So I challenge you! Please show me the the original autographs then translate to English. We'll see if you get the same results as the KJV. If you do, then indeed its not a translation error. It is an error by Jesus. Which he both know is impossilble. Jesus was perfect, and you don't have the original autographs. So you place for faith somewhere, I'll place it on God.
     
  19. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    mjwegs42,

    I am nowhere near any such thing. I mearly accept what it says without trying to add some spin.

    You challenge me to translate the original autographs? Hmm... You pull 'em out, and I'll learn every single nuance of Greek to do just that.

    Jesus took the scroll, and read it. He did not interpret it. He did not add to it. He did not detract from it. He simply read it. Luke informs us that it was the scroll of the synagogue, thus it was a copy of the Scriptures.

    So, tell us, mj, where am I accusing Jesus of making a mistake? In that saying He read from a different text than the one the KJV is translated from? God forbid!

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  20. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    He simply pointed out what the Bible says. Luke writes that Jesus stood up to read, found where it was written, quotes what was written, hands back the scroll, sits back down and then speaks to the people. Why do you try to add things to what Luke stated plainly and clearly?
     

Share This Page

Loading...