Featured was the Septuagint the "bible" of The Apostles?

As for Zechariah, one can argue why Zechariah was the son of Barachias while Chronicles tell us that he was a son of Jehoiada ( 2 Chron 24:20)

Jehoiada was a very unusual high priest and a great man of God and therefore he was buried in the kings cemetry ( 2 Chron 24:16).

His title or Posthumous title could have been " Blessed by LORD"
This could be confirmed by Hebrew Record " Seder Olam Rabbah"
I haven't read the contents of it as it is a huge volume, but apparently Apostle Matthew used this as the basis when he omitted 4 kings in the genealogy of Jesus in Mt 1. If Matthew included those omitted kings in the genealogy, Jews would have laughed.

Seder Olam Rabbah was a kind of Chronology based on the high priests record, not the kings record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_%27Olam_Rabbah

 

Interesting research Eliyahu,

I thought immediately that this was something I could check.
I pulled out my Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia and saw that Chronicles was at the end of the text.

BUT then I read the foreword.

Hummm... I learned something new.​

Few points in response:​

1) Where the Hebrew Scriptures are used in the New Testament they don't universally conform to either the Masoretic Text or to the Septuagint.

2) Study of the Dead Sea scrolls show that there was not a normative canon in Palestinian Judaism before or around the time Jesus lived. ​

3) It is presumptuous to assume the apostles used the same text that Jesus used. ​

4) I'm concerned that the love many have for Ben Chayyim's work is based upon its availability to the translators of the Authorized Version.​

Rob

 

Several possibilities :

- As there was a scarcity of the Bible at that time, the Bible writers didn't have the Bible but quoted the Bible from their memory by Loose Dynamic Equivalence.
This could be more plausible when we think that the perversion or distortion was not common or popular at that time before the completion of the Bible.

- Another possibility is that there might have been a preceding Hebrew Bible other than the current Masoretic Texts as Dr T Cassidy here suggested the Vorlage Bible.


- Today Messianic Jews have some abbreviated book for the worship service like liturgy or Catechism. Likewise, any simplified small booklet of the Bible may have been distributed for personal use.

In DSS, there are certain clear aspects in considering the value of the Bible and other documents. because the writers quote the Bible, though there can be minor difference from the current Canon as we see Jubilee, etc.​

In general the discrepancy between LXX and GNT and MT are more less the same for both Jesus saying and for the epistles.​

We lost the Hebrew Words spoken by Jesus in Acts 26:14, and the Hebrew Speech spoken by Paul in Jerusalem ( Ac 21:40, 22:2) Paul delivered the message in Hebrew, but all extant message is in Greek now.​

|I believe Paul spoke in Hebrew even at Sanhedrin ( Ac 23:1-)​

Many of the members here may misunderstand about me in terms of KJVO.​

I am not a KJVO. I keep a certain distance from KJVO's.​

What I hate is the dependence on the Vatican Text B, Sinaiticus Aleph, C, A p46 etc. Especially B is the problem.​

What I trust is TR and Ben Chayyim MT. But even in that case I don't rule out Aramaic and DSS, etc., because I believe God preserved His Words throughout every existing documents or material, and TR and Ben Chayyim MT are the best and main texts by which God preserved His Words.​

I knew certain problems with KJV and King James 1 himself as he persecuted many Baptists, was a freemson, reflected the clergy system, believed in Infant Baptism, Apocrypha, and had much more problems.​

Actually I agreed to Dr. Bob here when he said AV is rather Anglican Version.​

However, realistically, until the Lord comes, we cannot expect a better and more accurate translation based on the correct underlying texts gain the popularity as much as KJV has now.​

That's why I stay as a KJVP(preferred ) or KJVB ( the Best)​

We cannot and shouldn't be brainwashed by Idolatrous Catholic texts, and I believe TR-Ben Chayyim MT were trusted by Waldensian and Wiedertaufer(Anabaptist) and many sincere believers.​

So, we find here again Jesus used the Bible in the same sequence as Ben Chayyim MT, and I stay with it! Because we don't have many choices but LXX, Ben Asher MT, Ben Chayyim MT ( Aleppo or Samaritan Pentateuch cannot be the bases)​

 

I appreciate your attempt to support your assertions with sources; unfortunately, much of your effort missed my question and thus became completely uneccessary.

I made no argument for the LXX. I agreed with you from the start about the order of the books in the LXX.

I made no argument against the first and last murder victims as mentioned by Jesus was pointing to the complete canon of Scripture.

My only question was regarding the '3-fold structure'. Originally, you did not indicate that the book order must also be exactly the same as Ben Chayyim. I was merely pointing out that other traditions also followed the general Tanak divisions (including in many cases terminating with Chronicles).

 

You don't think so?

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35, KJV) ​

Among Jesus' woes toward the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees in this passage He specifies that the Jews themselves killed "prophets, and wise men, and scribes".

It seems that Chronicles is often placed at the beginning rather than at the end of the Kethuvi'im in Tiberian textual tradition, but has an event of "righteous blood shed" as specified by Christ been recorded in any of the above books after Chronicles? I cannot think of any historic narratives of Hebrew-on-Hebrew violence within the poetic books of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, or Lamentations. Can you? Is such an actual murder documented in either Esther, Daniel, Ezra, or Nehemiah?

 

It was not because of the violence specifically stated in detail in the Bible why Jesus mentioned the murder of Zechariah. Among the Jews it must have been well known that Isaiah was most cruelly killed by sawing.

The death of Gedaliah was described in detail in Jeremiah 41.

However, Jesus didn't mention any of them.

The emphasis in Mt 23:35 was in the fact that Abel was the first Martyr in the Bible and Zechariah was the last Martyr in the Bible.

Even if we still maintain T-N-K structure, Tiberian tradition was not to have Psalms as the head book of the Kethuviim, while Jesus called the Kethuviim as Psalms.

In other words, if we go into more details, Ben Asher texts is disqulified for the candidacy of the Bible which Jesus read, because Psalms were not the head book of Kethuviim and Chronicles were not the last book of the Bible.

I already mentioned the Headbook of the scrolls by illustrating Mt 27:9 where Zechariah was mentioned as Jeremiah ( see Zech 11:12)

Ther other arguments are not worthwhile to comment on.

Now I can leave this your discernment and judgment, and hope you will be found to have stood on the right track when you stand in the presence of the Lord.

 

Yes, Zechariah seems to be the final martyr recorded in the Tanakh even when Chronicles is placed before Psalms in the Kethuvi'im. Therefore, your claim that Jesus read the Bible in the same order as the order of Ben Chayyim is not proven by Matthew 23:35.

Not that this matters very much, since the Tiberian textual tradition didn't originate until hundreds of years after Jesus lifetime.

 

Zechariah was never "in the same scroll of Jeremiah". Jeremiah is 52 chapters long, probably already a very long hard-to-handle scroll. Zechariah could be written in the same scroll along with the other 11 'minor' (shorter books) prophets. Indeed, Zechariah was included in The Prophets of the 3-fold division of later Tanakh codices.

 

Then why Matthew wrote that Zechariah 11:12 was written in Jeremiah?

Jeremiah was the Headbook for the 12 minor prophets, and therefore Matthew stated Zechariah 1112 was written in Jeremiah.

Baraite reports that the Head Book of the scrolls were the longest book, which sounds a little funny, but it was true at that time.

I already told you, Jesus was mentioning about the whole Tanak from the beginning thru the end, and Chronicles were the last book.

You may believe what you want to believe, and I don't force you at all!!!!

 

You have the correct basic idea: Jeremiah may have been considered the identifying book of the Nebi'im collection. You just take the idea a bit too literally (because Jeremiah would actually be in a separate scroll from Zechariah) and advance it too far against all historical evidence (there almost certainly were no codex collections of the Hebrew Bible in the first one-third of the 1st Century in Palestine). Note that John was still writing about scrolls in Revelation (the last book of the NT to be written about 90 AD)

Codex collections of apostolic Greek writings did not arise until very late in the 1st Century and early 2nd. The Jews would likely resist the codex form for their Bible for at least three reasons: the traditional use of scrolls (still today); the shear size of the Hebrew Scriptures; and because of the association of the codex with Christianity. Some scholars think that the Jews may have begun utilizing the codex form about the 4th Century but possibly as late as the 8th.

According to this theory Psalms (the longest book in the Ketubim) would still be considered the 'headbook' even if it stood second in book sequence behind Chronicles (as Jeremiah does to Isaiah in the subdivision of Latter Prophets). My English copy of The Holy Scriptures (1917 JPS) has about 106 pages for Psalms and only about 78 pages total for both 1 & 2 Chronicles.

Yes, it could. Therefore, your claim that Jesus read the Bible in the same order as the order of Ben Chayyim is not proven by Luke 24:44.

 

You should pursue what was the truth in the past, rahter than insisting on what you wish to have. You cannot change what was done in the past already.

You cannot change what Jesus read at that time.

Do you believe Jesus called Ketuviim as Psalms while it was the second book of the scroll and the Chronicles were the Headbook?

Ancient people were not that much lazy as the modern people think. Codices were already popular in 1 century AD.

You can believe what you want, but that doesn't become the truth because you wish.


Now I would leave it to you.


Here is a correction. I correct the Baraite to Baba Bathra in the previous post.



- The Writings (Ketuvim) which are the 14th throuth 21st Books in the Tanakh can also be divided into 3 distinct sections, they can be listed in the following manner:
The Books of Truth (Sifrei Emet)
14) Psalms (תהלים/Tehillim)
15) Proverbs (משלי/Mishlei)
16) Job (איוב/Iyov)
The Five Scrolls (Megilot)
17) Song of Songs (שיר השירים/Shir Hashirim)
18) Ruth (רות/Rut)
19) Lamentations (איכה/Eikhah)
20) Ecclesiastes (קהלת/Kohelet)
21) Esther (אסתר/Esther)
The Rest of the Writings
22) Daniel (דניאל/Dani'el)
23) Ezra/Nehemiah (עזרא ונחמיה/Ezra v'Nechemia)
24) Chronicles I/II (דברי הימים/Divrei Hayamim)


Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first? Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation., (Baba Bathra 14b)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=155738101147924

 

For those interested, the Baba Bathra (also Bava Batra) is a Babylonian rabbinic tradition (Talmud) probably written in the mid-2nd Century AD (more than 100 years after Jesus' resurrection).

It is perhaps difficult to understand the significance of the partial quote above; it is actually an rationalization of the order of the books in The Prophets, indicating that Jeremiah immediately follows Kings (destruction/destruction) while Ezekiel precedes Isaiah (consolation/consolation). Here is the quote in the fuller context of Baba Bathra folio 14 (my emphasis) --

Our Rabbis taught- The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, 'God spake first to Hosea.' But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has explained that what It means is that he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period, namely: Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first? - Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first? - Since his book is so small, it might be lost if copied separately. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first? Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation., ​

 

If using the Baba Bathra as an authority, the very next paragraph of folio 14 states that the order of The Writings (aka Hagiographia) begins with Ruth, not Psalms --

The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles. Now on the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come first? We do not begin with a record of suffering. But Ruth also is a record of suffering? - It is a suffering with a sequel of happiness, as R. Johanan said: Why was her name called Ruth? - Because there issued from her David who replenished the Holy One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises. ​

 

Yes. Using Matthew 23:35 and Luke 24:44 as 'proof' texts Eliyahu made this claim in his Post #27 --

I have since shown evidence that these two verses do not neccessarily prove his assertion.

 

Did you see the same site refer to the following index for Ketuviim though they refer to Baba Bathra?

14) Psalms (תהלים/Tehillim)
15) Proverbs (משלי/Mishlei)
16) Job (איוב/Iyov)
17) Song of Songs (שיר השירים/Shir Hashirim)
18) Ruth (רות/Rut)
19) Lamentations (איכה/Eikhah)
20) Ecclesiastes (קהלת/Kohelet)
21) Esther (אסתר/Esther)
22) Daniel (דניאל/Dani'el)
23) Ezra/Nehemiah (עזרא ונחמיה/Ezra v'Nechemia)
24) Chronicles I/II (דברי הימים/Divrei Hayamim)

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=155738101147924​

​

​

I didn't touch the issue of Gerhardt Kittel who served for Adolf Hitler and was imprisoned by Nurenberg War Criminal Tribunal.​

What did BHS please Adolf Hitler for?​

 

And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44 KJV)​

When Jesus said "and in the Psalms" he may have been simply indicating Psalms alone, rather than all the books ultimately placed into The Writings. From my initial investigation it seems that Jesus only quoted from two books that ended up in the Writings (Kethuvi'im): Psalms and Daniel.

Question: Were there still prophecies to be found in The Writings (excluding Psalms and Daniel) that had not yet been fulfilled concerning Christ?

(Additional note: Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were never actually quoted by any of the New Testament writers.)

 

Yes, I saw what you copied the first time. Repeating yourself is not a legitimate response.

You just did "touch" it. But why bring this up? [rhetorical] It has nothing to do with the 'Bible' Jesus read.