What Bible did Jesus Read from?

[Free]

You and Free are simply wrong.

Two sources do not an argument make.

Yes, they do. It is a valid appeal to authority. Now, you find me a more authoritative standard source.

But the sting goes to mondar, for assuming every one else fails to study matters which they discuss. I can quote authoritative sources for the claims I make.

Thanks,
Eric

I didn't say that your appeal to authority wasn't valid. The problem is that you use two sources and act as if that's the end of the matter, which it isn't.

Could it be that Jesus was referring to books (or scrolls, parchment, etc.) that were not published in the Bible? Many people know that there were other writings from that time and before. If not, why not?

In the passage that I gave, it states that Jesus was given "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah." Although it is possible that Jesus could have referred to other books, as a Jew there is no reason to believe that he adhered to, and taught from, the Tanakh.

 

[RND]

In the passage that I gave, it states that Jesus was given "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah." Although it is possible that Jesus could have referred to other books, as a Jew there is no reason to believe that he adhered to, and taught from, the Tanakh.

:o

Isaiah is part of the Tanakh.

The Tanakh is made up of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim. In fact, that's where the name Tanakh is derived.

 

[RND]

In the passage that I gave, it states that Jesus was given "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah." Although it is possible that Jesus could have referred to other books, as a Jew there is no reason to believe that he adhered to, and taught from, the Tanakh.

Jesus quoted from most of the Tanakh.

Jesus’ Bible

 

[wavy]

I didn't say that your appeal to authority wasn't valid. The problem is that you use two sources and act as if that's the end of the matter, which it isn't.

It's the end of the matter for you until you supply a superior source addressing the issues in the aforementioned books so as to overturn their judgments.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

In the passage that I gave, it states that Jesus was given "the scroll of the prophet Isaiah." Although it is possible that Jesus could have referred to other books, as a Jew there is no reason to believe that he adhered to, and taught from, the Tanakh.

Jesus quoted from most of the Tanakh.

Jesus’ Bible

Well, that comprises the old testament as we know it today; from what I understand, the old testament was not comprised solely of these books until well into the a.d. period after Jerome's translations...that puzzles me.

 

[Free]

I didn't say that your appeal to authority wasn't valid. The problem is that you use two sources and act as if that's the end of the matter, which it isn't.

It's the end of the matter for you until you supply a superior source addressing the issues in the aforementioned books so as to overturn their judgments.


Thanks,
Eric

lol. I used to think like you--that one or two sources was the end-all-be-all support to prove my arguments right. Then I started to study....The whole point is moot anyway as far as this topic is concerned.

Well, that comprises the old testament as we know it today; from what I understand, the old testament was not comprised solely of these books until well into the b.c. period after Jerome's translations...that puzzles me.

If I remember correctly, Jerome omitted certain OT books in his version (~ 384 AD) that were found in the Septuagint precisely because they were not accepted by the Jews and not a part of the Tanakh.

 

[RND]

If I remember correctly, Jerome omitted certain OT books in his version (~ 384 AD) that were found in the Septuagint precisely because they were not accepted by the Jews and not a part of the Tanakh.

That would be the Apocrypha Free. Jerome rejected it. Apocrypha

http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia - see pages 3059-3061

 

[mechanicdb]

jerome translated Judith, which is part of the apocrypha.

 

[RND]

jerome translated Judith, which is part of the apocrypha.

That doesn't mean he thought either Judith or Tobit were canonical books. He didn't. Jerome was wise enough to see them as simple wife's tales.

 

[Free]

If I remember correctly, Jerome omitted certain OT books in his version (~ 384 AD) that were found in the Septuagint precisely because they were not accepted by the Jews and not a part of the Tanakh.

That would be the Apocrypha Free. Jerome rejected it. Apocrypha

http://www.christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia - see pages 3059-3061

Yes, I know.

jerome translated Judith, which is part of the apocrypha.

RND is correct in that Jerome rejected it.

 

[wavy]

lol. I used to think like you

Then what disastrous event occurred in your life? :D

--that one or two sources was the end-all-be-all support to prove my arguments right. Then I started to study....The whole point is moot anyway as far as this topic is concerned

.

Apparently you haven't studied if you cannot offer any authoritative evidence for the claims you have made (and especially if you didn't know what the Tanach was).

But like I said, that post was for mondar. Not everyone makes assertions they cannot possibly hope to support.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

I agree with Free here. I have no scholars to quote (but neither does anyone else here). However, I remember reading someone talking about the Jews of Jesus era having fairly close to universal literacy with their synagogue schools.

See red above. You shouldn't be so quick to judge others on your own lack of knowledge.

One of the most definitive studies on ancient literacy is W. Harris, Ancient Literacy, Harvard, 1989, who estimates the literacy rate among the population throughout the empire during the time in question at about 10-15% (i.e., 85-90% of people were illiterate).

That's just in general. On Jewish literacy, the important study is C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Tubingen, 2001, who concludes that 'the average Jewish literacy rate (of whatever degree) must be considered to have been lower than the average Roman rate', p. 496.

You and Free are simply wrong.


Thanks,
Eric

OK, I will retract my statement concerning near universal literacy rates among ancient Jews. On the other hand, Free made no such assertion so I dont see how you can say he was wrong. His point concerned the literacy of Jesus. I see no need for any retraction concerning the assertion of the literacy of Jesus.

So why the drama?

 

[wavy]

Mondar,

That is highly unlikely, not only because of the passage below, but because many/most Jewish boys learned the Tanakh. Learning the Jewish Scriptures was central.

I agree with Free here. I have no scholars to quote (but neither does anyone else here). However, I remember reading someone talking about the Jews of Jesus era having fairly close to universal literacy with their synagogue schools.

^^^You said you agreed with Free, and Free appeared to be saying that most Jewish boys learned to read and write by learning the Tanach. In fact, Free is still trying to contend with me on the point (without any backing).

No drama. Just business.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Paidion]

If I remember correctly, Jerome omitted certain OT books in his version (~ 384 AD) that were found in the Septuagint precisely because they were not accepted by the Jews and not a part of the Tanakh.

It is interesting that the exclusiveness and finality of the canon is closely connected with Athanasius of the fourth century. Yet Athanasius included Baruch in his canonical list.

 

[Free]

lol. I used to think like you

Then what disastrous event occurred in your life? :D

lol!

--that one or two sources was the end-all-be-all support to prove my arguments right. Then I started to study....The whole point is moot anyway as far as this topic is concerned

.
Apparently you haven't studied if you cannot offer any authoritative evidence for the claims you have made (and especially if you didn't know what the Tanach was).

But like I said, that post was for mondar. Not everyone makes assertions they cannot possibly hope to support.

I made a claim that I should have left as opinion until I did more study on the matter. However, something rang a bell which is why I stated what I did. I feel quite certain that it could be supported but I don't have the time for study. But I do retain the right to be wrong.

And no, I don't know what the Tanach is, but I do know what the Tanakh is. :D

I will let mondar speak for himself.

 

[RND]

And no, I don't know what the Tanach is, but I do know what the Tanakh is. :D

Then you know Free either spelling would be correct in that one is closer to the actual pronunciation!? BTW, you are OK with the book of Isaiah being part of the Tanakh, right?

 

[allanpopa]

Jesus was a poor peasant "tekton" from Nazareth. In all probability he could not read.

The Scriptures which the NT authors used though was the Septuagint (LXX) which contained a much more expanded canon than the contemporary Protestant "Old" Testament.

Allan

 

[turnorburn]

He looked in the mirror.

 

[RND]

Jesus was a poor peasant "tekton" from Nazareth. In all probability he could not read.

Luke 4:16 And he (Jesus) 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. (Maybe He was just looking at the pictures!)

Luke 4:17 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,

 

[Cornelius]

Obviously , what we know as the Old Testament today, was read and then God added to His Word (as He has been doing since Genesis) through what we today know as the New Testament. These letters (at first) were the "e-mails" of that day and went around amongst the believers of the day.

Here Paul gives the key that these letters and the gospels are indeed also the Word of God:

1Th 2:13 And for this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message,even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe.

Then , when God finished writing the Bible, He stopped and the Word was completed.

Rev 22:18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.


....................

Obviously many people did not read in the time of Jesus, but the Bible tells us that Jesus did read:

Luk 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.

......................

Lastly here is scientific proof that God alone wrote the whole Bible:

http://www.rangeguide.net/ivanpanin.htm

and here is a link to the actual Greek version , with some research notes in English

http://www.scribd.com/doc/644433/Ivan-Panin-The-New-Testament-in-the-Original-Greek-


There is no question that this is a supernatural Book. 100% scientific proof.