Which Bible did the Apostles use?

[StAnselm]

This has been discussed before, but it came up again in the "Presumed oldest known church in Israel found" thread, and I thought it might be helpful to talk about it. Sometimes an argument raised in favour of the Septuagint Greek translation is that it's the version quoted in the New Testament.

But that in itself doesn't prove anything. The apostles were all Jews, and therefore must have learned the Hebrew Scriptures from their youth. Yet they were riting to a mixed audience, and so used the common, non-synagogue translation.

It seems to me that an analogous situation would be a preacher preparing his sermon from the Greek and Hebrew, but then quoting an English translation - you can't assume from this that the English translation is "the bible the preacher uses".

And there is sufficient evidence to prove that the NT writers were familiar with the Hebrew Bible. One example that occurred to me the other day was the relationship between Genesis 3:8 and Revelation 1:10. Both use the words "Spirit" "Lord", "voice" and "day". But the Septuagint doesn't have the word "Spirit", which makes me think that John had in mind the Hebrew text.

Admittedly, that's probably one of the weaker examples. But maybe someone else knows of another one.

 

[johnd]

Huh?

Pneuma is all through the LXX.

 

[justified]

It's not necessary to think that because they were Jews they necessarily new Hebrew. Not every diaspora Jew knew Hebrew. Moreover, it's also a mistake to presume that the LXX wasn't read in the synagogues. In fact, if you recall, that's precisely what the Targums were made for. And the LXX and Targums are both rather free renderings of the Hebrew in many places. Paul at times doesn't even follow the LXX when he quotes in his letters, but rather puts together and adapts a verse, whether from memory or for a purpose, I'm not sure.

And there is sufficient evidence to prove that the NT writers were familiar with the Hebrew Bible. One example that occurred to me the other day was the relationship between Genesis 3:8 and Revelation 1:10.

BTW, the Apocalypse, James and Jude are all extraordinarily Hebraic books, written by people who, in my opinion, didn't know Greek all that well. Especially in the Apocalypse, I read the Greek and have to back-read Hebrew into it to make much sense of it. Charles, its first major interpreter in the modern era, called it a thin veil of Greek over the Hebrew language.

 

[Andrea77]

To find out what Bible the Apostles used could we find this out by going to earliest English translation, although maybe not as the English translation came from the Latin Bibles right??

So what was before the Latin Bibles?

 

[depthdeception]

The KJV, of course!

 

[stray bullet]

This has been discussed before, but it came up again in the "Presumed oldest known church in Israel found" thread, and I thought it might be helpful to talk about it. Sometimes an argument raised in favour of the Septuagint Greek translation is that it's the version quoted in the New Testament.

But that in itself doesn't prove anything. The apostles were all Jews, and therefore must have learned the Hebrew Scriptures from their youth. Yet they were riting to a mixed audience, and so used the common, non-synagogue translation.

It seems to me that an analogous situation would be a preacher preparing his sermon from the Greek and Hebrew, but then quoting an English translation - you can't assume from this that the English translation is "the bible the preacher uses".

And there is sufficient evidence to prove that the NT writers were familiar with the Hebrew Bible. One example that occurred to me the other day was the relationship between Genesis 3:8 and Revelation 1:10. Both use the words "Spirit" "Lord", "voice" and "day". But the Septuagint doesn't have the word "Spirit", which makes me think that John had in mind the Hebrew text.

Admittedly, that's probably one of the weaker examples. But maybe someone else knows of another one.

The apostles were spirit-filled men who were used to bring new teaching into the world. In the NT, even when they were referring to the OT, it was from a different angle, a messianic perspective.
They knew their OT scripture, but I have doubts as to whether or not they walked around with an OT while they preached.
The Gospel was what was crucial, not the OT.

 

[joyfulthanks]

The KJV, of course!

*GraceMercyPeace being just plain silly* -

Verily hath the apostles of old, at various times and in diverse manners, placed their apostolic seal upon that most excellent rendering of Holy Scripture which hath lately been commissed by our most reverend and venerable king, James. Though these holy men did precede it in antiquity, yet, by an inexplicable mystery, these were also those selfsame scriptures which they, themselves did read.

Should we not then, also, strive to emulate the excellencies of their divine manner of speech and life, and henceforth read only that scripture which they themselves didst approve? Should we then not also strive to speak in the same manner as did they, employing that selfsame glorious tongue which these men, in their beneficent dignity, hath approved as that which is beneficial and wholesome for us, their unworthy descendents?

 

[depthdeception]

Verily hath the apostles of Christ from of old, at various times and in diverse manners, placed their apostolic seal upon that most excellent rendering of Holy Scripture which hath lately been commissed by our most reverend and venerable king, James. Though these holy men did precede it in antiquity, yet, by an inexplicable mystery, these were also those selfsame scriptures which they, themselves did read.

Should we not then, also, strive to emulate the excellencies of their divine manner of speech and life, and henceforth speak not unless we likewise employ that selfsame glorious tongue which these men, in their beneficent dignity, hath approved as that which is beneficial and wholesome for the church, the body of Christ?

I was being sarcastic.

 

[joyfulthanks]

I was being sarcastic.

I know. I never took it any other way, and I wasn't making fun of you at all. I was just being silly and adding on to what you were saying. I'm sorry if you thought that was directed at you - it wasn't at all.

Besides, I just like trying to emulate King James English. It's a challenge.

I added a disclaimer to the original message so no one would think I was being serious.

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[CaDan]

It's not necessary to think that because they were Jews they necessarily new Hebrew. Not every diaspora Jew knew Hebrew. Moreover, it's also a mistake to presume that the LXX wasn't read in the synagogues. In fact, if you recall, that's precisely what the Targums were made for. And the LXX and Targums are both rather free renderings of the Hebrew in many places. Paul at times doesn't even follow the LXX when he quotes in his letters, but rather puts together and adapts a verse, whether from memory or for a purpose, I'm not sure.


BTW, the Apocalypse, James and Jude are all extraordinarily Hebraic books, written by people who, in my opinion, didn't know Greek all that well. Especially in the Apocalypse, I read the Greek and have to back-read Hebrew into it to make much sense of it. Charles, its first major interpreter in the modern era, called it a thin veil of Greek over the Hebrew language.

Maybe Mark, too.

On a related tangent . . . . Has anyone seen The-Thadman around recently? He's probably the best proponent on CF for the "Original Aramaic" hypothesis.

 

[linssue55]

This has been discussed before, but it came up again in the "Presumed oldest known church in Israel found" thread, and I thought it might be helpful to talk about it. Sometimes an argument raised in favour of the Septuagint Greek translation is that it's the version quoted in the New Testament.

But that in itself doesn't prove anything. The apostles were all Jews, and therefore must have learned the Hebrew Scriptures from their youth. Yet they were riting to a mixed audience, and so used the common, non-synagogue translation.

It seems to me that an analogous situation would be a preacher preparing his sermon from the Greek and Hebrew, but then quoting an English translation - you can't assume from this that the English translation is "the bible the preacher uses".

And there is sufficient evidence to prove that the NT writers were familiar with the Hebrew Bible. One example that occurred to me the other day was the relationship between Genesis 3:8 and Revelation 1:10. Both use the words "Spirit" "Lord", "voice" and "day". But the Septuagint doesn't have the word "Spirit", which makes me think that John had in mind the Hebrew text.

Admittedly, that's probably one of the weaker examples. But maybe someone else knows of another one.

This may be a little off the track on your question..........But it tells you what the Lord gives US.....including our human spirit.

Stick to the word......and forget what men say.......

The 40 things we receive at Salvation.......

01. Immputed Righteousness..... Rom 4: 3-5
02. Justification.....Rom. 3: 24-30
03. Regeneration .....John 3: 1-12, Titus 3:5, Rom 8:16, 1 cor 2-14
04. Human Spirit.....Rom 8:16, 1 Cor 2:14
05. Imputed Everlasting Life.....John 5: 11-12
06. Baptism of the Holy Spirit.....Rom 8: 1-2, Rom 8: 38-39, 1 Cor 15:2, 1 Cor 12:13, John 5: 11-12
07. Propitiation.....Ex 25: 17-22, Heb 9:4, 1 John 2: 2
08. Reconcilliation.....Rom 5:10, 2 Cor 5:18-19
09. Redemtion.....1 peter 1: 18-19
10. Forgiveness.....Isaiah 43: 25, Isaiah 44:22, Eph 1: 7, Col 1: 14
11. Removal of Condemnation.....John 3:18, Rom 8: 1-3
12. Removal of Domination of the Old Sin Nature.....Rom 6:6-12
13. Removal of Satan's Power.....Col 1: 12-13, 1 John 5: 19, Eph 6:11-12, Eph 2: 1-2, Gal 1: 12-13
14. Freedom from the Penalty of the Mosaic Law.....Rom 3: 8, Rom 8:2, Gal 3: 10-13
15. Identification with Jesus Christ.....Rom 6: 3-12, Gal 2: 20,
16. Indwelling of God the Father.....John 14: 23, Eph 4:6, John 14: 23
17. Indwelling of Jesus Christ.....John 14: 20, Rom 8: 10, 2 Cor 5: 3, Col 1: 27
18. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.....1 Cor 6: 19-20, Math 3: 11, John 14: 7, Rom 5: 5, Rom 8:9, Gal 3:2
19. Sealing of your Salvation.....Eph 4: 30, Tim 2: 19, Eph 1: 13
20. Circumcision of the Soul.....1 Cor 7: 17-24, Jer 4: 4, Rom 2: 29, Deut 10: 16-17
21. Unseen Assets.....Eph 1: 2-6
22. Judgement of Sins.....1 Pet 2: 24, Rom 4: 251 John 1: 9
23. Royal Adoption.....Rom 8: 15, Rom 8: 23
24. Eternal Relationship to God.....Eph 2: 13, James 4: 8, Heb 10: 25
25. We are on the Rock Jesus Christ.....2 Cor 1: 21; 2, Cor 3: 11, Eph 2: 26. 26. We are a Gift to Christ.....John 17: 5, John 17: 11-12, John 17: 20, John 10: 29
27. Royal Priesthood.....Peter 2: 5, Peter 2: 9, Rev 1: 6
28. We are a Chosen Generation.....1 Peter 2: 9, Titus 2: 14
29. Access to God.....Eph 2: 18, Rom 5: 2, Heb 4: 14, Heb 10: 19-20
30. We are under God's Care.....Eph 2: 4, Eph 5: 2, 31.
31. We are His Inheritance.....Eph 1: 18
32. We Inherit Christ's Eternal Future.....1 Pet 1: 14, Eph 4: 14, Col 3: 24, Heb 9: 15
33. We have a Heavenly Partnership and Association.....Col 3: 4, 1 John 5: 11-12, Eph 2:6, 1 Cor 1: 9, 1 Cor 3: 9, 2 Cor 3: 3, 2 Cor 3: 6, 2 Cor 5: 20, @ cor 6: 4
34. We Become Heavenly Citizens.....Eph 2: 19, Phill 3: 20-21
35. We Become Members of the Royal Family of God....Eph 2: 19, Eph 3: 5, Gal 6: 10
36. We are the Light in the Lord.....Eph 5: 8, Thess 5: 4
37. We are United to the Trinity.....1 Cor 12: 13, John 15: 5, Eph 2: 19, Eph 2: 22, Eph 5: 25-27, 1 Peter 2: 5-9
38. We are Glorified.....Rom 8: 30
39. We are Complete in Him.....Col 2: 10
40. We Recieve a Guardian Angel.....Heb 1: 14

​

 

[johnd]

To find out what Bible the Apostles used could we find this out by going to earliest English translation, although maybe not as the English translation came from the Latin Bibles right??

So what was before the Latin Bibles?

The Torah / Penteteuch was written in ancient Hebrew. The Prophets and the Writings in a more contemporary Hebrew and a few Aramaic passages in Daniel. After the Exile in Babylon, the script of Hebrew underwent a revision to the block lettering used to this day. And the Jews spoke Aramaic far more than Hebrew. To keep the Tanakh (which was itself in a state of flux as far as actual canonization) in the language the people understood, the Septuagint was commissioned to translate the ancient Hebrew texts into the language of commerce (Alexander's Koine Greek).

The Apostles propbably learned a combination of both the Hebrew and the Greek versions with Paul more than likely into the Hebrew far more than the rest as he came up through the ranks of the Sanhedrin scholars (who dealt mostly in Hebrew).

The New Testament is best understood as being originally written in Greek by those with Hebrew mind sets.

In the centuries that followed these writings there developed "families" of manuscripts the Majority (Textus Receptus / Byzantine Text and Minority texts (Alexandrian: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

If memory serves, it was from the minority text that Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate. From the Majority text came the translations of the Wycliffe, Luthern, Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva Bibles and then the King James Bible.

The more modern translations (RSV/ NRSV, ASB / NASB, NIV) tend to be influenced more by the Minority Texts than the Majority. So I amalgamate them all together.

 

[cristoiglesia]

The Torah / Penteteuch was written in ancient Hebrew. The Prophets and the Writings in a more contemporary Hebrew and a few Aramaic passages in Daniel. After the Exile in Babylon, the script of Hebrew underwent a revision to the block lettering used to this day. And the Jews spoke Aramaic far more than Hebrew. To keep the Tanakh (which was itself in a state of flux as far as actual canonization) in the language the people understood, the Septuagint was commissioned to translate the ancient Hebrew texts into the language of commerce (Alexander's Koine Greek).

The Apostles propbably learned a combination of both the Hebrew and the Greek versions with Paul more than likely into the Hebrew far more than the rest as he came up through the ranks of the Sanhedrin scholars (who dealt mostly in Hebrew).

The New Testament is best understood as being originally written in Greek by those with Hebrew mind sets.

In the centuries that followed these writings there developed "families" of manuscripts the Majority (Textus Receptus / Byzantine Text and Minority texts (Alexandrian: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).

If memory serves, it was from the minority text that Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate. From the Majority text came the translations of the Wycliffe, Luthern, Tyndale, Coverdale and Geneva Bibles and then the King James Bible.

The more modern translations (RSV/ NRSV, ASB / NASB, NIV) tend to be influenced more by the Minority Texts than the Majority. So I amalgamate them all together.

I agree with most of your post except what you said about St. Paul. He definitely would have used the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew text. You failed in your supposition to consider that St, Paul was an Alexandrian Jew and also the fact that he was the apostle to the Gentiles where he taught among Greek speaking Jews in his missionary work where the Septuagint would have been used.
In Christ
Fr. Joseph

 

[PaladinValer]

To find out what Bible the Apostles used could we find this out by going to earliest English translation, although maybe not as the English translation came from the Latin Bibles right??

You...must...be...joking...

So what was before the Latin Bibles?

The Septuagint, which is the very first full Bible.

The "minority texts" more accurately follow the Septuagint.

 

[justified]

The Septuagint, which is the very first full Bible.

The "minority texts" more accurately follow the Septuagint.

you...must...be...joking....

 

[PaladinValer]

Nope; I'm not.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are in greater agreement with the Septuagint and with the "minority texts."

 

[JimfromOhio]

There were'nt any Bibles back then. The Apostles had Christ , the Old Testament scriptures and the Holy Spirit after Christ left. The New Testament were not written until later.

 

[PaladinValer]

Early Church Septuagints included the NT however.

However, it is true that a consensus on the Canon didn't occur until the 390's ce.

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

The Apostles taught from the "Living Bible", but let me explain:

We are each walking Epistles, perhaps the ONLY Bible that unbelievers might have acquaintance with. Jesus, the Word, is the ONE from whom the Apostles taught and preached. Ergo, they taught from the "Living Bible".

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[justified]

1) The LXX is just the first testament, not the entire bible.

2) Give me some evidence.