The Bible Jesus Read
Written Oct 26th, 2006 by Josh Rives | Email This
Have you ever wonder that if Jesus was here today, what translation of the Bible would He use? Would He use the ever popular NIV? Or maybe He would hold to extremely literal translations like the NASB? Maybe He might enjoy his slang and prefer looser translations like the Message or NLT? Or perhaps Jesus, being the Word and the Word being with God and the Word being God, He might just quote from memory the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic that He Himself inspired.
So while He was here what Bible did Jesus use? Some of Jesus’ Old Testament quotations seem to come from a Hebrew text like the aforementioned Masoretic Text and some of them seem to line up with an Aramaic text. But of the 250 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, the majority are from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The word Septuagint means “seventy” which allows us to abbreviate it as LXX. It got its name from a story, possibly legend, about the origins of this Greek translation.
A letter from a court official of King Ptolemy, supposedly from the 3rd century BC, speaks of the origins of LXX. Ptolemy was a big fan of literature and boasted the world’s largest library in Alexandria. He became interested in the Hebrew Bible, especially the Torah, and wanted it translated into the common language at the time, Greek. 
The High Priest of Jerusalem, Eleazar, sent him six elders from each of the tribes of Israel to translate. They confined themselves to the island of Pharos and 72 days later they emerged with a Greek translation of the Pentateuch. The name Septuagint was adopted at some point to acknowledge the 72 elders who translated it in 72 days.
While that story makes you feel all warm and cozy, the letter is suspect in its dating and authenticity. The LXX may have also been created to accommodate the popularity of the Greek language which was even spoken commonly in Jerusalem. It also was convenient for the large amount of Jews who, as a result of a new invention called roads, had moved far away from Jerusalem into primarily Greek-speaking areas.
It seems that the LXX was not intended to be the authoritative Scripture that was used by priests in the synagogue, but was meant for use by everyone else. Similar to most churches where the congregation uses the NIV at home, while the pastor may preach from another translation, if not the Greek. That is why the Apostles and Jesus chose the LXX. Christianity did not spread rapidly through the elite of society such as the Pharisees. It spread to common folk and especially Gentiles who where ignorant of the Hebrew language. The Jews however seem to have abandoned the use of the LXX in the 2nd century AD, probably because of the popular usage by Christianity (a competing religion) and because of the dispersion of the Jews after the Temple was destroyed. Many Jews after 70 AD didn’t stay in the unaccommodating Roman Empire and probably ended up in areas, like Persia, where Aramaic was more commonly spoken. The Christians however, continued to use the LXX through the 4th century. In the 4th century, Jerome translated the Bible into Latin and found the Hebrew to be more accurate. His Latin Vulgate took over predominance and is still important today in the Roman Catholic Church.
Jerome was correct in noticing the differences between Hebrew and the Septuagint. If the LXX was created in only 72 days, it might help explain the differences from the Masoretic Text, which is seen as the authority in Judaism today. The Septuagint grew to include several non-canonical books in addition to the books found in the Hebrew Bible. The LXX also has books in a different order and some books, such as Job, Joshua and Proverbs are shorter than the Hebrew Bible. The LXX also appears to lack a set translation style. In some areas it has a literal translation while in others a more free translation is apparent. Even with these faults, the LXX is still remarkably consistent with the Masoretic Text and most differences are due to translation style.
The greatest consequence of the LXX is that it bridged the gap between Hebrew believers and Gentile believers. Without it, the spread of Christianity may have been greatly hindered. It also offers an interesting application for us when debating between different translations. Jesus and the Apostles saw fit to base their teachings on what is today seen as only the second best in accuracy. While the LXX did not provide them the best verbatim translation, it was more culturally relevant. As a long-time proponent of literal translations, it makes me think differently of more culturally relevant translations.
References:
We don’t actually know for sure what Jesus used. We know that Matthew tended to translate Jesus’ scriptural quotations directly from the Hebrew, except when he used Mark as a source. Mark and Luke tended just to use the Septuagint for Jesus’ scripture quotations. I think John maybe also tended to do that, but I’m less sure of that. But which version the author of the gospel used when writing in Greek what Jesus had said says very little about what Jesus was doing. He probably spoke Aramaic, and he may have used the LXX primarily rather than the original Hebrew. Scholars are currently divided on the latter question. But what you say does clearly apply to the apostles, all of whom preferred the LXX when dealing with Greek-speakers (except Matthew, but his gospel may have been intended for use in Jerusalem).
Of course lets not forget the ever elusive “Q.” What if Matthew referenced that instead of Mark? What language do you write a theoretical document in?
Another thought is that since Jesus traveled and preached in different synagogues, he may have been handed their “in-house” copy in order to teach from. This more than likely would have been a Hebrew version, though probably not the Masoretic, since their text wasn’t popularized until later in the 1st century. Of course that does not mean that during his travels, Jesus didn’t keep a pocket Septuagint around. And then we also have the Targum (Aramaic Hebrew Bible Translation). There are a few who think that maybe he used that, though I believe that very few of the quotes line up closely.
You bring a good point that although it is highly likely that the NT authors used the Septuagint…it is less sure what version Christ used.
[...] for the Septuagint version, I would be careful following that version.The Septuagint was not meant to be a version for extreme accuracy, but was a version for the layperson to read. Most of our Old Testament English translations are [...]
Food for thought, the Septuagint was based on Hebrew manuscripts in use over 2000 yrs. ago. The Masoretic text was based on manuscripts in use at the time, 1000 yrs. ago and was written as a refutation of Christianity. One would think that those pre-christian manuscirpts would be more accurate.