3 ways Jesus read the bible.

[Aractus]

I did find a rather interesting article here. I wanted to know you alls thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/...lp00000592

The Tanakh is 22 Hebrew(/Aramaic) scrolls, or 49 books. In addition to the Tanakh they had the Oral Torah and other Rabbinic Literature which today would be represented by the Talmud.

So the first argument is mostly wrong. Yes Jesus had extrabiblical texts he was taught, however no it was not "read with a creative flare". The reality is that the extrabiblical material was central to the understanding of the Tanakh, and in particular the Pentateuch.

The second argument is also wrong. Jesus didn't "pick and choose", he viewed the whole of the Tanakh as equal, this can be proved time again. He refers to it as "the Law and Prophets" for instance, which is a term referring to the whole of the Tanakh - if he didn't believe it was all valid he wouldn't have used the term. He also quotes from all three sections of the Tanakh (Law, Prophets and Psalms/Writings).

The final argument is at least partly true, however "his Bible"? Jesus may never have owned his own text, he studied from temple scrolls and probably rabbinic owned scrolls as well, but the idea that he had his own set of 22 Hebrew scrolls is unfounded.

Most of the early Christians from about c. 40-45 AD onward were in fact unable to read the Hebrew scriptures, and relied on the Greek translations available at the time that would later become the LXX. But then there are exceptions. And examples in the NT, so for instance it is quite apparent that Paul in fact quotes from the Greek texts more than he does from the Hebrew texts. Luke on the other hand does not. And contrary to early church history and to contemporary scholarship belief, "Luke" (the author of Luke-Acts) could not have been a gentile Christian as he displays far too much knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures by competently quoting directly from it rather than the LXX, generally. Although it should be noted that Paul clearly refers to Luke as a Jew in Colossians 4:14 meaning that it should come as no surprise that the church fathers in the 2nd century got that fact wrong and that Paul who actually knew Luke got it right.

---

---

I did find a rather interesting article here. I wanted to know you alls thoughts on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pete-enns/...lp00000592

1. Jesus didn't stick to what "the Bible says," but read it with a creative flare that had little if any connection to what the biblical writer actually meant to say.

Ah, no. This artical was written on the bias that Jesus was just some teacher/rabbi that christians took to. Remember Christians believe Jesus was literally God and as such had the authority to extend/complete the law/passages as He saw fit. 'Christians' do not have that authority, that is why we are told to not go beyond the authority of Scripture.

2. Jesus felt he could "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren't.

Again no. Jesus is God and has the Authority to reach far and beyond the understanding of any specific teacher. Including Moses. The Pharisees saw this and it severly angered them. Jesus teaching with the Authority of Moses is mentioned several times, throughout the gospels, and is looked on by the religious leaders unfavoriably, as it usurped their authority.

3. Jesus read his Bible as a Jew, not an evangelical (or even a Christian).

Ahhh ha, no. Jesus was only ever once recorded reading from the Holy Scripture. Everything else He refernces was from memory. Remember writing material was extremely rare and vauable, meaning everyone did not have a 'bible.' In Judaism only the levitical priests were authorized to possess them. Jesus was from the tribe of Juda and not Levi. Meaning even if he could afford to have a 'bible' (which is a 4th century construct) He would not be allowed to carry it.

further more When one was selected to read from the Holy Scripture as a Jew then, Great effort and care is taken to make sure every syllable is pronounced and enunciated correctly. They are even required to read with a special stick (Yad) and place it beneath each word so as to not carlessly handle or misspeak God's word, (and to keep the unclean from touching God's word.) This whole paragraph is bunk. No one including Christ when reading the scripture took liberties as a Jew.

---

Why am I not surprised that you can't give any details in your answer?

To this assertion; "Remember writing material was extremely rare and vauable, meaning everyone did not have a 'bible'"; of yours I say: WRONG! Writing material was common, literacy was not anywhere near as high as it is today, writing material was somewhat expensive - however that would not preclude ordinary literate people from making their own notes or their own copies of the scriptures. In fact, by the time of Jesus at least one near complete translation into Greek already existed, and in the 2nd century AD there were at least 5 different complete Greek translations of the Tanakh.

Jesus learned the scriptures, so it is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that he bothered to copy them in written form.

While it is true that it would take a lot of time and effort to create a complete copy of the Tanakh, it would certainly be possible and was likely more common to make copies of particular sections (eg the "book" or the "scroll" etc) if desired. Most people received the text verbally spoken by Rabbis, however they could read the scrolls if they wanted and whenever they wanted just like you can read from a pew Bible in your church.