Openai/691c9b69-7ff8-800f-acb2-b92dd965aeeb

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-1

User: Was the septuagint used more during the time of Jesus compared to the Hebrew

Was the septuagint used more during the time of Jesus compared to the Hebrew

Assistant: Short answer:

Short answer: Yes — in many places, especially Greek-speaking areas and even within parts of Judea, the Septuagint (LXX) was used more widely and was more accessible than the Hebrew Scriptures during the time of Jesus. But the Hebrew text was still the authoritative liturgical and scholarly text among the priests, scribes, and Pharisees.

Below is the full, historically accurate breakdown.

- Koine Greek — the dominant international language across the Eastern Roman Empire.

• Aramaic — the everyday spoken language of most Jews in Judea and Galilee.
• Hebrew — used mainly by priests, scholars, and for Scripture reading in synagogues, but not a widely spoken language among ordinary people.

Because Greek was so widespread, Greek translations of Scripture were extremely valuable — and that means:

From the 3rd–1st centuries BC, Jews living outside Judea — especially in Egypt (Alexandria), Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece — overwhelmingly used the Septuagint.

Historians estimate that:

• About 80–90% of Jews lived outside Judea by the 1st century.
• Almost all of them spoke Greek, not Hebrew.

For these Greek-speaking Jewish communities, the LXX wasn’t just an option — it was their Bible.

This means that during Jesus’ lifetime: 👉 Most Jews in the world used the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text.

Inside Judea/Israel:

• Synagogue readings were primarily done from Hebrew scrolls, because Hebrew remained the sacred liturgical language.
• However, explanations (targums) were given in Aramaic, so ordinary people could understand.
• Many Jews, especially urban populations (like in the Decapolis or Hellenized Galilee), were bilingual and also familiar with Greek.

This leads to an important nuance:

✔ Religious authorities used the Hebrew Scriptures. ✔ Everyday people often encountered the Scriptures through Aramaic paraphrase or Greek (LXX) in more urban areas.

Yes — heavily.

In the New Testament:

• About 80–90% of all Old Testament quotations match the Septuagint wording, not the Hebrew.
• Some NT arguments depend on the LXX’s phrasing where it differs from the Hebrew.

Examples:

• Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 in LXX (“a body you prepared for me”), not Hebrew (“ears you have opened”).
• Acts 15:17 follows the LXX version of Amos 9:12, not the Hebrew.

This shows: 👉 The early Christian movement relied primarily on the Greek Septuagint.

Because:

• Greek was the common language.
• Jewish diaspora communities used Greek Scripture exclusively.
• The early church was born in a Greek-speaking environment.
• The apostles quoted the OT in Greek.

So historically:

Yes, the Septuagint was used more widely than the Hebrew Scriptures during the time of Jesus by the majority of Jews worldwide (the Greek-speaking diaspora).

But inside Judea, the Hebrew text remained the religious standard — even though ordinary people often needed Aramaic or Greek to understand it.

If you’d like, I can also give you:

• a list of NT quotations that clearly follow the Septuagint
• a comparison chart of Hebrew vs. LXX differences
• a short explanation of why the LXX has extra books (Deuterocanon/Apocrypha)

Just tell me!

User: What's wrong with this?

What's wrong with this?

Assistant: Here’s a clear, point-by-point explanation of what’s inaccurate, misleading, or just flat-out wrong in that comment.

Here’s a clear, point-by-point explanation of what’s inaccurate, misleading, or just flat-out wrong in that comment. I’ll keep it factual and grounded in mainstream biblical scholarship (evangelical, Catholic, and secular).

There is no consensus that Mark “gets Judaism wrong.”

Scholars (even critical ones) note:

• Mark shows accurate knowledge of Galilean geography
• Mark correctly reflects Jewish purity laws
• Mark’s Aramaic phrases are authentic
• Mark’s descriptions of Pharisees/Sadducees are historically plausible

The old claim that Mark was “ignorant of Judaism” has been abandoned by most modern scholars.

Matthew sometimes uses the LXX, but not always.

Actually:

• Matthew uses Hebrew more often than Mark does
• He sometimes corrects Mark’s Greek by aligning it with Hebrew
• Matthew is the most “Jewish-textual” Gospel of the four

Calling Matthew a “diasporic Jew” based only on LXX usage is not supported by evidence.

Most Jews in the 1st century could not read Hebrew fluently, so using the Greek text is not a sign of diaspora origin.

This is the biggest error in the whole post.

Luke explicitly describes the atoning purpose of Jesus’ death:

Jesus’ death is described as God's saving plan.

Luke absolutely affirms atonement theology.

This claim is sometimes made in fringe scholarship, but it is not accepted by mainstream NT scholars.

This implies:

• they contradict each other significantly
• their disagreements show different theologies

Mainstream scholarship (and almost all Christian traditions) sees:

• harmonizable differences
• different emphases, not contradictions
• normal eyewitness-style variation

This point is overstated and oversimplified.

This argument misunderstands how ancient biography works:

• Authors often omit themselves (especially if humility is part of their theme)
• The fact that the “beloved disciple” appears unnamed actually strengthens the traditional authorship claim, because anonymity is consistent with authorship

Historical reasons many scholars (conservative & moderate) accept John son of Zebedee as the source:

• Early church fathers unanimously attribute the Gospel to him
• Internal features match someone from the inner circle (Peter/James/John)
• The Gospel shows extremely precise Jerusalem geography, matching a pre-70 eyewitness
• John’s fishing-related knowledge is highly specific

Claiming John “must not be the author because he isn’t named” is not a scholarly argument—it's Tumblr logic.

Even critical scholars who doubt Johannine authorship don’t use that reasoning.

This is based on a 20th-century scholarly theory, but it is:

• unproven
• increasingly questioned
• largely based on assumptions about literary style

Even secular scholars like Craig Keener, Bauckham, and others argue strongly for an eyewitness source behind John, even if a disciple/secretary helped shape the final text.

This claim should not be stated as fact.

This is academically improper.

The author:

• States hypotheses as facts
• Presents fringe views as mainstream
• Uses casual assumptions to “explain” complex authorship questions
• Misrepresents major theological positions

Biblical scholarship allows for mystery and nuance; this post does not.

User: What's wrong with this?

What's wrong with this?

Assistant: Here’s a systematic breakdown of what’s wrong, misleading, or just factually incorrect in that comment.

Here’s a systematic breakdown of what’s wrong, misleading, or just factually incorrect in that comment. I’ll go section by section so you can clearly see where the problems lie.

🔥 1. “Mark and Matthew seem to have been written by diasporic Jews…”

❌ Incorrect / oversimplified

• Matthew is traditionally attributed to a Judean/Jewish tax collector who lived in Galilee, not the diaspora.
• Mark’s background is debated, but most scholars think Mark was a Palestinian Jew, not a diaspora Jew. There is no scholarly consensus that either gospel was written by diaspora Jews.

❌ “Mark gets traditional Judaism wrong”

This claim usually comes from older scholarship that assumed Mark misunderstood Jewish customs. But modern scholarship has overturned this:

• Most alleged “errors” in Mark have been shown to match 1st-century Galilean or Judean Judaism.
• Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees is not “mistaken Judaism”—it’s a standard intra-Jewish debate style.

❌ “Matthew uses the Septuagint”

Matthew uses a mix of:

• Hebrew Masoretic traditions
• Septuagint
• His own interpretive renderings

He is not purely “LXX dependent.”

🔥 2. “Luke was written by a gentile”

❌ This is not certain

The idea that Luke was Gentile comes from:

• His polished Greek
• His interest in Gentiles
• His lack of Semitic background

But:

• Early church tradition does not firmly say Luke was a Gentile.
• Many scholars think he was a Hellenistic Jew, not a pagan convert.

We simply do not know.

🔥 3. “Luke doesn’t view Jesus’ death as atoning sacrifice”

❌ Completely false

Luke absolutely presents Jesus’ death as salvific and atoning:

• Luke 22:20 — “This cup… poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”
• Acts 20:28 — Jesus’ blood purchases the church.
• Acts 2:38; 3:19; 10:43 — forgiveness of sins through Jesus.

Luke emphasizes: ✔ forgiveness ✔ repentance ✔ substitutionary language

The idea that Luke rejects atonement is not supported by the text.

🔥 4. “Luke and Acts disagree with Matthew and Mark”

⚠️ Misleading

The gospels contain:

• Different emphases
• Different perspectives
• Different selections of events

But they are not contradictory in the sense implied. Variation is normal for ancient biography and shows independent witness, not contradiction.

🔥 5. “John was written a generation or two later by a community”

❌ One scholarly theory—NOT a fact

The “Johannine community” model is:

• A hypothesis from 1960s–1990s
• Now considered outdated by many modern scholars
• Increasingly rejected because the evidence does not require a fictional “community tradition”

Most contemporary scholarship leans back toward: ✔ authorship connected to the Apostle John or his direct circle ✔ not a slow community evolution

🔥 6. “Beloved disciple is John son of Zebedee because otherwise he’d be missing”

❌ Incorrect logic

The identity of the Beloved Disciple is debated, but this reasoning is flawed.

“John must be the beloved disciple because otherwise he’d be missing” is:

• An argument from silence
• Not supported by textual analysis
• Ignores the fact that other disciples also go unnamed (e.g., Nathanael, Thaddeus)

The gospel explicitly says the Beloved Disciple is:

• An eyewitness
• Known personally to the high priest (John 18:15)
• Present at the cross Those clues fit John son of Zebedee but the author never states it directly.

🔥 7. The whole tone is asserting uncertainty where scholarship actually knows more

Examples of false uncertainty:

• “We don’t know” (when we have strong attestations)
• Treating fringe theories as mainstream
• Confusing opinion with consensus

🔥 8. Miscellaneous errors

• Misspelling Judaism as “jewdaism”
• Misspelling Septuagint as “septuagant”
• Treating opinions as objective scholarly conclusions
• General lack of references to textual or historical evidence

✅ In summary, what’s wrong?

Almost everything:

❗ Historically inaccurate

Claims about Judaism, diaspora authors, and early Christian communities are wrong.

❗ Textually incorrect

Luke absolutely teaches atonement. Matthew is not purely LXX-based.

❗ Misrepresents scholarly consensus

The “Johannine community” and “Luke as non-atonement” are fringe views.

❗ Uses flawed logic

Especially regarding the Beloved Disciple and Mark “getting Judaism wrong.”

❗ Presents speculation as fact

Much is just personal opinion dressed as scholarship.

If you want, I can rewrite the post correctly, summarizing what mainstream scholarship actually says about each gospel:

• authorship
• audience
• sources
• theology
• linguistic background

Just tell me.