Michael the Archangel

[Gregory Matthews]

For some thought on this subject, see:

https://www.quora.com/Do-Seventh-Day-Adventists-teach-that-the-archangel-Michael-was-Jesus-in-the-primordial-existence/answer/Gregory-Matthews-13

[Kevin H]

Excellent!!! There have been others with the same view such as Charles Spurgeon. 

A book that helps explain this topic is "The God of Old" by James L. Kugel. 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg, 

Quote

This is a question that is problematic and confusing to many people.

Seventh-day Adventists believe as do most Christians that angels are created beings and therefore angels are not equal to God who is not a created being.

SDAs will agree with most people that the word “archangel” references a being who is in charge of the angels. That would be a common and reasonable understanding of the meaning of that word.

Many Christians have understood that leader of the angels to be a created angel. If this is true, then Michael, as a created being, would not be equal with God.

Trevor: I agree with the article up to here. (I am finding it hard to format this correctly and it refuses to allow me to edit properly. I hope you can distinguish between the two quoted portions and my comments.

 

 

Some early SDAs thought that Jesus as a member of the Trinity, one who was fully God and not created, was in charge of the angels. From this position, the thinking was that the word “archangel’ referred to the office of leadership over the angels and did not reference a created being, and angel, who was in charge of the angels.

 

I disagree with the above on a number of grounds. I do not accept the Trinity. I do not accept that Jesus pre-existed. I do not believe that Jesus was Michael the Archangel.

One proof of my position is what is stated about Michael in one of the few Bible references to Michael the Archangel: 

Jude 8–9 (KJV): 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. If Michael the Archangel here is Jesus, God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, he would not defer to "The Lord", that is Yahweh, God the Father, as he would have been in equal authority with Yahweh. Also I believe that Jude is quoting and alluding to Zechariah 3:2. In that vision I believe that Jesus is represented by Joshua the High Priest, not by Michael, the Archangel.

Kind regards Trevor

 

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings Greg, 

 

TreverL, Have you ever considered adding Daniel 9,25 as a reason Michael couldn't be Christ? 

According to Judaism, Orthodox Christianity and even Ellen White there were "Archangels" in addition to Michael so if Michael was a "Prince" among other "Princes" it defaults into him not being God on the account of other Princes. 

[Kevin H]

According to traditions there were archangels; but according to the Bible, there was only ONE Archangel. 

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, Kevin H said:

According to traditions there were archangels; but according to the Bible, there was only ONE Archangel. 

I'm sorry but that's not accurate. Michael was one among other Chief Princes. 

Raphael is mentioned in the Book of Tobit.

Additionally Ellen White (if SDA's really believe her to have been given special insight by God) claimed Lucifer was an Archangel as was Michael and a host other others. 

 

Ellen White, Seventh Day Adventist Signs of the Times Sept 14 1882
Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven.

Ellen White, in the Sabbath Herald Herald, Jan 14, 1909
We are to be partakers of knowledge. As I have seen pictures representing Satan coming to Christ in the wilderness of temptation in the form of a hideous monster, I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall, Satan was, next to Christ, the highest ANGEL in heaven

 

Ellen White
Listen to their voices as they sing loud hosannas and as they wave the palm branches of victory. Rich music fills heaven as their voices sing forth these words: "Worthy, worthy is the Lamb that was slain and rose again forevermore. Salvation unto our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." And the angelic host, angels and archangels, covering cherub and glorious seraph, echo back the refrain of that joyous, triumphant song saying, "Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever" (Rev. 7:12). {Mar 329.3}

 

There is also mentions of additional archangels in the Seventh Day Adventist "Bible Training School" material in the SDA archives. Supposedly, Ellen White used those Books found in Catholic BIbles that are missing in protestant ones for quite a bit of The Great Controversy - this may be where Ellen became convinced there was more than one archangel. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

Tobit is not a Biblical book. Mrs. White's writings are not Biblical books. They at best can be used for an application to make a point, but as Mrs. White says, her writings are not to be used for exegesis (in phrases such as "My writings are not to be used to answer questions such as 'what is the meaning of the daily'" refusing to answer questions addressed to her for matters of exegesis, or answering those questions with it being their job to study the Bible to learn the answers, it is not her job to answer those types of questions. 

I have not read Tobit to see how Tobit applies Raphael. It may or may not be a valid message, just in Mrs. White's quotes she is applying the term "archangel" as a way to emphasize correctly that Lucifer was the highest of all the [created] angels. That is the context of her quotes. We need to remember that we need to interpret what she says from her context, and even though she sometimes is surprising when compared to studying the exegesis; that she still does not want us using her for exegesis, but for application only.   Thus, when you go to the Bible alone, there is only ONE exegetical, Biblical, archangel, and that is Michael. 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Tobit is not a Biblical book. Mrs. White's writings are not Biblical books. They at best can be used for an application to make a point, but as Mrs. White says, her writings are not to be used for exegesis (in phrases such as "My writings are not to be used to answer questions such as 'what is the meaning of the daily'" refusing to answer questions addressed to her for matters of exegesis, or answering those questions with it being their job to study the Bible to learn the answers, it is not her job to answer those types of questions. 

I have not read Tobit to see how Tobit applies Raphael. It may or may not be a valid message, just in Mrs. White's quotes she is applying the term "archangel" as a way to emphasize correctly that Lucifer was the highest of all the [created] angels. That is the context of her quotes. We need to remember that we need to interpret what she says from her context, and even though she sometimes is surprising when compared to studying the exegesis; that she still does not want us using her for exegesis, but for application only.   Thus, when you go to the Bible alone, there is only ONE exegetical, Biblical, archangel, and that is Michael. 

 

Tobit is a Biblical Book according to 2/3 of Christianity - it was certainly part of the Jewish Scriptures according to Christ. I understand contemporary Adventist's and the vast majority of Protestant Christians would agree with you that it [Tobit] is "not a Biblical book" - but I find that irrelevant to the fact Jesus (and the Apostles) considered it part of Scripture. 

Ellen White affirmed it [Tobit & the rest of the Apocrypha] to be part of the Word of God - she was explicit in that. I'm under the assumption that when Ellen White said "I was shown" or "I saw" that those phrases were indicative of her exercising her prophetic gift? Is this not so? 

 

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

but I find that irrelevant to the fact Jesus (and the Apostles) considered it part of Scripture. 

Hi Gustave,

Upon what do you base this statement? 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, GHansen said:

Hi Gustave,

Upon what do you base this statement? 

The Jews during Jesus' time and prior understood them to be Scripture. 

There were very few people who could even speak Hebrew in the 2nd Temple period and even fewer that could read it - by the time of Christ Hebrew was essentially a "dead language". The Septuagint was in the language of the common person. 

Quote

The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) consists of a collection of writings dating from approximately the 13th - 3rd centuries BCE. These books were included in the Jewish canon by the Talmudic sages at Yavneh around the end of the first century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, there are many other Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period which were excluded from the Tanakh; these are known as the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha.

The Apocrypha (Greek, "hidden books") are Jewish books from that period not preserved in the Tanakh, but included in the Latin (Vulgate) and Greek (Septuagint) Old Testaments. The Apocrypha are still regarded as part of the canon of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and as such, their number is fixed.

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

I'm saying that the common Jews of Jesus' time (excepting Sadducees and some other abstract groups) were using the Septuagint and that the Septuagint included those books found in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles in their proper chronological order - I'm also saying that to a Jew living at the time of Christ they would have understood the books included in the Septuagint as "Scripture". I'm also saying that unless someone comes along and proves Matthew Korpman (Matthew J. Korpman (matthewjkorpman.com) is a fraud or has misrepresented Ellen White - that Korpman has proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellen White believed that the Apocrypha was part of the Bible and that removing the hidden book from the Bible was literally doing the work of Satan. 

[GHansen]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

There were very few people who could even speak Hebrew in the 2nd Temple period and even fewer that could read it

 Paul spoke both Hebrew and Greek. He spoke Hebrew to a large crowd gathered in the temple. When the people heard him speaking Hebrew, they paid closer attention to what he was saying. Hebrew was not dead to this large crowd of Asian Jews gathered in Jerusalem. While you say the LXX was in the language of the common person, the captain in Acts 22 was surprised that Paul, who he mistook for a rebel leader, could speak Greek.

 

 

[GHansen]

On 2/22/2023 at 2:48 PM, Gustave said:

that those phrases were indicative of her exercising her prophetic gift? Is this not so? 

 

Perhaps not. "I saw" could simply mean "I understood." EGW's writings mean different things to different people at different points in their religious experience. Nathan Pritikin, a Jew, considered EGW inspired but had no problem dismissing some things she said. He was mainly referring to her writings on health.

There are various references in the Bible to extra canonical sources. Paul's quote in the Mar's Hill sermon, his reference to Cretans, are examples. These comments from extra Scriptural authors, included in the Scripture, do not impart or imply inspiration. Please share with me actual quotes in the NT from any Apocryphal book. Obvious references to Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis and many others. Where is an Apocryphal book quoted?  

[Gustave]

On 2/22/2023 at 10:14 PM, GHansen said:

 Paul spoke both Hebrew and Greek. He spoke Hebrew to a large crowd gathered in the temple. When the people heard him speaking Hebrew, they paid closer attention to what he was saying. Hebrew was not dead to this large crowd of Asian Jews gathered in Jerusalem. While you say the LXX was in the language of the common person, the captain in Acts 22 was surprised that Paul, who he mistook for a rebel leader, could speak Greek.

 

 

Paul was a Pharisee, the Son of a Pharisee and as such would have been competent in Hebrew like a Sadducee would have been. 

The reason Claudius was surprised was because he thought Paul was a militant Jew who a garnered a large following of militant Jews (one would expect a militant Jew to speak only Hebrew). Looking more in depth at this story reveals that the mob or assembly of those pushing for Paul's death was made up of Pharisees and Sadducees -who definitely would have spoken Hebrew. 

Quote

Acts 23

But when Paul perceived that one part were Sad′ducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial.”  And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sad′ducees; and the assembly was divided.  For the Sad′ducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.  Then a great clamor arose; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” ¹ And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them and bring him into the barracks.

The Sadducees rejected the Resurrection of the body, denied the immortality of the soul and that there was such things as angels. Paul leveraged the Sadducees denial of those 3 things by the Sadducees and pit the Pharisees (of which he was) against the Sadducees. The Mob prosecuting Paul was definitely not the common Jewish man. 

 

 

[Gustave]

On 2/23/2023 at 1:57 AM, GHansen said:

Perhaps not. "I saw" could simply mean "I understood." EGW's writings mean different things to different people at different points in their religious experience. Nathan Pritikin, a Jew, considered EGW inspired but had no problem dismissing some things she said. He was mainly referring to her writings on health.

There are various references in the Bible to extra canonical sources. Paul's quote in the Mar's Hill sermon, his reference to Cretans, are examples. These comments from extra Scriptural authors, included in the Scripture, do not impart or imply inspiration. Please share with me actual quotes in the NT from any Apocryphal book. Obvious references to Psalms, Isaiah, Genesis and many others. Where is an Apocryphal book quoted?  

I suppose it could mean that (that she understood such and such) however when I did a search for "I SAW" it didn't seem to reflect that meaning, it seemed to be more in the capacity of the supernatural, like a seer or mystic - like information she has that was not gained by education or intelligence but instead came to her by supernatural means. 

But I grant you that it could be as you said - that she simply meant she understood from her own opinion about such and such. 

[8thdaypriest]

The name "Michael" means "like unto God."  What created "angel" would take that name?  None, I'm thinking. 

In many passages the "Angel of the LORD" speaks as Yehovah (as God).  

To Moses from the burning bush:

    Exodus  3:2-6 “And the Angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the burning bush:”(v.4).  “God [‘elohiym] called to him out of the midst of the bush,”(v.5). “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”(v.6). “I am the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God  of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” 

The Angel of the LORD spoke to Abraham as Yehovah.

To Abraham:

    Genesis 22:11  “But the Angel of the LORD [Yehovah] called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son your only son, from Me.’”

Wrestled with Jacob:

    Hosea 12:3  Writing of Jacob and the Angel, Hosea says of Jacob, “He struggled with God.”

    Hosea 12:4  “He [Jacob] had power over the Angel and prevailed.”

    Genesis 31:10-13  Jacob said, “The Angel of God spoke to me in a dream saying, ‘I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me.’”

Genesis 48:16  Jacob speaking: “the Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads:”

At the Exodus:

Judges 2:1-2 [The Lord spoke to Israel through Phinehas, the High Priest]  “And the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I swore unto Your fathers, and I said, I will never break My covenant with you.”  .” . . but you have not obeyed My voice” (v.2).

Isaiah 63:9  “In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence saved them.”

In the New Testament, the call of the Archangel raises the dead at the Glorious Return.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16  “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the Archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.  And the dead in Christ will rise first;” RSV

        John 5:25  Yeshua said, “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God.”  

Put these two verses together.  
The “voice is the Son of God” IS the “Archangel’s call.” 
He IS the Archangel - the Chief Messenger - the Commander of angels.  
Certainly no one thinks that a created angel can raise the dead.  

Yeshua was/is the Father's Chief Messenger.  Archangel just means Chief Messenger.

There's LOTS, LOTS, LOTS more.

I have absolutely no problem believing that Michael was the name of the Father's pre-incarnate Son.  

 

[Gustave]

8thdaypriest, 

 

"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". Matthew 1, 20

This would be very odd if THE ANGEL OF THE LORD was Christ and this was how Christ addressed Himself. Michael for sure isn't Christ. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I do not have any problem with those who say that SDAs are wrong in saying that Michael the archangel is Christ,  as long as they acknowledge that such a SDA statement is not saying that Christ was a created being.

 

[Gustave]

One of the Hebrew hotshots here can correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm by no means a Hebrew Scholar by any stretch of the word).

In Daniel 10, 13 the angel who was dispatched to help Daniel identified Michael as ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES [that's a plural]. 

In Greek arch means "CHIEF" so when Scripture says Michael the archangel [if the Book of Daniel is accurate] - Michael would be ONE OF other "CHIEF PRINCES" AKA archangels. 

In Daniel's account the angel who was sent to help him was "held up" or "thwarted" for a whopping 21 days by a demon ( or some sort of evil spirit) and it took Michael [ one of the Chief angels ] to come to his aid and hold off the demon while Daniel's angel made it to Daniel. This seems very clear to me that Michael is part of a class of Chief Angels. 

 

8thdaypriest brings up a common Arian argument as to the name meaning of Michael which is patently wrong. 

Michael means "WHO IS LIKE GOD?" It's a rhetorical question with the ONLY answer being NO ONE IS LIKE GOD. 

Definition of Hebrew Names: Michael | AHRC (ancient-hebrew.org)

The way Adventist groups (JW's, SDA's, Christadelphians and WWCOG) always define it always has it as a statement and affirmation that Michael IS LIKE GOD. 

Hebrews 1,5: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

This is a rhetorical question, and the answer is NO ANGEL. God never said this to ANY angel yet if we apply 8thdaypriest's interpretation - the answer to Hebrews 1, 5 the suddenly becomes MICHAEL. 

I can assure you that had a Jew living in Daniel's time said Michael was "LIKE GOD" Daniel would have been the 1st person to start stoning them. That definition of Michael is alien to Judaism / Hebrew. 

Does anyone know if the General Conference every repudiated their prior position of Christ being created (a creature) of God? 

[Dr. Shane]

On 3/2/2023 at 6:34 PM, Gustave said:

"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost". Matthew 1, 20

This would be very odd if THE ANGEL OF THE LORD was Christ and this was how Christ addressed Himself. Michael for sure isn't Christ. 

Interesting thought.  I definitely believe it was Christ in the burning bush speaking to Moses.  But am not so inclined to believe that it was Him speaking to Joseph.  I suspect the term "angel of the Lord" has more than one application.  However, I would not want to dismiss the possibility of that it could have been Christ speaking to Joseph.  I don't think we completely understand the inter-workings of the Holy Trinity.

Good discussion.

[Dr. Shane]

On 2/6/2023 at 7:43 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Some early SDAs thought that Jesus as a member of the Trinity, one who was fully God and not created, was in charge of the angels. From this position, the thinking was that the word “archangel’ referred to the office of leadership over the angels and did not reference a created being, and angel, who was in charge of the angels.

 

Pastor Matthews:

I completely agree with what you express.  Do you think it is possible that there are more than one archangel that are in leadership?  Much like military officers.  However, Jesus is the head of all of them.  He is the five-star general with all of the other archangels below Him.  He is part of the Holy Trinity.  Jesus is clearly equal to God (Philippians 2:6).  Daniel 10:13 calls Michael one of the chief princes.  Thus implying there is a group of them.  Daniel 12:1 calls Michael the great prince, which seems to indicate He is the leader of that elite group. 

It is an interesting topic.  I don't think it is a salvation issue at all.  A preacher referred to Jesus as Michael at our local church a few months ago.  Some recent converts that converted from being Baptist raised their eyebrows and asked questions after the sermon.  They didn't get that Bible study before getting baptized.  I had my Bible all marked out on the topic so during potluck I had the honor of walking them through all the texts in the Bible related to it to given them reason for our Hope.

[Gustave]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Shane said:

Interesting thought.  I definitely believe it was Christ in the burning bush speaking to Moses.  But am not so inclined to believe that it was Him speaking to Joseph.  I suspect the term "angel of the Lord" has more than one application.  However, I would not want to dismiss the possibility of that it could have been Christ speaking to Joseph.  I don't think we completely understand the inter-workings of the Holy Trinity.

Good discussion.

Prior to the Incarnation God the Son was inseparable from the Substance that is God, this inseparableness remained despite God the Son becoming man. 

What I'm seeing in Adventist theology is that the concept of God is that the Father is a self-contained hominid "Being" that possesses a Divine Nature and that the Son is another separate self-contained "Being" that possesses a Divine Nature which is identical to the Divine Nature the Father possesses. 

Ellen White was explicit:

Ellen White Desire of Ages page 49
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

Ellen White said the above in many different ways and many times articulating that IF Christ had sinned that PART OF GOD would have been eternally lost (become as if it [that part] had never existed. 

As God (the Divine Nature) is simple and cannot contain any parts it is impossible that "The angel of the Lord" could be in fact the Lord in Matthew 1, 20. 

As I've said in the past the theological affirmation that the Father, Son & Holy Spirit is ONE because the three are united in purpose isn't like the Mormon Godhead teaching - it is the Mormon teaching. 

 

 

[Kevin H]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:26 AM, Gustave said:

The Jews during Jesus' time and prior understood them to be Scripture. 

There were very few people who could even speak Hebrew in the 2nd Temple period and even fewer that could read it - by the time of Christ Hebrew was essentially a "dead language". The Septuagint was in the language of the common person. 

I'm saying that the common Jews of Jesus' time (excepting Sadducees and some other abstract groups) were using the Septuagint and that the Septuagint included those books found in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles in their proper chronological order - I'm also saying that to a Jew living at the time of Christ they would have understood the books included in the Septuagint as "Scripture". I'm also saying that unless someone comes along and proves Matthew Korpman (Matthew J. Korpman (matthewjkorpman.com) is a fraud or has misrepresented Ellen White - that Korpman has proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellen White believed that the Apocrypha was part of the Bible and that removing the hidden book from the Bible was literally doing the work of Satan. 

I'm sorry, but part of the above statement is very much out of date. Yes, it was believed that by Jesus' day that Hebrew was basically a dead language, and that Aramaic was the language of Jesus' day. However, the past few decades have proven this to be wrong. People in Jesus' day were fluent in both Aramaic AND Hebrew. 

There were three textual families of the Bible in Jesus' day, and while we have more complete copies of certain versions; there is evidence that there were other versions with in the textual family. The one family is called the Palestinian text, versions in Hebrew and Aramaic used in the land of the Bible in Jesus' day, and the Bible that Jesus used. Our most complete copy is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then there was the Egyptian family, used by Jews in Alexandra and much of the Roman Empire, the best known and most complete of this is the Septuagint. This was the Bible that Paul used along with the Palestinian text. Then there was the Babylonian Textual family, used by the Jews who lived in Babylon, and eventually evolved into the Masoretic text and our Bible. 

To make your claims, we need to first remove disproved theory that Hebrew was basically dead by Jesus' day, then look at the different textual families and their effect in the area where they were popular as well as their effect outside their areas. Thus a more complicated study than your suggestion. 

As I understand the ancient world; the Jewish leaders eventually choose as Canon the books that we see at Biblical, and that the books that made the apocrypha were seen as "good books" but not canonical. Granted, the apocrypha versions  of Ezra and Nemaha appear to be more accurate than the Canonical. You cannot pick a Bible from just one version of only one of the textual families and make it's influence universal.  

[Gustave]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:43 PM, Kevin H said:

I'm sorry, but part of the above statement is very much out of date. Yes, it was believed that by Jesus' day that Hebrew was basically a dead language, and that Aramaic was the language of Jesus' day. However, the past few decades have proven this to be wrong. People in Jesus' day were fluent in both Aramaic AND Hebrew. 

There were three textual families of the Bible in Jesus' day, and while we have more complete copies of certain versions; there is evidence that there were other versions with in the textual family. The one family is called the Palestinian text, versions in Hebrew and Aramaic used in the land of the Bible in Jesus' day, and the Bible that Jesus used. Our most complete copy is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then there was the Egyptian family, used by Jews in Alexandra and much of the Roman Empire, the best known and most complete of this is the Septuagint. This was the Bible that Paul used along with the Palestinian text. Then there was the Babylonian Textual family, used by the Jews who lived in Babylon, and eventually evolved into the Masoretic text and our Bible. 

To make your claims, we need to first remove disproved theory that Hebrew was basically dead by Jesus' day, then look at the different textual families and their effect in the area where they were popular as well as their effect outside their areas. Thus a more complicated study than your suggestion. 

As I understand the ancient world; the Jewish leaders eventually choose as Canon the books that we see at Biblical, and that the books that made the apocrypha were seen as "good books" but not canonical. Granted, the apocrypha versions  of Ezra and Nemaha appear to be more accurate than the Canonical. You cannot pick a Bible from just one version of only one of the textual families and make it's influence universal.  

regardless how it's attempted to be spun the Holy Spirit appears to have directed the authors of the New Testament to use the Greek version more often than not when they quote the Old Testament - it's not even close. What does that tell you? Additionally Christ quotes from the Greek Old Testament which would be odd given Jesus was Jewish as were His Apostles. 

Why did the Church translate the Scriptures into Latin? 

[Kevin H]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

regardless how it's attempted to be spun the Holy Spirit appears to have directed the authors of the New Testament to use the Greek version more often than not when they quote the Old Testament - it's not even close. What does that tell you? Additionally Christ quotes from the Greek Old Testament which would be odd given Jesus was Jewish as were His Apostles. 

Why did the Church translate the Scriptures into Latin? 

When scholars thought that Hebrew was basically a dead language in Jesus' day with them all speaking Aramaic, as they translated Jesus' words into Aramaic they got one conclusion. But when they discovered that  Hebrew was alive and well in Jesus' day, and translating back into Hebrew they discovered that Jesus quoted the Bible a lot more than we notice in the Greek and Aramaic. And Jesus was quoting what they find from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I forgot the text, but Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was a sermon on a passage in Isaiah, that we can find in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but which we don't recognize in the Egyptian nor Babylonian family of texts.   

[Gustave]

Have you reviewed the 300 plus times the new Testament quotes from the LXX? 

I have a copy of the Stone Edition Tanach which I will quote in a few cases below comparing it with the New Testament. 

Matthew 9, 13: But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

The Hebrew doesn't say this but the LXX does. 

Matthew 3,3:  For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The Hebrew doesn't say this but the LXX does.

Luke 3, 5-6 

And I could keep typing these out past the point that would be allowed to fit into the post. I would be interested to see where you are getting that Jesus and the Apostles were not quoting the vast majority of Old Testament Scriptures from the Septuagint?