Hebrew New Testament

Trevor & Julie Peterson 06peterson at cua.edu
Thu Aug 16 21:46:51 EDT 2001


Actually, it depends on what you mean by "tradition."  I have seen a fairly
elaborate argument articulated for something very close to this notion.  I'm
not saying I buy it, but it does show that at least someone holds such a
tradition.  There is an e-list that has no relationship to B-Greek or
B-Hebrew, called B-Aramaic.  It is hosted by SANJ, the Society for the
Advancement of Nazarene Judaism.  They have put out a "Hebraic Roots" NT--an
English translation taken (supposedly) from Aramaic and Hebrew versions
instead of Greek.  What that basically means is that they used an old Hebrew
manuscript of Matthew and a couple of Aramaic manuscripts of the same, but
resorted to the Syriac Peshitta for the rest of the NT.  An abbreviated form
of the same argument that was posted in a multi-part series on their list is
articulated on their Web site:  http://www.nazarene.net/hrv/index.htm

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:28 PM
> To: Biblical Greek
> Cc: Biblical Greek
> Subject: [b-greek] Re: Hebrew New Testament
>
[snipped]

> there is NO tradition about the whole NT
> originally being Hebrew. The person initiating the query with you was
> evidently poorly informed.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list