[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew

VC vadim_lv at center-tv.net
Wed Jun 9 00:13:03 EDT 2004

This was discussed millions of times. Even if any Jesus existed, he did not
start a sect. His teaching in the gospels is fully within the Torah. Paul
was a proselyte at the max, and started Christianity by involving gentiles.
By the same token, you cannot call, say, pupils of Gamliel I members of
Gamliel' sect.

>quoted from the version of the Scriptures their audience was used to<
Sure not. They twisted to suit their needs

>there is evidence that Hebrew manuscripts were not as uniform as they are
Yeah? And what is it? Deviations of the Qumran scrolls, which belong to the
fringe sectarians, are minuscule.

Vadim Cherny

>Let me see if I understand your position.  A Jewish boy from Nazareth
started a sect in the national boundaries  of the Jewish people but His
disciples were not Jews?? These same disciples in manufacturing their
history included a scandal concerning one of the leaders of that sect
because he brought Gentiles into the sect without first converting them to
Judaism.  Further, these disciples continued to debate the importance of the
Torah to the Gentiles for several decades.  I will not speak for the other
members of this list but I find this scenario laughable.

Now, concerning your comment that they garbled quotations I think several
things must be considered.  First, it appears from early translations of the
New Testament into Greek and  Aramaic that the  translators commonly quoted
from the version of the Scriptures their audience was used to.  Second,
there is evidence that Hebrew manuscripts were not as uniform as they are
today. Which means that we cannot always tell whether a quotation was from a
divergent form of the text or if it came from the LXX.  Third, there is a
debate among scholars as to which language the people of Israel spoke.  Most
have argued that they spoke Aramaic.  Others argue that they spoke Hebrew.
We do know that copies of the Scripture have been found in Aramaic.  We also
know that there was a section of Jerusalem where the Jews were well
acquainted with Greek.  When two or more translations of Scripture are held
to be authoritative, it would be quite natural for the believers to
Michael Abernathy
>>I may understand when the earliest Christians, not well-acquianted with
>>Tanakh, put much stock in the title messiah. But I'm puzzled why this
>>is of importance to you.
>You seem to have a misunderstanding about who the earliest Christians were.
The earliest Christians were Jews.  Gentiles were not initially included in
the membership of the church. While it is true that some of them may not
have been well versed in the scripture, some of them were very well

>>Surely, very odd Jews those have been. They did not know Tanakh, cited
garbled quotations of the verses the should have studied in childhood (if
you know about bar Sheta reforms) and were unobservant. Wishful thinking


Vadim Cherny
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list