[b-hebrew] Was the MT for public consumption?

Kevin Riley klriley at alphalink.com.au
Sun Dec 26 20:00:47 EST 2010


Fred

Most histories of the texts would answer your questions - some in more 
detail than anyone could ever want.

Kevin Riley

On 27/12/2010 11:52 AM, fred burlingame wrote:
> Hello Bryant:
>
> That's exactly my point. The first two codices were discovered in egypt; and
> the third discovered in rome. The documents appear completely and entirely
> written in greek language, unlike the dead sea scrolls discovered in judah
> and written 80 percent in hebrew.
>
> The question then arises; why is the first 2/3's (OT) of these
> codices automatically assumed a translation from biblical hebrew language;
> and the last 1/3 of the documents (NT) automatically concluded as the
> original language greek?
>
> That division of language origin suffers significantly at the hands of
> hebrew language synagogue services in 20 a.d. .... galilee.
>
> And then of course, approximately 2/3's of the NT involves quotations from
> and references to OT.
>
> http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTCHART.HTM
>
> regards,
>
> fred burlingame
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Bryant J. Williams III<bjwvmw at com-pair.net
>> wrote:
>>   Dear Fred,
>>
>> Regarding your #5.
>>
>> The Codices Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were combined LXX for
>> the OT and Koine Greek for the NT.
>>
>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>   *From:* fred burlingame<tensorpath at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Bryant J. Williams III<bjwvmw at com-pair.net>
>> *Cc:* George Athas<George.Athas at moore.edu.au>  ; B-Hebrew<b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>   *Sent:* Sunday, December 26, 2010 8:19 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [b-hebrew] Was the MT for public consumption?
>>
>>    Hello Bryant:
>> ?
>> Thanks for your informative comments.
>> ?
>> 1. I only mention the term "faith" in order to mark the boundary of this
>> forum. I understand the border of this list includes "fact."
>> ?
>> 2. Your statement that the scroll of isaiah?would have been?read in
>> biblical?hebrew language?to the synagogue?congregation in
>> galilee,?approximately?20 a.d.; and that the congregation would
>> have?understood the reading in hebrew, fluently .... goes to the heart of
>> the matter. A most significant statement indeed.
>> ?
>> 3. This instructor of hebrew concludes the funeral of biblical hebrew had
>> not occurred in 20 a.d. see chapters v&  vi.
>> ?
>> http://www.adath-shalom.ca/rabin_he.htm
>> ?
>> 4. Likewise, this author so concludes mishnaic?hebrew continued as a common
>> spoken language in 20 a.d.
>> ?
>> http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#PostExH''
>> ?
>> 5. "2" - "4" above weigh heavy indeed on the forbidden question. ..... Was
>> the last 1/3 of codices alexandrinus, sinaiticus and vaticanus .......
>> originally composed in the hebrew language .....? And "2" - "4" above?imply
>> that the affirmative?answer to that question?involves?"fact" rather
>> than?"faith."?
>>
>> regards,
>> ?
>> fred burlingame
>> ?
>> ?
>>    On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Bryant J. Williams III<
>> bjwvmw at com-pair.net>  wrote:
>>
>>>    Dear Fred,
>>> ?
>>> Read my post again. It answers most of your questions.
>>> ?
>>> Now, regarding your second point. Modern scholarship is divided over
>>> whether there were one, two or three Isaiahs. Conservative scholarship
>>> treats Isaiah being produced by one person, the prophet Isaiah. Most modern
>>> scholarship treats Isaiah as being written by two, maybe three persons. It
>>> is based on the discredited JEDP theory of Graf-Welhausen. SEE archives for
>>> previous discussions. I gave you a very brief discussion. I will not comment
>>> further since it is going into areas limited by List guidelines. Remember,
>>> ALL we have is the text. To go beyond that is to give a pre-text which is no
>>> text at all. Basically, it is eisegesis not exegesis.
>>> ?
>>> It appears that you are making the classic dichotomy between faith and
>>> fact. Faith and knowledge go hand in hand. Both are intuitive, intellectual
>>> and experiential. Both are used in determing fact from fiction.
>>> Unfortunately, too many people think that if something is stated by reason
>>> of faith that it is automatically fiction. As I said, "Faith and knowledge
>>> go hand in hand." Faith, belief, or trust is used in when determining the
>>> value placed in a document that is being used as a source whether it speaks
>>> of fact or fiction. Knowledge will lead a person so far. Faith takes up
>>> where knowledge leads off. It looks at what is presented before with
>>> knowledge and proceeds from there. This is not rocket science.
>>> ?
>>> You seem to be questioning a lot of the presuppositions that are inherent
>>> in what has gone before. This is always good to a certain extant. But,
>>> sometimes, it could be construed as being?pedantic or just arguing for
>>> argument sakes. An example would be when I teach the High Schoolers or
>>> College Age or, even, the Adults in Sunday School, or in the preaching
>>> services, I make several statements. First, I am a Christian. Second, I am a
>>> Baptist. I then ask the group that I am teaching or preaching to, "If you
>>> claim to be a Christian, 'Why are you a Christian?'" "If you are a Baptist,
>>> Why are you a Baptist?'"?Give the reasons for your claims. This appears to
>>> me is what you are doing on the list. If I am wrong, then please correct me
>>> and accept my apologies. In fact, I may have inadvertantly exceeded List
>>> Guidelines. To the moderators, If I have please accept my apologies.
>>> ?
>>> Now, Luke 4 and the use of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue of Nazareth. It is
>>> clear that Jesus read from the Hebrew text (See Commentary on the NT Use of
>>> the OT). He sat down and proclaimed that the Scripture passage was
>>> fulfilled. It is also apparent that the congregation was being read to and
>>> that they understood the Hebrew (at least according to all the evidence from
>>> antiquity and archaeology). It is also possible, maybe probable, that it was
>>> read in Hebrew, translated into Aramaic for the congregation. That is why I
>>> told George that it is more than likely both/and not either/or.
>>> ?
>>> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>   ------------------------------
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
>> 3:19 PM
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list