Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

Hi, All:
 
I'm not sure I understand the thrust of this discussion. First of all, in  
general terms, we know from comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with MT and 
LXX  that the DSS readings often support the LXX over the MT. Thus the LXX 
represents  an old manuscript tradition and we cannot always attribute 
differences with the  MT as translator errors. The comments below seem to 
assume 
that the MT is  earlier and more reliable. Did I miss something?
 
Second, I'm not sure what is meant by "hellenization". Usually the term  
means the cultural influence, not just a translation into the Greek language. 
 
How do you see hellenization in the LXX or NT variants of Isaiah 61:1 as  
compared to the MT? The parallelism is altered but retained, right? In the 
Greek  text, I can't see anything more culturally Greek than Jewish. 
 
Third, while I've heard the suggestion that an Aramaic or Hebrew Matthew  
underlies the extant NT Greek Matthew, I've never heard such for the Gospel 
of  Luke. Could you please explain this position and any supporting evidence?
 
Thanks,
Ted Brownstein
 
 
In a message dated 10/16/2010 3:47:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il writes:
 
Dear  Fred,

In short, yes. The vast majority of scholars believe that most,  if not all,
of the NT was originally written in Greek, within a  Greek-speaking Jewish
and non-Jewish milieu. But even if parts were written  in either Hebrew or
Aramaic, the original texts have been lost. Since the  best we have in hand
is translations from the Greek into Hebrew or Aramaic,  all we would be able
to discuss is why the translators used this word or  another.


Yigal Levin

-----Original Message-----
From:  b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]  On Behalf Of fred burlingame
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 5:47  PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] the hellenization  of isaiah

Isaiah 61:1 appears in classical hebrew format.

A. An  introductory clause: "spirit of Lord of me on me because:"

B. followed  by a couplet in parallel: (i) "He annoints me to bear tidings 
to
afflicted  ones; and (ii) He sends me to bind up ones being broken of 
heart;"

C.  followed by a couplet in parallel: (i) "to proclaim to ones being
captive,  liberty; and (ii) to ones being bound, opening."

The subsequent,  septuagint, greek, translation, in its wisdom, alters the
original hebrew  and changes clause "C(ii)" to: "to the blind, recovery  of
sight."

The subsequent, greek, translation of the original hebrew  new testament in
luke 4:18 then proceeds to further change the hebrew by:  (1.) retaining the
septuagint old testament, new clause "C(ii);" (2.)  deleting clause "B(ii);"
and adding another new clause "C(iii):" "to send  to ones being oppressed a
release."

With the symmetry, balance and  substance lost in and by the hellenization 
of
the hebrew new testament, a  question arises. Why is the hebrew new 
testament
discussed not here? Does  the opinion continue to hold sway that the new
testament orginally authored  in greek?

regards,

fred  burlingame
_______________________________________________