Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: TedBro AT aol.com
  • To: leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:18:36 EDT

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
_______________________________________________





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page