Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Hi Fred,

 

First of all, we have the Dead Sea scrolls as proof that there was a Hebrew
text of what became the Tanakh and related books by about 150 BCE. We also
have indirect evidence that the language of the Jewish scriptures was
Hebrew. We all know that the MT represents one of several text-types, but
that does not change the main pont.

 

As I and Barry have already written, the books of NT were written for a
Greek-speaking audience, NOT (primarily at least) for the Jews of Judea. It
thus make perfect sense to accept the indirect evidence that they were
written in Greek.

 

Even if they were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, we do not have that
"original" text. So the only purpose of creating one would be as an academic
exercise. This has been done, for example by Franz Delitch. So what would be
the point?

 

 

Yigal Levin

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:19 AM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

 

Dear Yigal:

 

Thanks for your prompt and responsive reply to my inquiry.

 

I am not sure that I understand the reasoning underlying the majority
scholarly opinion that the new testament authored in greek versus hebrew.

 

Please permit me to outline some relevant timelines.

 

1. The oldest hebrew old testament manuscripts (codex leningrad and codex
aleppo), circa 1,000 a.d., generally accepted as proof for the hebrew
language autograph of the old testament; and notwithstanding the 2,000 year
lapse between autograph and manuscripts.

 

2. The oldest greek manuscripts of the new testament (codex vaticanus and
codex sinaiticus), circa 350 a.d., generally accepted as proof of the greek
language autograph of the new testament; and notwithstanding the 300 year
lapse between autograph and manuscripts.

 

3. The oldest hebrew manuscript of the mishna (codex kaufmann) circa 1,000
a.d., generally accepted as proof of the hebrew language autograph of the
mishna; and notwithstanding the 800 year lapse between autograph and
manuscript.

 

To sum up: the scholarly community apparently experiences no problem
accepting the conclusion of hebrew language autographs for jerusalem and
juda events preceding and succeeding new testament events. But when it comes
to events occurring between old testament and mishna, the scholarly
community suddenly changes tack, and asserts the greek language as the
source of the new testament autographs.

 

I am but a humble student of hebrew. Something however, doesn't appear
consistent about such reasoning. The new testament, be it true or false, was
apparently written in, by, for, and about the hebrew inhabitants of
jerusalem and juda; who in turn spoke and wrote hebrew before and after such
new testament events.

 

The numerosity of greek new testament manuscripts dated some 300 to 1,000
years after the events in question, would appear to imply a conclusion of
greek autograph, no more than the huge number of english language bibles
today imply a conclusion of english language autograph for the new
testament.

 

Perhaps the time has arrived for hebrew scholars to attempt a hebrew
re-translation of the greek manuscripts? Certainly, many other hebrew
manuscripts available such as evan bohen.

 

regards,

 

fred burlingame

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew