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: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: TedBro AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:32:59 -0500

Hello Ted:

Thanks for your comments.

Please allow me to respond.

1. The verse in question (Isaiah 61:1) tends to prove acceptance of the
hebrew text over the greek. All of the mainstream english language bibles
(nkjv, niv, nasb, etc.) accept the hebrew and reject the greek version of
this verse.

2. It would appear that hellenization of Isaiah occurred in the second and
derivative greek translation that is Isaiah 61:1 quoted in Luke 4:18. The
hebrew original begins with two couplets in parallel. The greek second
translation ends with two single clauses sandwiching a new and imperfect
couplet. Western greek thought tends toward the linear, whilst eastern
hebrew thought tends toward the circular. The shift from parallel clauses in
Isaiah 61:1 to singular clauses evidences hellenization for that reason.

3. The faulty reproduction of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18, and the english
language bibles' acceptance of the hebrew symmetrical version, tends to
imply the hebrew language of the Luke autograph. That approximately two
thirds of the n.t., refers to the o.t., and quotes liberally from the o.t.,
gives further support to the conclusion.

The n.t., could have been authored in greek. Isaiah 61:1 however, stands
against that conclusion.

regards,

fred burlingame

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM, <TedBro AT aol.com> wrote:

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page