Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

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
>