Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Sarah J. Blake" <sarah AT growingstrong.org>]

Romans 1:16 does not indicate anything about the language of authorship, 
imho. It indicates, otoh, that the gospel is intended both for Jew and 
Gentile. Reading the rest of Romans, it becomes apparent that the churches 
reading this text include both Jewish and Gentile members. This would not 
indicate that they were speaking Hebrew.

Sarah J. Blake
Personal correspondence: sjblake AT growingstrong.org
http://www.growingstrong.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah


> Hello Yigal:
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I offer the following response.
>
> 1. Pretermitting the veracity of the statements, the new testament 
> ("n.t.")
> nonetheless recites its purpose to communicate the good news to the jewish
> people of judah, first and foremost. Matthew 10:5-6; Romans 1:16.
> 2. I cannot imagine the hebrew people in a synagogue in jerusalem in 100
> a.d., responding with favor to the following scenario. A Christ missionary
> arrives and begins to preach by first holding up and reading from an 
> Isaiah
> hebrew scroll; and then holding up and reading from a Matthew greek 
> scroll;
> all the while pronouncing a new and improved truth based on the greek
> language document. The greeks you will recall desecrated the temple and
> tortured the hebrews during the maccabean period. Certainly, the massive
> talmud that followed the n.t., period was authored in hebrew, never in
> greek. The hebrews just do not appear inclined towards greek language in
> their sacred documents, then or now.
>
> 3. As for the purpose of re-translating the greek to hebrew n.t., I would
> inquire as to the purpose of this forum? Is it not to share, foster,
> discover and increase the participants' understanding of biblical hebrew? 
> Is
> not disagreement extant and common amongst and between the septuagint, 
> dead
> sea scrolls and masoretic texts, both as to form and content? And yet such
> conflict prevents not the flourishing of this forum's discussion about the
> old testament hebrew. Why therefore would a 2010 hebrew re-translation of
> the greek manuscripts, suffer any less credibility as an "original 
> document"
> or source material, than the 1010 a.d., codex leningrad, or the 110 b.c.,
> isaiah scroll?
>
> Regards,
>
> fred burlingame
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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