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: "Sarah J. Blake" <sarah AT growingstrong.org>
  • To: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>, "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:40:02 -0400

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page