Biblical Hebrew Forum

[TedBro AT aol.com]

Hi, Fred: 
 
My comments are in << brackets>> below.
 
Peace,
t.
 
In a message dated 10/16/2010 9:33:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tensorpath AT gmail.com writes:

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.

<<Mainstream translators tend to default to the MT reading unless  there is 
a problem with the text, in which case they will go to other Hebrew  
manuscripts and then to the versions (LXX, Vulgate, etc.). That is a most  
reasonable way to proceed, but we shouldn't decide which is text represents 
the  
"original" based on English translations.>>
 
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.
 
<<Ooo... that's a tough one. A careful study of parallelism,  whether in 
the Psalms or the Prophets, doesn't show a rigid consistency. You're  
probably 
right that the MT reading is superior in this case, but I don't see the  
above as a good argument in its favor. There are just too many examples of  
imperfect couplets in the Tanakh.>>

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. 

 
<<Since Luke 4:18 is closer to the LXX than the MT, the opposite  
conclusion would seem more appropriate, namely that Luke was written in Greek 
 and 
quotes from a Greek text of the OT... unless I'm missing  something.>>

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