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: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
  • To: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>, "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:03:32 -0500

Jesus was not writing anything. The tetragrammaton was often written in the
proto-Mishnaic texts (such as found in the DSS), in paleo-Hebrew script and
sometimes in red ink. This was to "flag" it so the reader would voice it,
either aloud or mentally, as "adonai" (Lord). When the LXX (Pentateuch) and
the Old Greek texts came about there were a number of conventions. If Jesus
ever wrote anything it would have been Aramaic but the sources we have
record his use of ABBA/ABUNAN for God. The New Testament authors all wrote
in Greek and used Aramaic sources, either written or oral, for Jesus' words.
If Matthew 4:7 is historical to Jesus Ἕφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, πάλιν γέγραπται,
Οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου , he would have said, "tub ktib: d'la
tnasse l'MARYA, alahak." MARYA is the Aramaic for the Hebrew ADONAI and
both could refer to God, a teacher, a husband, a servant to the master and
was a title that Jesus' disciples and followers would use of him.
In the first temple period there was no prohibition against speaking the
name of God, YHWH, and it became blasphemy sometime in the 2nd temple
period. This is why the theophoric components of names such as YEHO- in
YEHOshua (Joshua) were shortened in the 2nd temple period to Y'shua
(Yeshua/Jesus) to prevent accidentally voicing the Shem haMeforash.

Jack Kilmon
San Antonio, TX

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:08 PM
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

This is an interesting admission , if this is so , that the NT was originally in Greek , and we know that the tetragrammaton was considered by Jesus and Luke and Paul to be best written as Kupiou , why do you think later scholars prempted those obviously better scholars than any of us by ignoring the teaching of Jesus and Paul and bringing in confusion such as YHWH , if Jesus was writing Kupioz , and Paul was writing Kupioz , why dont we all follow their pattern.

Do we think we know more than they.

doug belot


----- Original Message ----- From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3199 - Release Date: 10/16/10 04:34:00

_______________________________________________
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