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>, "Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah
  • Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:43:23 -0500



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:44 PM
To: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

Hi Jack , my understanding is that all these terminologies centred around YHWH , this name , and as such would become obsolete by the use of the LXX

No, the name would never become obsolete. The High Priest would voice it in the Holy of Holies every year at Yom Kippur. Its very presence, although unvoiced, in the scrolls gave the texts their sanctity.
The Septuagint did not come about until the 3rd century BCE under Ptolemy Philadelphus (309-246 BCE) and consisted of the Pentateuch. The rest of the Tanakh was translated over the next two centuries.


The fact that Jesus spoke from the LXX proves that he thought that was sufficient .

Although the authors of the New Testament books, all Diaspora Jews, used the LXX frequently, Jesus' Tanakh quotes are paraphrastic. He agrees with the proto-Mishnaic Hebrew texts and he appears to agree with the LXX on occasion, however, agreement with the LXX does not mean he is quoting from the LXX but the Hebrew that underlay the LXX. There was a diverse textual tradition at that time and Jesus was more likely to hear the Aramaic targums at Synagogue following the Hebrew readings.


He made it made it simple by that use , searching for a name was no longer relevant , Jesus has explained the name in its entirety , John 17:6 and 26 .

Jesus then chose Paul to teach us , Paul set in cement by writing as he did that Jesus was now the name that was above all names .

I have heard this often from members of the "Sacred Name Society." I am not one who believes Jesus spent 3 years teaching his Talmidda and then suddenly chooses a Diaspora Jew to reinvent him.


To try to go back to the hebrew and try and extract some name , other than a name given by Jesus and Paul seems unecessary and the point I must ask is why , why not be satisfied with what Jesus spoek and what Paul wrote, and of course Luke.

The hagiographers wrote the Gospels in Greek in places like Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Alexandria for Gentiles outside of Judea and Galilee. They wrote them from 40 to 60 or 70 years after Jesus spoke (in Aramaic) and used both Aramaic written and oral accounts or Greek translations of Aramaic accounts. Not one of them were ear or eye-witnesses to Jesus.



For of course what you are doing is putting a name above the name given to the main role player of Phil 2:9-11

First, Jesus (DJEE-zus) was NOT his name. His name was Yeshua and the first part of that name stands for YHWH and it means "whose help is YHWH." Also, you need to understand what a NAME was is the 1st century. It was not just what you were called. The "name" in this idiom stands for the substance and presence of the person.

The loss of idiom is responsible for most misunderstandings in exegesis. Take Mark, an Aramaic speaker writing in Greek. "Taking up serpents" nwlq$n )twwxw Judean Lq$) was an Aramaic idiom for "doing something dangerous" and "drinking poison" was an idiom for taking in errant teachings. I think the Greek translation of this idiom ὄφεις ἀροῦσιν was accurate with the verb αἴρω to lift or carry. The correspondence with Acts 28:3-5 cannot be coincidence.

I am glad Jesus, when preparing to leave Capernaum for Jerusalem, did not tell his disciples, "Let's hit the road." Today is Sunday and there would be a gaggle of people out on I-10 slapping the tarmac and being flattened by 18-wheelers.

I think idiom is the primary source of mistranslation and misunderstanding.

Jack Kilmon



doug belot


----- Original Message ----- 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>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah


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




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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3201 - Release Date: 10/17/10 04:33:00






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page