Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Doug Belot" <dbelot AT bigpond.net.au>]

It would seem to me that Is 49:7-18 speaks of this time , when the Jews, 
here called Zion,  were feeling forsaken for the Lord had gone to the 
gentiles , this was apparently when Paul was commissioned to go to the 
gentiles . 2nd Cor 6:2 speaks of this also .

I thinks so to does Acts 13:46/Is 49:7-18 , Rom 9:24-26/Hos 1:11 both speak 
of the gentile inclusion some time after Math 10:5-7.

I believe that Christian believers, "Body of Christ",  were offered only 
Greek Scriptures , and thus I would assume that all Christian believers 
would follow that patern, if it was good enough for Paul , surely its good 
enough for us .

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 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah


> Hi Fred,
>
>
>
> Mt. 10:5-6 does, indeed, quote Jesus telling his apostles to preach to the
> Jews. Presumingly, this is what they do. But after the Crucifixion, some 
> of
> the apostles, especially Paul, change the mission of the church and begin
> preaching to gentiles. Now whether the Gospel of Matthew itself was
> originally meant for Jews or for gentiles can be debated. Most of Paul's
> epistles, Romans included, were addressed to Greek-speaking Jewish
> communities. So they would have been written in Greek. The fact that 
> Western
> Jewish communities were Greek-speaking is well-documented. They also read
> the Tanakh in Greek - that's why the Septuagint was produced in the first
> place, and why Christian-Jewish missionaries such as Paul (who came from
> just such a community in Tarsus) were so much at home there. Most of these
> communities were wiped out during the Diaspora Rebellion in 115-117. After
> that time, as there were less Greek-speaking Jews around and most of those
> who were had become Christians, the Jews "back east" (in what was left of
> the Levantine communities and in Babylon, which was outside of the Roman
> Empire) did indeed reject Greek. That's where the Talmud was produced. But
> this has nothing to do with the question at hand.
>
>
>
> There were no synagogues in Jerusalem in 100 CE (AD).
>
>
>
> You also (in a different post than the one below) seem to be confusing
> "Hebrews" with Hebrew-speakers. The NT text often uses "Hebrews" to mean
> "Jews", but this is no indication of the language that those Jews were
> speaking. The same goes for "Greeks". In the NT, "Greeks" are gentiles,
> whatever language they spoke.
>
>
>
> As to the purpose of the list: it is to study the biblical Hebrew 
> language.
> This means the Hebrew language that the existing books of the Bible are
> written in. We know that we do not have the "original" text of any of 
> these
> books, but, following scholarly convention, we use the MT as the "default
> text", assuming that it represents an unbroken tradition of transmission
> among Hebrew-readers of the text. We argue about whether and to what 
> extent
> the Mesoretic vocalization also represents such a tradition. We use 
> existing
> texts, such as the DDS and the LXX as evidence of other readings, and yes,
> the NT quotes of OT passages are certainly relevant. However, we then must
> consider if these quotes are really intended to be direct quotes or
> paraphrases, and what was changed in translation. As has been stated many
> times over the past few hours, we do not have an "original" Hebrew of any 
> NT
> book, so that even if there had been one, there is really nothing to
> discuss. As I've already stated, "back-translating" the Greek NT into 
> Hebrew
> (by the way, it would of course have to be 1st century Hebrew of which we
> know very little, not the Iron-Age or Persian Period Hebrew of the Tanakh)
> could be an interesting exercise, but little more.
>
>
>
> By the way, there are several such translations of the Apocrypha, Josephus
> and the like, and there are major difference between them. No serious
> scholar of, say 1 Maccabees or Judith would base his research on a modern
> Hebrew translation rather than the Greek, even though both books were
> apparently written in Hebrew.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 5:02 AM
> To: Yigal Levin
> Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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