Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Ted:

Thanks for your kind comments.

I agree with your post. The scrolls of Matthew and Mark appear likelier
candidates for hebrew autographs, than the Luke scroll.

But, if the Luke scroll authored in greek, the Luke 4:18 quotation of Isaiah
has significantly changed the original hebrew words, both as to form and
content.

fred burlingame

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:47 PM, <TedBro AT aol.com> wrote:

>  Fred:
>
> A well crafted argument for one or more of the extant canonical Gospels
> having a Hebrew vorlage. Matthew or Mark would make more sense than Luke,
> wouldn't it?
>
> -t.
>
>  In a message dated 10/16/2010 11:02:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tensorpath AT gmail.com writes:
>
> 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.
>
>