Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello George:

Thanks for your comments.

Please allow me to respond.

I agree that the person advancing the conclusion should support it with
facts.

And so, we have the western academic and liturgical community advancing for
many centuries the septuagint ("lxx") as the alpha and omega of biblical
transmission.

The masoretic text ("m.t.") languished as a source material given its
relative youth (600 years) from the lxx (codices sinaiticus, vaticanus,
alexandrinus).

And then, the dead sea scrolls ("dss") arrived. The Isaiah scrolls, in
particular, presented dramatic confirmation of the m.t. Academic retreat
from the lxx old testament ("o.t."), began, in earnest.

That the academic and liturgical community has shifted allegiance to the
m.t., can be seen in the new mainstream english translations of the o.t.,
(nkjv, nasb, niv). These publications generally favor the m.t., over lxx in
o.t., renderings.

Liturgical and academic loyalty to the lxx new testament ("n.t.") continues,
however. Relevant facts, nonetheless, imply a tenuous foundation for such
conclusion.

Approximately two thirds of the n.t., derives from o.t., quotations,
paraphrasings, references, etc.

Indeed, pretermitting the veracity of the n.t., story, the recited purpose
of Christ was quite simple. He presented Himself (to the predecessors
((pharisees) of today's rabbinical authority) as the person, the deliverer,
prophesied by Isaiah, seven centuries earlier. The story shows the rabbis
rejected such claim of Christ as the fulfillment of the Isaiah promise.

The n.t., gospels sought to document and prove the above story for later
generations of hebrews first, and gentiles, second.

Christ did not appear and seek to prove Himself to bostonians, athenians,
spartans or even indians. His constant witness and confrontation, according
to the n.t., occurred with the hebrew rabbis in judah and galilee. And that
jewish academic and liturgical community, composed their authoritative (to
the hebrews) and massive, mishna in hebrew vernacular of 200 a.d.

Further, when Paul sought to save his life, he spoke in hebrew to the
jerusalem temple crowd. acts 21:40; 22:2

The n.t., may have been authored in greek, but the facts weigh heavily
against such conclusion.

i don't see a particular problem with the lxx n.t., comprising a translation
of the original hebrew, any more than you view the absence of sensationalism
attached to a greek original n.t. We surely have not the autograph of the
torah or any document close in time to it. And that fact does not disturb
the academic community's unanimous conclusion that the torah was written in
hebrew.

Regards,

fred burlingame


On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:22 AM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Fred,
>
> There are many partial manuscripts of the New Testament that pre-date
> Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus (which are the earliest codices of
> the entire New Testament, but not the earliest manuscripts of smaller
> portions of the New Testament). Some manuscripts date to the second and
> third centuries AD. There is, however, absolutely no manuscript evidence for
> Hebrew originals of any New Testament document. Those who propose a Hebrew
> original to Matthew do so on the basis of (1) The mention of a Hebrew
> original by Papias in the second century AD; and (2) the assumption of
> Matthean priority over Mark (which is generally not accepted by modern
> scholarship).
>
> You seem to be working on the assumption that the New Testament was written
> to the Christians in Judea. However, this ignores the basic addressees of
> many New Testament documents. There is no indication in any New Testament
> document that the document was written for Hebrew-speaking Christians in
> Judea. On the contrary, most of the recipients seems to have been either
> diaspora Jews or Gentiles. And since Greek was the international language of
> the day, Greek was chosen as the language of communication. There is nothing
> sensational, controversial, or illogical about this. The burden for showing
> proof that any New Testament document was written in Hebrew lies with those
> who claim it. All the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
>
> Also, I agree with Ted that ‘hellenization’ is not the correct term for
> this discussion, as it has distinct cultural overtones with the original
> question does not seem to be implying.
>
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>