Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>]

Fred:

There is something going on with this somewhat "surreal" claim of a Hebrew 
New Testament that goes beyond scholarship.  You have completely ignored the 
comments of scholars on this list and continue to insist on various obvious 
errors.  I am beginning to suspect that this "Hebrew Primacy" thing is part 
of some personal or institutional faith construct and no amount of 
historical and literary clarification is going to move you.
The Gospels were written for Gentiles and Gentiles did not speak/read 
Hebrew.  98% of most Jews did not speak/read Hebrew.  Even the author of 
Matthew, whose competency in Aramaic OR Hebrew is question, was a convert to 
gentile Christianity (probably in Antioch) and he was attempting to 
"convert" other Jews.
This will be my last response to this because I think it is agenda-based 
with nothing relevant to Biblical Hebrew.

Jack Kilmon

--------------------------------------------------
From: "fred burlingame" <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:57 PM
To: "George Athas" <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
Cc: "B-Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] the hellenization of isaiah

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew