Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello George:

Thanks for your message.

I think that part of the problem with comprehension of my posts resides in a
hobson's choice.

If I spent 15 or 50 pages explaining in detail each step of my thought
process, I would likely become subject of criticism due to excessive length
postings.

Brevity on the other hand, renders the posts vulnerable to your type of
critique.
That being said, I would note that 937 quotations/references to the old
testament, by the new testament, appears more than significant to me.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/ntot.htm

Regards,

fred burlingame



On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Hi Fred!
>
> I’m sorry, but I don’t think I can engage with you on this topic. I find
> the logic of your position almost impenetrable, and as such I don’t think I
> can intersect with you on anything here. Let me just say by way of final
> comment that the LXX was indeed widely used by the early church. In fact, it
> seems that most of the time the NT writers were drawing from it rather than
> from a MT vorlage. I do not know where you get the figure that two-thirds of
> the NT is recycled OT material. I fear this is an incredibly inflated
> figure. Nonetheless, I just do not see how any of this suggests Hebrew
> originals for the NT documents. Your conclusion that it does is beyond my
> comprehension. It is most likely that Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic
> with a smattering of Hebrew (at the very least), and probably also a decent
> dose of Greek, too. But this is an entirely different issue to the language
> in which the NT documents were originally written. I think you may be
> confusing these two issues in a way that leads to some leaps in logic.
>
> Excuse me for bowing out of the discussion.
>
>
> *GEORGE ATHAS
> **Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> *www.moore.edu.au
>
>