Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello all:

The first sentence of this forum announces: "B-Hebrew is a forum dedicated
to the discussion of Biblical Hebrew language and literature."

This sentence prompts the existential question. Does biblical hebrew
language and literature grind to halt with the scroll of malachi? Or does
biblical hebrew continue to exist and flourish with the scroll of matthew
and beyond?

Matthew 15:1-14 and 23:1-3 argue for and support the latter conclusion.

Perhaps true, perhaps false, but the greek text of matthew
15:1-14 nonetheless contains Jesus' vivid disapproval of both the entire
hebrew oral law (takanot and what later becomes the talmud), and its keepers
of that oral law, the rabbis (then pharisees) of jerusalem.

Soon thereafter, Jesus apparently contradicts Himself and instructs His
followers to do all that the jerusalem rabbis say (aka all of the oral law;
the takanot). *See*, greek text of matthew 23:1-3.

The hebrew matthew shem tov manuscript however, contains no such conflict.

http://www.torahresource.com/Dutillet.html

Shem tov matthew 23:1-3 includes Jesus' instruction to do what moses says
(written torah) versus what the rabbis say (oral torah). A single letter
(waw or vav) in the hebrew accounts the difference between greek and hebrew
renderings; between "they say" in greek; and "he says" in hebrew.  *cf*., 2
kings 17:24-41 (concerning approval of the statutes of God; and corresonding
disapproval of customs of men.)

My understanding of the primary tool utilized by the academic community at
this forum, includes the internal examination of the text itself, rather
than the external evaluation of circumstances surrounding the text.

In other words, the academic community here observes the alef-bet hebrew,
its letters, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, etc., and the
relationships between and amongst these parts. Perhaps as an example of this
process, witness the internal elegance and balance of hebrew isaiah 29:13 as
compelling a conclusion of its hebrew originality.

External considerations on the other hand, such as date of the manuscript,
date of composition of the story within the manuscript, etc., enjoy
secondary import here.

These considerations, if correct, counsel a hebrew original text of matthew,
at least in the context of matthew 15 and 23.

regards,

fred burlingame