Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear Fred,

 

Since only a miniscule number of Bible scholars think that we might have an
original Hebrew text of anything but the Tanakh, "Biblical Hebrew" to most
people means "Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible". 

 

The DDS "biblical" scrolls are certainly relevant, as they preserve
manuscripts of the Hebrew text almost 1000 years earlier than the MT, often
with rather different readings. 

 

 

Yigal Levin

 

From: fred burlingame [mailto:tensorpath AT gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:29 PM
To: Yigal Levin
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] to be or not to be

 

Dear Yigal:

 

Thanks for your clear clarification of the boundaries of this forum.

 

I will so respect those walls in future postings.

 

Perhaps the moderators of this forum may wish to consider a change of forum
name to perhaps: "Tanakh forum," or "Biblical Old Testament forum," and in
order to avoid potential confusion to new posters in the future?

 

I also find of interest the irrelevancy of the dead sea scrolls ("dss") to
this forum; and yet, the corresponding relevancy of a 1,000 year later text,
the masoretic text. Are for example, the Isaiah scrolls of qumran, copied
(translated?) in the mishnaic hebrew; or do such dss scrolls contain earlier
"biblical" hebrew language? I had thought the latter.

 

Regards,

 

fred burlingame

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
wrote:

Dear Fred,


Discussion on this list is generally limited to the Hebrew of the Tanakh,
which does indeed end with the return to Zion under Persian rule (as I'm
sure you know, the last book of the Tanakh in the Jewish tradition is either
Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah; Malachi is the last book of the Protestant Old
Testament. However, since all three represent more-or-less the same
historical period, we will not argue the point). The Hebrew of the DDS, the
Mishna, Second Temple Period inscriptions and other sources from after
Alexander's conquests are not discussed on this list, since, while they are
Hebrew, they come from a time in which Jewish culture (of which language is
a part) had undergone significant changes compared to the pre-Hellenistic
periods. Such "late" sources are only discussed when they might serve to
teach us about the text of the Tanakh itself.

So that even if you could prove that the Shem-Tov manuscript represented an
authentic 1st century Hebrew text of Matthew, it still would not qualify. As
far as I understand, most scholars believe that it is a Medieval forgery. We
don't discuss the Hebrew of Yosefon here, either.

If you wish to continue participating in this list, please respect its
parameters.


Thank you,


Yigal Levin

Co-Moderator, B-Hebrew


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:02 PM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] to be or not to be

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

_______________________________________________
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