Biblical Hebrew Forum

[fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>]

Hello Bryant:

Thanks for your informative comments.

1. I only mention the term "faith" in order to mark the boundary of this
forum. I understand the border of this list includes "fact."

2. Your statement that the scroll of isaiah would have been read in
biblical hebrew language to the synagogue congregation in
galilee, approximately 20 a.d.; and that the congregation would
have understood the reading in hebrew, fluently .... goes to the heart of
the matter. A most significant statement indeed.

3. This instructor of hebrew concludes the funeral of biblical hebrew had
not occurred in 20 a.d. see chapters v & vi.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/rabin_he.htm

4. Likewise, this author so concludes mishnaic hebrew continued as a common
spoken language in 20 a.d.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#PostExH''

5. "2" - "4" above weigh heavy indeed on the forbidden question. ..... Was
the last 1/3 of codices alexandrinus, sinaiticus and vaticanus .......
originally composed in the hebrew language .....? And "2" - "4" above imply
that the affirmative answer to that question involves "fact" rather
than "faith."

regards,

fred burlingame


On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Bryant J. Williams III <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net
> wrote:

>  Dear Fred,
>
> Read my post again. It answers most of your questions.
>
> Now, regarding your second point. Modern scholarship is divided over
> whether there were one, two or three Isaiahs. Conservative scholarship
> treats Isaiah being produced by one person, the prophet Isaiah. Most modern
> scholarship treats Isaiah as being written by two, maybe three persons. It
> is based on the discredited JEDP theory of Graf-Welhausen. SEE archives for
> previous discussions. I gave you a very brief discussion. I will not comment
> further since it is going into areas limited by List guidelines. Remember,
> ALL we have is the text. To go beyond that is to give a pre-text which is no
> text at all. Basically, it is eisegesis not exegesis.
>
> It appears that you are making the classic dichotomy between faith and
> fact. Faith and knowledge go hand in hand. Both are intuitive, intellectual
> and experiential. Both are used in determing fact from fiction.
> Unfortunately, too many people think that if something is stated by reason
> of faith that it is automatically fiction. As I said, "Faith and knowledge
> go hand in hand." Faith, belief, or trust is used in when determining the
> value placed in a document that is being used as a source whether it speaks
> of fact or fiction. Knowledge will lead a person so far. Faith takes up
> where knowledge leads off. It looks at what is presented before with
> knowledge and proceeds from there. This is not rocket science.
>
> You seem to be questioning a lot of the presuppositions that are inherent
> in what has gone before. This is always good to a certain extant. But,
> sometimes, it could be construed as being pedantic or just arguing for
> argument sakes. An example would be when I teach the High Schoolers or
> College Age or, even, the Adults in Sunday School, or in the preaching
> services, I make several statements. First, I am a Christian. Second, I am a
> Baptist. I then ask the group that I am teaching or preaching to, "If you
> claim to be a Christian, 'Why are you a Christian?'" "If you are a Baptist,
> Why are you a Baptist?'" Give the reasons for your claims. This appears to
> me is what you are doing on the list. If I am wrong, then please correct me
> and accept my apologies. In fact, I may have inadvertantly exceeded List
> Guidelines. To the moderators, If I have please accept my apologies.
>
> Now, Luke 4 and the use of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue of Nazareth. It is
> clear that Jesus read from the Hebrew text (See Commentary on the NT Use of
> the OT). He sat down and proclaimed that the Scripture passage was
> fulfilled. It is also apparent that the congregation was being read to and
> that they understood the Hebrew (at least according to all the evidence from
> antiquity and archaeology). It is also possible, maybe probable, that it was
> read in Hebrew, translated into Aramaic for the congregation. That is why I
> told George that it is more than likely both/and not either/or.
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
>
>
>
>