From:    heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
To:      "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Date:    Wed, 31 Dec 1997 01:49:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Biblical Manuscripts

 

>
> From:          "Bradley C. Gray"
> To:            "Eddie Chumney" <heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com>
> Subject:       Biblical Manuscripts
>
> Eddie,
>
> It has been a "tradition" passed down the last two hundred years from
> the Liberal German Modernist School that the B'rit Chadasha was only
> written in Greek. Are you familiar with the Peshitta text?  When the
> Eastern/Western Churches split around the time of Constantine, the 
> Western group went with the Greek text for the B'rit Chadasha, while 
> the Eastern group went  the Peshitta text, the Aramaic version.  So you 
> see, we do have in our  hands, manuscripts other than Greek. This is 
> about as close as we can get. Even if the B'rit Chadasha was written 
> entirely in Greek, we cannot understand
>
> Messiah's words from a Greek perspective.  We must understand them
> from a  Hebraic mind, for we have the Mind of Messiah, not of Plato and
> Aristotle.
>
> We do know for certain that Matthew's account of the Gospel was in
> Hebrew.  For Eusebius states in Ecclesiastical History III 39, 16) that Papias,
>  Bishop of Hierapolis stated, "Matthew put down the words of the L-rd
> in the  Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best as he
> could."  Even Jerome stated that he had seen Matthew's gospel at
> Caesarea  Marina in Pamphilus' library (De Viris Inlustribus 3).
>
> Shalom in Yeshua Ha Mashiach,
> Bradley C. Gray
> Dayton, Ohio
>
> 

From:          Emilie Kitteringham
To:            heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject:       Re: Biblical Manuscripts

   I always understood that the Scriptures as collected by Ezra were in
Hebrew. But that when Alexander the Great conquered the world, he
required everyone to learn Koine Greek, a language that had been
composed from the five Greek dialects. Alexander, when shown Daniel
chapters 2,7,8 fell down and declared Yaweh, the Lord of Israel, the God
of the gods.

He spared Jerusalem and made many of the royal family of Judah
administrators in his conquered kingdoms. Because of this, it became
necessary for the Hellenized Jews to have a Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible. This translation is known as the Septuagint (or LXX) for
the Seventy translators, was completed in 165 BC in Alexander, Egypt.

Thus long before His birth, there were now available for the Gentile
world the prophecies of the Messiah's coming as a humble servent who
would provide a way to God for all peoples.

Emilie
Canada

************************************************************************

From:          Philip Nowland
To:            <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject:       Re: Biblical Manuscripts

Shalom to you all, and especially to Bradley C Gray, whose e-mail to
the newsgroup I am answering.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but some of the conclusions drawn are
just not correct:

1. There is a vast difference between the 4th Century church
possessing a copy of an Aramaic translation of the B'rit Chadash (New
Testament), and the book being written in Hebrew in the 1st Century.
Aramaic and Hebrew are not the same language, and at least three
centuries had transpired between the writing of the B'rit Chadash and
the split between the eastern and western church - plenty of time for
an Aramaic translation from either the Greek (or even a Hebrew
edition). This simply does not prove that the B'rit Chadash was not
originally written in Greek.

2. We do not (repeat) not know that Matthew's account of the Gospel
wias written in Hebrew. The supposed reference to Matthew's gospel in
Hebrew, by Eusebius, is quite open to alternative interpretations.
Papias (the Bishop of Hieropolos) whom Eusebius quotes has having seen
Matthew's gospel in Hebrew, was responsible for other claims that have
proven to be inaccurate. Anyway, he may have been mistaken. The
writings of the early fathers should not be taken as infallible. They
are not Tanakh, nor are the B'rit Chadasha.

3. It is commonly claimed that the B'rit Chadasha was written
originally in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek. Yet we have
absolutely no (repeat) no manuscript evidence for that claim. The work
of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, under the leadership of
David Bivin, in Jerusalem is often called upon to give support for the
claim. However, that organization does not make such a claim. I draw
your reference to the latest issue (number 53) of the Jerusalem
Perspective, and pages 28 to 33 of that publication, which contain an
article by David Bivin on this matter. While no one disputes that
their may have been Hebrew documents that recorded events in the life
of Yeshua very early - and each of the gospel writers - Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, may have drawn on these documents in preparing their
gospels, there is just no evidence that the Greek New Testament is a
translation of an earlier B'rit Chadasha written in Hebrew.

4. Read this following quotation from the opening lines of David
Bivin's article quoted above: Shmuel Safrai has remarked that just as
one should not expect to find first-century copies of Pharisaic
writings, one should not expect to find fragments of a Hebrew
biography of Jesus. Prof. Safrai's assumption that no Hebrew Life of
Jesus will turn up results from his knowledge that in this period the
disciples of a Pharisaic sage was not permitted to transmit in writing
the words of his master. A sage's teaching was considered Oral Torah
and as such its transmission writing was strongly prohibited. If, as
seems likely, Jesus' first disciples viewed his words as part of that
growing corpus of scriptural interpretation know as Oral Torah, then
they, too would not have dared preserve his teaching in writing, but
would have transmitted it orally. Pursuing this line of reasoning, one
can suggest that the first written collection of Jesus' words and
deeds was a Greek work.

David Bivin goes on to suggest that, early listeners to the Apostle's
preaching may have made notes and that these formed some of the
collections of writing that were used by the gospel writers
themselves. Bivin adds - Perhaps the listener took notes in Hebrew and
later translated them to Greek, or simply translated what he heard
directly into Greek.

5. The frequently hear claim that the B'rit Chadasha was originally
written in Hebrew, and that what we have in our hands today is
actually a Greek translation of an earlier document, just does not
hold true. There is no real evidence for it.

What we can say is that the conversations recorded in the gospel
accounts, were most likely conducted in Hebrew, and the Greek text of
the B'rit Chadasha shows much evidence of the Hebraistic origins of
the writers. These were Hebrews, writing about events that are very
Jewish, where the original conversations took place largely in Hebrew.

But that is not the same as saying that the B'rit Chadasha was
originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.

I trust that these comments are of assistance.

Philip Nowland

Huntingdon, England

******************************************************************
1