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