Steven Avery

Johann, greetings, quite a broad brush. Here are a few thoughts, just on the language issue.

The NT talks of the apostles speaking in Hebraisti, which is prima facie (and by good scholarship) Hebrew.

While accusations against the Hebrew text are totally absent in the NT, and there is compelling evidence, such as "Law, Writings, and Psalms", "jot and tittle", "Abel to Zacharias", and the authority of the Jerusalem Temple scrolls read by Jesus, that the Hebrew text is affirmed as scripture in the NT.

The view promoting the Greek text arises later, post-NT, yet even amongst the early writers you have discussions of Matthew and Hebrews being written in Hebrew, e.g. by Eusebius. I've never seen any quotes that they say that Hebrew was a dead language at the time.

Jerome, to translate the Tanach, mostly washes his hands of the Greek OT, moves to Bethlehem, studies with the Jews and rabbis, uses the library in Caesarea, and translates directly from the Hebrew.

And the Reformation brings forth a great interest in Hebraics, starting around the time of Sebastian Munster onwards. The Bibles, like the Geneva and the King James, would acknowledge the primacy and authority of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. And men like John Owen and John Gill argued forcefully for the Inspiration of the Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text, even including the vowel points.

The movement to "depict the Hebrew language as dead in the 1st century" as far as I can tell has never been a Christian viewpoint, in the sense of evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. (Ken Penner says it is just the last century). From what I've seen it was a modern liberal scholarship viewpoint, with the usual cast of secular and higher criticism suspects, in the 20th century, maybe late 19th. Occasionally modern internet Orthodox Christians who use the Greek OT might piggy-back on the liberal scholarship.

And as I pointed out, with Ken Penner's paper, there is now a strong counterpoint to this view even in scholarship circles, not just that Hebrew was a spoken language in the 1st century, but was being used in the NT Acts discussions, (and the sign on the cross) rather than Aramaic. As Ken's view points out, it is awkward at best to try to make Hebraisti into "Hebrew dialect" and therefore Aramaic, when Greek has a completely different word for Aramaic, "Syraic".

If you have evidence otherwise, that early church writers or Reformation Christians, or modern evangelicals, talk of Hebrew as a dead language in the first century, please share away.

Shalom Shabbat,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

And for Prometheus.. I just noticed that Ken's paper was in the last SBL National Meeting talk, so it is possible to be in the peer-reviewed JBL Journal
http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications...rnals_JBL.aspx

http://www.sbl-site.org/congresses/C...px?MeetingId=3
Greek Names for Hebrew and Aramaic: A Case for Lexical Revision
Ken Penner
McMaster University
The standard lexicon of early Christian Greek claims that the word Hebrais “the Hebrew language� in the New Testament actually refers to “the Aramaic spoken at that time in Palestine.� This opinion appears to be based a century-old hypothesis that (1) Hebrais could mean either Aramaic or Hebrew at that time, and since (2) the average person could not understand Hebrew, (3) it must mean Aramaic rather than Hebrew in passages such as Acts 21–22. The present paper challenges the view that Hebrais(ti) could mean Aramaic at that time by (1) using an exhaustive list of all instances of this word group to show that Aramaic was consistently distinguished from Hebrew, and (2) by explaining the evidence to the contrary: Aramaic-looking words in John, Josephus and Philo that are said to be Hebraisti. The paper concludes that if Hebrais never demonstrably refers to Aramaic, BDAG and the NIV need revision.

Randall Buth, biblical languages scholar, discussing with Ken
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ay/025399.html

French Prometheus

So, what did you say your evidence was again? I'm not interested in your "opinion", especially concerning ancient history. I'm interested in facts. What's your evidence?

French Prometheus

You're supposed to give supporting evidence for your claims. People don't have to do your homework.

French Prometheus

Are you assuming that every peasant in first century Palestine was literate?

French Prometheus

praxeus, the information you gave is interesting. I'm still not convinced (yet) but you gave me things to ponder. Toda raba!

Steven Avery

bavakasha :-)

You know, most of the people who look at Hebrew as a dead language in the 1st/2nd century have to deal with the evidences, like DSS/BarKochba letters and NT, that it was in fact used outside of structured religious training. Also we know that earlier the usage or primacy of Hebrew was a part of the Hasmonean revolution, and that later Jerome had no trouble studying and learning Hebrew in Israel . If Hebrew was a dead language, it had to be a short death (3 days and 3 nights ?) and then an amazing resurrection !

:-)

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

The NT written in Hebrew? By what account again? Hrm, lets review the "evidence" that you gave us:
E1. Apostles speaking Hebrew
A1. What apostles?

E2. Authority of "Temple Scrolls"
A2. The Gospels are fiction, demonstrated countless times by this thread.

E3. Early tradition about Matthew and Hebrews written in Hebrew
A3. Actually, it was the Sayings gospel of Matthew, not Matthew, and any Greek grammarian would be able to tell you that the stlye of Matthew has no Hebrew bearing on it except when it quotes the LXX.

E4. Jerome uses Hebrew OT
A4. The Old Testament's original language has no bearing on whether or not the New Testament was written in Greek. Entirely irrelevant.

E5. Oh wait, there was no E5.
A5. Do any study on how good the grammar was on Luke, Acts, John, to the Hebrews, and Matthew. And then learn Greek yourself.

Steven Avery

Chris, please indicate to whom this post is addressed , to what you are responding. Earlier, I made reference to possible Hebrew origins of Matthew and Hebrews, as discussed eg. by Eusebius and Jerome. And those are rather nuanced and complex issues, for sure, e.g. in Hebrews with the possibility of Paul dictating in Hebrew and the scribe writing in Greek. Similar with the possibility of Matthew writing both Greek and Hebrew versions. Mark may have been written in Latin or Graeco-Latin (Hoskier). Beyond that it is pretty much agreed that the NT was written in Greek, except for some rather oddball theories. Well you finally answered, indirectly, about your view of the NT text. Now, if you would give your view of the Tanach text, it would be appreciated. Since you plug so much for the GreekOT over the Masoretic Text, I wonder if you also consider the Tanach as fiction as well. Please be forthcoming with your view.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Ahh.. you probably misunderstood my statement

"the evidences, like DSS/BarKochba letters and NT, that it was in fact used outside of structured religious training."

Go to the discusssions of the Acts usage of Hebraisti to understand the context, which was Hebrew not being a dead language in the 1st century. Please don't recontextualize my words for a straw man argument.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Chris Weimer

Praxeus - this portion of this thread which deals with Aramaic and Hebrew - you contradict yourself. You seem to favor Hebrew being a living language and the NT as proof of this, but then you say it was Aramaic.

And for the last time - the composition of the Tanakh has nothing to do with the composition of the New Testament. It could be true or false, yet it doesn't matter an ounce. Get with the subject and stop sidetracking the arguement.