Duvduv

Here is a web page discussing apparent linguistic hebraisms in the NT. It raises the question of what kind of people authored the NT texts whenever they were actually written. Obviously they not only knew the Hebrew Bible very well, but they were quite skilled at integrating the style of the Tanakh into the story format of the NT.

I think it cannot be ignored that these authors SPECIFICALLY were using this style for texts that were to be deemed akin to the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. as a canon) and not simply as stories to be recited around the campfire.

http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblica...sms-parts-1-5/

outhouse

Stories around the campfire influenced God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes gentiles who had worshipped Judaism for genrations. Of course they knew the OT well. We see many Parallels to the Ot mythology as well as mortal Roman Emporer mythology and divinity.


Its well known the OT heavily influenced the mythology, whats your point? just figuring this out?

Duvduv

That the common existence in the texts of Hebraisms suggests there was a greater centralized source for the emergence of all the NT texts than is commonly assumed. MM should have some interesting comments about the issues relating to Hebraism and to my comments about Matthew 23:5 in the other thread as well.

outhouse

Your only focusing on one small part of the movement. What we have left is only a small portion of what evolved. More text are lost then survived. Only the winners version is left.


There realy was no centralized source, the gospels are direct evidence of that.

GMarks version was different the Gluke and Gmatthew with Gjohn giving another contrasted version.

the key more then anything else is geographic location.

Duvduv

I was pointing out the interesting feature of Hebraism which suggests the skills of the authors of the texts, and an INTENTION to produce the texts to have the same feel and match the style as the Tanakh allegedly long before these NT texts were considered to be holy writ for readers who would be familiar with the Tanakh stories and style.

Especially talented writers I dare say but ones who it would suggest had the INTENTION of establishing canon holy texts.

mountainman

Tradition wrongly or rightly has it that the Greek LXX as commissioned by the Egyptian King Ptolemy in the 3rd century BCE was a centralized standardised source for the Greek authors of the Greek NT. This tradition relies upon Josephus and Eusebius and evidence for it resolves to a few Greek papyri dated by palaeography.

Duvduv

What are the chances that the LXX is a church text and not the one identified from before the Common Era? That's my personal hunch. In any case there are uniform elements in the NT texts allegedly originating from different sources, not the least of which are the Hebraisms. But whether that means Aramaic primacy however....??

Duvduv

MM, how would you evaluate Hebraisms and the claims of Aramaic primacy?

thief of fire

Many grammatical features clearly semitic. (redundent prepositions etc) Lot's of verses that make little sense unless they are idioms, and it seems they are Aramaic or Hebrew.
George Lamsa claimed many of the idioms were Aramaic, and still in use.

Let me first go and bury my father, etc etc

Duvduv

Yes, TOF, but in the context of the person(s) responsible for writing these texts, what was the intent in using Hebraisms in the first place, unless it was to give the canonical texts the appearance of resembling the Old Testament and thereby establish the texts as canonical texts? But aside from intent, what does it tell us about the background and skills of the actual authors in terms of their facility with writing Greek using Hebraisms?
Any thoughts on this, MM?