ichabod crane

Hello judge!

All modern scholars agree with you that Hebrews was not written by Paul. However, obviously that doesn't mean it wasn't written in Greek. I would make the following points:

Hebrews and the other epistles attributed to Paul (the concensus now is that a number of these, such as the Pastorals, Ephesians and probably Colossians were not written by him) , are found in Greek in early manuscripts spread widely over the ancient world from at least the 3rd century (e.g. papyri P12, P15, P20, P27, P30, P40, and more - all these papyri date from the 3rd century). No Syriac manuscripts exist containing these writings from before the 5th century, and there is only one from the 5th century (syr-p). So the manuscript evidence is pretty overwhelming in favour of it being written in Greek.

Secondly, the Greek of Hebrews is not Hebraic in style, but gives every indication of being written by a Greek-speaking Hellenistic Jew. There are not the Hebraisms one comes to expect in works like the gospel of Mark which was clearly written by a native Aramaic speaker. There are not the solecisms of, say, the gospel of John. It is written in refined koine Greek. In addition, the theology (such as the anti-temple aspects and so forth), indicate that the writer was a Hellenistic Jewish convert to Christianity, rather than a Hebrew Jewish Christian. The writer of Hebrews never appeals to the Old Testament with the characteristic phrase "it is written" or such like, indicating perhaps a lower view of the Old Testament than Paul and other New Testament writers.

Surely all of this is overwhelming evidence that Hebrews was originally written in Greek?

Regarding the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, two points. Firstly, even prior to that discovery, everyone knew that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, even though the earliest manuscripts were Greek. Secondly, you can't base a theory on what might be discovered in future. If suddenly a whole lot of early Aramaic/Hebrew manuscripts of Hebrews turn up, then I'll change my position and agree with you. But in the meantime, don't we have to go with the evidence that we have?

judge

Hello ichabod crane!

There may be agood reason for this. The syraic speaking COE who claim that their peshitta is the original apparently have a tradition of destroying damaged texts.
Prior to using animal skin for texts I understand some kind of "paper" was used.
These things just do not last forever. When they became damaged or frayed they were copied and destroyed (or so I am told)

Can we look at an example?

Of course the Aramaic does contain "hebraisms" and there seems to be some indication that the greek translators were not sure how to translate them. (more on this later I am still rersearching)

Hmmm...perhaps

I have been doing some researching of the differences between the greek and the peshitta.
What do you make of Hebrews 4:12?
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-ªedged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

It seems that the translator missed something here. How does one divide joints and marrow? We could perhaps divide bones and marrow but we could not divide joints and marrow.
What do you think?

.
The problem is that not everyone knew this. Western protestant christians knew this.
Aramaic speaking christians knew that the nt written in aramaic. It does seem a little arrogant of us westeners (if you in fact are) to assume that only our view can be the correct one.


As mentioned above there may be a very good reason for this. That is why we should perhaps consider the internal evidence. Hebrew 4:12 is the first example of a scribal gloss that that can be explained by the text going from aramaic to greek.

BTW the Aramaic of Hebrews 4:12 makes sense. It says...dividing souls and spirit, joints, bone and marrow

One can divide the soul and spirit (apparently) one can divide joints, one can even divide joints and bone, but one cannot divide joints and marrow

ichabod crane

I don't quite see your point. In the New Testament, "soul" (psuche) and "spirit" (pneuma) are overlapping terms and not strict anatomical labels for parts of humans. "Soul" essentially just means life. "Spirit" may or may not be more ontological. Then the Greek reads "armon te kai muelon", distinguishing between the armos (joint) and muleos (marrow). It's a metaphor, not a well thought out anatomical distinction. So I don't find what you're saying very convincing. If it makes more sense in the Aramaic, surely a more likely explanation is just that the translator decided to make it more clear when they translated it? After all, if the Greek is the translation from the Aramaic, and the Aramaic reads "bones and marrow", why didn't they just translate into Greek as "osteon te kai muelon", which is easy enough to do?

I guess its impossible to prove or disprove whether manuscripts were destroyed. But that argument cuts two ways. Why didn't they destroy the manuscripts that we do have? If they missed them, why haven't we found others that they missed?

In the case of the Old Testament, it was well known generally that the Greek text, the Septuagint, was translated by Jewish scholars in Alexandria. So the parallel is not there with the New Testament.

The obvious explanation for the Aramaic speaking Christians thinking that the New Testament was written in Aramaic, is that the use of Aramaic translations became so established that when they became aware of the Greek, they wouldn't accept its priority. We see this today amongst fundamentalist Christians who refuse to use anything but the King James Version. They won't use anything else, and they almost think that the King James Version is superior to the original Greek (some do). Why? Because that is the version which became established in their faith community, so they aren't going to give it up.

judge

Which Mss are you thinking of here?

ichabod crane

I'm just going on the list of manuscripts in the UBS Greek New Testament, 4th ed. "principal manuscripts and versions cited in the textual apparatus". They list the following Syriac versions:

Two Syriac manuscripts from the 4th century containing the gospels.
One Syriac manuscript from the 5th century containing most of the NT.
One Syriac manuscript from the 6th century containing most of the NT, and one with the general epistles and revelation.
One Syriac manuscript from the 7th century containing the whole NT.

That's pretty weak manuscript evidence compared to the Greek (there are hundreds listed).

judge

OK. I am referring to peshitta manuscripts. Are any of these (eastern) peshitta manuscripts?

Also when you say most of the NT do you mean the entire 22 books of the eastern peshitta. They have a different canon to protestants.

ichabod crane

I can't answer either question without doing more research. I would assume that the UBS text would include all the known early manuscripts, although they would be selective with later ones. But the basic answer is, I don't know.

ichabod crane

From what I can tell from internet info., yes, these are the peshitta manuscripts.

ichabod crane

With regard to exactly which books are in there, it isn't possible for me to tell from the info. in the UBS Greek text, because it only lists general categories (Gospels, Acts, Catholic or General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Revelation).

ichabod crane

The following information was from this site: http://www.ntcanon.org/Peshitta.shtml

I have never been to that site before (found it on Google) and have no idea how generally reliable it is. I also don't know whether it's affiliated with any religious group.

"By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church's version of the Bible, the Peshitta ('simple' translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books - all of the present New Testament except:
II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John

For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians. There are many surviving manuscripts of the Peshitta, the oldest of which bears the date 442".

Incidentally, why do you keep accusing Protestants of being the "bad guys". Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all agree that the New Testament was written in Greek. They all were involved in the UBS text - in fact one of the editors is Carlo Martini, who is in line to be Pope.