ichabod crane

The words are not the same, but in this case I think they're used synonymously. He doesn't say that someone won't die for a righteous man, he says they will "hardly" (molis) die. That's not quite the same thing. The second part of the verse just elaborates the first.

ichabod crane

Yes but the point is that, according to what you yourself have been able to produce, there are no examples of quotations from the peshitta until the mid-4th century, whereas there are quotations from the Greek from the 2nd century.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Ichabod,

What you're talking about is the "Lectio difficilior" rule,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_difficilior_potior

But this rule is often misunderstood. It's supposed to apply only to a very few cases of rare words or grammatically difficult expressions.

Otherwise, if we apply this rule indiscriminately, we'll have our "reconstructed" copy of NT that consists of nothing but gibberish!

Personally, I don't think that the (relative) clarity of the Peshitta can be used to argue that it's a late text.

Best,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

In this case, it may be argued that the Peshitta does indeed preserve the earlier text of Hebrews 4:12. But this doesn't yet mean that the original Hebrews was written in a Semitic tongue...

When dealing with the NT epistles, we have very few Old Syriac MSS. Thus, it's a whole different game, from the textual perspective, as compared to the gospels.

Even if the original Hebrews was written in Greek, the Peshitta can still be preserving the _earlier_ text of Hebrews, as compared to any existing Greek MS. And IMHO this is often the case, because I feel that the Aramaic textual tradition was in general more conservative, and subject to less revisions, compared to the Greek textual tradition.

Best,

Yuri.

rlogan

Hi back at you judge.

I think we would want to establish then exactly which Jews he was writing to. That does seem to be a problem.

I did find a few internet sources, as my library does not carry much in the way of electronic biblical journals. One source mentioned a series of articles in Biblical Arachaeology Review.

http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

The articles indicate extensive greek language paractice, including palestine. Of course, it was the Language of the empire and of trade.

Every source I have looked at though speaks to the excellent quality of Greek in this manuscript.

Of course earlychristianwritings has material. Basically we really do not know who wrote it. Or specifically to whom it was addressed (other than Jewish Christians).

So where do we come down in such a circumstance? Earliest copy Greek. Excellent Greek in comparison to other texts. It is the language of the empire. Seems to me we have to come down on the side of Greek unless we can muster some strong textual evidence.

And I'm a fish out of water there...

ichabod crane

Judge: I suggested that it was highly unlikely that this book would have been written in greek as it was addressed to jews.

This overlooks the fact that there were different sorts of Jews. In particular, there were the Hebrew Jews of Palestine, but there were also the Hellenistic Jews in places like Alexandria. Even in Palestine, the two groups existed (see Acts 6:1). Most of the Hellenistic Jews would have been hard pressed to read Hebrew at all, and used the Septuagint. While we can't know for sure, the text gives every indication of being written to Hellenistic Jews.

judge

Hi again ichabod crane.

What are these indications?

ichabod crane

"The author is clearly well-educated, for not only does he write polished Greek but he has had the benefit of an education that included training in rhetoric and at least some Greek philosophy, as well as in techniques of exegesis of the Scriptures" (Achtemeier et al., "Introducing the New Testament"). "None of the Old Testament allusions unamgiuously depends on Hebrew or Aramaic: from this we must conclude either that the author knew no Semitic tongue or that his readers, if in Jerusalem, were all expatriots, Greek speakers choosing to live in Jerusalem or the surrounding area" (Carson et al., "An Introduction to the New Testament").

In addition, there are no references to the temple, only the tabernacle, and the whole cultus is presented in an inferior light, with typological/allegorical style interpretations common in Hellenistic Jewry.

judge

Why can it not be that the translator is well educated if we have polished greek?
Why must it be the writer. After all we have very good Aramaic in the aramaic version as well.

IOW why does polished greek point to a greek original but polished aramaic deos not point to an aramaic original?




Hebrews 5 seems to speak of priests in the present tense.

1Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.
No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.

ichabod crane

I don't know how much weight you can put on the present tense there. There is a standard usage of the present tense in Greek called the historic present, referring to past events. In this case, he's not narrating something but just describing how priests act, and so using the present tense need not imply present action. Just like if I say "In Romans 1:1 Paul is saying X", I use the present tense, but that doesn't mean it is happening now.

Re. the good Greek, I don't think that in itself is evidence for primacy, but it is evidence that if it is primary then it was written by a Hellenistic Jew (and the other features support that conclusion). The other reasons we've discussed I think are evidence for primacy.