Uh-huh.Originally Posted by CaryC
Congressman
Uh-huh.
"The one who says he stays in Him is indebted to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6
Without Torah, His walk is impossible - it's Rome's walk without Torah.
Congressman
A friend of mine penned this interesting and revealing contrast..
Hebrew Mind vs. Greek Mind
by Brad Scott
This section is devoted to the study of the differences in western thinking (Greek, Hellenistic) and Eastern thinking (Hebrew, scriptural). The Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are penned by Hebrew authors from an Hebrew culture. They cannot be properly understood outside of this perspective. It is our contention that modern Christian teaching filters Scripture through Greek or Hellenistic glasses. This section was originally taught as a college level entry course. There are tests placed at the end of every few lessons. We hope you find the vast difference in these two thought processes as provocative as we do.
https://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-mind/
Courses are at the above link.
"The one who says he stays in Him is indebted to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6
Without Torah, His walk is impossible - it's Rome's walk without Torah.
Senator
It's funny how objectivity goes out the window when doctrine is at risk. Now, something for which there is zip, zreo, nada, zilch evidence for is KJV primacy. Yet that will be defended above any hint of an idea that Jewish people may have written letters to other Jewish people in their own language (not all NT books were written to Jews or Hebrew speakers, but some were). Bizarre. Somehow such an idea is perceived as a threat, while KJV primacy is for no apparent reason seen as being a safe position. It defies logic.
Recently I rewatched a debate between a team of two of Christian academia's top Greek and Hebrew experts (both evangelical) against a team of two other experts (one Messianic and the other unitarian) who argued against them. The evangelicals were much better known and better skilled at debate. Yet, in the end, the evangelical linguists could not get the Greek or Hebrew to prove what they were arguing for. The facts were simply not there. So, their only recourse was to attack the other sides sources, take on a cavalier " come on, we all know what it's really saying" mantra, cherry pick history, and shower the discourse with more questions than their opponents could respond to in their allotted time, then claim the unanswered questions were being avoided (a typical debate tactic), then claim victory. Yet, they themselves did what they accused their opponents of doing. They never fully addressed the Hebrew and Greek word meanings around which the debate centered more than by making unsubstantiable claims about it.
Likewise, demonstrating that Greek and Latin texts exist, even very early ones in the case of one or two Greek texts, is by no means even close to irrefutable proof.....specially when the testimony of early church writers and distinct Hebrew linguistic structure is present in many texts, and a growing (but minority) number of experts think that way as well. There is no threat in the possibility or the dialogue about it. And there is certainly evidence for the possibility. Yet, that evidence is not extensive or broad based enough to make a convincing arguement. Like the evangelical debaters above, faking an ahaa moment may have entertainment value and offer the appearance of a win, but it very soon falls flat. Yet, akin to KJV only advocates and flat earthers, there are some who will make too much ado about a smattering of informtion and make Hebrew originality into a hill to die on, just as KJV'ers do with their weak position and flat earthers do with their conspiracy theories. They reckon a large volume of internet sites dedicated to the position as evidence. We cannot stop people from doing that, and i suppose there will always be someone doing that with some pet peeve. All that reasonable people can do is feel sorry for them, make an attempt to bring them out, and then keep on walking.
But what weapons can you use to dispossess someone who will not accept anything except Holy Scripture interpreted according to his own rules?...Where Lutheranism reigns, learning dies. They seek only two things: good pay and a wife. The gospel offers them the rest — that is, the power of living as they please.
I understand now how Arius and Tertullian and Wickliff were driven into schism by malicious clergy and wicked monks.
(Erasmus regarding Luther and the church, 1527, 1529)
Congressman
Zep 3:8 “Therefore wait for Me,” declares יהוה, “until the day I rise up for plunder. For My judgment is to gather nations, to assemble reigns, to pour out on them My rage, all my burning wrath. For by the fire of My jealousy all the earth shall be consumed.
It is my understanding the verse above contains ALL the Hebrew letters, which I also understand to be the only verse that can make the claim. Then we have this in the next verse:
Zep 3:9 “For then I shall turn unto the peoples a clean lip1, so that they all call on the Name of יהוה, to serve Him with one shoulder. Footnote: 1Or language.
I'd put my money on Hebrew any day, all day! I've never before seen the outpouring of folks learning Hebrew like we have now; especially the original Paleo Hebrew which was pre-babylonian captivity.
"The one who says he stays in Him is indebted to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6
Without Torah, His walk is impossible - it's Rome's walk without Torah.
Senator
Interesting work is being done on several fronts. A lot more is emerging from DSS research, more effort is going into pictography, and more ancient texts are emerging every year. The next few years are going to prove rewarding for students of scripture.I'd put my money on Hebrew any day, all day! I've never before seen the outpouring of folks learning Hebrew like we have now; especially the original Paleo Hebrew which was pre-babylonian captivity.
As for the DIY paleo guys, I wish them well, but won't be relying on their work. I know you feel it to be authoratative and that is based on your opinion and discernment. No problem.....as long as you don't insist on everyone else accepting their conclusions. We can agree on this much....in those pictographic texts we have the real story of Tanakh. And not having a Dr degree or even any degree does not invalidate what a person may know. But a person with or without a credential can gain a following with ignorance just as well as with knowledge. I lost trust in those guys. I'm selective about my experts.
The Masoretes (Karaites) knew they had limited reliability in the texts they had to work with. But evidence that their vowel pointing system was intentionally deceptive, or even flawed, is pretty much non-existent. In fact, the evangelical debaters I mentioned above, one of which we have both had our moments of contention with, in one side of their mouth defend the Masoretic text vowel pointing, and out of the other side declared it as spurious when it didn't support their presuppositions....on a Torah establishing issue, of course. If the Masoretic text is defiled and anti-Torah, the anti-missionaries are sure doing a bang up job with it anyway of destroying the arguements of missionaries and evangelists to Jews. They're producing a lot more converts to Torah with that text, than the Christian missionaries who started the fight with them. Not that either side is fighting honestly....
Last edited by Wiskey Reb; 11-23-2017 at 07:57 PM.
But what weapons can you use to dispossess someone who will not accept anything except Holy Scripture interpreted according to his own rules?...Where Lutheranism reigns, learning dies. They seek only two things: good pay and a wife. The gospel offers them the rest — that is, the power of living as they please.
I understand now how Arius and Tertullian and Wickliff were driven into schism by malicious clergy and wicked monks.
(Erasmus regarding Luther and the church, 1527, 1529)
Senator
Slow day.
In a previous post I documented P52 a portion of John dated to 90-125 AD and how that papyri "could" of been written by John himself. Nevertheless, whether he did or not, it certainly was written in Greek, in the oldest manuscript that exists of the New Testament.
There are others as we now will note and reference. I would also note that most scholars agree on the dating of P52 with it's close dating range of 90-125, most tend to use a 50 year + or - to the date. For example if a papyri is dated to 150 AD the actual date could be 100 AD or 200 AD. And that all these other papyri are dated on the century, or half century mark.
Even though the article says late 2nd century (late 100's) remember the + or minus of 50 years. Meaning if the P90 is dated to 175, it could just as easily be 125 as 225.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_90Papyrus 90 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}90, is a small fragment from the Gospel of John 18:36-19:7 dating palaeographically to the late 2nd century.[1][clarification needed]
The Greek text of this codex is a representative of the Alexandrian text-type. Aland placed it in Category I (because of its date).[2]
Comfort says "P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
It is currently housed at the Sackler Library (Papyrology Rooms, P. Oxy. 3523) in Oxford.[2][4]
It should also be noted that the P (whatever) designation is not about age but in order of registered. P1 was registered first, P2 second and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75Papyrus 75 (P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_98Papyrus 98 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_104Papyrus 104 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by the symbol P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
This papyrus ranks among the earliest surviving texts of Matthew. It consists of six verses from the Gospel of Matthew, in a fragmentary condition, and is dated late 2nd century.[3][4]
For a completer list of Papyri here is a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...stament_papyri
That list includes all those found, and their dates, (some of which date to the 600's) and the language written in, all of which are Greek. They are linked to each individual article for each papyri. And they have the location of each Papyri, a few of which are in the Museum of the Bible.
Some of the Papyri are rather large and contain several books, some are fragments. The list contains 136 Papyri.
And then we have noted that there are nearly 6000 manuscripts of the New Testament, all of which are in Greek.
Now the argument, or debate is being raised that the "original" New Testament was written in Hebrew, and that the Greek "versions" were copies of those. Those manuscripts integrated "Western" thought, as opposed to Middle Eastern thought, and more specifically Hebrew thought and culture.
I find it interesting that ALL of the surviving manuscripts, and papyri are in Greek. Some of which can be dated to the same time as the originally understood time of the writing (Note the Gospel of John). And that other manuscripts, and later dated papyri were copies of those Greek manuscripts. It is also note worthy that these manuscripts where so highly prized, and well thought of, and in many places thought of as "God Breathed", that they made copies of to preserve them.
Given the debate then we must "assume" that this (writing in Greek) was done by non-Hebrew Christians. Since Hebrew Christians wrote in Hebrew, and presumably to Hebrew Christians. And would maintain the Hebrew thought, and culture.
It has been noted as to the many Greek documents, now the question is, Why isn't there any Hebrew documents, manuscripts, papyri? Why didn't the Hebrew Christians copy the original Hebrew documents in Hebrew to maintain the Hebrew thought and culture, for the Hebrew converts?
We know that if there were copies they would still be around. As evidenced by the Greek documents.
Hebrews, the book in the Bible was written by someone, who most scholars believe to be Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, who you would think knew Hebrew. The book is directed to a Hebrew audience.
And yet the earliest papyri that exists that contains the book of Hebrew is:
And then there is James:Papyrus 46 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), scribal abbreviation P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
James, was the half brother of Jesus, I would think he knew Hebrew, or at least Aramaic, and his book is directed to the 12 tribes scattered abroad. And yet the earliest papyri we find is:Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
The culture of the Jew/Hebrew revolved around the "God Breathed" text of the Old Testament. Those texts were so important to them, that they set up a whole system of copying those texts, by ways and means, correctly. Their culture revolved around going to synagogue, reading the scripture, the Holy Texts of the Old Testament, keeping the feasts, and the Law, which were written down, and copied, year after year.Papyrus 23 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), designated by P {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}
And yet when we get to the New Testament "original" manuscripts written in Hebrew, and even specifically written to the Hebrew, and Hebrew Christians, by Hebrews, they did not, DID NOT hold to those standards, a life long embedded culture, and way of thinking, was suddenly thrown out. Is that what the debate revolves around? The Hebrew held the texts of the New Testament in such low regard they didn't even bother to copy them?
To those who hold that view, I think you do a disservice to the Hebrew.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Congressman
Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:39] Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Against Heresies 3:1]
Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. [Eccl. Hist. 3:24]
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters. [Panarion 29:9:4]
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew. [Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5]
Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew. [Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels]
"The one who says he stays in Him is indebted to walk, even as He walked." 1Jn 2:6
Without Torah, His walk is impossible - it's Rome's walk without Torah.
Senator
And OG as you may have noted I provide a link to each one of my statements when quoting, to which you did not:The Gospel According to Matthew (Greek: Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, translit. Tò katà Matthaīon euangélion; also called the Gospel of Matthew or simply, Matthew) is the first book of the New Testament and one of the three synoptic gospels. It tells how the Messiah, Jesus, rejected by Israel, finally sends the disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world.[1] Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek",[5]
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the 2nd century.[14][15] The tradition that the author was Matthew the Apostle begins with Papias of Hierapolis (c. AD 100–140), (even as OG stated above) an early bishop and Apostolic Father, who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (AD 260–340), (so one of OG's sources quoting another one of OG sources, meaning not a new source, which would be like Fox quoting CNN) as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles [logia: sayings of or about Jesus] in the Hebrew language [Hebraïdi dialektōi], and each one interpreted [hērmēneusen—perhaps 'translated'] them as best he could."[16][Notes 1][Notes 2] On the surface this could imply that Matthew's gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[17][14] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other the surviving Greek version; or perhaps the logia were a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[16] The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not in Aramaic or Hebrew.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
And not a single papyri to support a Hebrew Matthew.
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Senator
Just as a side note if interested: Isho'dadwas a Nestorianism, if anyone thinks that is pertinent. Which is:Isho'dad of Merv
NINTH century. Nestorian* bishop of Hedatta on the Tigris.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NestorianismNestorius developed his Christological views as an attempt to understand and explain rationally the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus. He had studied at the School of Antioch where his mentor had been Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodore and other Antioch theologians had long taught a literalist interpretation of the Bible and stressed the distinctiveness of the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius took his Antiochene leanings with him when he was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Byzantine emperor Theodosius II in 428.
Nestorius's teachings became the root of controversy when he publicly challenged the long-used title Theotokos[5] (Bringer forth of God) for Mary. He suggested that the title denied Christ's full humanity, arguing instead that Jesus had two persons (dyoprosopism), the divine Logos and the human Jesus. As a result of this prosopic duality, he proposed Christotokos (Bringer forth of Christ) as a more suitable title for Mary.
Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of adoptionism – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son.
Also:
Popularised=trendy, no valid evidence.The Aramaic New Testament of the Bible exists in two forms: (1) the classical Aramaic, or Syriac, New Testament, part of the Pe****ta Bible, or "Pe****ta" (2) the "Assyrian Modern" New Testament and Psalms, published by the Bible Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from Koine Greek. The official Assyrian Church of the East (known by some as the Nestorian Church) does not recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally considers the New Testament of the Pe****ta to be the original New Testament, and Aramaic to be its original language. This view was popularised in the West by the Assyrian Church of the East scholar George Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the Pe****ta or the Greek New Testament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament
Wise Men Still Seek Him
Senator
So, the evidence of early church writers claim one thing, and that of existing parchments suggest another. Again, it makes this arguement NOT a hill to die on. But those arguing for Greek primacy currently occupy the higher ground.
Regarding the record of Josephus that nearly every Jew spoke Hebrew, we need to consider what he likely meant by that. Josephus was a native born son of Jerusalem in Judea. His testimony regarding Hebrew speaking Jews referred to Judea proper, not to observant Jews of outlying areas. Paul, for example, a native of Tarsus, would have easily been bilingual. To say that Paul was a "hellenized" Jew is not to suggest that he was assimilated into Greek culture. Nor does it suggest that to be the necessary case for other observant Jews. Yet, they would be bilingual due to their pluralistic society.. Then there were others who indeed were fully "hellenized" in the sense that they had departed from their native tongue and religion. So, how is it possible that the NT could have been written in Greek, but still contian a distinct Hebrew flavor? There is a plausible explanation....a theory.
A strong possibility exists that Paul knew and spoke (or at least could function in) biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. But even if not, most Latin speakers would also know Greek, and most Aramaic speakers would also know Greek. Yet for Jews of Judea, ie, the religious elite, et al, being multi-lingual was discouraged. For Jews in outlying areas, there may well have another pseudo-language, sort of a hebreo-greek. From antiquity, diaspora Jews often developed a language of blended ethnicity. Early Spanish Jews developed ladino, a blend of hebrew, aramaic and spanish. Yiddish is another blend developed much later.
As an aside, many ethinicities in our own American culture have done likewise. The Amish, Mexicans, Jamaicans, Koreans, Chinese, all develop some mix of English words and their native tongue. It is a common occurence with ethnic transplants. But the existence of such people always indicates a people that can function with two languages and communicate between them seamlessly. The importance of this possibility will come to light shortly.
So, whether original or not, it is plausable that Judeans would have NT books in Hebrew, since they were not bilingual. Yet, between the destruction of Jerusalem and the bar Kokhba revolt, Judea proper was sacked and destroyed pretty thoroughly and its hebrew speaking inhabitants displaced. So, by 135 ad, there would be no need to sustain a hebrew NT, since it was mainly in the hands of multi-linguists. By that time, Christian leadership had shifted from Jewish to non-Jewish, and had lost its connection to its original cultural and linguistic meaning. Thus, Jews who remained Jews had retreated from that leadership, which continued on to form the church, while those non-assimilated Jews who believed as well as gentiles who continued in the Jewish way, remained in the synagogues for a few more centuries.
So, hebreo-greek speakers could readily see the hebraisms, chaistic structures, etc, and the meaning they convey, while the church went on to make doctrines. As Rome declined, the church gained dominance, and the connection between observant Jews and the diaspora fell away, the fluidity of hebreo-greek disappeared.
While early church writers would accurately correspond about known hebrew copies of NT books, any cause for making copies of them would have been non-existent. A 135 ad (plus or minus) destruction of the Hebrew only speaking culture of Judea fits well within the approximate timeframe of the oldest known greek texts. This would explain their absence from the textual record, as well as rectify the historic record as written by early church leaders.
Every account of the early development of the church and its texts is a theory in which authorities attempt to dovetail historic narrative with hard copy evidence. This theory is as viable as any i've seen. And it takes into account and rectifies more of the otherwise seemingly contradictory evidences of early Judeo-Christian antiquity and maintains the integrity of the greater known history. To me, as more information comes to light, the picture of that ancient time period is becoming less murky and makes a lot more sense in regard to how we got from the status of the early first century to where we are now.
But what weapons can you use to dispossess someone who will not accept anything except Holy Scripture interpreted according to his own rules?...Where Lutheranism reigns, learning dies. They seek only two things: good pay and a wife. The gospel offers them the rest — that is, the power of living as they please.
I understand now how Arius and Tertullian and Wickliff were driven into schism by malicious clergy and wicked monks.
(Erasmus regarding Luther and the church, 1527, 1529)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote