PDA

View Full Version : Was the "NT" ordained by God to be written in Greek?



Eaglenester
Oct 29th 2008, 01:31 AM
Did Messiah, the apostles, and the 1st century C.E. Jews speak Greek?

The 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of the 1st century Jews.
Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the language of his place and time.
Josephus gives us the only first hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.
According to Josephus, in his "Wars (5:9:2) the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language".

Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during this time:


I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I can not pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our Nation does not encourage thouse that learn the languages of many nations Josephus Ant. 20:11:2

Thus Josephus makes it clear that 1st century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke their own language.


Also testifying to Hebrew being the language of the Jews then is the Bar Kokhba letters.
These are letters between Simon Bar Kokhba and his army. They were written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E. and were discovered in 1961.
These letters were written mainly in Hebrew and Aramaic,.
2 of the letters were written in Greek, but both were written by men with Greek names to Simon Bar Kokhba.
One of the 2 letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek saying:

the letter was writen in Greek , as we have no one who knows Hebrew here

Literalist-Luke
Oct 29th 2008, 01:44 AM
The language most often spoken by Jesus was Aramaic, which was the most common language around Judea at the time. The primary language the Romans spoke was Latin, hence the need for the translation. A great number of people also spoke Greek, the language of Alexander's armies when they had conquered the area a few centuries earlier.

The most common language of the Scriptures used in that day was Greek. In fact, the "Septuagint" was the most commonly circulated version of the Scriptures at that time. The "Septuagint" was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Throughout the New Testament, there are dozens of places where the apostles and other authors quote verses from the Old Testament. In the vast majority of cases, the actual quoting in the original language came from the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, not the Hebrew copy used by the priests.

One thing that stands out about Greek that makes it important that God did indeed "ordain" it as the New Testament's language is that Greek contains more descriptive words concerning "love" than any other language. I think there are seven, if I recall correctly. They include "agape", "phileo", and "eros", among others. Each one is translated in English as merely "love", a tragically poor conveyance of the much richer intent behind the Greek words, each of which expresses different forms and shades of "love". In order for us to truly understand the "love" (agape) of God our Father, we have to be able to contrast it with the other forms of love that operate on a more human level. For the NT authors to have conveyed this concept in any other language than Greek would have been very difficult at best.

It's just another indicator of how God is really in charge of history. He had just the right language as the most prevalent of the world at the time He needed it to get the New Testament's points across as clearly as possible.

markedward
Oct 29th 2008, 01:51 AM
Did Jesus speak Greek? Maybe a little. The apostles? Maybe a little. The general Jewish populace? Maybe a little, and probably more or less depending on where you went.

However, Greek was the lingua franca of the time. It was very commonplace for people, including the Hebrews, to know Greek - they may not have all been masters linguists, but it's certain that a decent amount of the population probably knew at least enough Greek to perform trade and communicate with other peoples.

Josephus doesn't seem to be, to me, saying the Jews never learned Greek... only that it wasn't something encouraged (compare to many modern European countries encouraging the learning of English, because English is the lingua franca of the modern day).

Take into account that a majority of Paul's epistles were written to places outside of Judea, out into the Roman Empire, where Greek was more commonplace.

However, we should take note that early Christian writers do make mention of a Hebrew gospel of Matthew circulating during at least the first few centuries AD.

In relation to the letters of Simon Bar Kochba - he was part of an anti-Roman movement... is it possible that his letters did not use any Greek or Latin, and only Hebrew or Aramaic, was because he went out of his way to not use the language of the people he was revolting against? Not much different than the average American despising the German language during the years of WWII. Jesus and His followers were never anti-Roman, so what's wrong with them using Greek, if they should have happened to learn it? Morever, even if Josephus mentions that the first century Jews didn't encourage learning Greek, why do you use that to assume that the apostles never went on to learn it eventually?

Eaglenester
Oct 29th 2008, 02:33 AM
Papias (150-170 C.E.)
Matthew composed the words in Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was ableQuoted by Eusebius: Eccl. Hist. 3:39

................

Irenus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialectIrenaeus: Against Heresies 3:1

...................

Origen (210 C.E.)
The first Gospel is written according to Matthew, the same that once was a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew Quoted by Eusebius: Eccl. Hist. 6:25

........................

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, commited it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writingsEusebius: Eccl. Hist. 3:24


Pantaenus... penetrated as far as India, where it was reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Messiah, to whom Bartholomew, one of the emisaries, as it said, had proclaimed, and left them the writings of Matthew in Hebrew lettersEusebius: Eccl. Hist. 5:10

........................

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They [the Nazarines] have the Gospel according to Mtthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew lettersEpiphanius: Panarion 29:9:4

........................

Jerome (382 C.E.)
Matthew, who is also a Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emisarry first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circucision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently asertained.
Futhermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed to by the Nazarines who use this volume in the Syrian city of 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 the authority of the 70 trasnlations [the Greek Septuagint], but that of the HebrewJerome: Of Illustrious Men 3

Shows Matthew did NOT accept the authority of the Greek TRANSLATED Septuagint.


Pantaeus found that Bartholomew, one of the 12 emissaries, had there [in India] preached the advent of our Lord Yeshua the Messia according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him Jerome: De Vir 3:36

..........................

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His [Matthew's] book was in existance in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hand in Hebrew

Biastai
Oct 29th 2008, 02:41 AM
Jesus may have known some Greek since he talked with the centurion and the Syro-Phoenician woman(?). He crossed the Lake of Galilee over to Gentile inhabited lands (judging from the pig farmers) and may have spoke Greek to Legion. I'm unsure if these are definite instances that Jesus had to have spoken Greek because I don't how far north and east of Galilee Aramaic was used. Alexander is to be thanked for this contribution. I always marveled at how he splashed Greek culture over the east in such a short time then died. It was as if that was all he was born to do.

Eaglenester
Oct 29th 2008, 02:51 AM
Clement of Alexandria (150-212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter breifly he [Clement of Alexandria] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures - the epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was writen by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the GreeksClement of Alexandria: Hypotyposes; refered to by Eusebius in: Eccl. Hist. 6:14:12

..........................................

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country; some say Luke, others thatClement, translated the epistle.Eusebiue: Eccel Hist; 3:38:2-3

.................................................. .....

Jerome (382 C.E.)
He [Paul] being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently while things were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek

mcgyver
Oct 29th 2008, 03:13 AM
A couple of things here...

Greek was the lingua franca of the day...no matter where one went in the Roman empire...or even outside the limits of the empire...one would find Greek spoken. One may thank Alexander the Great for establishing a common language throughout the entire world...paving the way for the distribution of the Gospels...which were (you guessed it) in Greek.

In those days it was common practice to dictate a letter, while a scribe wrote it down...numerous examples exist in secular writings of the time...so with the intent of telling the story of Jesus...why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, and John (Luke spoke Greek) dictate to a Greek/Aramaic scribe who would then write it down? That would be the rule rather than the exception.

If there were no Greek speaking Jews...Then why were deacons appointed? Hellenistic Jews were those Jews who had come out of the dispersion and had forgotten the Hebrew tongue...they spoke Greek. This is why Paul refers to himself as a "Hebrew of the Hebrews". An idiom of the time indicating that he (Paul) was a Hebrew-speaking Jew.

Paul also spoke Greek...Kinda hard to dispute with the Greek philosophers on Mars hill if he didn't...also check out Acts 21:37-40. It's safe to say he also spoke Aramaic.

All things considered...it's kinda like arguing over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as to the Inspiration of the Gospels...they are theopneustos in any language. :rolleyes:

Dragonfighter1
Oct 29th 2008, 03:28 AM
Eagle,
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.
You have given ample evidence that Hebrew was used for portions of the Bible. But that does mean God ordained any particular language per se. Neither Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin can make an "ordained claim"
The original scrolls have been lost.
Please help me understand more of you thoughts.
Thanks
DF1

Eaglenester
Oct 29th 2008, 10:39 AM
Eagle,
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.
You have given ample evidence that Hebrew was used for portions of the Bible. But that does mean God ordained any particular language per se. Neither Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin can make an "ordained claim"
The original scrolls have been lost.
Please help me understand more of you thoughts.
Thanks
DF1

In a previous thread about the name of Yahweh/Yahwah (which for some unexplained reason was removed :confused) someone made the statement that the "NT" was ordained by God to be written in Greek.
I told them there was ample evidence to disprove this, they asked to see it.

I've had many pastors make the statement that the entire "NT" was written in Greek - which I have learned was not true.

There is also evidence that Revelation was written originally in Hebrew.

Of course there are many out there that will reject any concept of Hebrew "NT" Scripture, holding on to their traditional thinking.
Can't break their nice orderly religious mold.

Eaglenester
Oct 29th 2008, 10:46 AM
In those days it was common practice to dictate a letter, while a scribe wrote it down...numerous examples exist in secular writings of the time...so with the intent of telling the story of Jesus...why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, and John (Luke spoke Greek) dictate to a Greek/Aramaic scribe who would then write it down? That would be the rule rather than the exception.


Well the evidence shows that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew with his own hand.
Is that so strange of a concept?

Why were "deacons" appointed?
How do we know that the original term wasn't a Hebrew one that was translated into Greek? :idea:
Seems perfectly logical and probable to me.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 29th 2008, 12:50 PM
In a previous thread about the name of Yahweh/Yahwah (which for some unexplained reason was removed :confused) someone made the statement that the "NT" was ordained by God to be written in Greek.
I told them there was ample evidence to disprove this, they asked to see it.

I've had many pastors make the statement that the entire "NT" was written in Greek - which I have learned was not true.

There is also evidence that Revelation was written originally in Hebrew.

Of course there are many out there that will reject any concept of Hebrew "NT" Scripture, holding on to their traditional thinking.
Can't break their nice orderly religious mold.
Well then. I suggest you keep banging away. Ignorant thinkers need to wake up. It is very hard to learn. More so if you think you already know. You and I too must beware, but, yes, I think your point here is valid and truth must be pressed forward....Politely of course....

Br. Barnabas
Oct 29th 2008, 01:46 PM
Josephus a Jew raised and who lived in Jerusalem did not have much need to learn Greek. Since most there would know Aramic or Hebrew they would not have much use with Greek as others have pointed out they would know enough to get by.

But not all Jews lived in Jerusalem or around Jerusalem. Many were still in the Diaspora living in different parts of the Roman Empire. In these places almost no one spoke Hebrew or Aramic. The language they spoke was Greek. Since Paul and the other Apostles were going out to these places it would logically follow that they would learn more Greek or have translators travel with them. It is not like Greek is that hard of a language to learn.

But all your evidence from the church fathers is good but history shows us another story. There has never been any evidence from history other than the accounts of the fathers that Matthew or any other NT writing was in Hebrew. In fact in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew that we have they are still in Greek and it seeems that all the quotes of the OT from Matthew have come from the LXX not from Hebrew manuscripts. In other words it does not look like some one translated the Hebrew from the OT into Greek but went with the LXX. Why would someone do this if they were translating a work from Hebrew to Greek? Why when a Scripture passage came up would they look to some other source instead of translating it themselves?

The same thing goes for Paul, all of this quotes from the OT Scriptures come from the LXX. We know that he knew the Hebrew Scriptures so why would he look to this other translation? For the same reason that most scholars who know Greek and Hebrew, if they are teaching a Sunday school class or will usually use a modern translation because most of the people in the class will be more familar with that translation and because it is a lot easier. I know Greek and Hebrew I could translate the Scriptures when I do studies but it is a lot easier and more effective if I just use a modern translation.

As for deacon it comes from the Greek word for slave. Can't remember it off the top of my head and don't have access to my Greek dictionaries.

As for the ruroms of a Hebrew copy of Revelation that is news to me.

The thing is until the ancient Hebrew copies of these works are found many scholars will doubt that they ever excisted. Because the evidence is so strong that the originals and the first copies were written in Greek.

I don't think God "ordained" the NT to be written in Greek or Hebrew I think that the language with the largest base was used. Like if some new movement started and became as popular as Christianity then the founders of the movement even if English was not their orginal language they would most likely use it once they went out talking to people around the world because of it's large base. When they wrote their stuff, whatever it might be, it would most likely be written in English because it would get the largest audience.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 29th 2008, 01:54 PM
Josephus a Jew raised and who lived in Jerusalem did not have much need to learn Greek. Since most there would know Aramic or Hebrew they would not have much use with Greek as others have pointed out they would know enough to get by.

But not all Jews lived in Jerusalem or around Jerusalem. Many were still in the Diaspora living in different parts of the Roman Empire. In these places almost no one spoke Hebrew or Aramic. The language they spoke was Greek. Since Paul and the other Apostles were going out to these places it would logically follow that they would learn more Greek or have translators travel with them. It is not like Greek is that hard of a language to learn.

But all your evidence from the church fathers is good but history shows us another story. There has never been any evidence from history other than the accounts of the fathers that Matthew or any other NT writing was in Hebrew. In fact in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew that we have they are still in Greek and it seeems that all the quotes of the OT from Matthew have come from the LXX not from Hebrew manuscripts. In other words it does not look like some one translated the Hebrew from the OT into Greek but went with the LXX. Why would someone do this if they were translating a work from Hebrew to Greek? Why when a Scripture passage came up would they look to some other source instead of translating it themselves?

The same thing goes for Paul, all of this quotes from the OT Scriptures come from the LXX. We know that he knew the Hebrew Scriptures so why would he look to this other translation? For the same reason that most scholars who know Greek and Hebrew, if they are teaching a Sunday school class or will usually use a modern translation because most of the people in the class will be more familar with that translation and because it is a lot easier. I know Greek and Hebrew I could translate the Scriptures when I do studies but it is a lot easier and more effective if I just use a modern translation.

As for deacon it comes from the Greek word for slave. Can't remember it off the top of my head and don't have access to my Greek dictionaries.

As for the ruroms of a Hebrew copy of Revelation that is news to me.

The thing is until the ancient Hebrew copies of these works are found many scholars will doubt that they ever excisted. Because the evidence is so strong that the originals and the first copies were written in Greek.

I don't think God "ordained" the NT to be written in Greek or Hebrew I think that the language with the largest base was used. Like if some new movement started and became as popular as Christianity then the founders of the movement even if English was not their orginal language they would most likely use it once they went out talking to people around the world because of it's large base. When they wrote their stuff, whatever it might be, it would most likely be written in English because it would get the largest audience.

The OP question was clarified in post #9. That his issue is the claim by some that the scriptures were "ORDAINED" in any particular language not so much that Hebrew was the real one, or that greek was the real one, or than polabantu was the real one. Just than no language can claim to be the ordained one!

(except of course the king James!)
WARNING RAISE SHIELDS FIRE FIGHT IMMENANT!:rofl:

Ta-An
Oct 29th 2008, 03:07 PM
Were the scrolls in the Qumram caves all OT??
What was the language they were written in ??

Sorri, I am just thinking out loud here and have not done any research on this yet.....

Ta-An
Oct 29th 2008, 03:09 PM
T... Just than no language can claim to be the ordained one!

Except the OT Hebrew .... :idea:

Emanate
Oct 29th 2008, 03:30 PM
Except the OT Hebrew .... :idea:


Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Talmud quotes ancient Rabbis calling Hebrew "the language of heaven."

1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

food for thought.

Emanate
Oct 29th 2008, 03:32 PM
Also,

Good to see you back, Eagle

Dragonfighter1
Oct 29th 2008, 03:37 PM
Except the OT Hebrew .... :idea:
:P blah blah blah blah

Br. Barnabas
Oct 29th 2008, 03:37 PM
Were the scrolls in the Qumram caves all OT??
What was the language they were written in ??

Sorri, I am just thinking out loud here and have not done any research on this yet.....

There were Aramic, Hebrew, and Greek scrolls found in the DSS. Most of the writings were in Hebrew.

The Qumran community was a very Jewish community they greatly opposed both the Romans and the Jews in Jerusalem. Their overemphasis of Hebrew should not been taken as an arcoss the board example of Hebrew use in 1st century Israel.

Edit: Excuse me I am sorry I totally missed your first question there. No all the scrolls were not from the Hebrew Bible. The book of Esther was not found among the scrolls. And there were many many many other books than what we find in the Hebrew Bible there. There were books on the rule of life the community, books telling about the end of the wicked priest and his followers (The temple cult in Jerusalem and the Jews who followed it). The books 1 Enoch, Jubliees, and many other pseudopigraphical books were found at the site. Sorry I cannot remember all the different types that were found there. I don't have my The Complete Dea Sea Scrolls book with me. I have, however, read it, and thus all the translated scrolls that were found there, had a class on the DSS.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 29th 2008, 04:30 PM
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but weren't there parts of Daniel that were originally written in Aramaic?

markedward
Oct 29th 2008, 04:36 PM
For Daniel, chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic. Chapters 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew. Although, apparently, it's a theory that it was entirely Aramaic to begin with and was slowly translated into Hebrew to "increase acceptance" (this based on evidence that the Hebrew portions have "Aramaisms" in the text).

mcgyver
Oct 29th 2008, 04:44 PM
Well the evidence shows that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew with his own hand.
Is that so strange of a concept?

Although I have no problem with the school of thought that Matthew wrote his gospel (originally) in Hebrew...There is only supposition as to this point.


Why were "deacons" appointed?
How do we know that the original term wasn't a Hebrew one that was translated into Greek? :idea:
Seems perfectly logical and probable to me.Problem here is that the scripture specifically states that there was a dispute between the Hebrew speaking Jews and the Greek speaking Jews.

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

Hellenists are not Gentile believers...they were Jews who had Greek as their language and had embraced the Greek culture to some extent.

Also, both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written in (almost classical quality) Greek....They were written to "most excellent Theophilus", who (from the salutation which would be translated as: "His Excellency" in modern English) was most certainly a Roman official of some note who was a believer.

"His excellency" is not a Hebrew idiom or term; but was a very common Greek term for one in governmental authority.

Therefore, internal evidence in these two books certainly points to Greek as the language in which they were written.

Literalist-Luke
Oct 29th 2008, 04:57 PM
For Daniel, chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic. Chapters 1 and 8-12 are Hebrew. Although, apparently, it's a theory that it was entirely Aramaic to begin with and was slowly translated into Hebrew to "increase acceptance" (this based on evidence that the Hebrew portions have "Aramaisms" in the text).Thanks. :)

Ta-An
Oct 29th 2008, 08:07 PM
:P blah blah blah blah
:hug: .

Ta-An
Oct 29th 2008, 08:09 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Talmud quotes ancient Rabbis calling Hebrew "the language of heaven."
Not a problem with that..... it is said that the one language all spiritual beings understand is ancient Hebrew.... ;)

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:29 PM
But did you know that there are NO Greek manuscripts before Constantine that contain Theos, Christos, Iesous, or even stauros (cross)?

Did you know that there are writings that make mention of Rabbis in the 1st/2nd century that did not know how to destroy Gospel manuscripts because they contained Elohim's proper name YHWH?

There is much more evidence for a goodly portion of the NT being written originally than there is for a "God ordained" all Greek NT.

The vatican has even acknowledged that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that early manuscripts contained YHWH, and Yahshua - but of course they have documents we aren't privy to.
And they have not banned Yahweh from being used in "church" services.

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:32 PM
Eunuchs?

In Mt. 19:12


the Greek has: " ....there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake...." --Mt. 19:12 NKJV
A rather bizzar statement in light of the Torah perspective on eunuchs (Dt. 23:1f).
The word here in Aramaic is M'HAIMNA which can mean Eunuch but which can also mean a "faithful one" or a "believer" and is the word used to refer to one who is faithful to a spouse.
Clearly the Greek translator did not understand the usage of M'HAIMNA in this passage.
In Acts 8:27 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Acts+8%3A27)
Quote:
So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship. --Acts 8:27 NKJV (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Acts+8%3A27)
The man in Acts 8:27 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Acts+8%3A27) appears to be a proselyte to Judaism since he seems to be making the Torah-required pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Dt. 16:16).
The Torah, however, forbids a eunuch both from becoming a proselyte Jew, and from worshiping at the Temple (Dt. 23:1f).
This also raises the question of why one would become a eunuch (be castrated) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
After all eunuchs are excluded from the assembly of Israel.
The word for "eunuch" in the Aramaic manuscripts of both of theses passages is M'HAIMNA which can mean "eunuch" but can also mean "believer" or "faithful one" as it clearly means here.
From:
Evidence Supporting Original Hebrew-Aramaic New Testament

by James S. Trimm

mcgyver
Nov 4th 2008, 03:33 PM
Question:

Where are you getting your information?

I'd really like to check that out for myself...

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:34 PM
Simon the leper?
Mt. 26:9 = Mk. 14:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Mk.+14%3A3)


And when Y'shua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Lev.+13%3A46)). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.


From:
Evidence Supporting Original Hebrew-Aramaic New Testament

by James S. Trimm

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:37 PM
Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS YHWH DIRECTED ME."
(Matthew 27:9-10 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Matthew+27%3A9-10))

There is a SERIOUS ERROR in this verse, how do you deal with it?

Then YHWH said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the YHWH.
(Zechariah 11:13 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Zechariah+11%3A13))

The Greek is giving credit to the WRONG prophet. http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/11.gif

The Pes hitta (Aramaic manuscripts) says:
Then that which was spoken through the prophet was fulfilled.
without naming the prophet.

Claiming a Hebrew / Aramaic origin of some of the NT does NOT knock down the inerrant inspiration of Scripture, as some wrongly assert - just changes how Yahuweh brought it about.

The above example, by holding to the Greek origin tradition, brings doubt to the "inerrantcy" claim as that is an error, but the Aramaic removes that doubt.
__________________

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:39 PM
Another serious error:

And He *said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"
(Mark 2:25-26 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Mark+2%3A25-26))

Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?"
(1 Samuel 21:1 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+Samuel+21%3A1))

But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.
(1 Samuel 22:20 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=1+Samuel+22%3A20))

The Greek names the WRONG person as the priest, calling question into inerrantcy - the Aramaic Old Syriac reading of Mk. 2:26 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Mk.+2%3A26) does not contain this error - thus strengthening the inerrantcy.

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:45 PM
Another SERIOUS ERROR in the Greek:

The record of the genealogy of Yahushua the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Yahushua was born, who is called the Messiah.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Messiah are fourteen generations.

(Matthew 1:1-17 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Matthew+1%3A1-17))


13 names from carrying away to Babylon to Messiah



1. Salathiel
2. Zorobabel
3. Abiud
4. Eliakim
5. Azur
6. Sadoc
7. Achim
8. Eliud
9. Eleazar
10. Matthan
11. Jacob
12. Joseph
13. Yahushua



Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name "Abner" which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13. In Hebrew and Aramaic "d" and "r" look very much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting "Abner" from the list. The Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name "Abner." There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has "Aviur" where the Greek has "Aviud" thus catching the error in a sort of "freeze frame" and demonstrating the reliability of the reading in the Hebrew. Again the Hebrew / Aramaic claim of originality remove the inerrantcy doubt the Greek has brought in.

Dragonfighter1
Nov 4th 2008, 03:48 PM
http://www.familybible.org/Teaching/Model/Ch_1.htm

But the author does say...
"Granted, much of the information presented herein is highly speculative and is certainly open to interpretations other than my own..."

mcgyver
Nov 4th 2008, 03:53 PM
But did you know that there are NO Greek manuscripts before Constantine that contain Theos, Christos, Iesous, or even stauros (cross)?

Did you know that there are writings that make mention of Rabbis in the 1st/2nd century that did not know how to destroy Gospel manuscripts because they contained Elohim's proper name YHWH?

There is much more evidence for a goodly portion of the NT being written originally than there is for a "God ordained" all Greek NT.

The vatican has even acknowledged that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that early manuscripts contained YHWH, and Yahshua - but of course they have documents we aren't privy to.
And they have not banned Yahweh from being used in "church" services.


I'm sorry Brother, but this is just plain wrong....And the rest comes perilously close to both conspiracy and sacred name views that actual History....

Greek manuscripts prior to Constantine... all dates "circa"

P64 <A.D. 60 P67 < A.D. 200 P45 < A.D. 250 Gospel of Matthew

7Q5 < A.D. 70 P45 (as above) Gospel of Mark

P4, 45, 75 < A.D. 250 Gospel of Luke

There are more: But these should suffice to show the fallacy of the above assertion.

Additionally, there has never been any serious doubt that the Epistles of Paul (written to the Gentiles who did not speak Hebrew) were in Greek.

Also...I am sorry to say...this fellow is building a case on faulty Greek scholarship also...as evidenced in his explanation of the word "eunuch"...:rolleyes:

Eaglenester
Nov 4th 2008, 03:54 PM
http://www.familybible.org/Teaching/Model/Ch_1.htm

But the author does say...
"Granted, much of the information presented herein is highly speculative and is certainly open to interpretations other than my own..."




That's a source I haven't seen.

Back2Front
Nov 4th 2008, 04:40 PM
From the very second Moses dipped his pen and began to write on a piece of goatskin, people have been twisting the word of God to suit their own agendas.

As a side note; isn't it funny that the Arc of the covenant is said to contain that which is written by Gods very finger and the original of original documents?

If God wanted to ordain the Greek language as his or as anything, he would have spoke Greek to Moses and later been born of Greeks.

Here's another one. When a Roman General runs up to Christ carrying on about a daughter and a servant or the like, is he speaking Latin to Christ? Likely not as the fishermen disciples who were standing around and later recording the conversation probably didn't speak it. Nor would they have known Greek. So logically lets look at the current suggestion. A Roman Soldier has a conversation with Christ in Latin, and an uneducated fisherman disciple who's native tongue is Aramaic remembers it, and later records it in Greek?

It reminds me of the secret game. You know the one? It's where the teacher whispers in a students ear "The Sky is blue" and after 30 students pass the secret on, one to the next, the last reveals that the secret was "Chalk is sexy"

Here is something I do know for a fact. I'm making no direct accusations with this statement either, so please endure. Antisemitism runs deeper in people than most people can even begin to realize.

Antisemitism is taught and learned throughout time in the most clever of ways. Thus making it highly purposeful. The reason is that Satans main goal is to steal souls. Top of the agenda is to prevent Gods people from being Gods people and from ever assembling. Speaking simply, you are either Gods people or your Satans.

So with that said, here is a suggestion that might require some thought. But I must warn you, most will hear my suggestion, and through 2000+ years of purposeful education then 3000+ leading up to that, just throw it out immediately. It will also cause some of you to hate me and/or think I'm a complete misguided idiot. But here it goes anyway; Satan has not only tried, and still tries to prevent Jews from becoming Christian, but he has also tries to prevent Christians from becoming Jews.

And he is really good at it.

Levin
Nov 5th 2008, 09:31 AM
But did you know that there are NO Greek manuscripts before Constantine that contain Theos, Christos, Iesous, or even stauros (cross)?
Well, the earliest manuscript we have is P52, a Greek papyrus from around 120 AD (fun thought, this may be the original text! However, this is doubtful). Anyways, this text contains John 18:31-33, and 37-38, verses that cite the name "Jesus." What text criticism sources are you using? And I mean published sources; I don't want internet links. I'm personally working out of the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed, edited by Nestle Aland. I'm not going to support any work by James Trimm, he seems like a fairly shady character and I don't think that any kind of theological community supports him. However, every major group of evangelical scholars uses Aland's text as their source, and every new translation that has come out (the TNIV uses a slightly different text, like 0.5% different) is based upon this text. His text is based upon every single extant Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin text we have. How is it that the earliest texts we have for every major book of the NT are in the Greek?

By the way, what Aramaic text are you working out of, and how do you know that the text you're reading actually refers to the Aramaic texts we have?

Sincerely,
Levin

Dragonfighter1
Nov 5th 2008, 11:49 AM
Well, the earliest manuscript we have is P52, a Greek papyrus from around 120 AD (fun thought, this may be the original text! However, this is doubtful). Anyways, this text contains John 18:31-33, and 37-38, verses that cite the name "Jesus." What text criticism sources are you using? And I mean published sources; I don't want internet links. I'm personally working out of the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed, edited by Nestle Aland. I'm not going to support any work by James Trimm, he seems like a fairly shady character and I don't think that any kind of theology community supports him. However, every major group of evangelical scholars uses Aland's text as their source, and every new translation that has come out (the TNIV uses a slightly different text, like 0.5% different) is based upon this text. His text is based upon every single extant Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin text we have. How is it that the earliest texts we have for every major book of the NT are in the Greek?

By the way, what Aramaic text are you working out of, and how do you know that the text you're reading actually refers to the Aramaic texts we have?

Sincerely,
Levin
That's an excellent series of questions. I expect it will take him a little while to get all the answers together, but I expect he will... and I am looking forward to both the answers and the ongoing discussion that will come out of this particular discussion.
DF1

Emanate
Nov 5th 2008, 01:29 PM
I'm not going to support any work by James Trimm, he seems like a fairly shady character and I don't think that any kind of theology community supports him.


Haha, As of late I do not think he is getting much support from any side.

Emanate
Nov 5th 2008, 01:30 PM
Satan has not only tried, and still tries to prevent Jews from becoming Christian, but he has also tries to prevent Christians from becoming Jews.


A house divided......

Back2Front
Nov 5th 2008, 05:47 PM
A house divided......

;)

Not in my house :saint: (Ezekiel 37)

Eaglenester
Nov 6th 2008, 02:29 PM
Well, the earliest manuscript we have is P52, a Greek papyrus from around 120 AD (fun thought, this may be the original text! However, this is doubtful). Anyways, this text contains John 18:31-33, and 37-38, verses that cite the name "Jesus."

NOT true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52


The papyrus is written on both sides. The characters in bold style are the ones that can be seen in Papyrus P52. Gospel of John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John) 18:31-33 (recto)

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΕΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟΘΝΕΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩN


...the Jews, "To us it is lawful to kill no one" so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he said signifying by what sort of death he was about to die. He entered again into the Praetorium Pilate and called Jesus and said to him "Are you king of the Jews? ...

Gospel of John (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John) 18:37-38 (verso)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ ΚΑΙ (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕIΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔΕΜΙΑΝ ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ


King am I. I for this reason have been born (and for this reason) I have come into the world so that I shall testify to the truth. Everyone being of the truth hears my voice. Says to him Pilate, "What is truth?" and this saying, again he went out to the Jews and says to them, "I nothing ...



And besides, it couldn't be JESUS, as there was no J prior to the 1500s, and even the 1611 KJV DIDN'T use "Jesus" - wasn't till the next revision that the change the name to Jesus.

mcgyver
Nov 7th 2008, 03:58 PM
And besides, it couldn't be JESUS, as there was no J prior to the 1500s, and even the 1611 KJV DIDN'T use "Jesus" - wasn't till the next revision that the change the name to Jesus.

So...to cut to the chase...(because now you've got me confused)...Are you saying that we are not to use the English name of Jesus for some reason?

Are you saying that He will not respond unless we call upon Him using the Hebrew name?

Firefighter
Nov 7th 2008, 04:11 PM
To answer the original question, YES! Along with every other language that it has ever been written in.

Eaglenester
Nov 7th 2008, 04:38 PM
So...to cut to the chase...(because now you've got me confused)...Are you saying that we are not to use the English name of Jesus for some reason?

Are you saying that He will not respond unless we call upon Him using the Hebrew name?

I HAVEN'T made that assertion.

Someone said the name Jesus was in a 2nd century manuscript, I was just stating facts.

watchinginawe
Nov 7th 2008, 04:43 PM
Not exactly on topic, but I think these observations from scripture are interesting:

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.


John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.


So it seems that Greek was also a language of the area and not completely foreign.

Also, it is interesting to do a search on "interpret" and "Hebrew". For example, in Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And in Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And in John:19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

God Bless!

mcgyver
Nov 7th 2008, 05:15 PM
I HAVEN'T made that assertion.

Someone said the name Jesus was in a 2nd century manuscript, I was just stating facts.

Thanks Brother!

I've found that if I'm not sure...it's better to ask than to guess ;)

Steven Avery
Nov 8th 2008, 07:04 PM
Hi Folks,

There are two gaping flaws in the "Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew" theory.

1) A careful reading of Jerome shows that the 'Hebrew Matthew' he refers to (whether from Matthew or not) from Syria is different from the Gospel of Matthew we know. The Gospel that Jerome himself updated/translated in Latin. The work in Hebrew is no longer extant.

2) The fact and consistency of the internal translations within our Greek text cannot be explained with any semitic language source (Hebrew or Aramaic). They are consistent only with a Greek (or Latin) writing that is relating events where some of the speaking is occurring in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

Hebrew was in fact a live language at the time, despite some mis-scholarship of some years ago that claimed otherwise. Paul spoke to the crowd in Jerusalem in Hebrew in Acts.

There are other problems, too (e.g. I believe it is safe to say that Matthew does not have the look and feel of translation Greek) but those two jump to mind. It is actually far more possible that Mark was written in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect. That has good evidence and no such contra-indications as those above.

The supposed problems with the Greek text are generally answered quite simply answered if your viewpoint affirms the historic Reformation Bible, the Received Text. If you are dealing with the modern versions some of them can be difficult, since there are a lot of corruptions and inconsistencies in the alexandrian text, much like there is in the Old Syriac texts.

James Trimm is best avoided for real scholarship, although he can snippeted for some other interesting sources.. I have a long paper about his "Hebrew Roots Version" (HRV) NT on the Net, which is a blatant plagiarism.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 02:03 PM
This is just my personal view, take it or leave it.

I don't believe most of the Apsotles spoke Greek, except maybe to ask where a bathroom was, where they had to pay their taxes, or where to buy a kosher hambuger. Many people believe Peter's vision (Acts 10-11) had to do with food. It didn't and I can share why if anyone wants to start a new thread. But in that story we see the mindset of the Jews of that day:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Simply put, Jews did not associate with Greeks, they considered them unclean. (which was the point of his vision btw) So with this in mind, and understanding the following, I believe only the gospels of Mark and Luke, and possibly Acts, were written in Greek.

A quote from Origen:

“The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”


The next from Ireneous:
“Matthew, indeed, “said he, “produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul....”


Lastly, from Clement:
It is probable that this was also numbered with the other writings of the apostles, for as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. This appears more like the truth, since the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserved the same features of style and phraseology, and the sentiments in both these works were not very different.”



So what we can take from these is that Paul most likely wrote all of his letters in Hebrew (or possibly Aramiac) and had an interpreter. Peter was translated into Greek, and one would wonder, especially considering Peter's words in the verse above, if John didn't have an interpreter as well. One thing is clear, regardless of the original language, these were Jews who wrote from a Hebrew perspective. So I would ask, would you get more out of the scripture you read viewing it through a Greek mindset or a Hebrew one?




Peace.


Ken

mcgyver
Nov 20th 2008, 05:30 PM
Actually, I must respectfully disagree in regard to the Pauline Epistles being originally written in Hebrew.

Both internal evidence, and historical fact would seem to discount this notion.

There are some things that we can know for sure:

Although without doubt Paul spoke Hebrew ("a Hebrew of the Hebrews" was an idiom denoting a Jew who had not "lost" Hebrew, even as "Hellenists" denoted those Jews who did not speak Hebrew), Paul also spoke Greek, as evidenced in Acts 21:37-40 (Roman commander speaking to him subsequent to his arrest in the Temple in Jerusalem).

This is also evidenced in Acts 17:19 and following, where Paul disputed with the Greek philosophers at the Areopagus; Had he not spoken Greek the philosophers would have considered him "a barbarian" and not spoken with him, as well as Paul refering to the inscriptions that he had seen (e.g. "to the unkown God").

We also know historically that Aramaic was confined (for the most part) to Judea and the surrounding regions, and Hebrew was almost exclusively used by the Jews. Also as alluded to earlier, there was a large population of Jews from the diaspora who did not speak Hebrew at all (Hellenists).

Greek was the lingua franca of the entire world at this time, thus the term "Koine" (common) Greek. Anywhere one went in the world, one would find a Greek speaker...this is similar to Africa of a hundred years ago, where within every tribe one would find a Swahili speaker.

We also know that Paul used scribes to write his letters as he dictated them. This was a very common practice at the time, and not at all unusual.

In fact, in Romans 16:22 we see: I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord. (Tertius is a Roman name...)

In Colossians 4:18: This salutation by my own hand—Paul. Remember my chains. Grace be with you. Amen.

And in 2 Thess 3:17 we see a curious comment:The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write.

From comparison with other ancient letters, the salutation in one's own hand was a sign that the letter had been dictated, vetted, and then signed as a confirmation of accuracy.

When one considers that Paul was the Apostle appointed to the Gentiles, and when one further considers that many of these Gentile churches did not even speak the same language (Corinth for example, had 31 indigenous languages), then Greek as the common laguage would be the language of authorship.

In the pastoral Epistles to Timothy, we see that Timothy was an uncircumcised Greek...certainly it is doubtful that Timothy spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic.

Therefore, when we tie all these things together; I really think that we can assert with a high degree of confidence that the Pauline Epistles (as least) were written/dictated in Greek for distribution to churches throughout the world (as evidenced in the "circular" epistles).

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 05:32 PM
Actually, I must respectfully disagree in regard to the Pauline Epistles being originally written in Hebrew.

Both internal evidence, and historical fact would seem to discount this notion.

There are some things that we can know for sure:

Although without doubt Paul spoke Hebrew ("a Hebrew of the Hebrews" was an idiom denoting a Jew who had not "lost" Hebrew, even as "Hellenists" denoted those Jews who did not speak Hebrew), Paul also spoke Greek, as evidenced in Acts 21:37-40 (Roman commander speaking to him subsequent to his arrest in the Temple in Jerusalem).

This is also evidenced in Acts 17:19 and following, where Paul disputed with the Greek philosophers at the Areopagus; Had he not spoken Greek the philosophers would have considered him "a barbarian" and not spoken with him, as well as Paul refering to the inscriptions that he had seen (e.g. "to the unkown God").

We also know historically that Aramaic was confined (for the most part) to Judea and the surrounding regions, and Hebrew was almost exclusively used by the Jews. Also as alluded to earlier, there was a large population of Jews from the diaspora who did not speak Hebrew at all (Hellenists).

Greek was the lingua franca of the entire world at this time, thus the term "Koine" (common) Greek. Anywhere one went in the world, one would find a Greek speaker...this is similar to Africa of a hundred years ago, where within every tribe one would find a Swahili speaker.

We also know that Paul used scribes to write his letters as he dictated them. This was a very common practice at the time, and not at all unusual.

In fact, in Romans 16:22 we see: I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord. (Tertius is a Roman name...)

In Colossians 4:18: This salutation by my own hand—Paul. Remember my chains. Grace be with you. Amen.

And in 2 Thess 3:17 we see a curious comment:The salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle; so I write.

From comparison with other ancient letters, the salutation in one's own hand was a sign that the letter had been dictated, vetted, and then signed as a confirmation of accuracy.

When one considers that Paul was the Apostle appointed to the Gentiles, and when one further considers that many of these Gentile churches did not even speak the same language (Corinth for example, had 31 indigenous languages), then Greek as the common laguage would be the language of authorship.

In the pastoral Epistles to Timothy, we see that Timothy was an uncircumcised Greek...certainly it is doubtful that Timothy spoke either Hebrew or Greek.

Therefore, when we tie all these things together; I really think that we can assert with a high degree of confidence that the Pauling Epistles (as least) were written/dictated in Greek for distribution to churches throughout the world (as evidenced in the "circular" epistles).
Someone's been doing some studying! Kudo's dude.

mcgyver
Nov 20th 2008, 05:52 PM
Here's some food for thought...

Matthew (Levi) was a tax collector who worked for the Romans.

Although Latin was the language of Rome, and the language of Roman Colonies (a Roman Colony was a "little piece of Rome somewhere else in the world": i.e. Tarsus), Greek was the language of commerce and accounting throughout the rest of the empire.

Judea was a 3d class Roman province (that's the official Roman designation btw).

We know that the Romans were fastidious record's keepers....

What language do you think was used in giving an account to the Roman authorities of the taxes collected; by Matthew? :hmm:

Br. Barnabas
Nov 20th 2008, 06:16 PM
This is just my personal view, take it or leave it.

I don't believe most of the Apsotles spoke Greek, except maybe to ask where a bathroom was, where they had to pay their taxes, or where to buy a kosher hambuger. Many people believe Peter's vision (Acts 10-11) had to do with food. It didn't and I can share why if anyone wants to start a new thread. But in that story we see the mindset of the Jews of that day:

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Simply put, Jews did not associate with Greeks, they considered them unclean. (which was the point of his vision btw) So with this in mind, and understanding the following, I believe only the gospels of Mark and Luke, and possibly Acts, were written in Greek.

A quote from Origen:
“The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”

The next from Ireneous:
“Matthew, indeed, “said he, “produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul....”

Lastly, from Clement:
It is probable that this was also numbered with the other writings of the apostles, for as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his country, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that Clement, translated the epistle. This appears more like the truth, since the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews preserved the same features of style and phraseology, and the sentiments in both these works were not very different.”


So what we can take from these is that Paul most likely wrote all of his letters in Hebrew (or possibly Aramiac) and had an interpreter. Peter was translated into Greek, and one would wonder, especially considering Peter's words in the verse above, if John didn't have an interpreter as well. One thing is clear, regardless of the original language, these were Jews who wrote from a Hebrew perspective. So I would ask, would you get more out of the scripture you read viewing it through a Greek mindset or a Hebrew one?



Peace.

Ken





Also hate to burst your bubble but John MacArthur is wrong the Disciple of Jesus were not 12 ordinary men.

Peter, Andrew, James and John were business men who happened to be in the business of fishing. They did not just fish for themselves and their family but they did it to sell their catch. They also had a staff/crew of people who worked for them. These people could run the business while they were off with Jesus. They still had to support their families.

Matthew was a tax collector he was a smart guy. He knew how to communicate with everyone not just the Jews, but also official Romans and the ones in his area. So he most likely knew Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and most likely Hebrew.

As for the other guys we don't really know too much about them but that they went on to found churches all over the ancient world. Not an easy task. These guys were not dumb or uneducated. They knew how the world worked and how to get along in it. They were not just farmers or fisherman, they were business men and worldly guys.

Because of Alexander the Great and his Hellenization of the Greek Empire which became the Roman Empire almost everyone knew Greek. Hebrew was not really a spoken language at this time. Some Jews knew it but it was a lot more common to speak Aramaic in Judea and speak Greek in the country side. Hebrew was saved for the teachers of the Law and scribes and other people that had a lot of religious dealings. But the average person would not speak it they could read it. But as the DSS show that Aramaic and Greek were pretty popular for writing common stuff and Hebrew was saved mainly for religious texts.

Also the textual evidence that we have shows that Matthew and the other books of the NT were most likely written in Greek to begin with not Hebrew then translated to Greek. We have no textual evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. And the earliest copies of Matthew that we do have show that it looks like it was written in Greek and that the quotes from the OT were taken from the LXX not from the Hebrew texts. This only helps those that say there was not Hebrew Matthew because why translate the book from Hebrew to Greek but when you get to the quotes from the OT go to the LXX instead of just translating them like the rest of the book.

Also most of the Jews in the ancient world even in Judea had to deal with the Romans, they did not like them but that was because they were a military power in their land not because they were unclean; even though they were. For example there was a Roman garrison that over looked the Temple courts. Also the Greeks and Romans could go into part of the Temple courts. Because there were God-fearers, those Greeks or Romans that liked the Jewish religion but did not want to fully convert, mainly because they did not like the idea of being circumcised at the adult stage of their life. These are the people that Paul usually went to when he went into a new town. Because as we saw when he went to real Greeks and philosophers they did not know what the heck he was talking about it was totally foreign to them. So he went to those who had some idea of what monotheism was and how it worked.

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 06:25 PM
Folks, I posted some quotes attributing much of the NT as written in Hebrew. Granted about Timothy by the way......and as for Peter and James owning a fleet of ships and crews to run them, you might want to study your history a little better.

My point in that post wasn't to debate who wrote in what language. I happen to believe it was "mostly" Hebrew or Aramaic, and I am of course entitled to that view. The point from post was:

"One thing is clear, regardless of the original language, these were Jews who wrote from a Hebrew perspective. So I would ask, would you get more out of the scripture you read viewing it through a Greek mindset or a Hebrew one?"

Now, though Timothy was not a Jew, he was still taught by them, lived as one of them, his paradigm when it came to scripture would have been one of a Hebrew and not Greek.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 06:53 PM
Uriel wrote>> Also the textual evidence that we have shows that Matthew and the other books of the NT were most likely written in Greek to begin with not Hebrew then translated to Greek.

Ken>> Can you share some of that textual criticism with me. You said there is "no evidence" that Matthew was written in Hebrew, did you read what I have pasted below from my previous post?

A quote from Origen:
“The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”

The next from Ireneous:
“Matthew, indeed, “said he, “produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul....”


While Origen died late by comparison, (254) Iraneous was a bit earlier.(202) This is evidence Uriel, not that you have to accept it. Two accounts by two different men from 1800 years ago. And this is somewhat important....Iraneous is QUOTING something Matthew apparently said. If he was quoting Matthew as saying he wrote in Hebrew, and quoting Matthew who ALSO said Peter and Paul wrote in Hebrew, I would say that is evidence.


Peace.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 06:55 PM
One last thing...who is John MacArthur ?
Thanks.
Ken

mcgyver
Nov 20th 2008, 07:09 PM
I see what you're getting at, because the Greek gospels definitely have a "Jewish" flavor, or mindset...of that there is no doubt.

The problems that I run into with the hypothesis that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew, is the loss or change of meaning within the text.

To wit: Greek is one of those languages with a certain texture and richness of meanings that many languages lack.

I think that we can agree that in Greek, one word may have several synonymous meanings, and within these meanings several shades of meaning. Additionally, there may be multiple words to express a concept in different contexts: Phileo, and Agape are the two most commonly known illustrations.

Another would be Anomia, Amartia, Adikia, or Anarchia for "lawlessness", each with a very unique and special application.

Now I freely admit that I am not a Hebrew scholar...I have at best a "working knowledge" of Hebrew...but I don't think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Hebrew has that depth of meaning...

Now as to an example of what I mean here: Christ said "it is finished" upon the cross. This is translated in Greek as "Tetelestai".

Tetelestai means so much more that simply "it is finished"...It was a term of legal standing in commerce and trade. When one paid one's bill for an item or service, the shopkeeper would write Tetelestai on the bottom of the bill in his own hand. This signified that all conditions for the bill had been met, that the bill was paid in full, that there was not anything currently owed or in the future to be owed in regards to that bill. If for example a dispute arose over the bill and one was called before the magistrate, if one's bill had Tetelestai written upon it; nothing more could ever be demanded in reference to payment of that bill....and that was a precept in acceptance throughout the entire Roman empire.

Obviously then, this one tiny word carries immense and profound theological impact.

Is there an equivalent word with the same meanings in Hebrew or Aramaic?

Whether there is or not is moot...it would in no wise carry the same legal standing in that society, nor make the same impact...

Therein lies my point...Hope I explained all that well....

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 09:10 PM
Mcgyver, thanks for your thoughtful post. That is what I was hoping to find here.

I get your point about losing meaning, but it doesn't have to go to that extent. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about:

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Some teach that Paul is saying we can "rest" on any day. But these verses are talking about is the 4 additional Feasts/fast days celebrated by some, but not all Jews or Messianic converts. The Feast of Esther, Feast of the falling of the wall, Fast related to the destruction of the Temple, etc. Though these days are not in scripture, Paul is saying there is nothing wrong with keeping them. These days are in honor of God, not pagan, and thus, if you want to keep them, do so. I could add other scripture which shows that if you keep them, that doesn't give you the right to make it law for others to keep.

My point is, if you view scripture through a Greek mindset, you might never really understand verses like these. That doesn't mean God can't speak through them and edify you in one way or the other...but the intent of the writing won't be know.

As for losing the message when not using Greek. One of the things I have started to do, and this is a great resource...is I use the Septuigent. It was translated by Jews for their Greek speaking brethren ouside of Jerusalem. So if I come across a word or phrase that doesn't comprehend well, I go back to the Septuigent and see where that Greek word was used. Then I go to the Hebrew and see the word there. This "sometimes" sheds light on troubling passages.

Peace and blessings.
Ken

Br. Barnabas
Nov 20th 2008, 09:14 PM
Uriel wrote>> Also the textual evidence that we have shows that Matthew and the other books of the NT were most likely written in Greek to begin with not Hebrew then translated to Greek.

Ken>> Can you share some of that textual criticism with me. You said there is "no evidence" that Matthew was written in Hebrew, did you read what I have pasted below from my previous post?

A quote from Origen:
“The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in the Hebrew.”

The next from Ireneous:
“Matthew, indeed, “said he, “produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, committed to writing the gospel preached by him, i.e., Paul....”


While Origen died late by comparison, (254) Iraneous was a bit earlier.(202) This is evidence Uriel, not that you have to accept it. Two accounts by two different men from 1800 years ago. And this is somewhat important....Iraneous is QUOTING something Matthew apparently said. If he was quoting Matthew as saying he wrote in Hebrew, and quoting Matthew who ALSO said Peter and Paul wrote in Hebrew, I would say that is evidence.


Peace.
Ken

While I respect the work of Origen and Iraneous very much. However, they are still writing 150 years after the fact. The copies of Matthew that we have found are earlier then that. The quotes that we have from the fathers of Matthew and the rest of the NT are in Greek. We don't have any physical manuscript of a Hebrew work from the NT. We also don't have any lingustic evidence of it. So that leads me and many other scholars to believe that the fathers were mistaken on this point that they most likely heard it or read it somewhere and quoted it without actually seeing it for themselves. He is not quoting Matthew he is quoting someone else or the quote that you have is coming from Eusebius.

So they only evidence that we have is from a few fathers writing much later then the authograph penned. The actual physical evidence that we have from the manuscripts themselves show no evidence that it was ever written in Hebrew. As I explained before the quotes from the OT in Matthew and the rest of the NT for that matter come from the LXX not from Hebrew manuscripts.

John MacArthur is a popular writer who has his own commentary series and quite a few books on the Bible or related to the Bible. He is a conserative Christian writer, very protestant and evangelical from what I can tell. I was just making a passing reference to him because he has a book called 12 Ordinary Men, about the Apostle/Disciples of Christ. I was pointing out that they are not that ordinary.

In Mark when Jesus calles John and James they leave their father on the boat with the hired men. If you have hired men you are not just fishing for your self it is a business. The same thing is most likely true for Peter and Andrew.

kenrank
Nov 20th 2008, 09:30 PM
Uriel>>The quotes that we have from the fathers of Matthew and the rest of the NT are in Greek. We don't have any physical manuscript of a Hebrew work from the NT. We also don't have any lingustic evidence of it.

>>Do you have the quotes of the fathers showing the NT was originally in Greek?

What do you mean by "linguistic evidence?" Paul's writing style is straight out of the School of Hillel, he studied under his grandson. Hebrew idioms are used heavily in the gospel of John, Peter's letters, Revelation, and others. Hebrew phraseology is also clearly evident in the majority of the NT, even through the Greek. Again though, not my point. My point is these guys thought from a Hebrew perspective, grounded in the Tanach. (OT) Understanding it better, and taking time to view scripture from that perspective will unlock many blessings for the reader.

As for Peter and the other fisherman, I just don't see what you do. Even in the scriptures, it is pretty clear they lived simple lives.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I am not here to cause strife, just learn from others in areas I am weak, and share knowledge in areas I have been blessed to not be so weak in.

Peace.
Ken

mcgyver
Nov 20th 2008, 09:47 PM
My point is, if you view scripture through a Greek mindset, you might never really understand verses like these. That doesn't mean God can't speak through them and edify you in one way or the other...but the intent of the writing won't be know.

As for losing the message when not using Greek. One of the things I have started to do, and this is a great resource...is I use the Septuigent. It was translated by Jews for their Greek speaking brethren ouside of Jerusalem. So if I come across a word or phrase that doesn't comprehend well, I go back to the Septuigent and see where that Greek word was used. Then I go to the Hebrew and see the word there. This "sometimes" sheds light on troubling passages.

Peace and blessings.
Ken


I am in absolute agreement! :)

I personally think that one of the biggest challenges in the proper exegesis of a passage is to come out of a 21st century mindset, and try to put one's self in the sandals of the 1st century Jew or Gentile to whom the passage was addressed.

I've found repeatedly that viewing a troubling or difficult passage in light of the culture and society of the time lends an understanding that might otherwise be missed...of course that requires a bit of work. :lol:

BTW, comparing the LXX with the Masoretic or other Hebrew text is well worth the effort!

Kudos!

Dragonfighter1
Nov 21st 2008, 01:32 AM
Macgyver I was trying to answer one of your earlier posts on being saved.

Galatians5:19 Now the works of the flesh are ......blah blah etc..


The gift is free you can't earn it but you can lose it.
The Disciple
Dude I have a Bible already, if your gonna post thje entire Bible in one posting could you make it small sized text!

Sheesh!

mcgyver
Nov 21st 2008, 01:41 AM
Macgyver I was trying to answer one of your earlier posts on being saved.

You got me there...which post are you talking about? :lol:

Br. Barnabas
Nov 21st 2008, 04:52 AM
Uriel>>The quotes that we have from the fathers of Matthew and the rest of the NT are in Greek. We don't have any physical manuscript of a Hebrew work from the NT. We also don't have any lingustic evidence of it.

>>Do you have the quotes of the fathers showing the NT was originally in Greek?

What do you mean by "linguistic evidence?" Paul's writing style is straight out of the School of Hillel, he studied under his grandson. Hebrew idioms are used heavily in the gospel of John, Peter's letters, Revelation, and others. Hebrew phraseology is also clearly evident in the majority of the NT, even through the Greek. Again though, not my point. My point is these guys thought from a Hebrew perspective, grounded in the Tanach. (OT) Understanding it better, and taking time to view scripture from that perspective will unlock many blessings for the reader.

As for Peter and the other fisherman, I just don't see what you do. Even in the scriptures, it is pretty clear they lived simple lives.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I am not here to cause strife, just learn from others in areas I am weak, and share knowledge in areas I have been blessed to not be so weak in.

Peace.
Ken

When the Church fathers quote the NT they are doing so from the Greek.

What I mean my linguistic evidence is that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew and the other NT writings that we have are all in Greek. Can we all agree to that. In other words the fact that we have not been able to as of yet find any Hebrew manuscripts of the NT from the ancient world. What we have found in the earliest manuscripts of the NT writings that we have when they quote the OT they are quoting from the LXX which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was made in Alexandria during the 2nd Temple period. This leads me and other scholars to say that it is unlikely that any of the NT especially Matthew was written in Hebrew. Because our linguistic evidence shows that Matthew and all the other writers were quoting from a Greek translation of the OT. Or at the very least that when the Hebrew Matthew was translated that the translator(s) when they got to a passage from the Hebrew Bible stopped and went to their LXX and quoted it from there instead of just translating the Hebrew into Greek. Does that make any sense?

Now if you want to get into style we can do that too. We are both from Kentucky lets take a common word/phrase from around here: Y'all. Now I grew up in Lexington and never used this phrase but there are plenty of people around here that do and further south. It is considered to be the southern way of using the plural for you. Where as some in the north will say yous or yous guys or you guys. I usually use you all because I think it sounds the best. Now sometimes we can tell where a person comes from by the phrases they use or the way they write and such. That is style; yes Paul was a Jew and grew up in Judea and would have used a Jewish/Hebrew style of writing but that does not mean that it cannot translate into Greek. In fact it can quite easily.

I believe that you are letting your person worship style dictate how you read the texts. I am guessing from your emphasis of the Hebrew phraseology that you have some leaning to the Hebrew Roots movement or Messanic Judaism. Which is cool before I became Anglican I went to a Messanic church. But I believe that we should look at the texts from a historical perspective. That is seeing that the authors might have grown up in a Jewish context but when they went out into the world to minister to people they wrote in a way that would best fit their audience. In other words they wrote in Greek and taught in a style that would best be understood by people living in a Greek world. Paul in his greetings using "Grace and peace to you...." Now peace was a common greeting among the Jews; however, grace is a common greeting among the Greeks. I would suggest letting the texts speak for themselves without trying to read them in light of anything other than a 1st century context or a 2nd Temple Jewish context (which means reading them along side pseudopigraphical books).

As for your not seeing Peter and the others as business men that is fine with me but I think you are missing a lot if you look at them as lowly guys and discounting them a lot of credit. Because these guys were pretty bright. They had a boat if you were just trying to catch enough fish to feed you and your family then there is no need for the boat it was pretty expensive to have a boat especially one big enough to have hired men working on board along with the owners. Or ones that you could fit 13+ people on board, when Jesus and the Disciples went across the sea.

kenrank
Nov 21st 2008, 05:21 AM
Mcgyver>>BTW, comparing the LXX with the Masoretic or other Hebrew text is well worth the effort!

>>True enough my friend, but anything worth while requires effort.

Bible Works can compare the two with little effort...I am just too cheap to spring the $350 it costs. I use e-sword, a free (poor mans) version of Bible Works.

Blessings.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 21st 2008, 05:43 AM
Uriel>>When the Church fathers quote the NT they are doing so from the Greek.

>>That is because they all spoke Greek. The further you go away in time from the ascension, the less “Jewish” the faith is. For example, I can easily prove that up until the time of the destruction of the Temple, you couldn’t tell a Jew apart from a Messianic believer. The Messianic believer of that day kept Sabbath, all the Feasts, etc. The only defining difference was the Messianic believed of course that messiah had come, the Jew still awaited him. The more Christianity spread into gentile areas, the more influence those converts had on the faith. I can list plenty of examples, but I fear I would upset many on these boards. That isn’t why I am here. Suffice to say Uriel, there are facets of our faith today that do not align with scripture, but these practices have been around for so long, nobody questions them. You have something in place for 1800 years, and while it differs from the practice from 150 years prior…we are on the other end. 1800 years is almost unquestionable.

Uriel>>What I mean my linguistic evidence is that the earliest manuscripts of Matthew and the other NT writings that we have are all in Greek. Can we all agree to that?

>>Of course, what we have are copies of copies of the originals. That doesn’t make them less inspired, but whatever the initial Apostolic writings were done it, we do not have them today.

Uriel>>What we have found in the earliest manuscripts of the NT writings that we have when they quote the OT they are quoting from the LXX which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was made in Alexandria during the 2nd Temple period.

>>They are from “about” 550BC. Here is the thing though, the Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew by Jews for their brethren living outside of Jerusalem. When the Apostolic writings were copied into the Greek tongue, they used the Septuagint as their OT guide. Not because they had anything against Hebrew, but because they did not understand it. They used the source they understood. Hebrew and Greek are hard languages to match up when translating. Pronunciation differs greatly. Look only to Messiah’s name as an example. You don’t translate names, names are transliterated. Which means names are spelled in one language as they sound in another. So “Yahushua” (Hebrew) or “Yeshua” (Aramaic) would be how Messiah’s name sounded in his tongue, how he heard it said. Transliterated in Greek, they brought it over as “Iesous.” (ee-soos) It was then taken into Latin as Iesus,(ee-zus) which is how it is written in the 1611 KJV. In English, the letter J is only 500 years old, there is no J or J sound in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the early 1800’s, the J as we know it today was accepted and Messiah’s name was changed to Jesus. I shared this just to point out how difficult melding two different languages can be.

It’s late…I will catch up on the rest of you post tomorrow.

Blessings.
Ken

kenrank
Nov 21st 2008, 06:07 AM
Uriel>>I believe that you are letting your person worship style dictate how you read the texts. I am guessing from your emphasis of the Hebrew phraseology that you have some leaning to the Hebrew Roots movement or Messanic Judaism.


>>I might as well finish, I can always sleep a little late.

First, I was from NJ originally and moved the KENtucky 14 years ago. I am the next town east of you. As for my Hebrew perspective, let me briefly explain. I started going to a southern baptist church 13 years ago. I learned quickly but was led by God in a direction away from the mainstream. This was not my choice, things haven't always been easy on this path. Nearly 10 years ago I first learned that LORD replaced YHWH 2300 times in the OT. I started to dig for answers as to why. This one understanding led me to others, and within a few years I found a Messianic Assembly in Winchester. Over the last 7 years I have fought with various aspects of Messianic belief and mainstream Christianity. In the end, about 4 or 5 years ago now, I have settled in the understanding that yes, mainstream Christianity has influences that are based on tradition. With that said, there is nobody alive today who is at fault. In fact, I don't follow the lead of some, in that, I don't think it was necessarily done for evil purposes. I think some were simple honest mistakes, while others were the Greek mind trying to reconcile Hebrew throught and practice to scripture. I see you and I as children of God, even if we don't see eye to eye on everything. You likely go to church on Sunday, I see nothing wrong with that. I rest on the Sabbath, likewise, that shouldn't bother you either. I keep the Feasts of YHWH, you keep others days. We shouldn't judge each other. While I believe we are saved by grace through faith ONLY...I also see a need to keep Torah. You might see that as backward thinking...and I would understand your point. Remember, I was a southern baptist for 3 years...3 services a week and two weekly bible studies...I was as sold out as you can be. In the end, for me personally, the scriptural evidence pointing to the things I now accept overwhelmed what I had once believed. I am called to "prove all things," and I did. I took my time, I prayed all the time, and over many years, each puzzle piece was set in place as I reasoned out the scriptures. That's where I am at.


So am I leaning toward Hebrew Roots? Actually my friend, I embrace them! But again, that is what I see. I do NOT judge you for not seeing what I see!!!


I would pose on verse for you to meditate on...a scripture that is actually prophecy that I had not seen until my little journey began. Acts 3:19-21 says,


Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Two good little nuggets here. The first, Messiah isn't coming back "until" the things God Spoke through His prophets of old is restored. One might ask, "what was spoken by the prophets of old?" In MY view (and you are welcome to your own) I see the prophets of old pointing to Messiah and preaching Torah. For example:

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anyway, you now know my story.

Peace and blessings to you.
Ken

Br. Barnabas
Nov 21st 2008, 01:04 PM
Uriel>>I believe that you are letting your person worship style dictate how you read the texts. I am guessing from your emphasis of the Hebrew phraseology that you have some leaning to the Hebrew Roots movement or Messanic Judaism.


>>I might as well finish, I can always sleep a little late.

First, I was from NJ originally and moved the KENtucky 14 years ago. I am the next town east of you. As for my Hebrew perspective, let me briefly explain. I started going to a southern baptist church 13 years ago. I learned quickly but was led by God in a direction away from the mainstream. This was not my choice, things haven't always been easy on this path. Nearly 10 years ago I first learned that LORD replaced YHWH 2300 times in the OT. I started to dig for answers as to why. This one understanding led me to others, and within a few years I found a Messianic Assembly in Winchester. Over the last 7 years I have fought with various aspects of Messianic belief and mainstream Christianity. In the end, about 4 or 5 years ago now, I have settled in the understanding that yes, mainstream Christianity has influences that are based on tradition. With that said, there is nobody alive today who is at fault. In fact, I don't follow the lead of some, in that, I don't think it was necessarily done for evil purposes. I think some were simple honest mistakes, while others were the Greek mind trying to reconcile Hebrew throught and practice to scripture. I see you and I as children of God, even if we don't see eye to eye on everything. You likely go to church on Sunday, I see nothing wrong with that. I rest on the Sabbath, likewise, that shouldn't bother you either. I keep the Feasts of YHWH, you keep others days. We shouldn't judge each other. While I believe we are saved by grace through faith ONLY...I also see a need to keep Torah. You might see that as backward thinking...and I would understand your point. Remember, I was a southern baptist for 3 years...3 services a week and two weekly bible studies...I was as sold out as you can be. In the end, for me personally, the scriptural evidence pointing to the things I now accept overwhelmed what I had once believed. I am called to "prove all things," and I did. I took my time, I prayed all the time, and over many years, each puzzle piece was set in place as I reasoned out the scriptures. That's where I am at.


So am I leaning toward Hebrew Roots? Actually my friend, I embrace them! But again, that is what I see. I do NOT judge you for not seeing what I see!!!


I would pose on verse for you to meditate on...a scripture that is actually prophecy that I had not seen until my little journey began. Acts 3:19-21 says,


Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Two good little nuggets here. The first, Messiah isn't coming back "until" the things God Spoke through His prophets of old is restored. One might ask, "what was spoken by the prophets of old?" In MY view (and you are welcome to your own) I see the prophets of old pointing to Messiah and preaching Torah. For example:

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anyway, you now know my story.

Peace and blessings to you.
Ken


Ken I think you misunderstood me I have no problem with the Hebrew Roots and Messanic movements I was in them for a while. I loved it, and still do. I was not saying that you should not be in them. If that is what it sounded like I was saying them I am sorry. I was just saying that you are coming at the Scriptures from that view point. I was only suggesting that we come at them from the historical context in which they were written, almost all the books of the NT with the possible exclusion of Mark were written after the Temple was destroyed. Almost all the books if not all the books were written outside of Judea. Most were written in either Asia Minor or Greece or Rome or parts of the Roman Empire away from Judea.

Yes, in the very beginning Christianity was just fulfilled Judaism, and all the followers were Jewish. But very soon after Pentecost it became more than a Jewish movement with Gentiles joining the movement. The movement itself changed. For the better I think, were the Gentiles were not made to live under the law. I have a friend who kinda bridges the gap between where the two of us are right now in our respective worship styles; he calls himself a Messanic Gentile. Showing that the likes the Jewish influence and what it brings to Christianity but also knows that he is a Gentile and he does not have to follow the Law or anything like that. I see the Jewish influence in early Christianity, trust me I do I was in it for a while and studied for even longer. I am not saying either of us have a better worship style. I am just suggesting that we let the texts speak for themselves; for you they scream Jewish practices for me they don't. It is fine that we don't agree, in fact I really enjoy it because we get to talk about it then. If we just agreed then there would be no conversation. Shalom brother.

kenrank
Nov 22nd 2008, 07:32 AM
Uriel, I understood you. I just thought I would let you know where I am at, what perspective I come from. This way when I make a point, you'll know where I am coming from, and communication will be easier.

Shabbat Shalom.
Ken

David Taylor
Mar 6th 2009, 05:27 PM
(thread closed as per...Slug1)
As the OP has changed his status to Non-Christian and can no longer participate in this thread, as per Slug1 the thread is now closed.

Thanks to all who have participated!