|
GrahamCracker -> RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts (5/8/2008 1:02:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
OK. I'll bite. Where? I know of only one Hebrew quote in the Gospels. That occurs in Matt. 1:23.
Mr 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said,...
I'm sorry, at the present time this is all I have on the first point apart from asking if you really believe he discussed the Scriptures with the elders in the Temple in Aramaic. Even your authority concedes Hebrew could have been used in academic discussion. I would have to search for other examples since I have not commited any such to memory.
That's not a powerful indication that He spoke Hebrew. Jews of that day, probably like many American Jews of today knew many Hebrew words and phrases. The NT Greek manuscripts do contain what is probably transliterations.
And yes, I believe He spoke Aramaic with the elders in the Temple. The academics would likely have been able to speak Hebrew among themselves. If you will read the Bible carefully, you would note that the loss of Hebrew as the vernacular was one of God's judgments on Jews.
quote:
quote:
It is also possible that they pointed out the times he spoke in Aramaic because they were the exception and not the rule.
That's conjecture.
quote:
It's these things and the exceptions you point out that lead me to believe that there may not be a rule regarding Yeshua(Jesus) and the Apostsles prefered language.
I'm not sure why you use the word "rule." We are talking about the ability of uneducated people (the disciples and Jesus) to speak fluent Hebrew.
quote:
quote:
If you are saying that the common language of the Jews in Palestine was Hebrew, THAT is conjecture. They most certainly did not!
What you are proposing is also conjecture, yet you appear to be dogmatic on the point. I am merely uncertain.
Not conjecture on my part. Obviously, there are going to be some arguments against my view, but what we are talking about is where the weight of the evidence lies.
As far as being "dogmatic," I am open to the possibility that common Jews could speak some Hebrew. But I am dogmatic that Hebrew was not the normal everyday language of NT Palestinian Jews.
quote:
quote:
Some suggest that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. If, for example, Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, why would Matthew translate a Hebrew term for Hebrew readers?
If Matthew wrote in Hebrew no translation would be necessary, but if the current manuscripts are translations, the translators may have chosen to leave certain words or phases in Hebrew for effect,
My NET Bible indicates that the OT reference to Immanuel comes from the LXX. We would have to determine if Matthew's quotation of Is. 7:14 comes from the LXX or from the original Hebrew. Anyway, my NET Bible translation notes tell me that an allusion to Is. 8:8 (also containing the word Immanuel) comes from the LXX. Some quotes from the OT definitely (elsewhere in the NT) come from the LXX.
Note, for example, that many of the OT Hebrew names were written with Greek endings. "Isaias" as opposed to "Isaiah." That's not for effect.
quote:
quote:
They probably knew many, many Hebrew terms, much like American and European Jews of our time. But they would not have been fluent--except of course--the educated.
What makes you think Yeshua(Jesus) was uneducated[?] The elders were impressed with Him at His Bar Mizvah(age 12). We do know many of the Apostles were uneducated because we are told that is why many were amazed at their wisdom when they were sent out by Yeshua. That said, they could have very well educated themselves between then and when they wrote the Apistolic Writings. It is obvious that Paul was well educated.
Paul was educated by what would have been the equivalent of a seminary education of his day. "Uneducated" (as you probably know) did not refer to whether or not they were literate. Most of the Jews, including Galileans (Jesus was regarded as a Galilean) were probably literate.
In any event, the eleven Apostles were uneducated. That is to say, they did not have a "seminary education." There is no indication whatsoever that he had a higher education.
quote:
I am not familiar with Orville Jenkins. However, he himself says,"I am not a specialist in first-century Palestine and its language." and "It is likely some or all of the priestly class (Sadducees, perhaps some others, and their scribes) still spoke Hebrew in their own circles. Perhaps some of the Pharisees in Jerusalem also spoke Hebrew, and the scribes of the Pharisees could read it."
Thus as stated early, for Yeshus to impress these people at a young age and to hold his own in rabbinic discussion, he would need to be have at least a passing knowledge of Hebrew. Now let me repeat, I am not saying that the Apistolic writings were written in Hebrew and Yeshua spoke and taught the masses in Hebrew. I am only saying it has yet to be proven to me that they did not speak and write in Hebrew.
I don't know anything about Orville Jenkins either. But his opinion is in line with many of the seminarians of my area (Dallas Seminary). He gives links to what appear at first blush to be authorities. Insofar as whether or not we will get "proof" that Jesus did or did not speak fluent Hebrew, I cannot provide you with definitive, 100% proof--if that is what you seek. I don't know anyone who would go that far. Generally, when such things are addressed people are talking about the weight of evidence.
Let me give you a name, if you are not already familiar with it. Nehemiah Gordon is a modern Jew (not a Christian) who believes Matt. was originally written in Hebrew. (He has a web site.) Unfortunately (before you get excited), to accept his "evidence," I cannot imagine reconciling any orthodox view of inspiration with his arguments. Since he does not believe in Christ nor the inspiration of the NT scriptures, he doesn't have to.
Among the things he considers is the large (how large is large?) number of Hebrew idioms that bleed through the Greek manuscripts. They amount to word plays (similar or identical to puns, if you will) that he claims would be indecipherable in Greek. But given that many bilingual speakers retain such idioms even when translating, I don't know how strong his argument is.
Anyway, he believes that Matthew's Greek (if I understand him correctly) was translated from Matthew's original Hebrew. The earlier reference to Matthew 1, in such a case, would have been a redaction by some unknown party---either of Matthew himself or a later scribe.
While I am not fluent in Greek either (not even close), I know some Greek. And there are indications in John that such "word plays" exist in Greek as well. So either Jesus spoke Greek sometimes in private or John edited the text. Since we have records of Bible characters in the NT interacting with Greeks, they had to have a common language. I believe those in the early church spoke Aramaic and/or Greek. Palestinian Jews and the Easter Diaspora would have spoken Aramaic since the Babylonian Exile. Jews of the Western Disaspora (Mediterranean basin) spoke Greek and/or another local language or two, depending on what locale they were native to. Jews speaking Greek would be due to the large number of Greek trading colonies in the Mediterranean area since the time of Alexander the Great's father, Philip (I believe his name was).
There is sufficient evidence that many of the Jews of NT times used the Septuagint. If the common language was Hebrew there would be no need to use the LXX.
|
|
|
|