yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/12/84)
Respnse to: Charley Wingate Subject: Re: Yiri's Last Stand >First of all, scholars have recently come to the conclusion that NT >contains Jewish ideas couched in Greek. I will certainly agree that it >is important to understand something of first century Judaism to >understand certain aspects of the NT text. I find the phrase 'contains Jewish ideas couched in Greek' quite ambiguous. If you are only stating that the ideas in the Greek mss. are Jewish ideas, then you are clearly correct but have stated only the trivial. If you mean by this that they were Jewish ideas which suffered along the way from redaction by Greek editors, you are again clearly correct but have restated only what has been said before. If you mean that 'scholars have recently come to the conclusion that NT contains Jewish ideas' which the authors originally wrote in Greek, then you may still be correct because you were careful - 'some' scholars indeed have and perhaps even recently. However, there are also renowned scholars who hold to the opposite conclusion as well - that there were underlying Hebrew texts and that the N'tzarim writings were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew (some of these scholars seem to think Aramaic, and others think Hebrew - I tend toward Hebrew). > On the other hand, there is no evidence for a Hebrew text for any gospel, >and the textual evidence we have strongly implies the original texts were >in Greek. Almost all OT/Tenakh quotations are from the Septuagint, which is >in Greek; it would be hard to explain this if the original were in anything >but Greek. C. S. Lewis, by the way, was a classicist, and I suspect that >he knew more about this than either you or I know. There is quite a bit of evidence for Hebrew texts. Those who are unaware of it are simply that - unaware of it. There is quite a bit of evidence, and it continues to mount as archaeologists issue their reports, that Greek was used very little by Jews of that period in Israel and that both Aramaic and Hebrew were without question the lingua franca of Israel at that time. It was held by Jews that teaching a child Greek was worse than eating swine. Only a few intellectuals had a command of Greek (such as Josephus) so that it merited special comment when a Jew knew Greek. As for the quotes in the N'tzarim writings, they are NOT necessarily taken from the LXX (Septuagint). The Dead Sea Scrolls (nearly a 1000 years older than the earliest extant copies of either the LXX or the Masoretic) have shown instances where the DSS agrees with the LXX in contrast to the Masoretic and other instances where the DSS agrees with the Masoretic in contrast to the LXX. Scholars are beginning to suspect (as do I) that they are both the product of an earlier 'version' which from which each derived. If such were the case, then these quotes could just as well be from the earlier Hebrew version. When translating them to Greek it would have been an obvious thing to use LXX Greek in such cases rather than translate 'new' greek versions - something which a Jew would have found very distasteful. Further, the later Christian redactors may also have included some/many of the LXX passages among their thousands of redactions which I have already pointed out, substituting the LXX in place of the Masoretic, in order to bring their 'scriptures' closer to the 'true' 'Christian' doctrines. That no Hebrew and/or Aramaic texts have been found is not really all that surprising. All of the N'tzarim writings fell into the hands of the gentile followers and passed into the hands of the Christian redactors. It was these same Christians that set out to (and very nearly did) burn all of the Jewish scriptures. Nearly all of the Torah scrolls were burned as well - and they were not really threatening to Christianity at that early a time. That the Hebrew/Aramaic mss would have been either hidden or destroyed should be expected by those who have studied the period in any depth. For those who might like to read on the DSS, there is a book by Allegro and another by Yadin which are easy to read and pretty informative. There have also been article(s) in the Biblical Archaeology Review. While only a few apostate intellectual Israeli Jews spoke Greek, the N'tzarim writings were written by synagogue going, non-intellectual Israeli Jews who almost exclusively spoke ONLY Aramaic (day-to-day) and Hebrew (in religious matters). The greek grammar is SO pathetic in a couple of the books that one would think it was written by either a 3-year-old or one who was translating into a language they were not at all very good in. The allusions and metaphors, etc. strictly dictate Hebrew/Aramaic originals. Even in the Jewish communities of the Diaspora among the ethnos (peoples), the Jews spoke Aramaic for the most part among themselves, and Hebrew (nearly always) in synagogues. Greek was mostly for dealings with the gentiles, and then only in the Diaspora in large measure, being loathed in Israel by the Jews. The biographical books were almost certainly written originally in Aramaic/Hebrew. Since Shaul knew Greek, there is at least a better argument for his works being originally in Greek. For the reasons above (mostly - I haven't time nor inclination to present a complete treatise), even Shaul's works were probably originally written in Aramaic/Hebrew. Additionally, what has been learned from the Pseudipigrapha and Apocrypha show similar problems and most of them are also believed to have underlying Hebrew originals. The scholars are careful to outline their analysis and reasons in the book by Charlesworth. This same analysis may be applied to the N'tzarim writings with similar results. Prior to 100 CE, these were as much 'canon' as any other writings. >Brunson's argument is essentially that the church ought not to look to >any heritage other than this lost Hebrew one. I for one am unwilling >to throw away two thousand years of christian thought, if only because >I think it is valuable to examine other people's mistakes. (and not >incidentally, to instill a little humility into my theology) >Charley Wingate I agree with you here Charley. Based on my previous articles, I don't feel the church HAS any LEGITIMATE Jewish/Hebrew heritage. One of the points I have tried hardest to show is that EVERY Christian is faced with the alternative you have just stated, and should face it and recognize what it is that they are following. If they want to follow a Jewish heritage they will have to forsake Christianity and turn to Judaism. If they want Christianity they they can follow that. But they are indeed distinct and very different - even with respect to Y'shua vs Jesus. Ergo, they should not follow Christianity and THINK they are following a legitimate offshoot from Judaism or that they have legitimate origins in Judaism. Of particular consequence are some who were born Jewish and have been deceived into believing that Jesus and Christianity are legitimately Jewish and they can, as a result, convert and remain Jewish as well. Such is not the case any more than a Christian child who grows up and is baptized and then later converts to Buddhaism is still a Christian. Believe it or not Charley, I agree with you. Let everyone call a Christian a Christian and a Jew a Jew, know the difference(s), not confuse them - and be tolerant and get along anyway! (It's the knowing of the differences and the not confusing them I've been trying to deal with).