posted 04-30-2001 12:19 PM            

[Whenever Paul quotes from the Tanakh ("Old Testament"), he clearly quotes from the Spetuagint, that is, the Greek version of the Old Testament. This can be seen not only because he quotes it in Greek, but also because of the wording that is distinctive of the Septuagint.]

How do we know that Paul would quote from the spetuagint?
I would assume that Paul who was well learned in priestly duties, and was a minister to the gentiles would invariably speak to them in their own language no matter what they spoke. So (if the spetuagint was written at this time) I could agree with that statement, but I do not see proof that Paul a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin would write everything in greek.

And I tend to agree with other posts here that Paul being a Jew would not call the Messiah by any other name than His Jewish name Yahushua, even if he spoke in greek to the people I believe he would still use the natural Hebrew name for our saviour. I do not condemn the greek language but I do think that a persons name especially one that has deeper meaning (as the Hebrew language has and no other language can have) is important.

Agin I am not against anything that is truth.
Shalom u'vrakah
Richard

posted 04-30-2001 01:00 PM         

I just wish to remind the readers of this thread that the LXX was a Greek translation of the Tanakh made by Jews for Jews in Alexandia, a city with a large Jewish community. The translation of the Torah started around 250 BCE and the entire Tanakh was completed by 150 BCE. The translation was needed because Jews living in the Diaspora were not sufficiently fluent in Hebrew to study the Tanakh in Hebrew.

The fact that the NT writers at times (but not always) quoted from the LXX is clear because the readings in the LXX are slightly different from a direct translation of the proto-masoretic text. Text types corresponding to the LXX were found in the DSS, but the proto-masoretic text types were in the majority.

People say that names are the same in all languages because they are transliterated. But they either forget or do not know that Greek does not have symbols that correspond exactly to the Hebrew yod or shin. So, I repeat my previous question in a different form. The Messiah's name is spelled yod-shin-waw-ayin. How should the first two letters be represented with Greek symbols? The Jewish translators of the LXX working 250 years before the birth of Yeshua had no problem.

B'rakhot

posted 04-30-2001 01:52 PM         

Richard says:

If our Fathers name is Yod-Hei-Vuv-Hei wouldn't His name be (especially the first two letters (Yod)) translated accordingly, and is it?

The problem is the vowels. How many? And what are they? With regard to the yod it is equivalent to the consonant "y", but it can appear with a number of vowels. For example, there is the word "yam" (sea) but there are also the words "yom" day and "yeled" (boy). The 3ms imperfect pa'al verb form usually begins with "yi", hence a word such as "yimlokh" (he will reign). There are scholars that believe that yod-hei-waw-hei is a verb form meaning "he will cause to be"; therefore, they vocalize it as "Yahweh". There are problems with this assumption that I have dealt with elsewhere. The point that I have repeatedly stressed is that in order to pronounce a word in unpointed text, you first have to recognize the word.

B'rakhot

ThePhysicist

posted 05-02-2001 01:17 PM            

I believe that there has been, and still is, a conspiracy to withhold the truth concerning the origin of the New Testament. In 70 c.e., when the Roman Army destroyed the Temple, the Yehudim were safeguarding the Tanach, because they believed that it was the inspired Word of the Almighty. They did not believe any such thing concerning the new testament. I believe that there is conclusive evidence that the history of Yahushua's ministry, by the eyewitnesses, was written in Hebrew. Since there is no remnant of these originals available, I believe that Satan has conspired to cover up the truth of this matter.

I believe that the then existant copies of the writtings that now make up the new testament, were gathered by the conquering army, and taken to Rome. If I were a Greek translator, translating the original Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, I would depend heavily on the Septuagint. In that way, it would appear to be originally in Greek.

As far as Shaul goes, whether he wrote his letters in Hebrew or Greek, I don't know. If he wrote them in Greek, then I believe that he might have done something like what the tranlators of "The Scriptures" have done. Because the Names are kodesh, they have written the translation in English, but when they come to the name YHWH and Yahushua, they write it in Hebrew.

I cannot prove this scenario, but this is what I believe.

In Yahushua, the Anointed of YHWH,
YermeYah

posted 05-03-2001 11:26 PM            

Sorry - I've been away for a few days and haven't had the opportunity to reply sooner.

I pointed out to somebody else that Paul wrote his letters in Greek, and that he did actually use a Greek name for the Son of God - "Iesous," and we have massive textual evidence for this.

You ask me:

quote:

---

Are there authinticated copies of Pauls writings? Not just translated copies of his writings and if so where can a person go to see this. And isn't a copie something from an original?

---

I'm really not sure what an "authenticated copy" would be. We certainly don't have any of the originals, no. In fact, we don't have ANY manuscripts from the first century written by Paul - not even copies. But it remains true that ALL of the oldest copies that we do have are written in Greek. It is also true that Paul's audiences were in Greek speaking locations, but still - the textual evidence that we have more than meets the criteria for historical evidence that Paul's letters were in Greek.

You also said:

quote:

---

How do we know that Paul would quote from the spetuagint?
I would assume that Paul who was well learned in priestly duties, and was a minister to the gentiles would invariably speak to them in their own language no matter what they spoke. So (if the spetuagint was written at this time) I could agree with that statement, but I do not see proof that Paul a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin would write everything in greek.

---

Well, you've kinda answerd your own question there.

But also, as thephysicist noted, Paul's quotations from the Tanakh follow the wording of the Greek Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Tanakh. The Septuagint was treated by the early church as the "standard" version of the Scriptures, so much so that many of the Jews stopped using it in order to distinguish themselves from the Christian movement.

You finish by saying:

quote:

---

And I tend to agree with other posts here that Paul being a Jew would not call the Messiah by any other name than His Jewish name Yahushua, even if he spoke in greek to the people I believe he would still use the natural Hebrew name for our saviour. I do not condemn the greek language but I do think that a persons name especially one that has deeper meaning (as the Hebrew language has and no other language can have) is important.

---

I do appreciate your stance. But regardless of what we might think of the rightness or wrongness of using the Hebrew name or the Greek version, we are faced with a simple fact of history: In the written New Testament of the Holy Bible, the Greek name for the Son of God is used. This suggests that those who were historically closest and most intimate witht he Saviour did not have a problem using a Greek name.

Shalom to you, Richard.

YermeYah,

I'm sorry to see comments like yours on a website where people are searching for truth. You say:

quote:

---

I believe that there is conclusive evidence that the history of Yahushua's ministry, by the eyewitnesses, was written in Hebrew. Since there is no remnant of these originals available, I believe that Satan has conspired to cover up the truth of this matter.

I believe that the then existant copies of the writtings that now make up the new testament, were gathered by the conquering army, and taken to Rome. If I were a Greek translator, translating the original Hebrew manuscripts into Greek, I would depend heavily on the Septuagint. In that way, it would appear to be originally in Greek.

---

You say there is "conclusive evidence" that the Gospels were first written in Hebrew? Really? What evidence? After all, you acknowledge that there are no remaining copies of such a Gospel (although there are Hebrew and Aramaic Gospels translated fromt he Greek). Yours is a conspiracy theory, and that's all it will ever be.

posted 05-04-2001 04:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YermeYah:

I cannot prove this scenario, but this is what I believe.

---

He clearly stated that this is not as yet a proveable or certain truth, yet it can only stand due to the reasoning that other scenarios cannot be proved either, just assumed.

Then again this theory could be totally wrong. After all, often the most obvious solution to a question concerning a conspiracy is the right one. It's a shame one can't display sarcasam over the internet.

Where is your evidence Glenn? I want to see it, not read about it or have it being vaguely related to. I'm calling you out. Since your certainty is in abundance, why not display the source of your certainty? Show us the evidence that your theory is right, not that there's a chance that it's right. For you to so readily discount others, you must be certain that you are right. Well what makes you so certain?

Understand your hypocracy.

posted 05-04-2001 10:32 AM            

I'm glad that you have asked for the conclusive evidence that I base my opinion on.

First, Yahushua spoke Hebrew and possibly Aramaic, there is no evidence that he ever spoke Greek.

Second, the book of Matthew is believed to be authored by the apostle surnamed Levi (Mark 2:14). There is no evidence that he ever spoke Greek, but only the language of the Yehudim in Palestine.

Next, there is the book of Mark, authored by John Mark, a Yehudi from Jerusalem. He was a close friend of the Apostle Kepha (1Pet. 5:13). Again, no evidence that he ever spoke or wrote in Greek.

Then there is the book written by John, identified as, "the disciple whom Yahushua loved" (John 21:20, 24). He was obviously a Yehudi, and an eyewitness of Yahushua's ministry. Again, there is no evidence that he ever spoke or wrote in Greek.

Ernest Renan, in his work, "The Life of Jesus", says, "It is not probable that the Savior knew Greek. This language was very little spread in Judea, beyond the classes who participated in the government, and the towns inhabited by the pagans, like Caesarea."

After the time of Antiochus Epipheanes (before Yahushua was born), the Hebrews hated the Greeks and detested their language. In the first part of the Talmud, the Mishna, the Jews are emphatically taught it is worse for a Jew to learn Greek than to eat swine's flesh.

Proper names are not translated, but rather, transliterated. That means that the exact pronunciation of the original language of the proper name is carried over into the other language. There is a problem with this, however. Some languages do not have all the sounds of other languages. Such is the case with Greek from Hebrew. For instance, Greek has no "sh" sound and uses "s" instead. There is no "h" sound and it uses only a rough breathing mark at the beginning of a word instead. That means, to use Greek to transliterate Hebrew proper names to all other languages of the world, will never give you an accurate transliteration of words bearing those sounds. The answer would be to transliterate Hebrew proper names directly from the Hebrew language to all other languages of the world!

The Septuagint Version of the scriptures, which was translated in Alexandra, Egypt, is said to have been done for Greek speaking Jews. But Josephus says it was made because the king of Egypt commanded it to be done, that he might have a copy of the Jews' greatest literature. The fact is that whoever made the translation, and for whatever purposes, they wittingly covered up the kodesh name of YHWH by substituting Kurios, and by other means. (See the Septuagint for proof!)

Isn't it astounding how Satan has had the pronunciation of his name preserved in these writings? But, that would seem perfectly logical if he is the author of this conspiracy to deceive.

Is there a difference between the name Yahushua and the name Jesus? Does it matter if the new testament was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek?

Ezekiel 22:25 - There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.
Ezekiel 22:26 - Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Ezekiel 22:27 - Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain.
Ezekiel 22:28 - And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Sovereign YHWH, when YHWH hath not spoken.

In Yahushua, the Anointed of YHWH,
YermeYah

posted 05-04-2001 06:25 PM            

This topic has become delicate ground, in that there is not any physical evidence for either belief. I have done much research and continue to do so, because I believe that the New Testament or a large portion of it were originally scribed in Hebrew, and then rescribed into other languages to fit the area, greek being the language of the invading force and government it would only make sence that it would be the most prevailant.
The reason I feel this way is after studying the aleph beit and the powerful message even one Hebrew letter contains and how it fits in perfectly with the Word that Yahweh gave to us. It is too large for coinicedence. His blessed Words,letters,language, is much more than just a way of communication it is a way of learning and growing, and as we grow so does His Word so that we are never completely full. HalleluYAH, Blessed are You Yahweh.

I would like to make a statement that there was and is no such place called Palestine, it is and was Israel.

Let us all remember and practice these words!

James 3:13Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. [14] But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. [15] This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. [16] For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. [17] But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. [18] And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

We should share the wisdom that Yahweh has given to us, that He shares with us. His truth will prevail no matter what anyone thinks. HalleluYAH

Shalom u'vrakah
Richard

posted 05-04-2001 07:21 PM            

It was about 15 years that my wife and I came up with the same word study and concluded that Jesus meant the pig. Since it would be hard hitting to any Christian we held back from ever telling anyone cause we felt it would be insulted any and all Christians and they would not want to hear from us any more. We felt we must be more gentle with people. We should be out to gain them not destroy them. As our Saviour said "You shall Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt.22:39) and when I was a Christian and calling on the name of Jesus, I surely would not have liked anyone telling me that I was callling the son a pig.
Now, we have our doubts about Jesus meaning the pig being of a true translation.

In the mean time a brother called us recently and said that he did a study and found that Jesus means Healer. In turn that would render the name "Jesus Christ" as "the Anointed Healer" in the Greek language. Any comments on this? Now, I wonder where do we go from here with the name "Jesus"? I am sure that all Christians would rather hear, "the anointed healer" rather than "the anointed pig" or "the pig, anointed". Oh! How ugly.

So, who is right? Who is wrong? Since Yahshua has left Himself be called by the wrong name "Jesus" all these years and has not destroyed any that call on that name and has healed many in that name, I feel we all should leave it alone as it is and be more loving toward our neighbors if we want them to ever listen to the true names of the Heavenly Father and His Son.

Remember Hosea 2:16...Yahweh says He will take all the name of Baali out of their mouths. HE will do it not us.

BrBill

posted 05-04-2001 07:22 PM            

Yes, I saw that he said "I cannot prove this scenario, but this is what I believe."

HOWEVER, as I pointed, out, he did in fact state that there was "conclusive evidence." So while he said he cannot prove it, he also said there was conclusive evidence, so I asked him to present some. That's not unreasonable is it?

Now, you say that I'm merely discounting other views without presenting evidence for my own. But if you look back at my postings, you'll see that isn't true. You said to me:

quote:

---

Where is your evidence Glenn? I want to see it, not read about it or have it being vaguely related to. I'm calling you out. Since your certainty is in abundance, why not display the source of your certainty?

---

You want to SEE it, not read about it? Well I'm afraid ANY theory about the ancient past would fail if THAT's what you want. I confess, I am unable to post ancient manuscripts on this website. I thought that would be obvious. The fact is, you'll just have to settle for reading about them.

As I noted in an earlier post, "it remains true that ALL of the oldest copies that we do have are written in Greek." Now, this is a fact, whether it pleases you or not. If you know of some secret manuscript evidence that casts doubt on this, then by all means, say so - but it would certainly be news to the world of biblical scholarship!

For some general reading in this area, you might want to check out George Patzia, "The Making of the New Testament" (Leicester: Apollos, 1995) or George Milligan, "The New Testament and its Transmission" (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932). If you do a bit of digging around in New Testament scholarship, you'll find that people familiar with the physical manuscript evidence that exists know that the earliest copies of the New Tetsament that we can trace were written in the Greek language.

("hypocricy"? Such unkind languahge is best saved for when you have evidence. And those who ae genuinely debating the issue and not engaging in mudslinging matches seldom stoop to it.)

posted 05-04-2001 07:35 PM            

They are filled with Semitic idioms not Greek idioms.

They are written with Semitic poetic structures not Greek ones.

They contain Aramaic wordplays and in at least one case the word play is the point of Paul's train of thought.

They contain cases where Ambiguous Aramaic words were mistranslated by the Greek translator.

Only in the Greek versions does the text quote the LXX. In the Aramaic versions it does not.

posted 05-04-2001 07:39 PM            

Thanks for your reply. I have a few observations to make about it.

First, you made reference tot he fact that the Saviour wasn't a Greek speaker. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. It is generally accepted that in living in first century Palestine, His main language would have been Aramaic, with Hebrew used for more formal occasions. But it should be obvious that we aren't disagreeing about what langauge He spoke. We're disagreeing as to what language the New Testament documents were written in.

You refer to the author of Matthew and say that there's no evidence he spoke Greek. But why do you say that? After all, the earliest copies of the Gospel he wrote that we have are WRITTEN in Greek. So whether or not we can say he knew Greek hinges on whether or not Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek. So we have to use manuscript evidence to answer the question - evidence that suggests he DID know Greek.

Now, there is a widespread view that as Matthew gathered his material for his Gospel he would have used Aramaic SOURCES, and I'm not denying it. But what we are discussing is the final form of his written Gospel.

You say the same thing about Mark. But Mark's Gospel is widely accepted to have been written to a gentile audience, so why should we think it was written in Hebrew?

When it comes to John, you say again that there is no evidence that he spoke Greek. You call him "the discple whom Yahushua loved (John 21:20, 24). But the word "Yahushua" is not in those verses. All the manuscript evidence that exists tells us that John wrote down the name "Iesous" in those verses.

I guess the overall observation is this - You have not included ANY of the manuscript evidence in your clonclusions. This evidence indicates that these writers did know Greek, and when you EXCLUDE this evidence you then say "there is no evidence they knew Greek." But obviously if you throw away the evidence they knew Greek you will conclude that they didn't - but it's hardly a good way to reach conclusions.

Josephus' story about the translation of the LXX (Septuagint) is generally thought to be legendary, and I'm somewhat surprised to see you treat it so seriously.

In any case, the evidence for the Gospels originally being written in Hebrew or Aramaic just doesn't stack up.

posted 05-04-2001 07:41 PM            

2. The oldest complete Aramaic NT mss. date to the 4th cent.

Also:

Until the Dead Sea Scriolls were discobered in 1947 the oldest copies of any Tanak (Olt Testament) books were Greek LXX mss and the oldest Hebrew copies only dated to the middle ages. But no one would have agrued a Greek origion on that basis.