Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137627 | ||
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not Greek . . . but before we get into that statement; thanks for the reply. Honestly, I did not expect a reply, and to have one so soon was a real joy. Nothing excites me more than studying scripture, and the greatest moments are when I learn something new, or learn that I was wrong about something. That being said, let me explain why my original post was both correct, and that Hebrew, not Greek, was the predominate language in Jesus time and therefore any interpretation of Jesus words must be seen in the Hebrew language (and idioms), the 1st century Hebrew culture, and the 1st century interpretations of the Tanak and Torah (the Old Testament). Many scholars who study the 1st century languages now believe that Hebrew was the common language for both the Rabbis and the common people. (Josephus says so; only Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were found in Temple Mount excavations – no Aramaic; the Mishnah and other rabbinic works are in Hebrew; and the grand daddy of them all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Hebrew, including commoner scrolls.) Also, every single early church father who mentions language, says that Matthew was written in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome (the most learned in the Hebrew Language and who translated the Vulgate) even says that the Hebrew original of Matthew was “still preserved in the library at Caesarea.” Then there are the evidences in the Greek text itself, but that might get too winded for our discussion here at this time. Regardless of what language Matthew wrote in; however, he was quoting Jesus, who certainly spoke in Hebrew, particularly on this occasion being in the Galilee, and speaking to his disciples (not just the 12 closest). Hebrew is full of Idioms of which this particular text is only one. To make my point, allow me to stray over to Matthew 6:22-23. Jesus talks about a “good eye.” “If your eye is good, your whole body if full of light…” What does this mean? In Greek, it means virtually nothing. In English, it means virtually nothing. But in Hebrew is means a lot. This is a Hebrew idiom not unlike an English idiom, “The cat’s got his tongue.” We know this means, “He can’t talk.” But in any other language it is crazy talk. Here the Hebrew idiom is: Good Eye -is- Generous; Bad Eye -is- Miserly. Now re-read that passage in context. It does make sense now. Back to our present passage: Jesus was either answering a direct attack, or an assumed attack, or answering an attack He knew would be forthcoming, on His interpretations of scripture. When you understand the Hebrew idiom as I stated in my first post, this whole passage in context makes sense and also fits perfectly into the rest of the scriptures. Jesus’ very next words are: “not so much as a ‘yod’ or a tittle will pass away from the [Torah]”. (yod being the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle being the smallest mark made on the Yod.) There is not much more I can say concerning this since your reply did not give an alternate interpretation. I have addressed the language issue and I think gave a good refutation as to why Hebrew is the key to understanding this and many of Jesus teachings. I truly look forward to a further discussion should you also desire this. A good book on this whole subject is, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective” by David Bivin, and Roy Blizzard Jr. ISBN: 1-56043-550-X |
||||||
2 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | srbaegon | 137648 | ||
Hello MJH, Where do I begin? :-) Whether or not Hebrew was predominant in Israel has no bearing since the gospel would have been read by a wider audience. Greek wouls have been a more natural selection for this task. Early church fathers mimic what they thought was stated by Papias. They did not follow through properly (see Daniel Wallace's piece on Matthew at http://www.bible.org). I know Matthew is written with several Hebrew idioms. One would expect that. None of this precludes the gospel from being written in Greek originally. Steve |
||||||
3 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137663 | ||
Point well taken. (I will check out Daniel Wallace's piece) And as I stated I offered to concede that point (that Matthew wrote in Greek) in order to focus more on the interpretation of the text at hand because it had little bearing. "The original hearers of Jesus spoke Hebrew" is an important point to make; however, and if that is not an argument, and if you agree that, "Matthew is written with several Hebrew idioms." then you would have to agree that this would be one of them. After all, it is a word for word Greek translation of that particular Hebrew idiom and it fits the context. Your thoughts? Below is the original interpretation to keep this in context: The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." |
||||||
4 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | srbaegon | 137723 | ||
Hello MJH, Here's my issue with calling it an idiom: on face value, it doesn't look like one. It's perfectly understandable as is. To add a cultural impediment is like the New Perspective on Paul (being championed by N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn, et al) which state that we can only understand Paul in the context of 2nd temple Judaism. If it's that difficult, I might as well toss my Bible into the recycle bin. I guess my point is this. Why would God inspire a book to be read by a great diversity of people if there is a great preponderance of cultural baggage that must be overcome? It seems more logical to say that it's understandable as read. Steve |
||||||
5 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 137724 | ||
Steve: I agree. A problem I have with the Hebrew Roots Movement is that, based on reading their literature and listening to them teach, one gets the idea that we can never understand the meaning of any passage of Scripture unless and until one has studied Jewish history, culture and background, learned Hebrew and studied the Talmud. If that is so, then there is no point in distributing Bibles in China, Japan, etc. The Wycliffe Bible translators may as well shut down and go home. I personally find the study of the Jewish roots of Christianity very interesting and helpful. I enjoy it. But, to say that the face value/plain sense meaning of the Bible text is not the real meaning, that to get at the real meaning you have to learn Hebrew and read the writings of the sages, is going too far, in my opinion. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||
6 | Hebrew culture;a help or not? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137728 | ||
You can understand the Bible on its face in any language. Obviously the Holy Spirit has been able to guide many in the Church for centuries. Your argument suggests that I (and apparently others) are saying you cannot understand God’s revelation in His revealed Word unless you have a complete and total grasp of Jewish History, culture and language. Nothing could be further from the truth. HOWEVER; learning such things and knowing such things adds greatly to ones understanding, grasp and ability to live out the truths found in the Bible. I have been amazed and blown away by many clearer understandings of both testaments simply by understanding the culture. Imagine with me if you will: How could we view Jesus and His teachings more fully if we knew what His contemporaries were teaching? What other Pharisees were saying? The fact that there are more than one type of Pharisee? Maybe if one understood the Maccabean revolt , they would better understand what Jesus said and did at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. I actually heard a pastor say that the only reason Jews picked up Palm branches was because that was what was available. He totally botched the sermon because he did not know what the Palm branch meant to the Jew in the 1st Century! Or why did Jesus say certain things during the festival of Hanukah (festival of lights in the NIV). Then there is the little know fact that the disciples were (almost undoubtedly) teenagers, not middle aged men. And why did they drop their nets and follow Jesus as if in a trance? (If you understand Rabbi’s and their disciples and how they typically came together, you’d realize that they probably ran to follow Jesus with great excitement. The fact that they were even fishing tells the reader something about them and their schooling, but you need to know the culture to know this.) Or what about the 10 virgins? Why are these women waiting for “the groom” and who is this guy (I mean in the Parable, not who he represented)? Did the original readers know something about this parable that we don’t? Yes, and it’s quite fun to know. Or how about the lady who bleed for 12 years and touched Jesus’ cloak? Any meaning in that? Actually this one you do not need to know Hebrew culture for, but you do need to know the Hebrew language (This one, should you learn it, is awesome….) Or what about Zacchaeus? Did you ever wonder why he didn’t just go to the front of the crowd instead of climbing a tree? Does knowing Hebrew culture get you more saved? Is it required? Of course not! BUT WHY, and I really need to know this, why do people resist so much the desire to know the culture, history, and language of Jesus? Why don’t people eagerly seek out to know what Jesus’ contemporaries thought? I hear this argument that God wouldn’t require people to know this and how does this help a Chinese man who has no hope of such in depth study? “You don’t need to know all this stuff!”, the say. Well you don’t need to know Greek either. And you don’t even need to know how to read (ever met a downs syndrome person who loves God and lives for him better than you could ever wish to? I have.) But just because you don’t need to do in depth hard study to have a richer understanding and better grasp of Jesus and His teachings, does NOT mean that you shouldn’t do it. In fact, and I will end here, if you DID know the schooling that Jesus went through to get to where He was, you would be ashamed of the “girlie men” students of the Bible we all are. And it wasn’t just Jesus; it was every Pharisee that He chastised as well. Want a hint? Have you memorized the first 5 books of the Bible? How about before you were 12? Or the whole Old Testament? Then there is the really hard learning – the Oral law. You can understand Matt 5:17 without agreeing with my interpretation and be a great Christian. In fact, there is a chance I am even wrong. But why not look into Jesus’ world some and see what you find before labeling someone else who has done it. |
||||||
7 | Hebrew culture;a help or not? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 137734 | ||
MJH: You'll get no argument from me. Good post. Your points are entirely reasonable. I see nothing in your post that I would consider extreme. At this forum I have posted much about the consistent truth of the Torah. You can check it out for yourself by going to Quick Search in the upper right hand area of the homepage and entering: matt517 Thank you for stressing the benefit and importance of learning Jewish history, culture and language. I've been doing some reading and studying on the subject from good, sound sources such as the writer David Stern. On this forum I have often quoted his "Messianic Jewish Manifesto" and the Complete Jewish Bible. Grace and shalom, John |
||||||