Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 130752 | ||
2 Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? Part Two: More REASONS and RESPONSES Following are the top reasons given to prove the NT was originally written in Greek. Each reason is then followed by a RESPONSE intended to disprove the argument and prove the NT was originally written in Hebrew. What I am asking for is that you tell whether you agree or disagree with the RESPONSEs and the reason(s) why you do or do not agree. Supporting factual evidence is what I seek. Thanks to all who reply. Grace to you, kalos ____________________ 'Many have asked why we should believe the Hebrew and Aramaic are the original NT languages rather than the Greek.' TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT (and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account) ******* '2. The NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament". 'RESPONSE: '1) Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT. The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic Text and the Peshitta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX. '3. Testimonials "Such-and-such scholar said so". 'RESPONSE: 'These do not prove anything. In fact once can also quote various scholars which have declared that parts or all of the NT were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. '4. Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek. 'RESPONSE: 'Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect. '5. Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus". 'RESPONSE: 'Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic. '6. Greek was the common language of Jews at the time. 'RESPONSE: 'The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first 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, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2). Josephus gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people during his 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 cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations. (Ant. 20:11:2) 'Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language." 'Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists. The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other inscriptions found at excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish tombs, have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters. The Dead Sea Scolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew. The Bar Kokhba letters are letters beteween Simon Bar Kokhba and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have no one who knows Hebrew here." (...) 'But regarding Paul's letters to the diaporia, Aramaic is the issue. 'It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the diasporia, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at Rome, Pompei and even England.' ____________________ (http://www.hebraicrootsversion.com) |
||||||
2 | Was NT Written in Greek or Hebrew? 1 | NT general Archive 1 | EdB | 130766 | ||
Kalos This group wants to appear to present a fair and open discussion on this subject but in fact are really only presenting a one sided argument. They are have picked ten points that they feel they can provide rebuttals to in an attempt make this look as an all inclusive and conclusive discussion. However they have chosen to ignore many other valid points which must first be conclusively answered before anyone can say for certain which language the New Testament was written. They need to address issues like, what was the common language of the intended audience? Some of the letters went to Gentile churches that appear to have no known knowledge of Hebrew. Did written Hebrew even exist at this time or was it already Aramaic? There is ample evidence that actual written Hebrew at this time was lost, that it was really a dialect of Aramaic. Why would the New Testament be written in Hebrew when the Septuagint clearly demonstrated the need for scripture to be written in Greek rather than Hebrew? If there was a need for Greek 140 years before the first New Testament was written it can be assumed it would be needed even more at the time of the New Testament. Then they would need to address the mind of God questions. Since God intended the Gospel to effect the whole world and not just Israel why would He have the Gospel written only in Hebrew and not the language of the world? It appears that God waited until a highway system to make travel practical and a language system to enable the transference of knowledge before He sent Christ to earth. If he was going to have the Gospel written in Hebrew then this seemingly important piece of timing can be discounted. Which leads to a question of why did Jesus come when He did. This group just like the ‘KJV only’ group want to make their case not on all the facts and assumptions only the ones they have answers for. To me they are not worth posting. EdB |
||||||