The New Testament was written in Hebrew (not Greek)

[WhiteWings]

disannulled

[Cardinal]

  You don't see any Christians sacrificing their sheep and cattle do you (except maybe at a steakhouse)?  I was told when I came to the Lord, not to bother to read the OT because "it's just history, and we have a new covenant now". They use all kinds of scriptures to do away with it, and the law.

When He said He would write His LAW on our hearts, that didn't mean the "old" one was disannulled, it meant He would make it LIFE to us and not death. That's what revelation IS, an unveiling of Christ which was hidden in the letter, including the law and the prophets, just like He told the 2 on the road to Emmaus (sp.). Blessings....

[jabcat]

Been looking at some of the Aramaic translation.  Tony and I have chatted about this, I think it's of note.  The translator, Rev. Bauscher, especially in Matthew translated as the lost go to eternal torment, while the righteous go into eternal life.

He reportedly used to be a Baptist minister (usually believe in ET), but is cited on one forum as being a universalist.  Even though he translates as eternal torment, in his notes he states that a literal hell fire should not be taken literally, that would make God "worse than Hitler";  that hell should be seen symbolically as a state of being, not a place of being. 

There are also arguments that say he is wrong in stating that the originals were in Aramaic/Hebrew rather than Greek, and that it's actually the other way around;  that the Aramaic was later translated from the Greek.

Anyone else confused?  Any further info/insight into this?

[eaglesway]

In my studies I have found too many arguments from all sides of the question to accept any of them as authoritative. I finally asked myself, "What makes sense"? Did the Father maintain a continuous thread through all the centuries from Moses to Malachi just to fumble the ball at the one yard line? In the hundred years after Christ, did all the good Hebrew converts just forget the discipline of over 2,000 years of scribes and holy handling of the scrolls/written word? Was there no sense of the need of continuity among the believers, even among the apostles and their immediate disciples?

I answered myself- NO WAY.

 I have no doubt that the fundamental thoughts in the New Testament were Hebrew.  Paul, Peter, John and James were certainly Hebrew thinkers. Whatever took place in the translation process, IMO  the way to work through the issues involved in back tracking from current misunderstanding is to apprehend the Hebrew thought in the Old Testament and then to transfer that into our examination of questionable words when there is doubt. To me, this is because even if they spoke Aramaic in some cases or Greek in some- we know Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He was taught by Gamaliel. Jesus was cetainly in no way bound by any language barrier at all and the testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy. By this I know we are always reading Hebrew thought, not because the gospel is Hebrew, but because the Hebrews were the Lampstand of God. By starting from a baseline of - "What was the Hebrew thought"?, in my opinion, everything gets easier. Why would anyone want to know what Aristotle or Plato thought about much of anything? They were distinctly anti what has come to us through the revelation of God, the Lampstand that can be traced through Abel to Noah to Abraham,  then through Moses and then the prophets and finally to Jesus, whose words ALL reflected the things spoken by the prophets, because they prophesied by the Spirit of Christ. The apostles certainly continued in this vein. So IMO the need for understanding the contemporary Greek usage of words that were translated AT SOME POINT from Hebrew is less authoritative, especially when we now have in so many instances the knowledge of what the word was in Hebrew, and what the original Hebrew speakers were thinking when they spoke it. So I say, using context and history, interpreting the scriptures by the scriptures is the only way to go.
 

[Cardinal]

  AMEN......

Also found out in my studies today that there is a strong possibility Jesus was born of the Pharisee sect, because only they were called "rabbi", and it is likely He wore a white robe (probably with a blue band on it) and maybe even Tzitzit's, ie. the healing in His WINGS (as a corner fringe), which He would have also worn as a Jewish male, and especially a rabbi. It just gets better and better.....

[WhiteWings]

I have no doubt that the fundamental thoughts in the New Testament were Hebrew.  Paul, Peter, John and James were certainly Hebrew thinkers.

I'm amazed the 12 could even write in their own language. Many were simple people. Fishermen. I'm sure they picked up one or two foreign words but enough to understand Jesus' teachings? (It was long thought no Hebrew was spoken at that time) Or even write the teachings down.
Maybe the wrote in pens instead of speaking in tongues 
Jesus' didn't give lectures at a Greek university. Nope, He thaught simple people lile farmers and shepherds who often couldn't even read or write in their own language.
Jesus often quoted OT verses; or did He quote translated verses? (many quoted verses are translated wrong)
Not only Paul, Peter, John and Jabcat were Hebrew thinkers the whole NT has a Hebrew mindset. A mindset that (partly) got lost in translation.
For example what does "Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." really mean?
When Jewish priests had a religious discussion they didn't say "You are wrong and I'm right"; they said "You destroy the law and I'm fulfilling it."

Hebrew people being taught in Greek with Hebrew concepts? I don't think so.
Greek the HS inspired language but church fathers refering to Hebrew as important and original while their libraries are filled with inspired Greek? I don't think so.

[Cardinal]

  Just found this snipet of information in an article, but it didn't list what section of Josephus's works it was in.......

......what Josephus (a jewish 1st century historian) wrote about the relation between 1st century Israelites and Greek;

"The Jews would rather let their children eat pork than teach them greek."

Since the founding of the church was of Jewish believers to start with, it's highly unlikely they wrote they received from the HS in Greek, until they had to make copies of the writings MUCH LATER for Greek readers. The non-Aramaic/Hebrew speakers would have to had listened to the Jewish speakers translate verbally. After all, initially a lot of them taught in the synagogues.

[jabcat]

Your pork quote is in this interesting article I found.  Excerpts;

Another contibuting factor to misinterpretation is that the books of the "New Testament" are "Greek documents." The fact that the "New Testament" texts we have are in Greek, makes them no more "Greek documents" than the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament, which the rabbis wrote into Greek 200 years before Yeshua. The rabbis did this (as did someone at some point with the "New Testament" letters), for the benefit of the non-Jewish world so that they could also learn of the God and faith of Israel.

Thus, the "New Testament" documents remain Hebrew texts written in a Hebrew mindset, and must be studied that way, if we are to determine what the authors' meanings are. And until we learn the true original meaning, discussing "what the verse means to us" (as is done in many so called "studies") is a an exercise in futility and leads to error.
Having said that, there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the texts were originally written in Hebrew, and also that Hebrew was not a "dead language" (as was thought of for quite some time).
A study of the writings of the Christian "Church Fathers" shows that much of the "New Testament" was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by; Papias, Ireneus, Origin, Eusubius, Epiphaneus, Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.
----------
4. The prominent first century historian Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars, that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)
-----------
Other books, such as The Jewish New Testament, by David Stern are also helpful in showing the Hebrew thought that gets lost in the Greek/English. (The latter can be ordered through Amazon.com.)


http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

(comment found re: this translation -   "I am all for learning about Jewish roots to better understand scripture, but it needs to be understood that Jesus "came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him" (John 1:11). Many gentile Christians falsely think that Messianic Jews have a better grasp of the scriptures simply b/c of their Jewishness. The truth is that some Jewish Christians still try to find there identity in their Jewishness instead of Christ. This is a huge mistake that leads to major theological errors. The author of this book sadly falls under this category. One such blatant error taught by this book is that Jewish Christians 'should' keep the dietary Laws or "Kashrut". The author does not submit to scripture (Jesus in Mark 7:19, Peter's Vision in Acts 10, Paul writing to the Galatians, and many more places). He tries to explain these passages away by appealing to a "Jewish understanding", but Jesus continually showed most Jewish understanding to be flawed. It is the spirit that leads into all truth (John 16:13), not Jewish roots or any other.")

[Cardinal]

  Another interesting article and site......

The Holy Peshi tta
of the
Assembly of Jerusalem
Introduction

This version of the Scriptures is a faithful rendering of the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages based on the Assembly of Jerusalem's targums. Various English translations were consulted for comparison and references. The purpose behind this translation is to present a pure, understandable and modern translation of the Holy Scriptures in English for those who are unable to read the Original.

This version of the Peshi tta substitutes traditional Hebrew names and phrases for most equivalent Aramaic/Greek/English names and phrases. The meaning of the Holy Scriptures remains the same as that of the Peshi tta - the most accurate edition of the Word of God unchanged since the time of the Apostles.

Similar instances are given for other individuals' names and geographic locations as well. Most references to "the Jews" is translated as "the Yisraelites" or "the Judeans" and similar variations where appropriate. The Divine Name has been rendered directly from Aramaic in the form of "Mar-Yah" (meaning "Lord Yah") equivalent to the familiar form of "Yahweh".

This translation is based on the historically proven authentic text of the sacred book called the "Peshi tta" along with various Targums and other historical documents of the Assembly of Jerusalem.

The name "Peshi tta" is Aramaic and means "straight", (the original and pure interpretation of the Scriptures). The Peshi tta is the oldest dated Biblical manuscript in existence. Because it is the Word of God preserved throughout the generations since the Apostles' time, it is a reliable and pure text, which contains the books in the "Old" and "New Testaments" that were written in Aramaic and Aramaic dialects, the language spoken by the Messiah and His Disciples in the First Century.

http://www.essenescrolls.com/pecrapta/p-aesv-book-acts.php

[jabcat]

haha, i've got a story about the "pecrapta".  but for now, what happens is, the language filter on TM turns the real word into pecrapta, thinking you're writing a vulgar word.  you have to do something to the word like spelling it with a space like this;  'peshi tta', so the filter doesn't pick up on it.  I'll change it for you Card.  However, I don't think we can get the link to work.



The story is, before I knew anything about the peshi tta, I saw the word pecrapta on tm where it had been changed and I didn't know it.  I googled and googled trying to find out what that was - until I finally realized what had happened.   

[WhiteWings]

AMEN......

Also found out in my studies today that there is a strong possibility Jesus was born of the Pharisee sect, because only they were called "rabbi", and it is likely He wore a white robe (probably with a blue band on it) and maybe even Tzitzit's, ie. the healing in His WINGS (as a corner fringe), which He would have also worn as a Jewish male, and especially a rabbi. It just gets better and better.....

No comment 

[WhiteWings]

Just found this snipet of information in an article, but it didn't list what section of Josephus's works it was in.......

......what Josephus (a jewish 1st century historian) wrote about the relation between 1st century Israelites and Greek;

"The Jews would rather let their children eat pork than teach them greek."

Since the founding of the church was of Jewish believers to start with, it's highly unlikely they wrote they received from the HS in Greek, until they had to make copies of the writings MUCH LATER for Greek readers. The non-Aramaic/Hebrew speakers would have to had listened to the Jewish speakers translate verbally. After all, initially a lot of them taught in the synagogues.

The first Christian church followed the Temple pattern/layout.
The first Christians were still Jews. A bit like the NT are new books that belong in the OT. Or better said there is just one Testament.

[Cardinal]

haha, i've got a story about the "pecrapta".  but for now, what happens is, the language filter on TM turns the real word into pecrapta, thinking you're writing a vulgar word.  you have to do something to the word like spelling it with a space like this;  'peshi tta', so the filter doesn't pick up on it.  I'll change it for you Card.  However, I don't think we can get the link to work.



The story is, before I knew anything about the peshi tta, I saw the word pecrapta on tm where it had been changed and I didn't know it.  I googled and googled trying to find out what that was - until I finally realized what had happened.   

  Whoops! Never even thought about it......thanks for cleaning up my mess, roflol

[Cardinal]

Just found this snipet of information in an article, but it didn't list what section of Josephus's works it was in.......

......what Josephus (a jewish 1st century historian) wrote about the relation between 1st century Israelites and Greek;

"The Jews would rather let their children eat pork than teach them greek."

Since the founding of the church was of Jewish believers to start with, it's highly unlikely they wrote they received from the HS in Greek, until they had to make copies of the writings MUCH LATER for Greek readers. The non-Aramaic/Hebrew speakers would have to had listened to the Jewish speakers translate verbally. After all, initially a lot of them taught in the synagogues.

The first Christian church followed the Temple pattern/layout.
The first Christians were still Jews. A bit like the NT are new books that belong in the OT. Or better said there is just one Testament.

  EXACTLY....

[WhiteWings]

Many gentile Christians falsely think that Messianic Jews have a better grasp of the scriptures simply b/c of their Jewishness. The truth is that some Jewish Christians still try to find there identity in their Jewishness instead of Christ. This is a huge mistake that leads to major theological errors.

I don't agree.
Indeed there is a danger becoming Jew instead of Christain. But without a certain amount of Jewishness the NT simply can't be understood to it's deepest level. And that even more likely leads to theological errors.

The author of this book sadly falls under this category. One such blatant error taught by this book is that Jewish Christians 'should' keep the dietary Laws or "Kashrut". The author does not submit to scripture (Jesus in Mark 7:19, Peter's Vision in Acts 10, Paul writing to the Galatians, and many more places). He tries to explain these passages away by appealing to a "Jewish understanding", but Jesus continually showed most Jewish understanding to be flawed. It is the spirit that leads into all truth (John 16:13), not Jewish roots or any other.")

I partly agree with that. Basicly Jewishness is made up of 2 parts.
Commands directly from God (by using prophets etc) AND manmade additions to "improve" God laws. It was that second part Jesus rebuked. Not the first part. I think that's common sense because it's highly unlikely Jesus came to teach Father laws are wrong....

[eaglesway]

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
(Mat 13:10-17)

[WhiteWings]

Just found this snipet of information in an article, but it didn't list what section of Josephus's works it was in.......

......what Josephus (a jewish 1st century historian) wrote about the relation between 1st century Israelites and Greek;

"The Jews would rather let their children eat pork than teach them greek."

Since the founding of the church was of Jewish believers to start with, it's highly unlikely they wrote they received from the HS in Greek, until they had to make copies of the writings MUCH LATER for Greek readers. The non-Aramaic/Hebrew speakers would have to had listened to the Jewish speakers translate verbally. After all, initially a lot of them taught in the synagogues.

The first Christian church followed the Temple pattern/layout.
The first Christians were still Jews. A bit like the NT are new books that belong in the OT. Or better said there is just one Testament.

  EXACTLY....

I may seem trival but I think it's not. Many view the NT as a reboot/restart of things. But in reality Jesus was just (higher of course) a teacher like Daniel and Isaiah. Daniel was added to the Scriptures. It wasn't seen a fresh start and a reason to throw out everything before. I think Jesus brougt us extra knowledge instead of replacement knowledge
 

[jabcat]

This may get into another topic that needs split off.  I think the scripture John posted stands on its own merit.  It shows that the majority of the Jews were blind to what salvation really is, including who the Messiah is.  Paul said even to this day when they read the Law and prophets a veil remains over their eyes.  Most of them won't "see" until the time of the Gentiles has been made complete - then all Israel shall be saved.

I believe it's important to remember Jesus' earthly ministry was pre-cross and to the Jews AT THE END OF THAT AGE.

With all that said, I do believe it is important to understand all we can about the originals.  But I also agree with a lot of what this guy says here;

http://morechristlike.com/the-old-covenant-and-new-covenant-law-compared/   (he agrees he could have worded the first two lines of the 2nd paragraph better)

[jabcat]

The writer of the above, Bob Mutch says this;

5. Here are some scriptures that show that the Mosaic law is passed, was until John, Christians are not under and are dead to, Christ was the end, was done away, added only until Christ came, no longer under, we are to cast it out, has been changed, was faulty, old, decaying, was ready to vanish when Hebrews was written, and God has taken it away.

Mat 5:17-18 not pass until fulfilled, came to fulfill
Luk 16:16 law until John
Luk 24:44 all things must be fulfilled
Acts 13:29 fulfilled all that was written of him
Rom 6:14 not under the law
Rom 7:4 dead to the law
Rom 10:4 Christ is the end of the law
2Cor 3:6-12 was to be, which is done away
Gal 3:19 was added till Christ
Gal 3:24-25 no longer under schoolmaster
Gal 4:22-31 cast out the bondwoman
Gal 5:18 not under the law
Heb 7:11-12 change of the law
Heb 8:6-13 not faultless, old, decaying, ready to vanish away
Heb 10:9 take away the first covenant

Truly it is mystery that in the face of these clear scriptures people still claim the Mosaic law is in effect.

(my thought;  Jesus, through the working of the Holy Spirit in believers, has written His law on our hearts of flesh, and does the works through us - not because we're attempting to follow a law/rules, but because we have a desire placed within us to please our Father.   )

[jabcat]

On topic though;  so it seems very possible that the originals were in Hebrew and/or Aramaic;  and if so, I would think that would make some difference in our understanding.  Let's keep digging :)

[WhiteWings]

Then the question is: What exactly is the Mosaic law?
a] Manmade laws + laws directly from God
b] Manmade laws only.

I've read Jesus was a Pharisee and only had problems with the stuff they added. Not with the original/true laws.
That aligns quite well with Mat 5:17 where Jesus states He came to teach/(re)explain the law.

[WhiteWings]

The first 69 pages of "Hebrew Christians V Jesus of Rome"
Summary the Romans wiped out Jewish Christianity to protect Roman Christianity which was/is basically rebranded Roman paganism approved by the Jewish God (in their eyes)

[micah7:9]

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
(Mat 13:10-17)

 Amen 

[micah7:9]

For me, it doesnt seem to make a difference if the NT was originally written in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Russian, yet Im sure it is a good study, and something important for religious history. Eaglesway with the preceeding post of Matt. 13:10-17 expressed it well, 
"...  because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith,
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them..."
Joh 4:24  God is Spirit; and those who worship Him must bring Him true spiritual worship."

Joh 6:63 the spirit it is that is giving life; the flesh doth not profit anything; the sayings that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life;

1Co 2:14  and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them , because spiritually they are discerned;
1Co 2:15  and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;

[WhiteWings]

For me, it doesnt seem to make a difference if the NT was originally written in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Russian,

It is of zero importance in what language Jesus chose to teach.
But it is of significant importance to know in what language He thaught because a language has a lot of cultural bagage (sp?)

Example when a parent corrects a child in some cultures the child must look the parent in the eyes as proof it listens (let's assume thats how it's done in Greece).
In other cultures (let's assume Jewish) culture the child must look down to show shame (looking is rejecting the autorithy).

So when Jesus says the man was reprimanded and looked down it's important to know we should read that with a Greek or Hebrew mindset.
Some translation errors are based one wrongly assumed mindset.

Summary: The language is of zero importance. The culture attached to that language is of great importance for your understanding of scripture.....