The New Testament was written in Hebrew (not Greek)

[joeteekay]

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledressescustomsewing.com/new_testament_written_in_Hebrew.htm
http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/new-testament-was-orginally?commentId=1451550%3AComment%3A1344965&xg_source=activity
http://www.remnantofyhwh.com/Hebrew%20The%20Purel%20Language.htm

Etc.
Personally I would find it logical. Hebrew also has much more depth to hide little gems.

I didn't follow the links..  :smile: but i think this is a great topic, and I agree very logical, and yes, adds such depth to God's Word! I wonder what do you think about Paul's letters when written to a Gentile church? Hellenistic and Greek.. Do you think those were likely written in Greek or in Hebrew?

I wonder if there were Hebrew and Greek gospels circulating after a while? (shortly after the first gospels were written very likely in Hebrew).. Luke was a Gentile I guess so I wonder about his gospel?

Maybe this is covered in this thread already! :faint:

Interesting topic. New testament originally in Hebrew or Greek??  Is there an authoritative answer?
BTW two of the links do not work Marie. Only this one which I found extremely helpful.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/new-testament-was-orginally?commentId=1451550%3AComment%3A1344965&xg_source=activity

IMO Greek I believe is the originally inspired language of the NT.  I know, I know some disagree. Fine.

Greek is such a precise language that I believe God used it for the NT. Just an opinion. Just look at the 3 different meanings of the word love in the Greek. And I do agree with the connection to the Hebrew because the apostles knew both (maybe more) languages. Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

Can we know for sure?  :dontknow:

[marie glen]

The two richest languages!  :HeartThrob:

P.S - yes interesting link, thanks! Especially these quotes

"Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:39]

Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. [Against Heresies 3:1]

Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. [A quote by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25]

Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. [Eccl. Hist. 3:24]"

...Matthew almost certainly, it seems, was likely written in Hebrew (Israeli dialect of Aramaic) as he sure seems to be writing to people of his own nation of Israel..

[marie glen]

.... My own personal belief is that the language of God, rather than being any particular human language, is Spirit, and where this Spirit inspires, that language becomes spiritual, whether it be Hebrew, Greek, English or Tagalog.

..it's the Spirit which gives us the right slant.. in whatever language.. and digging into the language(s) is to come up with "treasure new and old"..

....again referring to something WW said, I don't think you can divorce the Greek of the NT from the Hebrew minds behind it.

   :thumbsup:   :thumbsup:  Amen! That certainly has to be true!

[WhiteWings]

Greek is such a precise language that I believe God used it for the NT. Just an opinion.

The fact that Greek is a more precise language doesn't make it more suited than Hebrew.
The NT is for a large part quoting OT stuff. When quoting Hebrew things in Greek it's impossible to translate the whole meaning. Unless footnotes were added etc.
And losing that meaning, for me speaks against Greek.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

It goes beyond that according to scholars in the Hebrew/Greek field. If the Greek is translated back into Hebrew without reordering words, the result in most cases is perfect Hebrew.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

I wrote this earlier; if we agree the underlaying thoughts are Hebrew doesn't that mean we should avoid thinging the Greek way? And only use the the Greek lexicons to figure out the matching Hebrew word? Because afterall, Hebrew thought is based on Hebrew words. And  as I tried to show with idioms and last few posts with 'hidden' meanings and words having a mental and physical meaning, Greek is just unable to show us the depth of the mind of the writer/translator.

And that's not just a minor thing. It's the basis for a doctrine. :Chinscratch:



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

[rosered]

 :thumbsup:

  May God bless us   all  with more of   HIS WISDOM   in SPIRIT & TRUTH   to HIS GLORY AND PRAISE   :HeartThrob:

[joeteekay]

Thanks WW. Very enlightening.
I found the link you supplied very helpful.
http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm
:declare:

[Shev]

Greek is such a precise language that I believe God used it for the NT. Just an opinion.

The fact that Greek is a more precise language doesn't make it more suited than Hebrew.
The NT is for a large part quoting OT stuff. When quoting Hebrew things in Greek it's impossible to translate the whole meaning. Unless footnotes were added etc.
And losing that meaning, for me speaks against Greek.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

It goes beyond that according to scholars in the Hebrew/Greek field. If the Greek is translated back into Hebrew without reordering words, the result in most cases is perfect Hebrew.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

I wrote this earlier; if we agree the underlaying thoughts are Hebrew doesn't that mean we should avoid thinging the Greek way? And only use the the Greek lexicons to figure out the matching Hebrew word? Because afterall, Hebrew thought is based on Hebrew words. And  as I tried to show with idioms and last few posts with 'hidden' meanings and words having a mental and physical meaning, Greek is just unable to show us the depth of the mind of the writer/translator.

And that's not just a minor thing. It's the basis for a doctrine. :Chinscratch:



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

I understand what you are saying WW, but Hebrew is not the same thing as Spirit, which is why I think God can ordain Hebrews write in Greek for a result He desires. The problem with saying the whole NT should be in Hebrew is we have no way of knowing which would be Hebrew and which Greek. Luke appears to have Greek as his primary tongue, so therefore we should definitely have at least Luke and Acts in Greek, according to that logic. Paul was clearly multi-lingual, and his letters were to Greek speaking churches. Can we really say it would have been better for Hebrew letters to have been sent to those churches? Would not Paul have done so, if it were better, and a 'basis for doctrine'?

Another example if the Septuagint, which is as example of Hebrew definitely translated into Greek, and which is regarded as much more stilted as a result. The NT does not have this same stiltedness, flowing much better in Greek.

I guess, to repeat myself, I would just state that all your questions could apply to those who sent out Greek epistles. You say Greek is "unable to show the depth of the mind of the writer/translator". Well then, why did Paul dare to send out Greek epistles, if they were going to veil the depths of what he was trying to say? Why not rather command the churches to all learn Hebrew?

My contention is not anything against Hebrew as a wonderful language that has been used by God, but rather against the NT all being originally written in Hebrew. I can't see how that would be so without the NT resembling the Septuagint, which it does not in the slightest.

Ultimately, the thoughts that matter are God's, and He does not limit Himself by language. I would hazard to call Him 'Omni-lingual!'!!!

[gregoryfl]

Shalom Shev,

I think I can understand your concerns and questions about this. I am one who uses the Aramaic text as my primary text for study (perhaps I am the only one here who does so), and from my experience, as much as I personally love to look at the Greek as well (although not fluent in it at all), a study of the Aramaic has yielded many insights for me into why different Greek texts read the way they do. While WW is primarily writing regarding Hebrew, those same idioms hold true with Aramaic as well, and we do at least have copies of it to study from.

I am not sure how much the moderators would want to see any discussion that might be misconstrued as a bashing of those who believe in Greek originals for the 1st century writings, so hopefully what I am writing is acceptable. What I try to bring to this message board is how the Hebrew and Aramaic both give us glimpses into various aspects of Universal reconciliation. I see it much more clearly in the Hebrew and Aramaic than I can in the Greek, personally.

My personal stance is that it is important to use EVERY available resource to get the most complete picture. So, for example, although I primarily study from the Aleppo Codex of the Hebrew Tanakh and the Mosul edition of the Aramaic Pecrapta, I also find it valuable to compare these with the Septuagint and other Greek sources. I encourage others, who primarily rely on the Greek sources of the 1st century writings, to also, to the extent they are able, make use of the Aramaic Pecrapta as well.

As to God being 'Omni'lingual', I wholeheartedly agree.  :thumbsup: He has never been limited to language. Having said that, and I know I am biased when I say this, because of my background and culture, but I very much love mining the riches of the Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, and trying to find ways to express those riches in English.

Ronen

[micah7:9]

Greek is such a precise language that I believe God used it for the NT. Just an opinion.

The fact that Greek is a more precise language doesn't make it more suited than Hebrew.
The NT is for a large part quoting OT stuff. When quoting Hebrew things in Greek it's impossible to translate the whole meaning. Unless footnotes were added etc.
And losing that meaning, for me speaks against Greek.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

It goes beyond that according to scholars in the Hebrew/Greek field. If the Greek is translated back into Hebrew without reordering words, the result in most cases is perfect Hebrew.

Hebrew authors were writing Hebrew ideas in Greek words

I wrote this earlier; if we agree the underlaying thoughts are Hebrew doesn't that mean we should avoid thinging the Greek way? And only use the the Greek lexicons to figure out the matching Hebrew word? Because afterall, Hebrew thought is based on Hebrew words. And  as I tried to show with idioms and last few posts with 'hidden' meanings and words having a mental and physical meaning, Greek is just unable to show us the depth of the mind of the writer/translator.

And that's not just a minor thing. It's the basis for a doctrine. :Chinscratch:



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

I understand what you are saying WW, but Hebrew is not the same thing as Spirit, which is why I think God can ordain Hebrews write in Greek for a result He desires. The problem with saying the whole NT should be in Hebrew is we have no way of knowing which would be Hebrew and which Greek. Luke appears to have Greek as his primary tongue, so therefore we should definitely have at least Luke and Acts in Greek, according to that logic. Paul was clearly multi-lingual, and his letters were to Greek speaking churches. Can we really say it would have been better for Hebrew letters to have been sent to those churches? Would not Paul have done so, if it were better, and a 'basis for doctrine'?

Another example if the Septuagint, which is as example of Hebrew definitely translated into Greek, and which is regarded as much more stilted as a result. The NT does not have this same stiltedness, flowing much better in Greek.

I guess, to repeat myself, I would just state that all your questions could apply to those who sent out Greek epistles. You say Greek is "unable to show the depth of the mind of the writer/translator". Well then, why did Paul dare to send out Greek epistles, if they were going to veil the depths of what he was trying to say? Why not rather command the churches to all learn Hebrew?

My contention is not anything against Hebrew as a wonderful language that has been used by God, but rather against the NT all being originally written in Hebrew. I can't see how that would be so without the NT resembling the Septuagint, which it does not in the slightest.

Ultimately, the thoughts that matter are God's, and He does not limit Himself by language. I would hazard to call Him 'Omni-lingual!'!!!

:iagree:

[marie glen]

....I know I am biased when I say this, because of my background and culture, but I very much love mining the riches of the Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, and trying to find ways to express those riches in English.

Ronen

What treasure the Word is! So many avenues of good in depth study.. Ultimately of course (imo) the Word (Truth) is beyond language.. The letters Hebrews and James especially, I think, seem obviously written to Hebrews so the Hebrew seems extra logical to have been used.. or Aramaic.. which Hebrew is a dialect of, from what I understand?.. I especially love seeking in the languages when I haven't received that quiet insight from the Spirit.. "treasure old and new"! Hebrews is a letter especially fascinating to dig into..

These idioms are very interesting and insightful!!
     :girlheart: :banana:

[Shev]

Shalom Shev,

I think I can understand your concerns and questions about this. I am one who uses the Aramaic text as my primary text for study (perhaps I am the only one here who does so), and from my experience, as much as I personally love to look at the Greek as well (although not fluent in it at all), a study of the Aramaic has yielded many insights for me into why different Greek texts read the way they do. While WW is primarily writing regarding Hebrew, those same idioms hold true with Aramaic as well, and we do at least have copies of it to study from.

I am not sure how much the moderators would want to see any discussion that might be misconstrued as a bashing of those who believe in Greek originals for the 1st century writings, so hopefully what I am writing is acceptable. What I try to bring to this message board is how the Hebrew and Aramaic both give us glimpses into various aspects of Universal reconciliation. I see it much more clearly in the Hebrew and Aramaic than I can in the Greek, personally.

My personal stance is that it is important to use EVERY available resource to get the most complete picture. So, for example, although I primarily study from the Aleppo Codex of the Hebrew Tanakh and the Mosul edition of the Aramaic Pecrapta, I also find it valuable to compare these with the Septuagint and other Greek sources. I encourage others, who primarily rely on the Greek sources of the 1st century writings, to also, to the extent they are able, make use of the Aramaic Pecrapta as well.

As to God being 'Omni'lingual', I wholeheartedly agree.  :thumbsup: He has never been limited to language. Having said that, and I know I am biased when I say this, because of my background and culture, but I very much love mining the riches of the Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, and trying to find ways to express those riches in English.

Ronen

Thank you for the very gracious reply, Ronen. I really enjoy these type threads, and both you and WW have insights into Hebrew and Aramaic I do not at all. It is easier for me to see the beauty of Greek, because I do all of my scripture reading directly from it, and it is a really wonderful blessing to me to be able to do so. I love these discussions because I am reading and hearing things that are beyond my level of knowledge, and to hear the other side of the coin (in a manner of speaking) is challenging and invigorating. But that being said, I really do believe that most of the NT was written originally in Greek, and the main reason I post replies is so that any readers can see some of the other side of the discussion.

It all goes to show we have something to share. God has surely encouraged you to become fluent in reading Aramaic, while I have had the same passion for the Koine. I have no doubt at all that your studies are exceedingly rich indeed!

[gregoryfl]

Thank you Shev. Having a little bit of understanding of Greek, I know that it too, is a beautiful language, very rich in expression. May we have a long nose as we all share his riches together, in whatever language it is done in.  :Pray:

[Shev]

Thank you Shev. Having a little bit of understanding of Greek, I know that it too, is a beautiful language, very rich in expression. May we have a long nose as we all share his riches together, in whatever language it is done in.  :Pray:

:iagree:

[gregoryfl]

By the way, if WW does not object, I have 10 pages worth of postings on another message board of my research into how the Aramaic sources help us understand some of the differences in Greek manuscripts as I compare them one to another.

http://www.originsofhebrew.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18

Tony, let me know if you would rather I not post that here. I have no problem removing it. I do not wish to detract from the wonderful things you are sharing here.

Ronen

[WhiteWings]

Ronen,

It seems to fit quite well in this thread. Especially with the start of it.
I didn't read all pages yet but I like post 2 and 3.

I often read that the manuscripts of the NT are quite accurate but contain like 3000 (?) tiny variances that are mostly a slip of the pen. Little spelling errors. I wonder how many of them can be traced back to your thread. For example crowd vs crowds.

So Ronen I'm not asking you to remove your post. Actually the opposite. I ask everyone to read the whole thread on your site.  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

I understand what you are saying WW, but Hebrew is not the same thing as Spirit,

True, but neither is Greek or any other language.

which is why I think God can ordain Hebrews write in Greek for a result He desires.

Or have it translated.

Paul was clearly multi-lingual, and his letters were to Greek speaking churches. Can we really say it would have been better for Hebrew letters to have been sent to those churches? Would not Paul have done so, if it were better, and a 'basis for doctrine'?

Obviously Greek would be a better choice in that case. Just like an English or Spanish translation is the best choice for the majority of todays Americans. But only because most don't read Hebrew and/or Greek. So the choice is an English/Spanish Bible or none at all. The least of two evils :-)

You know in retrospect I think I made some of my posts too black and white (to bring a point across). Some books have more proof of Jewish origins than others. Matthew is quite often mentioned as written in Hebrew and translated lateron.
Speaking about writing and translating, in those days many couldn't read or write. They hired professionals to write for them. But still their name would be on the document. Just like a CEO dictating a letter to a typist.

Also keep in mind the Bible is just a fraction of the things that happend. I firmly believe Jesus spoke many more wise words that we can read in our Bibles. Likewise when we read about an Apostle traveling to a church he said more to them than the verses that are recorded. I can very well imagine that the Apostle gave a teaching that we know as 5 verses. But the 10 hour discussion explanation that followed isn't written down.
Well, in my mind that's quite obvious. An Apostle travels for months, speaks 5 verses and that's it?

Note that I'm not saying 1000's of verses are missing from the Bible. I'm just saying not everything was written down.

Another example if the Septuagint, which is as example of Hebrew definitely translated into Greek, and which is regarded as much more stilted as a result. The NT does not have this same stiltedness, flowing much better in Greek.

What's best is a matter of opinion. Some scholars say the Greek often makes little sense.
I'm not (just) talking about spelling and grammar rules, but about "does it make any sense?".
Translating (back*) into Hebrew uncovers Hebrew idioms that are/were unknown in Greek.
I'll explain that with an simple example.
"Yesterday it rained pipe stems where I live."
I think that grammatically fairly correct English. But does it make sense to you? It's a Dutch idiom that should be translated into English as "Yesterday it rained cats and dogs where I live. If that idiom has a deeper meaning in Dutch that meaning will be lost to the English reader because those readers are clueless what the first translation means, and correct English translation doesn't have that deeper meaning.

I guess, to repeat myself, I would just state that all your questions could apply to those who sent out Greek epistles. You say Greek is "unable to show the depth of the mind of the writer/translator". Well then, why did Paul dare to send out Greek epistles, if they were going to veil the depths of what he was trying to say? Why not rather command the churches to all learn Hebrew?

I think I already answered that in the first quote. It's better than nothing. The audience has it's limitations. The NT is heavily rooted in the OT. The NT isn't God's way of getting rid of everything OT and start anew with all His teachings. So when Jesus refered to something from the OT He did just that. He wasn't in any way altering those Scriptures. So He pointed to the whole teaching attached to those passages. And those things were are understood with a Jewish mind. Jesus only gave sermons to Jews, not gentiles.

Ultimately, the thoughts that matter are God's, and He does not limit Himself by language. I would hazard to call Him 'Omni-lingual!'!!!

He surely is but He's also limited by the strong and weak points of any language.

[Shev]

I appreciate your responses, WW.

I notice that many examples of idioms that are traced back come from the gospels (for instance, going through the ten pages in the link Ronen provided, I believe most were from Matthew and Mark, with a few from Luke, John, Acts and Revelation). There is no doubt that most of the time Jesus was speaking, He was speaking in Aramaic (though I believe He must have known Greek too). So I completely concede that even if any or all of the gospels were written in Greek, they would as a matter of course have an Aramaic base, owing to the language that was being spoken. Again, my contention is as to what language these oral traditions were set down in, and I do concede that there is a certain size spectrum of Greek/Aramaic likelihood across the twenty seven books, which of course were not written as one unit, but were written with one Spirit.

That being said, almost every epistle of Paul is written to the Gentiles (depending on your views of Hebrews authorship) and in the book of Acts he is often addressing Gentiles verbally too. So then, if his original words quoted were uttered in Koine, then we have Greek being the base tongue for whatever he says, with no translation from Aramaic at all. Paul was multilingual, and people who are fluent in more than one language do not have to think of something in one language, translate it in their head, and then speak it in the second language, but rather they are able to think in whichever language they are fluent in. So Paul would have been able to have Greek thoughts, spoken in Greek, written in Greek, to a Greek/Gentile audience, all describing the good news of Jesus Christ. In this case, the only Hebrew coloring comes from the genetics of Paul's natural mind, so to speak. So for instance, when Paul spoke to the Greeks in Athens, he would have been carried along by the Spirit to make utterances in Greek that were fully spiritual, and in no way needed the help of Aramaic to make them so.

Greek had already been so ingrained as the common tongue by the time of Jesus, that many Jews would have been perfectly fluent in it, as I understand, and some dispersed Jews would have had it as their primary tongue, hence the need for the Septuagint in the first place.

You said:

And those things were are understood with a Jewish mind. Jesus only gave sermons to Jews, not gentiles.

Point taken as far as Jesus giving sermons to Jews, and of course insights into their language will help with idioms, but I would contend that we don't need a Jewish mind to understand His sermons, any more than Jews need a Greek mind to understand what the Spirit says to the seven Greek speaking churches in Revelation.

You said:

He's also limited by the strong and weak points of any language.

I agree with this to a point - some languages are without contradiction more primitive than others. A people who speak in clicking sounds would have a hard time producing a quality Bible translation! But on the other hand, this plays into what I am saying too, as it is perfectly reasonable that God might choose for the Gospel to go forth in Greek (and some or all of it be originally written in it) for specific reasons.

I will say (without any concession) that the books that have the stronger cases for Aramaic primacy tend to be the gospels, where there are a lot of parables and idioms that are helped more by Aramaic insight. The books with the stronger case for Greek primacy tend to be the Pauline epistles, where Paul is often using very specific language to set doctrine and precise teaching.

Here is an excellent link for anyone interested:

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/aramaicprimacy.html

[joeteekay]

Thanks Shev,

Thanks for your perspective and valuable contribution to this discussion. I agree with most of what you wrote.
And I may suggest here is more in the following scripture by Paul that bears on this topic , although I can cannot expound on it adequately.

1Co_1:22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

:Peace2:

[WhiteWings]

Idiom #75 - Shoe/sandal

Ps 108:9 Moab is my wash pot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe; over Philistia will I triumph.

Shoe is symbol of ownership.
Pieces of land were marked of with old sandals.
The third of the four covenants is called the sandal or inheritance covenant.

[WhiteWings]

Quick reply Shev. A short holiday started today and I already should have been in my car. I hope I don't overlook things and jump to wrong conclusions.

I appreciate your responses, WW.

I notice that many examples of idioms that are traced back come from the gospels (for instance, going through the ten pages in the link Ronen provided, I believe most were from Matthew and Mark, with a few from Luke, John, Acts and Revelation). There is no doubt that most of the time Jesus was speaking, He was speaking in Aramaic (though I believe He must have known Greek too). So I completely concede that even if any or all of the gospels were written in Greek, they would as a matter of course have an Aramaic base, owing to the language that was being spoken.

I'm glad we have agreement on this.

Again, my contention is as to what language these oral traditions were set down in, and I do concede that there is a certain size spectrum of Greek/Aramaic likelihood across the twenty seven books, which of course were not written as one unit, but were written with one Spirit.

And that Spirit isn't bound by language or culture. Well bound by the culture of truth.
Your view is that the first books (possibly) were originally in Hebrew but the other books very likely were Greek from the very start.
You also agree the first books at least have a Hebrew/Aramiac mindset. (which in my opinion is a very important point)
Now my question/thought is this: The Holy Spirit inspired the whole OT with a Hebrew mindset. The Holy Spirit also inspired some NT books with a Hebrew mindset - the ones originally written in Hebrew.
That's 1000's of year of Hebrew inspiration. A large percentage of all Scripture.
Would that very same Holy Spirit change it's approach and for the remainder of the NT inspire with a Greek mindset?
I think not.
I even think it's impossible because the "Greek teaching" are not some new invention. They reference all the previous books written in Hebrew.
Not exactly because the books were not finished yet but I'm sure you get my idea.
So Holy Spirit switched language; also mindset?

What exactly is the Greek mindset? That's a very difficult thing to answer imo. Lexicons show part of it. They show the meaning of words. Those words partly show how the ancients (possibly) understood the Teachings.
But the lexicons were written after lots of paganism crept in.
One example: Only in 288AD torment got the meaning of torture.
But many understand torment as torture by using the most recent definition that's listed as the primary meaning. So our culture is injected into the Greek culture at that time. Wrong.

That being said, almost every epistle of Paul is written to the Gentiles (depending on your views of Hebrews authorship) and in the book of Acts he is often addressing Gentiles verbally too. So then, if his original words quoted were uttered in Koine, then we have Greek being the base tongue for whatever he says, with no translation from Aramaic at all. Paul was multilingual, and people who are fluent in more than one language do not have to think of something in one language, translate it in their head, and then speak it in the second language, but rather they are able to think in whichever language they are fluent in. So Paul would have been able to have Greek thoughts, spoken in Greek, written in Greek, to a Greek/Gentile audience, all describing the good news of Jesus Christ. In this case, the only Hebrew coloring comes from the genetics of Paul's natural mind, so to speak. So for instance, when Paul spoke to the Greeks in Athens, he would have been carried along by the Spirit to make utterances in Greek that were fully spiritual, and in no way needed the help of Aramaic to make them so.

If the Greeks, or anyone is guided by the spirit they indeed need no other guide.
But the text can still be misunderstood wrong by those who do not get help from HS. IMO a good guard against error is read in the light of culture. While Paul spoke and tough in Greek every fiber of Paul was fully Hebrew culture. His thought patterns didn't become pagan when speaking in Greek.
A prime example (in my mind) is Revelation. I think it's following certain 'Hebrew patterns'. One of them is the daily Temple routine when it still stood. It uses Temple terminology. Prime example is LoF. Greek culture paganized it into a torture pit while the Hebrew mindset sees it as utter purification (LoF is a Temple vessel).

So fluent Greek takes you nowhere with the proper background. (no pun intended Laz)

Greek had already been so ingrained as the common tongue by the time of Jesus,

Seems so; but at the same times rabbi's wrote things like "I rather eat swine than speak Greek"  :winkgrin:

You said:

And those things were are understood with a Jewish mind. Jesus only gave sermons to Jews, not gentiles.

Point taken as far as Jesus giving sermons to Jews, and of course insights into their language will help with idioms, but I would contend that we don't need a Jewish mind to understand His sermons, any more than Jews need a Greek mind to understand what the Spirit says to the seven Greek speaking churches in Revelation.

Sorry, I have to disagree Laz.

You said:

He's also limited by the strong and weak points of any language.

I agree with this to a point - some languages are without contradiction more primitive than others.

Maybe so, but that not even what I meant.
Assume Hebrew has 100 strong points. Greek has 200 strong points. That makes Greek the superior language. But Greek still lacks when treading the area of the 100 Hebrew strong points that may be weak Greek points.
So when translating there are problems.

[gregoryfl]

Thank you Shev, for sharing the alternative understanding from Mr. Jenkins. I have read it myself, as part of keeping familiar with every possible way of understanding a subject. There will probably always be debate as to who spoke what, and where. That is why I have been posting my findings as I work through the text, comparing the variations found in the footnotes of my Greek New Testament by Kurt Aland , with my Aramaic Peshiyta Text With Hebrew Translation. I believe that the texts will speak for themselves and shed light on this subject. I have not yet gotten into the Pauline Epistles, with the exception of the example I provide from Romans 5, but have been trying to move through the text in order, with the exceptions I have happened to come across in casual reading, or at someone's request. Because I am still primarily working on my Sensory Translation of the Scriptures, my progress on this other project is rather slow, but I do update it as I come across more information.

Ronen

[eaglesway]

The seed bed of the scriptures is Hebrew, and the thoughts of Jesus, being the fulfillment of, and at the same time the origin of the words of the prophets- were embedded in the hebrew mind set. So much of the NT is quotes from the OT, and the NT writers, being few, could have written in either language depending on who they were trying to reach.

I agree with Shev about the language of the Spirit. Jesus, Peter, John and Paul spoke of the Spirit revealing all truth. I also think that it is clear that spiritual understanding begins in the OT and blossom in the NT- continuously integral spiritually.


6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

"Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him."

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

That said, I still think Hebrew is the key that unlocks most misunderstandings about translating the thoughts of the prophets and apostles. I think when doubts arise about meanings looking into the Hebrew language is illuminating because the foundations of Christian thought(the prophets) were spoken in that langage and since the writers of the NT- whether they wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek or Syriac.....were Jews, steepd in the word pictures of the Hebrew language. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew, so again, when doubts arise, reconstructing the Hebrew origins can reveal shades of meaning lost in the Greek. As Ronen and others have shown, the nature of the Hebrew language allows for this kind of reconstruction by its very nature.

What language did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speak? What language did the children of Israel speak in servitude 400 years in Egypt? Why did Israel not leave Egypt speaking Egyptian?

There is, imo, something special about the Hebrew language that transcends Greek- but the Spirit is able to teach the mind of Christ through any language, and most doubts of paradox and confusions of word meanings can be answered by contextual and topical study in any language at least closely translated. I became convinced of UR by the weight of Eph 1; Col 1; 1 Cor 1:15, Romans 8, and 11; John 12:32, etc.... long before I dug into translation issues.



2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

IMO it is the whole context of scripture that is the surest anchor against error and the quickest destroyer of veils, and it is the Spirit of God who opens that context, converting words into thoughts and transmitting wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God - becoming the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

".....but we have the mind of Christ"

[Shev]

Thanks Shev,

Thanks for your perspective and valuable contribution to this discussion. I agree with most of what you wrote.
And I may suggest here is more in the following scripture by Paul that bears on this topic , although I can cannot expound on it adequately.

1Co_1:22  For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

:Peace2:

Thank you Joeteekay!  :dsunny:

[Shev]

Thank you WW, Ronen and EW for your posts. I will exit the discussion at this juncture and make way for the continued series on idioms.

WW, I appreciate your latest response. I guess part of my perspective is with regards to the idea of mindset itself. My problem with a Hebrew mindset being intrinsically superior for spiritual understanding is that it gives advantage to one flesh over another, so to speak. Hebrew and Aramaic are clearly of great value with regards to trying to get at the base of what idioms may have ended up in Greek, but I don't think that having a Hebrew mindset gives any man superiority over another for understanding the things of God. I really liked EW's latest post with regards to this. Either way, I must say this discussion thread has made me hungrier to try and learn Hebrew (which limited time has had a hand in preventing up to now), in addition to Greek so there is that!

Ronen, thank you for your gracious posts and ongoing labor to bring light to the idioms also. I like what you say about "keeping familiar with every possible way of understanding a subject". That is always an important thing to strive for, rather than camping out and making war around preconceived positions!

EW, fantastic post as always, with a very balanced perspective. The issue of the truth of the Spirit transcending earthly languages is more important to me than simply debating the Greek side of the NT writing issue, and I think you stated that reality, and also the strengths of Hebrew very well.

:dsunny:

[eaglesway]

I think sometimes the words get between us like fences. But we kno the Spirit unifies in the love of God nd the wisdom of Christ. 

If the Spirit is feeding the words as manna....the languages are just tools for eating the bread of life.