NT a commentary on the OT

[Pig]

I am sure this will sound heretical to some, but I am in good company.

We have been taught that the Greek NT is scripture equal to the OT.  We have been told that there are new ideas in the NT that do not have an OT origin. But consider: Paul taught the Bereans from the OT, and they validated his teaching.

We have been told that mammon, agape, and mustard are uniquely NT Greek. Yet they have OT sources meaning "The believing ones", "enemy" and "bruised by anger".

You cannot serve God and self.... not money.
Agape love is love you give to your enemy with no expectation of return.
And the mustard seed points to the seed of the woman who was the least of all the seed because he served us all.  (He had the bruised heel)

Is it possible that all the NT was originally taught in Hebrew by the apostles, but transcribed into Greek for the Greek church. They did not want to be Jewish and so missed much of the rich meaning in he OT.  Paul chose to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

So rather than debate with Greeks, I translate back to Hebrew and correlate with OT teaching. It is in the NT because it is in the OT. But if you don't know the OT source, you may be getting the Greek-lite version.

So what are the OT source for the NT teachings on hell. These should drive doctrinal understanding.
The Greek church deified Mary, conquered the laity, compromised with government, adopted Jewish ritual, and killed heretics.  What better evidence do we need that they did not understand the teaching of Christ?

[WhiteWings]

Is it possible that all the NT was originally taught in Hebrew by the apostles, but transcribed into Greek for the Greek church. They did not want to be Jewish and so missed much of the rich meaning in he OT.  Paul chose to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

Jesus, with a few exceptions, only taught the Jews. Safe to assume that wasn't in Greek.
After His death some Apostles stayed in their own country (Hebrew) and some went out into the Greek world.

There quotes from the church fathers stating that several books were translated to Greek. Matthew is (almost) always mentioned in such quotes.

So rather than debate with Greeks, I translate back to Hebrew and correlate with OT teaching. It is in the NT because it is in the OT.

But if you don't know the OT source, you may be getting the Greek-lite version.

Can't find it right now but there is a book that has a title similar to: Greek is Hebrew lite.

So what are the OT source for the NT teachings on hell. These should drive doctrinal understanding.
The Greek church deified Mary, conquered the laity, compromised with government, adopted Jewish ritual, and killed heretics.  What better evidence do we need that they did not understand the teaching of Christ?

You used the magic progress blocking word: Doctrine.
Translation is both an art and science. Science means never ceasing research and never ceasing updating conclusions. And that is was is done by many linguists. Thayer for example wrote that at his time the meaning of 700+ words was unknown. Those times are past. Since then seemingly insignificant things were found. Love letters, recipes, poetry etc. From that linguists were able to rewrite their 'science books'.
It was long assumed the Greek of the NT was so extremely bad because it was written by nearly uneducated people. Later that opinion changed and it was accepted that it wasn't the very well know classical Greek but a totally different Koine Greek dialect.
But doctrine was already based on classical Greek, wishful thinking, and pagan influence. So most of the advancements in linguistics never reached the Bibles.

Personally I wonder was Koine Greek really is...
One very high ranking scholar stated that Koine Greek is still quite odd, lacks flow, looks disconnected etc. But if the Greek words are simply translated into Hebrew high quality Hebrew is the results. Including Hebrew idioms that are great in Hebrew but are without any meaning in Greek.
But yeah, doctrine.... trumps truth....


http://tentmaker.org/forum/christian-life/the-new-testament-was-written-in-hebrew-(not-greek)/msg112599/#msg112599

[marie glen]

Amen it makes logical sense that Jesus spoke in the language of His own nation in His day. Am I right in thinking it was Aramaic, a dialect, if I am remembering correctly, of the Hebrew? (And is Hebrew itself a dialect of Semitic language? :dunno: idk know if that makes sense or not.. :smile:

It seems logical too that Paul spoke and wrote in the language his hearers or readers would understand, without need of an interpreter.. since he was fluent in both languages and uses..

I'm happy that ultimately God's Truth/Word is beyond language.. And it is really kool that we can trace Hebrew perception and usage in some of the Greek, while dispensing with the oh so obvious mis-translations / perceptions. (Which even show up in concordances and interlinears! :sigh: )

And of course they (the greek language that is) did run with it! Peppering the translation with those ancient and long held pagan ideas.. immortality of the soul.. imo, anyway.. and 'afterlife' rather than resurrection - eternity instead of aionian, etc, but of course even many of the Hebrew scholars went that way too! What with their myths (Talmadic, or so I hear, never read the Talmad and likely never will.)

Interesting topic and posts :thumbsup: