I’m surprised it took this long (300+ replies) for this issue to come up on a thread like this. I’m also surprised that apparently everyone doesn’t know already you guys believe the (New Testament) Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew. It’s a key claim for your theology I’d say.
Here’s something I’ve always wondered about such a claim: if the Scriptures (NT portion) were indeed written in Hebrew originally, how can we be certain any etymological study will yield any truth?
I ask this for the obvious reason that no one claims to own these original Hebrew Scriptures (again for the NT portion). In addition, no Hebrew manuscripts exist that are older than the oldest Greek texts.
Thus, the only way “the original Hebrew” can be studied today is to translate the oldest Greek text into Hebrew. But that’s obviously not studying “the original Hebrew” since it’s a translation!
It seems to me given this conundrum, there really is no value in studying the Bible (NT portion) in Hebrew (or any language really). Sure the originals in the Greek are lost as well, but we have had for centuries the claim they were always written in Greek. It’s only been in relatively recent times that people have started to suggest they were in Hebrew.
Also, the oldest manuscripts by far are in Greek (even if they are just copies, they are still far older than any Hebrew manuscript, again for the NT portion of Scripture) so there’s no way to get nearly as close to the inspired original by studying a Hebrew translation of Greek.
So why not just study the Greek (where the NT is concerned. Obviously for the OT, a study of the Hebrew is best there). Greek is apparently the language that God has chosen to preserve historically, even if some older Hebrew manuscripts ever existed. That is, if the language of the originally inspired text was Hebrew, why did God let that be destroyed but yet let Greek texts remain, and how can we understand Scripture, from an etymological standpoint, by studying a Hebrew translation of the Greek? A translation is never inspired, in the strict sense.
We were too busy arguing about the messenger to discus anything much of importance.
I’m also surprised that apparently everyone doesn’t know already you guys believe the (New Testament) Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew. It’s a key claim for your theology I’d say.
That's probably a fair assumption. I would argue that the 'written' part of your assumption is superseded by the fact that those involved were indeed Hebrew. Consider today if we were conquered by the Chinese and our writings translated into Chinese, you telling me much of the meaning would not be lost?
As I said before, the Greek language is Pagan in nature and doesn't have the ability to fully convey Hebrew meaning. It could be reversed engineered however, given the knowledge and available evidence at our disposal today. That is indeed what is happening. Certainly a better translation than the KJV is now possible.
In addition, no Hebrew manuscripts exist that are older than the oldest Greek texts.
I'm not too sure about that statement. Also, who knows what is hidden away. There are many competing factions who care little about the truth when their side of things is at stake, as we've seen throughout history.
It seems to me given this conundrum, there really is no value in studying the Bible (NT portion) in Hebrew (or any language really).
I completely disagree with that statement. Through careful reconstruction/reverse engineering, we can certainly get much closer. When was it that the Word was even made available to the commoner? What happened to those who made it available against the Church's wishes at the time?
So why not just study the Greek...
As I've said before, much of the meaning is lost in the Greek translation.
That is, if the language of the originally inspired text was Hebrew, why did God let that be destroyed but yet let Greek texts remain, and how can we understand Scripture, from an etymological standpoint, by studying a Hebrew translation of the Greek? A translation is never inspired, in the strict sense.
I don't know the answer to why the Almighty does what he does. I do see why he entrusted the Gentile with the message. I trust in the end, the mystery will be revealed. I agree a translation is never as good as the original meaning. That said, like the six million dollar man theme, we can rebuild it...
I’m also surprised that apparently everyone doesn’t know already you guys believe the (New Testament) Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew. It’s a key claim for your theology I’d say.
I would say it is important, but not key. I myself did not come to this position through a necessity of an Hebrew New Testament as much as from an etymological dichotomy - So to me, the meaning is more important than any Hebrew proofs. In fact, it was the defenses of your folks around Matt 23:2-3, using the verse as a hinge-pin toward authority that got my motor running in the first place. And seeking out the etymology puts that use to shame. : ) Indeed, it says the exact opposite.
As luck would have it, that very verse caught Rood's eye too, and the proofs he uses come primarily from the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew and an early (but unique) Greek text, which is where the fervor and acclaim for an Hebrew text come from. But I hasten to reiterate that I came to quite the same conclusion in the KJV, without his proofs.
Consequently in researching, I have come to believe there is indeed much to defend Hebrew originals, and even much to defend an Aramaic interloper... That defense being primarily the existence of Hebrew and Aramaic word puns (an almost exclusively Semitic poetical device) , hidden in the Greek, which come to the fore when translated back into Hebrew and Aramaic respectively. I have seen the presence of these word puns ignored extensively, but never, ever adequately explained. And in reality, the only way they can be explained is by prior provenance in Aramaic and Hebrew versions.
But as I said, my intent is toward the meaning. As an example, the word 'disciple', whose connotation in the Greek is far less rigorous than the 'talmudim' in Hebrew. There can be no doubt that 'talmudim' is meant in the early books of the Brit hadasha, as Yeshua is portrayed as an Hebrew Rabbi, whose followers must in fact BE talmudim. And it is an extremely important point, as those who follow the Rabbi (to include you and I) must also be of that same rigorous sort - The intent must needs be cognizant of the Hebrew connotation, and you and I must be made aware of our duties in our expectations.
And the further I went, the more apparent these things became - Almost everything, every phrase and term, has a richer and more informed Hebrew meaning, which has caused the Book to flower for me like never before. I will NEVER again be able to look at the Book with Greek or Roman eyes.
In addition, no Hebrew manuscripts exist that are older than the oldest Greek texts.
In textual criticism, older is not/ does not have to be/ necessarily better.
[...] but we have had for centuries the claim they were always written in Greek. It’s only been in relatively recent times that people have started to suggest they were in Hebrew.
Not true, at least for Matthew. There is much recorded in your church fathers wrt the existence of an Hebrew original.
how can we understand Scripture, from an etymological standpoint, by studying a Hebrew translation of the Greek? A translation is never inspired, in the strict sense.
That is not really true, for the same reason that Hebrew word puns appear.