On the Interpretation of Revelation

When the Stars Fall: A Messianic Commentary on the Revelatoin | 6/21/05 | Michael D. Bugg

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...does not mean that I think my dog and cat are identical in every way.

LOL. It happens.

When our first child was four, he sat petting my brother's Siamese cat. After a few minutes he looked up and asked, "Mom, is this a dog or a cat?"

It was then I realized he was waaay too sheltered.

We got a puppy from the pound the next week.

By the grace of God, as a young man he seldom makes this same mistake. 8~)

[topcat54]

First of all I suspect that Hebrews was not originally written in Greek, as Greek would have been Greek to most Jews.

Well, that just what it is. Speculation.

Why would a letter written to Romans be in Greek and not Latin? Just curious.

I'm not prepared to give a history lesson, but Greek culture was on the decline while Roman was at its zenith around the time Christ was born. However, the Greek language was still the predominant language thorough the Roman empire. And while there were Latin speakers in and around Rome, it was not considered a universal language at that time.

Besides, we have no evidence that Paul spoke or wrote in Latin. Greek seems to have been his first language. A good choice by God to bring the message of salvation to a gentile, largely Greek-speaking, audience. It's almost as if God new what He was doing.

Since we don't have copies of any of the original new testament manuscripts, we don't really know what language they were in originally.

The manuscript evidence to support Greek as the original language is sufficient. God' providentially preserved the Scriptures for us in the form He intended. We have no reason to doubt that current form as identical in all aspects to the autographs of the NT.

I believe that the oldest extant copies of the Torah were in Greek as well. But I don't think that anyone ever tried to argue that the original manuscripts were not written in Hebrew.

I thought the DSS were the oldest and in Hebrew/Aramaic.

[P-Marlowe]

I think you can find plenty of evidence to support the assumption that Greek was the common language for Asia Minor and thus most of the epistles would have naturally been written in Greek originally. However I'd like to see a footnote or two that would suggest that people in Rome would be literate in Greek around the time that Paul was penning his epistle to the Romans. Also when you consider that Paul was a Roman citizen and a scholar probably familiar with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek AND Latin, it seems logical that he would have likely penned the letter in the language most familiar with the converts in the City to which the letter was addressed, i.e. Latin.

Now can you show me historical evidence that Greek was the common language in Rome around 60 AD? I've heard that alleged quite a bit, but I've never seen the evidence. Ineed, I think I have always just accepted the statement without question, but it seems that we have chosen this thread to examine the evidence for a lot of preconcieved notions we've all held.

[bluepistolero]

From Wm. L. Lane's 2 vol. set on Hebrews, Introduction, page xlix:

Although the writer is presumably within the Pauline circle, and expects to travel with Timothy, "our brother"(13:23) it is certain that he is not Paul. The language of Hebrews constitutes the finest Greek in the NT, far superior to the Pauline standard both in vocabulary and sentence-building.

The style of the epistles and the imagery used, is shown to be foreign to Paul's previous writings. From the composition of Hebrews, it is possible to draw a number of plausible inferences about the writer.

He has an architectural mind; he affirms a thesis and then develops it by way of analysis. The manner in which the writer structures his material for maximum effect lends credence to the supposition that he was formally trained in rhetoric.

He understood speech as a means and medium of power. He appreciated speech as agonistic and used it effectively in the service of the Jewish-Christian mission. His rhetorical skill is universally recognized. He possessed a rich vocabulary and cultured diction. Of the total of 4942 words in Hebrews, the writer uses 1038 different words; of that number, 169 are found only in Hebrews of the NT.

The writer was obviously well educated by hellenistic standards. It is reasonable to assume an educational background to that enjoyed by Philo. He was a pastoral theologian who adapted early christian traditions to fashion an urgent appeal to a community in crisis. He was a gifted preacher and interpreter of salvation history for his own community.

There is much more, but the logical choice, which most current scholars believe most likely is Barnabus, a well-educated Greek who came from a Jewish-Cypriot priestly family, although Apollos is also a candidate.

[P-Marlowe]

TC Quoting PM: "I believe that the oldest extant copies of the Torah were in Greek as well. But I don't think that anyone ever tried to argue that the original manuscripts were not written in Hebrew."

TC Responding to TC Quoting PM: "I thought the DSS were the oldest and in Hebrew/Aramaic."

Actual quote from PM: "Funny thing is that up until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls I believe that the oldest extant copies of the Torah were in Greek as well. But I don't think that anyone ever tried to argue that the original manuscripts were not written in Hebrew."

Do you always take quotes out of context like that?

[topcat54]

To the best of my knowledge there is no early manuscript evidence to support the theory of a Latin autograph of the book of Romans. There is no testimony in the early church fathers of a Latin autograph. As I said before, there is no evidence at all from the NT that the apostle Paul spoke or wrote in latin. Paul was a Roman citizen, but from the eastern portion of the empire.

If you want to go validating your speculations you have to have a place to start. I haven't been able to find a starting point for this rabbit trail.

Greek was in widespeard use throughout the entire Roman empire, particularly in the east where Paul did much of his traveling and writing. Even the epistles that he wrote with in Rome were all written in Greek, at least according to the manuscript evidence.

If people are going to speculate, they at least need something concrete to start with.

[P-Marlowe]

Of the total of 4942 words in Hebrews, the writer uses 1038 different words; of that number, 169 are found only in Hebrews of the NT.

This does not prove that the original epistle was written in Greek, but it could suggest that the extant work is really a translation from the original Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek.

Quite frankly the literary quality of translations is oft better than literary quality of the original work.

There are those who argue that the Septuagent is of a more literary quality than the original Hebrew. And it appears that many of the quotes of old testament works are quotes from the Septuagent and not from the original Hebrew scritpures.

[P-Marlowe]

If people are going to speculate, they at least need something concrete to start with.

Is there any evidence that Greek was a common language IN ROME in 56 AD? Any at all?

[blue-duncan]

You might want to see how Lane writes his commentary to suit his system of theolog.

http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?262

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This from the following link by the Rev. John Owen in his translation of Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews...(interesting that Owen, while insisting it was written in Greek, disagrees with Calvin on the author's identity.)

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

"...Another subject has been much discussed, which is of no great consequence, as the inspiration of the Epistle is not thereby endangered, and that is the language in which the Epistle was originally written. An opinion prevailed among some of the Early Fathers that it was written in Hebrew, or rather in Syro­Chaldee language, and that it was translated into Greek by Luke, Clement, or Barnabas. It was stated as an opinion, confirmed by no authority, and founded mainly on two circumstances â€" that it was written to Hebrews, and that its style is different from that of Paul in his other Epistles. Almost all modern divines regard this opinion as not well founded. The Greek language was in Paul’s time well known throughout Palestine; the “General Epistles,” intended for the Jews as well as the Gentiles, were written in Greek; and there is no record of any copy of this Epistle in Hebrew. As to the style, it differs not more from that of the other Epistles than what may be observed in writers in all ages, or what might be expected in Paul when advanced in years, compared with what he wrote in his younger days. It may be further added, that the Epistle itself contains things which seem to show that it was written in Greek: Hebrew words are interpreted, Hebrews 7:2; the passages quoted are mostly from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and there is the use of a word, rendered “Testament,” in Hebrews 9:17, in the sense of a Will, which the Hebrew word never means.

"There are only two questions of real importance â€" the canonicity of the Epistle, and its Author.

"As to the first, it has never been doubted except by some of the strange heretics in the first ages. There is quite as much external testimony in its favor as most portions of the New Testament. It was from the first received by the Churches, Eastern and Western, as a portion of the Inspired Volume. It is found in the very first versions of the New Testament, the Syriac and the Italic. These versions were made as early as the end of the second century, about 140 years after the date of this Epistle. 3 The testimony of the Fathers from the earliest time is uniformly the same in this respect. The Epistle is acknowledged by them all as a portion of Holy Writ.

"But with regard to the Author there has been a diversity of opinion, though, when all things are duly weighed, without reason. From the earliest times, the Eastern Church acknowledge Paul as the Author. Some in the Western Church, in the third and the fourth century, did not regard Paul as the Author, but Luke, or Clement, or Barnabas. Jerome and Augustine in the fifth century, a more enlightened age than the two preceding centuries, ascribed to Paul the authorship; and since their time the same opinion has prevailed in the Western, as it did from the beginning in the Eastern Church. How to account for a different opinion in the Western Church during the third and the fourth century, is difficult. Some think it was owing to the Novalien Heresy, which some parts of this Epistle were supposed to favor, though without any good reason.

"As far then as the testimony of history goes, almost the whole weight of evidence is in favor of Paul being the Author.

"With regard to modern times, the prevailing opinion has been that it is the Epistle of Paul. Luther, indeed, ascribed it to Apollos â€" a mere conjecture. Calvin, as we find, supposed that either Luke or Clement was the author; for which there are no satisfactory reasons. Beza differed from his illustrious predecessor, and regarded Paul as the writer; and such has been the opinion entertained by most of the successors of the Reformers, both in this country and on the Continent, as proved by their confessions of Faith..."

[topcat54]

Is there any evidence that Greek was a common language IN ROME in 56 AD? Any at all?

Yes. The Romans, like many people at that time, were largely bi-lingual.

"The Romans insisted that "barbaric" peoples learn Latin before they became citizens, but they freely extended citizenship to Greeks, whom they considered civilized, although they knew no Latin. Three centuries earlier, Roman statesmen like Cato the Elder had scorned Greek culture, but the Roman elite during the empire spoke fluent Greek and directed their contempt toward other eastern peoples, like Jews and Syrians. Greek philosophers, Asian orators, African religious scholars, Syrian satirists, and Saint Paul himself all boasted Roman citizenship, although they all wrote in Greek. It is not easy to generalize about the Roman influence; it can best be seen in the effects of conquest on specific peoples." (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Ronald J. Mellor, A.B., A.M., Ph.D.)

One other item, not only did the NT authors write their accounts and letters in Greek, but the evidence is pretty clear that they preferred to use the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, when quoting portions of the OT.

"The New Testament Greek, for example, is a representative of Hellenistic Greek written in the first century AD. Some Aramaic influences have been discerned in parts of the New Testament that have a Palestinian setting, but not to a point where scholars are obliged to conclude that some books were originally composed in Aramaic." (Encyclopædia Britannica)

Here's another interesting tidbit on the extent of Greek in the ancient world:

"One of the most surprising facts about these funerary inscriptions [Jewish epitaphs] is that most of them are in Greek -- approximately 70 percent; about 12 percent are in Latin; and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic.

"These figures are even more instructive if we break them down between Palestine and the Diaspora. Naturally in Palestine we would expect more Hebrew and Aramaic and less Greek. This is true, but not to any great extent. Even in Palestine approximately two-thirds of these inscriptions are in Greek." (Pieter W. Van Der Horst, Biblical Archaeological Review, Sept.-Oct. 1992; see Did Jesus and the Apostles Speak Greek?)

[blue-duncan]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was not looking forward to 300 posts arguing about Paul's authorship. Now we can consider something more important like whether or not Melchisedec was saved and whether there were any believers in Jerusalem when Abe arrived.

[Buggman]

One other item, not only did the NT authors write their accounts and letters in Greek, but the evidence is pretty clear that they preferred to use the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT, when quoting portions of the OT.

Tell me, topcat, when you use an existant English translation in these discussions rather than coming up with your own translation from the Greek or Hebrew on the fly, does that mean that you are holding the English translation as to be preferred or superior to the Greek and Hebrew autographs?

[topcat54]

Do you always take quotes out of context like that?

Not on purpose. I guess I need new glasses.

[Buggman]

Actually, I've always doubted the Pauline authorship simply because it doesn't look like Sha'ul's other letters: No personal introduction taking credit for it, no quick personal notes to friends, and a slightly different flavor to the author's arguments than we see in Sha'ul's other works.

I personally favor Priscilla as the author (it makes sense that a woman in those days might not pen her name to a work she wanted to be taken seriously), but that's just my speculation.

[topcat54]

does that mean that you are holding the English translation as to be preferred or superior to the Greek and Hebrew autographs?

Preferred and superior are orthogonal concepts.

Preferred, yes. Obviously it was preferred in that it better suited their purpose.

Did I say they were superior? I guess I'm not the only one with comprehension problems today. Although you guys are at least two up on me in the misinterpretation department.

[Buggman]

I'm sorry, what exactly was your point, then?

[topcat54]

I had to do with the widespread use of Greek throughout the Roman world, even to the point where the Jewish writers of the NT, who propably had the wherewithal to do their own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, preferred the Septuagint instead. They were not only fluent in Greek, but in forms of Greek literature, even among the Palestinian Jews.

Greek was, indeed, the lingua franca of the day.

[Buggman]

In general, yes, but not everyone in Judea spoke Greek at a level so as to be able to understand Sha'ul's letters (for example). Why else would Matthew compose his Gospel account in the language of the Jews, per Irenaeus' account? Further, since most or all of the NT writers had Hebrew backgrounds rather than Greek backgrounds (Luke was the only Greek, and he may have been a proselyte to Judaism), their thought processes would have been Hebrew rather than Greek.

This is why Hebraisms appear in the language of the Scripture which cannot be unraveled simply by properly interpreting the Greek word-for-word. For example, what did Yeshua mean when He gave Peter and then the rest of the Apostles the power to "bind and loose" in Mt. 16 and 18?

[topcat54]

Irenaeus testifies that Matthew's Gospel account was originally written in Judea in the language of the Jews, which would make it Aramaic or (more likely) Hebrew.

Not exactly. The Irenaeus quote goes like this, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect ("dialektos") while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

The Greek word dialektos can mean language or style. His quote is most likely based on a earlier statement by Papias, "Matthew compiled the sayings ("logia") in a Hebrew dialektos and each one interpreted them as best he could."

Most scholars agree that the text we have today was mostly likely written in Greek, and not a translation from Aramaic. Papias could have been referring to the Hebrew style, or he may have had another work in mind, e.g., the "Gospel according to the Hebrews"

Linguistic experts have determined that at least the opening and closing chapters of Luke's Gospel account were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek when the good doctor incorporated them into his work.

Do you have a reference? It seems odd that portions of a work directed to Theophilus the Greek would be written in Hebrew.

The sayings of Yeshua were also originally given in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek for distribution in the Gospel accounts.

That is most likely true.