01-08-2008, 08:34 AM
Ok, I am certainly no expert on this contravercial subject but here's my opinion anyway:
There is simply not enough evidence (both external & internal) to conclude that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. I'm not closed to the possibility that the original NT did contain some Hebrew (perhaps some Torah terminology) but it's highly unlikely that it would've been more than a Hebrw word here and there. The reason being is that by the 1st century Hebrew was not as widely understood as Aramaic, both by Jewish and non-Jewish synagogue attendents.
When the synagogue "elders" (Rabbis) read the Scriptures to the people during Shabbat services, they were read in Aramaic. Aramaic was the liturgical language of the synagogues, this also supports the Peshitta refering to "gentiles" as "Aramaeans" instead of "Greeks" as the GNT says. It is highly unlikely that "Greeks" were present in the synagogues during the 1st century because they did not understand the liturgical language (Aramaic), and numerous "Church Fathers" and historical accounts make clear that the vast majority of Greeks and Romans were anti-Semitic. This is further support for Aramaic primacy, bottom line is "Aramaeans" should be understood as Aramaic-speaking gentiles (some of which were from the 10 northern tribes of Israel).
The Apostles wrote to synagogue "elders" for the purpose of their writings to be read publically to the synagogue attendents (like the Torah Parsha & Haftarah readings) therefore Aramaic was the only suitable language for them to write in.
As for the Hebrew mss (DuTillet, Munster, etc.). I'm aware that manuscriptural age is not the only important thing, but these Hebrew mss lack a transmission record, they just pop up out of nowhere in the Middle Ages, the history of the Peshitta is more detailed. Also they tend be more closely related to the Greek texts than to the Aramaic texts, there is no conclusive evidence that they are original.
Shem Tov Matthew on the other hand is another matter. Although I'm glad that you reject it Dawid, the fact that some Messianics/Nazarenes make use of it is very disturbing. Shem Tov reflects Ebionite and Mandaic beliefs and seems to be a transmission of one or both of these heretical groups which are neither Christian, Jewish nor Nazarene/Messianic. Although I can't prove it, I have a suspicion that Shem Tov is a decedant of The Ebionite Gospel of Matthew, which seems to be the "Injeel" that Muhammad based his anti-Christ teachings on. Islamic tradition also records that Muhammad's first wife Khadijah was an Ebionite, and that her cousin Waraqqa was an Ebionite priest, who was a great influence on him.
I can see your point about saying "don't make me laugh by bringing up Shem Tov" but for me Shem Tov is not a laughing matter. I think it's time that the Shem Tov-Islamic-Ebionite/Mandaic connection be investigated before this heretical & dangerous mss gains too much influence in the Body of Meshikha.
There is simply not enough evidence (both external & internal) to conclude that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. I'm not closed to the possibility that the original NT did contain some Hebrew (perhaps some Torah terminology) but it's highly unlikely that it would've been more than a Hebrw word here and there. The reason being is that by the 1st century Hebrew was not as widely understood as Aramaic, both by Jewish and non-Jewish synagogue attendents.
When the synagogue "elders" (Rabbis) read the Scriptures to the people during Shabbat services, they were read in Aramaic. Aramaic was the liturgical language of the synagogues, this also supports the Peshitta refering to "gentiles" as "Aramaeans" instead of "Greeks" as the GNT says. It is highly unlikely that "Greeks" were present in the synagogues during the 1st century because they did not understand the liturgical language (Aramaic), and numerous "Church Fathers" and historical accounts make clear that the vast majority of Greeks and Romans were anti-Semitic. This is further support for Aramaic primacy, bottom line is "Aramaeans" should be understood as Aramaic-speaking gentiles (some of which were from the 10 northern tribes of Israel).
The Apostles wrote to synagogue "elders" for the purpose of their writings to be read publically to the synagogue attendents (like the Torah Parsha & Haftarah readings) therefore Aramaic was the only suitable language for them to write in.
As for the Hebrew mss (DuTillet, Munster, etc.). I'm aware that manuscriptural age is not the only important thing, but these Hebrew mss lack a transmission record, they just pop up out of nowhere in the Middle Ages, the history of the Peshitta is more detailed. Also they tend be more closely related to the Greek texts than to the Aramaic texts, there is no conclusive evidence that they are original.
Shem Tov Matthew on the other hand is another matter. Although I'm glad that you reject it Dawid, the fact that some Messianics/Nazarenes make use of it is very disturbing. Shem Tov reflects Ebionite and Mandaic beliefs and seems to be a transmission of one or both of these heretical groups which are neither Christian, Jewish nor Nazarene/Messianic. Although I can't prove it, I have a suspicion that Shem Tov is a decedant of The Ebionite Gospel of Matthew, which seems to be the "Injeel" that Muhammad based his anti-Christ teachings on. Islamic tradition also records that Muhammad's first wife Khadijah was an Ebionite, and that her cousin Waraqqa was an Ebionite priest, who was a great influence on him.
I can see your point about saying "don't make me laugh by bringing up Shem Tov" but for me Shem Tov is not a laughing matter. I think it's time that the Shem Tov-Islamic-Ebionite/Mandaic connection be investigated before this heretical & dangerous mss gains too much influence in the Body of Meshikha.