01-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Shlama all--
Just my two cents here. I also think this thread, just prior to Dave Bauscher nicely wrapping things up very well, has gotten off track. I don't like this tone for most of it though as it does absolutely nothing positive for the Nazarene-Messianic Way.
Let me state this clearly and for the record please: THERE IS NO AUTHENTIC HEBREW NT ANYWHWERE. You are talking about 3 frruadulent mss of Matthew that all:
1) Are no more ancient than the year 1300.
2) Were found in Western Europe (2 in Rome)
3) Have "innovations" (the famous addition of the generation in Matti 1 for example) that find NO ATTESTATION in Greek or Aramaic traditions.
I have said this before: I WOULD SOONER ACCEPT THE GREEK NT AS ORIGINAL BEFORE I WOULD ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT, LET ALONE BELIEVE IN, A HEBREW NT COLLECTION.
The fact of the matter is, Hebrew was not "dead" in first century Israel, but it was surely not the predominant tongue of the common man there either. Otherwise, why do Aramaic targums? Aramaic is well represented in Hebrew Tanakh, not just in parts of Esther and Daniel but also a line in Genesis as well. Aramaic is the language of the Talmud, the Zohar, and many of Judaism's most prominent prayers from ancient times and into the Middle Ages (Kaddish, Amidah, etc). Knowing these things, there is no problem with having the NT originally revealed in the Aramaic language. In fact, it would have been hugely problematic given what we know about the language and history of that time if it had NOT been.
Archaeologically speaking the INSCRIPTIONS, whether we are talking Bar Kochba letters, notes on tombs/ossuaries, etc, have PREDOMIANTLY been in square script that we COMMONLY call "Hebrew". But SCRIPT and LANGUAGE are two different things, and I think the Church Fathers more or less interchanged/confused the two. Only Hegisippius seems to have gotten this correct with the "Syriac Gospels".
But ask any Rabbi what that "square Hebrew script" is and he will tell you--KTAV ASHURRI--"Assyrian Writing"--and those people were Aramaic speakers. Now I know Paul Younan would correct me and say that "Assyrian" is not a correct designation, but it is nonetheless like other unfortunate titles (Nestorian, Jacobite) part of the official records we draw from. Just like to some Native American tribes "Sioux" is an insult, and they would rather be called "Lakota".
My personal belief is that the Nazarene Jerusalem Canon was IDENTICAL to the Peshitta as preserved by the COE in Abdiabne and Babylon, EXCEPT for the latter's use of MARYAH instead of YHWH.
I get this belief from Mas Shabbath 116a, a tractate of the Talmud from about 125 CE that talks about rabbis in Jerusalem wanting to destroy Nazarene Gospels (but not the Ebionite versions apparently). They debated though whether they should burn the Nazarene (Nizrefe or Minnim, the latter an abbreviation for Mahaymna Y'shua Netzeret, or MYN)books or not. The problem was not that some loved the Nazarenes. Quite the opposite. The problem was that the Nazarenes had used the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in their books, which technically made that part of the parchment sacred. The rabbis suggested that what they should do is, if it is not Shabbat, they may save a Nazarene book BUT cut out the occurences of YHWH and set them aside, then burn the rest "for the books of Minnim are like blank spaces" they said.
Now while I can't absolutely prove this, I believe the ancient record strongly suggests it because YAH was never under rabbinic ban--only YHWH. Otherwise Orthodox Jews, even today, would never utter Hallel-u-YAH, when we know in fact they did so 2000+ years ago and now. Therefore, it is not a huge step to go form that fact to the idea that MARYAH would not have been preserved by the rabbis in the Nazarene books should they have found them and consigned them to the fire.
So I am a "Hebrew Primacist" along the lines of how Bauscher said he was, but really I am an Aramaic Primacist for NT, because that is a fact passed down from my people to the Christian world.
And let me say this too again: I did warn Albion and others about Trimm and will continue to do so. His shoddy scholarship, ****edited by admin - sorry Akhi Andrew!***, admitted theft of him from others who paid for his worthless books, are a black mark on the movement. I caught him not even being able to tell when a letter began a word or if it was a proclitic, Aramaic 101. If Trimm is a Nazarene, then I am the Pope, and that dude stole my white yamulke! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->
Flee from Trimm. Touch not the unclean thing.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Just my two cents here. I also think this thread, just prior to Dave Bauscher nicely wrapping things up very well, has gotten off track. I don't like this tone for most of it though as it does absolutely nothing positive for the Nazarene-Messianic Way.
Let me state this clearly and for the record please: THERE IS NO AUTHENTIC HEBREW NT ANYWHWERE. You are talking about 3 frruadulent mss of Matthew that all:
1) Are no more ancient than the year 1300.
2) Were found in Western Europe (2 in Rome)
3) Have "innovations" (the famous addition of the generation in Matti 1 for example) that find NO ATTESTATION in Greek or Aramaic traditions.
I have said this before: I WOULD SOONER ACCEPT THE GREEK NT AS ORIGINAL BEFORE I WOULD ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT, LET ALONE BELIEVE IN, A HEBREW NT COLLECTION.
The fact of the matter is, Hebrew was not "dead" in first century Israel, but it was surely not the predominant tongue of the common man there either. Otherwise, why do Aramaic targums? Aramaic is well represented in Hebrew Tanakh, not just in parts of Esther and Daniel but also a line in Genesis as well. Aramaic is the language of the Talmud, the Zohar, and many of Judaism's most prominent prayers from ancient times and into the Middle Ages (Kaddish, Amidah, etc). Knowing these things, there is no problem with having the NT originally revealed in the Aramaic language. In fact, it would have been hugely problematic given what we know about the language and history of that time if it had NOT been.
Archaeologically speaking the INSCRIPTIONS, whether we are talking Bar Kochba letters, notes on tombs/ossuaries, etc, have PREDOMIANTLY been in square script that we COMMONLY call "Hebrew". But SCRIPT and LANGUAGE are two different things, and I think the Church Fathers more or less interchanged/confused the two. Only Hegisippius seems to have gotten this correct with the "Syriac Gospels".
But ask any Rabbi what that "square Hebrew script" is and he will tell you--KTAV ASHURRI--"Assyrian Writing"--and those people were Aramaic speakers. Now I know Paul Younan would correct me and say that "Assyrian" is not a correct designation, but it is nonetheless like other unfortunate titles (Nestorian, Jacobite) part of the official records we draw from. Just like to some Native American tribes "Sioux" is an insult, and they would rather be called "Lakota".
My personal belief is that the Nazarene Jerusalem Canon was IDENTICAL to the Peshitta as preserved by the COE in Abdiabne and Babylon, EXCEPT for the latter's use of MARYAH instead of YHWH.
I get this belief from Mas Shabbath 116a, a tractate of the Talmud from about 125 CE that talks about rabbis in Jerusalem wanting to destroy Nazarene Gospels (but not the Ebionite versions apparently). They debated though whether they should burn the Nazarene (Nizrefe or Minnim, the latter an abbreviation for Mahaymna Y'shua Netzeret, or MYN)books or not. The problem was not that some loved the Nazarenes. Quite the opposite. The problem was that the Nazarenes had used the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in their books, which technically made that part of the parchment sacred. The rabbis suggested that what they should do is, if it is not Shabbat, they may save a Nazarene book BUT cut out the occurences of YHWH and set them aside, then burn the rest "for the books of Minnim are like blank spaces" they said.
Now while I can't absolutely prove this, I believe the ancient record strongly suggests it because YAH was never under rabbinic ban--only YHWH. Otherwise Orthodox Jews, even today, would never utter Hallel-u-YAH, when we know in fact they did so 2000+ years ago and now. Therefore, it is not a huge step to go form that fact to the idea that MARYAH would not have been preserved by the rabbis in the Nazarene books should they have found them and consigned them to the fire.
So I am a "Hebrew Primacist" along the lines of how Bauscher said he was, but really I am an Aramaic Primacist for NT, because that is a fact passed down from my people to the Christian world.
And let me say this too again: I did warn Albion and others about Trimm and will continue to do so. His shoddy scholarship, ****edited by admin - sorry Akhi Andrew!***, admitted theft of him from others who paid for his worthless books, are a black mark on the movement. I caught him not even being able to tell when a letter began a word or if it was a proclitic, Aramaic 101. If Trimm is a Nazarene, then I am the Pope, and that dude stole my white yamulke! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s --> Flee from Trimm. Touch not the unclean thing.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth