- So . . . you re suggesting that the synoptic gospels were originally in Hebrew? Jeffery Hodges ________________________________ From: abbyfromtennesseeMessage 1 of 3 , Oct 18, 2010View SourceSo . . . you're suggesting that the synoptic gospels were originally in Hebrew?
From: abbyfromtennessee <abbyfromtennessee@...>
Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 1:19:19 PM
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Free learn-Hebrew webinar
I saw on Facebook that this Thursday, October 21, there is going to be a free
learn-Hebrew webinar on the basics of reading and understanding Hebrew,
especially Biblical Hebrew.
Trust me, I know Hebrew and the Bible is much better in the original. ;-) So
this is worth checking out.
The signup page is here:
Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I am sure the Hebrew Bible is better in Hebrew. As for the Synoptics, given the probable Aramaic stratum underlying the Greek of the Synoptics we could do withMessage 2 of 3 , Oct 22, 2010View SourceI am sure the Hebrew Bible is better in Hebrew.
As for the Synoptics, given the probable Aramaic
stratum underlying the Greek of the Synoptics
we could do with more reconstructions of that.
There have been
at least 3 translations of the NT into Hebrew
(Hutter 1599, Delitzsch 1877, Salkinson 1886)
and more of the Gospels: Iona 1668, Greenfield 1831,
and LSPCJ 1838. These three plus Delitzsch's
version of the Gospels were reprinted by Carmignac
around 1982. Fitzmyer did a brief review in
Theol.Stud.46.746 noting that C's interest might
be connected with his theory that the substratum
was Hebrew not Aramaic.
The Hebrew can be useful for putting Synoptic
passages into a Hebrew biblical context, even
if one thinks the substratum was Aramaic.
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.