What happened to the original New Testament?

[ViaCrucis]

Let's see.

1) The bold assertion that the New Testament was manipulated, though of course no sources to verify the assertion.

2) The bold assertion that the Septuagint originally contained the Tetragrammaton, but was later tampered with, though of course no sources to verify the assertion.

3) An implied assertion that Jews are not Jews, because oh goody, antisemitism.

4) The bold assertion that the New Testament was originally composed in Hebrew, though of course, again, with no sources to verify the assertion and in spite of the fact that almost nobody spoke Hebrew.

Bonus) Not knowing the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic.

Did I get most of the bases covered in this thread so far?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Hebrew language is the language of God,.

Oh don't be ridiculous, it's well known that the original language of Eden was Basque, just ask Dominique Lahetjuzan.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But Colen wants is all to be Hebrew. I 'm pretty sure its all Greek.

It's all Greek to me

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But what happened to the original New Testament? And was the New Testament initially in Hebrew? According to Jerome the Gospel of Matthew was originally Hebrew, so it is pretty sure that the whole New Testament was Hebrew.

I'm not sure anything happened to the original New Testament. Most of my studies would point to Matthew and John's writings betraying semitic origins -i.e. Jewish thought and word structures so it is possible they were originally in Aramaic or Hebrew... but we have no evidence of this (I'd be interested in finding out where your quote from Jerome comes from as I have not come across it before).

The rest of the New Testament is definitely written to the Roman world which used Greek as it's Lingua Franca. There would be no point in Paul writing his letters in Hebrew since his audiences would have read and spoken Greek.

So it is pretty sure that most of the New Testament was Greek and some of it MAY have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[Radagast]

I'm not sure anything happened to the original New Testament. Most of my studies would point to Matthew and John's writings betraying semitic origins -i.e. Jewish thought and word structures so it is possible they were originally in Aramaic or Hebrew...

No, it's just Greek written by somebody for whom Aramaic was their first language.

In fact, the Aramaicisms are among the things that show that the original was Greek. If you were translating an Aramaic original, you'd polish up the Greek a bit more.

The rest of the New Testament is definitely written to the Roman world which used Greek as it's Lingua Franca. There would be no point in Paul writing his letters in Hebrew since his audiences would have read and spoken Greek.

Exactly.

 

[Radagast]

I'd be interested in finding out where your quote from Jerome comes from as I have not come across it before

I'm not sure about Jerome, but Eusebius quotes Papias of Hierapolis as saying:

Matthew put together the sayings [of the Lord] in the Hebrew [Aramaic] language [or, in the Hebrew style], and each one interpreted [translated] them as best he could.

Other early Christian writers say similar things. That suggests that a "proto-gospel" may have been written by Matthew in Aramaic. It can't refer to what we now call Matthew, because that's a Greek document borrowing from Mark, and sharing a lot of material with Luke.

It may be that what Matthew wrote, when translated into Greek, became what scholars call Q -- the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not Mark.

 

[Redwingfan9]

I am sure that also the New Testament had no "Jesus" or "Kyrios", but the true name of God and this was replaced later.

What is your proof? Your hunch isn't good enough for me.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Let's see.

1) The bold assertion that the New Testament was manipulated, though of course no sources to verify the assertion.

2) The bold assertion that the Septuagint originally contained the Tetragrammaton, but was later tampered with, though of course no sources to verify the assertion.

3) An implied assertion that Jews are not Jews, because oh goody, antisemitism.

4) The bold assertion that the New Testament was originally composed in Hebrew, though of course, again, with no sources to verify the assertion and in spite of the fact that almost nobody spoke Hebrew.

Bonus) Not knowing the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic.

Did I get most of the bases covered in this thread so far?

-CryptoLutheran

You are having too much fun.

I like that graph of Gospel traditions though.

 

[FenderTL5]

..Something strange happened with the New Testament, but probably also with the Old Testament:

Jesus' incarnation
Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: "Sacrifices and meal offerings you did not want, but a body you prepared for me; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. (Greek New Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; but a body you prepared for me: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Septuagint Old Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; thou hast digged me ears: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Masoretic Old Testament)

Your example would suggest that the tampering took place with the Masoretic text, which was developed between seven to ten centuries after Christ.

As I see it, the notion that the text was altered to adjust for Christ/Christianity is a stronger argument for the LXX/Septuagint than against it, since the LXX was translated by Jewish Rabbis 250~ years before Christ and would not have an influence from Christianity in the negative nor the positive.

 

[Radagast]

I like that graph of Gospel traditions though.

You mean the one I posted (from Wikipedia)?

 

[Josheb]

That the Greek New Testament was manipulated is quite clear................

Personally, I' not particularly bothered by that fact because I believe the scriptures are God's, and as such He is the one ultimately responsible for their integrity. He can orchestrate history to have someone later edit things according to His purpose. The question for us is are the changes we can evidence works of God's manipulation or works of human flesh?

One of the ays I think we can rationally measure this is by whether or not any given suspected passage is consistent with the whole. Bart Ehrman has infamously said were all the questionable passage of the Bible removed not a single core doctrine of Christianity would be compromised! And you know that guy has looked, examined, and tried to disprove.

I'm curious why Ps. 40:6 was chosen. "Preparing a body" is a reasonable translation of the idiom "having ears dug" for someone. It is completely understandable why someone in the Septuagint era would translate thusly.... especially if God was intervening in time and space to communicate in Greek what otherwise would have been meaningless to a Hellenized readership. I find the use of "ekklesia" for "qahal" intriguing. That certainly had significant relevance a few centuries later. Who could have seen that coming?

God?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You mean the one I posted (from Wikipedia)?

Yes, the "Triple Tradition" is a term I have not heard. Double tradition would be Q?
I like that someone did the work on finding percentages.

If accurate, Matthew drew more from Mark than Luke. Luke had more unique material. About even draw from Double Tradition (Q). Interesting.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

That the Greek New Testament was manipulated is quite clear. It has been proven that the Septuagint contained the name of God and they were so respectful that they kept the name after the Hebrew language. So they did not "translate" a name, but left it as it was. But then, later on, people changed the Septuagint, changed the name of the strong God by "Kyrios" and that is not all, they also made many spelling mistakes. I am sure that also the New Testament had no "Jesus" or "Kyrios", but the true name of God and this was replaced later.
But what happened to the original New Testament? And was the New Testament initially in Hebrew? According to Jerome the Gospel of Matthew was originally Hebrew, so it is pretty sure that the whole New Testament was Hebrew.

Something strange happened with the New Testament, but probably also with the Old Testament:

Jesus' incarnation
Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: "Sacrifices and meal offerings you did not want, but a body you prepared for me; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. (Greek New Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; but a body you prepared for me: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Septuagint Old Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; thou hast digged me ears: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Masoretic Old Testament)

Well the first part of the problem is there is no New Testament till centuries later. All the books of the NT were on separate scrolls for the first 300 or so years, until Constantine brought up wanting to make a canon for the new state churches he was sponsoring, which then started the question of what to include and the whole question of Canonization that was not finalized till somewhere around 380-400 AD.

 

[Der Alte]

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.
If people want to find conspiracy they will.

 

[Radagast]

Well the first part of the problem is there is no New Testament till centuries later. All the books of the NT were on separate scrolls for the first 300 or so years, until Constantine brought up wanting to make a canon for the new state churches he was sponsoring, which then started the question of what to include and the whole question of Canonization that was not finalized till somewhere around 380-400 AD.

False.

Canons of the NT were discussed long before Constantine; Constantine had nothing to do with the canon; and all the NT manuscripts we have are bound books (codexes), not scrolls.

 

[The Liturgist]

The whole New Testament was certainly composed in Greek.

It is possible that Matthew (and Luke) incorporates a Greek translation of an earlier Aramaic proto-gospel, now lost. There is some support in early Christian writings for that idea.

This is as close to the original as we can get physically, from around the year 140, in an Egyptian copy of John. It's Greek (and also, interestingly, from a book with pages, not a scroll).

Codices were already a thing in the second century.

 

[nolidad]

That the Greek New Testament was manipulated is quite clear. It has been proven that the Septuagint contained the name of God and they were so respectful that they kept the name after the Hebrew language. So they did not "translate" a name, but left it as it was. But then, later on, people changed the Septuagint, changed the name of the strong God by "Kyrios" and that is not all, they also made many spelling mistakes. I am sure that also the New Testament had no "Jesus" or "Kyrios", but the true name of God and this was replaced later.
But what happened to the original New Testament? And was the New Testament initially in Hebrew? According to Jerome the Gospel of Matthew was originally Hebrew, so it is pretty sure that the whole New Testament was Hebrew.

Something strange happened with the New Testament, but probably also with the Old Testament:

Jesus' incarnation
Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: "Sacrifices and meal offerings you did not want, but a body you prepared for me; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. (Greek New Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; but a body you prepared for me: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Septuagint Old Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; thou hast digged me ears: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Masoretic Old Testament)

And you have proof of this how?

The oldest extant manuscriptu surviving of teh NT is a piece of the gospel of JOhn known as the John Ryland Papayrii! However the NT was so copied over the first four centuries, that if we took every NT from th eearth, just from the surviving works of the early fathers we can rewrite the entire NT but 35 words. (This according to Josh Mcdowell)

So I await your evidence that teh NT has been wildly tampered with.

 

[nolidad]

That the Greek New Testament was manipulated is quite clear. It has been proven that the Septuagint contained the name of God and they were so respectful that they kept the name after the Hebrew language. So they did not "translate" a name, but left it as it was. But then, later on, people changed the Septuagint, changed the name of the strong God by "Kyrios" and that is not all, they also made many spelling mistakes. I am sure that also the New Testament had no "Jesus" or "Kyrios", but the true name of God and this was replaced later.
But what happened to the original New Testament? And was the New Testament initially in Hebrew? According to Jerome the Gospel of Matthew was originally Hebrew, so it is pretty sure that the whole New Testament was Hebrew.

Something strange happened with the New Testament, but probably also with the Old Testament:

Jesus' incarnation
Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says: "Sacrifices and meal offerings you did not want, but a body you prepared for me; you did not take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. (Greek New Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; but a body you prepared for me: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Septuagint Old Testament)

Thou hadst no pleasure in sacrifice and meat offering; thou hast digged me ears: Thou didst not ask for burnt offerings and sin offerings. (Masoretic Old Testament)

The best I can see is that the author loosely uses Psalm 40 and contrasts what David says (ears to hear) with Jesus who God gave a body to! It is a partial quote and given that Hebrews is written to show the Supremacy of Christ over the Old . This is a fairly common Jewish manner. Like in prophecy where they write with four fulfillment's in mind.

 

[tansy]

Me too. My understanding is that the only real debate happening in scholarly circles is whether the original language was Greek (which is what most people think) or Aramaic (which almost nobody thinks). But I'm not aware of very many credible scholars who insist on Hebrew.

I think that in those times Greek (around that area) was used pretty much like an 'official' language...or at least as a language that just about everyone understood...rather like English today is pretty universally taught and understood to agreater or lesser degree. I may be wrong of course.

 

[Radagast]

Codices were already a thing in the second century.

And Christians were early adopters.