Wes: That’s a remarkably fringe viewpoint that the overwhelming majority of scholars have rejected for about two thousand years. The only bit of the New Testament where there has been some real question about whether it was originally composed in Greek is Matthew’s Gospel, but even there, most scholars agree it was composed in Greek. Other than that, you’re dealing with snippets of phrasing here and there—hardly “much, if not most.

Just because not very many ‘theologians’ say its not true does not mean that its not true. Mark was commonly believed to be one of the sources for Matthew and Luke. The Greek syntax of the shortest G0spel is not very good Greek. But, syntactically speaking, it is excellent Hebrew! The texts of the three Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – present some serious challenges to translators. Substantial portions of the text follow a typically Hebrew word order – yet the language is Greek. The same thing happens in the Greek Septuagint which was written about 200 years before the Gospels.

In his book Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, Dr. Flusser addresses the common theory that Mark wrote first, in Greek. “The spoken languages among the Jews of that period were Hebrew, Aramaic, and to an extent, Greek. Until recently, it was believed by numerous scholars that the language spoken by Jesus’ disciples was Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did, from time to time, make use of the Aramaic language. But during that period Hebrew was both the daily language and the language of study. The Gospel of Mark contains a few Aramaic words, and this is what misled scholars” (Flusser, p. 11).

Again, since most of the Apostles spoke Hebrew there is an underlining possibility that it was written in Hebrew before the Greek. There is GREATER POSSIBILITY that most likely the life of Jesus (the Gospels) was spoken completely in Hebrew.

Wes: But on another point, I think it’s important to remember that just as we must be careful about applying Greek philosophical assumptions to sacred texts, so we should be careful about applying Hebrew philosophical assumptions to sacred texts.

Just to make a statement: those sacred texts that you’re referring were written by Jews to Jews for Jews at first then Jews to Jews/Greeks. All the writings were written BY Jews except for the Book of Mormon. SO having a Jewish mindset may not be entirely necessary to understanding the Tanack/Brit Chadasha (New and Old Testament) BUT having one greatly hences the understanding .

In Yeshua,
Barabba

You rock. We hope you stick around!

Jeff

P.S. Wesley, you too.

Thanks for the clarification. I will say, though, in my defense, that when you look at what you said,

But to suppose that Hebrew philosophy is somehow better or holier or godlier than any other human philosophy strikes me as a mistake, especially in light of the scriptures that seem to indicate it might in fact be worse, viler, and more devilish than any other human philosophy.

there is good reason to think that “any other human philosophy” (which you used twice) means “every other human philosophy.” The first use is admittedly ambiguous (“some other” would be more clear); however, the second use is an odd usage if not connoted in the “every other” sense. I have a hard time believing that you meant here that it could be worse than “some other” philosophy — unless when you said that the Jews “were apparently more wicked than any other nation on earth,” you meant “some other” rather than “every other,” which of course is ridiculous in light of the scriptures you cited. (Regarding this point, by the way, I like what Nathan has recently said.)

If we want to speak of gainsaying, we can speak of your references to “Judeophilia,” blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy, and “religious racism,” in response to a quotation from Jeff which can hardly be construed as connoting these things.

“But to suppose that Hebrew philosophy is somehow better or holier or godlier than any other human philosophy strikes me as a mistake, especially in light of the scriptures that seem to indicate it might in fact be worse, viler, and more devilish than any other human philosophy.”

I apologize for the confusion that has caused. Let me clarify the original statement:

To suppose that Hebrew philosophy is somehow better or holier or godlier than some other human philosophy strikes me as a mistake, especially in light of the scriptures that seem to indicate it might in fact be worse, viler, and more devilish than all other human philosophies.

To be perfectly clear, I did not intend anyone to interpret “better than any other philosophy” as “better than all other philosophies,” but rather as “better than some philosophy other than Hebrew philosophy.” And to be super-clear, I was intending that Hebrew philosophy be compared to other ethnic-based philosophies, because comparing Hebrew philosophy to some other, non-ethnic-based philosophy seems to me to be a hollow kind of comparison.

I just want people who want to gainsay my statements to understand fully what it is they’re gainsaying.

To jump on the conversation between you and Wesley:

It was a good conversation until Wesley’s last comment in which he clearly was misreading you. He was making a straw man of your argument by implying that you were saying that Hebrew thinking was better than any other kind of thinking (you clearly were not saying this).

Just from my own perspective, I don’t really feel a need to justify Hebrew thinking on any kind of scriptural grounds of superiority. I simply think that it offers a lot to check against the problems of our own Greek-inspired worldview (which is not simply by way of language in a narrow sense, to address Wesley’s point, but rather our intellectual descendancy from Greek thought — which surely has shaped our language and what it means in just about every way, as just about any lesson in intellectual history will reveal). I personally agree with a more contextual/temporal/relational/process world rather than an acontextual/atemporal/abstractionist/static world. Therefore, Hebrew thinking appeals to me. Not the other way around. I feel this way in large part because of my experiences with others, including with God through prayer, reflection, and scripture study.

2 Ne. 25 has always made me curious about Nephi’s attitude toward the Jews. I can’t tell whether he’s recommending learning about the Jews or not.

He says that he loves Isaiah’s words, but that he also loves plainness, and contrasts Isaiah’s words with his own plainer words (v. 4). It seems he saw unique value in both styles.
He says that no other groups can understand the things Heavenly Father revealed to the Jewish prophets as well as the Jews, unless those groups learn “the manner of the things of the Jews” (v. 5)
He says that his Jewish background helps him understand and delight in Isaiah’s words, but that he doesn’t teach much of it to his children because “their works were works of darkness” (v. 2).

It seems like Nephi might be recommending the Jewish philosophical background, but not their actions and habits. When it comes to “the manner of the Jews,” he recommends the “things of the Jews” (and I understand that the word “things” also means “words” ) but not the “works of the Jews.”

I think that’s what Jeff is getting at—that despite the fact that every group has slipped into apostasy at one point or another, prophets like Nephi have still recommended we model certain groups’ characteristics in one way or another. For the Jews, it seems the Lord recommended their “words” and “learning” in order to understand the gospel. For other groups, the Lord might recommend their habits and actions instead of their philosophies, like when Jacob points out the Lamanites’ chastity (Jacob 3:5) or when Jeremiah points out the Rechabites’ integrity (Jer. 35). I don’t think it racist to acknowledge that, in a certain area (philosophy, family, honesty, promise-keeping, etc.), one group has adhered more closely to gospel principles than another.

Um, this is a very very different thing than saying:

“Hebrew philosophy is somehow better or holier or godlier than any other human philosophy”

I really think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, and reading something into what I write that isn’t there. Am I saying that we should forsake our Christian heritage and live like the Jews? Am I saying that we should become Pharisees? Am I saying that we should put legal descriptions of the law before the revealed word (as the Jews did)? None of these. The wickedness of the Jews you refer to is not the “Hebrew philosophy” I refer to.

Was the philosophy of ancient Israel, the philosophy of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the philosophy of Moses, was it so evil that we ought not examine it? Explain to me one specific thing about Hebrew philosophy that you find vile and repulsive? And then, show me how I’ve taught that in the above post. I am not talking about the Jews, but a worldview and philosophy that we can trace to the culture and language of Ancient Israel.

You’ve also implied that by contrasting Hebrew and Greek philosophy, and pointing out difficulties in Greek philosophy that can be corrected with a Hebrew understanding, that I’m racist in some way and leading people into apostasy. I find that a very strange point of view.

Well, here’s just one place where you said it pretty plainly:

“Hebrew philosophy is an available alternative that does more justice to the true nature of God, I believe, than the assumptions we’ve grown up with. Perfect? Probably not. Better? I think so.”

I’m not putting words in your mouth — you are.

And I’m not trying to pick a fight. I’m not trying to be contrary for the sake of contrariness. I understand your feeling that way — I’ve often felt the same about your responses to my comments.

I do hold an opinion that is contrary to one you seem to hold. Here’s what seems to me to be a pretty good summary of the view you seem to hold that I disagree so strongly with:

“Thus, it is perfectly fair to say that the doctrines of the Gospel may be more incompatible with some worldviews . . . than others. I believe that it is more compatible with a Hebrew worldview than a Greek one; at least, the doctrines of the Gospel make more sense when approached from a Hebrew perspective, and we do less violence to the scriptures when we read them from a Hebrew worldview.”

I find this sort of Judeophilia — so rampant among members of the Church, particularly well-educated members of the Church — idolatrous and blasphemous and in direct violation of very many scriptural warnings. When I hear people say that we ought to learn to think like Jews so that we can understand the Scriptures better, my mind’s eye gets covered over with bright, large red flags. That kind of religious racism has no place in Christ’s Gospel, wherein “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

I am grieved by the perpetuation of this apostate doctrine of racism among members of the restored Church. Almost every one of Paul’s epistles fought against this kind of racism, fought against the apostate Hebrew idea that Gentiles had to make themselves more like the Jews if they were to be true Christians. To think that the very same apostasy yet afflicts us breaks my heart and even terrifies me.

You write well and your ideas are obviously well respected by a lot of folks. That’s clear from the comments people leave here. When I think of these people being taught so eloquently that they ought to Judaicize themselves a bit to become better Christians, that they ought to learn to think like Jews so they can understand the Gospel or the Scriptures better, I fear for them, and I feel they ought to hear an alternative perspective. They ought to know that some members of the Church who enjoy well-written and well-educated discussion about Church doctrines think it’s wrong to think that Jewish thought will help us understand the Word of God better, and have good reasons for thinking it’s wrong.

Now, if you don’t believe that the Gospel “is more compatible with a Hebrew worldview than [our] Greek[-influenced] one,” or that “the doctrines of the Gospel make more sense when approached from a Hebrew perspective,” or that “we do less violence to the scriptures when we read them from a Hebrew worldview,” then I have misunderstood you and I am arguing against a phantom of my own creating, a thing which, as you say, isn’t really necessary.

Of course, in a deeper sense, even if you believe these things, my arguing with you isn’t really necessary. I am not responsible for the beliefs of my brothers and sisters, but only my own. If they wish to believe something that I am convinced will lead them astray, it is not necessary that I do anything about it. It is their prerogative and their responsibility. In fact, it’s probably sinful of me to suppose that I should try to offer some correction. Who am I to pull motes out of my brothers’ eyes? I know I have enough beams in my own eyes to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

So, I apologize for trying to correct what I see as a gross error in your thinking and teaching, and I will look to my own (almost certainly) gross(er) need for repentance instead.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to see the error in my ways.