Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Matthew 27:17

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
27:17

SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?

Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
called Christ?
Matthew 27:17 KJV

Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
the English translations of Matthew 27:17?

|\_
/ .\_ Phil "Paul Morphy" Hildenbrandt, Pyramid TD
| ( ___) http://www.earthcorp.com/pyramid
| \ -or-
| = | http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/5446
/_____\ cab...@gtii.com
[_______] pyr...@earthcorp.com
ph...@writeme.com
paulm...@geocities.com

SPlayfair

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

In article <3502dc1a....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>
>The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
>27:17
>
>SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
>hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?
>
>Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
>Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
>called Christ?
>Matthew 27:17 KJV
>
>Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
>the English translations of Matthew 27:17?

Was his given name "Jesus"?

Shalom,
Shmuel

P.S. Are you going to answer my questions in "G-D IS ONE!" ?

the artist spidie

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:01:50 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

>Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
>the English translations of Matthew 27:17?

My bible (NAB) has it in brackets:

"Which one do you want me to release to you, [Jesus] Barabbas, or
Jesus called Messiah?"

It is possible that the double name is the original reading; Jesus was
a common Jewish name. This reading is found in only a few textual
witnesses, although its absence in the majority can be explained as an
omision made for reverential reasons.

The name Barabbas means "son of the father". The irony of the choice
offered between him & Jesus Christ, the true Son of the Father, would
be evident to those addressees of Mt who knew that.


peace be with you,
john

guess who

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

In article <3502dc1a....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com says...

>
>The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
>27:17
>
>SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
>hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?
>
>Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
>Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
>called Christ?
>Matthew 27:17 KJV
>
>Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
>the English translations of Matthew 27:17?

because they knew this was a bad pun mistranslated from the early hebrew.

1. there was no such practice of releasing prisoners on passover

2. look at the name barabbas
bar = son
abba = father

son of the father

a pun on jesus being son of god.


Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On 8 Mar 1998 18:45:26 GMT, spla...@aol.com (SPlayfair) wrote:

>Was his given name "Jesus"?

Yeshua was his name.

>Shalom,
>Shmuel
>
>P.S. Are you going to answer my questions in "G-D IS ONE!" ?

Didn't see them. Must be one of the posting MIAs.

L'chaim b'Yeshua

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 19:02:00 GMT, saint...@hotmail.com (the artist
spidie) wrote:

>My bible (NAB) has it in brackets:

Do you mean NASB?

>It is possible that the double name is the original reading; Jesus was
>a common Jewish name. This reading is found in only a few textual
>witnesses, although its absence in the majority can be explained as an
>omision made for reverential reasons.
>The name Barabbas means "son of the father". The irony of the choice
>offered between him & Jesus Christ, the true Son of the Father, would
>be evident to those addressees of Mt who knew that.

You agree with the reason I heard. Problem is the original hearers may
have understood, does not mean we understand the omission now. A point
of such importance shouldn't remain hidden.

Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to
(Phil Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
> 27:17
>
> SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
> hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?
>
> Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
> Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
> called Christ?
> Matthew 27:17 KJV
>
> Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
> the English translations of Matthew 27:17?


There was no other fellow.

"Bar Abbas" its a joke, referring to yeshu.

--
Your faithful correspondent,

Miriam Wolfe

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
May your act of goodness and kindness
help bring Moshiach Now
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Mar 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/8/98
to

In article <3507282b....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com
(Phil Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> On 8 Mar 1998 18:45:26 GMT, spla...@aol.com (SPlayfair) wrote:
>
> >Was his given name "Jesus"?
>
> Yeshua was his name.

No it wasn't, it was Manny.

>
> >Shalom,
> >Shmuel
> >
> >P.S. Are you going to answer my questions in "G-D IS ONE!" ?
>
> Didn't see them. Must be one of the posting MIAs.
>

> L'chaim b'Yeshua
>
>
> |\_
> / .\_ Phil "Paul Morphy" Hildenbrandt, Pyramid TD
> | ( ___) http://www.earthcorp.com/pyramid
> | \ -or-
> | = | http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/5446
> /_____\ cab...@gtii.com
> [_______] pyr...@earthcorp.com
> ph...@writeme.com
> paulm...@geocities.com

--

Michael Shoshani

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

on Sun, 08 Mar 1998 23:28:15 GMT in article <350828a5....@news.gtii.com> in alt.messianic, Phil Hildenbrandt <cabbie...@gtii.com> was compelled to write:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 19:02:00 GMT, saint...@hotmail.com (the artist
> spidie) wrote:

> >My bible (NAB) has it in brackets:

> Do you mean NASB?

No, he means NAB. His Bible is the Official Translation of the National
Association of Broadcasters. :-)))

--
wwa.com!miso!shoshani // Reader, suppose you were an idiot;
Michael Shoshani // and suppose you were a member of Congress;
Chicago IL, USA // but I repeat myself.
http://miso.wwa.com/~shoshani/ // --Mark Twain

the artist spidie

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 23:28:15 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

>>My bible (NAB) has it in brackets:
>
>Do you mean NASB?
>

I don't have the NASB although I hear it's very good literal
translation. The NAB is the New American Bible, published by the
Catholic bible press (although the translation committee was
multi-denominational.)

peace,
john

Charles F. Coen

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

Miriam Wolfe wrote:
>
> In article <3502dc1a....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com

> (Phil Hildenbrandt) wrote:
>
> > The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
> > 27:17
> >
> > SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
> > hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?
> >
> > Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
> > Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
> > called Christ?
> > Matthew 27:17 KJV
> >
> > Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
> > the English translations of Matthew 27:17?
>
> There was no other fellow.
>
> "Bar Abbas" its a joke, referring to yeshu.
>

Charles F. Coen

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

There is a version of Matthew which might shed some light on this
point. I post the relevant text below.

Which from these do you want that I
should release? [G> Yeshua] Bar-
Abba, or Yeshua who is called [G>The] Mashiach?
18. And this was because Pilate
knew that because of hatred without
cause He had been taken.
19. And while he was sitting at the
throne, his wife sent unto him a
messenger to say, I implore you
that in no matter should you speak
a word against this Righteous Man:
because in this night I have
suffered many things in a vision
because of Him.

Watt1997

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <352fe7ec...@news.erols.com>, saint...@hotmail.com (the
artist spidie) writes:

>
>On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 18:01:50 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
>Hildenbrandt) wrote:
>
>>Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
>>the English translations of Matthew 27:17?
>

>My bible (NAB) has it in brackets:
>

>"Which one do you want me to release to you, [Jesus] Barabbas, or
>Jesus called Messiah?"
>

>It is possible that the double name is the original reading; Jesus was
>a common Jewish name. This reading is found in only a few textual
>witnesses, although its absence in the majority can be explained as an
>omision made for reverential reasons.

Phil,

The Textus Receptus - the Greek text underlying the KJV - does not have *Jesus*
Barabbas. Therefore it is omitted from KJV.

There are a few Greek manuscripts which have *Jesus* Barabbas.

John (=spidie) quotes a possible reason for a textual omission of *Jesus* in
the name of Barabbas. The opposite possibility is that a scribe read ahead and
inadvertently included the *Jesus* from the Messiah's Name into the name of
Barabbas.

Andrew Watt
watt...@aol.com

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On 9 Mar 1998 16:41:24 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:

>There are a few Greek manuscripts which have *Jesus* Barabbas.

There are more Greek manuscripts with Barabbas given name than without
it. The so-called authorized version should not omit it.

Watt1997

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <3141bef2....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>On 9 Mar 1998 16:41:24 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:
>
>>There are a few Greek manuscripts which have *Jesus* Barabbas.
>
>There are more Greek manuscripts with Barabbas given name than without
>it. The so-called authorized version should not omit it.

Phil,

As usual when you get near anything Greek you have got it wrong.

About 10 manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of "Jesus Barabbas". Literally
dozens of manuscripts have "Barabbas" or slight variants.

The King James/Authorised Version went with the majority.

Andrew Watt
watt...@aol.com

Watt1997

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <3503FE...@pacbell.net>, "Charles F. Coen" <cc...@pacbell.net>
writes:

>There is a version of Matthew which might shed some light on this
> point. I post the relevant text below.
>
>Which from these do you want that I
>should release? [G> Yeshua] Bar-
>Abba, or Yeshua who is called [G>The] Mashiach?
>18. And this was because Pilate
>knew that because of hatred without
>cause He had been taken.
>19. And while he was sitting at the
>throne, his wife sent unto him a
>messenger to say, I implore you
>that in no matter should you speak
>a word against this Righteous Man:
>because in this night I have
>suffered many things in a vision
>because of Him.

Charles,

Please don't confuse Phil even further.

You state above that the Greek text has "Yeshua" in two places. The Greek text
has IESOUS (appropriately inflected to its grammatical context), not "Yeshua".

Andrew Watt
watt...@aol.com

guess who

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

In article <3141bef2....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com says...

>
>On 9 Mar 1998 16:41:24 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:
>
>>There are a few Greek manuscripts which have *Jesus* Barabbas.
>
>There are more Greek manuscripts with Barabbas given name than without
>it. The so-called authorized version should not omit it.
>
can either of you site one greek manuscript as a source for your contention.


Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

On 9 Mar 1998 20:53:20 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:

>About 10 manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of "Jesus Barabbas". Literally
>dozens of manuscripts have "Barabbas" or slight variants.

Interesting my antisemitic moron. How many Greek texts do you have on
your computer? I have 17 and they all have Yeshua. Also, how does such
a Greek Scholar as yourself get booted off the university of
Virginia's Greek list (BTW, I'm a member)?

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
Mar 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/9/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>

> your computer? I have 17 and they all have Yeshua. Also, how does such
> a Greek Scholar as yourself get booted off the university of
> Virginia's Greek list (BTW, I'm a member)?


This is getting good. Just so we fully enjoy it, please tell us what
the University of Virginia Greek List is.


--
Michael Scott Armel
PhD student in Nuclear Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu
http://neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu/students/scott/

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <3505744a....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> Interesting my antisemitic moron. How many Greek texts do you have on

> your computer? I have 17 and they all have Yeshua. Also, how does such
> a Greek Scholar as yourself get booted off the university of
> Virginia's Greek list (BTW, I'm a member)?

Please list the texts in question. I actually think the number you quote is a
lie. It is also curious that your list does not include Textus Receptus
(Stephanus), A Byzantine majority text, or even a Westcott and Hort, none of
which contain the name Jesus in connection with Barabbas.

While we are on the subject of this man, I actually have little doubt that his
name was Jesus, but one thing is pretty clear... the fanciful explanations of
the anti-Christian lobby are good only for a belly-laugh. There is no pun on the
idea of Jesus as the son of God, the name Barabbas means 'Son of a Rabbi', and
was in common use.

Ed Form

Watt1997

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>>About 10 manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of "Jesus Barabbas".
>Literally
>>dozens of manuscripts have "Barabbas" or slight variants.
>

>Interesting my antisemitic moron. How many Greek texts do you have on
>your computer? I have 17 and they all have Yeshua. Also, how does such
>a Greek Scholar as yourself get booted off the university of
>Virginia's Greek list (BTW, I'm a member)?
>

Phil,

Your temper tantrums are descending into falsehoods.

You state that you have 17 Greek texts on your computer which "all have
Yeshua". There is, to the best of my knowledge NO Greek text of Matthew 27:17
which contains the term "Yeshua". Please tell me which Greek manuscripts you
allege contain that term, "Yeshua". If you cannot identify any manuscripts
which have "Yeshua" then please be honest enough to withdraw your false
allegation and apologise.

Secondly, you falsely allege that I was "booted off" the University of
Virginia's Greek list. What is the supposed evidence for your false charge? If
you have evidence to support your false charge then put it on list. If not then
I expect both an admission that you have lied and an apology.

The IESOUS of which the New Testament speaks states that it is the devil who is
the "father of lies". Will you explain the origin of your lies, please.

Andrew Watt
watt...@aol.com

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 16:42:50 -0800, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> This is getting good. Just so we fully enjoy it, please tell us what
>the University of Virginia Greek List is.

A mailing list devoted to Greek study of the New Testament. There is
another one for the Hebrew study of the Tanakh.

guess who

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

In article <3505744a....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com says...

>
>On 9 Mar 1998 20:53:20 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:
>
>>About 10 manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of "Jesus Barabbas".
Literally
>>dozens of manuscripts have "Barabbas" or slight variants.
>
>Interesting my antisemitic moron. How many Greek texts do you have on
>your computer? I have 17 and they all have Yeshua. Also, how does such
>a Greek Scholar as yourself get booted off the university of
>Virginia's Greek list (BTW, I'm a member)?
>
you have 17 different greek texts of the nt on your computer? ed lists others
you may not have. now many different greek texts of the nt are there. the
vast number of different greek texts show that it is impossible to know what
jesus may have said or done.

compare that with a sefer torah. it accurately copied from an earlier sefer
torah by a ritually pure scribe. Each sefer torah lasts about 300 years. This
means the current sefer torahs are 11th-12th copies from the original.

Computer scans of sefer torah show a greater then 99.99% agreement at the
character level.

In the torah we have the word of God as given to moses. In the nt we have
stuff about jesus that has been misstated over and over again so the true
version is unrecognizable.


Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/10/98
to

On 10 Mar 1998 13:48:15 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:

>I expect both an admission that you have lied and an apology.

About two days after your leading question I requested a who function
from majordomo. You were no longer there. I didn't see any need to
retain it. I would gladly get another but majordomo has been down
since friday. As toward your moronic assertion, the Greek is
translated as Yeshua and I (and hopefully others) find no need to
respond anymore to your childish rantings. Hopefully someday you will
truly understand Yeshua.

Watt1997

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

In article <350562f4....@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>On 10 Mar 1998 13:48:15 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:
>
>>I expect both an admission that you have lied and an apology.
>
>About two days after your leading question I requested a who function
>from majordomo. You were no longer there. I didn't see any need to
>retain it. I would gladly get another but majordomo has been down
>since friday. As toward your moronic assertion, the Greek is
>translated as Yeshua and I (and hopefully others) find no need to
>respond anymore to your childish rantings. Hopefully someday you will
>truly understand Yeshua.
>

Phil,

Is that you coming to an admission that you have no evidence that I wasn't in
your terms "booted off" B-Greek? When may I expect the apology?

BTW I am still waiting for the list of 17 Greek manuscripts on your computer
which mention "Yeshua" in Matthew 27:17. Another Phil faux pas? Faux pas is
French for balagan.

Andrew Watt
watt...@aol.com

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

On 11 Mar 1998 16:05:48 GMT, watt...@aol.com (Watt1997) wrote:

>Is that you coming to an admission that you have no evidence that I wasn't in
>your terms "booted off" B-Greek?

Nope.

When may I expect the apology?

Since you really want an apology - I'm truly sorry that you are an
antisemite.

Feel better?

L'chiam b'Yeshua


>BTW I am still waiting for the list of 17 Greek manuscripts on your computer
>which mention "Yeshua" in Matthew 27:17. Another Phil faux pas? Faux pas is
>French for balagan.
>
>Andrew Watt
>watt...@aol.com

|\_

Renee

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> The following is a transliteration from the Greek test of Matthew
> 27:17
>
> SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE APOLUSW
> hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON LEGOMENON CRISTON?
>
> Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them,
> Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
> called Christ?
> Matthew 27:17 KJV
>
> Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
> the English translations of Matthew 27:17?
>
Interesting you should ask. Some manuscripts give his name as "Jesus."
That would make him "Jesus, son of the father." Mmm, wonder who that
could be referring to? BTW, there was no Jewish custom to release a
prisoner at any time of the year. And I seriously doubt that even if
there was the Romans would go along with it.

I have heard there was a pagan custom to take a prisoner sentenced to
death and dress him up a king (sound familiar) and then sacrifice him in
place of the real king (or the kings son).

Renee

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:46:10 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>Interesting you should ask. Some manuscripts give his name as "Jesus."
>That would make him "Jesus, son of the father." Mmm, wonder who that
>could be referring to? BTW, there was no Jewish custom to release a
>prisoner at any time of the year. And I seriously doubt that even if
>there was the Romans would go along with it.

Apparently, the name was deleted so you could make foolish
accusations.

>I have heard there was a pagan custom to take a prisoner sentenced to
>death and dress him up a king (sound familiar) and then sacrifice him in
>place of the real king (or the kings son).

Apparently there was a pagan custom since that's what they did.

L'chaim b'Yeshua

Renee

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:46:10 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >Interesting you should ask. Some manuscripts give his name as "Jesus."
> >That would make him "Jesus, son of the father." Mmm, wonder who that
> >could be referring to? BTW, there was no Jewish custom to release a
> >prisoner at any time of the year. And I seriously doubt that even if
> >there was the Romans would go along with it.
>
> Apparently, the name was deleted so you could make foolish
> accusations.

Umm, what accusation did I make and why is it foolish?


>
> >I have heard there was a pagan custom to take a prisoner sentenced to
> >death and dress him up a king (sound familiar) and then sacrifice him in
> >place of the real king (or the kings son).
>
> Apparently there was a pagan custom since that's what they did.

That's what who did?

Renee

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:13:04 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>> >could be referring to? BTW, there was no Jewish custom to release a
>> >prisoner at any time of the year. And I seriously doubt that even if
>> >there was the Romans would go along with it.

>Umm, what accusation did I make and why is it foolish?

The custom you referred to is apparently a pagan one, not a Jewish
one. Since it was pagan, why wouldn't the Romans go along with it?



>> >I have heard there was a pagan custom to take a prisoner sentenced to
>> >death and dress him up a king (sound familiar) and then sacrifice him in
>> >place of the real king (or the kings son).
>> Apparently there was a pagan custom since that's what they did.
>That's what who did?

The Romans.

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

In article <3506EA...@cornell.edu>, rm...@cornell.edu (Renee) wrote:

> I have heard there was a pagan custom to take a prisoner sentenced to
> death and dress him up a king (sound familiar) and then sacrifice him in
> place of the real king (or the kings son).

Mayan Indians! Any of them Jewish?

Ed Form

Renee

unread,
Mar 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/15/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:13:04 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >could be referring to? BTW, there was no Jewish custom to release a
> >> >prisoner at any time of the year. And I seriously doubt that even if
> >> >there was the Romans would go along with it.
> >Umm, what accusation did I make and why is it foolish?
>
> The custom you referred to is apparently a pagan one, not a Jewish
> one. Since it was pagan, why wouldn't the Romans go along with it?

But it has never been a Jewish custom as the NT says it was.
Furthermore nothing of the sort is mentioned by any historian or by the
Talmud.

Renee

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/15/98
to

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:11:47 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>But it has never been a Jewish custom as the NT says it was.
>Furthermore nothing of the sort is mentioned by any historian or by the
>Talmud.

Read 27:15 please. Nobody said it was a Jewish custom. BTW, where in
NZ are you?

Renee

unread,
Mar 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/15/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 00:11:47 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >But it has never been a Jewish custom as the NT says it was.
> >Furthermore nothing of the sort is mentioned by any historian or by the
> >Talmud.
>
> Read 27:15 please. Nobody said it was a Jewish custom. BTW, where in
> NZ are you?

Check out John 18:38-40

Renee

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/15/98
to

On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:59:08 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:

>> Read 27:15 please. Nobody said it was a Jewish custom. BTW, where in
>> NZ are you?
>
>Check out John 18:38-40

Who to believe, Mattityahu or Yochanan? What does the original
language say?

Rgent01

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <351339da...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>Subject: Re: Matthew 27:17
>From: cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil Hildenbrandt)
>Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:29:52 GMT


>
>On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:59:08 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Read 27:15 please. Nobody said it was a Jewish custom. BTW, where in
>>> NZ are you?
>>
>>Check out John 18:38-40
>
>Who to believe, Mattityahu or Yochanan? What does the original
>language say?
>

Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the synoptics
are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position. Took
years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

On 16 Mar 1998 05:40:11 GMT, rge...@aol.com (Rgent01) wrote:

>Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
>another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the synoptics
>are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
>theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position. Took
>years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.

Did you read the Greek or Hebrew?

guess who

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <351326a5...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com says...

>
>On 16 Mar 1998 05:40:11 GMT, rge...@aol.com (Rgent01) wrote:
>
>>Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
>>another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the
synoptics
>>are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
>>theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position.
Took
>>years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.
>
>Did you read the Greek or Hebrew?
>
where do you have an original copy of the nt in hebrew?


Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

On 16 Mar 1998 17:04:02 GMT, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess who) wrote:

>where do you have an original copy of the nt in hebrew?

Did I say I did?

There are some scholers that would argue that the Brit Hadashah was
written in Hebrew and translated into Greek. The reason we only have
Greek manuscripts is that Constantine wanted to remove any and all
connections to Judaism or anything Jewish within his Church.

Renee

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:59:08 -0500, Renee <rm...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Read 27:15 please. Nobody said it was a Jewish custom. BTW, where in
> >> NZ are you?
> >
> >Check out John 18:38-40
>
> Who to believe, Mattityahu or Yochanan? What does the original
> language say?

I don't know. I can't read Greek? Can you?

Renee

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <350B63...@cornell.edu>, rm...@cornell.edu (Renee) wrote:

> But it has never been a Jewish custom as the NT says it was.
> Furthermore nothing of the sort is mentioned by any historian or by the
> Talmud.

Mark 15:8 makes it pretty clear that this was a custom which Pilate himself had
introduced...

And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him
to do as he had ever done unto them.

and John 18:39, which you mistakenly assume to indicate a Jewish custom,
actually says...

But you are accustomed to me releasing someone unto
you at the passover: will ye therefore that I
release unto you the King of the Jews?

This trivial attempt to curry favour with the Jews seems to have originated with
Pilate, and obviously ceased when he was relieved of his governorship. Why
should any historian mention it? As to any idea that the Talmud might record the
matter: Why?

Ed Form

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <6e3l33$s...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, gues...@zog.gov (guess who)
wrote:

> Computer scans of sefer torah show a greater then 99.99% agreement at the
> character level.

Please give us the source references for this study.

Ed Form

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <19980316054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, rge...@aol.com
(Rgent01) wrote of the release of a prisoner at Passover...

> Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
> another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the synoptics
> are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
> theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position. Took
> years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.

Twaddle! Learn to read! There is no disagreement between the accounts in the
Gospels. John, the one which is usually taken to name this as a Jewish custom,
actually says...

John 18:39


But you are accustomed to me releasing someone unto
you at the passover: will ye therefore that I
release unto you the King of the Jews?

Matthew says...

Matthew 27:15
Now at that feast the governor was wont to release
unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

Mark says

Mark 15:8


And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him

to do as he had ever done unto them...

All three of which make it pretty clear that Pilate himself had originated this
idea, probably as a way of placating the Jews after he was reprimanded by Caesar
when the high priests made complaints against him.

And Luke says...

Luke 23:17
For of necessity he must release one unto them at
the feast.

Which would suggest that the governor, once having shown weakness, was unable to
stop.

Ed Form

guess who

unread,
Mar 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/16/98
to

In article <memo.19980316...@eform.btinternet.com>,
ef...@btinternet.com says...
give me some time i will need to ask a certain rabbi

feel free to pester me if you dont get an answer :-)


Ed Form

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

In article <6ekaee$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess who)
wrote:

Pester!

Pester!

Pester!

Ed Form

guess who

unread,
Mar 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/17/98
to

In article <memo.19980317...@eform.btinternet.com>,
ef...@btinternet.com says...
>
>In article <6ekaee$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess
who)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <memo.19980316...@eform.btinternet.com>,
>> ef...@btinternet.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <6e3l33$s...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, gues...@zog.gov (guess
who)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Computer scans of sefer torah show a greater then 99.99% agreement at
the
>> >> character level.
>> >
>> >Please give us the source references for this study.
>> >
>> give me some time i will need to ask a certain rabbi
>>
>> feel free to pester me if you dont get an answer :-)
>
>Pester!
>
>Pester!
>
>Pester!
>

lol

thats to fast. i asked the rabbi today and he needs to research it for me. so
give me at least a week. then pester.


WRMartin1

unread,
Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98
to

>Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
>another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the
>synoptics
>are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
>theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position. Took
>years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.

Oh, so the differences in the Kings and the Chronicles is why you should trash
the Tanakh as well....

hmmm.....


Baruch HaShem Yeshua t'Adonoi.
.....John D'Baptiste


guess who

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to


Ed Form wrote:

> In article <6emqt4$n...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess


> who) wrote:
>
> > In article <memo.19980317...@eform.btinternet.com>,
> > ef...@btinternet.com says...
> > >
> > >In article <6ekaee$c...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess
> > who)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <memo.19980316...@eform.btinternet.com>,
> > >> ef...@btinternet.com says...
> > >> >
> > >> >In article <6e3l33$s...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, gues...@zog.gov (guess
> > who)
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Computer scans of sefer torah show a greater then 99.99% agreement at
> > the
> > >> >> character level.
> > >> >
> > >> >Please give us the source references for this study.
> > >> >
> > >> give me some time i will need to ask a certain rabbi
> > >>
> > >> feel free to pester me if you dont get an answer :-)
> > >
> > >Pester!
> > >
> > >Pester!
> > >
> > >Pester!
> > >
> >
> > lol
> >
> > thats to fast. i asked the rabbi today and he needs to research it for me. so
> > give me at least a week. then pester.
>

> Pester, pester, pester!
>

oops i saw him today and forgot to ask.

keep pestering :-)

Ed Form

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Pester, pester, pester!


Ed Form

Charles F. Coen

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

guess who wrote:

> > Pester, pester, pester!
> >
>
> oops i saw him today and forgot to ask.
>
> keep pestering :-)

Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
Pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester pester, pester, pester
:-)
Chuck

Ed Form

unread,
Apr 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/6/98
to

In article <6emqt4$n...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess
who) wrote:

> >> >In article <6e3l33$s...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, gues...@zog.gov (guess


> >> >who) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Computer scans of sefer torah show a greater then 99.99% agreement at
> >> >> the character level.
> >> >
> >> >Please give us the source references for this study.
> >> >
> >> give me some time i will need to ask a certain rabbi
> >>
> >> feel free to pester me if you dont get an answer :-)
> >
> >Pester!
> >
> >Pester!
> >
> >Pester!
> >
>
> lol
>
> thats to fast. i asked the rabbi today and he needs to research it for me. so
> give me at least a week. then pester.

Pester pester pester.

Ed Form

Rgent01

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

In article <199803181822...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wrma...@aol.com
(WRMartin1) writes:

>Subject: Re: Matthew 27:17

>From: wrma...@aol.com (WRMartin1)
>Date: 18 Mar 1998 18:22:58 GMT

I just came across this ... sorry for the delayed response. First of all, what
is t'Adonoi? I've asked you this before and didn't find the answer -- I'm not
religious about checking... but I don't recognize the form "t'..." . Not that
I'm such a great Hebrew scholar, but it sure looks odd to me.

Second, you are correct in pointing out the well-known differences. These are
among the many differences and glitches such that one (I, at least) cannot
honestly in these waning days of the 20th Century CE take the Tanakh as the
literal, verbatim Word of G-d. However, if the Tanakh were thoroughly
error-riddled as to matters of fact, it would be essentialy irrelevant to the
theology of Judaism -- does not make a whit of difference to the fundamentals.
You do not need to trash the Tanakh at all because of errors; the Tanakh was
written by people, and people make errors.

But if the NT is in error, the theology falls apart. That's my point. If
Matt, Mark, Luke, and John disagree on matters of fact, how can anyone, in the
waning days of this 20th Cent CE, believe them on matters of "theology"? They
cannot all be "gospel truth"; at least some are false, and one cannot say that
any are not false.

Rgent01

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

In article <351326a5...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) writes:

>Subject: Re: Matthew 27:17

>From: cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil Hildenbrandt)
>Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:19:11 GMT


>
>On 16 Mar 1998 05:40:11 GMT, rge...@aol.com (Rgent01) wrote:
>

>>Bingo! Whom to believe? If the NT is true, both must be true. If one or
>>another is false, you cannot believe the NT. Problem with NT is the
>synoptics
>>are riddled with irreconcilable differences. All written ex-post. All
>>theologoumenon: "history" fabricated to justify a theological position.
>Took
>>years. Takes time to make a good theologoumenon. Can't rush it.
>

>Did you read the Greek or Hebrew?
>

The question is meaningless; at least, I missed your point altogether. The
English texts are irreconcilable. It would be a remarkable language, something
other than Greek or Hebrew, that could reconcile the birth narratives, for
example.

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

On 27 Apr 1998 03:27:21 GMT, rge...@aol.com (Rgent01) wrote:

>The question is meaningless; at least, I missed your point altogether. The
>English texts are irreconcilable. It would be a remarkable language, something
>other than Greek or Hebrew, that could reconcile the birth narratives, for
>example.

What does Mattityahu 27:17 have to do with geneologies?

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
Apr 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/27/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 1998 03:27:21 GMT, rge...@aol.com (Rgent01) wrote:
>
> >The question is meaningless; at least, I missed your point altogether. The
> >English texts are irreconcilable. It would be a remarkable language, something
> >other than Greek or Hebrew, that could reconcile the birth narratives, for
> >example.
>
> What does Mattityahu 27:17 have to do with geneologies?
>

What does that fake Hebrew name have to do with your Greco-pagan NT?

Be well,
Michael


--
Michael Scott Armel
PhD student in Nuclear Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu
http://neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu/students/scott/

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:11:58 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> What does that fake Hebrew name have to do with your Greco-pagan NT?

That is his name and perhaps you should read a few academic studies
before making statements that show your ignorance. Not only is
Mattityahu his name but recent evidence shows that Mattityahu was
beyond doubt written in Hebrew.

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
Apr 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/28/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 15:11:58 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
> <sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > What does that fake Hebrew name have to do with your Greco-pagan NT?
>
> That is his name and perhaps you should read a few academic studies
> before making statements that show your ignorance.

Whose name? The book was written anonymously. It is you who are
ignorant, and boldly so as you conjure names and facts and have the
chutzpah to criticize others.


> Not only is
> Mattityahu his name but recent evidence shows that Mattityahu was
> beyond doubt written in Hebrew.


This is nonsense. It may have been written in Hebrew after the fact,
but the NT is a Greek book written to lure pagans.

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:57:16 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Whose name? The book was written anonymously.

This claim is as idiotic as the Toldot Yeshu.

> This is nonsense. It may have been written in Hebrew after the fact,
>but the NT is a Greek book written to lure pagans.

You must be living in a closet. I am positive not everybody in Berkely
is as foolish as you. Perhaps you should speak to someone in the dept.
of antiquities.

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
Apr 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/29/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:57:16 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
> <sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > Whose name? The book was written anonymously.
>
> This claim is as idiotic as the Toldot Yeshu.

Please show us the part where the author identifies himself. We'll be
waiting.


>
> > This is nonsense. It may have been written in Hebrew after the fact,
> >but the NT is a Greek book written to lure pagans.
>
> You must be living in a closet. I am positive not everybody in Berkely
> is as foolish as you. Perhaps you should speak to someone in the dept.
> of antiquities.

Is this all you can do, Phil? Your childish insults reveal your lack
of substance.

Please tell me who in the dept. of antiquities can provide evidence of
the author's identity and some original Hebrew (chuckle) document.

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:32:12 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Please show us the part where the author identifies himself. We'll be
>waiting.

I never said he identified himself. I said the name of the book is
MATTITYAHU.

> Please tell me who in the dept. of antiquities can provide evidence of
>the author's identity and some original Hebrew (chuckle) document.

I do not know the name of the staff at Berkley's antiquities dept. If
you were not so bullish and afraid of finding out that MATTITYAHU was
written in Hebrew, you would simply go and ask.

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:32:12 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
> <sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > Please show us the part where the author identifies himself. We'll be
> >waiting.
>
> I never said he identified himself. I said the name of the book is
> MATTITYAHU.

Yes, very good. Now, what does "Mattityahu" have to do with anything?
The book could have been named, "Jimmy". Neither name has anything to
do with the author's identity.


>
> > Please tell me who in the dept. of antiquities can provide evidence of
> >the author's identity and some original Hebrew (chuckle) document.
>
> I do not know the name of the staff at Berkley's antiquities dept. If
> you were not so bullish and afraid of finding out that MATTITYAHU was
> written in Hebrew, you would simply go and ask.


You are dodging the point. We agree that somebody gave a nice jewish
name to that pagan virgin-birth, flesh-eating, human sacrifice story.
The point is a jewish name doesn't make the book Jewish. Your
"<attityahu" is a cheap publicity stunt.

be well,

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
Apr 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/30/98
to

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:41:46 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> Yes, very good. Now, what does "Mattityahu" have to do with anything?

That is the name of the book.

> You are dodging the point. We agree that somebody gave a nice jewish
>name to that pagan virgin-birth, flesh-eating, human sacrifice story.
>The point is a jewish name doesn't make the book Jewish. Your
>"<attityahu" is a cheap publicity stunt.

Before you spout your trash I suggest you consider the following 4
manuscripts

DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew.
Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew.
The Munster Hebrew version of Matthew.
The Old Syriac Aramaic version of the four Gospels.

Incidentally, these all PREDATE the Greek translations of MATTITYAHU.

Also, explain the following verses that make NO sense in Greek (nor
English) but they make perfect sense in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

And when Yeshua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
MATTITYAHU 26:9
Mark. 14:3

....there are eunchs who have made themselves eunches for the
Kingdom of Heaven's sake....
MATTITYAHU 19:12

So he [Phillip] arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a
eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians,
who had chasrge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to
worship.
Acts 8:27

And in thse days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Then one of
them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was
going to be a great famine throughout all THE WORLD, which also
happened in the days of Caudius Caesar. Then the talmidim, each
according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers
dwelling IN JUDEA. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Saul.
Acts 11:27-30

...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
MATTITYAHU 19:24
Mark 10:25
Luke 18:25

The lamp of the body is the eye, if therefore your eye is good, your
whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole
body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you
is darkness, how great is that darkness!
MATTITYAHU 6:22-23
(MATTITYAHU 20:15; Luke 11:34)

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:48:52 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
<sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> That's nice, but it still has nothing to do with the author's identity
>or any Hebraic connection. It's a cute name, but the book is still
>anonymously written.

Why are you so blind when the proof is right in front of your eyes?

> Source, please. These attempts have been made for years...

Check with your antiquities dept., Any Ivy league college, etc.

> All of these verses make sense. Anyway, bad Greek is no evidence for
>hebrew.

This is proof positive that you didn't read the verses.

>> ...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
>> a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
>> MATTITYAHU 19:24
>> Mark 10:25
>> Luke 18:25
>

> This makes sense, as the camel analogy is based on a camel passing
>through the gates of the city.

No it isn't. Where is the eye of the needle? Perhaps the following
might interest you

The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can
mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly
the meaning in the context used here.

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

On Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:11 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
wrote:

>>And when Yeshua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
>>MATTITYAHU 26:9
>>Mark. 14:3

>So, specifically, what words in the quote from Matthew are
>incomprehensible???

As anyone who reads the Torah should know, lepers were not permitted
to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is
apparant that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.

Mistranslation from Aramaic to Greek? You tell us Bruce.

Mark Schaefer

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

In article <355035b9...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:48:52 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
> <sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >> ...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
> >> a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
> >> MATTITYAHU 19:24
> >> Mark 10:25
> >> Luke 18:25
> >
> > This makes sense, as the camel analogy is based on a camel passing
> >through the gates of the city.
>
> No it isn't. Where is the eye of the needle? Perhaps the following
> might interest you
>
> The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can
> mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly
> the meaning in the context used here.
>

I had heard that the "Needle's Eye" was a very narrow Gate in Jerusalem as
well, arguing for interpretation of the word to mean 'camel'. Although
the lesson to be learned is conveyed by either construction.

-- Mark A. Schaefer

"Of all the major sports, baseball is the only one that looks backwards in a mirror." -- George Carlin.

philes worse nightmare

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to


Mark Schaefer wrote:

> In article <354bf881...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
> Hildenbrandt) wrote:


>
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:32:12 -0700, Michael Scott Armel
> > <sc...@nuc.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Please show us the part where the author identifies himself. We'll be
> > >waiting.
> >
> > I never said he identified himself. I said the name of the book is
> > MATTITYAHU.
> >

> > > Please tell me who in the dept. of antiquities can provide evidence of
> > >the author's identity and some original Hebrew (chuckle) document.
> >
> > I do not know the name of the staff at Berkley's antiquities dept. If
> > you were not so bullish and afraid of finding out that MATTITYAHU was
> > written in Hebrew, you would simply go and ask.
> >

> There is a sect of Netzarim (Nazarenes) in Israel who claim to have a
> reconstructed Hebrew version of Matthew.

The key word here is reconstructed. There is no indication that this is anything
more then a fabricaiton of the Nazarene Christian movement. As was pointed out:

> Before you spout your trash I suggest you consider the following 4
> manuscripts
>
> DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew.

I can only find a few reference to the Dutillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew. They
are all in the works of James Trimm. a notorious non Jew who is an occasional
poster to this group spouting his own version of Messianic Jewish Christianity --
Nazarene Judaism. Phil has plagiarized Mr. Trimms works in the past. Mr. trimm
references a book (An Old Hebrew Text of Matthew's Gospel by Hugh Schonfield;
1927; p. 25-30, 40). Mr. Trimm gives no other source for this work nor does he
give a date.

> Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew.

Besides the writing of Mr. Trimm I did find a recognized scholar a Dr. George
Howard of University of Georgia where he heads the department of religion. He has
published several articles on the Shem-Tob version of Matthew which he calls the
Hebrew Matthew. To quote an add for Dr Howard's book

"Hebrew Gospel of Matthew presents evidence that a Hebrew
Matthew was preserved by Jews throughout the early and late
medieval periods and that the text of this Semitic Gospel
appeared in toto in the fourteenth century Jewish polemical
treatise Evan Bohan, by the Spanish-Jewish apologist
Shem-Tob ben-Shaprut."

So rather then being an early version of Matthew it is a 14th century version of
Matthew that a case has been made is the correct copy of the 1st century hebrew
work preserves by JEWS!!!!.

The mind boggles at the religious implications of the Jews having a full correct
hebrew version of Matthew while the Christians have a wrong greek version of the
text.

> The Munster Hebrew version of Matthew.

I cant find any reference to this anyplace but in the writing of Mr. Trimm. Again
he offers no dates

> The Old Syriac Aramaic version of the four Gospels.

The only reference for this I can find is in the writing of one paul harvey. He
has two reference to Old Syriac Aramaic

c50: Peshitta: translation begun, Hebrew OT->Syriac Aramaic, (Greek NT in 400)
c350: Old Syriac (Aramaic) Gospels: Syr(s) & Syr(c), of "Western" text-type

I have no idea what either of these mean.

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>

> As anyone who reads the Torah should know,


Do you read Torah? If so, then please tell us which messianic prophecy
was fulfilled by J.


> lepers were not permitted
> to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
> Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
> the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
> merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is
> apparant that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.
>

Again, all that this proves is that the individual who recorded these
oral traditions into Greek (the original NT language) didn't know
Aramaic well.

Michael Scott Armel

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

Phil Hildenbrandt wrote:
>

> >> ...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
> >> a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
> >> MATTITYAHU 19:24
> >> Mark 10:25
> >> Luke 18:25

> The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can


> mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly
> the meaning in the context used here.
>

You think I didn't know that? Please, Phil. All that this shows is
that the person who recorded the oral story into Greek didn't know
Aramaic well. It provides no evidence of Aramaic original text.

Be well,
Michael

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

On Fri, 01 May 1998 10:40:06 -0400,
Mark_S...@notpartofmyaddress.csgi.com (Mark Schaefer) wrote:

>I had heard that the "Needle's Eye" was a very narrow Gate in Jerusalem as
>well, arguing for interpretation of the word to mean 'camel'. Although
>the lesson to be learned is conveyed by either construction.

Did you even read what I posted? Try reading ROPE instead of camel.

Shabbat shalom

bekus (bruce)

unread,
May 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/1/98
to

On Fri, 01 May 1998 02:53:22 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

>As anyone who reads the Torah should know, lepers were not permitted


>to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
>Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
>the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
>merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is
>apparant that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.
>

>Mistranslation from Aramaic to Greek? You tell us Bruce.

First, without referring to the text, the logic you use at the end is
fallacious. From what other type of container should she be pouring
oil?? I wouldn't necessarily build any exegesis on the fact that she
poured oil from a jar.
Second, referring to the text, this passage is already problematic due
to the contradictions between this passage (Matt. 26:6-13) and its
corresponding account in John (Jn. 12: 1-9). In Matt., it says it
took place at the house of Simon. In Jn., it says it took place at
the house of Lazarus. In Matt., it just says an anonymous woman did
the anointing, while in Jn., it says Mary (the Mary of Mary and Martha
fame) did it. In Matt., it is oil, while in Jn., it is perfume. I
don't point out the variants between the accounts to discredit both of
the versions, rather it is just interesting and necessary to be aware
of the textual problems.
Third, the commentaries that I checked out (IVP's New Bible
Commentary, The Interpreter's Bible Commentary, and Jerome's Bible
Commentary - the one supervised by Fr. Black, the guy who thinks that
much of the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic) did not refer to this
as a problem. In face, none of them mentioned it at all. While this
may not be a surprise from an evangelical or a Methodist commentary, I
was surprised that Dr. Black's commentary didn't refer to it.
Just based on these kinds of things, I would say that there is no
evidence one way or the other. To assume that, based on the Hebrew
Bible's statement regarding lepers, that the NT must be following the
same thing, is circular reasoning . . . what I mean by that is, you
are trying prove that it came from that time period, etc. so you use
Biblical statements to amend the text, thus showing it did indeed come
from that time period. Rather, it would be easier to say that this
shows the person who wrote these accounts didn't know the things that
they should have, thus disproving its early dating.

see ya,
bekus

p.s. I would also want to know the level of observance of the time
period in this area.


Ed Form

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

In article <35513814...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> On Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:11 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
> wrote:
>
> >>And when Yeshua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
> >>MATTITYAHU 26:9 Mark. 14:3
> >So, specifically, what words in the quote from Matthew are
> >incomprehensible???
>

> As anyone who reads the Torah should know, lepers were not permitted
> to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
> Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
> the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
> merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is
> apparant that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper.
>
> Mistranslation from Aramaic to Greek? You tell us Bruce.

The incident took place in Bethany!

The probability that Simon, the owner of the house, had been cured by
Jesus seems to have escaped you. The man in question was certainly the
father of Lazarus so the curing of Simon would have provided th reason why
Jesus was made so welcome in the house.

Ed Form

Joe Slater

unread,
May 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/2/98
to

MarkxS...@csgi.com (Mark Schaefer) wrote:
> In one fascinating section, Spong shows how the chapters of Mark and
>Matthew follow the Jewish liturgical year, and were written to be read
>throughout the year along with the Torah and Haftorah portions. Thus,
>events might be placed according to their liturgical order rather than
>chronological.

One problem with this is that the present liturgical year evolved in
Babylon: Israel followed a 3-year cycle. Furthermore, it developed
after the period in which the Christians scriptures are supposed to
have written. The Haftorah portions developed after this: even today
there are some different practices in different communities.

jds

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

On Fri, 01 May 1998 19:51:28 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
wrote:

>First, without referring to the text, the logic you use at the end is


>fallacious. From what other type of container should she be pouring
>oil?? I wouldn't necessarily build any exegesis on the fact that she
>poured oil from a jar.

Nope. Fact is lepers were not within the city so it makes more sense
(it has more logic) to be GARABA.

>p.s. I would also want to know the level of observance of the time
>period in this area.

Please elaborate. Whos observance of what time period?

L'chaim b'Yeshua

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

On 2 May 1998 00:26:57 GMT, ef...@btinternet.com (Ed Form) wrote:

>The probability that Simon, the owner of the house, had been cured by
>Jesus seems to have escaped you.

Not probability. Possibility IF Simon was in fact a leper.

bekus (bruce)

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

On 2 May 1998 00:26:57 GMT, ef...@btinternet.com (Ed Form) wrote:

>The probability that Simon, the owner of the house, had been cured by

>Jesus seems to have escaped you. The man in question was certainly the
>father of Lazarus so the curing of Simon would have provided th reason why
>Jesus was made so welcome in the house.


Gee Phil, it looks like Ed came up with another excellent reason for
why Simon was called the leper . . . . certainly makes more sense than
your jar hypothesis . . . .

see ya,
bekus

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

On Sun, 03 May 1998 01:07:10 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
wrote:

>Gee Phil, it looks like Ed came up with another excellent reason for


>why Simon was called the leper . . . . certainly makes more sense than
>your jar hypothesis . . . .

Actually if Simon were already healed, he wouldn't be called a leper.
In case you didn't realize, Ed has his own reasons to want the Brit
Hadashah to have non-semitic origins.

bekus (bruce)

unread,
May 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/3/98
to

On Sun, 03 May 1998 01:17:15 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

>On Fri, 01 May 1998 19:51:28 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
>wrote:
>


>>First, without referring to the text, the logic you use at the end is
>>fallacious. From what other type of container should she be pouring
>>oil?? I wouldn't necessarily build any exegesis on the fact that she
>>poured oil from a jar.
>
>Nope. Fact is lepers were not within the city so it makes more sense
>(it has more logic) to be GARABA.

First, I would hate to go into class and tell them that I am
amending a reading of the text since there is a woman there who poured
oil out of a jar . . . I'd get laughed out of the department.
Second, the logic is still falacious. As Ed pointed out, this
is probably Simon, a man healed by J who had had leprosy. So it is a
title, not a statement about his health.
Third, your logic is reading into the text something that is
not there - coherency. It is very possible, depending on how late the
texts were written, that there would be errors such as this. In other
words, your biases are showing . . . .
Fourth, you have no textual evidence for this in the Greek.
It is reasonable to suppose that there were more than one
'translations' of the text who would have gotten it right. There are
none.

>
>>p.s. I would also want to know the level of observance of the time
>>period in this area.
>
>Please elaborate. Whos observance of what time period?

The time period that the text purports to tell us about - duh. . . .
The people's observance - duh . . . .

see ya,
bekus

Ed Form

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

In article <354cd9b0...@news.gtii.com>, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

> Actually if Simon were already healed, he wouldn't be called a leper.
> In case you didn't realize, Ed has his own reasons to want the Brit
> Hadashah to have non-semitic origins.

Excuse me Phil! I believe that the New Testament, with the exception of
Luke and Acts, was written by Jews. You cannot get a more Semitic origin
than that.

As to the possibility that the originals were written in Aramaic or
Hebrew, I have no axe to grind whatever. It makes no difference to me
whether the originals were in Greek, Aramaic or Serbo-Croat. All that
matters is what it says.

However, your so-called proofs of Aramaic originals are pretty weak. But
then your entire thesis of a Judaism-observant original form of
Christianity is a complete crock.

Ed Form

Ed Form

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

In article <354adaac....@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au>,
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) wrote:

Nevertheless, in the NT there is some evidence of specific liturgical
forms in the Synagogues. Comments made by Jesus in Synagogues, even when
no specific mention of readings is made, often seem to gel with the
readings for the day which are currently applicable in Jewish practice. Is
there a discernable line of development from pre-Christian practice to
modern observances, or can this only be found at the major festivals? It
is, of course, only at the high points of the Jewish year that sufficient
clues exist in the NT to pin down what time of year was involved.

Ed Form

Joe Slater

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

>j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au.DELETETHIS (Joe Slater) wrote:
>> One problem with this is that the present liturgical year evolved in
>> Babylon: Israel followed a 3-year cycle. Furthermore, it developed
>> after the period in which the Christians scriptures are supposed to
>> have written. The Haftorah portions developed after this: even today
>> there are some different practices in different communities.

ef...@btinternet.com (Ed Form) wrote:
>Nevertheless, in the NT there is some evidence of specific liturgical
>forms in the Synagogues. Comments made by Jesus in Synagogues, even when
>no specific mention of readings is made, often seem to gel with the
>readings for the day which are currently applicable in Jewish practice. Is
>there a discernable line of development from pre-Christian practice to
>modern observances, or can this only be found at the major festivals?

The present system has regular weekly readings on the Sabbath (as well
as truncated ones on Monday and Thursday). You will appreciate that
these regular readings usually don't coincide with the festivals or
other times they refer to and I would be very surprised if the
Christian scriptures fitted into this system.

On festivals we have special readings taken from that Torah passage
relevant to the holiday. I don't know the details of Bishop Spong's
claim, but if there is any coincidence in relation to these readings
it would probably be the trivial one that on Passover Jews read about
Passover, and this would have preceded the current formal system.

The Haftara is a passage taken from the Prophets or Writings which
relates to the day's Torah reading. Any coincidence would therefore be
a secondary one.

jds

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

On 4 May 1998 00:13:25 GMT, ef...@btinternet.com (Ed Form) wrote:

As you are a crock. Do you care to tell us to what huge abomination
you belong?

bekus (bruce)

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

On Mon, 04 May 1998 07:47:29 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
Hildenbrandt) wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 1998 11:14:13 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
>wrote:
>


>> First, I would hate to go into class and tell them that I am
>>amending a reading of the text since there is a woman there who poured
>>oil out of a jar . . . I'd get laughed out of the department.
>

>I never asked you to amend anything, did I?

Yes you did. You are asking us to amend the text based on an
assumption that it was originally written in Aramaic.

>
>> Second, the logic is still falacious. As Ed pointed out, this
>>is probably Simon, a man healed by J who had had leprosy. So it is a
>>title, not a statement about his health.
>

>If Simon was healed he would NOT have been called a leper.

You are basing your opinion on what?

>
>> Third, your logic is reading into the text something that is
>>not there - coherency. It is very possible, depending on how late the
>>texts were written, that there would be errors such as this. In other
>>words, your biases are showing . . . .
>

>I am biased towards coherence? Thats a new twist!

Good misreading, but wrong. Notice I said that you are
forcing a coherency on the text that isn't necessarily there. I have
already shown you the discrepencies between the various gospels with
this account. So we already know that there were contradictions.
Knowing this, your suggestion that they wouldn't say X (here, Simon
the Leper who lived in Bethany), because that is contrary to Torah,
doesn't fit the reality of the texts.

>
>> Fourth, you have no textual evidence for this in the Greek.
>

>Of course not, thats whyIam talking about the ARAMAIC you dolt!

I understand that you are talking about an Aramaic Urtext . .
. I made the comment that it is significant that NO Greek manuscript
got it according to your hypothetical reading. This assumes that none
of the supposed Greek translators knew the Aramaic well enough to
translate it correctly. An absurd suggestion.
Actually it sounds as if you are a disciple of Lamsa . . .

>
>>The time period that the text purports to tell us about - duh. . . .
>>The people's observance - duh . . . .
>

>Well the time period is between 26 - 30 CE (approximately).
>Observance - If you mean Torah I guess Simon observed. Even if he
>didn't do you assume the entire population of Bethany didn't?


Duh . . . .
The reason I asked my question is that I am not sure. It
would be an interesting study to see the general populace's level of
observance. On what do you base your conclusion that Simon did
observe the Law - and to what level?

see ya,
bekus

Phil Hildenbrandt

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

On Mon, 04 May 1998 10:37:46 GMT, bks...@is8.nyu.edu (bekus (bruce))
wrote:

> Yes you did. You are asking us to amend the text based on an


>assumption that it was originally written in Aramaic.

No I didn't. I mentioned those verses only to indicate that the Greek
is for the most part a very SHODDY translation of a semitic original.

>>If Simon was healed he would NOT have been called a leper.
>You are basing your opinion on what?

If Simon was healed that would certainly merit being mentioned since
he was living within a city, since his healing wasn't mentioned, based
on textual evidence, he was never healed. Therefore he was NOT a
LEPER.

> Good misreading, but wrong. Notice I said that you are
>forcing a coherency on the text that isn't necessarily there. I have
>already shown you the discrepencies between the various gospels with
>this account. So we already know that there were contradictions.
>Knowing this, your suggestion that they wouldn't say X (here, Simon
>the Leper who lived in Bethany), because that is contrary to Torah,
>doesn't fit the reality of the texts.

Am I wrong in saying that you have no desire nor inclination to see
ANY truth inthe Brit Hadashah? You only will only see what your
limited view allows you to see, sorry but that is a pre-bias.

> I understand that you are talking about an Aramaic Urtext . .
>. I made the comment that it is significant that NO Greek manuscript
>got it according to your hypothetical reading. This assumes that none
>of the supposed Greek translators knew the Aramaic well enough to
>translate it correctly. An absurd suggestion.

Not as absurd as you want to think. Besides Shaul and Luke do you care
to let us know which Brit Hadashah authors had a strong Greek
background? After you do that please let us know the best estimates
you can find of the percentage of people that were well versed in
Aramaic/Hebrew so that they could accurately translate a complex
document (that contains many semitic idiosyncracys) into Greek. BTW,
Jewish leadership doesn't count since there is no possible way they
would translate anything about Yeshua with any degree of accuracy.

L'chaim b'Yeshua

L'chaim b'Yeshua

> Actually it sounds as if you are a disciple of Lamsa . . .
>
>>
>>>The time period that the text purports to tell us about - duh. . . .
>>>The people's observance - duh . . . .
>>
>>Well the time period is between 26 - 30 CE (approximately).
>>Observance - If you mean Torah I guess Simon observed. Even if he
>>didn't do you assume the entire population of Bethany didn't?
>
>
> Duh . . . .
> The reason I asked my question is that I am not sure. It
>would be an interesting study to see the general populace's level of
>observance. On what do you base your conclusion that Simon did
>observe the Law - and to what level?
>
> see ya,
> bekus

|\_

Renee

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

bekus (bruce) wrote:

>
> On Fri, 01 May 1998 02:53:22 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
> Hildenbrandt) wrote:
>
> >As anyone who reads the Torah should know, lepers were not permitted
> >to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
> >Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
> >the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
> >merchant).

Something seems wrong about this. Tzaras is not leprosy. I don't know
Aramaic so well, so I may be wrong about this, but I believe a metzora
is called "sigeer" in Aramaic. There is no b or v sound in it. Someone
who knows Aramaic please comment.

Renee

Joe Slater

unread,
May 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM5/4/98
to

>> On Fri, 01 May 1998 02:53:22 GMT, cabbie...@gtii.com (Phil
>> Hildenbrandt) wrote:
>> >As anyone who reads the Torah should know, lepers were not permitted
>> >to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and
>> >Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between
>> >the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar
>> >merchant).

Renee <je...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Something seems wrong about this. Tzaras is not leprosy. I don't know
>Aramaic so well, so I may be wrong about this, but I believe a metzora
>is called "sigeer" in Aramaic. There is no b or v sound in it. Someone
>who knows Aramaic please comment.

_Jastrow_ knows of two similar words: G'rav or Garba, which means a
jar; and Garav which means an itch. I suppose you could make derive a
word for "someone associated with jars" which looks like the word for
"someone with an itch", but it's hard to see how you get from itches
to leprosy.

jds

0 new messages