The Paleo video was so-so IMO.
Would you like to quote me from HebrewGospel.com ("HG") where it says the NT was originally written in Hebrew. At quick glance it looks to be saying Matthew was originally written in Hebrew & Greek. A Hebrew Matthew has been discussed for quite some time as can be seen from some of the references HG quotes.
I paid quite a bit of attention to the Messianic movement in the 1990's through the early 2000 era and attended a Messianic Jewish Temple for a few years with a converted Rabbi pastoring it. Wonderful experience. But the Messianic movement grew to have opinions kind of like yours and IMO largely became just another denomination with similar views of being the one closest to the truth held by most denominations.
I've read a couple of Benner's books. They were interesting. I've read a lot of Messianic material. I've studied chiastic structures from the simplest to some that are so complex I still don't know if I truly can follow them. There's a Christian in Korea as I recall who is doing what looks like quite intense studies on chiastic structures in the Text. IMO at this point it's all a matter of what we interpret the Scripture to say and mean and why.
As for Greek and Hebrew mindsets, my view was similar to yours re: getting closer to the mindset of the writers of Scripture. But IMO Paul was a genius, well-versed in Hebrew and Greek culture, and tasked to merge 2 very different cultures including the Philosophy of the Greeks. And he was not writing only to Jews. A lot of work has been going on in the past few decades looking more into his work and use of rhetoric for example.
So, Matthew is one thing. But IMO there is more going on in the NT overall than may be understood from just Paleo-Hebrew. Anything that's helpful is good. I don't know that too narrow a focus is the answer.
"But IMO there is more going on in the NT overall than may be understood from just Paleo-Hebrew". (I agree)
HebrewGospel.com does point to Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts that include several (not all) NT books as originally written in Hebrew; also Paul heard Messiah speak to him in the Hebrew language on the road to Damascus (why not in Greek?).
This biased scholarly consensus view heavily weighs the dominate language at the time the NT was written and also the many thousands of NT Greek surviving manuscripts, while ignoring the NT is linguistically Hebraic in its construct. Thousands of surviving NT Greek manuscripts does not equate to original except that they want it so.
Scholars have tried very hard to obscure even the hint (maybe conceding Mathew) the NT was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. I accept the fact that God has always gone to the Jew first and then the gentiles. The OT and NT were written in Hebrew and as Hebrewgospel.com shows there were NT Hebrew manuscripts that would affirm this precept.
We know Josephus wrote the History of the Jews 1,000 yrs before the first surviving book was found. The same with the Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts...they are the first surviving manuscripts of the original Hebrew NT from which the Greek NT translation was written.
The OT Greek translation took OT Hebrew and stylized it into a Greek linguistic construct, but not many fools would ever say the Greek Septuagint predates OT Hebrew...
The Greek NT is obviously a translation from the Hebrew...the evidence of its Hebraic originality is in its Hebraic chiasms, idioms and Covenantal imagery. The Hebrew NT is written in a Conventual relationship construct whereas the Greek is abstract in its concepts that shift the emphasis to
our faith not
His Faithfulness.
Hebraic vs Greek mindset...a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation could be avoided if we viewed the NT via the Hebraic lens....not the Greek lens.
Hebraic worldview: Concrete, relational, covenantal.
Greek worldview: Abstract, juridical, metaphysical.
The Greek for instance in John 1 says the Word, the Word, the Word (
abstract), whereas the Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts say the Son, the Son, the Son (
Covenantal).
Greek emphasizes
my faith,
my covenantal loyalty and so that
my Salvation hinges on
my faithfulness...whereas the Hebraic view is the opposite...it emphasizes
God's Faithfulness, His Covenantal loyalty who acted on our behalf (ALONE) as our
Kinsman Redeemer.
Western Greekyness just loves having "
you" be the qualifier to receive "
your Salvation" whereas the Hebraic view has "
our Salvation" guaranteed
by the qualified Life of Messiah.
Rest in what He Alone has accomplished at the cross...
Atonement for ungodly men (Justified) with the Promise of a God Who CAN NOT lie..."those HE justified He will glorify"...
no Greeky meism qualifiers that people love so much...
Problems with NT Greek Translation:
Mathew 23:1-3
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so
do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
In the Hebrew Sephardic manuscripts this verse says "to
do whatever Moses says to do" You get a skewed wrong idea from the Greek here wouldn't you say? AND you get what Christ actually said in the Hebrew.
Salvation from the abstract
me centric Greek NT lens is based on
your response,
your (continued) faithfulness, Belief and loyalty...the New Covenant was provided because
we are faithless...He is Faithfull.
The Hebraic NT lens has the onus on our
Kinsman Redeemer who ALONE provided Atonement for ungodly men, so they now stand Justified by the works of Christ on the cross and His free gift of
Atonement (Justification).
If your salvation depends on you at any time, you are screwed...BUT the Good News it's Not; it hinges on the Finished work of Christ and His righteousness imputed to us.
Those He
Justified He Will Glorify…(
ATONEMENT)
Our Eternal Salvation:
Greek lens =
me centric
Hebrew lens =
Christ centric
