|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 10:45:42 AM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 478
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
when we read the synoptic gospels we often find 3 accounts of the same event. take for example the scene in the garden shortly before Jesus is arrested.
matthew writes this;
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
mark writes
And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will
luke writes
saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."
it is clear that all 3 passages convey the exact same thought with out using the exact same words.
often times i have engaged people in debate where the whole discussion seems to hinge on one word in a passage. when you come to the gospels often times we have 3 views of the same event with slightlty different wording. so where this happens in the gospels does the thought conveyed out weigh the exact wording? or do you think that Jesus actually said these 3 different phrases just as they are recorded?
if it is the thought behind the words that out weighs the actual words, how does that effect theological debates that often hinge on one word?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 11:05:54 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 4972
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I guess it hinges on the particular debate. For instance. the article "a" isn't usually a huge deal but it is in John 1 when it says of Jesus the Word "was God." The false religion Jehovah's Witnesses inserts an "a" and warps the whole of Christianity and Christ Himself as "a god."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 11:22:12 AM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 90
Status: offline
|
If you're just talking about quotes that are recorded differently, there are a few things to bear in mind. One, Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic; it was recorded in Greek. So they are all a translation. Whether the translation was very literal and precise or a free paraphrase was up to each writer (except in those few instances where they specifically record the Aramaic word Jesus used). Two, he may have said much more than any of the Gospels recorded, and each author made his own choice of which part of his statements to record. Three, Greek did not make a distinction between direct and indirect quotes; the quotation marks are not in the original, and it's not always clear whether they intended to convey specifically what was said or just a general report on the gist of the conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 11:34:44 AM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 478
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
I guess it hinges on the particular debate. For instance. the article "a" isn't usually a huge deal but it is in John 1 when it says of Jesus the Word "was God." The false religion Jehovah's Witnesses inserts an "a" and warps the whole of Christianity and Christ Himself as "a god."
i agree with you when we are reading a passage that only has one version the individual words become important.
but if we limit ourselves to the gospels where this occurance was most prevelant, how important does that distinction become? for example in the passages i quoted one could read mark's version and say that Jesus was emphatic in his plea" All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me" while in matthew and luke the request is more of an asking or pleading.
so if i just limited myself to mark's passage i might get a differnt understanding than if i looked at all three passages.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 11:39:29 AM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 478
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
If you're just talking about quotes that are recorded differently, there are a few things to bear in mind. One, Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic; it was recorded in Greek. So they are all a translation. Whether the translation was very literal and precise or a free paraphrase was up to each writer (except in those few instances where they specifically record the Aramaic word Jesus used). Two, he may have said much more than any of the Gospels recorded, and each author made his own choice of which part of his statements to record. Three, Greek did not make a distinction between direct and indirect quotes; the quotation marks are not in the original, and it's not always clear whether they intended to convey specifically what was said or just a general report on the gist of the conversation.
so if you were debating with someone about something Jesus said that was recorded in the gospels, and each writer had a slightly different rendering of the event you would you place more value on one writer over the other, or would you look at the overall intent?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 11:59:07 AM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 416
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
john_mark,
quote:
so if you were debating with someone about something Jesus said that was recorded in the gospels, and each writer had a slightly different rendering of the event you would you place more value on one writer over the other, or would you look at the overall intent?
My monthly bible study had an interesting quote in it this month. It said Religion makes godliness a law rather than a life. In applying that thought to your question above I would have to say you need to be led of the Spirit. Only the Spirit would know which is more important is a given situation...don't you think? That's how the scriptures were written to begin with...by inspiration...and not automatic handwriting. I think that 'inspiration' is the very reason for the differences in scriptural accounts. I think God intended for scripture to be a 'living document' and not a 'legal document'.
DR
_____________________________
Doctrine learned and not lived is lost.
Eyes closed to advice may still be open to example.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 12:22:07 PM
|
|
|
LCannon
Posts: 1298
Joined: 2/22/2007
From: Lebanon, OR
Status: online
|
The four gospel were written for their audience hence the context.
Matthew: Jesus as King(as the Jews' Messiah)
Mark: Jesus as Servant(the ox of Revelation)
Luke: Jesus as(the)man.
John: Jesus as Deity(the eagle of Isaiah and Revelation)
_____________________________
"[Prayer power] hasn't never been taxed to[His]full capacity. His standing challenge, 'Call on
Me and I will answer with great and mighty things which thou can't imagine." Hudson Tayor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 12:28:52 PM
|
|
|
BookerG
Posts: 90
Status: offline
|
I would say that each Gospel is true. I would look at all the Gospels to put together the clearest, fullest understanding I can get of exactly what happened and what was said. If someone wants to argue about a specific word, I would take that word at face value unless there is good reason from the other Gospels to understand that this word, while true, may not be the whole truth (For example, if one Gospel mentions two angels at the tomb, and another only mentions one, the latter is true--there was an angel there--but it's not the whole truth--there was another unmentioned angel).
In terms of quotations, even if what an Evangelist wrote down was not exactly Christ's words, word-for-word, they are still God's Word, word-for-word, inspired by the Spirit and true. The only debate is whether we are reading into those words something more or different from what the writer intended to communicate. If the debate is whether a word is true, I say yes it is, always. If the debate is whether we can draw inferences or conclusions from a word or phrase that could have a very narrow, precise meaning or a broad indefinite imagery, I would go broad and avoid making dogmatic conclusions unless those conclusions are more clearly and precisely expressed elsewhere as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 1:36:12 PM
|
|
|
robto
Posts: 155
Joined: 10/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
If you're just talking about quotes that are recorded differently, there are a few things to bear in mind. One, Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic; it was recorded in Greek. So they are all a translation. Whether the translation was very literal and precise or a free paraphrase was up to each writer (except in those few instances where they specifically record the Aramaic word Jesus used). Two, he may have said much more than any of the Gospels recorded, and each author made his own choice of which part of his statements to record. Three, Greek did not make a distinction between direct and indirect quotes; the quotation marks are not in the original, and it's not always clear whether they intended to convey specifically what was said or just a general report on the gist of the conversation.
And in addition, most scholars think that Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark as a source for their own gospels. Sometimes the changes they made to Mark's text can be understood as their way of putting their own spin on a saying (for example Matthew giving a Jewish spin for the benefit of his audience). A good commentary can help you identify these instances.
_____________________________
The Theory of Almost Everything: Everything you always wanted to know about elementary particles but were afraid to ask
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 5:34:04 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 831
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
If you're just talking about quotes that are recorded differently, there are a few things to bear in mind. One, Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic; it was recorded in Greek. So they are all a translation.
Even this is conjecture. The manuscripts we have today are Greek. It is possible that they are translations.
This is why it is important that we consult the whole council of Adonai and confirm everything by two or more wittnesses as Ha Torah(The Word) requires. Maybe this is why there are four accounts, so that there is no doubt regarding the validity of Yeshua's(Jesus) life.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 5:54:05 PM
|
|
|
CherishedbyGod
Posts: 2827
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: robto
Luke used the gospel of Mark as a source for their own gospels.
I thought Luke used Mary, the mother of Jesus for His gospel? I stand corrected but I have read that and heard that before.
_____________________________
~For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 5:55:43 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2130
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: BookerG
If you're just talking about quotes that are recorded differently, there are a few things to bear in mind. One, Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic; it was recorded in Greek. So they are all a translation.
Even this is conjecture. The manuscripts we have today are Greek. It is possible that they are translations.
It is not conjecture that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic. We have Aramaic phrases in the gospels. The authors translated for us to the Greek. If the originals were in Aramaic, why would the scribes who translated knowingly add to the text?
Anyway, there is some degree of evidence that the gospel authors edited the exact wording. The nature of precise quotes was probably not so much an issue with them as it is with us. They didn't use quotation marks.
That said, there is evidence of possibly Hebraisms and idioms that are probably not Greek in origin. That would be a lengthy discussion. In any event, it is most likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic and the gospel writers wrote it in Greek. We have no other Aramaic originals. So far as I know, if any Aramaic gospels exist, they were translations from the Greek and not vice versa. Otherwise, we would have them and know.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 5:59:54 PM
|
|
|
CherishedbyGod
Posts: 2827
Status: offline
|
Does each witness at an accident scene see everything the same way? No.
God uses individuals, loves to use individuals to tell His story! No two individuals are going to tell every detail the same way!
I would not get involved in straining at a gnat over every little word because you can't win that one 
_____________________________
~For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 6:13:21 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 831
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
Yes, the writers do say that he said certian things in Aramaic, but they also quote Him in Hebrew. It is also possible that they pointed out the times he spoke in Aramaic because they were the exception and not the rule. It's these things and the exceptions you point out that lead me to believe that there may not be a rule regarding Yeshua(Jesus) and the Apostsles prefered language.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/6/2008 7:52:26 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2130
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Yes, the writers do say that he said certian things in Aramaic, but they also quote Him in Hebrew.
OK. I'll bite. Where? I know of only one Hebrew quote in the Gospels. That occurs in Matt. 1:23.
quote:
It is also possible that they pointed out the times he spoke in Aramaic because they were the exception and not the rule.
That's conjecture.
quote:
It's these things and the exceptions you point out that lead me to believe that there may not be a rule regarding Yeshua(Jesus) and the Apostsles prefered language.
If you are saying that the common language of the Jews in Palestine was Hebrew, THAT is conjecture. They most certainly did not!
Some suggest that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. If, for example, Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, why would Matthew translate a Hebrew term for Hebrew readers?
They probably knew many, many Hebrew terms, much like American and European Jews of our time. But they would not have been fluent--except of course--the educated. It would be comparable to RC priests in the West today. They speak Latin. As I understand it, Muslim "clergy" speak Arabic, even if they are not from an Arabic speaking country.
There were two main choices of common speaking language for Jews of the time: Aramaic and Greek. Obviously, a smattering of other native languages occurred as well. Acts 2 mentions close to a dozen of those.
QUOTE
It seems the strong weight of evidence, and the prevailing opinion among both biblical and "secular" scholars seems to be that Hebrew had fallen out of general use much earlier, as a language of common, general use....
...From a linguistic or cultural point of view, there is not much reason to think that Hebrew was current other than perhaps in narrow priestly or academic circles.
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebrewfirstcentury.html
UNQUOTE
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 5/6/2008 9:17:08 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/7/2008 12:48:56 PM
|
|
|
Him4all
Posts: 416
Joined: 6/26/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
Larry,
quote:
The nature of precise quotes was probably not so much an issue with them as it is with us.
The wisdom of your above quote could probably be expanded to include the 'whole' of the individual books too. Since the NT was written over a 60(?) year period surely those later books would have mentioned the errors that we seem to have so much trouble with today. Is it possible that even 'they' (whole books) weren't "so much an issue" then?
CherishedbyGod,
quote:
God uses individuals, loves to use individuals to tell His story! No two individuals are going to tell every detail the same way!
What a 'good sense' observation. No two testimonies are exactly the same.
quote:
I would not get involved in straining at a gnat over every little word because you can't win that one
So true, but such is the unfortunate condition and history of religious man.
DR
< Message edited by Him4all -- 5/7/2008 12:55:44 PM >
_____________________________
Doctrine learned and not lived is lost.
Eyes closed to advice may still be open to example.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/7/2008 5:30:22 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2130
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Him4all
Larry,
quote:
The nature of precise quotes was probably not so much an issue with them as it is with us.
The wisdom of your above quote could probably be expanded to include the 'whole' of the individual books too. Since the NT was written over a 60(?) year period surely those later books would have mentioned the errors that we seem to have so much trouble with today. Is it possible that even 'they' (whole books) weren't "so much an issue" then?
Him4All,
Yes and no. As I understand it, the text is all the same. But they didn't always classify those same books the same way we do. For example, the Jews didn't have a 1 and 2 Samuel at all. They were labeled with the "Kings." Some of the minor prophets (I think) were classified together under the heading of some of the major prophets.
Regarding editing or quotes, I don't have anything to say about the OT since I don't know many Hebrew words. The NT books are little easier to follow.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/7/2008 6:26:56 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 831
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
OK. I'll bite. Where? I know of only one Hebrew quote in the Gospels. That occurs in Matt. 1:23.
Mr 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said,...
I'm sorry, at the present time this is all I have on the first point apart from asking if you really believe he discussed the Scriptures with the elders in the Temple in Aramaic. Even your authority conceeds Hebrew could have been used in academic discussion. I would have to search for other examples since I have not commited any such to memory.
quote:
quote:
It is also possible that they pointed out the times he spoke in Aramaic because they were the exception and not the rule.
That's conjecture.
quote:
It's these things and the exceptions you point out that lead me to believe that there may not be a rule regarding Yeshua(Jesus) and the Apostsles prefered language.
If you are saying that the common language of the Jews in Palestine was Hebrew, THAT is conjecture. They most certainly did not!
What you are proposing is also conjecture, yet you appear to be dogmatic on the point. I am merely uncertain.
quote:
Some suggest that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. If, for example, Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, why would Matthew translate a Hebrew term for Hebrew readers?
If Matthew wrote in Hebrew no translation would be necessary, but if the current manuscripts are translations, the translators may have chosen to leave certain words or phases in Hebrew for effect,
quote:
They probably knew many, many Hebrew terms, much like American and European Jews of our time. But they would not have been fluent--except of course--the educated.
What makes you think Yeshua(Jesus) was uneducated. The elders were impressed with Him at His Bar Mizvah(age 12). We do know many of the Apostles were uneducated because we are told that is why many were amazed at their wisdom when they were sent out by Yeshua. That said, they could have very well educated themselves between then and when they wrote the Apistolic Writings. It is obvious that Paul was well educated.
quote:
There were two main choices of common speaking language for Jews of the time: Aramaic and Greek. Obviously, a smattering of other native languages occurred as well. Acts 2 mentions close to a dozen of those.
Acts 2 is refering to Penticost, one of the appointed pilgrimage times, therefore, there were people from all over the world there.
I am not familiar with Orville Jenkins. However, he himself says,"I am not a specialist in first-century Palestine and its language." and "It is likely some or all of the priestly class (Sadducees, perhaps some others, and their scribes) still spoke Hebrew in their own circles. Perhaps some of the Pharisees in Jerusalem also spoke Hebrew, and the scribes of the Pharisees could read it."
Thus as stated early, for Yeshus to impress these people at a young age and to hold his own in rabbinic discussion, he would need to be have at least a passing knowledge of Hebrew. Now let me repeat, I am not saying that the Apistolic writings were written in Hebrew and Yeshua spoke and taught the masses in Hebrew. I am only saying it has yet to be proven to me that they did not speak and write in Hebrew.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/8/2008 1:02:28 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2130
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
OK. I'll bite. Where? I know of only one Hebrew quote in the Gospels. That occurs in Matt. 1:23.
Mr 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said,...
I'm sorry, at the present time this is all I have on the first point apart from asking if you really believe he discussed the Scriptures with the elders in the Temple in Aramaic. Even your authority concedes Hebrew could have been used in academic discussion. I would have to search for other examples since I have not commited any such to memory.
That's not a powerful indication that He spoke Hebrew. Jews of that day, probably like many American Jews of today knew many Hebrew words and phrases. The NT Greek manuscripts do contain what is probably transliterations.
And yes, I believe He spoke Aramaic with the elders in the Temple. The academics would likely have been able to speak Hebrew among themselves. If you will read the Bible carefully, you would note that the loss of Hebrew as the vernacular was one of God's judgments on Jews.
quote:
quote:
It is also possible that they pointed out the times he spoke in Aramaic because they were the exception and not the rule.
That's conjecture.
quote:
It's these things and the exceptions you point out that lead me to believe that there may not be a rule regarding Yeshua(Jesus) and the Apostsles prefered language.
I'm not sure why you use the word "rule." We are talking about the ability of uneducated people (the disciples and Jesus) to speak fluent Hebrew.
quote:
quote:
If you are saying that the common language of the Jews in Palestine was Hebrew, THAT is conjecture. They most certainly did not!
What you are proposing is also conjecture, yet you appear to be dogmatic on the point. I am merely uncertain.
Not conjecture on my part. Obviously, there are going to be some arguments against my view, but what we are talking about is where the weight of the evidence lies.
As far as being "dogmatic," I am open to the possibility that common Jews could speak some Hebrew. But I am dogmatic that Hebrew was not the normal everyday language of NT Palestinian Jews.
quote:
quote:
Some suggest that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. If, for example, Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, why would Matthew translate a Hebrew term for Hebrew readers?
If Matthew wrote in Hebrew no translation would be necessary, but if the current manuscripts are translations, the translators may have chosen to leave certain words or phases in Hebrew for effect,
My NET Bible indicates that the OT reference to Immanuel comes from the LXX. We would have to determine if Matthew's quotation of Is. 7:14 comes from the LXX or from the original Hebrew. Anyway, my NET Bible translation notes tell me that an allusion to Is. 8:8 (also containing the word Immanuel) comes from the LXX. Some quotes from the OT definitely (elsewhere in the NT) come from the LXX.
Note, for example, that many of the OT Hebrew names were written with Greek endings. "Isaias" as opposed to "Isaiah." That's not for effect.
quote:
quote:
They probably knew many, many Hebrew terms, much like American and European Jews of our time. But they would not have been fluent--except of course--the educated.
What makes you think Yeshua(Jesus) was uneducated[?] The elders were impressed with Him at His Bar Mizvah(age 12). We do know many of the Apostles were uneducated because we are told that is why many were amazed at their wisdom when they were sent out by Yeshua. That said, they could have very well educated themselves between then and when they wrote the Apistolic Writings. It is obvious that Paul was well educated.
Paul was educated by what would have been the equivalent of a seminary education of his day. "Uneducated" (as you probably know) did not refer to whether or not they were literate. Most of the Jews, including Galileans (Jesus was regarded as a Galilean) were probably literate.
In any event, the eleven Apostles were uneducated. That is to say, they did not have a "seminary education." There is no indication whatsoever that he had a higher education.
quote:
I am not familiar with Orville Jenkins. However, he himself says,"I am not a specialist in first-century Palestine and its language." and "It is likely some or all of the priestly class (Sadducees, perhaps some others, and their scribes) still spoke Hebrew in their own circles. Perhaps some of the Pharisees in Jerusalem also spoke Hebrew, and the scribes of the Pharisees could read it."
Thus as stated early, for Yeshus to impress these people at a young age and to hold his own in rabbinic discussion, he would need to be have at least a passing knowledge of Hebrew. Now let me repeat, I am not saying that the Apistolic writings were written in Hebrew and Yeshua spoke and taught the masses in Hebrew. I am only saying it has yet to be proven to me that they did not speak and write in Hebrew.
I don't know anything about Orville Jenkins either. But his opinion is in line with many of the seminarians of my area (Dallas Seminary). He gives links to what appear at first blush to be authorities. Insofar as whether or not we will get "proof" that Jesus did or did not speak fluent Hebrew, I cannot provide you with definitive, 100% proof--if that is what you seek. I don't know anyone who would go that far. Generally, when such things are addressed people are talking about the weight of evidence.
Let me give you a name, if you are not already familiar with it. Nehemiah Gordon is a modern Jew (not a Christian) who believes Matt. was originally written in Hebrew. (He has a web site.) Unfortunately (before you get excited), to accept his "evidence," I cannot imagine reconciling any orthodox view of inspiration with his arguments. Since he does not believe in Christ nor the inspiration of the NT scriptures, he doesn't have to.
Among the things he considers is the large (how large is large?) number of Hebrew idioms that bleed through the Greek manuscripts. They amount to word plays (similar or identical to puns, if you will) that he claims would be indecipherable in Greek. But given that many bilingual speakers retain such idioms even when translating, I don't know how strong his argument is.
Anyway, he believes that Matthew's Greek (if I understand him correctly) was translated from Matthew's original Hebrew. The earlier reference to Matthew 1, in such a case, would have been a redaction by some unknown party---either of Matthew himself or a later scribe.
While I am not fluent in Greek either (not even close), I know some Greek. And there are indications in John that such "word plays" exist in Greek as well. So either Jesus spoke Greek sometimes in private or John edited the text. Since we have records of Bible characters in the NT interacting with Greeks, they had to have a common language. I believe those in the early church spoke Aramaic and/or Greek. Palestinian Jews and the Easter Diaspora would have spoken Aramaic since the Babylonian Exile. Jews of the Western Disaspora (Mediterranean basin) spoke Greek and/or another local language or two, depending on what locale they were native to. Jews speaking Greek would be due to the large number of Greek trading colonies in the Mediterranean area since the time of Alexander the Great's father, Philip (I believe his name was).
There is sufficient evidence that many of the Jews of NT times used the Septuagint. If the common language was Hebrew there would be no need to use the LXX.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 5/8/2008 1:10:32 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/8/2008 1:53:40 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 831
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
As Paul says, every man should be convinced in his own mind. I'm just not convinced since the existing manuscripts are not contemporary with the events and even they don't come right out and say on away or the other. So, as you say we are left with the weight of evidence. Since the winners usually write the history, I'm not surprised that the majority of historical conjecture favors greco/roman infllunce. That's about all from me. I might bring up my uncertainty should this used as justification in another thread, but for now that's about all from me. Shaloam Elechim(Peace, out)
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: gospels; exact words or exact thoughts - 5/8/2008 6:21:01 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2130
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
As Paul says, every man should be convinced in his own mind. I'm just not convinced since the existing manuscripts are not contemporary with the events and even they don't come right out and say on away or the other. So, as you say we are left with the weight of evidence.
So you are holding to an opinion in spite of what the evidence points to?
quote:
Since the winners usually write the history, I'm not surprised that the majority of historical conjecture favors greco/roman infllunce. That's about all from me. I might bring up my uncertainty should this used as justification in another thread, but for now that's about all from me. Shaloam Elechim(Peace, out)
The dictionary defines "conjecture" as "inference from defective or presumptive evidence b: a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture
Calling it "conjecture" suggests that you reject the evidence because you don't like conclusion. It isn't "guesswork." We have to go with the evidence we have rather than fantasizing about other evidence that has disappeared.
So far, you have excused or explained away evidence you don't like. Now you're suggesting that historians have tampered with the evidence. The only reason I can think of to suggest that evidence has been tampered with is if there is MORE and STRONGER evidence on the other side. There is absolutely no NT Hebrew manuscript earlier than the Greek ones.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
