Maybe whoever was translating the passage had an imperfect command of Aramaic and didn’t know the meaning of the word “raka”
Maybe whoever was translating the passage had an imperfect command of Greek and couldn’t think of a translation for the word “raka.”
Maybe there was no Greek translation that would convey the pejorative flavor of the Aramaic word. (“Worthless person” is all I’ve found; that has all the hallmarks of a euphemism.)
Maybe the Aramaic word was regarded as so obscene that the translator didn’t want to translate it exactly in a holy text.
Maybe translating it would have defeated the purpose of the passage: forbidding his hearers to use a Greek word they didn’t even know would have been futile.
I’m sure people could think of others; that was just the first few that popped into my head.
There were not that many people arguing against you to feel that everybody was disagreeing with you. >
Well true. I was just surprised this was so because of the nature of the topic. Anything involving Jesus automatically stirs peoples’ emotions and tensions rise.
The language Jesus spoke matters a lot for many different reasons involving theological constructs. Roman Catholic apologists will insist He spoke Aramaic in order to defend their interpretation of Peter as the “rock” in Matthew 16. Historical criticisms also rely on Jesus speaking Aramaic to account for discrepencies in the synoptic gospels and use of sources, Q, etc. Then there is the debate of ipsissima verba vs. ipsissima vox, and its ramifications.
Though the language of Jesus means a lot in theological circles, I suspect it’s not as important to classicists.
Wow…I’m gone for a while and it looks like William has done an outstanding job calling for milk and cookies! I’m not much on cats though…if you posted it with a puppy, it would have been much more soothing to me!
As for Jesus’ languages…I certainly believe that he spoke Aramaic. Greek…more than likely. Hebrew…quite possibly.
Chris correctly cites the DSS as the historical basis for Hebrew being a living language at the time. Of course…if they were in fact written by the Essenes at Qumran, that does raise some other issues…they were kind of sepratist oddball types, so how far their influence went we don’t really know. However, we DO know that they read, wrote and more than likely spoke it fluently.
As for the Gospels and the last 200 years of scholarship disproving the Apostle John, or Dr. Luke writing the Gospels…I would have to disagree with most of those scholars. Granted some of them have valid arguments in looking to the Historical Jesus, but there are also valid arguements in the last 200 years of scholarship defending the Gospels as geniune Apostolic Writings.
That being said, although the candor of some of Chris’ posts were perhaps a bit sharp, he has some very valid points. Points I personally disagree with mind you, but points that I accept as valid, and solid argumentively.
I have a number of friends who find scholarly groups such as the Jesus Seminar as particularly swaying in their arguments. Of course, bing a Koine Guy, I have a number of friends who think they are out to lunch. The secret is in the a priori they accept. For Chris’ a priori his views are very consistent and I think he has done a fair job in representing them. For those whose a priori is different, myself included, we cannot simply ignore them or say that their argment are not valid, because they are.
Ok…time for cookies (Marj made some phenominal Chocolate Chocolate Chip cookies today…I had some for lunch and I just might have to indulge myself now)!
I want to thank Kopio for coming to my defense. I suppose Talmid is right, that our worldviews will prevent any meaningful dialogue. I do want to point out one thing, talmid. You stated I misrepresented your position. However, I fear you missed the logical conclusions of what you said.
You stated absolutely that absolute truth only stands with God - assuming your statement is true, doesn’t that make you God? If its not true, if you can accept that scholars may be right, that the Bible is a mere collection of documents from people of faith about what they believe in and not the divine word all-perfect of God (as if God actually spoke it!), then we can again have a normal dialogue.
My attention was drawn the other day to a biblical passage (can’t give the cite, matthew maybe) where Jesus says something to the effect that not one iota or tittle (*ker something in greek) shall pass from the law until … etc.
I know nothing of aramaic but was wondering if that language had the equivalent of “iota” or “tittle” in its vocabulary. If it didn’t wouldn’t that be evidence that the original had been spoken in greek ?
Hi Chris. Good to see you back on the forum for this topic!!
You stated absolutely that absolute truth only stands with God - assuming your statement is true, doesn’t that make you God? If its not true, if you can accept that scholars may be right, that the Bible is a mere collection of documents from people of faith about what they believe in and not the divine word all-perfect of God (as if God actually spoke it!), then we can again have a normal dialogue.
I don’t have much time right now to jump back into the debate, but I do hope in the near future to engage you again in this dialogue in reference to your statement quoted above.
To give you additional insight to my approach on these thigns, I’m in favor of presuppositional apologetics a la the late Drs. Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. Whereas you might assume the Bible is not the word of God and therefore not binding in matters of faith and practice, I do assume it is the word of God and therefore binding in all things. I view all matters and make judgments based upon the Christian worldview and what I believe the Bible affirms.
Presuppositionalists–such as I am–are often accused of circular reasoning; we prove God by the Bible, and then prove the Bible by God. However, such is inevitable when dealing within the sphere of absolute truth. It would be like saying “2 + 2 = 4, and 4 = 2+2.” It’s circular reasoning, to be sure, but it’s a self-sustaining circular reasoning and not fallacious. I know this illustration isn’t perfect–no illustration is–but I trust you’ll understand the gist of the concept.
You stated absolutely that absolute truth only stands with God - assuming your statement is true, doesn’t that make you God?
No, it doesn’t make me God. It just means I might repeat what God says, hence making my statements absolutely true based upon the authority of God’s word. In such cases, I am not the original source of truth; God is. I’m surprised you missed this, unless your statement was just merely intended to be malicious.
If its not true, if you can accept that scholars may be right, that the Bible is a mere collection of documents from people of faith about what they believe in and not the divine word all-perfect of God (as if God actually spoke it!), then we can again have a normal dialogue.
In this case we probably can’t have a normal dialogue since I will accept that scholars may be right–as there are scholars who affirm what I believe; you don’t have the monopoly of scholarship in your pocket, Chris–however, I reject the notion that the Bible is merely a human collection of documents with no divine source of authority.
The ball is in your court then to continue this discussion or to drop it.
If you only support scholars that come to the conclusions that are compatible to your faith, no matter the evidence, than no, I do not wish to have a discussion with you. I’d rather seek out the honest person looking for the truth first instead of looking for affirmation about what they already believe.
It boils down to this: credo ut intelligam, which follows the flow of Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Knowledge begins by fearing God. Without the fear of the Lord, any attempt to arrive at truth will ultimately be an exercise of futility. This is why only the Christian worldview makes rational sense.
You’ve made the right choice not to pursue the discussion any further since you refuse to accept the right starting point.
Sorry, I don’t accept circular, illogical arguments. You can say whatever you want, it doesn’t make it right. You still have to realize that you yourself are making a judgment call. How do you know that your belief in god is correct? You don’t. You can only get there by faith. And you only want things that reaffirm that prior belief. I call that dishonest.
Isn’t there a commandment against that? (Well, actually…no, there isn’t. But there should be.)
ahh ehmmm we seem to be enmeshed in a dispute involving conflicting world views. for my part I don’t see why two seemingly disparate theories cannot both be correct … on the one hand why not accept the views of scholars about how how the bible developed, that it represents the response over time of people elaborating a faith out of various historical remnants combined with new insights - but why can’t this confused process be at least in theory the means by which the godhead expresses his will through history .. I personally have a very conflicted approach to the literature I am reading - in the last months I have been diving into the early chapters of John and luke. On one side I tend to view what I am reading mainly from a socio-historical perspective . On the other side i find it difficult not to be moved by the ethical and poetic force of the documents. but we have strayed greatly from the original topic. maybe we should better let the topic rest
