Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The original language of John? | John | Makarios | 10653 | ||
"One piece of 'evidence' that is used to impeach the Bible is bad grammar that appears in the gospel of John. For example, The Greek version of John 19:31 contains one line of bad grammar, which reads, "the Jews did not want the bodies [plural] left on the cross [singular] during the Sabbath". Why? Let's take a look at where the gospel of John came from, and it will be easier to explain this "problem". BACKGROUND The apostle John spent most of his life as an apostle to the Mid-east regions of the world(Damascus, Syria, Iraq, etc) where various forms of Aramaic was the common tongue. He frequently refers to Jesus as the "Word" and is the only writer who uses this term for Jesus. This term is also found extensively in the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures. In Lives of Illustrious Men (chapter IX), Jerome said the Gospel of John was written at the request of the bishop of Asia (Asia Minor and/or Mideast). The word "Asia" in the early writings of the saints was used to refer not only to what we call "Asia" in our modern day language-the Pac Rim, but also the Mid-East region. So John's gospel was written for an Aramaic speaking world. Would John write to an Aramaic speaking world in Greek or Aramaic? TEXTUAL EVIDENCE Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, notes how John quotes from the Hebrew, not the Greek version of the Tanakh. In a letter to Pammachius on the Best Method of Translating, He says "John quotes from the Hebrew, "They shall look on him whom they pierced," for which we read in the Septuagint, "And they shall look upon me because they have mocked me," and in the Latin version, "And they shall look upon me for the things which they have mocked or insulted." Elsewhere, Jerome mentions how it was normal for Greek scribes to revise the Greek manuscripts so as to agree with the Septuagint. But this quotation was not revised, indicating it was not influenced by the Greek wording, but by the Hebrew choice of words. Also, we have to ask ourselves why the Greek manuscripts didn't agree with the Greek version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) in the first place as well as why the scribes thought it was OK to revise them. Did they think they were only changing a translation? Let me quote the HRV New Testament on John 12:11, which is rather convincing... "One word that the Greek translators often misunderstood was the Aramaic word 'EZAL (alef-zayin-lamed) which normally means "to go" or "to depart" but is used idiomatically in Aramaic to mean that some action goes forward and that something progresses "more and more". One case where the Greek translator misunderstood this word and translated to literally is in Jn. 12:11: Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away (?), and believed on Jesus. (KJV) Now I have translated the Aramaic of this passage as follows: because many of the Judeans, on account of him, were trusting more and more ('EZAL) in Jesus." INSIGHTS The gospel of John certainly seems to be developing some Aramaic thought. Genesis 1:1 reads as follows: Hebrew "In the beginning, GOD/ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth" Aramaic "In the beginning, THE WORD created the heavens and the earth." The Aramaic translations interpretted the Hebrew version a little bit -interpretting "Elohim" as "the Word", rather than translating it as "Eloah" (which is Aramaic for "God" or "Elohim"). This translation is evidence of Jewish thought on the Godhead even before Jesus arrived. John was expounding upon this and demonstrating that Jesus was the "Word" Jews have always considered part of the Godhead by re-phrasing the Aramaic and Hebrew texts by saying... John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...through Him all things were made...and the Word became flesh." So John was equating the Aramaic translation of his day with the Hebrew. John is the only New Testament writer that calls Y'shua the "Word", and he does so in the gospel of John, Revelation, and 1 John. The Greek John 1:42 says 'And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter ).'. The Aramaic version of John 1:42 does not have the addition "(which, when translated, is Peter). " So the assertion that the gospel of John uses bad grammar is false. The original Aramaic is just fine. It's only the translations into Greek and English that have a problem." part 1 of 2 |
||||||
2 | The original language of John? | John | Makarios | 10655 | ||
"OTHER ITEMS John 5:2 says, "Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Hebrew is called Beyit Hesedah. (Bethesda)" Now "Hesedah" (Hebrew) or "Hesdah" (Aramaic) has a meaning in Hebrew that is opposite it's meaning in Aramaic. So while there's no known reason a Greek writer would stop to explain this name and leave other names unexplained, we see clearly why an Aramaic writer would stop to explain that this name is of Hebrew origin even though other names would not be explained in a similar fashion. In Hebrew, "Hesed" means "mercy, grace, etc". In Aramaic "Hesdah" (pronounced a little different but spelled with the same root letters) means "disgrace". Since the word is of Hebrew origin, rather than Aramaic, it would be a significant thing to mention to an Aramaic audience. Most vocabular words that are cognant to both Hebrew and Aramaic have the same meaning, but that's not the case for this word. THE "PARAKLETE" The word "paraklete" is interesting because it appears in both the Greek and Aramaic versions of John 14:16,26, 15:26, and 16:7 and could have separate etymologies in the two languages. HEBREW/ARAMAIC MEANING: The Aramaic word "parakletah" appears in the Aramaic version of Isaiah 66:13, written before the New Testament. It also is used in the Aramaic version of Job 16:20 and 33:23. It is a translation of the Hebrew word for "comfort", and thus means "comforter". The Hebrew "paraklete" can mean "advocate" and appears used this way in the Mishnah, m.Avot 4:11a. Also the Jewish Dictionary states "..The sin offering is like the paraclete before God ‘it interceded for man and is followed by another ... a thank offering for the pardon obtained... The two daily burnt offerings are called 'the two parcletes'.." (pp. 514-515). GREEK MEANING: In Greek, it could be a transliteration of the Aramaic word or it could be Greek meaning "one called alongside". parakaleo is the closest word in Greek to parakletos which means "called alongside". But it is not a common word in Greek. The only known pre-New Testament usage of this word in Greek appears in The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, written 431 BC, where it appears in a slight variation from the way it appears in the gospel account (aparakletoi). All other appearances of this word are after the gospel record from men referring to it. Now most modern translations use the root meaning of the Aramaic version of this word if they translate it and translate it as "Comforter" or "Advocate", using the Aramaic etymology rather than the Greek etymology of "called alongside one". Either the Aramaic or Greek meanings could make sense. While the Greek version of John 19:31 contains one line of bad grammar, which reads, "the Jews did not want the bodies [plural] left on the cross [singular] during the Sabbath". The Aramaic version says, "the Jews did not want the bodies [plural] left on the crosses [plural] during the Sabbath". So maybe this was just a bad translation from Aramaic to Greek and not how John originally wrote this. Also, the Aramaic version of John gives us some insights that are missing in the Greek version. In John 4:34, Jesus said, "'My food,' said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work'" The word "food" here in the Aramaic version of John is "makhulta", which sounds a lot like the Aramaic word for "kingdom", which is "malkhuta". So the point He was making is "my food is my kingdom". Note how He connects "food/makhulta" with "do the will" and a king is characterized by giving orders/being the one in charge, etc. Now the priests ate food in the process of performing their priestly duties. So the Torah model included a group of people who ate food in obedience to the will of the king and 1 Peter 2:5,9 tells us that believers in Jesus are a "royal priesthood"! So this play on words hinted at an allegory." part 2 of 2 (My friend's thesis on the language of John) |
||||||