Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | EdB | 139563 | ||
MJH The problem here is there is almost an equal number of "noted" scholars that disagree this subject. The only real proof we have and it is not much is when Jesus did speak he spoke in what appears to be Aramaic. Knowledge of the area would say they spoke Greek. I think I mentioned this in one other thread, the Greek idea of conquest was to simulate their culture and language into the culture and language of the conquered people. We know the people from surrounding areas spoke many different languages Acts 2:7-11 (NKJV) 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 "Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 "Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." The common language for all of these would have been Greek. The next thought would be since they are Jews why wouldn’t they all speak Hebrew. However history tells us Hebrew was a ceremonial language of the time, much like Latin the Catholic Church in the 50”s, but few actually spoke it. The next choice is Aramaic and below is a few excerpts from CAL a group that is putting to together a Comphensive Aramaic Lexicon. Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including also Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian (ancient Babylonian and Assyrian). It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts. (What is usually called "Hebrew" script is actually an Aramaic script.) The Earliest Aramaic 0ur first glimpse of Aramaic comes from a small number of ancient royal inscriptions from almost three thousand years ago (900-700 B.C.E.). Dedications to the gods, international treaties, and memorial stelae reveal to us the history of the first small Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modem Syria and Southeast Turkey, living under the shadow of the rising Assyrian empire. Aramaic as an Imperial Language Aramaic was used by the conquering Assyrians as a language of administration communication, and following them by the Babylonian and Persian empires, which ruled from India to Ethiopia, and employed Aramaic as the official language. For this period, then (about 700–320 B.C.E.), Aramaic held a position similar to that occupied by English today. The most important documents of this period are numerous papyri from Egypt and Palestine. Biblical Aramaic Aramaic displaced Hebrew for many purposes among the Jews, a fact reflected in the Bible, where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Some of the best known stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar’s feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic. Jewish Aramaic Literature Aramaic remained a dominant language for Jewish worship, scholarship, and everyday life for centuries in both the land of Israel and in the diaspora, especially in Babylon. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the remains of the library of a Jewish sect from around the turn of the Era, are many compositions in Aramaic. These new texts also provide the best evidence for Palestinian Aramaic of the sort used by Jesus and his disciples. Since the Jews spoke Aramaic, and knowledge of Hebrew was no longer widespread, the practice arose in the synagogue of providing the reading of the sacred Hebrew scriptures with an Aramaic translation or paraphrase, a "Targum" In the course of time a whole array of targums for the Law and other parts of the Bible were composed. More than translations, they incorporated much of traditional Jewish scriptural interpretation. In their academies the rabbis and their disciples transmitted, commented, and debated Jewish law; the records of their deliberations constitute the two talmuds: that of the land of Israel and the much larger Babylonian Talmud. Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects). I think the answer to this question is still up in air. I “believe” Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic but also knew Greek as did the writers of the New Testament. They wrote in Greek to insure the greatest audience for their work. EdB |
||||||
2 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139568 | ||
If you are willing to read the book "Understanding the Difficult Word of Jesus" by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard then we can continue this portion of the discussion. Every point you make is discussed in the book. Many of your points are true, but do not support your conclusion. Bivin and Blizzard are not a couple of uneducated authors. They have great authority to write on this topic. Once someone on the Forum will be willing to read current scholarship on this topic, I see no point in continuing to debate among ourselves. After all, we are mostly going to quote commentaries, books, and articles we agree with and none of us have the background to speak with authority. If this is the case, then we aught to look to true experts in language, archeology, history and Biblical study. Most people quoted in this forum on this issue are experts in Biblical study, but not in the other areas of study. I would rather actually STUDY the issue and how it impacts our understanding of Jesus and His teachings. I believe that once the true conclusion is reached, it does impact our understanding of Jesus teachings. Others disagree with me, which is fine, but they also never ventured to find out either. In might be noted that some of the major Aramaic proponents have altered their views in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. M. Wilcox writes: “…the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . The non-Biblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest to the fact that in NT times, . . . Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.” Note he used the word “fact” and he preciously argued for an Aramaic source and was a student of Matthew Black who himself in his third edition to “An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts” remarks on this issue. Again, current study has overturned the Aramaic idea, but unfortunately it may take a generation of scholars to filter the new understanding down to the common lay scholar. Should you or anyone on the forum be willing to read a short book I’ll gladly continue the discussion and gladly read any book suggested as well. (I LOVE BOOKS) MJH |
||||||
3 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | EdB | 139588 | ||
MJH You talk as if it has been categorically proven that Hebrew was in fact the language Jesus spoke and that is simply not true. Your statement about the Dead Seas Scrolls is simply not conclusive and in fact the Dead Seas Scrolls present as many questions on this subject as they do answers. Some groups of the scrolls seem to prove one language and another set of the scrolls seem to prove another. You can be as dogmatic as you want to be, but please don’t blame the general disagreement on a lack of interest or scholarship. I know many on the forum have been very involved in Biblical language studies. I probably read one book, article, paper or attend discussions and seminars on Biblical customs and languages an average of once a month or so. I will admit I’m very slow to read commercially published material, preferring to read text books, white papers, doctrinal defense papers, and research papers and study results. I find people write commercial books often taking a controversial or new stance simply because it sells. This seems especially true of Religious works. You can walk in any Christian Book store and find books and magazine articles supporting new ideas and others disagreeing with those ideas and about twenty different books/articles supporting one or the other to some degree. Current study has not overturned the Aramaic idea, since every "valid" current study still says there is no conclusive proof. Many researchers have reached their own conclusions but not one has been able to provide definite proof. As far as continuing this discussion it seems it is you that brought it up and you that continues it. I have my opinion bases on what I consider the best data available and really have no reason to discuss an alternate idea based on some commercial book. If their research was so conclusive why haven’t they submitted it to the research groups that are delving into this subject. I have never heard of any of their research being published in any technical paper or any other form other than this commercial book. If I get a chance I will look over their book. Have you completely read what I have posted? EdB |
||||||
4 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | BradK | 139590 | ||
MJH, The Net Bible .org has this to say regarding the language of the NT and Jesus: "Question: Are you familiar with Norman Willis' claim that the NT may have been written in Hebrew instead of Greek? [An email from Norman Willis included in original question.] Answer: The question you have raised is not my area of expertise, but the Norman Willis' theory is on the one hand, speculation, and on the other, a veiled attempt to exalt the Old Testament and the Old (Mosaic) Covenant above the New. The Book of Hebrews was written to dispute folks like this, by constantly showing how Christ and the New Covenant was "better" than the old. To my knowledge, it is almost universally accepted that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Aramaic. The theory that the New Testament was written in Hebrew is without basis, though I believe that I have heard some suggest that some of the sources may have been in Aramaic. The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). You will remember that when Jesus cried out from the cross, "Eli, Eli, LAMA, SABACHTHANI"(Matthew 27:46-47). Jesus was citing the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, and no one there seemed to understood it. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. How could this fellow’s theory hold up if no one at the cross could understand the Hebrew words Jesus spoke. (Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, but not the same.)" Mr. Willis starts by saying that he was taught certain things, all of which were justified by the fact that the New Testament was inspired and written in Greek. I have never heard this argument before. He is seeking to refute Christian doctrine on the basis of some falsehood that he heard. In Romans 9-11 we find the inspired version of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the program of God (especially chapter 11). The same subject is addressed in Ephesians chapter 2. Mr. Willis should give special attention to Paul's view of his "Jewish good works" in Philippians 3:1-16, especially verses 7-10. Mr. Willis' words are so filled with error that one could spend countless hours refuting his every point. I don’t have the time, so let me give you an example, which seems to suggest that Mr. Willis is not really a student of the New Testament. His statements regarding the New Testament seem second-hand: The "gentiles" and "Greeks" that we have always been told that Sha'ul's was sent to minister to were in actual fact Diaspora Israelites of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (the Lost Ten Tribes), and the Hellenized Jews of the Diaspora and the Babylonian Exile, respectively. They are not the same as what we in Christian culture think of as Greeks and gentiles at all. I looked up every reference to "Gentiles" in all four Gospels and Acts. Not one time was "Gentile" used for a Greek speaking Jew. Look at these instances, where Gentiles are contrasted with Jews: Luke 2:32; Acts 4:27; 9:15: 13:48-50; 14:2, 5; 17:17; 21:21; 22:21-22; 26:17, 23; 28:17-29. The arguments he puts forth reveal a gross ignorance of the New Testament, and should not be taken seriously. Willis spends a great deal of time trying to convince his reader that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in Hebrew. That's false, but so what? His real heresy is his denial of the gospel: As long as we get it in to our heads that Yahshua came not to replace Israel and the Torah, but to show people how better to keep the Torah, then we have a chance of getting it right. He came not to replace what He Himself handed down to Moses in the Wilderness, but to clarify it. Otherwise, when Yahshua, Moses and Elijah (Eliyahu) were all standing there together in the transfiguration on the Mount of Olives, talking amongst one another, why did Yahshua not rebuke them for teaching the wrong thing? In other words, Jesus came to show us how to better keep the law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that keeping the law of Moses was impossible. In Romans 3 Paul concludes that law-keeping can save no one, for we must keep the whole law, without violating one point (see James 2:10 as well). Paul shows us that the law cannot save anyone; it can only condemn us (Romans 3:9-20). Apart from the Law, the righteousness of God was manifested in Christ. It is His sacrificial death for our sins that saves us, and not our efforts to keep the law. Willis' bottom line is wrong, dead wrong; heresy. It is that simple." I think it depends "who" you're getting your info from and listening to:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
5 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | kalos | 139601 | ||
BradK: You quote: "In Romans 9-11 we find the inspired version of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the program of God (especially chapter 11). The same subject is addressed in Ephesians chapter 2." I quote the text of Ephesians 2:11-19. Amplified Bible (AMP) Ephesians 2 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you were Gentiles (heathens) in the flesh, called Uncircumcision by those who called themselves Circumcision, [itself a [a]mere mark] in the flesh made by human hands. 12 [Remember] that you were at that time separated (living apart) from Christ [excluded from all part in Him], utterly estranged and outlawed from the rights of Israel as a nation, and strangers with no share in the sacred compacts of the [Messianic] promise [with no knowledge of or right in God's agreements, His covenants]. And you had no hope (no promise); you were in the world without God. 13 But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were [so] far away, through (by, in) the blood of Christ have been brought near. 14 For He is [Himself] our peace (our bond of unity and harmony). He has made us both [Jew and Gentile] one [body], and has broken down (destroyed, abolished) the hostile dividing wall between us, 15 By abolishing in His [own crucified] flesh the enmity [caused by] the Law with its decrees and ordinances [which He annulled]; that He from the two might create in Himself one new man [one new quality of humanity out of the two], so making peace. 16 And [He designed] to reconcile to God both [Jew and Gentile, united] in a single body by means of His cross, thereby killing the mutual enmity and bringing the feud to an end. 17 And He came and preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off and [peace] to those who were near. 18 For it is through Him that we both [whether far off or near] now have an introduction (access) by one [Holy] Spirit to the Father [so that we are able to approach Him]. 19 Therefore you are no longer outsiders (exiles, migrants, and aliens, excluded from the rights of citizens), but you now share citizenship with the saints (God's own people, consecrated and set apart for Himself); and you belong to God's [own] household. Grace to you, Kalos |
||||||