Certainly, but we’re not talking about what language Christ spoke or understood.
What TBP and I were discussing was New Testament manuscripts, the earliest of which were written in Greek.
The reason why they were in Greek was that Greek was the lingua franca of the time, even moreso than Latin. It was also why Gentiles were referred to in the New Testament as “Greeks” even if they came from some place nowhere near Greece - they didn’t know Hebrew, so they conversed with Judeans in Greek for the most part.
sorry, I assumed he was making the case that because Christ spoke Aramaic that he couldn’t have been the one discussed I nthe gospel messages- and if that was the argument, I thought it an odd argument because of course Christ as God can speak any language
I misunderstood I guess- my apologies
The point, however, is that given that Jesus spoke Aramaic (and probably not Greek, given that he was a guy from out in the country), the writings in Greek are translating what he said.
Given that many Aramaic words have multiple meanings, the translator makes an editorial decision to pick this meaning over that one. And that decision is based on what? Presumably, on what the translator thinks Jesus must have meant. But given the multiple meanings, he may have intended another meaning entirely.