Posted on 01/17/2015 9:07:56 AM PST by Salvation
This week we leave the Culture Wars behind and return to some basic apologetics…well, some interesting information about the Scriptures that informs our apologetics.
I once had a discussion with a person who insisted that Our Divine Lord spoke only Hebrew. The conversation had begun centered around the word “rock” in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 16:18), but quickly devolved into a debate about ancient languages. My friend held that the word “rock” couldn’t possibly refer to St. Peter because the Gospel was written in Greek, and the Greek words used in that passage are “petros” and “petra,” which mean “rock” and “small rock,” respectively. I pointed out that Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for rock is “kepha,” which means “big rock” or “boulder.”
My friend was thunderstruck, he had never considered that a Jew in that time would speak any other language but Hebrew.
By the time Christ arrived on the scene, the Jewish people had been through a series of calamities that fundamentally altered their society. The Jewish state, Judah, was a rump of Israel’s former glory under King David, having been invaded and imprisoned a number of times by the Persians, the Greeks, the Assyrians, and the Romans. During the Babylonian Exile and the subsequent occupation by the Assyrians (700-330 BC), the Imperial Language of Aramaic became the common language of the Jews. In fact, the books of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic. Similar to the way that the Church’s official language is Latin even today, the Rabbis and Temple officials maintained the Hebrew language of worship and the Scriptures, but the people spoke Aramaic in their daily lives.
The linguistic patchwork of first century Judea was complicated by two more civilizations…Greek and Roman. Greek was the common language used by the Roman elites in the conduct of business in the Empire. Latin, of course, was the official language of the Empire spoken by Roman officials and military forces, as well as the Roman citizens.
History aside, how do we know from the Scriptures that Christ spoke Aramaic? Simple. In several places He is quoted speaking Aramaic. In St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospels, some of Christ’s words are rendered in the language the people spoke. “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34), “Talitha cuom” (Mk 8:41), and “Ephphatha” (Mk 7:34) are all Aramaic phrases. Even the word “Abba” which Christ uses often to refer to the Father is the Aramaic word roughly translated as “Daddy.” Incidentally, the Arabic word “Abu” has the same meaning… so “Abu Sulieman” means “Father of Solomon.”
Why is all this language study important to defense of the Faith? Just this: properly translating the Scriptures leads to proper interpretations. For example, when the “brothers of Jesus” are referred to in Scripture, it’s important to know that they are cousins, not children of Mary. We know this because Aramaic has no word for “cousin” and Semitic cultures usually consider all male relatives as “brother” or “uncle.” In fact, not to refer to a male relative as “brother” or “father” or “uncle” is a way of distancing oneself from them. If we try to go with the English word, or even the Greek one, then we run the risk of drawing the wrong conclusion from the word “brother” or “rock,” and that weakens our personal understanding of the faith.
The Church recognizes the need for linguistic variety in her worship. It’s also a reason the Latin Rite uses Aramaic (Amen), Greek (Kyrie), Latin (Sanctus, Gloria, Angus Dei), and the vernacular (mostly English or Spanish in the USA) during Holy Mass. Words have power and real meaning…how else could we believe what someone tells us if words do not mean real ideas?
So the language Jesus Christ spoke on earth is important, both for our heads and our hearts. If words were not important, then the Father wouldn’t have spoken the Eternal Word. We are thankful He did.
I pinged you out of courtesy because you were included in the pings of the poster I was replying to.
Of course Strong's isn't in error. It does mean highly favoured with grace. It does NOT mean "full" of grace. There is a Greek word meaning "full" which was used for Stephen being "full of grace". That word was NOT used in reference to Mary.
On a church channel movie he had a Spanish accent.
Simply, Eusebius and Papuas knew more than you.
Your argument is invalid, considering a similar case made against the Masoretic Text until the discovery of the DSS. The absence of Hebrew texts does not negate the possibility, unless you are arguing for the “inspired” KJV or Duay-Rheims.
Bottom, line, only a fool argues against an ancient attribution unless there is archeological evidence to prove conclusively the opposite.
Indeed. There is a lot on this thread based on Argument from Silence. There is no mention of siblings at the Nativity, nor in the Temple at 12 years old. There is a reason for that...
Such things are not relevant to anyone’s salvation or salvation history in general. It also takes attention off the Message by all those people (Dan Brown, et al) who are more concerned with the Bloodline, as if we worship specific genetic markers and not His divinity.
Divinity is not in the DNA, which is of the body. It is philosophical / theological. Assuming you could get hold of the the actual blood spilled at the Crucifixion or if it is on the Shroud of Turin, there is nothing there you could clone or splice into someone else to make them divine.
All these philological discussions about brothers versus cousins are nothing more than flights of fancy.
Hebrew was revived and the grammar for speaking it (which had been largely lost during the diaspora) was based on Arabic by the Jews of Andalusian Spain who served their Muslim masters. That relationship was one reason why they were expelled in 1492 along with all the remaining Muslims after the Reconquista by Ferdinand and Isabella (yep, same ones, same year).
To all,
Please let me know what you think about these two translations.
1) Lamasa Bible (translated from George M. Lamasa). According to wikipediam “It was derived, both Old and New Testaments, from the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions.” When you think the Christians there are giving up their lives every day for their love of Jesus Christ, far more dedicated than your average Christian here, I personally would like to see their translation and compare verses to other translations.
2) The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). This was actually found in my yard. It was as it ‘fell’ from someone’s car and bounced in to my yard from the street. It is a nice little bible, leather bond and all. It looks like it took a tumble with the leather a little beat up on one side. I never really heard of the HCSB before. But I am just a ‘novice’ so to speak. Maybe God was trying to tell me something*.
Thanks all!
-t
To all,
Please let me know what you think about these two translations.
1) Lamsa Bible (translated from George M. Lamsa). According to wikipediam “It was derived, both Old and New Testaments, from the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions.” When you think the Christians there are giving up their lives every day for their love of Jesus Christ, far more dedicated than your average Christian here, I personally would like to see their translation and compare verses to other translations.
2) The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). This was actually found in my yard. It was as it ‘fell’ from someone’s car and bounced in to my yard from the street. It is a nice little bible, leather bond and all. It looks like it took a tumble with the leather a little beat up on one side. I never really heard of the HCSB before. But I am just a ‘novice’ so to speak. Maybe God was trying to tell me something*.
Thanks all!
-t
PS:
I didn’t mention George Lamsa reported his was translated from ‘original Aramaic’ writings.
I would cut off this whole correspondence as unproductive and conducive to uncharitable thoughts, except I keep thinking there are lurkers out there who are still reading; and so for their sake, though by nature inadequate to the task, I like to clarify the truths of the faith when I can.
So I can thank you, in a way, for providing the ongoing opportunity for me to hee-haw, bray and balk and bear the regular beatings, in order to provide the occasional word of wisdom. AMDG.
Jesus from Joshua. In post reformation England people had the family history to name their children after certain relatives, i.e., first daughter after father’s grandmother etc. So in order to deal with their aversion to the Blessed Mother and other Catholic saints but still name the daughter after grandma or the son after grandpa, the custom evolved of nicknames so that we have a Mary who’s nick name is Polly. Sarah’s nickname would have been Sally. John was called Jack and so on. Also, if your name is a common English word like Brown but it is spelled Browne, then your ancestors were English Catholics who were forced to change their names to identify them as Catholics.. sort of the 16th century version of the Star of David pinned to Jews in the 30s. Actually not sure about Sarah but am sure about Mary Polly.
I have another question. In your opinion, does it follow that, IF the Bible is infallible in its original autographs, it was nevertheless the will of God for us not to actually have any of the original autographs?
Sarah, as in Abraham’s wife? Literal meaning in Hebrew is “princess”, I believe.
Born of a Virgin?
Wow. Something important is being overlooked. The gospels were written by men, not Jesus, decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in their daily life and teachings, including in remembering the events that had happened. Do you not think the Holy Spirit brought to their ready recollection the meaning of WHAT was said, regardless of the language used? So if Jesus said and meant “blessed are you, Little Pebble, and upon THIS Huge Bedrock I will build my Church,” why would you be surprised that a Greek written record of it properly lists the Greek words for little pebble and bedrock, which are different, and instead doesn’t say “blessed are you, Bedrock of the Church, for upon YOU, Bedrock of the Church, will I build my Church” ? Perhaps because the latter matches Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church was built on Peter, and not that Jesus’ Church is actually built on the Faith that Jesus is the Son of God?
So simple.
** Something important is being overlooked. The gospels were written by men, not Jesus,**
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, right?
I know who Sarah was but not sure why post reformation English protestants would want to scrub her name from their family tree.
Indeed. There is a lot on this thread based on Argument from Silence.
The Catholics want to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they most likely believe it or they would not try to prove it
The protestants want to prove the Catholics wrong so as to say you can not be the successors of Peter other wise how could you be so wrong?
Both sides uses assumptions which proves nothing.
And I agree it has nothing to do with salvation, Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), not his mother, his brothers or half brothers or step brothers or sisters.
Mathew 4
4 Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
What Jesus said came from God and is the final word.
Some of the thing Jesus said are hard to understand but the things he plainly told us to do are fairly simple.
Go to the Greek as we have it today and show me where there is an error. It's what I use to verify every translation.
>>In your opinion, does it follow that, IF the Bible is infallible in its original autographs, it was nevertheless the will of God for us not to actually have any of the original autographs?<<
What did God have preserved for us today? Would you propose He failed in fulfilling His promise of preserving His word for all generations?
And it still remains that the Holy Spirit did NOT use a Greek word to denote “full” when addressing Mary. He did when He talked about Stephen.
You win the thread.
: )
Does not mitigate proposed children of Joseph prior to taking Mary into his home, which is how some explain it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.