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.
Your badgering is getting tedious. The history of the Greek has been dealt with here on these pages ad nauseam. I’ll not continue down your little rabbit trail with you any longer.
Why would they need to be Christians? Nobody called themselves that until much later. Everyone involved would be Jews.
Also, you are arguing about “natural and law-keeping” after a very not-so-natural act of having a child “Born of a Virgin”.
But the argument of having sex after giving birth to Jesus is aimed at the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Again, this is Argument from Silence, and everyone who argues Mary and Joseph acting in a “natural and law keeping” way are projecting our own common desires on a couple that have the answer to all desires in their midst. We who believe Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus to the end of her life believe that because it makes no sense to be in the presence of God daily and still carry on an average life.
Pope Francis rudely interrupted PM Netanyahu during a speech when the topic of what language Jesus spoke came up.
It seems that perhaps you and the Pope have a theological agenda rather than a desire for facts. Hebrew, like the Jews themselves, is a very inconvenient thing for some theologies.
Is there a Hebrew text for Matthew? Who really knows, but there is at least evidence to make the claim, whereas claiming there is nothing simply because it has not been found reminds one of dogma, rather than a pursuit of facts.
Because Christians are followers of Christ. Doesn't matter that they weren't called that at the that time.
Also, you are arguing about “natural and law-keeping” after a very not-so-natural act of having a child “Born of a Virgin”.
You better believe it, Mary Had NO doubt there was a God of Israel. How much more that she be a wife after the law with that experience?
But the argument of having sex after giving birth to Jesus is aimed at the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Again, this is Argument from Silence,
Hardly. What did good Jewish wives do? Why do the Catholics shame Mary with the implication that she was a crappy Jewish wife?
We who believe Mary was virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus to the end of her life believe that because it makes no sense to be in the presence of God daily and still carry on an average life.
Mary while she knew Jesus was the Son of God wasn't very reverent in her dealings with Him that are recorded by the Spirit. All Christians are called to their daily lives, even though God's Spirit resides in our hearts. Rather Catholics for the sake of a johnny-come-lately dogma would rather that Mary not keep the Jewish law.
“If Matthew was still in Israel when he wrote his Gospel, it would seem appropriate that he would have used Israel’s common language: Aramaic. In that case, his Gospel would have been translated into Greek quite early, before 66 A.D. It should be noted that Matthew’s Gospel has more “Hebraisms” than any of the others. This suggests an earlier Aramaic version, although, as indicated above, no early Aramaic version of Matthew has been found. “
Dear verga, when you find many large samples of the original or early generation “aramaic manuscripts”, you may have evidence for your theory. Until then, we have many, many, many fragments of Greek Matthew manuscripts.
The can of worms in the argument about original aramaic is that since it doesn’t exist, you are left with an uninspired Matthew in Greek. Not a single Greek word is inspired in that scenario. You are left to hope they are the correct words. Instead, we can compare so very many Greek manuscripts to verify what we do have - matthew in Greek.
More likely, in my estimation, is that the longing for an aramaic manuscript as an original is the longing for the Greek words to not be the true ones. Not you, but many, who want to believe things that aren’t there, but would support the opinion of Rome in this matter.
Best
Can a Roman Catholic tell us for sure: is denial of the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity a mortal sin?
“...everyone who argues Mary and Joseph acting in a “natural and law keeping” way are projecting our own common desires on a couple that have the answer to all desires in their midst. “
Couples are commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply. Were Mary and Joseph disobedient?
Couples are commanded by God to have sex and not to withhold it except for short periods of time for prayer. Your argument assumes a lifetime of abstinence that is in opposition to God’s command. Were they disobedient?
I find that your argument is one from silence and in opposition to God’s expressed will for couples.
1) Christians or not, this was about family members taking a relative into their home. Whether they were Christian or Jew is irrelevant.
2) What you consider shame we consider blessed. Remaining a virgin her whole life does not make her a “crappy Jewish wife” unless you reduce marriage to only sex. The shame attributed to Elizabeth was because she was considered barren. Once they both had sons, none would consider them in shame. Sex is for a purpose, and there is no need once the purpose has been fulfilled, which was done for both. Read Paul again. For those who can, virginity is the higher path, and it makes sense that the Joseph and Mary would focus more on Jesus than making other children.
Fruitful and multiply does not always mean children. Otherwise, childless couples would be accused of failing to obey the law through no fault of their own.
The command to be “fruitful and multiply” is not functionally equivalent to a command to have sex. That is only one way of meeting the command. The vast majority do, but it is not the only way. Marriage is is done for Gods purposes, not ours. Mary and Joseph were on a mission, and it did not require that they have sex. Anyone is free to think they did, but it does not make sense to me given the particulars of this situation.
I submit that Mary and Joseph not having sex, and not being disobedient, are not mutually exclusive propositions. Abstinence in this case is not in opposition to God’s command. Jesus was the focus here, not the couple.
Yep
Everything you and I are putting out has been done for centuries. Neither of us is advancing any new arguments.
Tell me again how “What Language Did Jesus Speak” devolve into a centuries only unresolved position about Mary’s sex life?
RE: “....Black Jesus spoke Cursive...”
I thought it was arabonics?
Them poor Catholics...They'll say and do anything to get Jesus' language into Aramaic...
The bible used the words petros and petra...Two different words with different meanings...If the Aramaic kepha was used for one word, it couldn't have been used for the other...
Jesus didn't speak Greek, eh??? What, they didn't have a Greek language class at his school???
As usual, you don't have to get too far into Catholic literature before the lies and deception starts...
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.
At the very most, a few of the chapters were written in Aramaic...
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.
Yet the Greek has a word for cousin and it is used in the scripture a number of times...
Perhaps you solved the problem...Apparently Aramaic was a limited language which could not convey words as they needed to be conveyed, so God used the Greek language to accurately say what he intended for us to know...That Jesus DID have brothers and sisters...
The original N.T. was written in Greek...You lost...Get over it...
“Tell me again how “What Language Did Jesus Speak” devolve into a centuries only unresolved position about Mary’s sex life?”
Have no idea. I am only responding to a single post. I am responding to a false argument, by reflecting on what God stated to believers in Scripture.
I have it on very good authority that JC was a Yankees fan...
Proof: What colors are the Bronx Bombers’ uniforms?
Blue and White.
What color is the sky?
Blue and white.
There it is.
Remaining a virgin her whole life does not make her a “crappy Jewish wife” unless you reduce marriage to only sex.
Again no. And it is Catholics who appear to think marital sex is somehow shameful. That Mary could be less blessed if she was just Joseph's wife instead of PV.
“Fruitful and multiply does not always mean children. Otherwise, childless couples would be accused of failing to obey the law through no fault of their own.”
It does mean sex is happening.
“The command to be “fruitful and multiply” is not functionally equivalent to a command to have sex. “
Oh, I don’t think you are having kids without having regular sex. It has only ever happened once without sex.
“The vast majority do, but it is not the only way.”
Sex is involved in the way God created humans. Read Ecclesiastes and you will see how God approves of sex, as the Creator of sex.
“Mary and Joseph were on a mission, and it did not require that they have sex. Anyone is free to think they did, but it does not make sense to me given the particulars of this situation.”
So is your argument that your personal opinion trumps God’s command to all married couples? I’m not buying that as a logical argument.
“I submit that Mary and Joseph not having sex,”
No evidence in Scripture to support that claim.
“and not being disobedient,”
they would have been. I believe the best about them - that they regularly came together for married physical love.
“are not mutually exclusive propositions.”
Again, a personal opinion only.
“Abstinence”
purported based on opinion.
“in this case is not in opposition to God’s command.”
Scripture is silent “in this case” as being anything other than a normal marriage of two people who have sex after Jesus’ birth.
“Jesus was the focus here, not the couple.”
They ain’t paper doll cut-outs and not idols.
How do you know this? Source?
It's in a book you are obviously not familiar with...The Bible...
God said he would preserve his words forever...The words that the world has as God's preserved words in the N.T. are from the Greek manuscripts extant...
If the original bible was written in Aramaic, with different words than the Greek, the bible used thru out the world would match the Aramaic words, based on God's promise...
But it don't...You lose...
Thank you...That was a breath of fresh air...
How do you know and why would you think Eusebius was telling the truth???
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.