Does Jesus speak Greek?

[JoeyKnothead]

I've heard it on more'n one occassion that English language bibles are faulty, 'cause they ain't written in the "original" Greek.

Which leads me to ask for debate:


Did Jesus speak Greek?

If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?

If a translation is faulty, should it be relied upon to make life impacting decisions?

[Hawkins]

[Replying to post 59 by Hawkins]
It would be FOOLISH to not pay attention of warnings that could potentially end our lives. BUT if would be equally foolish IF NOT MORE.. to check if there IS a bomb.

Christianity is such warning message like the bomb. Not every bomb will provide you with the chance to investigate before it's set to blast.

Similarly, if it's all about what would happen after death, how can you examine it's truth?

The only thing which can be possibly done is that the ones who yell "there's a bomb" choose to die for what they claim.

And that's what the Christianity God did.

[JLB32168]

1. Conjecture is not fact. You seem to mistake the two.
2. The NT was written in GREEK. ( as far as we know )
3. The fact that Jesus ( if he had existed ) or any other rabbi would be conversant in HEBREW does NOT mean that he would have been conversant in GREEK.

1. What did I assert was fact? 2. Why is the Greek NT a problem for me? 3. What does #3 have to do with anything here since Jesus speaking Greek would have little to do with him also being conversant in Hebrew?

Right... why should we assume [there are no extant Hebrew NT texts?]

You brought up hypothetical Hebrew texts? If you think we should assume they existed then why did you posit their hypothetical existence?

Conjecture is NOT facts, in debate or out of it.

WHAT SPECIFIC CONJECTURES OF MINE ARE YOU ADDRESSING?

The NT was in Greek, not in HEBREW or ARAMAIC or CHINESE for that matter. Get your facts straight.

When did I say that they were written in any language other than Greek?? What facts do I need to get straight?? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP HYPOTHETICAL HEBREW NT TEXTS! That you accuse me of having to get my facts straight it uproarious.

I have NO idea if he spoke Greek or not.

And youre contributing to this thread discussing the possibility of him speaking Greek because . . . .
Why exactly are you contributing to a thread on the possibility of a Greek speaking Jesus when you have no idea? Do you often interject yourself into conversations of which you have no informed opinion??

Yes, as the conclusion is based on bad data and mere conjecture.

What is the bad data?

Just because some Greek might have been used in Egypt does NOT mean that anyone traveling there would have learned that language. In any case.. conjecture IS NOT FACT.

Had anyone said conjecture=fact then this point would have had merit. No one did that though. Speculations are ideas or guesses about something that is not known " hypotheses. Hypotheses are of value since they attempt to explain something and are tested by data. All were doing here is evaluating available evidence and extrapolating (extending the application to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends continued) if Christ spoke Greek. No one is asserting definitive fact. It seems youre just upset even that someone postulated that He did.

You can assert your opinion all day long, and it proves NOTHING but that you have an opinion.

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude that he spoke Greek or is it ill-informed opinion founded upon no warrant of evidence?

Conjecture is not data, and we should get our facts straight.

Heres data. Christ lived in Galilee, which was called Galilee of the Gentiles, meaning that the inhabitants were Greek speaking, which was probably because it was on the edge of Judea and near Lebanon. The Samarians were Greek speaking as were the inhabitants of the Decapolis " a large area with ten cities (hence Decapolis). Christ traveled extensively through them on a regular basis. Four of Christs disciples had Greek names w/no Hebrew/Aramaic equivalents. Christ conversed with officials of the Imperial government. Word plays that Christ used with Nicodemus (a Greek name) disappear in Aramaic. Christ conversed with the Sadducees who were Hellenists (meaning they love all things Greek.) Christs parents resided w/him in the Jewish community in Alexandria, which was Greek speaking. Christ and the Apostles quoted the Greek translations of the OT (Out of the mouths of babes thou has perfected praise) rather than the Hebrew counterpart (Out of the mouths of babes though has ordained strength). The authors went to special detail to translate certain phrases that Christ did actually say in another language (Talitha cumi, Eli, Eli lama sabachthani) but theres no such translation notes anywhere else.
All of these pieces of evidence lend themselves well to the conclusion that one could logically conclude Christ spoke Greek. Of course, we cant know with 100% certainty if he did w/o asking him, but one can at least say its a logical conclusion. To say its ill-informed and founded upon no warrant of evidence is simply asinine.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by Hawkins]

Hello, Hawkins.
I see the debate rages on with us!

First, I have to apologize, because what you just quoted below has been edited to mean the CONTRARY of what you have.

Secondly, I fail to see the point that you are making when you write that "And that's what the Christianity God did."

Perhaps you can clarify that, and also how that ties in with the OP.

Here goes nuthin:

It would be FOOLISH to not pay attention of warnings that could potentially end our lives. BUT if would be equally foolish IF NOT MORE.. to check if there IS a bomb.

I meant to write that it would be foolish to NOT check if there had been a bomb.

Sorry, I make a lot of mistakes like that.
I had corrected it later, but you replied so QUICKLY.
I take full responsibility for any confusion that my error caused.

Christianity is such warning message like the bomb.

Yes, I was just thinking that. Christianity is very MUCH like a bomb threat. Not all threats are TRUE.

Not every bomb will provide you with the chance to investigate before it's set to blast.

I'm BLASTCAT.. so I respond very well to conversations about blasts

We know that BOMBS do in fact exist and cause great harm. The existence of BOMBS is not in question. Heaven, Hell, God, demons, angels.. all in question.

Similarly, if it's all about what would happen after death, how can you examine it's truth?

I think NOT AT ALL.
I think it's delusional to imagine that something is TRUE when we LITERALLY know nothing at all about it. What we HAVE are unverified and unverifiable claims.

The only thing which can be possibly done is that the ones who yell "there's a bomb" choose to die for what they claim.

Ok, some deluded people choose to die for something they can't possibly know about. They die for a CLAIMED threat and nothing more. I should be impressed by those deluded people?

And that's what the Christianity God did.

Well, maybe that's how you interpret the Bible stories..
Your beliefs are noted. I don't see the point you are trying to make with them.

[Zzyzx]

.

It would be FOOLISH to not pay attention of warnings that could potentially end our lives. BUT if would be equally foolish IF NOT MORE.. to check if there IS a bomb.

Christianity is such warning message like the bomb. Not every bomb will provide you with the chance to investigate before it's set to blast.

False bomb scares / reports are relatively common. A prudent course of action is to have people trained in bomb disposal handle the matter.

Similarly, if it's all about what would happen after death, how can you examine it's truth?

That would be exceedingly difficult or impossible to research (at least presently). Thus, it is not possible to know what happens after death (at least presently).

THUS, anyone who claims knowledge is blowing smoke.

Can anyone show that ancient religion promoters KNEW what happened after death? Of course they could speculate as do modern people, but did they have actual knowledge? If yes, who gained the knowledge and from what source?

The only thing which can be possibly done is that the ones who yell "there's a bomb" choose to die for what they claim.

Some apparently seek to be martyrs for their religion " perhaps thinking that doing so will gain them perks in the afterlife.

And that's what the Christianity God did.

The Bible God CREATED the bomb threat according to Bible tales. However, there is no assurance that the bomb or its creator exist outside imagination and/or human mental constructs.

Would it not be prudent to investigate whether the bomb was real using the best techniques available?

[JoeyKnothead]

Posting on the understanding that we await moderator ruling on the use of Wikipedia as a source. If it is ruled that Wikipedia is to be avoided, I'm plenty prepared to offer other sources, it's just I find Wikipedia so readily accessible.


So let's tally the score...

In this corner, for a Greek speaking Jesus we have:

1) Joseph A. Fitzmyers ( American Catholic priest of the Society of Jesus, professor emeritus The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.)

A representative of an organization that remains "Faithfully Catholic. Are we to respect the words of an organization that thinks a man died, dead, for three days, only to hop up and stroll about before ascending to Heaven?

2) Mark D. Roberts, B.A. in Philosophy, M.A. in the Study of Religion, Ph.D.

A man who believes Jesus literally rose up from a three day dead, strolled about, then ascended on up to Heaven. Can we trust the conclusions of this man?


And in the opposing corner, folks who do not support a Greek speaking Jesus:

A) Allen C. Myers, author of the book The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary ISBN 0-8028-2402.

B) Frederick E. Greenspahn, author of the book An Introduction to Aramaic - Second Edition ISBN 1-58983-059-8

C) Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist Yigael Yadin< Caution, dread wiki link.

D) Josephus, Hebrew historian, though we note problems with this source, there it is for all to consider.

Those are references from the wiki only, and do not include those sources provided by others, such as Zzyzx, in his Post 32. This is a post that refutes my sources' claims to Aramaic, but does nothing to support the notion of a Greek speaking Jesus. If my source fails, that alone does not advance a Greek speaking Jesus.


Conclusions?

I propose that where an organization has stated it will remain "faithfully Catholic", there's the potential for a conflict of interest when data doesn't support their "faith". Then, in the case of Mr Roberts, we're confronted with the same problem - a Christian who's come to the conclusion that yes, dead folks really do rise, they stroll about, and they fly on up to Heaven.

I propose that neither of these sources can be trusted to come to sound, rational conclusions, based on their concluding all that dead hoppin' up and Heaven headin'. If they get that bit so wrong, we have every right, nay, every requirement to regard their conclusions with scepticism firmly entrenched.

Then we have the folks whose research for their books can't be shown to be tainted by anything other than a desire to come to sound, rational conclusions. Of course I clumped Josephus in here, but even if we disregard him, we've got folks whose conclusions are not impacted by a belief that dead folks hop up and stroll about, and all the Heaven headin'.

We leave it to the observer to consider who they think more reliable - a website that lists its sources, or folks who think dead folks hop up and fly off to Heaven.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 62 by JLB32168]

Hello there, JLB.

It seems that I have to remind you of a few things.

1. I have to remind you that your words are YOURS and NOT mine.
2. I have to remind you of what you have WRITTEN.

I will try to help you out as best as I can.
Let's get on with it, shall we?

1. Conjecture is not fact. You seem to mistake the two.
2. The NT was written in GREEK. ( as far as we know )
3. The fact that Jesus ( if he had existed ) or any other rabbi would be conversant in HEBREW does NOT mean that he would have been conversant in GREEK.

1. What did I assert was fact?

You seem to mistake conjecture for fact.

2. Why is the Greek NT a problem for me?

You seem to imagine a Hebrew one.

3. What does #3 have to do with anything here since Jesus speaking Greek would have little to do with him also being conversant in Hebrew?

That was my point.
Your mention of it was completely irrelevant.

Right... why should we assume [there are no extant Hebrew NT texts?]

You brought up hypothetical Hebrew texts.

No, that was your point.
I was responding to your assumption. I asked why we should assume anything of the kind. You are mistaking YOUR words for your opponent's.

If you think we should assume they existed then why did you posit their hypothetical existence?

I don't assume anything of the sort, nor did I posit anything like that.
You mistake yourself for you humble opponent.

Conjecture is NOT facts, in debate or out of it.

WHAT SPECIFIC CONJECTURES OF MINE ARE YOU ADDRESSING?

I'll need to quote you to yourself YET AGAIN. I find this extremely tedious.
I will do it this one time, but NO MORE.

And I promise you that.
I wont EVER RE-QUOTE you to yourself.

I quote you in EVERY post that I make.
That's what I ALWAYS DO.

So now, I have to HUNT your own words DOWN and quote them back to you.
If you think that I am annoyed by this YOU WOULD BE CORRECT.

But since you felt the need to be reminded of your own words, here we go:

1. "He presumably resided in Egypt with his parents for a time when he was young. His name is recorded as Iesous rather than Joshua. Judea had been occupied for two centuries by Greece before Christ was born. His word play with Nicodemus (a Greek name and not Hebrew/Aramaic) requires Greek words or it makes no sense."

This is conjecture. You assume that Jesus wrote the Greek in order to PROVE that Jesus could speak Greek. You CONJECTURISE what you want to PROVE.

2. "I would submit he was bilingual " most likely preferring Greek given the amount of time he was in Jerusalem, which was a cosmopolitan city."

This is still more CONJECTURE. MOST LIKELY?.. most likely to WHOM?
Pure conjecture on your part.

3. "He traveled through those areas often and was communicating with everyone w/ease; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he spoke to them in their language. "

It's reasonable to ASSUME?.. reasonable to whom? TO YOU?
This is pure conjecture.

4. " On the contrary, if Jesus was speaking Greek (which evidence suggests was entirely w/in the realm of reasonability) then the NT words arent faulty translations of Jesus Aramaic, but are a direct recording of his Greek words. "

IF Jesus was speaking Greek, he DID?.. well IF he did IS the question.
Your hypothetical is pure conjecture.

5. "The likelihood of Jesus speaking Greek overthrows the argument in the OP; therefore, it would seem to be of paramount consequences."

The LIKELIHOOD?.. Who is finding it LIKELY but YOU?.... In any case your evaluation of The likelihood is PURELY conjectural.

6. "No " my argument rests upon the fact that two experts in the field have countered what your anonymous source asserts. "

And it seems that you base YOUR conjectures upon THEIR conjectures. Well, at least you are consistent.

7. " If most people were bilingual then it would make sense for Christ to use the language that would hit most people."

IF most people were bilingual?.. where did you get THAT from.. again, conjecture presented as fact.

8. "I dont disagree with them. I would simply add one language " Greek. "

Pure conjecture about adding the Greek.

9. "And I have cited people who said that the language Christ would have used with Centurions, Pilate, Gentiles, Syro-Phoenicians, Hellenisitc Jews such as the priests of the temple, and not a few Pharisees (as evidenced by the fact that he quoted Septuagint Psalms rather than their Hebrew counterparts."

The language that Christ WOULD HAVE USED?

This is pure conjecture masquerading as fact. You cite conjecture to make your own conjecture seem more like FACTS. But they remain CONJECTURES.

10. "My son will be three quite soon. He understands English commands and speaks a few words. We dont know how long Christ was in Egypt. If his parents resided there for two years then are you saying its unreasonable to conclude that they spoke Greek?"

It is reasonable to WHOM?.. only to yourself, it seems. But what seems reasonable to you is yet again, your own PURE CONJECTURE.

11. "What is being asserted is that it is logical and reasonable to conclude that he spoke Greek. "

Logical and reasonable to WHOM? .. only to yourself. But what seems reasonable to you has NOT been demonstrated by OTHER than pure conjecture.

You seem to agree with your own conjectures.

[4insight]

.

There is no distinguishing marks on spirits and since God is a invisible spirit that does not have any reason to use male intromittent organ and or any other physical body part to perform any type of work for Him.

Since God is invisible (and undetectable) HOW does anyone KNOW its characteristics?

Did ancient religion promoters KNOW the characteristics of God, as their stories seem to indicate? If so, HOW did they learn about the invisible / undetectable "spirit"?

Did they use their imagination?

We just put God in the category as being a male, because in those days, the male was considered as the head of the household, the provider, and the woman is the assistant.

Many societies and religions of ancient biblical times were male dominated. It is not surprising that they imagined a "god" that was male.

Is that binding on people today?

But God has no gender at all, but He is a very stern or masculine spirit that has a soft side at times.

How do you know about God's gender? What assures that it could not be female?

well in these verses sound to me that God wants us to seek Him out by His true form.

Deuteronomy 4:29 But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Colossians 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

1 Corinthians 15:49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

2 Corinthians 4:18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

John 14:9 Jesus answered: Dont you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?

1 Samuel 16:7 But the Lord said to Samuel, Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.

[OnceConvinced]

In other words, your motivation here is to hijack the thread since you really cant substantiate the claim that Jesus was monolingual in Aramaic (which is the assertion in the OP.)

Translation: La, La, La, La, La, Im not listening.

Moderator Comment
Comments like this are condescending and break forum rules about civility. Please do not make these types of accusations and snide comments about other members.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to 4insight]

I am afraid, even taking those quotes at face value doesn't convince me... those can easily be explained away by style.

Could be translational or not meant to be taken literally, etc..

[JLB32168]

You seem to mistake conjecture for fact.

Specifically what conjecture did I assert was fact? Ive asked you this question twice now and youve offered nothing definitive. The most logical conclusion one can draw from this is that you dont actually have any examples were conjecture was asserted as fact; therefore, why did you make such an mean-spirited accusation in the first place?

You seem to imagine a Hebrew one.

Dude, youre the one who brought up Hebrew NT texts in Post 56: Tue May 10, 2016 9:30 am when you said, There are no original Hebrew NT texts. They are all in Greek. My initial reaction to that post was Wha??? Hebrew NT texts?? Whats he talking about?? Who ever mentioned anything about Hebrew NT texts?? Why would there be Hebrew NT texts anyway since nobody spoke Hebrew as anything other than a liturgical language? Why is he telling me that the NT is in Greek? Is he also going to tell me that the sky is blue on a clear day in FL and the Atlantic Ocean is wet at the Equator?

That was my point. Your mention of it was completely irrelevant.

Im quite convinced of your expertise in irrelevance but we were discussing the possibility of Christ speaking Greek and the preponderance of evidence says its more likely that he did than didnt speak it.

This is conjecture. You assume that Jesus wrote the Greek in order to PROVE that Jesus could speak Greek. You CONJECTURISE what you want to PROVE.

You are all over the place. That others wrote Christs name as Iesous instead of transliterating it Joshua is evidence of Greek usage in the home. And of course you chucked everything else in the paragraph (i.e. lived in Alexandria Egypt w/the large Greek speaking Jewish community there, spoke w/Nicodemus, which is a Greek name, using word play that only exists in the Greek [comparing wind with spirit which are the same in Greek but not in Aramaic], that he lived in an area that was occupied by Alexanders armies for two centuries before he got there, etc. Youre all over the place.

This is still more CONJECTURE. MOST LIKELY?.. most likely to WHOM? Pure conjecture on your part.

Are you going to ridiculously suggest that Jerusalem wasnt a cosmopolitan city where Greek was heard as much as Spanish is heard in downtown Miami? We dont even have to fool with Jerusalem. We can consider the stuff I mentioned above already.

It's reasonable to ASSUME?.. reasonable to whom? TO YOU? This is pure conjecture.

Ive cited several people thus far on this very thread with credentials from, for example, Catholic University of American, Harvard, Harvard (a second time by a second source) all of which say that the ease with which Christ traveled through the entire area of Roman occupied Judea suggests he was quite conversant in Greek. No, Im not going to retype them a second time. Go back if you want them. Oh " and none of this has been presented as definitive fact so please dont falsely accuse me of presenting educated speculation as fact. Its dishonest.

IF Jesus was speaking Greek, he DID?.. well IF he did IS the question.

Yup " if is all I need. That must really burn your britches and no " it isnt pure conjecture. You speak as if the idea a Jew in Roman Judea could speak Greek is akin to the Loch Ness monster being a plesiosaur.

The language that Christ WOULD HAVE USED?

Are you saying that it is ridiculous, wild speculation to conclude that Christ the language Christ would have spoken with Centurions, Pilate, Gentiles, Syro-Phoenicians, Hellenisitc Jews such as the priests of the temple, who all spoke Greek, was Greek?

This is pure conjecture masquerading as fact.

OMG you are hopeless! It is educated speculation. Its done all of the time on this board. We take evidence and we weigh it to determine likelihood since some of this stuff can never be definitively known.