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?

[Elijah John]

OMG you are hopeless!

Moderator Comment

You may have meant this only as an expression. But nonetheless, this is uncivil at best, and a personal attack at worst. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, this is only a comment not a warning.

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.

[JLB32168]

[Replying to post 71 by Elijah John]Sorry for the error, EJ. It was an expression of exasperation. I'll refrain from it in the future.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 70 by JLB32168]

Hi, JLB.

I guess it's safe to say that we don't exactly see eye to eye.
I suggest that we drop the personal who said what when stuff, and get back to the ACTUAL topic of the OP.

This side track is getting quite tedious.

Here goes:

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?

In case you haven't noticed, I have previously listed 11 such assertions.
I promised you that I would not RE-QUOTE you to yourself again. I quote you each and every time that I write to you. Once should be enough for you to remember that you wrote about.

I seem to care more about your ideas than you do yourself.
Now, I have to refer you back to YOUR previous posts.

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?

The nickname I chose was BLASTCAT and not "Dude" or anything else.
Please refer me as Blastcat, or some variation of that.. I usually accept BC ... ok?

You are the one who first mentioned hypothetical Hebrew texts AS if they had any bearing on the actual texts. If you can't remember your own posts, that's hardly my concern.

This is the last I will talk about who said what first.
It's completely irrelevant.

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.

That's why I mentioned that all of your so called evidence is pure conjecture.

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.

I didn't chuck anything out.
You present pure conjecture as if they were facts.

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.

I am not fooling around with anything nor do I "ridiculously suggest" anything.

I didn't mention anything about a cosmopolitan city ... You conjecture that people have to learn Greek for some reason and then present that assumption as is it was a FACT that they did.

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.

Are you really sure you want to accuse me of being DISHONEST?

Speculation is SPECULATION, not facts, I don't care WHO is making the conjecture. I wrote to you that you want to support your conjecture with THEIR conjecture. And I said that at least you were consistent about using CONJECTURE.

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.

I am saying that you can make any conjecture that you like. It's not a FACT. And right now, my britches aren't burning AT ALL.

I'm merely pointing out your bad reasoning.

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?

I don't care if a conjecture makes SENSE.
It's STILL just a conjecture.

What is RIDICULOUS here would be to pretend that a conjecture is a fact.

This is pure conjecture masquerading as fact.

OMG you are hopeless! It is educated speculation.

My hopelessness is irrelevant to your case OR the OP..
Educated or not, it's STILL just speculation and NOT fact.

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.

Your conjecture is NOT evidence but an opinion.You make a story up.. it might BE likely and make perfect sense AND STILL BE COMPLETELY WRONG.

Some people don't CARE if what they believe in is true or not.

[JLB32168]

In case you haven't noticed, I have previously listed 11 such assertions.

Speculation is theorizing and it commonly understood to be based upon available evidence; however, it is never treated as anything other than educated estimation. Youre the one who seems to think that speculation and educated conjecture via presentation of evidence is equivalent to bestowing the word fact upon a hypothesis.

You are the one who first mentioned hypothetical Hebrew texts AS if they had any bearing on the actual texts.

Youre wrong. You first mentioned Hebrew NT tests saying There are no original Hebrew NT texts. I got this puzzled look on my face since I hadnt said anything about Hebrew NT texts and I certainly had no reason to believe they had ever existed since Hebrew was a dead language by the time Christ was in the picture and only used in liturgical situations " much as Latin is dead but still heard in the RC Mass. I responded, How does the fact that there are no extant Hebrew NT texts change anything - assuming there ever were such texts [which is highly unlikely since no one spoke Hebrew]? meaning even if these hypothetical Hebrew NT texts had ever existed what would if have to do with the price of tea in Beijing as opposed to Shanghai? You then responded, Get your facts straight and suggested that I was the one who asserted that Hebrew NT texts existed. To quote you, If you can't remember your own posts, that's hardly my concern.

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

I only mentioned these hypothetical Hebrew NT texts because you interjected Hebrew NT texts into the discussion. Had you never brought up the subject then it wouldnt have been mentioned at all.

I didn't chuck anything out. You present pure conjecture as if they were facts.

Balderdash! I present theories and theories are just that " educated conjecture. Thus far, youve had absolutely nothing to address the fact that others wrote Christs name as Iesous instead of transliterating its Aramaic Joshua, nor how his parents lived in Alexandria Egypt w/the large Greek speaking Jewish community there, nor how he 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], nor that he lived in an area that was occupied by Alexanders armies for two centuries before he got there, etc., nor how he quoted the Septuagintal/LXX/Greek versions of the OT when he spoke to people.

You conjecture that people have to learn Greek for some reason and then present that assumption as is it was a FACT that they did.

To conjecture is to guess, speculate, surmise, infer, suspect, hypothesize, to suppose. It involves consideration of all evidence with the intent of theorize the likelihood of something. It might be stated as though it were fact, (e.g. Jesus would have spoken Greek to Samarians, Hellenistic Jews, Egyptian Jews, Roman officials, inhabitants of the Decapolis) but everyone knows that it is only theory based upon available evidence. Paul F. Hoffman and Daniel P. Schrag speak of their theory of Snowball Earth saying, Ice entombed our planet hundreds of millions of years ago, and complex animals evolved in the greenhouse heat wave that followed. Any reasonable person would conclude that they know its just a theory and not actually proven fact. That one person cant infer that theorizing is just that " theorizing what may be the facts " is his/her affair.

Are you really sure you want to accuse me of being DISHONEST?

It is intellectual dishonesty to misrepresent ones argument. That is all I said. One who hasnt done this need not suddenly feel uncomfortably warm.

And of course, I've mentioned in several posts that "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." [emphasis JLB's] so any assertion that I was presenting theories as proved fact, is patently false (but that hasn't hindered you from making such false accusations.)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 74 by JLB32168]

Hi, JLB,

While I am quite happy that we agree that conjecture is not a fact, I am NOT at all happy to be accused of any kind of dishonesty. How about we don't attack each other QUITE so personally as to impute my HONESTY?

In case you haven't noticed, I have previously listed 11 such assertions.

Speculation is theorizing and it commonly understood to be based upon available evidence; however, it is never treated as anything other than educated estimation. Youre the one who seems to think that speculation and educated conjecture via presentation of evidence is equivalent to bestowing the word fact upon a hypothesis.

I'm happy that you agree that conjecture isn't fact.

You conjecture that people have to learn Greek for some reason and then present that assumption as is it was a FACT that they did.

To conjecture is to guess, speculate, surmise, infer, suspect, hypothesize, to suppose. It involves consideration of all evidence with the intent of theorize the likelihood of something. It might be stated as though it were fact, (e.g. Jesus would have spoken Greek to Samarians, Hellenistic Jews, Egyptian Jews, Roman officials, inhabitants of the Decapolis)

That was my point.
It's wrong to present conjecture as a fact.

I'm happy that you agree.

Are you really sure you want to accuse me of being DISHONEST?

It is intellectual dishonesty to misrepresent ones argument. That is all I said. One who hasnt done this need not suddenly feel uncomfortably warm.

So are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty ?
I take a charge such as that QUITE SERIOUSLY, and my body heat is of my OWN concern, thank you very much.

[JLB32168]

While I am quite happy that we agree that conjecture is not a fact, I am NOT at all happy to be accused of any kind of dishonesty.

No one accused you of anything.

Do you agree that casting a logical conclusion informed by premises that the evidence supports, as wild speculation founded upon little warrant of evidence, qualifies as intellectual dishonesty?

As for conflating conjecture with fact, I mentioned in several posts that "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." [emphasis JLB's].

Any assertion that I was presenting theories as proved fact, is patently false and intellectually dishonest.

[Blastcat]

While I am quite happy that we agree that conjecture is not a fact, I am NOT at all happy to be accused of any kind of dishonesty.

No one accused you of anything.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[JLB32168]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Having said what I did, I repeatedly said that all evidence that I presented lent itself well to the conclusion that one could logically conclude Christ spoke Greek. I added that we couldnt know with 100% certainty if Christ did indeed speak Greek w/o asking him that could logically conclude it. The only thing we couldnt know was if it was a true conclusion.

You repeatedly accused me of misrepresenting the evidence as facts/truth rather than theory/possible truth. In light of that fact, you need to either read more carefully in the future or refrain from misrepresenting other peoples arguments.