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?

[OnceConvinced]

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

We can't possibly know. It's one thing to go to the original Greek transcripts and translate them into English. But how do we assure the Greek texts are correct? We can't. We don't know whether Jesus's original words have been translated properly.

For instance what if when it was said that Jesus healed a blind man it was symbolic? Perhaps he only enlightened the blind man, i,e helping him understand something. "I was blind but now I see! Praise Jesus!"

Then of course we have other problems too, like the writings are hearsay anyway.

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

Certainly not serious ones anyway.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 13 by liamconnor]

Who on Earth makes life decisions on what Plato taught?

Does anyone expect us to worship Plato or acknowledge him as a god?

Has Plato ever threatened anyone with Hell if we don't follow his teachings?

How important is it that we have the correct translations of what Plato said compared to what Jesus said? Is there any comparison? Would it be more important to have correct translations of what Plato said or Jesus said?

Would you say that Plato's teachings were as crucial as the teachings of Jesus?

Did Plato say he is the only way to God?

Does anything that Plato taught have any affect on where we spend eternity?

Does anything that Plato taught have any affect on us here on Earth now?

[JLB32168]

So Jesus speaks Spanish? Our ability to learn a language does not show Jesus ever learned Greek, much less that his translation from his native Aramaic into Greek is accurate.

Your inability to learn any of the languages in which you traveled while in Europe, which you brought up to support your point that weve no reason to believe that Christ learned Greek, has nothing to do with Christs knowledge of Greek and youve yet to demonstrate that his native language was Aramaic.

My source says otherwise.

Wikipedia is your source and students in High School and College/University are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. Lets consider Joseph A. Fitzmyers ( American Catholic priest of the Society of Jesus, professor emeritus The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.) article "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" in Biblical Archaeology Review, 9-10/92, pp. 58-63.

[font=Times New Roman]But Jesus did grow up in Nazareth, which is in "Galilee of the Gentiles," where Greek as well as Aramaic would have been spoken. Nazareth was only an hour's walk from Sepphoris, where one would have to speak Greek to do business. As scholars point out, Jesus was educated and as a carpenter, He was a skilled artisan. He would have to speak Greek to deal with customers. At one point His disciples wondered whether He would go to teach the Gentiles, a task that would require Greek.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman]Though the New Testament Gospels do not tell us whether Jesus spoke Greek or not, they do describe situations in which its likely that Greek was used. In Matthew 8:5-13, for example, Jesus entered into dialogue with a Roman centurion. The centurion almost certainly spoke in Greek. - Mark D. Roberts, B.A. in Philosophy, M.A. in the Study of Religion, Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins, Harvard University. [/font]

So you claim [Christ apparently was quite able to fascinate the Hellenophiles of the temple]. He was able to converse with Pilate and several Centurions. He was able to speak with Samarians (upon whose border he lived) which had become Hellenistic Greek speakers in 332 BC when thousands of Macedonian soldiers were settled there following a revolt. What confirmatory data / sources can you bring to the issue?

You have cited the text. I have done the same where Christ was found in the temple at the age of twelve teaching the priests, and that he conversed with Samaritans and Centurions.
That Samaria was invaded by the Greeks in 332 BC is easily confirmable by your source " Wikipedia, but also by other sources.

My source says otherwise.

I've presented my source for all to consider.[/quote]Yep " your one Wikipedia source.

My point is, as presented in the OP, that if translations are faulty, should we make life affecting decisions based on 'em?

And your point hinges upon a Wikipedia assertion that Christ only spoke Aramaic.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 23:

Your inability to learn any of the languages in which you traveled while in Europe, which you brought up to support your point that weve no reason to believe that Christ learned Greek, has nothing to do with Christs knowledge of Greek and youve yet to demonstrate that his native language was Aramaic.

Actually, it was in response to your assertion that Jesus traveled through Greek speaking areas.

Wikipedia is your source and students in High School and College/University are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source.

You're NOT a moderator, this ain't a high school, nor a university, so your being upset about my presenting something, anything other'n bare assertion is ludicrous. If you wish to show my source is incorrect, you'd do better'n to be upset I presented it.

Lets consider Joseph A. Fitzmyers ( American Catholic priest of the Society of Jesus, professor emeritus The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.) article "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" in Biblical Archaeology Review, 9-10/92, pp. 58-63.

While I 'preciate your finally offering a source, it's hardly surprising that a Christian / Catholic university would attempt to square the problem this OP is concerned with.

...
Though the New Testament Gospels do not tell us whether Jesus spoke Greek or not, they do describe situations in which its likely that Greek was used. In Matthew 8:5-13, for example, Jesus entered into dialogue with a Roman centurion. The centurion almost certainly spoke in Greek. - Mark D. Roberts, B.A. in Philosophy, M.A. in the Study of Religion, Ph.D. in New Testament and Christian Origins, Harvard University.
...

We're still left with the problems associated with translation, whether from Greek to English, or Aramaic - Jesus' native tongue - to Greek.

You have cited the text. I have done the same where Christ was found in the temple at the age of twelve teaching the priests, and that he conversed with Samaritans and Centurions.
That Samaria was invaded by the Greeks in 332 BC is easily confirmable by your source " Wikipedia, but also by other sources.

At twelve. My source tells us Aramaic was his native tongue, and we're still, at twelve years old, left with the difficulty of translating language into other languages.

I've presented my source for all to consider.

Yep " your one Wikipedia source.

Least nobody had to beg me to present something.

And least my complaint with your source ain't that you presented it!


So, we're left with two conflicting sources... One you're upset about 'cause this ain't a high school or university, and one you're proud about 'cause it comes from a Christian / Catholic organization.


I'm confident the observer can make a sound determination about the validity of the arguments both our sources present, and that determination will be that we simply can't know if Jesus could translate his native tongue effectively into another language - if he could speak Greek at all.

And your point hinges upon a Wikipedia assertion that Christ only spoke Aramaic.

My source tells us Jesus' native tongue was Aramaic, regardless of any other languages he could potentially have spoken. If he spoke any other languages, that still doesn't show he could properly, without fail, translate his native tongue into any other language.

While your source is from an organization that thinks crackers are Jesus.


Still can't bring yourself to bother with the third question in the OP?

[JLB32168]

Actually, it was in response to your assertion that Jesus traveled through Greek speaking areas.

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.

You're NOT a moderator, this ain't a high school, nor a university, so your being upset about my presenting something, anything other'n bare assertion is ludicrous.

I never claimed to be a moderator and Im not upset about your presentation. Im merely calling attention to your sources credibility " a lack of which has moved most high schools and universities/colleges to exclude it as a viable source. Next time itd be better ifn youd go to a spectable academic site.

While I 'preciate your finally offering a source, it's hardly surprising that a Christian / Catholic university would attempt to square the problem this OP is concerned with.

Are you saying that the sources information is false since theres a conflict of interest and that people should defer to Wikipedia instead? *snicker, snicker* I noticed you didnt rebut the source w/the Ph.D from Harvard.

Least nobody had to beg me to present something.

Ill speak plainly. It would have done better to offer smart soundin twaddle than to hang an argument upon Wikipedia. Youd be laughed out of the room if you had to defend your thesis to an academic committee - not until they slapped a great big ole "F" on it of course.

My source tells us Jesus' native tongue was Aramaic, regardless of any other languages he could potentially have spoken.

And if he spoke other languages " like Greek " then your assertion that the Gospels would be translations of his Aramaic words evaporates.

Still can't bring yourself to bother with the third question in the OP?

Ill break it down yet again:
You: Did Jesus speak Greek?
Me: Evidence suggests that Jesus spoke Greek " although Wikipedia says otherwise *more snickering*.

You: If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?
Me: Youve not demonstrated that theyre translations of Jesus Aramaic. 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.

That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 25 by JLB32168]

Those who snicker at Wikipedia references in these debates may have difficulty distinguishing between those debates that occur in academia and those which occur in public forums such as this one. Perhaps they consider themselves "overqualified" -- but often do not seem to fare very well in debate here. Why is that?

Many who debate here apparently have strong academic background -- but recognize that they are not in academia here -- and adjust accordingly. Some fail to make the transition and come across as sounding condescending (or worse).

The issue of whether Jesus could speak Greek is of little consequence since he left no (surviving) written materials. All that is available about him was written by others in various languages and later translated into MANY languages. There is no assurance that such accounts accurately convey the words attributed to Jesus or that he actually said what is reported -- yet many Believes hang on every word as though he actually said exactly what their English (or whatever) language Bible contains.

[JLB32168]

Those who snicker at Wikipedia references in these debates may have difficulty distinguishing between those debates that occur in academia and those which occur in public forums such as this one. Perhaps they consider themselves "overqualified" -- but often do not seem to fare very well in debate here. Why is that?

Perhaps one should start a thread on it. As it stands, citing Wikipedia as a source is unacceptable in most high schools and all reputable colleges/universities and is to be avoided " especially when sources of clear reputable authority are available. Perhaps many posters didnt know that almost every source under the sun trumps any article from Wikipedia. Perhaps they know that now.

Do you have anything to add regarding Christs alleged in/ability to speak Greek and how that conclusion would be relevant to a debate on whether Christs words in the Gospels are a translation of Aramaic (which might make them less accurate or precise) or the opposing argument that Christ was speaking Greek which would make the Gospels not a translation but an alleged direct recording of the words?

Many who debate here apparently have strong academic background -- but recognize that they are not in academia here -- and adjust accordingly. Some fail to make the transition and come across as sounding condescending (or worse).

Some who post here (and who take no issue citing Wikipedia as a viable source) have repeatedly spoken in the past to theist opponents as if theyre unsophisticated provincials from 18th Century Imperial Russia. Those on the receiving end of that abortive intellectual elitism (having been called rather nasty names such as 'retard,' 'idiot,' 'gawd-danged fool',) think its uproariously out of order and will seek to knock a person off his/her high horse if it's deemed necessary.

The best way to avoid this is to simply refrain from speaking to an opponent disrespectfully. You get what you give.

The issue of whether Jesus could speak Greek is of little consequence since he left no (surviving) written materials.

The likelihood of Jesus speaking Greek overthrows the argument in the OP; therefore, it would seem to be of paramount consequences. That theres no assurance that such accounts accurately convey the words attributed to Jesus or that he actually said what is reported should be readily known by anyone entering a debate on this board " as known as the phrase the sky is blue on a clear day in FL.)

If every debate had to start with the requirement that there be 100% verifiable proof that the accounts accurately convey the words attributed to Jesus, and that he actually said what is reported, then all debate on this board would grind to a halt.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

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.

Yet we know the problems with translating languages, even from one's native Aramaic to Greek.

I never claimed to be a moderator and Im not upset about your presentation. Im merely calling attention to your sources credibility " a lack of which has moved most high schools and universities/colleges to exclude it as a viable source. Next time itd be better ifn youd go to a spectable academic site.

I agree this ain't high school, nor college. Your argument about the credibility of my source is such as, "You presented a source, Joey, that ain't credible".

You do nothing to discredit my source, other'n to declare it not credible.

Yet another example of your attempt to debate by mere assertion alone.

While I 'preciate your finally offering a source, it's hardly surprising that a Christian / Catholic university would attempt to square the problem this OP is concerned with.

Are you saying that the sources information is false since theres a conflict of interest and that people should defer to Wikipedia instead? *snicker, snicker* I noticed you didnt rebut the source w/the Ph.D from Harvard.

The teaching of the University should be faithfully Catholic, conformed in all things to the creed of the Church and the decisions of the Holy See.

They go into their study of this OP with their Catholic blinders fully planted before their eyes. If data confronts their religious belief, by their own admission, they'll toss it like yesterday's news.

So, as relates to a relatively bening notion - that of faulty translations, they should be expected to support the religious notion of God's / Jesus' "infallibility".

Ill speak plainly.

Speak as high falootin' as ya want, I'm plenty smart enough to seek out explanations here or elsewhere.

It would have done better to offer smart soundin twaddle than to hang an argument upon Wikipedia.

So, your argument about the credibility of wikipedia hinges on my not offerin' up some "smart soundin' twaddle", and not on the data they present.

Youd be laughed out of the room if you had to defend your thesis to an academic committee - not until they slapped a great big ole "F" on it of course.

Perhaps I need to remind you yet again that this ain't no high school, it ain't no college or university.

And, as you've yet to produce any credentials that establish your teachershipnicitude, we must conclude you're just upset you don't get to do the grading here on this site.

As we note, your main argument here seems to be that I've not offered up me no "smart soundin' twaddle", but have instead offered a source you yourself can only "discredit" by asserting this site oughta be it a high school or college, and that you oughta be you a teacher, so that your credibility may be enhanced by giving me an "F" for it is, I don't offer me up no "smart soundin' twaddle", but have insted offered a source whose data you've yet to impugn or offer any other rebuttal than my failure to offer up sufficient amounts of me some "smart soundin' twaddle".

Am I correct in that assessment? If not, instead of just a "not enough smart soundin' twaddle", perhaps your teachership could offer something that actually explains why my assessment is incorrect.

And if he spoke other languages " like Greek " then your assertion that the Gospels would be translations of his Aramaic words evaporates.

If. The last refuge of those incapable of showing they speak truth.

Ill break it down yet again:
You: Did Jesus speak Greek?
Me: Evidence suggests that Jesus spoke Greek " although Wikipedia says otherwise *more snickering*.

Please explain how your snickering discredits my source...

Now, before ya do, I respectfully request you present some argument other'n high schools, and colleges, and how I don't offer up me enough "smart soundin' twaddle".

Then, please explain how knowing another language means one's translations are never without error. Ya know, without that whole "smart soundin' twaddle" deal.

You: If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?
Me: Youve not demonstrated that theyre translations of Jesus Aramaic. 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.

That's the 2nd or 3rd time I've

Post ended on that I've there, likely just a typo, I point it out merely so folks don't think I'm up to tricks.

I can't possibly demonstrate Jesus translated his native Aramaic into another language. You've got me dead to rights on that'n.

Again with the "if". If I had me a stack of hundreds for every if I ever got me from a theist, I'd be too busy spending it to offer up any "smart soundin' twaddle"!

I presented my source. That you're upset this ain't no high school, nor no college, or that you don't get to write a big ol' "F" on a paper, or that I can't offer up me enough "smart soundin' twaddle" is, I contend, not a refutation of my source.

Then, we have the issue of your source, who, by their own admission, see above.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 26 by Zzyzx]
I 'preciate it Zzyzx.

Notice, I myself have admitted that my source may well be faulty. There's my "scholarship" about my own source - I WARN the observer to seek out real or potential errors in my own source. I'd do that if the source was Jesus himself!

But "it ain't credible" says nothing about the data my source presents, and until any errors are shown, I submit that my source is more credible than a source that thinks crackers are Jesus.

[OnceConvinced]

Those who snicker at Wikipedia references in these debates may have difficulty distinguishing between those debates that occur in academia and those which occur in public forums such as this one. Perhaps they consider themselves "overqualified" -- but often do not seem to fare very well in debate here. Why is that?

Perhaps one should start a thread on it. As it stands, citing Wikipedia as a source is unacceptable in most high schools and all reputable colleges/universities and is to be avoided " especially when sources of clear reputable authority are available.

I can understand why Wikipedia is unacceptable in high schools and colleges. Simply for the fact it would make study too easy. Just go to Wikipedia and get all the answers? No. Teachers want their students to put more effort into their studies.

Teachers also want their students to study at a deeper level. Wikipedia generally covers only the basics so thus would not be suitable for higher level studying.

It IS perfectly acceptable for debate here on this site. It offers a basic run down on pretty much everything you'd want to know. If anything is incorrect it can be pointed out and corrected.

I have always found it to be accurate and reliable.

It seems that many religious folk dislike Wikipedia because it refuses to pander to religious fantasies.

Perhaps many posters didnt know that almost every source under the sun trumps any article from Wikipedia. Perhaps they know that now.

Wikipedia does not normally go into the depth required for serious study. At a degree level one needs to dig a lot deeper, which is why it's not appropriate. However for basic information on almost any topic, it's more than sufficient. What it tells us can be relied upon.