01-15-2012, 11:02 PM
One of the most hillarious "proofs" for a greek original of John is the alleged "wordplay" when Jesus said one must be born again.
If one makes no assumptions about whether it was written in greek or aramaic, one reads the aramaic and see that Jesus simply syas one must be born again. Nicodemus then answers Jesus in a way that only makes sense if the word is "again".
Even in greek there is absolutely no indication or reason to think Jesus meant anything but "again".
Yet because the word in greek can also mean above, somehow, by some strange logic, greek primacists insist that Jesus must therefore have been making a wordplay.
However even Nicodemus in his reply shows no knowledge of any wordplay, and there is no other reason either to think Jesus intended a wordplay.
yet this is one of the powerful proofs for a greek original pushed by Bart Ehrman and others.
If one makes no assumptions about whether it was written in greek or aramaic, one reads the aramaic and see that Jesus simply syas one must be born again. Nicodemus then answers Jesus in a way that only makes sense if the word is "again".
Even in greek there is absolutely no indication or reason to think Jesus meant anything but "again".
Yet because the word in greek can also mean above, somehow, by some strange logic, greek primacists insist that Jesus must therefore have been making a wordplay.
However even Nicodemus in his reply shows no knowledge of any wordplay, and there is no other reason either to think Jesus intended a wordplay.
yet this is one of the powerful proofs for a greek original pushed by Bart Ehrman and others.