Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The letter from Shlichim and Elders (Acts 15:23)
#1
I recently thought deeper about this piece of Scriptures and I asked myself a question: in what language the Shlichim and Elders wrote a letter to the brothers from Gentiles? They wrote to those who lived in Syria and Cilicia. People of Syria spoke Aramaic and people of Cilicia spoke Greek. Which language did they use to write the letter to them? We know for sure that they didn't produce two separate copies of the letter - one in Greek and one in Aramaic. The Scripture clearly says about "a one letter" in singular. What we also know is a fact that Paul, Bar-Naba and others were sent with the letter straight to Antiochia and they remained there for longer (verses: 22, 35). Does it mean that the original letter of Apostles and Elders was written in Aramaic? Is it not a logic conclusion? And maybe then someone from assembly of Antiochia travelled to Cilicia and translated this very letter into Greek for the benefit of believers in Cilicia? What do you think?

Thyank you and Shalom! :-)
Bartek
Reply
#2
I agree with you. In fact, in general it seems that Aramaic letters would have been translated upon arrival for the benefit of those who spoke Greek or were more familiar with that language in general, and then copies of both would be made and circulated. After all, it would be important to have the message be preserved and spread on as wide of a basis as possible!

Within the context of the letter of Acts 15, as Antiochi was in Syria and Aramaic was the native language of most of the Shlichim, I would say that it was indeed first in Aramaic and then copied, translated and traveled to the other Believers. Interesting to note on this is that there is an eastern tradition from the group that identifies themselves as the "Assembly of Jerusalem" who say that that particular letter is what became the Didache in Greek (in Aramaic they call it the Limuda) but I haven't seen much supporting evidence for this claim.
Reply
#3
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:I agree with you. In fact, in general it seems that Aramaic letters would have been translated upon arrival for the benefit of those who spoke Greek or were more familiar with that language in general, and then copies of both would be made and circulated. After all, it would be important to have the message be preserved and spread on as wide of a basis as possible!

Within the context of the letter of Acts 15, as Antiochi was in Syria and Aramaic was the native language of most of the Shlichim, I would say that it was indeed first in Aramaic and then copied, translated and traveled to the other Believers. Interesting to note on this is that there is an eastern tradition from the group that identifies themselves as the "Assembly of Jerusalem" who say that that particular letter is what became the Didache in Greek (in Aramaic they call it the Limuda) but I haven't seen much supporting evidence for this claim.

Shlama Akhi Luc:
I think this is a good time to share my opinion. Is this not the true meaning of the gift of tongues (I Corinthians 12:10), not an "unknowable" tongue as is taught in the Pentecostal Church, but in the case of an "unknown" language, the gift of languages is given to one who is multi-lingual? "To him that has, more shall given" as Yeshua taught. Yeshua taught that the believers would "speak in new languages". The small sect of Messianic Jews in what was then Syria, not Palestina, were sent out to lands of different ethnic peoples to share the Gospel. With the help of the Holy Spirit, some were able to learn a second language rather quickly. Others, like Paul of Tarsus spoke many languages fluently, which was a rare gifting. He wrote his letters in Aramaic after making contact with the peoples of various languages, which would surely have included Greek speaking peoples.
So all of the New Testament, including Acts was originally written in Aramaic and when Paul did his missionary journeys he was able to preach in Greek and other languages where necessary and have an interpreter where necessary. Then when his letters came to these places in Aramaic he would have already made sure that there was someone in the congregation that was bi-lingual. As said from the beginning of this post, this is only my personal opinion. It rings true to me, brother Luc, and I personally spent three decades in the Pentecostal church and Charismatic movement.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#4
Shlama akhi Stephen,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I certainly think you are hitting something on the mark with that! Even today I've heard people speak in tongues in such a way that they were speaking languages that they couldn't understand themselves, but others in the room could. The Elder in my Assembly has also had a conversation in Ukranian once when he can't actually speak the language! How much more critical was a move of the Spirit back then when the Good News was to initially spread in that generation!

At the same time though, opting for Semitic primacy, Roth likes to make the case that wherever Paul went he always seemed to take someone fluent in Greek (i.e. a translator) with him. What are your thoughts on that line of thinking?
Reply
#5
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Shlama akhi Stephen,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I certainly think you are hitting something on the mark with that! Even today I've heard people speak in tongues in such a way that they were speaking languages that they couldn't understand themselves, but others in the room could. The Elder in my Assembly has also had a conversation in Ukranian once when he can't actually speak the language! How much more critical was a move of the Spirit back then when the Good News was to initially spread in that generation!

At the same time though, opting for Semitic primacy, Roth likes to make the case that wherever Paul went he always seemed to take someone fluent in Greek (i.e. a translator) with him. What are your thoughts on that line of thinking?

Shlama Akhi Luc:
I say, "show me the scripture to prove it". If Paul said, "I thank Alaha that I speak in languages more than all of you", this surely would have included Classical Greek, not so-called Koine Greek. Did Paul need an interpreter who spoke Greek as Luke did, or was Luke a second witness to the spoken word of Alaha from the lips of Paul? "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Moreover, it is my opinion that the Koine Greek of the New Testament is nothing more than an interlinear interpretation. The Greek New Testament is written in Interlinear Greek, being translated from the original Aramaic. This is why, in my opinion, that there are so many hundreds of variants amongst Greek New Testament manuscripts, as opposed to the Peshitta which is very consistent between ancient manuscripts with only a handful of variants. That's another subject, but I've added it for clarification.


Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#6
Thought you might like to know, Akhay, that also this tradition was very alive in the CoE when it went across Asia. The missionaries were able to speak Turkic, Indian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc., as they evangelized these nations. The Patriarchs sent off these men who were gifted in "tongues" and that's how the Church spread.

This wasn't a senseless "babbling" at all.

+Shamasha
Reply
#7
I have yet to figure out how to square the Idea that the gift of tongues is only the ability to learn a known human language, with these verses below, which speak about the gift of tongues. Seems to me, if it were just known human languages, for use in evangelical work, then these verses would make little sense at all. And do we think that the Disciples in the upper room, had been learning all those languages they spoke with that Pentecost morning?

Paul speaks of this gift of tongues as being the language of the spirit, not the language of the mind, and its not said to be learned, or the mind would be fruitful in knowing what the words were, that is spoken by the speaker, and there would be no need for the tongue speaker to pray, that he might interpret what he just uttered, if he had learned the language before hand...

These verses below are revealing...the Gift is said not to be for men, but for God. It is said to be a sign, not a means to preach the Gospel in another language....They are called spirit utterances of mysteries here...and Paul makes a distiction between the langauge of the mind, and the language of the spirit, thus showing that they are not just normal human languages learned by the mind of man.

1 Corinthians 14:2 ?For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.?
1 Corinthians 14:13 ?For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.?
1 Corinthians 14:14 ?For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.?
1 Corinthians 14:15 ?So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.?

.
Reply
#8
Shlama akhay,


altho i spent a few years also in Pentecostal churches, i strongly agree that the best contextual interpretation of "tongues" is merely known languages. Abde D'Shleekhe 2 makes very clear that the gift involved known languages. as for Paul's words, i think also that an understanding of the fledgling Messianic community is in order for proper exegesis: so much of the early church was still influenced and connected in some ways to the synagogue setting, and so liturgy could and probably did affect each Messianic community to a noticeable degree. given that, anyone who knows anything about the synagogue liturgy knows that Hebrew and Aramaic are key languages being spoken by way of prayers, blessings, songs, and readings of Scripture and targumim. this would mean that a person could easily pray or speak in a language they had learned the phonetics of, but not the actual meanings. as a believer who has been in the Messianic environment for some years now, and who has taken pains to learn the Biblical languages, i have heard others from time to time reciting prayers and verses and songs in Hebrew while having no idea what they are saying (it can be heartfelt, humorous, or cringe-worthy). that could constitute praying without understanding, in my opinion. the prayer may be beautiful, the song beautiful, etc., but if they have no idea what they are saying, then it would fall under the category of what Paul states.

i think it can be a divinely-given gift, for sure, and the purpose does fall under evangelism, at least per Keepha's remarks in Abde D'Shleekhe 2, but i wouldn't isolate the purpose to that alone.

as a teacher of the Word, that is what i can teach from the Word that is the clearest exegesis of what i read. and that said, however, i've been witness to some really interesting incidents where "ecstatic tongues" took place that appeared to be a babbling event ala the charismatic version. those are anecdotal, however, because while i have seen some that i have no explanation for (i generally don't buy the charismatic tongue approach), the very few instances where it appeared legit just are what they are to me, so i won't be so prideful as to say it CAN'T be that in some cases, only that from the fairest interpretation i can see of the Scriptural verses, it looks like known languages instead.

i personally have to stay within the realm of Scriptural evidence when it comes to teaching, and for me, the best route is the known languages route, but i still have those anecdotal events that i cannot explain that i will keep on the side. the Father knows the hearts of those who uttered them, and knows my heart that i am not trying to make something out of nothing, or even to lessen something of greater origin, but to keep things in a balanced perspective.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#9
I too have experienced/heard the false and the legit gift being used. And it was not from naturally bi-ligual or multi-ligual people. I attend a Baptist church and the Church of the East these days, so I have not heard anything other than English and Aramaic the last few years...we'll maybe some spanish here and there too. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

But....can we say that The Apostle Paul was chiding the Corinthian believers for speaking too many known languages in the gathering? He tells them to keep it down to two or at the most three people who should use this gift of the Spirit. Does that make sense if it were just some guys getting up and speaking in some languages that they had previously learned and understood? For what reason?

Once it is understood that these are Spiritual languages, or Languages uttered by and through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, and not just a naturally learned language...I mean, did the Disciples on Pentecost day, learn those languages ahead of time, or was it the Holy Spirit that was speaking in and through them praises to God, which the others who spoke those languages understood? It seems to me that the Disciples knew not of what they were speaking.

To me, this passage below makes perfect sense, once this is understood to be speaking about Spiritual Languages, uttered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...rather than normal languages that they always spoke in and had learned ahead of time. Otherwise its confusing at best.

1 Corinthians 14:13-19
"13Therefore, one who speaks in a (spiritual) languge, should pray for the power to interpret (it). 14 For if I pray in a (spiritual) language, my spirit prays, but my mind (understanding) is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit (langauge), but I will pray with my mind (language) also; I will sing praise with my spirit (langauge), but I will sing with my mind (language) also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit (langauge), how can anyone in the position of an outsider say ?Amen? to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For, you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in (spiritual) languages more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind (language) in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a (spiritual) language."

I mean, why would the person speaking in a laguage that he could understand, having learned it, need to pray for the interpretation? He could just say the same thing in the language that the people could all understand. And how does one's spirit pray or sing in languages, and it be any less of the mind doing so in there 1st learned language? By using their 2nd or 3rd learned language? So, if I learn to speak Spanish, and then pray or sing in Spanish, its my spirit praying or singing, but if I pray or sing to God in English, its just my mind praying and singing? I don't think that makes any sense at all.

And lastly...there at the end of the passage, The Apostle Paul says that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues (which I take to mean, spiritual languages) more than them all... If we think that he is just saying that he thanked God, that he spoke in more languages than the rest of them, then why does he go on to say, nevertheless, he would rather speak five words with his mind, so he could instruct others with them, than 10,000 words in a tongue. Notice that five words are from his own mind, but the other 10,000 words are not said to be so, but seems to me to be speaking of the spirit, as he speaks of earlier, which gives the utterance, not the natural mind, and so the person needs to pray and ask God for the interpretation of them, in order to edify the hearers of them, as their minds, including the speaker is not understanding what is being said. So he has to pray and ask God for help to do so, and the interpretation is also given by the Holy Spirit's inspiration.


Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#10
Thirdwoe Wrote:I too have experienced/heard the false and the legit gift being used. And it was not from naturally bi-ligual or multi-ligual people. I attend a Baptist church and the Church of the East these days, so I have not heard anything other than English and Aramaic the last few years...we'll maybe some spanish here and there too. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

But....can we say that The Apostle Paul was chiding the Corinthian believers for speaking too many known languages in the gathering? He tells them to keep it down to two or at the most three people who should use this gift of the Spirit. Does that make sense if it were just some guys getting up and speaking in some languages that they had previously learned and understood? For what reason?

Once it is understood that these are Spiritual languages, or Languages uttered by and through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, and not just a naturally learned language...I mean, did the Disciples on Pentecost day, learn those languages ahead of time, or was it the Holy Spirit that was speaking in and through them praises to God, which the others who spoke those languages understood? It seems to me that the Disciples knew not of what they were speaking.

To me, this passage below makes perfect sense, once this is understood to be speaking about Spiritual Languages, uttered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...rather than normal languages that they always spoke in and had learned ahead of time. Otherwise its confusing at best.

1 Corinthians 14:13-19
"13Therefore, one who speaks in a (spiritual) languge, should pray for the power to interpret (it). 14 For if I pray in a (spiritual) language, my spirit prays, but my mind (understanding) is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit (langauge), but I will pray with my mind (language) also; I will sing praise with my spirit (langauge), but I will sing with my mind (language) also. 16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit (langauge), how can anyone in the position of an outsider say ?Amen? to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? 17 For, you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in (spiritual) languages more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind (language) in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a (spiritual) language."

I mean, why would the person speaking in a laguage that he could understand, having learned it, need to pray for the interpretation? He could just say the same thing in the language that the people could all understand. And how does one's spirit pray or sing in languages, and it be any less of the mind doing so in there 1st learned language? By using their 2nd or 3rd learned language? So, if I learn to speak Spanish, and then pray or sing in Spanish, its my spirit praying or singing, but if I pray or sing to God in English, its just my mind praying and singing? I don't think that makes any sense at all.

And lastly...there at the end of the passage, The Apostle Paul says that he thanked God that he spoke in tongues (which I take to mean, spiritual languages) more than them all... If we think that he is just saying that he thanked God, that he spoke in more languages than the rest of them, then why does he go on to say, nevertheless, he would rather speak five words with his mind, so he could instruct others with them, than 10,000 words in a tongue. Notice that five words are from his own mind, but the other 10,000 words are not said to be so, but seems to me to be speaking of the spirit, as he speaks of earlier, which gives the utterance, not the natural mind, and so the person needs to pray and ask God for the interpretation of them, in order to edify the hearers of them, as their minds, including the speaker is not understanding what is being said. So he has to pray and ask God for help to do so, and the interpretation is also given by the Holy Spirit's inspiration.


Blessings,
Chuck


Shlama akhi,


i think that the gift of languages spoken of is, for the most part, known languages, but the difference is the person receiving the gift doesn't themselves "know" the language beforehand. similarly, someone who speaks or prays or sings in a language unknown to them, but only memorized via liturgy, would also fit the bill as needing interpretation. true they speak praise and blessing, but if they don't know what they say, then explanation is required.

the ecstatic speech heard so often in Western Churches appears to be an abuse of what was originally intended, especially when one looks at the history of the modern rise of it with the Azusa Street incidents and the missionaries sent forth from there who believed they had received the gift of known languages, but upon meeting others of different tongues, could not converse with them. it was only after this failure that the "incoherent" form of "tongues" came into being as a teaching. have you researched the history of this? it really is very very interesting.
i am not above the Father using ANYTHING to get His message across, so i am by no means against it, just from the evidence and the history the known languages
seem more likely.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#11
I too have heard of people breaking out into ecstatic ramblings but I do not believe this is from God. The tongues being spoken of in the epistles of Paul must refer to known languages, even though the speaker could not understand what they themselves were saying.

If there existed a spiritual language, why wasn't this language made known to the prophets of old? The angels only communicated in coherent languages themselves so this suggests to me that if there is a spiritual language that is spoken in the angelic realms, we are yet to hear it.

In saying this, the language did not have to be learned by the speaker prior to receiving the gift, the Holy Spirit was the one doing the speaking, not the person. The gift of 'languages' could also mean, as some have alluded to, that people had a gift of learning these languages quite quickly.

It is also possible that people would speak in a confused tongue, but I do not see any beneficial purpose for God employing this methodology.
Reply
#12
Alan G77 Wrote:I too have heard of people breaking out into ecstatic ramblings but I do not believe this is from God. The tongues being spoken of in the epistles of Paul must refer to known languages, even though the speaker could not understand what they themselves were saying.

If there existed a spiritual language, why wasn't this language made known to the prophets of old? The angels only communicated in coherent languages themselves so this suggests to me that if there is a spiritual language that is spoken in the angelic realms, we are yet to hear it.

In saying this, the language did not have to be learned by the speaker prior to receiving the gift, the Holy Spirit was the one doing the speaking, not the person. The gift of 'languages' could also mean, as some have alluded to, that people had a gift of learning these languages quite quickly.

It is also possible that people would speak in a confused tongue, but I do not see any beneficial purpose for God employing this methodology.


Shlama akhi,


also good points. thanks for sharing.

something else i consider significant is that Messiah told us how to pray, and it involved words we would "know." so if there is a promotion of a "better" or "deeper" "prayer language," that should set off red flags for us who try to be students of Messiah.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#13
A question about the Limuda that is published in the AESV by the Peshitta Foundation or those who publish under the title Apostolic Semitic Assembly of Jerusalem. Why do not the four mitzvot to abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, from blood and from things strangled not appear in it's writing like coinsiding in passage 28 with the writing of Ma'asei Shlichim and as they claim that after the introduction of the emmisaries who were to be sent forth with its writing in this place they insert the Limuda? Like in these two examples, one from the writing of Ma'asei Schlichim excerpted from the Complete Jewish Bible and one from the Limuda published at Yeshua Beth Ohr website
following is the example in Ma'asei Schilchim 15:25-29...
25 So we have decided unanimously to select men and send them to you with our dear friends Bar-Nabba and Sha?ul, 26 who have dedicated their lives to upholding the name of our Lord, Yeshua the Messiah. 27 So we have sent Y?hudah and Sila, and they will confirm in person what we are writing.


28 For it seemed good to the Ruach HaKodesh and to us not to lay any heavier burden on you than the following requirements: 29 to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will be doing the right thing.

And from the Limuda that comes from the Aramaic English Standard Version published by the Peshitta Foundation...25 We all have thought fit, when assembled, to choose and send men to you, with our beloved Shaul and Barnabas,

26 men who have given up their lives for the name of Maran Yeshua Mshikha.

27 And we have sent with them Yudah and Silas, that they may tell you the same things orally.

28 For it was pleasing to Holy Spirit, and to us, that there should not be laid upon you any burden that would be difficult, [*]besides these necessary things at this time: [*] following this portion of the writing there appears the discrepency, the Limuda published by them does not contain the four mitzvot of abstaining from idols, sexual immorality, blood and things strangled.

Please, let us search this out together...I have read the Limuda and have come to reverence it as the written word of the nevi'im schlichim however I cannot forget that Ma'asei Schlichim comes before these in acceptance of inspiration... so why the discrepency of not containing the four mitzvot as ascribed in Ma'asei Schlichim? I do ponder and pray, what does your search prove?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)