10-16-2012, 03:39 PM
Sorry Paul,
I read the article first, then the blog posts. What's sad about that article is the amount of double standards and ignorance of the Jewish and Roman historical backdrop.
For starters, his notions that Yeshua spoke Greek is ignoring of some other texts we can use to show He definitely did not speak Greek. For even their own Bibles say in John's gospel:
"20 Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. 21 Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, ?Sir, we wish to see Jesus.?" (NKJV)
Even Greek primacist Bible footnotes and commentaries say something to the tune of:
"1. that they were Jews who spoke the Greek language, and dwelt in some of the Greek cities. It is known that Jews were scattered in Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, etc., in all which places they had synagogues."
Others say these were Greek proselytes, but no matter, because the distinction's already been made. Why the distinction in the first place, if Yeshua already spoke Greek? If Yeshua Himself was a Hellenist, then why fuss? The fact is, Yahudeans distinguished themselves from those who spoke Greek, whether they are called Hellenists, Greeks, Arameans, akrobustia, or Gentiles. The takeaway is that Yeshua was not part of this Greek-speaking class, because he was a native-born, Aramaic-speaking Jew. No matter how much people want to change history, we cannot reinvent cultural phenomenon after 2,000 years. By the way, Yukhanan specifically mentioned this because He wanted to show that God was inviting EVERYONE to follow the Messiah, and was getting ready to CROSS CULTURES. That's why it was time for Messiah to go- because he was getting too big to be contained in Israel. The Scriptures say that the arm of the LORD can ONLY be revealed to Israel. That is why He had to go. Now is the time for the Son of Man to be glorified, he said, along with, "I will draw all peoples to myself" which is to say, "I want the Hellenists, too."
Additionally, I would like to point out that Pliny and Roman historian Gibbons illustrated that interpreter use was widespread in the days of the empire. What boggles my mind is how the author says "While there may have been a translator employed to facilitate the exchange, the text gives no indication that such was the case." So, how does he automatically assume, 'oh, then Jesus of course spoke Greek.' That is just as much subjection as any other theory and is a double standard. He cannot accuse Aramaic primacists of making assumptions and make one of his own! The better assumption is to read what Roman historians wrote- that interpreters were employed by the thousands. Besides, unless they carry some illumination to the story (i.e. Joseph with his brothers in Egypt), they are omitted due to their irrelevance to the matter at hand. While there is no textual proof is certain, but it is definitely more plausible to believe the dignitary who admitted his own authority had an interpreter who was subject to them. Roman historical evidence more than supports this notion, as opposed to some carpenter's son/farmer from Nazareth learning Greek.
He also is telling of some of the major problems with Greek translations and their English "copyright" Bibles. He chastised the translations of 'nomos' in the CJB but proceeded to admit the word's many possible translations!? Well if nomos has so many meanings then why doesn't modern English bibles employ any of them except "law", no matter what the context dictates!? That is what I call a double standard.
He NEVER mentions the Semitic style, idioms, poetry or ambiguous mistranslations in the NT, which is perhaps the biggest justification for Aramaic Primacy study. Plus if he recommends Lamsa at the end, he doesn't understand why Lamsa is a problem.
There were many other assumptions and biases I detected, but these were the ones that I wanted to share. I hate double standards with a passion.
I read the article first, then the blog posts. What's sad about that article is the amount of double standards and ignorance of the Jewish and Roman historical backdrop.
For starters, his notions that Yeshua spoke Greek is ignoring of some other texts we can use to show He definitely did not speak Greek. For even their own Bibles say in John's gospel:
"20 Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. 21 Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, ?Sir, we wish to see Jesus.?" (NKJV)
Even Greek primacist Bible footnotes and commentaries say something to the tune of:
"1. that they were Jews who spoke the Greek language, and dwelt in some of the Greek cities. It is known that Jews were scattered in Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, etc., in all which places they had synagogues."
Others say these were Greek proselytes, but no matter, because the distinction's already been made. Why the distinction in the first place, if Yeshua already spoke Greek? If Yeshua Himself was a Hellenist, then why fuss? The fact is, Yahudeans distinguished themselves from those who spoke Greek, whether they are called Hellenists, Greeks, Arameans, akrobustia, or Gentiles. The takeaway is that Yeshua was not part of this Greek-speaking class, because he was a native-born, Aramaic-speaking Jew. No matter how much people want to change history, we cannot reinvent cultural phenomenon after 2,000 years. By the way, Yukhanan specifically mentioned this because He wanted to show that God was inviting EVERYONE to follow the Messiah, and was getting ready to CROSS CULTURES. That's why it was time for Messiah to go- because he was getting too big to be contained in Israel. The Scriptures say that the arm of the LORD can ONLY be revealed to Israel. That is why He had to go. Now is the time for the Son of Man to be glorified, he said, along with, "I will draw all peoples to myself" which is to say, "I want the Hellenists, too."
Additionally, I would like to point out that Pliny and Roman historian Gibbons illustrated that interpreter use was widespread in the days of the empire. What boggles my mind is how the author says "While there may have been a translator employed to facilitate the exchange, the text gives no indication that such was the case." So, how does he automatically assume, 'oh, then Jesus of course spoke Greek.' That is just as much subjection as any other theory and is a double standard. He cannot accuse Aramaic primacists of making assumptions and make one of his own! The better assumption is to read what Roman historians wrote- that interpreters were employed by the thousands. Besides, unless they carry some illumination to the story (i.e. Joseph with his brothers in Egypt), they are omitted due to their irrelevance to the matter at hand. While there is no textual proof is certain, but it is definitely more plausible to believe the dignitary who admitted his own authority had an interpreter who was subject to them. Roman historical evidence more than supports this notion, as opposed to some carpenter's son/farmer from Nazareth learning Greek.
He also is telling of some of the major problems with Greek translations and their English "copyright" Bibles. He chastised the translations of 'nomos' in the CJB but proceeded to admit the word's many possible translations!? Well if nomos has so many meanings then why doesn't modern English bibles employ any of them except "law", no matter what the context dictates!? That is what I call a double standard.
He NEVER mentions the Semitic style, idioms, poetry or ambiguous mistranslations in the NT, which is perhaps the biggest justification for Aramaic Primacy study. Plus if he recommends Lamsa at the end, he doesn't understand why Lamsa is a problem.
There were many other assumptions and biases I detected, but these were the ones that I wanted to share. I hate double standards with a passion.