Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't think BB has any objection to the passage qua Saint John, but
[b]"Contradiction? I didn't say at any point that there is a contradiction."
"...it's a matter of incompatibility..."
Boy, oh boy. This is going to be painfully slow-going at this rate. By my plain understanding of the word, contradiction is used when a person means any of the following:
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts ...[text shortened]... d the Holy Spirit in any way shape or form altered the personality of the various writers.[/b]
struggles with the idea that a passage might have mythologized qualities.
That is, it is reasonable to believe that the highly literate Greek in which
the author of Saint John's Gospel was likely writing was not the language
that Jesus was speaking. Consequently, the elegant reinterpretation of
'again' to 'from above' which is predicated on the language of Greek
(via the pun) is almost certainly an invention of Saint John and not of
Jesus. It is a reflection of how Saint John understood (or came to
understand, as I'm sure he would say) who Jesus was, what He meant,
and how his faith ought to be structured. That Jesus might not have
been precisely (or even roughly) like how Saint John presents Him is
immaterial: it's how Saint John established a relationship with the Divine.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat is exactly right. And though I now can contemplate this idea with equanimity, back then it was a horrible thing to consider.
That Jesus might not have
been precisely (or even roughly) like how Saint John presents Him is
immaterial: it's how Saint John established a relationship with the Divine.
Originally posted by whodeyThere isn't an original Aramaic to translate from, whodey. I don't have to understand Aramaic to know that, do I? As the Preacher put it, "what is lacking cannot be counted."
My question was simply what words were used in Aramaic and how are they translated? By what source are we BLINDLY acceptiing the fact that the original conversation could not have occured in Aramaic? I think this is a reasonable request. However, if BB does not know the original Aramaic words and how they are accuratly translated then the entire post is suspect. Forgive me for not merely taking his word for it.
No need to ask for pardon for questioning, although a simple search will provide you with a decent list of sources. If you want to trudge to a bookstore, the most commonly cited book specifically with reference to this issue is: Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (AB Vol.29) (New York: Doubleday, 1970).
For instant gratification, here are a few internet sources, from believers of various persuasions:
http://philenid.tripod.com/biblestudy/NT/Jn3_5_water.htm#Bibliography
(See Part I: "Second, the question of historicity affects both the setting and contents of the discourse. There are numerous difficulties: in vv.3-4 a wordplay possible only in Greek..." )
http://www.abidingplace.org/translation/john/chapt3.htm#_ftnref6
(See footnote #6, about 4/5 of the way down: "The Greek ‘anothen’ means both ‘again’ and ‘from above.’ There is no Hebrew or Aramaic word of similar meaning with such ambiguity." )
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-oct-05.htm#Question%2010
(See question 10. In his response to a question, the Catholic priest argues that attempts to recreate/resuscitate a viable Aramaic original of the conversation are missing the point: "As for whether Jesus and Nicodemus spoke Aramaic, we simply don't know this for certain, and even if they did speak Aramaic, it would be inconsequential in regard to our exegesis of John 3:5, 7 where anothen is used. The text was inspired in Greek by the Holy Spirit, and that is where our exegesis must lie. Attempts at guessing what the Aramaic might have been, sometimes does more harm than good in Catholic apologetics." )
http://www.christian-faith.com/bible-answers/jn.htm
(See the entry for John 3:5. In the discussion of what is meant by "water in that verse, the writer cautions that "you cannot make too much out of the Greek grammar, for Jesus probably spoke to Nicodemus in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek." )
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-December/023922.html
(An archive of a discussion group for bible translators working with ancient Greek. The whole post here is worth reading. Note that the author offers a few possible Hebrew words.)
That work for you?
EDIT: Darn those parenthetical marks. They always get botched after quotation marks!
Originally posted by josephwHmm. So, in this situation, are you saying that had I possessed the mind of Christ, that I wouldn't have been bothered by the issue I recounted?
If in fact you had ever gotten saved you wouldn't have this problem right now. You would have a regenerated soul and spirit. And then instead of "seeing" what you think is wrong with the word of God you would have the "mind of Christ."
I'm new to mixing chess and my faith, my contibution is to suggest an inerrant number 5. In ACTS the apostles are quoted as speaking in tongues - all the listeners heard what the apostles said in their own tongues. It may not matter at all what language Jesus spoke.
I suppose my position is really to say I am confident of my experiences of faith that I cannot rationally explain in scientific terms despite being a well versed and eloquent scientist. If I could explain the experiences I've had in terms the forum users could be certain of - then we would talking about FACT not FAITH. Let those who have ears hear etc!
Gš
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, you don't sound dismissive. I appreciate the consideration.
Sorry to sound dismissive brother and I understand where you are coming form but if this is the main source of difficulty for your faith then you are doing Ok . I can think of many more troubling things to keep you awake at night regarding faith in christ. If all I had to struggle with was a loose translation or two I would eat my own right arm.
Two points of clarification, though:
1. This is an account of something that already happened, rather than something I'm just now facing.
2. This wasn't the main source of difficulty for me. In fact, there wasn't a single main source of difficulty. This is representative of a number of similar kinds of issues that combined to eviscerate my inextricably evangelical faith.
Still, I appreciate the note.
Hey friend,
I can't argue with you about John 3. There are many fundamentalists who would consider John to be a later addition. Their reasoning has to do the Greek being significantly different from the rest of the book, as well as the fact that John wasn't writing a synoptic narrative, but rather providing evidence through various pictures that Jesus is God and by believing in Him, one may have eternal life. And, since the theology presented in John 3 is made clear in other parts of the book, it would be redundant. I'm not sure about the truth of the matter, but it makes little difference to me.
I am curious, though, about some of the other discrepancies or what-have-you that led you to question, and ultimately abandon, you faith. Would you care to move on from John 3 and explain further?
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdBut were not the writers of the gospels disciples of Christ? Granted, they may have taken several generations to write, but are they not contemporaries of Christ? Why then did they write the gospels down in Greek rather than Aramaic? Would this not then point to the fact that perhaps their Teacher, who was Christ, also spoke in Greek to them?
There isn't an original Aramaic to translate from, whodey. I don't have to understand Aramaic to know that, do I? As the Preacher put it, "what is lacking cannot be counted."
No need to ask for pardon for questioning, although a simple search will provide you with a decent list of sources. If you want to trudge to a bookstore, the most commonly ...[text shortened]... IT: Darn those parenthetical marks. They always get botched after quotation marks!
Originally posted by whodeyThis supposition still doesn't get around the chief difficulty here for an inerrant bible: that Jesus and Nicodemus -- two Jews in Jerusalem discussing Jewish religion -- would most likely not have conducted the conversation in Greek.
Would this not then point to the fact that perhaps their Teacher, who was Christ, also spoke in Greek to them?
I think that more than any other reason, the use of Greek in the gospels bespeaks an essentially evangelistic impetus among early xians.
Originally posted by whodey
But were not the writers of the gospels disciples of Christ?
Do you remember any disciples named Mark, Matthew, or Luke? Saint Luke himself admits that he
got eyewitness testimony, indicating that he didn't observe any of the events. The attributions of
the first two are not even made by the authors themselves, but by 2nd-century writers (by way of
giving authority to the texts). The same, too, of the Gospel of Saint John; no where does the
author assert that he is 'John,' and only in the 'appendix,' quite possibly by a different author than
the larger portion of the Gospel, does the author testify to being a disciple.
Granted, they may have taken several generations to write, but are they not contemporaries of Christ?
So-called 'Sola Scriptura' adherents rely on 'tradition' to give Apostolic authority to this last Gospel,
and second-generation disciple authority to the other three (Saint Mark is said to have followed Saint
Peter around, Saint Luke is said to have followed Saint Paul).
Why then did they write the gospels down in Greek rather than Aramaic? Would this not then point to the fact that perhaps their Teacher, who was Christ, also spoke in Greek to them?
Well, we don't know that all of them did. It's very possible that Saint Mark's Gospel might have
had a life in another language first since it is so clumsy, vocabulary-wise. Saint Matthew's Gospel
certainly has highly Jewish leanings. That having been said, something like 80% of Jesus' quotations
from the Hebrew Scriptures use the phrasing from the Septuagint, indicating that the sources lie close
to the Greek language. It's hard to say.
The short of it is, the books were written not to reflect Jesus' language necessarily, but to accommodate
the later audience, which was increasingly hellenized and later gentile (and thus Greek).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioDo you remember any disciples named Mark, Matthew, or Luke?
Originally posted by whodey
[b]But were not the writers of the gospels disciples of Christ?
Do you remember any disciples named Mark, Matthew, or Luke? Saint Luke himself admits that he
got eyewitness testimony, indicating that he didn't observe any of the events. The attributions of
the first two are not even made by the authors themselves ...[text shortened]... which was increasingly hellenized and later gentile (and thus Greek).
Nemesio[/b]
Er... Matthew? Tax collector guy?
The attributions of the first two are not even made by the authors themselves, but by 2nd-century writers (by way of giving authority to the texts).
Doesn't mean they weren't the authors. Just because Romeo & Juliet does not have "A Play by William Shakespeare" following it doesn't mean it wasn't written by Shakespeare.