What was Jesus implying...........................

by defd 87 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hellrider

  Even though jesus uttered the words "I am", with nothing "in particular" following it, and thereby saying it in a way that would resemble Gods name (just saying "I exist") wouldn`t necessarily mean that he was saying that he was God. Also, Jesus never said "ego eimi", he said it in aramaic, which is a kind of a hebrew dialect. So I wonder: What did Jesus REALLY say? Did he say "I am Yhwh"? I don`t think so. If he did, there would have been no discussion on the matter, whoever wrote the gospels would have made it perfectly clear that Jesus claimed to be God.

  There is another solution: Jesus could have simply been quoting the scriptures. He was probably familiar with the OT texts (after all, as a young man he taught the students outside the Temple). By quoting scripture, he could have been emphasising that he was sent by God, and he was "reminding" people about this. I ... doubt "ego eimi" means the same as"Yhwh", although I thought so for a while too. I`m not sure, though... But what did Jesus REALLY say, in aramaic, THAT I would have liked to know.
• 

  Narkissos

  Jesus never said "ego eimi", he said it in aramaic, which is a kind of a hebrew dialect. So I wonder: What did Jesus REALLY say? Did he say "I am Yhwh"? I don`t think so. If he did, there would have been no discussion on the matter, whoever wrote the gospels would have made it perfectly clear that Jesus claimed to be God.

  The point is, the emphatic, absolute use of ego eimi is specific to the Gospel of John. You don't find it in the other Gospels -- where ego eimi only occurs in the very trivial sense of "it's me," which fully suits the context and doesn't call for any "deeper" explanation. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is a thoroughly Greek work, with a number of puns and double entendre which only make sense in Greek. We are dealing with what the Greek-speaking author meant when he put this characteristic use of ego eimi repeatedly on Jesus' lips -- and to get it we have to turn to the Greek Bible (LXX), especially 2nd Isaiah. To put it more bluntly, if there was a historical Jesus he most probably never said a single word of what we now read in the Fourth Gospel. So what he might have said in Aramaic (which, btw, is not "a hebrew dialect" but a distinct Semitic language with several dialects) is pointless as far as the exegesis of the Gospel of John is concerned.
• 

  Hellrider

  Narkissos:

  Aramaic (which, btw, is not "a hebrew dialect" but a distinct Semitic language with several dialects) is pointless as far as the exegesis of the Gospel of John is concerned.

  Ok! I stand corrected (still learning). ( But when I said semittic was a "dialect", I didn`t mean it like...how texans speak a bit differently than new yorkers...I meant in the way...danish differ from norwegian...but I might have been mistaken about that too). Still learning..
• 

  Pole

  The point is, the emphatic, absolute use of ego eimi is specific to the Gospel of John. You don't find it in the other Gospels -- where ego eimi only occurs in the very trivial sense of "it's me," which fully suits the context and doesn't call for any "deeper" explanation. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is a thoroughly Greek work, with a number of puns and double entendre which only make sense in Greek. We are dealing with what the Greek-speaking author meant when he put this characteristic use of ego eimi repeatedly on Jesus' lips -- and to get it we have to turn to the Greek Bible (LXX), especially 2nd Isaiah. To put it more bluntly, if there was a historical Jesus he most probably never said a single word of what we now read in the Fourth Gospel. So what he might have said in Aramaic (which, btw, is not "a hebrew dialect" but a distinct Semitic language with several dialects) is pointless as far as the exegesis of the Gospel of John is concerned.

  
  
  That sounds more like the linguistic reality of the Gospels. I also like to think that even if "John", "Mathew", "Luke", and "Mark" were the real authors of the Gospels (which is only an assumption based on the tradition), then Greek wasn't their mother tongue. And if wasn't their mother tongue, then we can't read too much into the "deeper, hidden" prophetic or theological meanings of their translations of Jesus' Aramaic sayings. Or at least we can't depend on every single word translated into their second or third language to make profound theological points (like the etymlogy of parousia, tenses/aspects, etc.).
  
  But this argument is needless since from what you wrote I gather the Greek of the Gospels (or at least of John) comes across as native or at least as heavily corrected by some Greek scribes.
  
  Let's face it: if we assume that Jesus spoke Arameic and his words were translated by the traditional biblical authors into Greek, then we can only realistically discuss the most general, translinguistic and transcultural meanings of Jesus' sayings as they are recorded in the Bible. Such as: "Love thy God and thy neighbor". But then, that's enough of "good religious stuff" for reasonable Christians to keep them going. Good for them. At least they don't have to constantly fool themselves.
  
  Pole
• 

  Narkissos

  I also like to think that even if "John", "Mathew", "Luke", and "Mark" were the real authors of the Gospels (which is only an assumption based on the tradition), then Greek wasn't their mother tongue. And if wasn't their mother tongue, then we can't read too much into the "deeper, hidden" prophetic or theological meanings of their translations of Jesus' Aramaic sayings. Or at least we can't depend on every single word translated into their second or third language to make profound theological points (like the etymlogy of parousia, tenses/aspects, etc.).

  A few remarks here:

  (1) The apparently poor quality of much NT Greek by unified standards (even taking into account the differences between classical, Hellenistic and koine Greek) by no means implies that this sort of Greek was not the authors' mother tongue. I guess the simple Greek of "John"'s Gospel might have been native to many people in Asia Minor by the end of the 1st century.

  (2) Even if Greek wasn't the authors' mother tongue this doesn't mean that a conjectural retroversion in any other language would help. There have been many attempts to do that and they are rarely convincing.

  (3) If the "true meaning" of the text somehow relies on the unique connection between Greek and the author's supposed mother tongue, it follows that this meaning was lost to the contemporary Greek readers worldwide.

  Just to illustrate the double entendre effect I was alluding to, and which depends on a Greek particularity, John 3:3: "No one can see the kingdom of God without being born anôthen." The Greek adverb anôthen can mean "again" (thus Nicodemus "mis"-understands it and exclaims that it is impossible, v. 4) or "from above" (thus "Jesus" explains it is "from the Spirit" and "from heaven" where the Son of Man is coming from). It is very clear that this was never an Aramaic or Hebrew conversation.
• 

  Pole

  (1) The apparently poor quality of much NT Greek by unified standards (even taking into account the differences between classical, Hellenistic and koine Greek) by no means implies that this sort of Greek was not the authors' mother tongue. I guess the simple Greek of "John"'s Gospel might have been native to many people in Asia Minor by the end of the 1st century.

  
  I was taking the extreme traditional position which included the semitic identity of the authors.
  

  (2) Even if Greek wasn't the authors' mother tongue this doesn't mean that a conjectural retroversion in any other language would help. There have been many attempts to do that and they are rarely convincing.

  
  I'm not sure what you mean by "conjectural retroversion", so I don't know what to think ;-). Sorry.
  

  (3) If the "true meaning" of the text somehow relies on the unique connection between Greek and the author's supposed mother tongue, it follows that this meaning was lost to the contemporary Greek readers worldwide.

  
  Yes, that's basically what I meant. There may have been regular cross-linguistic transfer, but there may have been some subtle idiolectic interference. In either case the details of the author's intended meaning were lost to the contemporaries and all te more to us (assuming he was even perfectly linguistically conscious of what he was writing).
  

  It is very clear that this was never an Aramaic or Hebrew conversation.

  
  I repeat part of my earlier comment here: "from what you wrote I gather the Greek of the Gospels (or at least of John) comes across as native (...)".
  Pole
  (You don't need to reply, I was just making it clear that I'm perfectly ready to accept your arguments in this matter)
• 

  Narkissos

  (2) Even if Greek wasn't the authors' mother tongue this doesn't mean that a conjectural retroversion in any other language would help. There have been many attempts to do that and they are rarely convincing.

  
  
  I'm not sure what you mean by "conjectural retroversion", so I don't know what to think ;-). Sorry.

  I meant, trying to "restore" the supposed Semitic substratum (whether oral tradition or written text) from which the extant Greek might have been "translated".
• 

  avishai

  Here is what I want to know........................................................

  WHY THE HECK DOES IT MATTER!!!!

  Either they are one, or they act as one, SO WHAT!?!?!? It all has the same end result, right?

  Geez, this doctrinal hairsplitting has always driven me NUTS!!! Because it gets away from the MESSAGE!!!

  It's like the whole cross vs. stake thing.........................Either he died on a Capital i or a lowercase t. Would it make a difference to his message if he died on an X? A rack? In a boat? With a goat? NO!!!! He came, he saw, he died, he forgave. And yet people have to dissect all this meaningless STUFF with a microscope and get farther and farther from what he wa actually TELLING people. Damn.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  What was Isaiah implying?

  Isa 9:6

  For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Pelejoezelgibborabiadsarshalom (wonderful councelor mighty god eternal father prince of peace) is the name/title given in Isaiah 9:5 to someone, but who? (Look it up or this next part will make little sense.) The piece is an expression of faith that Yahweh will bless the people and the government as long as they have a king (author felt his king was such a king) who honors Him (Yahweh) with words of praise. The confusion is in part due to the fact that the translators have to discern whether the expression "And his/His name will be called..." refers to Yahweh or the king. They are split and so in some cases you see the "His" as capitalized referring to God and in others not when interpreted as reference to the king. Also this section is separated by a semi-colon or not. It is then either Yahweh who "shoulders the government" and "sustains it with justice and righteousness" or this representative king. The least complicated understading is that these expressions in question refer to Yahweh, given the reference to the "throne"(kingship) as a separate entity being blessed in verse 6. These glorious epithets then are applied to Yahweh not any man. This is also most likely considering Is. 10:21 uses the identical "Mighty God" title.

  The writer of Isaiah may provide another interpretation of this passage by his use of other name/titles in naming his legendary sons. (Maher-shalal-hash-baz [the spoil speeds, the prey hastens], ,Shearjashub [ "a remnant shall return]) Where the "names" refer to promises of Yahweh. Therefore another possible way to understand Is 9:5 is that the "his" does refer to the king and not Yahweh in which case the name Pelejoazelgibborabiadsarshalom is an expression of confidence in Yahweh's promised direction and protection of the so named. In either case nothing here compels unbiased readers to see a prophecy of Jesus.
  
  Further, by the choice of "name WILL be called" ,suggesting a prophecy as is in many translations, rather than "name IS called" ,as is in others, the translators are doing "interpretive" translating.

  No Gospel writer used this verse in this way dispite it's seeming usefullness for proving the divinity of the Christ figure. This like all passages used by modern and first/second century Christian apologists must be wrenched from the original context and reinterpreted to be seen as prophecies about Jesus.