Jesus, King of the Jews
- Thread starter JaumeJ
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No one is questioning what the HOME language of the Jews was - it was Aramaic.
However Palestine had been part of a large Greek empire for hundreds of years before it was conquered by the Romans.
That Greek empire was subsumed by the Romans.
Greek had become the language that EVERYONE spoke, not as their HOME language but the language of BUSINESS and ADMINISTRATION.
EVERYONE was multilingual, they spoke their home language as well as Greek (Koine), and many spoke other languages of ethnolinguistic groups that lived close by!
You may also have trouble believing this but Jews were VERY MUCH in the minority in Palestine during the NT period.
Palestine was a crucial crossroads of the known world at the time. Palestine and the Sinai formed the land bridge through which both trade and conquering armies always travelled between Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Jews had no say as to who came and went in Palestine - they were not in control!
The Romans and before them the Greeks had controlled Palestine for centuries!
If you ever go to current day Israel and Egypt you will find buildings and monuments from the NT period and before with Greek inscriptions on them.
No historian or archeologist. Christian or otherwise, would agree with you that Jews in the NT period only understood Aramaic and nothing else.
I would say, that if you continue to deny that Jews spoke Greek, in Palestine, in their everyday dealings in the market-place and with the Roman authorities then you are living in a fantasy!
The fact that those same Jews would have spoken Aramaic by preference among themselves does not change this...
However Palestine had been part of a large Greek empire for hundreds of years before it was conquered by the Romans.
That Greek empire was subsumed by the Romans.
Greek had become the language that EVERYONE spoke, not as their HOME language but the language of BUSINESS and ADMINISTRATION.
EVERYONE was multilingual, they spoke their home language as well as Greek (Koine), and many spoke other languages of ethnolinguistic groups that lived close by!
You may also have trouble believing this but Jews were VERY MUCH in the minority in Palestine during the NT period.
Palestine was a crucial crossroads of the known world at the time. Palestine and the Sinai formed the land bridge through which both trade and conquering armies always travelled between Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Jews had no say as to who came and went in Palestine - they were not in control!
The Romans and before them the Greeks had controlled Palestine for centuries!
If you ever go to current day Israel and Egypt you will find buildings and monuments from the NT period and before with Greek inscriptions on them.
No historian or archeologist. Christian or otherwise, would agree with you that Jews in the NT period only understood Aramaic and nothing else.
I would say, that if you continue to deny that Jews spoke Greek, in Palestine, in their everyday dealings in the market-place and with the Roman authorities then you are living in a fantasy!
The fact that those same Jews would have spoken Aramaic by preference among themselves does not change this...
John 19:20
New International Version
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
New Living Translation
The place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, so that many people could read it.
English Standard Version
Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek.
Berean Study Bible
Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.
Berean Literal Bible
Therefore many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.
New American Standard Bible
Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.
King James Bible
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
So is it Aramaic or Hebrew?
John 19:20
Text Analysis
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3778 [e] touton τοῦτον This DPro-AMS
3767 [e] oun οὖν therefore Conj
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
5102 [e] titlon τίτλον title N-AMS
4183 [e] polloi πολλοὶ many Adj-NMP
314 [e] anegnōsan ἀνέγνωσαν read V-AIA-3P
3588 [e] tōn τῶν of the Art-GMP
2453 [e] Ioudaiōn Ἰουδαίων, Jews, Adj-GMP
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι for Conj
1451 [e] engys ἐγγὺς near Prep
1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S
3588 [e] ho ὁ the Art-NMS
5117 [e] topos τόπος place, N-NMS
3588 [e] tēs τῆς the Art-GFS
4172 [e] poleōs πόλεως city, N-GFS
3699 [e] hopou ὅπου where Adv
4717 [e] estaurōthē ἐσταυρώθη was crucified V-AIP-3S
3588 [e] ho ὁ - Art-NMS
2424 [e] Iēsous Ἰησοῦς· Jesus; N-NMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
1510 [e] ēn ἦν it was V-IIA-3S
1125 [e] gegrammenon γεγραμμένον written V-RPM/P-NNS
1447 [e] Hebraisti Ἑβραϊστί, in Hebrew, Adv
4515 [e] Rhōmaisti Ῥωμαϊστί, in Latin, Adv
1676 [e] Hellēnisti Ἑλληνιστί. in Greek. Adv
G1447 Ἑβραϊστί Hebraisti (he-ɓraiy'-stiy) adv/g.
Hebraically or in the Jewish (Chaldee) language.
[adverb from G1446]
KJV: in (the) Hebrew (tongue)
Root(s): G1446
Clearly this is Hebrew.
Also the Gospel of Matt was originally written in Hebrew and the Gospels of John and Luke have Hebrew versions that have been found.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)[/FONT]
Again, it seems that when people live in an area where different languages are spoken they seem to learn them. Here in south Florida I have learned some Spanish because so many people speak that language. When I lived in Germany I learned quite a bit of German. I think we are hardwired to learn the local language as a means to satisfy our need to communicate.
i LIVE IN Spain. The lingua franca today is still English. Occasionally someone will volunteer to practice his or her English with me, but inevitable we go to Castillano.....Spanish that is.
There are times people here speak to mein Valencian which is a form of Catalan, but they rarely speak English.
As for Jesus speaking Greek, it seems odd so many have jumped to this irrational conclusion in view of Israel's occupation by Rome.........Was sthe centurion Greek? Pontius Pilate? etc. Common sense dictates, not a bunchy of self-proclamed intellectuals who seem to have the cultures in a blender.
There are times people here speak to mein Valencian which is a form of Catalan, but they rarely speak English.
As for Jesus speaking Greek, it seems odd so many have jumped to this irrational conclusion in view of Israel's occupation by Rome.........Was sthe centurion Greek? Pontius Pilate? etc. Common sense dictates, not a bunchy of self-proclamed intellectuals who seem to have the cultures in a blender.
While Common (Koine) Greek had become the common language of the Roman Empire, and Latin the official language, Christ may have only spoken Greek very rarely. He spent almost all His time in Judea, where Aramaic was the common language, and we see Aramaic words from Christ and others transliterated in the NT.
Anyway what does this have to do with the subject? Did the nation of Israel recognize Him as King of the Jews? Very temporarily and fleetingly.
Anyway what does this have to do with the subject? Did the nation of Israel recognize Him as King of the Jews? Very temporarily and fleetingly.
My Source for all of my belief and faith is the Bible, so you go your intellectual way and I will remain a child in my approach to the Father.
Perhaps you may approach all He has given us to know for our Salvation in Jesus Christ thus, but you cannot approach our Father as anything other than a child who hears Him, not as an intellectual and never as an equal........Perhaps historian? Naww.
Perhaps you may approach all He has given us to know for our Salvation in Jesus Christ thus, but you cannot approach our Father as anything other than a child who hears Him, not as an intellectual and never as an equal........Perhaps historian? Naww.
Are you able to marshal any rationale thoughts at all????
Nobody said Jesus was a Greek (except you)!
Most people in the world speak more than one language - perhaps even you!
However, no matter how many languages they speak, they would only have one HOME language....
I am beginning to strongly suspect that you have a preconceived religious ideal that Jesus, and Jews in general, were some completely pure and unstained race of people, and that speaking a language other than Aramaic or Hebrew, constitutes some kind of uncleanliness....
Unfortunately your theological approach could be summed up as, "Don't confuse me with facts!"
Yet the overwhelming evidence is that Jews in Palestine, Jesus included, would have been multilingual, speaking at least Aramaic and Koine Greek...
Nobody said Jesus was a Greek (except you)!
Most people in the world speak more than one language - perhaps even you!
However, no matter how many languages they speak, they would only have one HOME language....
I am beginning to strongly suspect that you have a preconceived religious ideal that Jesus, and Jews in general, were some completely pure and unstained race of people, and that speaking a language other than Aramaic or Hebrew, constitutes some kind of uncleanliness....
Unfortunately your theological approach could be summed up as, "Don't confuse me with facts!"
Yet the overwhelming evidence is that Jews in Palestine, Jesus included, would have been multilingual, speaking at least Aramaic and Koine Greek...
This statement is false!
No scholar believes that any of the NT was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
There are a couple of much later manuscripts found that are written in Hebrew, but they are clearly translations from the Greek.
You would need to post a lot more evidence than a single quote from Eusebius...
No scholar believes that any of the NT was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic).
There are a couple of much later manuscripts found that are written in Hebrew, but they are clearly translations from the Greek.
You would need to post a lot more evidence than a single quote from Eusebius...
funny for you to say this after it wa a direct reply to what you said. So when Yahshua read the scrool of Isaiah (written in Hebrew) He spoke aramaic? Why was Greek, Lating and Hebrew written on the corss if wveryone spoke aramaic? Romans and those that dealt with them spoke latin, Hellenist Jews spoke Greek which were a portion, a small one compared to the entire amount of Jews, the common kanguage was Hebrew, I know many scholars say they spoke aramaic as their first language but there are also many that say otherwise... Again why was Aramaic not on the Cross if everyone spoke it?
What we who believe Jesus Christ rest our faith upon is His Word and promise of things yet unseen.
As for rationale, many have used this as somekind of argument against faith......
You must turn and become as a child to approach the Father. If you continue being a great intellectual, I am afraidd there is no contest, no approaching.
Continue in this Greek only vein denying the Hebrew roots of all who know Jesus Christ,Yehua, and I will continue praise the King of the Jews.....my King.
As for rationale, many have used this as somekind of argument against faith......
You must turn and become as a child to approach the Father. If you continue being a great intellectual, I am afraidd there is no contest, no approaching.
Continue in this Greek only vein denying the Hebrew roots of all who know Jesus Christ,Yehua, and I will continue praise the King of the Jews.....my King.
I have the oldest Hebrew version of Mat in microfilm, it is the most original in content and when examined against the greek there is no doubt, when it says 14 generations and the greek only lists 13, and the hebrew lists 14 I think that is a sta=rting point that what I say may be true.... just a hint for you...
and there is this:
The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)
Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)
Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)
“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
Jerome appears convinced the Hebrew Matthew to which the Nazarenes gave him access was the true autograph of Matthew. Jerome notes how it was protected in a private library at Caesarea. He writes in On Illustrious Men ch. III (404 A.D.):
“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.”
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
and there is this:
The Ebionites were a Christian sect that claimed to preserve the original autograph of apostle Matthew in Hebrew. It is quoted often by Epiphanius in the 300s. He said its official title was “The Gospel according to Matthew.” (Epiphanius, Panarion 30, 13, 2-3.)
Apostle John told Papias around 90 A.D. about this book of Matthew: “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39, quoting Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord)
Irenaeus likewise says: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter I, quoted in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter VIII.)
Jerome around 404 A.D. wrote of this too: “The Hebrew [Matthew] itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter III.)
“Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” – Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” – Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
Jerome appears convinced the Hebrew Matthew to which the Nazarenes gave him access was the true autograph of Matthew. Jerome notes how it was protected in a private library at Caesarea. He writes in On Illustrious Men ch. III (404 A.D.):
“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it.”
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews n their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” – Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
No I did not say that, I said and showed historical quotes and gave Scriptual reason why the Hebrew version of Mat is the original. What I say about the 13 and 14 generations is fact, you can attack me or seek truth. Any translation is not perfect, yet they are very valuable, thinking that a different language can 100% capture every nuiance is dishonest.
Also there are Biblical translations that use Hebrew Mat.
Is the NIV inspired or not? Many translation read differntly, many with entire verses added or removed, in some places, one in particular these is 11 extra verses that were not in the original, if I point out this fact am I anti-Biblical or am I seeking what is Biblical truth?
I seek to find the truth, there are 300 branching greek manuscript famlies... I seek the correct ones, I fear not unfounded accusations.
Also there are Biblical translations that use Hebrew Mat.
Is the NIV inspired or not? Many translation read differntly, many with entire verses added or removed, in some places, one in particular these is 11 extra verses that were not in the original, if I point out this fact am I anti-Biblical or am I seeking what is Biblical truth?
I seek to find the truth, there are 300 branching greek manuscript famlies... I seek the correct ones, I fear not unfounded accusations.
I got the microfilm from Hebrew University, all the historical uotes above show that Matthew did indeed write it in Hebrew and it was translated from the Hebrew. I also have personally studied the Hebrew version and found it to be more original in content. In a number of places. This by no means mean I do not like the Greek, I still read the greek regularly, but I have done my homework in this particular matter. You do not have to agree with me, I did not beleive or doubt it at first, but once I looked into it, I found what I found.
Maybe you do...
However no source that I consult - all experts in textual criticism will agree with you that what you have constitutes the original form of Matthew.
What you are claiming goes against what every textual critic will say...
The consensus is that the form of Matthew that we have now was originally written in Greek.
However no source that I consult - all experts in textual criticism will agree with you that what you have constitutes the original form of Matthew.
What you are claiming goes against what every textual critic will say...
The consensus is that the form of Matthew that we have now was originally written in Greek.