His_disciple3 Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 http://history.answers.com/language/the-languages-of-jesusWhat was the Primary Language of Jesus's Day?The historical Jesus of Nazareth lived at the height of the Roman Empire. Its official language was Latin. However, despite the fact that Latin was the language of the Empire, people who lived in different regions routinely used their own native tongues. In the region in which Jesus lived, Aramaic was the dominant language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His_disciple3 Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 Please note here this also says written as well as spoken!!! http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20e.pdf THE LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY JESUS Aaron Tresham* ARAMAIC The classic presentation of the view that Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic was provided by Gustaf Dalman, who concluded that Jesus knew some Hebrew and Greek but usually used Aramaic.7 That Jews spoke Aramaic after the Exile is rarely disputed; even portions of the OT are in Aramaic (see Daniel and Ezra).8 Those who see Aramaic as the primary language of Jesus assert that Aramaic dominated Israel even after Greek had become the lingua franca of the Greco-Roman world.9 Archaeological finds have confirmed the continued use of Aramaic in Israel. Literary documents in Aramaic from the first centuries B.C. and A.D. were found at Qumran. While the documents in Aramaic are in the minority, they show that Aramaic was at least a literary language at the time. Ossuary inscriptions show that Aramaic also continued as a colloquial language in the first century A.D. A contract in Aramaic dated A.D. 56 was found at Murabba’at. Finds at Masada can be dated A.D. 68-73. These include an Aramaic invoice written on an ostracon, along with an inscription on a storage jar and an inscription of ownership on a vessel.10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His_disciple3 Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 If this is not enough, I can post some more!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His_disciple3 Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 If this is not enough, I can post some more!!!!!!!to try and play on words such as spoken but not written: is really reaching for something. it reminds me of the way someone else or should I say something else, tried to play on words in Chapter 3 of Genesis, and again in Matt 4:, in the wilderness with the temptation of Jesus. of course I could be wrong here, but most folks I know if they speak English they write it down in English. save(except) the Doctors who are required by Law to write in Latin sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 It is faulty logic to apply what we do today to what was done 2000 years ago. So far all you have given is what language Jesus spoke. You have not yet addressed the language the New Testament was written in. Perhaps if you change your search parameters it would help you. If it is a obvious as you claim and MOST historians hold your view it should be easy to find some who come out and say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His_disciple3 Posted April 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2014 I noted that several of those references said that it was also the written language for that time. I have gave reference from scriptures and from other sources, all I have from you guys are playing on words written not spoken, I guess you know if you dig deep enough, you will find out someone's true motive. your true motive of this thread was not to find the truth of the use of Easter in scripture, but only to start another translational division thread. I should report you, for you didn't intend to ask a question but rather use another thread in question form to start attack on the 400 year old AUTHORIZED English translation Bible. maybe some true moderator will see that this thread should have never been put in the Worthy Q&Ahttp://www.levitt.com/essays/language The Language of the Gospel Dr. Thomas McCall by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D. This leaves the Gospel of Matthew. Of the four Gospel writers, Matthew is the only one who was both an eyewitness to almost all of the events in Galilee and Jerusalem, and also wrote his Gospel near the beginning of the Christian movement. Matthew is an interesting personality who is often overlooked. Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, in his recent book Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence about the Origin of the Gospels, observes that Matthew, as a tax collector (probably a supervisor of the Capernaum office), undoubtedly had important writing skills. It has been discovered that the ancients who were skilled in writing had developed a form of shorthand so that they could take dictation. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Matthew could have written down entire messages, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse, just as Jesus delivered them, verbatim, in shorthand. Later, the faithful tax collector could have assembled his notes and written his narrative with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As stated above, Jesus probably delivered most of His messages in Aramaic, and therefore Matthew would have necessarily taken his shorthand dictation in Aramaic. Would he, then, have written his Gospel in Aramaic? We truly do not know . All we know for certain is that, perhaps as early as 66 A.D. (as Thiede suggests), the Gospel of Matthew was distributed in the Greek language as far as Egypt. If Matthew was still in Israel when he wrote his Gospel, it would seem appropriate that he would have used Israel’s common language: Aramaic. In that case, his Gospel would have been translated into Greek quite early, before 66 A.D. It should be noted that Matthew’s Gospel has more “Hebraisms” than any of the others. This suggests an earlier Aramaic version, although, as indicated above, no early Aramaic version of Matthew has been found. This guy is a strong believer that all the new Testament was written in Greek but then goes on to say that no one can really know what language the new testament was original written in. He even goes on to give this strong argument that Matthew wrote of his Notes and letters in Aramaic then they would had to be translated into Greek. I love the way he writes a very Long paper on the original new Testament manuscripts being in Greek, Then says that no one can really Know!!!!! As stated above, Jesus probably delivered most of His messages in Aramaic, and therefore Matthew would have necessarily taken his shorthand dictation in Aramaic. Would he, then, have written his Gospel in Aramaic? We truly do not know. so he lays claim that he knows what language the new Testament was original written in. then says "we truly do not know" excuse me Sir, to say you truly don't know why make a statement that can not be known as truth or fiction, to cause confusion maybe?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lujack Skylark Posted April 1, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 4 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2014 King James Bible the best version around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted April 1, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 I noted that several of those references said that it was also the written language for that time. actually one of your references made a brief mention of written, that was it. I have gave reference from scriptures and from other sources, all I have from you guys are playing on words written not spoken There is no reference from scripture that can prove the KJV is the single authorized, inspired English version of God's word. Even if you could show that each language has it own authorized, inspired version of God's word you still could not prove that the KJV is it for English. The KJV was neither the first nor the last nor is it the most accurate. I guess you know if you dig deep enough, you will find out someone's true motive. your true motive of this thread was not to find the truth of the use of Easter in scripture, but only to start another translational division thread. I should report you, for you didn't intend to ask a question but rather use another thread in question form to start attack on the 400 year old AUTHORIZED English translation Bible. maybe some true moderator will see that this thread should have never been put in the Worthy Q&A I have allowed the thread to go where it was lead, mostly by you. It is your comments that have driven the thread for the last week. Bottom line is that you claimed you would go with what "most historians and Biblical scholars" had to say on the issue, well you have not done that. So far you have found one who claims we do not know. There is a reason you cannot find any others, there are no legit historians and Biblical scholars that think the New Testament was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Now, for most of us this is no big deal at all, but for you who claim some special place for the KJV this is an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His_disciple3 Posted April 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 358 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 119 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2014 Post #58, #60 and #62 all notes that Aramaic was the language spoken and written,the Bible says that the Gospel was for the Jews first then after God blinded them so that the gentiles could be grafted in. one of my references said that the Jews mainly spoke Aramaic in the first century. if the Gospel was for the Jews to begin with, and we really can't know what language Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded their notes and letters, then it would make very much sense that the gospel was first recorded in Hebrew or the Aramaic language. Greek was for the Romans/gentiles, with even some of the latter parts of the dead sea scrolls being written in Aramaic, spring forth as the first parts of the new testament written as well in Aramaic then when the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles it would be needed for a Greek translation. but seeing that the Scholars(on both sides) say that they think and no one really knows, I think to further continue to say you know or that I know is just ignorance on either side! why should we continue on with your knowledge that the Greek was the original language for manuscripts seeing that no one can really know!!! But your answer was answered you either accept that answer or you refuse it. after the OP it has not been questions from you but rather statements against the Word of God. you can't know what language, but fact is that for 400 years the KJB was the Authorized English version. to try and tear it(The Word of God) down, you might as well take a KJB and just rip it up or even burn it. again we had truth in a English translation, ok let's update the language, But to omit or add verses, to give Jesus Christ and lucifer the same name, to take the Blood out of scriptures. to have two men killing the same giant is not the proper way to update the Holy Word of God. I said Truth is what this should be about so for you to say you know what language John wrote His letters in, or for me to say is not truth just guess work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted April 1, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 So you are taking back your previous statement and will no longer go with MOST historians and biblical scholars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts