Does the "born again" conversation in John 3 make sense in Aramaic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke_K
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke_K

Guest
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking. This argument has been used to show that this conversation was invented by the author of John, who was writing in Greek.

What’s the deal here?
 
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking. This argument has been used to show that this conversation was invented by the author of John, who was writing in Greek.

What’s the deal here?
They may in fact have been speaking Greek, as “Nicodemus” is a Greek name and so the man would have spoken it, and our LORD most likely spoke Greek, as HE lived in Galilee, which was an international area where many Greco-Romans lived.

There is no reason to assume that the dialogue was “invented” by anybody.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Don’t know for sure, I don’t speak aramaic. How could it be "invented’ by John since he was inspired by God to write it? Wouldn’t that mean that God also "invented’ the saying? if so, so what, God can invent or create anything He likes. If it was wrong than that means that there is error and God is wrong, and that cannot be. It is what it is, it means what it means, the only fallible part is sometimes our own interpretation and bias against the Church.
 
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking…
I have been curious about this exact same thing in the past. Once, at a break during a Scripture conference, I was able to bring this up with two Catholic Scripture scholars (who were also experts in the ancient biblical languages). I asked if the same confusion you noted would have happened in Aramaic. But rather than address Aramaic they stated that they believed that many Jews at the time of Jesus were probably verbally fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, and therefore these scholars had no problem envisioning this conversation between Jesus and Nichodemus originally taking place in Greek.
 
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking. This argument has been used to show that this conversation was invented by the author of John, who was writing in Greek.

What’s the deal here?
No, the play on words would not work in Aramaic.
 
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking. This argument has been used to show that this conversation was invented by the author of John, who was writing in Greek.

What’s the deal here?
ܡܢ ܕܪܝܫ / מן דרישׁ peshitta 1905 bfbs

SEDRA ܪܝܫܐ, ܪܻܝܫܳܐ Noun. Gloss: head; beginning; chiefs ( plural ). Root: ܪܝܫ.

root of Aram word that corresponds to grk-‘anothen’ is ‘Rish’ like Hebrew Resh / Head

so “Men deRish” in 3:3 means something like ‘from the head’, head is above,
so ‘from above’, not ‘again’ which prob would come from greek-‘palin’ which is Syr-‘Tab’…i think 🤷
 
As I didn’t notice much of a response to this on the internet yet I put up an article critiquing it last evening. You can gather the gist from the intro provided below, or read the rest here.
Bart Ehrman has published an argument concluding the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 “could not have happened, at least not as it is described in the Gospel of John” (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155). We present Ehrman’s argument here with brief critique. As a preview, our main gripe with Ehrman’s presentation (more fully explained below) is that whereas Ehrman supposes an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus would necessarily have had Jesus using the Aramaic word for “from above,” as it turns out the ancient Aramaic version we do actually have, the Syriac Peshitta, does not have “from above” at all, but rather the Aramaic for “again“:מן דרישׁ. Further, if the Aramaic for “again” which we do find in the ancient Aramaic version could have been used in an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus (and there is no good reason to think it could not have been) then both the original conversation in Aramaic and the translation of it into Greek make perfectly good sense, and Ehrman’s argument has come to ruin.
First, Ehrman’s argument: (see further here)
 
Re: Aramaic speakers also being Greek speakers

You have to remember that, first of all, Greek was the common tongue of most of the Roman Empire, all the way out to Asia and around the Mediterranean. If you wanted to do business with anybody not a Jew from a certain tiny area in Israel, Syria, and surrounding areas, you had to know Greek. (Latin was the language of Roman lawyers, court cases, schoolkids learning classic Roman poetry and speeches, and people of Roman descent at home.)

Pretty much anywhere you went in the Roman Empire, you had local languages and common tongues coexisting, because it was useful. Syro-Phoenicians and North Africans might speak Carthaginian at home or in the neighborhood, but they did business in Greek. Galatians and Gauls spoke Gaulish Celtic at home, but at the marketplace they spoke Greek. There were even places in the ancient world where a city’s women had a different private tongue than the men; but they also spoke and understood Greek.

Before the Roman Empire, there was Alexander the Great and his generals and his generals’ descendants, spreading out all across the known world (and causing two books of Maccabees to be written, because of Greek and Asian invaders of Israel). Before that, there were the trade empires of the Greeks. The Greeks went all over the place colonizing and founding cities, as well.

So if you didn’t speak Greek at all, it was a sign that you were not just a country bumpkin, but a barbarian from so far back in the valleys of the hills that you never saw daylight and kept owls as yard dogs, and had no idea what an anchor was. Jesus was from Galilee, but from fairly close to populated areas. He was not from the waybacks. He spoke Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew. Greek was part of normal life in Israel for good or ill, as the Books of Maccabees also make clear.

You will also notice that most of the Apostles seem to have both Hebrew and Greek names (along with Aramaic and Greek nicknames), even as many Jewish people today have their Hebrew names and then also have legal names for interaction with Gentile society.

Only being able to speak one language, like many US natives, is unusual in the history of the world for people who don’t live in total isolation. For most people, it has always been critical to survival and happiness to know how to talk to that other tribe on the other side of the valley, because there has been so much dialectal variation even within small areas, and because migration and trade has always brought people of different languages into contact.
 
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the third chapter of John, where Jesus is talking with Nicodemus about being born from above. The Greek adverb used for “from above” is anothen. Anothen also means “again”, and this double meaning serves to explain the confusion Nicodemus had. He thought Jesus meant you had to be born “again” (anothen) like a baby, but Jesus meant you had to be born “from above” (anothen). However, this double meaning and confusion would not occur in Aramaic, which is the language they would have been speaking. This argument has been used to show that this conversation was invented by the author of John, who was writing in Greek.

What’s the deal here?
Benedict XVI discusses the composition of John in Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 1, pp. 218-38. I found it very illuminating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top