Hail Mary... Greek and Aramaic?

[Zeldarocks]

I need this answered: Apologists like Tim Staples will bring out arguments such as “chaire” in the Greek meaning “Hail” and comparing it to when the Roman Soldiers mocked Jesus in saying “Hail, King of the Jews.” and take it to mean that Hail was referring to Mary as royalty. Another would be “chaire kecharitomene Maria” or “Hail Mary, Full of Grace.”

My question is two-fold: first, if Catholic apologists bring out Matthew 16:18 and insist that Jesus spoke Aramaic, why try to support Marian dogma by looking at the Greek? Secondly, in general terms, what to make of Catholic apologists who do go to the underlying Greek in points of conversation when most likely Aramaic was spoken by the parties? Doesn’t the discrepancy between the languages render null any arguments made by the apologists?

 

[bmullins]

Even though Jesus spoke Aramaic, it’s recorded in Greek. To assume that we could know what word was translated into the Greek would be to make a huge leap. Rather we can look at the Greek word which we do have, and use it to understand what the author meant to convey.

Secondly, if the text is the Word of God, then we would assume that God could fluently use Greek to convey his meaning through the person. God is not stuck in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Latin though he may have chosen these as beautiful vessels. If the disciples of Christ through the Holy Spirit could speak fluently any tongue to convey the gospel at Pentecost, how much more so could God fluently speak any tongue in the mind to the writers?

 

[Mintaka]

If Luke went to all the trouble to pick out a very weird tense and word structure in Greek to describe what was said, it’s very likely that he was trying to get across a very important point in the most accurate possible language.

Given that it seems the Virgin Mary was the source for a good chunk of Luke’s Gospel, we can assume that she was the one who told Luke what the angel said and meant.

Given that Aramaic and Hebrew both have some verrrry interesting tenses and word structures, and that the Bible’s messages from God are often full of puns and meaningful wordplay (which a devout Jew was expected to appreciate and enjoy), it’s not unlikely that Gabriel made use of some clever phrasing or wordplay. Alternately, he may have spoken no earthly language, and just communicated information to Mary in some other fashion.

Either way, she obviously got the message. It was obviously a very odd and theologically meaningful salutation. She reported it.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Aramaic, there are fairly old copies of Aramaic and Syriac Bibles. I believe the term for one of the oldest is the “Peshitta”. Scholars don’t go back to them as the ultimate authority, because it’s fairly clear that though the events probably happened in Aramaic, the Gospel of Luke was written in Greek. Luke’s writing was inspired, but translations of it into Aramaic are not any more or less inspired than any other translation of the Bible. So it’s a Very Helpful Hint, but not definitive.

Anyway, there’s a transliterated copy of the Peshitta available on the Web, and there’s a translation/transliteration into English also available. You can look this stuff up for yourself.

Aramaic back then was written right to left, and without most vowels, so the transcription has Luke 1:28 like this:

“ašnb tkyrb ykme nrm atwbyt tylm ykl mlš hl rmaw akalm htwl lew”

Turned left to right, it would be this:

“wel lwth mlaka lh šlm lky mlyt tybwta mrn emky brykt bnša”

I don’t know Aramaic, but we can tease out a few things here. “šlm” is Shalom. (Or whatever closely related phrase that is in Aramaic.)

There are various Aramaic/Syriac dictionaries and databases available on the Web, but why put us both through the pain? Here’s a Syriac, non-Catholic, church’s webpage explaining the whole thing in modern Aramaic/Syriac. (So you’ll know it’s not just Catholics saying this.)

“Shlom lekh” - Peace be with you.

(Translated by Luke with the common Greek greeting, “Rejoice,” by the Vulgate with the common Latin greeting, “Ave”, and by English with the common Old English greeting, “Hail.” (Which is a worn down version of “Are you healthy?”, much like we ask, “How are you?”)

“Maliath taibootho” - Full of grace.
“Moran a’amekh” - The Lord be with you.
“Mbarakhto at Bneshey.” - Blessed are you among women.

 

[Zeldarocks]

Im trying to communicate a more general question through this: what is to be made of the apologist’s arguments if one language says one thing and another language says another thing entirely? What im saying os: apologists seem to be taking whichever language is convenient in supporting their posiktion.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Im trying to communicate a more general question through this: what is to be made of the apologist’s arguments if one language says one thing and another language says another thing entirely? What im saying os: apologists seem to be taking whichever language is convenient in supporting their posiktion.

Sometimes apologists act like defense attorneys; they will provide whatever information supports their case but won’t bring up the evidence to the contrary–even to refute it.

 

[bmullins]

Sometimes apologists act like defense attorneys; they will provide whatever information supports their case but won’t bring up the evidence to the contrary–even to refute it.

Which happens on both sides. That’s why it’s important to go back to the established teaching authorities and the early Church father’s and apostolic tradition to help us see the right way.

 

[Godfollower]

I need this answered: Apologists like Tim Staples will bring out arguments such as “chaire” in the Greek meaning “Hail” and comparing it to when the Roman Soldiers mocked Jesus in saying “Hail, King of the Jews.” and take it to mean that Hail was referring to Mary as royalty. Another would be “chaire kecharitomene Maria” or “Hail Mary, Full of Grace.”

My question is two-fold: first, if Catholic apologists bring out Matthew 16:18 and insist that Jesus spoke Aramaic, why try to support Marian dogma by looking at the Greek? Secondly, in general terms, what to make of Catholic apologists who do go to the underlying Greek in points of conversation when most likely Aramaic was spoken by the parties? Doesn’t the discrepancy between the languages render null any arguments made by the apologists?

One reason they can do that is that we have the original Greek language used in writing the New Testament (not the original manuscripts, but the language has been preserved). So, in divining (ha!) the intent of the original manuscript, it’s helpful to review the language used by the author.

In the case of Matthew 16:18, however, we have something else: the Protestant argument is based on the actual word used by Jesus (Petros for “You are rock” and Petra for “on this rock I will build My Church”). Leaving aside the apparent linguistic ignorance of gender usage, they’re focusing on the actual word used (“Jesus used the word ‘Petra,’ so that proves He didn’t mean the church would be built on Peter”). So, logically, Catholics ask, well, what word did Jesus use? And we know from Scripture that it was Cephas, because that’s what the other Apostles (especially Paul, who came later and never knew him as Peter) called him. Ergo, Jesus said “You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build My Church,” which pretty much pulls the rug out from under the Protestant argument. After all, if Jesus hadn’t meant it the way we say He meant it, they wouldn’t’ve been calling Peter Cephas, right? But they called him Cephas – showing that it really happened the way the Catholics say it did.

This use of the original language is useful in interpreting the inspired text. In a way, it’s a special case of examining the prevailing language at the time to understand what the sacred authors meant by a particular phrase (sort of like pointing to pagan and Jewish documents to show that the Protestants’ argument is based on one particular version of Koine Greek that wasn’t the prevailing language used by Matthew).

Hope this helps.

 

[Godfollower]

Im trying to communicate a more general question through this: what is to be made of the apologist’s arguments if one language says one thing and another language says another thing entirely? What im saying os: apologists seem to be taking whichever language is convenient in supporting their posiktion.

And they shouldn’t. They should look at all the relevant languages: the language used in the inspired text, the language used at the time, and (of course) the language in which the apologist is speaking to make sure that the proper meaning is conveyed.

Remember, Biblical exegesis is almost never an either-or proposition. One should look at everything – including the language used as well as others’ understanding of it – to understand the meaning of the text.

By way of example, take a look at the Great Commission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The Church has always understood this to be a reflection of the Trinity. The fact that the Church has always held that understanding is also relevant in interpreting the passage.

Similarly, one needs to understand the structure of society at the time, the historical record, and on and on. You have to look at everything in understanding Scripture. You don’t get to pick and choose.

That being said, in an apologetic debate, it may well be that there’s one thing that sort of makes the rest clear by itself (for example, in the debate about the Real Presence, John 6:52-69 makes it really hard to claim that His words “this is my flesh” were meant symbolically). So it sometimes happens, particularly in tv and radio debates because of time limits, that apologists revert to the key points that make their argument – and this shorthand can make it seem that they’re picking and choosing.

The answer for the rest of us is to consider the arguments on both sides, then investigate the claims fully ourselves.