Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mythra · 10-31-2007, 09:10 AM

I listened (online) to Bart Ehrman's talk - I believe it was at Stanford.

He makes a claim that I haven't heard before. Ehrman says that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus could not have taken place in the manner in which it's recorded in GJohn.

The double entendre "born from above" and "born a second time" exists for the same word in Greek - but in Aramaic it does not. Nicodemus could not have confused the meaning of what Jesus was saying, had it been spoken in Aramaic.

Therefore, this passage is inauthentic.

I thought this may be a good place to find out the arguments pro or con, since so many here having a nice working knowledge of the Greek language.

Lógos Sokratikós · 10-31-2007, 09:18 AM

Jesus could have used "Born a second time" on purpose for shock effect. Then deliver the real meaning. That wouldn't be strange but typical for him.

2) Maybe the original was not in Aramaic, but based on Aramaic accounts. Hard to tell, IMO.

gstafleu · 10-31-2007, 11:48 AM

As Ehrman points out, the word that is used is ανωθεν, anothen, which in Greek means both "from above" and "again." So the story only works in a language that has a word that means both of these things. English e.g. doesn't have one, so nobody understands what is being talked about here. If Ehrman says Aramaic doesn't have such a word either it is probably a pretty safe bet to believe him

.

Gerard Stafleu

Ray Moscow · 10-31-2007, 11:52 AM

Yes, I've read the same in Ehrman and elsewhere (Price?). The story depends on a pun in the Greek -- and if they were speaking Aramaic, as they presumably would have been, there's no parallel.

Mythra · 10-31-2007, 12:44 PM

Kind of stunning in its implications, don't you think? For certainly this passage had a lot to do with the whole "born again" movement in christianity. A large segment of believers establishing themselves on words that could not have been spoken by the object of their worship.

Interesting.

ksen · 10-31-2007, 12:47 PM

I'll wait for proof that the discussion took place in Aramaic . . .

Amaleq13 · 10-31-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

I'll wait for proof that the discussion took place in Aramaic . . .

Shouldn't you be waiting, instead, for evidence or argument suggesting that such a discussion would likely have been held in Aramaic had it actually happened?

ksen · 10-31-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

I'll wait for proof that the discussion took place in Aramaic . . .

Shouldn't you be waiting, instead, for evidence or argument suggesting that such a discussion would likely have been held in Aramaic had it actually happened?

Likely != did.

Student of Sophia · 10-31-2007, 02:28 PM

I don't suppose there was a word for 'virgin birth' in Aramaic?

Toto · 10-31-2007, 02:30 PM

There was a word for virgin in Aramaic and Hebrew. Such an important concept needs a word.

10-31-2007, 09:10 AM	#1
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	You Must be Born Again I listened (online) to Bart Ehrman's talk - I believe it was at Stanford. He makes a claim that I haven't heard before. Ehrman says that the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus could not have taken place in the manner in which it's recorded in GJohn. The double entendre "born from above" and "born a second time" exists for the same word in Greek - but in Aramaic it does not. Nicodemus could not have confused the meaning of what Jesus was saying, had it been spoken in Aramaic. Therefore, this passage is inauthentic. I thought this may be a good place to find out the arguments pro or con, since so many here having a nice working knowledge of the Greek language.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2007, 09:18 AM	#2
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	Jesus could have used "Born a second time" on purpose for shock effect. Then deliver the real meaning. That wouldn't be strange but typical for him. 2) Maybe the original was not in Aramaic, but based on Aramaic accounts. Hard to tell, IMO.

10-31-2007, 11:48 AM	#3
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	As Ehrman points out, the word that is used is ανωθεν, anothen, which in Greek means both "from above" and "again." So the story only works in a language that has a word that means both of these things. English e.g. doesn't have one, so nobody understands what is being talked about here. If Ehrman says Aramaic doesn't have such a word either it is probably a pretty safe bet to believe him . Gerard Stafleu

10-31-2007, 11:52 AM	#4
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Yes, I've read the same in Ehrman and elsewhere (Price?). The story depends on a pun in the Greek -- and if they were speaking Aramaic, as they presumably would have been, there's no parallel.

10-31-2007, 12:44 PM	#5
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Kind of stunning in its implications, don't you think? For certainly this passage had a lot to do with the whole "born again" movement in christianity. A large segment of believers establishing themselves on words that could not have been spoken by the object of their worship. Interesting.

10-31-2007, 12:47 PM	#6
ksen Contributor Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 15,946	I'll wait for proof that the discussion took place in Aramaic . . .

10-31-2007, 02:28 PM	#9
Student of Sophia Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Inner Space Posts: 2,707	I don't suppose there was a word for 'virgin birth' in Aramaic?

10-31-2007, 02:30 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There was a word for virgin in Aramaic and Hebrew. Such an important concept needs a word.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.