Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GaryP · 01-05-2010, 02:28 PM

in a discussion with some folks here in OH, I laid the old "this generation shall not pass" quote on them.

a poster wrote this:

in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation", the alternate meaning in Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well

is he correct?

and sorry if this is the wrong forum

Toto · 01-05-2010, 02:32 PM

This is the right forum.

rob117 · 01-05-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryP

in a discussion with some folks here in OH, I laid the old "this generation shall not pass" quote on them.

a poster wrote this:

in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation", the alternate meaning in Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well

is he correct?

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. Even if this double-meaning did work in Aramaic (which I can't comment on, not knowing either language), the implication would be that the Greek authors mistranslated the Aramaic saying-- which does not bode well for inerrancy.

Also, the quote continues, "Some of you standing here today shall not pass until you see the Son of Man Coming in his Kingdom."

The context thus favors the meaning of "generation."

avi · 01-05-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codex Sinaiticus: Matthew 24:34

αμην λεγω ϋμιν ου μη παρελθη η γενεα αυτη εωϲ παντα ταυτα ενητε (my emphasis)

Here's the original text, in Koine Greek. If I am not mistaken (as may well be the case!), the word in question is genea.

I suppose that the author(s) of Matthew, whoever they may have been, wanted to add a bit of spice to the tale, so as to perk up sales and receipts....So, they threw in a bit of apocalyptic hyperbole, in order to give the recently converted, another avenue to ponder, as they reached into their pockets to distribute their shekels.....

avi

Toto · 01-05-2010, 03:31 PM

The poster in the OP is relying on Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (or via: amazon.co.uk), or this website: Was Jesus Wrong about the Time of his Second Coming?

Quote:

Archer writes,

"Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was), then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it. Genea and genos are, after all, closely related words from the same root. The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses sharbeta here, which can mean either "generation'' or "race'') is susceptible to either interpretation . . . .'' [4]

As a matter of fact, upon a close reading of the Gospels, in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation,'' it appears that the alternate meaning indicated by the Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well. See, for example, Matthew 12:39 or 23:36.

With both the Futurist and Preterist interpretations, the prima facie meaning of Jesus' words, "This generation shall not pass away . . .,'' is lost. But if He was talking about the people of Israel, and used a term that is capable of two possible definitions, then things seem to fit perfectly. As Jesus was speaking of the destruction of the Temple and the terrible calamities that would befall the Jews from 66 to 73 A.D., it would be understandable for His listeners to wonder if Israel would be exterminated. But Jesus assured His disciples that the end of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews would not spell the end of the Jewish people.

Mark Smith has a compendium of scholarly interpretation of the term genea here, but nothing regarding Aramaic.

There is also a thread on TheologyWeb on this term here, where one poster remarked:

Quote:

The writer of the Greek text knew quite well how to accurately render in Greek what was spoken in Aramaic; therefore, the text should be understood in terms of the meaning of the Greek text.

Charles C. Torrey was the eminent Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale throughout the first half of the 20th century. Torrey was convinced that the Gospels were not only first spoken in Aramaic but were also first written in Aramaic. One of his many books espousing and advocating that theory is The Four Gospels, which is an English rendering of what Torrey thought to be the original Aramaic. In that book (which I have at hand) Torrey's rendering of Matthew 24:34. is "Verily I say to you, Before this generation passes away, all these things will happen."

….

spin · 01-05-2010, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Archer writes,

"Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was), then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it. Genea and genos are, after all, closely related words from the same root. The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses sharbeta here, which can mean either "generation'' or "race'') is susceptible to either interpretation . . . .'' [4]

That's what I love about Archer: ever ready to do the old apologetic sidestep shuffle. Not liking the Greek he goes to an Aramaic not used in Palestine (Syriac), assuming that Jesus spoke some form of Aramaic because of the few silly Aramaic terms in the gospels (such as "little girl, get up"). Jesus of course is given some Greek idioms to say, so maybe he used both Greek and Aramaic. So how would Gleason know which language Jesus spoke? He doesn't, but he believes that it was Aramaic and as Syriac has a convenient dodge, why not play it that way?

spin

Joan of Bark · 01-05-2010, 06:54 PM

Archer is basing his conclusions on the assumption that the Bible must be inerrant, so we simply need to interpret every saying in such a way to make it so.

But whatever his faulty assumptions, the need for such convoluted logic merely indicates that the Bible cannot be the word of God ... unless God is a complete idiot in dire need of a course in basic writing skills.

DCHindley · 01-05-2010, 08:44 PM

According to the Greek-Aramaic glossary in Jozef T Milik's The Books of Enoch (or via: amazon.co.uk), equates to Aramaic Yod Vav Mem (yom = day, plural = time) or Daleth Reysh (Hebrew dar = circle, generation). There is not so much as a hint of the word equating with "people" or "nation" in Aramaic. Now Greek genea can sometimes mean "race" or "people."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by GaryP

in a discussion with some folks here in OH, I laid the old "this generation shall not pass" quote on them.

a poster wrote this:

in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation", the alternate meaning in Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well

is he correct?

and sorry if this is the wrong forum

mountainman · 01-05-2010, 08:56 PM

Quote:

in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation", the alternate meaning in Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well

is he correct?

The New Testament is a Greek fabrication for which no Aramaic sources are known to exist. In the fourth century and in the generation of Eusebius, who according to Momigliano was possibly a man of Jewish descent, the Greek phrase "nation of christians" was first coined. There may have been a decided lack of inspiration for anyone to have coined the term any earlier.

Chaucer · 01-05-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

According to the Greek-Aramaic glossary in Jozef T Milik's The Books of Enoch (or via: amazon.co.uk), equates to Aramaic Yod Vav Mem (yom = day, plural = time) or Daleth Reysh (Hebrew dar = circle, generation). There is not so much as a hint of the word equating with "people" or "nation" in Aramaic. Now Greek genea can sometimes mean "race" or "people."

Human race?

Just a thought,

Chaucer

01-05-2010, 02:28 PM	#1
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	Aramaic: "generation" = "nation"? in a discussion with some folks here in OH, I laid the old "this generation shall not pass" quote on them. a poster wrote this: in almost every instance where Jesus uses the term "generation", the alternate meaning in Aramaic, "people'' or "nation,'' works just as well is he correct? and sorry if this is the wrong forum

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

01-05-2010, 02:32 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is the right forum.

01-05-2010, 06:54 PM	#7
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Archer is basing his conclusions on the assumption that the Bible must be inerrant, so we simply need to interpret every saying in such a way to make it so. But whatever his faulty assumptions, the need for such convoluted logic merely indicates that the Bible cannot be the word of God ... unless God is a complete idiot in dire need of a course in basic writing skills.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.