Orthodox_Freethinker

"All throughout the New Testament, there is one word in the Greek that confuses people: "γενεα" (genea). Translated, it means "generation" as it is rendered in all modern Bibles. Most people interpret it in the sense of "contemporary generation" or "the people of the time." When we see what word it is translated from in the Aramaic, something seems a bit off. As I stated in my previous article, "This Generation:"

[The] Greek reads "γενεα" (genea), which means "generation" (not to be confused with "γενος" (genos) which means "offspring"). [It] would seem that our Messiah prophesized incorrectly in the Greek.

The answer comes in the Aramaic. Here we don't see the word for "generation," but the word "ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvtho), which means "family," or "family branch." A "ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvtho), is like a ray in geometry. It starts at a point, then continues onwards. Usually "ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvotho, plural) come from other "ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvotho, plural), so we can see these branching rays make up a family tree.

Taking this realization of a mistranslation, let's see how the Greek text uses "γενεα" (genea) when stacked up against the Aramaic useage of "ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?" (sharvtho)..."
http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/ARTICL...vthaGenea.html

May the assumption that Jesus of Nazareth falsely prediced a first-century return be laid to rest.

Vorkosigan

spin?

reddish

Great! So Orthodox Freethinker is now ready to acknowledge that the canonical Greek versions of the text may contain bad translations, implying that at least the versions we have available today cannot be considered the infallible word of God.

This is true progress.

Peace! :love: :love: :love:

Secular Pinoy

That is assuming that Jesus spoke those lines himself (and was transcribed faithfully). If, on the other hand, it was written by the early GREEK-speaking churches, then it does you no good to make what-if scenarios in a totally different language. As such, we have to judge the Jesus of GosMatt in the language the gospel is supposed to have been first written in.

gregor

I'm loathe to post, as O F consistently ignores all points refuting his ideas, but . . .

Explain (1) preterists who view it as the living generation - ala Holding, and the temple destruction in 70 CE was the fulfillment and (2) 2 Peter which acknowledged a promised living-generation return and had to make an excuse for the no-show.

let the "just so" stories begin

Chris Weimer

Spin is currently suspended. First of all, there's no solid evidence that the NT was written in Aramaic, let alone Matthew. Secondly, ܫܪܒܬܸÜ?, which means "tribe" (though secondary definitions can mean sceptre or rod) has an equivalent meaning of γενεα. Unfortunately, the author of that paragraph doesn't understand the true meaning of γενεα. If anyone would consult a Greek dictionary, they wouldn't find "contemporary people" or even the English meaning of "generation" but instead, "birth, descent, tribe, generation". There's a distinct emphasis on "family".

However, does this make sense in Matthew? Let's analyze.

Mat. 1.17: "So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations."

Here the author says that the use of "family-branchings" works for this, but does it really? Matthew obviously intends for a literal line from David to Jesus. If the definition of "family-branchings" (aka tribe) is used, instead of birth (the primary definition of the Greek), then we end up not with one single line from David to Jesus, but many different tribes altogether. They are, in fact, a single tribe (from Judah, Gen. 49.10/Mat. 2.6). The author's interpretation here ultimately fails.

Mat. 11.16: "But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the marketplaces, who call unto their fellows."

According to the author, we should look at 11.7 for the subject of 11.16. He claims that the "generation" here is the multitude, or early Christians. However, this is not a valid interpretation for two reasons. First, Matthew claims that the multitudes are early Christians, hence they are a tribe. But technically, the early Christians weren't ever a tribe. That particular reading wasn't around until much later. Furthermore, Matthew never indicates that the multitudes following him were early Christians. Quite the contrary, Matthew describes "all the people" sneering at Jesus and claiming his blood. The end of Matthew appears to indicate that the only ones left were the disciples and the two Marys. Again, the authors interpretation ultimately fails.

Mat. 12.39: "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet."

Here the author claims that Jesus did no "signs" in front of the Pharisees, but only in front of his followers. This is inaccurate. First of all, Jesus was addressing both scribes and Pharisees, so anything relating to bloodline is quite false. Alas, Jesus did perform miracles in front of the Pharisees (Mat. 9.33-34). The "sign", then, isn't merely a miracle, (for the Pharisees attributed it to the Pince of Devils) but a specific sign that Jesus was from God, something that he would show by dying and resurrecting 3 days later (the Sign of Jonah).

Shall I do one more?

Mat. 12.41: "The Ninevite men shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here."

Here he claims that both the Pharisees and the Ninevites represent a family. This is simply preposterous. The Ninevites were merely of Ninevah, a city, so it would be calling "Memphians" or "Parisians" there own tribe.

show_no_mercy

Original? Everything about the synoptics has "originally penned in Greek" written all over it.

RUmike

OrthoFree:

How, then, was Paul -- who received a revelation direct from the Lord and learned nothing from the apostles -- so absolutely convinced that he would live to see the Parousia?

Javaman

So, does that mean you've been keeping the law?

Diogenes the Cynic

What Aramaic? There is no Aramaic. The entire NT was written in Greek. If any of the sayings of Jesus were ever spoken in Aramaic, those words are lost to us now. What is the source of this "original Aramaic" referred to in your OP?