Language of Jesus II

As to the last post, I meant no disrespect for the Prime Minister.  He may have been correct. On this subject of the spoken language of Jesus,  the late Professor David Flusser, a Jewish scholar in Jerusalem, wrote:

The spoken languages among the Jews of that period were Hebrew, Aramaic, and to an extent Greek. Until recently, it was believed by numerous scholars that the language spoken by Jesus’ disciples was Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did, from time to time, make use of the Aramaic language. But during that period Hebrew was both the daily language and the language of study. The Gospel of Mark contains a few Aramaic words, and this was what misled scholars. Today, after the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of the Bar Kokhba Letters, and in the light of more profound studies of the language of the Jewish Sages, it is accepted that most people were fluent in Hebrew. The Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the lower strata of the population. The parables in the Rabbinic literature, on the other hand, were delivered in Hebrew in all periods. There is thus no ground for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew; and when we are told (Acts 21:40) that Paul spoke Hebrew, we should take this piece of information at face value. 

David Flusser,  Jewish Sources in Early Christianity,  POB 7103, Tel Aviv 61070: MOD Books, 1989.

Language of Jesus - The Pope in Jerusalem

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated during a meeting with Pope Francis yesterday that Jesus’ native language was Hebrew.   Here is the Haaretz reporting:

“Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew,” Netanyahu told Francis at a meeting in Jerusalem on Monday. The pope was quick to correct the prime minister and tell him that Jesus in fact spoke Aramaic, as mainstream biblical scholars generally agree.  There is compelling evidence for this: evidence from the Christian Bible itself, and historical evidence about the linguistic milieu Jesus was raised and lived in.

http://www.haaretz.com/travel-in-israel/religion-relics/.premium-1.595803  

James Dunn Part 3 - Gospel of Mark and the Jewish War

Dunn argues that the first 'readers and auditors' of the Gospel of Mark likely included people who had experienced the Jewish war (70 A.D.) or the events leading up to it: 

All this suggests in turn a close knowledge of the Jewish revolt and its antecedents shared by the writer and the recipients of the Gospel— that is, somewhere close to the land of Israel, probably Syria. Our knowledge of Christian communities in Israel-Syria during and immediately after the war is almost nonexistent. But it is certainly plausible to allow the possibility that someone who had endured some of the early hardships of the revolt wrote his Gospel for the benefit of Jesus-Messianists who were still in Judea and when his note to the reader in 13.14 would still have relevance. Or, alternatively in the wider region of Syria, when there would be many readers or auditors who had experienced the war and who resonated with its warnings and encouragement.

 James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Gospels (Wm. B. Eerdmanns Pub. Co.  2011).

                       

James Dunn Part 2 - Earthly Mission of Jesus

Dunn challenges those who claim that Paul's gospel message ignored the earthly mission of Jesus: 

The good news about Jesus must have included some narrative explaining who Jesus was and recounting something at least of the character of what he had said and done during his mission. The gospel which converted so many Gentiles could hardly have been simply that an unidentified ‘X’ had died and been raised from the dead.   On the contrary, since new believers in Paul’s gospel were beginning to be called ‘Christians’ (Acts 11.26), baptised ‘in the name of Christ’ (1 Cor. 1.12–15), that would inevitably have prompted them to ask more about this ‘Christ’, not least so that they could give an answer to any questions as to why they had changed their lives and now based them on this ‘Christ’.

James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Gospels (Wm. B. Eerdmanns Pub. Co.  2011).  Yes, an "unidentified 'X' " would not have turned the world upside down the way the risen Jesus did.  Believers get to know him through a study of his words and deeds.   I have blogged about Frank Sheed's comments on this subject: 

To know Christ Jesus:  If we do know  not him as he lived among us, acted and reacted and suffered among us, we risk not knowing him at all.  For we cannot see him at the right hand of the Father as we can see him in Palestine. And we shall end either in constructing our own Christ, image of our own needs or dreams, or in having no Christ but a shadow and a name.

                     

Frank J. Sheed, To Know Christ Jesus (Sheed and Ward, Inc. 1962) at page 11.

.   

James Dunn Part 1 - Jesus, Paul and the Gospels

I am reading a great book by James D.G. Dunn titled Jesus, Paul and the Gospels.  Dunn argues that NT students fail to appreciate the importance of the oral tradition of the words and deeds of Jesus which preceded and provided the material for the written Gospels:

That Matthew and Luke had access to much more material than Mark is clear. That some of it was already in writing is highly probable. But that they also knew the Jesus tradition as living oral tradition, with the sort of diversity we still find in the Synoptic tradition, is equally probable.   

James D.G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Gospels (Wm. B. Eerdmanns Pub. Co.  2011).

Joanne McDonald - Egregious Twaddle

I have added Joanne McDonald's  great blog titled Egregious Twaddle to my blog and site list. 

Ms. McDonald says this about religious education:

What if our catechetical conventions and publishers and media producers and speakers’ bureaus focused exclusively on adult faith formation? Heads would explode, for sure. We’d experience a disturbance in the Force—as though the whole catechetical-industrial complex had cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. (If this takes off, they can blame me for 40 Years of Good Catechesis. Mea culpa in advance.) But a Gibbs-slap to the back of the head might be just what we need. It actually supports the New Evangelization, because that’s what we would be doing—evangelizing. Catechesis follows evangelization, and it has just never worked to catechize children and expect them to evangelize their parents.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/egregioustwaddle/2014/01/whats-really-wrong-with-catholic-religious-education-everything.html

The Young Man - Gospel of Mark

In an excellent 2010 article published in HTS  TeleogieseStudies/Theological Studies  Pieter G.R. de Villiers makes the case that the "young man" who appears in Mark 14 and Mark 16 is mysteriously the same person.   See  "The Powerful Transformation of the Young man in Mark 14:51-52 and 16:5,"    HTS TeologieseStudies/Theological Studies 66(1), Art. #893, 7 pages, DOI: 10.4102/hts.v66i1.893 (November 5, 2010), online at http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/893/1130 

Mark chapter 14 ends with an anonymous "young man" who  "was following Jesus" and who flees the arrest scene as he too is about to be taken by those who came for Jesus.  The young man wears nothing but a linen garment which he leaves behind while fleeing from the scene. He flees naked, which is his symbol of shame and failure.

As the author of the HTS article states, "There is, however, one other reference in Mark’s Gospel, equally enigmatic, to a similar character. The climactic description of the women’s discovery of the empty tomb also refers to a young man. In Mark 16, the women go to Jesus’ tomb early on the sabbath after his death, worrying about how they will get to the body of Jesus to anoint it. They discover that the stone has been rolled away and then find a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, who tells them about the resurrection of Jesus."

The author builds the case for connecting these two appearances of a  "young man," based on dress, the linen cloth in chapter 14 and the white robe in chapter 16, based on  the anonymity of both of them, and on other similarities of content.  Also, the place of each reference is important.   The two references open and close the great story of the trial, death and resurrection of Jesus.

What does the author of the Gospel seek to teach through the two appearances of the young man?  The HTS article states: 

It is, for example, clear that the passion and resurrection of Jesus brings about a transformation in re-creation. Waaijman (2006:43"44) observes that humanity, having made the transition from non-being into being (transformation in creation), can orientate itself to good or to evil. Where evil prevails, deformity follows. This happens also with the young man in the garden. Mark makes a point of illustrating the shamefulness of his actions as he allows others to destroy his relationship with Christ and as he betrays Jesus. His nakedness represents the way in which his lack of faithfulness brings about his deformation. He follows the disciples in their shameful and deformed betrayal of Jesus. The death and resurrection of Jesus, however, brings about his transformation in re-creation from a failed witness and his state of shame into a privileged witness of the resurrection.  He himself has no part in his re-creation. His transformation is a divine gift to him which grants him a totally new condition and status.