The Language of Jesus

[Arshad]

LAST EDITED ON 14-07-01 AT 01:50 AM (GMT)[p]Salam all

I read somewhere that the language of Jesus was Aramaic, which doesnt exist today. Therefore his sayings and revelations must have been in Aramaic.

I would like someone to correct me on this, whether or not the language of Jesus was Aramaic.

I am not aware of any bible version now that is in Aramaic, whereby the Quran is still in its unaltered Arabic form, as well as being translated into so many other languages. And if any translation has doubt on it, it can still be referred to the original Arabic text to see if they are correct. But how would the Bibles of today be referred to the Aramaic text to see if they are correct? (judging that there is no Aramaic bible existing now, correct me on this if I am wrong).

Which brings the question of why there is no Aramaic bible? What happened to it? My opinion is that the Aramaic bible was translated to Latin and Greek, false ideas like original sin and trinity were introduced, and the original Aramaic documents were destroyed or never preserved. Most Christian prayers are in Latin, why not Aramaic? Whereas in Islam, the prayers are still said in Arabic.

Please correct me on this if I have made any errors in this posting.

Sameer Arshad

P.S. I'm editing this message to add this link to a message posted by Dr. Qaiser that is very closely related to this message. And expresses similar points, and in more detail.

http://www.aliasoft.com/iwc/index.cgi?az=show_thread&om=45&forum=DCForumID4&omm=9

[Om_Mohammed]

Assalaamu alaikum.

Yes...it is widely stated that Aramaic was the language which Jesus spoke. It is or was a semitic language, in other words, similar to Hebrew and Arabic, yet still different.

About the bible itself, and why is there no existing bible in the Aramaic language, the claimed language of Jesus...remember that, the bible was not written and accumulated until much later...hundreds of years to be more exact. In fact, much of the bible (NT) was actually written by ppl other than Jesus. Actually, Jesus did not write it...it was others who came after him who wrote it. And...there are very little quotes of Jesus in comparison to the many implications and opinions of those who wrote it...in particular Paul.

I am not a liguistics historian, but I remember reading something about this once, and if I am correct, that by the time the bible was finally compiled and written by it's various authors, that the language that Jesus spoke at the time of his mission was outdated and on it's way towards extinction. Perhaps that in itself explains why there is no existing or even pre-existing copy of the bible in aramaic.

Either way, there have been irrefutable mistakes and contradictions within the bible itself, enough to raise much doubt as to it's authenticity. If that is not enough...the mere evidence of a continuing revealed Book and religion...that of Islam and the Quran...is only more proof that the existing bible is no longer that which was originally revealed to it's prophets. If that in itself is not all enough...then perhaps the admition by the many christian scholars and religious men that the books of the bible were written and compiled by many authors through different periods of time. Whereas, the Quran was revealed admittedly to only one man...during one generally small period in time, and recorded physically during his own lifetime, and even arranged by him before his death.

Om Mohammed

[umm_suhayb]

Assalam alaykum,
Aramaic is still spoken by a minority christian in Syria... It's yet to be extinct.
wassallam

[Om_Mohammed]

Assalaamu alaikum.

Like I said, I am not a liguistics expert. However, to my knowledge, Arabic is the language today in all parts of Syria, including the Christians of the area. (this is in reference to the Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians Christians).

Also, perhaps my use of the word 'extinct' was the wrong choice. Although Hebrew is spoken amongst many Jews and in particular the Israelis, it is still classified in the study of languages as a 'dead language'. That is to mean that it is no longer in wide use to the extent that it is a growing languages, as are other languages of the world. For a language to be 'not dead' is that it is in wide use, as well as it is growing and developing...changing from day to day. Otherwise...when it becomes stagnant for a time...it is classified by those experts in the field of language as 'dead'. I do believe that Aramaic is of those classified as 'dead'. Perhaps I am wrong about this, but according to my humble knowledge of languages, it is of that classification. This is, remember, a classification assigned by those experts in this field.

Allah knows best.

Om Mohammed.

[Ibrahim]

as-salaamu alaykum,

Aramaic was the Lingua Franca in the Middle East at the time of Jesus (as). Some of the later portions of the OT are in Aramaic, and the parts in Hebrew are written in the Aramaic alphabet anyway, the modern Hebrew alphabet is actually Aramaic. The Arabic alphabet is also derived from an Aramaic alphabet (known as Nabatean).

Because of this, it is inferred that Jesus (as) spoke Aramaic, and also some fragments of early NT scriptures exist in Aramaic, and it is theorised that the original works were themselves written in Aramaic.

Yes Aramaic is still spoken in Syria, a dialect known as Syriac exists amongst a few small villages. Also the language of the Assyrians is pretty much Aramaic, although perhaps quite different today from the Aramaic of Jesus' (As) time. So Syriac is the closest language alive today to classical Aramaic.

INTERESTING POINT: In Aramaic, the word for the divine Creator of all things is 'Allaha'. Imagine if Jesus (as) indeed did speak this language, and Christians could hear him calling his Lord.

Ibrahim.

[link:www.islaam.com|http://bozo.ugh.net.au/~alias/images/shehsig02.gif]

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-01 AT 05:22 PM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 11-10-01 AT 04:53*PM (GMT)

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-01 AT 00:10*AM (GMT)

I am a Christian who has studied Biblical Greek, Latin, and Hebrew -- but not Aramaic. I also speak Spanish, and have studied some French and Swahili. I don't claim to be an expert in linguistics, but I know the basics. I have also studied with other Christians who can read Aramaic and Arabic.

It is a truth that most Christian scholars accept that Jesus language was probably Aramaic. In fact, his frequent use of "Abba" and "Amen" and some other Aramaic words find their way into the Greek New Testament.

It is absolutely incorrect that the gospels and the New Testament were written hundreds of years after Christ. Fragments can be dated to the second century. Furthermore, there are other extant works, such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch or the Didache that quote the New Testament in the late first and early second century. These extra Biblical sources that can be accurately dated demonstrate that the New Testament was composed in the first century.

Furthermore, a lingusitic analysis of the oldest Greek versions indicates usages of Greek words common to the first century. To use English examples of how dates are stablished with linguistic analysis, "***" in 1890 meant "happy". By 1990, it meant "homosexual". In 1611, wwhen the King James English Bible was published, "meat" meant any kind of food, including bread. Today, "meat" excusively refers to cooked animal carcasses. In addition to word usage, the concepts found in the New Testament can all be demonstrated through extra-Biblical literature to have been familiar to first century Palestine.

Paul's writings can be dated by events he alludes to, word choice, etc...such that we can state with certainty that Paul's first letter was written by 50 A.D., which would be about 17 years after the crucifixtion. However, Paul frequently quotes hymns and credal formulas that likely can be dated to within 3 years of the crucifixtion events.

The gospel of Mark is also dated fairly early. Some scholars argue it may have been written by 40 or 50 A.D., but most scholars hold to a later date of around 70 A.D. At any rate, it was written within the first century, and appears to have been written by Jew who knew Jesus.

John's gospel and Revelations were written last; the gospel probably around 90 A.D., whiel scholars concede that Revelations might have come as late as 110 A.D., but no later, and there are legitimate arguments for an earlier date. Assuming the later 110 A.D. date is correct, the entire New Testament would have been composed by about 80 years after the crucifixtion. Scholars are in disagreement whether it was actually written by the Apostle John, or a scribe who knew John, or a convert to Christianity from the Jewish followers of John the Baptist. There is a tradition pre-dating modern Scripture scholarship that the Apostle John was quite young when he began following Jesus, and he died quite old on the island of Patmos.

As to the original languages, I will share what most linguistic scholars are saying: The unanimous testimony of tradition, and the witness of the earliest extant manuscripts is that the entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek. This was not the language most scholars believe Jesus spoke. Though Jesus may have been familiar with some some Greek and Latin words and phrases, it is improbable that he used Greek on a regular basis. So why was the New Testament written in Greek?

Palestine at the time of Christ was inhabited by Jews who spoke Aramaic -- a semetic language derived from Hebrew and similar to Arabic. However, at the time of Jesus' life on earth, Palestine was under Roman rule, and the Romans spoke Latin and Greek. The Romans learned Greek because they admired Greek civilization. Greek became considered the international language in the Roman Empire, and almost all succesful business men, government officials and high ranking soldiers learned at least some Greek. Prior to the Roman conquest, the Greeks had conquered Palestine, and attempted to force Greek learning on the Hebrews. The Palestinians continued to have strong business relationships with the Greeks.

Furthermore, many Jews had fled Palestine prior to Jesus life-time because of persecutions under the Greeks. They formed colonies throughout the known world at the time. Many of these colonies spoke Greek as they assimilated with the surrounding culture, and the Old Testament was even translated into Greek from Hebrew for Jews outside of Palestine.

The Greek version was called the Septuagint or Alexandrian canon, and is used by Catholics. The Hebrew version was called the Palestinian canon, and is used by Protestants. The are no substantial differences in the two versions except that the Greek had 7 additional books. These books are consistent with the others except for a passage encouraging prayers for the dead. Thus, Catholics believe in the efficacy of prayer for the dead, while Protestants do not.

It was standard practice at the time of Jesus for a Rabbi to have his disciples commit his words to memory, rather than writing everything down. Thus, Jesus never wrote a gospel or encouraged his disciples to write down his words. After the resurrection, most Christains thought the second coming would happen at any moment, and they were not motivated to write everything down since they had comitted it to memory.

When Christianity first ventured outside of Palestine, however, they found that written communication was important for both preserving and transmitting the meaning of Christ's teachings, life, death, and resurrection. The language of most converts to the new religion was not Aramaic, but Greek. Therefore, they wrote in Greek! With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the dispersion of Christian Jews from Palestine, written records of Jesus' teaching became more important to the early church, since the center of the oral traditions was under attack.

Furthermore, each author crafted his texts to the audience he was addressing. This is why there are some minor inconsistencies in the Bible, or why one piece of the story is left out of one gospel, but found in another. Each author called forth from his memory the important aspects of Christ's life to address an issue faced by a local church community. This is what good story tellers and good preachers do. The gospels are not intended to be scholarly history books, but popular sermons of faith based on historical circumstances! The epistles spell out more nuanced theology, but tell only a little history.

Christians believe that the consistency in the overall message of these earliest writings and the beauty and power of the story demonstrates the veracity of the gospels, even where two authors have minor differences in their story telling method. There is a Protestant rhyme that "the main things are in the plain, and the plain things in the main". What this means is that the essentials are contained in the consistent message that emergences in every book of the New Testament, while the minor inconsistencies can be left to more astute theological debate among scholars and ministers. From this consistency in the central message and the beauty of the story, the Church discovered that the texts themselves were inspired by God! Furthermore, the experience we all have of the Risen Christ in our lives, we know the Gosples are true.

There is a Syriac version of the gospels written in Aramaic, and it is my understanding that Palestinian Christians still use Aramaic in their prayers and public worship. However, even the Syriac church never claimed that their version of the Scripture pre-dates the Greek.

Luke was written by a native Greek speaker. He writes to Gentile converts and emphasises the universal character of salvation in Christ, while downplaying specific Jewsih notions.

Paul's use of Greek indicates that he used it as well as though it were his first language -- and it is possible and probable Greek was his first language. He did not grow up in Palestine!

John's gospel is also written in exquisite Greek. Furthermore, his poetic imagery would appeal to the Greek philosophical schools. However, the author knows the Palestinian landscape in detail, was extremely familiar with first century Jewsih customs, and interweaves Jewish thoughts and Old Testament allusions so carefully in the texts that only an expert on first century Judaism can pick up all the nuances. Scholars are not sure what the author's original educational background was!

Mark writes in poorer Greek than the others, such that we can be absolutely certain that this is not a translation from another text. This gospel was written by a person trying to convey Aramaic thoughts in a second language that he barely understood.

Matthew seems to have been Middle Eastern, but was fluent in Greek, though not a native speaker. His style is that of a Palestinian or Syrian who used Greek in every day life, but probably spoke another language first. He writes to Jewish believers and emphasises how Jesus is the fullfilment of the Old Testament.

That these particular texts were not "tampered" with can be demonstrated in two ways. First, fragments or quotations of the Scriptures in Koine Greek can be found all over what was the Roman Empire, and the words are the same no matter where they are found. Second, by the fact that they were translated from Greek into Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, and Ethiopian very early in the second and third century, and the translations have no substatial differences.

After the first century, a number of other gospels were written. One can prove these other gospels were of later origin by the same methods used to prove the early dating of the canonical gospels: word usage, earliest quoting in extra-biblical sources, familiarity of concepts to first century Palestine, etc....Some of these gospels contained orthodox faith consistent with the original gospels. Others contained heresies and even pagan elements. However, these gospels never really caught on with the worldwide Church. It is true that bishops sometimes felt the need to actively suppress these later writings because of divisions created within the Church. However, this is not universally the case.

Incidently, the Manichean gospels were most popular in Persia and Egypt, and the time period they were most popular were in Mohammed's life. Some of them were even created in his life-time. In other words, some of Mohammed's impression that the gospels were tampered with, expressed in the Koran, may have been aimed at the Manicheans, rather than orthodox Christians!

The Christian Church held a local council in Carthage in 397 A.D. where the canon was named and a theological opinion put forth that anything written after the age of the 12 apostles should not be accepted as canonical. As mentioned above, according to tradition, John the Apostle lived to around 90 A.D., and the books in the current Catholic Bible have been the same books contemporary linguistic scholars date to the period of the first century, or 110 A.D. at the latest (80 years after the crucifixtion).

We do not have full manuscripts for an entire Christian Bible dated before about 325 A.D., because the Church was persecuted up until the edict of Milan in the same time period. However, with the fragments and quotes collected all over the former Roman Empire, we are able to reconstruct and verify that the versions written around 325 A.D. are the same as the original. Later manuscript discoveries, such as the dead sea scrolls, only serve to prove the Christian assertions that the texts of the original New Testament has not been tampered with. For example, the Qumran scrolls contained a full text of Isaiah that pre-dated the Masoretic text by about 1,000 years. The Masoretic texts was the oldest complete verison before the Qumran discovery. Yet, the texts are identical with the exception of a few punctuation variants.

With the Protestant reformation in the sixteenth century, the question of canonicity was raised anew. The council of Carthage mentioned above was a local council with no Pope present. The ecumenical Council of Trent reaffirmed the decision made in 397. However, the Protestant reformers decided to use the Palestinian canon of the Old Testament rather than the Greek Alexandrian canon. Protestants assume that the Palestinian canon is older and was more familiar to Jesus and his immediate disciples, while Catholics maintain that the Alexandrian canon was quoted from and used even before the New Testament was complete. There are quotes from the Alexandrian canon in the New Testament itself.

Despite all this apparent confusion, Christians believe that when you apply the same critical analysis we apply to our own Scriptures to other works, the Bible can be demonstrated to be divine rather than merely human in origin. Whatever you think of what I have written above, other ancient works do not hold up as well as the Bible to the same careful analysis.

The manuscript evidence demonstrates little to no tampering with the texts in the Bible compared to other ancient literature. The archeoogical evidence points to the veracity of historical claims in the Biblical texts and accurate dating, where other works fail. Furthermore, prophecy and the signs of statistical probablility point to divine inspiration within the Biblical texts that cannot be matched by any other religious text. Finally, the beauty and the consistency of the message that emerges from the experience of reading the whole Bible makes it abundantly clear that God is revealing himself through these pages. Furthermore, Christians point out that the essential gospel message translates well into every world language, and the perseverence and use of the modern Bible within the Church down through the centuries is a sign to believers which texts belong in the canon.

I have asked in several other places on this site: do Muslims analyze their own texts this way? Do you compare the oldest manuscripts, perform a linguistic analysis, compare extra-koranic sources to determine if the Koran was quoted by certain dates, compare textual references to archeology, etc...etc...? Do you believe that you have a Koran somewhere that still exists that was written directly by Mohammed in his own handwriting?

On this site, Dr. Quasir and my own copy of the Koran state that Muslims wrote the Suras on leaves and stones, and only compiled the entire text under the third caliphate. I don't ask this fecitiously, but in the true spirit of seeking undertstanding: How do Muslims know that what was compiled is what was revealed to Mohammed?

[Nzingha]

I have asked in several other places on this site: do Muslims analyze their own texts this way? Do you compare the oldest manuscripts, perform a linguistic analysis, compare extra-koranic sources to determine if the Koran was quoted by certain dates, compare textual references to archeology, etc...etc...? >>>


There are several old manuscripts that have been dated and examined by muslim and non muslim scholars alike.

>>Do you believe that you have a Koran somewhere that still exists that was written directly by Mohammed in his own handwriting? >>

Muhammad pbuh was illiterate he did not know how to write.


On this site, Dr. Quasir and my own copy of the Koran state that Muslims wrote the Suras on leaves and stones, and only compiled the entire text under the third caliphate. I don't ask this fecitiously, but in the true spirit of seeking undertstanding: How do Muslims know that what was compiled is what was revealed to Mohammed? >>>


Your a bit off, the "uthmanic script" which it is commonly called was a copy of the Qur'an which was compiled during the first caliph. After the "apostate wars" all of the quran was compiled into one book and the copy was kept with Abu Bakr the first caliph until his death it was than passed onto Umar the second caliph than held with his daughter and Muhammad's pbuh wife Hafsah after his death. This same copy was used during the time of Uthman when it was used as a master copy.





- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 11-10-01 AT 11:06 PM (GMT)[p]Thanks. Very interesting. I honestly did not know that Mohammed was illiterate. A few more questions in the spirit of seeking:

1) When was this text you mentioned (the uthmanic script)compiled on the Western calandar?

2)Is it still extant (do you (Muslims) have the original, or have only later copies survived)?

3)Assuming you have this original compilation, what verification is there that these were the actual words of Mohammed?

4) From a theological perspective, was it Mohammed who was inspired by Allah, or the scribe who compiled the text?

(For example, Christians believe that the original New Testament author was inspired, so that even if he modified the words that Jesus had originally said due to changing historical circumstances, the change was inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, Christians do not believe that later alterations to the autographa are inspired).

5) Is it considered appropriate in Islamic study to perform all the layers of intellectual criticism and analysis on the Koran that Christians apply to the Bible?


(With the exception of "Christian Fundamentalist", Christian scholars use a number of scientific techniques to study the Bible. Now, most Christians are not scholars, and there is a "spiritual reading" encouraged for those who do not feel called to scholarship. However, Christian scholars use the following techniques: Textual criticism compares manuscripts and fragments and uses linguistic analysis to determine what the original said. Historical criticism tries to determine what the actual events were behind the texts, and what the events at the time of authorship were that motivated the writer to tell these specific stories the way he did. Historical criticism is aided by archeology, examination of extra-Biblical literature, and further linguistic analysis. Redaction criticism looks at how different stories were woven together into a complete whole, primarily within a single book of the Bible, but not within the whole Bible. Literary criticism looks at what genre of type of writing we have (poetry, historical narrative, parable, metaphor, symbol, theological treatise, etc...). Canonical criticism looks at how a text was discovered to be inspired, and how it fits into the whole context of an overall consistent faith message. Even when all these scientific methods are employed, Christian scholars go on to look at the literal meaning of the text (what the original author intended), the moral meaning, the allegorical meaning, and the typological meaning. Finally, all Christians, whether scholars or not, are encouraged to do "spiritual" reading of the text, which involves reflecting on your own personal life in light of the Scripture, and applying Scriptural prinicples to your life. Is all this type of analysis considered appropriate in Islam?)

[vancouver]

Jesus did not write any of the scriptures. He would have spoken to the people in their own language. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew(41CE or 8 years after Jesus death) but all the later books of the bible were written in Greek. The writers wrote down what Jesus had said in the langauge they understood and used. The difficult part is the translation of those scriptures into other languages so that as many people as possible can get the understanding of it in their own language. This can take years of hard work.

[jcecil3]

Greetings Vancouver,

No offense intended, but where do you get this information that Matthew was written in Hebrew in 41 CE?

I mean, I am a Christian -- not a Muslim. So I would have a vested interest in believing you. However, to my knowledge, the oldest manuscripts of Matthew are written in Greek and the originals were likely written around 70 or 80 CE.

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-03-02 AT 11:15 AM (GMT)]
*** Christian Greek Scriptures ***
The books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, listed according to the approximate year (C.E.) written, are as follows: Matthew, 41; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 and 51; Galatians, 50-52; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 55; Romans, 56; Luke, 56-58; Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, 60-61; Hebrews, Acts, 61; James, before 62; Mark, 60-65; 1 Timothy, Titus, 61-64; 1 Peter, 62-64; 2 Peter, 64; 2 Timothy, Jude, 65; Revelation, 96; John and 1, 2, 3 John, 98. This period of less than 60 years is quite a contrast with the nearly 11 centuries taken to complete the Hebrew Scriptures.


MATTHEW, GOOD NEWS ACCORDING TO

The inspired account of the life of Jesus Christ written, doubtless in Palestine, by the onetime tax collector Matthew, or Levi. It is the first book in the Christian Greek Scriptures and has since ancient times been viewed as the first Gospel written. Matthew's account commences with the human ancestry of Jesus, followed by his birth, and concludes with Christ's postresurrection commissioning of his followers to go and "make disciples of people of all the nations." (Mt 28:19, 20) Hence, it covers the time between Jesus' birth in 2 B.C.E. and his meeting with his disciples just before his ascension in 33 C.E.

Time of Writing. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew's Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ's ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy respecting Jerusalem's destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 5:35; 24:16) And the expression "to this very day" (27:8; 28:15) indicates a lapse of some time between the events considered and the time of writing.

Originally Written in Hebrew. External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew's account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the "first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew "composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected."-Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.


Christian Greek Scriptures

In what language were these books originally written? With the exception of the book of Matthew, which was written originally in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, all the other 26 books were written in the common Greek, Koine, the international language of the day

[Rasha]

:)

So these people wrote the bible and not Jesus? Do you think they would have remembered all that? But... hmm... have they all seen Jesus? Where they all taught by Jesus? Cause if they were then I bet they would know the teachings very well....

[vancouver]

Matthew, Mark and John were taught by Jesus(especially Matthew and John who were two of his 12 chosen apostles). Luke was an educated pysician who became a follower after the pentecost of 33 CE(shortly after Jesus' death). It is believed that Luke was written at Ceasarea about 56-58 CE well before the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans(70 CE)which was predicted in Luke's gospel.

Uniqueness of Luke's gospel:-

As in the case of the three other Gospels, Luke's account provides abundant evidence that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God. It reveals Jesus to have been a man of prayer, one who relied fully on his heavenly Father. (Lu 3:21; 6:12-16; 11:1; 23:46) It contains numerous supplementary details, which, when combined with what is found in the three other Gospels, furnish a more complete picture of the events associated with Christ Jesus. Almost all of chapters 1 and 2 are without parallel in the other Gospels. At least six specific miracles and more than twice that number of illustrations are unique to the book. The miracles are: Jesus' causing some of his disciples to have a miraculous catch of fish (5:1-6), his raising a widow's son at Nain (7:11-15), as well as his healing a woman bent double (13:11-13), a man afflicted with dropsy (14:1-4), ten lepers (17:12-14), and the ear of the high priest's slave (22:50, 51). Among the illustrations are: the two debtors (7:41-47), the neighborly Samaritan (10:30-35), the barren fig tree (13:6-9), the grand evening meal (14:16-24), the lost drachma coin (15:8, 9), the prodigal son (15:11-32), the unrighteous steward (16:1-8), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), and the widow and the unrighteous judge (18:1-8).

Luke also wrote the book of Acts about the ministry of the early christians as they came to be called.

[jcecil3]

Thanks Vancouver.

That was the type of source material I was looking for. I have a copy of Eusebius, so I'll check it out according to your references. It seems to me that I read somewhere though that there is an argument that the Hebrew mentioned in Eusebius is the gospel of the Ebionites, and is later than Matthew. However, I can't remember my source -- so I'll check yours out. Like I say, I would have a vested interest in believing you are correct.....

Out of curiosity, how do you JW's interpret the apparent Trinitarian reference to the baptismal formula in Matthew's great commission that you quote above (...baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit)?

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

[JBJ]

It's not important, but Jesus also knew Hebrew because he read from the prophet Isaiah's book in a synagogue. Given that, he probably spoke it some too.

JBJ

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-03-02 AT 00:44 AM (GMT)] Matthew 28:19-20 ***
19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things."

*** John 14:15-20 ***
If YOU love me, YOU will observe my commandments; 16 and I will request the Father and he will give YOU another helper to be with YOU forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU know it, because it remains with YOU and is in YOU. 18 I shall not leave YOU bereaved. I am coming to YOU. 19 A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live. 20 In that day YOU will know that I am in union with my Father and YOU are in union with me and I am in union with YOU.

*** John 17:20-21 ***
20 "I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.

*** John 10:38-39 ***
38 But if I am doing them, even though YOU do not believe me, believe the works, in order that YOU may come to know and may continue knowing that the Father is in union with me and I am in union with the Father." 39 Therefore they tried again to seize him; but he got out of their reach.

*** Galatians 3:28-29 ***
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise.

*** Romans 12:5 ***
5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but members belonging individually to one another

*** 1 Corinthians 1:10 ***
10 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

*** Psalm 83:18 ***
18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

*** Isaiah 64:8 ***
8 And now, O Jehovah, you are our Father

*** Philippians 2:9-11 ***
9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

*** Revelation 19:16 ***
And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


More emphasis on unity of purpose and mind than any idea of a trinity I thought. The Father can only be approached through the Son and it is by means of God's Holy Spirit that we have the strength to endure.

[jcecil3]

We read the same texts differently I guess, 'cause I see clear indications of Trinity in some of the same passages you site....