Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group - Tumblr Posts

Author Eli Kittim's official trailer demonstrating how his biblical convictions helped to shape his book

Based on Translation and Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, the Woman of Revelation 12.4-5 Can Only be Placed in Eschatological Categories

By Author Eli Kittim

_________________________________________

ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 12.4--5

καὶ ἡ οὐρὰ αὐτοῦ σύρει τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἔβαλεν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ ὁ δράκων ἕστηκεν ἐνώπιον τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν, ἵνα ὅταν τέκῃ τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς καταφάγῃ. καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱὸν ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ. καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ.

---- Novum Testamentum Graece NA28

________________________________________

Translation:

REVELATION 12.4--5

His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne.

---- New Revised Standard Version 1989

________________________________________

The key words used in the original Greek text are as follows:

τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς μελλούσης τεκεῖν

which are traditionally interpreted as "the woman who was about to bear a child."

However, there seems to be a mistranslation of the original word μελλούσης, which essentially misleads the reader with regard to the proper chronological context of the passage in question! And we're not even covering the eschatological context of the seven-headed dragon with ten horns that "stood before the woman" (12.4), which is later depicted in Rev. 17 as a final empire on earth. So let's take a closer look.

The Greek term μελλούσης that is mentioned in Rev. 12.4 is derived from the root word μέλλω, which means "about to happen" and refers to "coming" or "future" events. An inflection of the word μελλούσης is the term μέλλουσα, a derivative of the root μέλλων, which means “future” (i.e. μέλλουσες γενεές ― future generations).

We must always bear in mind the future context of the Book of Revelation, which is firmly embedded in the very first verse concerning "what must soon take place" (cf. 22.6), and which then undergirds "the words of the prophecy" (v. 3), an expression that is later reiterated several times beginning in chapter 22 verse 7 with regard to "the words of the prophecy of this book." Thus, the eschatological nature of the Book of Revelation is clearly emphasized. This would imply that any interpretations which look to the past are, by definition, anachronistic!

Here are several New Testament quotations for the word μελλούσης and its inflections:

1) μέλλοντα (i.e. things to come), Rom. 8.38, cf. 1 Cor. 3.22;

2) εἰς τό μέλλον (i.e. in the future), Luke 13.9, cf. 1 Tim. 6.19;

3) σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (i.e. a shadow of what is to come [things future]), Col. 2.17;

4) ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καί τῆς μελλούσης (i.e. the present life and the life to come), 1 Tim. 4.8;

5) τήν οἰκουμένην τήν μέλλουσαν (i.e. the world to come), Heb. 2.5;

6) τό κρίμα τό μέλλον (i.e. the coming judgment), Acts 24.25;

7) τὴν μέλλουσαν πόλιν (i.e. the city that is to come), Heb. 13.14.

As you can see, each time the Greek term μελλούσης or one of its inflections is used (i.e. μέλλοντα, μέλλον, μελλόντων, μέλλουσαν), it is always in reference to a future event. Nowhere does it refer to a past event. For example, just as Matt. 3.7 refers to a future wrath----ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς (i.e. from the wrath to come?)----so Matt. 12.32 refers to a future age: ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι [αἰών] (i.e. in the age to come).

Conclusion

It cannot be gainsaid that the Greek term μελλούσης in Rev. 12.4 is referring to an eschatological figure. However, according to the standard interpretation of the New Testament, there is often a proleptic interpretation that accompanies this verse, which begs the question: how could a future woman possibly give birth in Antiquity? Such an interpretation seems anachronistic and contradicts not only the content but also the context of Rev. 12.4--5.

The Septuagint's Translation of Daniel 12.1-2 Suggests an Eschatological Messianic Resurrection

By Author Eli Kittim

The Hebrew name מִיכָאֵל (i.e. Mikha'el) means "who is like God?". It is a rhetorical question, the implication of which is that no person is like God. Interestingly enough, the biblical terminology used to describe Michael is often similar to that of the Messiah. For example, "the archangel Michael" (Jude 1.9), who is described in the Old Testament as "one of the chief princes" (Dan. 10.13), is clearly identified with Christ the "anointed prince" (Dan. 9.25) in 1 Thess. 4.16:

"For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first" (NRSV).

In Dan. 12.1 there is a reference to a great prince named Michael, depicted as "the protector of your people," who “shall arise” during the time of the great ordeal (i.e. the great tribulation).

The so-called ‘Theodotion Daniel’ form of the LXX translates the Hebrew term עָמַד  aw-mad (i.e. "shall arise") as *ἀναστήσεται*, meaning a bodily resurrection.

The Theodotion Daniel (Δανιηλ 12.1) reads:

Καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαήλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου· καὶ ἔσται καιρὸς θλίψεως, θλίψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἔθνος ἐν τῇ γῇ, ἕως τοῦ καιροῦ ἐκείνου·

Translation:

"At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence" (NRSV).

The Old Greek (LXX) goes on to say:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον (Dan. 12.2).

It is translated as follows:

"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (NRSV).

The word *ἀναστήσεται* is the future middle indicative from ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of *ἀνάστασις* and means to ‘raise up’ or to 'raise from the dead.' Accordingly, notice how the term *ἀναστήσεται* in its singular and plural form conveys the meaning of resurrection. In the Th Dan. 12.1, we have the singular form *ἀναστήσεται* ("shall arise"). Similarly, *ἀναστήσονται* (the plural form in the OG Dan. 12.2) represents an explicit reference to a resurrection from the dead, thereby establishing its meaning. And since both of these resurrection events (namely, Michael's resurrection followed by the general resurrection of the dead) are set for "the time of the end" (Dan. 12.4), the implication is that they are eschatological in nature!

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).

BIBLE EXEGESIS

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!

Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament

In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).

Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

SBLGNT:

καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).

Translation:

“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).

——-

Definitions

In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”

——-

Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?

So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?

——-

Old Testament Parallels

First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death

Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.

——-

New Testament Parallels

Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:

SBLGNT

ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).

Translation:

“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).

Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!

——-

Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement

Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):

“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).

The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture

Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”

——-

Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model

The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).

The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:

1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).

2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).

——-

A Critical Review of the So-Called “Bible-Wheel” method of Biblical Interpretation

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Like the Zohar in the Kabbalah, the “Bible-Wheel” approach is a kind of Hebraic “Gematria” or “Isopsephy” that corresponds to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet but does not take into consideration several important Biblical factors. For instance, it doesn’t consider the fact that the New Testament uses a different alphabet (i.e. Greek), nor does it seriously consider the historical-grammatical context of the New Testament books. The Bible Wheel’s premise is that “the Hebrew alphabet is established in the alphabetically structured passages of the Old Testament, most notably Psalm 119 that praises God's Word from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end.” This “is a circular presentation of the Bible . . . by rolling up the traditional list of the sixty-six books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of twenty-two spokes.” Here’s how it works:

“The structure consists of a circular matrix of sixty-six Cells on a Wheel of twenty-two Spokes. The sixty-six Cells form three wheels within the Wheel called Cycles. Each Cycle spans a continuous sequence of twenty-two books as follows: With the completion of the Bible Wheel, we now have a fully unified view of the whole Bible as a symmetrical, mathematically structured two-dimensional object. The increase from the traditional one-dimensional list of books to the two-dimensional Bible Wheel immediately reveals a host of unanticipated correlations between the three books on each spoke with each other and the corresponding Hebrew Letter” (according to biblewheel.com).

This is more of an “intuitive” rather than a scholarly approach to the Bible that is devoid of historical, grammatical, hermeneutical, and contextual considerations. For example, the premise that the entire Biblical structure of the 66 canonical books is grounded exclusively in the Hebrew alphabet “from Aleph to Tav, from beginning to end” is debunked by Christ’s self-disclosure and promulgation of the Divine Name explicitly through the Greek alphabet:

ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος (SBLGNT).

Translation:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev. 22.13 NRSV).

There is absolutely no correlation, here, to the Aleph and Tav or to the Hebrew alphabet. On the contrary, Christ reveals the divine name in the language of the Greeks by declaring “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” The alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek writing system, that is to say, the beginning and the end of the Greek alphabet!

What is more, the Bible wheel practice is based not on scholarly criteria (i.e. detailed exegesis/authorial intent) but rather on apparent coincidences (e.g. mathematical, alphabetic, Hebraic, etc.), sometimes explained through a matrix that we might call “synchronicity”:

//Synchronicity is a concept, first introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung, which holds that events are "meaningful coincidences" if they occur with no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related. During his career, Jung furnished several different definitions of the term, defining synchronicity as an "acausal connecting (togetherness) principle;" "meaningful coincidence;" "acausal parallelism;” and as a "meaningful coincidence of two or more events where something other than the probability of chance is involved.// (Wiki).

Therefore, although it may have some symbolic preliminary merits, the Bible wheel practice is obviously not a credible or scholarly approach to Biblical investigation.

The notion that the 66 Books of the Bible can be put on an apparent wheel where each book directly coincides with some other book based on certain numerical, alphabetical, and Hebraic correlations seems to be an outlandish explanation! This practice, including its pictorial representation, is somewhat reminiscent of the medieval divination practices of occultism, such as Kabbalah, Cartomancy (i.e. Tarot card reading) and Numerology:

“Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events. It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names, and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts” (Wiki).

——-

The idea behind the Bible-Wheel approach is that Biblical history repeats itself: that time is cyclical. What is the axiom of this interpretive method? As It Was, So Shall It Be… It, therefore, presupposes that there are thematic parallels (and secret codes) between the earlier books of the Bible and the later ones. Similar methods have been proposed by authors Perry Stone and Jonathan Cahn. Thus, with the exception of some trivial and peripheral similarities, I don’t see any major thematic affinities, say, between Jeremiah 17 and Revelation 2, as per the Bible-wheel interpretation.

——-

Let’s Look at Rev. 2

——-

The Church of Ephesus has a lot going for it. It endures with patience, does not tolerate evil, exposes falsehood, and bears much for the sake of Christ (Rev. 2.2-3). No such praise is ever mentioned in Jer. 17 in relation to to the Jews. Furthermore, despite some set backs, God promises certain divine rewards in Rev. 2 that are not mentioned in Jer. 17, namely, offering the faithful the crown of life (Rev. 2.10) as well as eternal life: “Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death” (Rev. 2.11), etc.

——-

Similarly, the Church of Pergamum, despite its shortcomings, is holding fast. Even though it’s located within Satan’s domain, so to speak, it’s holding on to Christ and has not denied the faith (Rev. 2.13).

Here, as before, Christ offers the divine manna and a mystic precious stone to the over-comers (Rev. 2.17). Nothing of the kind is ever referenced in Jer. 17.

——-

Also, the Church in Thyatira is not doing too bad either. Christ is aware of its works—such as “love, faith, service, and patient endurance” (Rev. 2.19). And although some have incorporated certain false teachings, there are others within the church that are blameless and whom Christ does not rebuke at all (Rev. 2.24)! He simply urges them to hold on til he comes (Rev. 2.25). Christ maintains that anyone who endures to the end will be granted “authority over the nations” (v. 26) and will also receive “the morning star” (v.28).

——-

Now Let’s Look at Jer. 17

——-

By contrast, Jeremiah 17 is casting an aspersion on the kingdom of Judah. Its proemium is as follows:

“The sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts, and on the horns of their altars” (Jer. 17.1 NRSV).

Next, there are a number of caveats that culminate in God’s vow to eternally disinherit the Jews from his promises:

“By your own act you shall lose the heritage that I gave you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever” (v. 4). Then God recites a summary of the Blessings and Curses of the covenant (vv. 5-9). Finally, Jeremiah exalts the Lord and offers up his own defense that he is upright, and so on. Here, the text instructs the people of Judah to keep certain commandments, such as “the sabbath day” (v. 24), something that does not occur in Rev. 2. The chapter ends with Blessings and Curses in the form of rewards and punishments (vv. 26-27).

Incidentally, the theme of God who “searches minds and hearts,” in Rev. 2.23, is a common trope that can be found in various places in the Bible and is not exclusive to Jeremiah 17.10 (e.g., 1 Ch. 28.9; 29.17; Ps. 7.9; Prov. 17.3; Ecc. 3.18; Jer. 11.20; Rom. 8.27), as proponents of this view suggest.

——-

Conclusion

Unlike Rev. 2, nowhere is there any mention of eternal life or of surviving a second death in Jer. 17. Moreover, no one is offered any rewards of authority over nations, or any glory, for that matter, such as that implied by the so-called “morning star.” In fact, there’s no one blameless in Jer. 17, nor does any praise come from God concerning anyone whatsoever. Even the prophet himself has to plead for mercy and proclaim his own self-righteousness. Besides, there are so many other differences.

Jeremiah is written in *Hebrew* and heavily redacted probably by the scribe Baruch and later generations of Deuteronomists, while Revelation is written exclusively in *Greek* most likely by a single author. The former is probably from the 6th century BCE, while the latter dates from ca. 95 CE. One is written to a Jewish nation, the kingdom of Judah, just prior to the Babylonian deportation, while the other is written to the predominantly Gentile Churches in Asia Minor. One is written in Palestine, the other in Greece! So where are the parallels?

——-

What Does Galatians 4.4 Mean When it Says that Jesus is “Born Under The Law”?

By Author Eli Kittim

Kittim’s Futurist Eschatology

As you may know, my unique view is that Jesus has not yet come to earth and that he’ll make his first appearance “once in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26b KJV) or in the “last days” (Heb. 1.2) or “at the final point of time" (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB)! So, before attempting to expound on what being “born under the law” means, let me briefly explain how Gal. 4.4 closely ties into my unique futurist view. I will briefly refer to my interpretation of Gal. 4.4 so that you can understand the basis of my hermeneutic, but will not delve into it at length.

Interpreting the Implicit by the

Explicit

We won’t be able to mine the depths of Scripture if we don’t allow the Bible to tell us what something means. We are accustomed to imposing our own presuppositions on the text (called “eisegesis”). That’s why the best interpretation is no interpretation at all! For example, since there is a verbal agreement between Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10 with respect to the phrase, “the fullness of time,” we should allow the more explicit passage in Ephesians to interpret and define the more implicit one in Galatians. Ephesians 1.9-10 (NASB) reads thusly:

“He [God] made known to us the mystery of

His will, according to His kind intention

which He purposed in Him with a view to an

administration suitable to the fullness of the

times, that is, the summing up of all things

in Christ, things in the heavens and things

on the earth.”

In this case, the key word that gives us the meaning of “the fullness of time” in Ephesians 1.10 is the Greek term ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι (“summing up”). It means “completion,” “end,” “summary” (see Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 106)! The didactic or exegetical principle is as follows: if this *time-period* or *timeline* in Ephesians refers to the final consummation and the conclusion of all things or the *summing-up* (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) of all things in Christ, both in the heavens and on the earth, then the same exact phrase in Galatians 4.4, given that it refers to the same temporal context, must have an identical meaning. And, if that’s the case, then the phrase should refer to the consummation of the ages, not to 2,000 years ago! Therefore, we have erred linguistically by attributing this eschatological expression to the time of antiquity! We have thereby misinterpreted the Greek text.

Is the Law Still Applicable in

Modern Times?

Now that we understand Galatians 4.4 as a reference to future eschatology, the question arises: how can Gal. 4.4 be a reference to modern times? In other words, how is the “law” still applicable in our day and age? More specifically, how do we interpret Gal. 4.4 when it says that God’s Son is “born under the law”? It’s a very good question. And it was asked by a member of the Eli of Kittim Bible Exegesis Group on Facebook.

Here’s the answer. The first thing to realize is that Galatians 4.4 is in fact referring to the Mosaic Law and depicts Christ’s birth as if it takes place under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον). The use of this often repeated term (νόμον) in the Bible ensures us that Gal. 4.4 is not referring to the natural law. It’s also important to understand that the Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments, was not only intended for the Jews, it was meant to be the standard of morality for the entire human race. And we would be judged by it accordingly until the arrival of grace in Christ Jesus. So why are we told that Jesus is “born under the law”? The next verse tells us why:

“in order to redeem those who were under

the law, so that we might receive adoption

as children (v. 5).”

Has the Law Been Abolished or

Not?

Now, the Greek term νόμον is exclusively referring to the Moral Law (not the ceremonial or civic law). So, the Law was given to instruct us as to what is good and evil. However, according to the New Testament, only the *death* of Jesus can *abolish* the Law. [1] Nothing else. Therefore, if Jesus has not yet died, the law remains in effect. And if in fact Jesus has not yet died, then he will be born under the law in the fullness of time. Paul tells us that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” was “abolished” (Gk. katargeo, which means “discarded” or “nullified”) by the *death* of Jesus (Eph. 2.14-15). However, the past tense “was” may be an English mistranslation because the temporal value of this verse hangs on the Greek verb καταργήσας, which does not necessarily refer to past history. But even with regard to translations that presuppose the past-tense “was” as the correct translation of καταργήσας (perhaps due to the past-tense ποιήσας [having made] from the previous verse [v. 14]), nevertheless the *time-of-the-action* still seems to be in a transhistorical context. I’ve mentioned numerous times that Stanley E. Porter, a top Hellenistic Greek linguist, assures us that “temporal values (past, present, future) are not established in Greek by use of the verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone” (see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament [2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], p. 25)! In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past events. Isaiah 53 is a perfect example. Despite all of the past tenses, it is obviously a prophecy that Isaiah is writing about, at least from a Christian hermeneutical standpoint! So, returning to our main topic, according to Paul, only the death of Jesus can truly abolish the Law!

Paul’s Christ is Not Yet

Remember that in other places Paul suggests that the evidence for Jesus’ ransom is still future:

“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be

testified in due time” (1 Tim. 2.6).

In 1 Cor. 15.8 (NRSV) Paul declares that Christ appeared to him “as to one untimely born,” that is, as if Paul were born before the time of Christ. And in Romans 5.6 the grammatical structure of the sentence appears in a transhistorical context and doesn’t necessarily warrant a reference to history. Paul employs the word ἔτι which implies not yet. So when Paul says that Christ “died” (απέθανεν), his death is in this transhistorical context! This is further confirmed by Paul’s use of the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2.6), or at “the appropriate time,” in the sense that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history:

Ἔτι γὰρ ⸃ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι

κατά καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν (Rom.

5.6)!

Translation (NASB):

“For while we were still helpless, at the right

time Christ died for the ungodly.”

Similarly, Luke 17.30 also suggests that the Son of Man has not yet been revealed!

Only Jesus’ Death Can Abolish the

Law

Technically speaking, even the New Covenant (New Testament) is not ratified until the *death* of Jesus:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood,

which is poured out for you” (Luke 22.20).

Hebrews 9.16-17 suggests that without the death of the testator the will (i.e., “testament”) is not yet in effect.

Hebrews 8:13 reads:

“When He said, ‘A new

covenant,’ He has made the

first obsolete. But whatever is

becoming obsolete and

growing old is ready to

disappear.”

We’re also told that the condemnation of the Law (the charges brought forth against us) would be nullified or cancelled as a legal code by Christ’s *death* (cf. Col. 2.13-14).

Galatians 3:23 reads:

“But before faith came, we were kept in

custody under the law, being shut up to

the faith which was later to be revealed.”

Galatians 3:24 explains:

“Therefore the Law has become our tutor

to lead us to Christ, that we may be

justified by faith.”

Thus, Galatians 3:25 declares:

“But now that faith has come, we are no

longer under a tutor [Law].”

Conclusion

It’s absolutely clear from the New Testament that without the *death* of Christ the Law is still in effect, as well as the charges levelled against humanity by its moral code. In other words, if Christ hasn’t died, then those who are reborn in Christ are retroactively *saved-by-faith-in-the-promises-of-God* but are not fully and literally saved yet. That’s why the Holy Spirit is given to regenerated human beings as a deposit, not as a full payment or reward:

“[He] set his seal of ownership on us, and

put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit,

guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor. 1.22

NIV).”

Nevertheless Paul seemingly says that he believes that Christ is able to protect what he has “entrusted to Him until that day” when he fulfills it and presumably *dies* for him:

“For this reason I also suffer these things,

but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I

have believed and I am convinced that He

is able to guard what I have entrusted to

Him until that day” (2 Tim. 1.12 NASB).

And when is that day? It is the day of Christ’s sacrifice and atoning death that transpires in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10)! This eschatological motif is present throughout the New Testament: from Rev. 12.5 to Rev. 19.10 to Rev. 22.7 to 1 Jn 2.28, we constantly find the theme that Christ will appear “once at the consummation of the ages” to *die* for sin (Heb. 9.26b NASB), which is also confirmed in Eph. 1.10 and Gal. 4.4!

Therefore, if Jesus hasn’t died yet, we are all still under the Law. And thus if he appears “once for all at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b NRSV), then he, too, is “born under the law.”

Footnotes

[1] In using the term “abolish” I

don’t mean the eradication of

the moral standard completely.

Rather, I mean to abolish the

law as a soteriological means;

as a way to salvation, as well as

a means of condemnation.

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods

By Author Eli Kittim

The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.

Here’s how it all began . . .

——-

Koine Greek Study Group *OP*

The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:

Have a question for all of you here. In

Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"

is pluralized, but it is translated singular in

every translation I can find. The one

exception I have found is with an old

interlinear I have around the house. Even

A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the

Greek text failed to say anything about it. I

am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.

Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!

The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.

Translation (NRSV):

“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”

This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.

——-

Eric S Weiss (commenter)

ICC on Matthew:

καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.

Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:

Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.

Marcelo Souza:

Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.

[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]

Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32

[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]

32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.

(B’yom ha shabat)

——-

Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.

In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.

——-

I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:

“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”

Bingo! That’s the correct answer!

——-

Back to the Conversation . . .

This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza

After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .

Marcelo Souza:

The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].

Eli Kittim:

No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].

[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].

——-

The exchange continued as follows . . .

Marcelo Souza:

Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .

[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].

Eli Kittim:

In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.

Marcelo Souza:

We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.

So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].

He went on to say:

So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .

Eli Kittim (my response):

Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.

Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .

——-

Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament

The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).

Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:

τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular

μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.

Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:

ἐν (on) Preposition

τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular

ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular

τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural

σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural

Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!

(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).

——-

Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim at a private school in Athens, Greece at the tender age of ten (1970)❗️

A Critique of Form Criticism

By Bible Researcher & Award-Winning Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is Form Criticism?

Form criticism is a discipline of Bible studies that views the Bible as an anthology of conventional stories that were originally transmitted orally and later codified in writing. Therefore, form criticism tries to identify scriptural literary patterns and trace them back to their particular oral tradition. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament Bible scholar, was the founder of form criticism. He was also one of the leading proponents of the “history of religions school,” which employed the methods of historical criticism. While the methods used in *comparative religion* studies were certainly important, these liberal theologians nevertheless began their formal inquiry with the theoretical presupposition that Christianity was equal to all other religions and they, therefore, rejected its claims to absolute truth. However, this underlying presumption involves circular thinking and confirmation bias, which is the habit of interpreting new evidence as confirmation of one's preexisting beliefs or theories. Despite the usefulness of the approach, form criticism involves a great deal of speculation and conjecture, not to mention blatant unbelief. One of its biggest proponents in the twentieth century was German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884—1976). Similar to other form-critics who had a bias against supernaturalism, he too believed that the Bible needed to be “demythologized,” that is, divested of its miraculous narratives and mythical elements.

Form criticism is valuable in identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as narrative, poetry, wisdom, or prophecy. It further seeks to find the “Sitz im Leben,” namely, the context in which a text was created, as well as its function and purpose at that time. Recently, form criticism's insistence on oral tradition has gradually lost support in Old Testament studies, even though it’s still widely used in New Testament studies.

Oral Tradition Versus Biblical Inspiration

Advocates of form criticism have suggested that the Evangelists drew upon oral traditions when they composed the New Testament gospels. Thus, form criticism presupposes the existence of earlier oral traditions that influenced later literary writings. Generally speaking, the importance of historical continuity in the way traditions from the past influenced later generations is certainly applicable to literary studies. But in the case of the New Testament, searching for a preexisting oral tradition would obviously contradict its claim of biblical inspiration, namely, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3.16). It would further imply that the evangelists——as well as the epistolary authors, including Paul——were not inspired. Rather, they were simply informed by earlier oral traditions. But this hypothesis would directly contradict an authentic Pauline epistle which claims direct inspiration from God rather than historical continuity or an accumulation of preexisting oral sources. Paul writes in Galatians 1.11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible, in order to confirm their revelations. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And all of them are writing from outside Palestine.

By contrast, the presuppositions of Bible scholarship do not square well with the available evidence. Scholars contend that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his purported death, and that these oral traditions were obviously in Aramaic. But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how did the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death? Furthermore, who are these sophisticated Greek writers who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? It sounds like a non sequitur! Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? Given that none of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine, it seems well-nigh impossible that the Aramaic community ever existed.

Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and is trying to confirm his revelations by quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic oral traditions but from Greek literary sources!

Conclusion

It doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul, or anyone else, reiterates because it’s irrelevant in proving the impact of oral tradition. The point is that all the sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation (cf. Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Tim. 3.16)!

And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek literary tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.

Moreover, who are these Greek authors who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It therefore sounds like a conspiracy of sorts.

And why aren’t Paul’s letters in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic oral sources are the Pauline epistles based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Greek Septuagint in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of New Testament Scripture? And why does Paul record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis just doesn’t hold up. Nor do the so-called “oral traditions.”

—