Problems With Ehrman's Brief Arguments...

[mcpng]

I was trying to blog my reflections on some readings on Jesus Interrupted, and at the end of my post, I found myself sitting on the other side of the fence on the topic of Nicodemus. If you have Jesus Interrupted, I am referring to Pgs 154-155 under "It has to fit the context".

 

Ehrman says the story is likely to be untrue for some given reasons, but as I tried to work it out, I found that Ehrman might be just wrong. Please take time to read my analysis and give me your thoughts so I may better understand.

 

Wherever I write "RESEARCH POINT", I am telling myself I need to research more on that part, that's all.

 

--

 

 

Nicodemus (John, chapter 3)

 

On Pg 154-155 of Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman discusses how the story of Nicodemus in John chapter 3 is likely to be untrue because it doesn't fit the context. In the English translation that we are familiar with, Jesus says that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again, where upon my NIV version has a footnote saying it Or born from above. Ignoring the footnote, the continuation of the story is simple. Nicodemus doesn't understand how one can be born again and Jesus gives a reply about bring born of water and the Spirit. In our common Protestant interpretation, this refers to baptism - of water and of the Holy Spirit. Under a charismatic Christian belief, I'd suspect this means both a water baptism and a baptism of the Holy Spirit in the speaking of tongues sense are necessary. Under other interpretations, perhaps just one baptism is enough, for example whereby a water baptism also brings the Spirit upon you, or where a baptism of the Holy Spirit negates the need for less abstract and probably more superficial baptism by water.

 

Either way, Nicodemus doesn't seem to understand. Jesus doesn't clarify his statements but seems to go on with further abstractions. This is not uncommon in Gospel texts and as a reader, I would typically have ignored this since such incidents of listeners not understand Jesus and Jesus not putting it in simpler terms is all over the place.

 

Let's look at the footnote. Why is born again footnoted to also be born from above? Apparently, again and from above have the same Greek word. This makes sense therefore if the manuscript of John was written in Greek. Approaching it from a less speculative angle, we can just do research into the gospel of John and find out if it, or at least the piece(s) used to construct the story of Nicodemus was in Greek. RESEARCH POINT. Now, say this account was written in Greek, why then is the interpretation of again chosen over from above? Simple, because the response of Nicodemus (verse 4) is "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!".

 

Ehrman provides a different interpretation of the story: Jesus spoke in Greek and meant to say from above. Nicodemus misinterprets the word as again leading to his questions about how someone can be born when old. Jesus then clarifies that he meant from above, in my opinion it being telling from verse 6 flesh gives birth to flesh, but the spirit gives birth to spirit. Ehrman says this is how the story was meant to be read, and claims that the story is likely untrue because Jesus was likely to have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, thus making this conversation impossible.

 

Before we jump the gun and accuse Ehrman of cyclic argumentation (though this interpretation is probably not original to Ehrman, RESEARCH POINT), let's have a brief review. The text we derive this story from is written in Greek. What implications does this have? Seemingly irrelevant, this may point to the text not being written by the disciple John. John is supposed to be uneducated and only the elite were literate during the time. Did John learn Greek later and compose this gospel? I remember reading that this is unlikely because the Gospels actually seem to have literary structure and concepts such as recurring themes. John is arguably not going to be concerned with learning Greek but more concerned with spreading Christianity. Perhaps he learned Greek nonetheless in order to compose a written account. Once again, RESEARCH POINT.

 

Let's review something else. Say this event did take place and likely in Aramaic. Then so far things make sense with the ambiguity only arising when the author of the text recorded the story in Greek. The ambiguity is unimportant as the story makes original sense when again is taken instead of from above. But, before we get ahead of ourselves, what does Jesus' response in verse 5-9 mean? Is it, as I typically had read it, just an unrelated abstract response from Jesus to Nicodemus' failure to comprehend? Instead of hastily discrediting Ehrman's interpretation, this response seems to make sense if Jesus had said from above earlier rather than again. Try reading verses 5-9 as if Jesus had said from above, and try reading it as if Jesus had said again. Also, the words at the end of verse 7 would take either from above or again respectively. Too easy? Seems like again is slightly better because we can interpret "...born of water and the Spirit" as referring to baptism. But, let's take another step back and review. How do we know Jesus meant baptism? Was baptism in water ever mentioned as being "born of water" prior? Was baptism of the Holy Spirit ever mentioned before?

 

So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.

 

I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.

[Shyone]

So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.

 

I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.

First, the interpretation in KVJ is "from above" in the version I have as a literal bible with Strong's numbers. This produces the "play on words" that could only have meaning in Greek (which Jesus did not speak).

 

Surely Erhman must have considered the "born again" instead of "born from above". He believes that the context supports "from above" meaning from the spirit, which seems to be supported by the other passages referring to this "rebirth."

 

5. Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

7. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'

 

Notice that the first Spirit is capitalized. That is a heavenly spirit - from above.

 

The firmament was also "above" and contains water (from Gen 1: 6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.") Jesus also supports this interpretation by saying:

 

12. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

 

From this many years later, it's difficult to see what was really meant, but Jesus did not, in this passage, make mention of Baptism specifically. I agree that the meaning of the passage is that one must be Born of a heavenly spirit from above rather than an earthly spirit from "below" in order to enter into heaven.

 

It is a clever play on words that must have entertained the Greeks when they read it.

[oddbird1963]

No matter what line of evidence is used from within the text, all you arrive at is a best guess of whether Jesus might have said those words.

 

All the concerted effort and dialog of NT scholars and historians cannot take us back and determine which words Jesus actually spoke. The historical Jesus is lost to us and the efforts of scholars who attempt to reach a consensus about what words in the NT Jesus actually uttered, while interesting and potentially useful, will always contain a high degree of uncertainty unless new information is provided by archeology.

 

So, does Ehrman adequately support his arguments? Maybe not. But ultimately, it does not matter. All NT scholars can tell us with any kind of certainty is what words Jesus could not have spoken. They will never be able to tell us what words he did speak.

[Andy]

Given that John was written at best 50 years after Jesus' death, I would bet against the author getting his words right, especially down to the exact phrasing. Given the amount of mistakes we see even today with the aid of video and audio recording, I think it's next to impossible to expect that the author of John wrote Jesus' exact words.

[mcpng]

So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.

 

I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.

First, the interpretation in KVJ is "from above" in the version I have as a literal bible with Strong's numbers. This produces the "play on words" that could only have meaning in Greek (which Jesus did not speak).

 

Surely Erhman must have considered the "born again" instead of "born from above". He believes that the context supports "from above" meaning from the spirit, which seems to be supported by the other passages referring to this "rebirth."

 

5. Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

7. You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.'

 

Notice that the first Spirit is capitalized. That is a heavenly spirit - from above.

 

The firmament was also "above" and contains water (from Gen 1: 6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.") Jesus also supports this interpretation by saying:

 

12. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

 

From this many years later, it's difficult to see what was really meant, but Jesus did not, in this passage, make mention of Baptism specifically. I agree that the meaning of the passage is that one must be Born of a heavenly spirit from above rather than an earthly spirit from "below" in order to enter into heaven.

 

It is a clever play on words that must have entertained the Greeks when they read it.

 

 

 

firstly, to oddbird, yes we can be pretty much certain i'd guess that jesus did not have that conversation in Greek. But why couldn't it have been in Aramaic? And so to Shyone,

 

It definitely makes sense if Jesus said "from above", because I'm assuming that Jesus read the Torah and associates the firmament "above" as water and I'm sure somewhere in the Old Testament there is talk about a heavenly Spirit above. It also makes sense if Jesus said "again" and this being born of water and Spirit is referring to baptism, although i admitted that i don't know if at the time, people had considered baptism as being born of water. And maybe one of Jesus' ideas was a baptism of the Spirit? But baptism of water was surely an existing concept then.

 

I'm just not convinced enough that this conversation couldn't have happened in Aramaic the way I described above. Does that seem reasonable, or am I acting like a completely blind apologist?

[oddbird1963]

firstly, to oddbird, yes we can be pretty much certain i'd guess that jesus did not have that conversation in Greek. But why couldn't it have been in Aramaic?

Mcpng,

 

Are you envisioning:

1. a conversation that took place in Aramaic and was translated into a more sophisticated style of the Koine Greek than say Mark or Matthew?
   
2. Or are you envisioning a conversation, the essence of which was spoken in Aramaic and then translated and elaborated upon in the style of Koine Greek in which the author of the gospel of John wrote?
   

 

In the case of number one above, the Greek will normally contain certain earmarks of having been translated from Aramaic and can be readily translated back into the Aramaic from the Greek. I could certainly be incorrect, but I don't understand the underlying Greek to contain Aramaisms.

 

So, that leaves us with option 2 - Some version of the story was told in the Aramaic but the writer of the gospel recast the story in a way that does not reveal Aramaisms. In other words, we have a dynamic retelling and reshaping of the original version. When this happens, the story is probably being changed by the author to suit a specialized agenda or "squeeze" into a preset theme.

 

Of course option number 2 implies that the version we have in John is not actually what Jesus spoke word for word. This raises a lot of issues of how do we know what was in the original telling and what was contributed by the author of the gospel. Did Jesus

even tell the story and how do we know?

 

So, without the tell-tale Aramaisms we have zero evidence that this story originated with the original christian movement. It may have. We just don't have evidence that points in that direction.

[Shyone]

I'm just not convinced enough that this conversation couldn't have happened in Aramaic the way I described above. Does that seem reasonable, or am I acting like a completely blind apologist?

I'm not sure I can convey this simply with a good analogy.

 

Imagine that in German "anus" has only one word: Anus. Imagine also that "hole" has only one word in German that only refers to a pit in the ground: Hole.

 

Now imagine the German being depicted as making a joke in a book written in English: Someone says to him, "He put the book into his hole." The German quips: "Ouch! That must have hurt!"

 

Clearly the German was using a play on words: Hole and Asshole. But Hole doesn't have any connotation of Anus in German, so the joke could only be understood by an English Audience.

 

Get it? The story had to have been written in English.

 

For the passage with Nicodemus, the misunderstanding of Jesus reference to being born again as passing through a woman's vagina again instead of being Baptised "from above" would only be understood by a Greek audience. It doesn't qualify as a misunderstanding in Aramaic if Jesus said,

 

Jssus: "You must be born from above."

 

Nicodemus: "Huh? How can you pass through a woman's vagina twice?"

 

Jesus: "What the fuck are you talking about?"

 

See, there is no play on words because in Aramaic "born from above" doesn't mean "born again." It's Greek that allows the confusion that is the play on words because the same word in Greek means "born again" and "born from above."

 

Is that clear now?

[mcpng]

not all that clear...

 

what i'm imagining is this...

 

 

Version(1)

A conversation in Aramaic,

 

Jesus: You must be born again

 

Nicodemus: How can you pass through a woman's womb twice?

 

Jesus: I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit...etc

 

[Nicodemus confused without getting any real explanation from Jesus, apparently Jesus going on some weird philosophical stuff]

 

Nicodemus: How can this be?

 

Jesus: ...verse 10 etc

 

[The conversation is recorded down later in Greek, from which the book of John is derived, and only in this Greek form is there a word ambiguity.]

 

 

*versus*

 

 

 

Version(2)

Claim: Version(1) cannot be true. Why? Because the story WOULD make sense if in Greek with the play on words, and perhaps ONLY makes sense if in Greek with this play on words. However, since the conversation could not have been in Greek if real, Version(2) also cannot be true. Therefore, the entire story is not true.

 

 

 

So, while I accept version(2) has some validity, I just don't find it convincing enough. And, I don't find version(1) too ridiculous.

 

I think this mean i'm envisioning case number 1 by oddbird. that post is kinda complicated, but are you saying that version(1) is impossible because an Aramaic to Greek translation would make the word ambiguity in Greek impossible?

 

Thanks for discussing this with me.

[oddbird1963]

Mcpng,

 

I don't have example texts in front of me, but throughout the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) there are passages whose usage of the Greek language make it evident to scholars that the original words were in Aramaic. In other words, the way the Greek language is used - word choices, sentence structure and certain idioms - make it apparent that the story is a translation from the Aramaic. In fact, scholars who know biblical Greek and Aramaic will often be able to translate these stories back into the Aramaic pretty much word for word.

 

I think what you need to find out from research into the story of Nicodemus is whether or not that story contains the same clues about having been originally told in Aramaic. A good (often expensive) critical commentary on the Gospel of John should be able to tell you this.

 

If the passage does contain such an easy translation back into the Aramaic, then that lends your theory a high probability of being true.

 

Without such Aramaisms, there is really no reason to think the passage was ever spoken by Jesus or anybody else from the first generation of the Christian movement. The play on words with "again" and "above" really only exists in the Greek. So this lends support to the notion that the story was either highly embellished or totally made up.

 

You can maintain the belief that Jesus actually had that conversation, but you have no real evidence to support that belief.

[Shyone]

not all that clear...

 

what i'm imagining is this...

 

 

Version(1)

A conversation in Aramaic,

 

Jesus: You must be born again

 

Nicodemus: How can you pass through a woman's womb twice?

 

Jesus: I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit...etc

 

[Nicodemus confused without getting any real explanation from Jesus, apparently Jesus going on some weird philosophical stuff]

So, while I accept version(2) has some validity, I just don't find it convincing enough. And, I don't find version(1) too ridiculous.

 

I think this mean i'm envisioning case number 1 by oddbird. that post is kinda complicated, but are you saying that version(1) is impossible because an Aramaic to Greek translation would make the word ambiguity in Greek impossible?

 

Thanks for discussing this with me.

I'm not a biblical scholar or well versed in Greek, so I'm flying by the seat of my pants here. In today's culture, we hear "born again" but the phrase actually comes from the bible (this verse IIRC). The implication of the discussion by Jesus is that he was making fun of Nicodemus who misunderstood him in a ridiculous way. "Born again" is silly! Jesus was clearly speaking of being "born of the spirit and water" and that does not, in English or Aramaic, translate back into "Born again."

 

I gave a bad analogy earlier, but unless you have experience in another language with word play and misunderstandings, it wouldn't be clear what they were saying and why they were saying it.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's another try with an English Joke about a Spanish man. A woman is trying to show a man what he wants, but he's asking to see "calcetines" which is Spanish for socks. She fumbles around and he finds a display with what he's looking for.

 

As they passed the underwear counter, the man spotted a display of socks and happily grabbed a pair. Holding them up he proclaimed "Eso sí que es!".

 

"Well, if you could spell it, why didn't you do that in the beginning?" asked the exasperated salesgirl.

 

Ok. The man, exclaiming "Yes this is it!" when he finds the socks would be pronounced like "S O C K S". The lady thought he was spelling in English when he was talking in Spanish.

 

This joke would not make sense in Spanish.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to Nicodemus, Jesus was talking about things of heaven - a higher plane of existence. Nicodemus made a crude, rude, vulgar misunderstanding. Jesus said enough to clarify that he did not mean the vulgar "earthly meaning" but rather the other Greek meaning about spirits.

 

In English, Born again has come to mean the Spritual type of "rebirth". The concept "Born again" was correctly understood by Nicodemus. What he missed was that it was the other meaning of the word, "Born from above" that was intended.

 

So you are using a modern understanding of English to interpret a passage written in Greek containing a play one words that would have been totally foreign to someone speaking Aramaic.

 

Your #1, IOW, misses the point that No one, not Jesus nor Nicodemus nor anyone else, ever would have said "Born again." In Aramaic or Greek, it would have had only one meaning and that is to travel through the birth canal again. It is ludicrous and makes Nicodemus look like an absolute buffoon, while it makes Jesus look like the wise philosopher who speaks of heavenly things.

 

Jesus wasn't taking a nonsense phrase and turning it into a meaningful one. He was taking a meaningful expression and explaining it. Nicodemus heard a nonsense phrase because his eyes were set too low. Jesus went on to explain what he had originally meant.

 

I know it is almost impossible for someone familiar with the phrase "born again" to unlearn that and imagine what it must have sounded like to a Greek man. Try to imagine, for just a moment, that the only possible meaning for "born again" is passage through the birth canal a second time. Jesus would not have said that, and did not say that. He said Born from Above.

 

I'm writing in circles now, so I'll quit. I don't know how to phrase it any better.

[★ Citsonga ★]

...I don't know how to phrase it any better.

 

I think you've done a fine job.

[Shyone]

...I don't know how to phrase it any better.

 

I think you've done a fine job.

Thanks, I try. I just wish mwc would jump in. He knows as much about the Bible as Ehrman (in my estimation) and he could probably explain the joke a lot better than I.

[mwc]

Let's review something else. Say this event did take place and likely in Aramaic. Then so far things make sense with the ambiguity only arising when the author of the text recorded the story in Greek. The ambiguity is unimportant as the story makes original sense when again is taken instead of from above. But, before we get ahead of ourselves, what does Jesus' response in verse 5-9 mean? Is it, as I typically had read it, just an unrelated abstract response from Jesus to Nicodemus' failure to comprehend? Instead of hastily discrediting Ehrman's interpretation, this response seems to make sense if Jesus had said from above earlier rather than again. Try reading verses 5-9 as if Jesus had said from above, and try reading it as if Jesus had said again. Also, the words at the end of verse 7 would take either from above or again respectively. Too easy? Seems like again is slightly better because we can interpret "...born of water and the Spirit" as referring to baptism. But, let's take another step back and review. How do we know Jesus meant baptism? Was baptism in water ever mentioned as being "born of water" prior? Was baptism of the Holy Spirit ever mentioned before?

 

So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.

 

I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.

I'm not sure what points you'd like addressed so I'll just touch on a couple at random.

 

Here's what Josephus wrote in his Antiquities (AJ 20.11.2):

And I am so bold as to say, now I have

so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that

no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever

so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these

accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my

own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the

learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of

pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the

elements of the Greek language, although I have so long

accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot

pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does

not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and

so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods;

because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not

only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as

please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a

wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to

interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been

many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain

this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three

that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded

for their pains.

He makes similar statements elsewhere but the key here is that Jews didn't speak foreign languages. They were xenophobic and spoke their own language. The language that most think they spoke was Aramaic though a lot of people are rethinking that position and reconsidering Hebrew (thought dead at this time). As soon as the rebels started minting their own coins in the war they used Hebrew on those coins and all the religious writings during the time appear to be in Hebrew. If people studied the scrolls they'd have to know Hebrew. They could have been a dual-language culture. Any foreign languages would have been simply to "get by" (like knowing a stop sign says "STOP" and things like that...basically a functional illiterate). The soreg in the temple was supposedly marked with Greek and Latin (though we only have two with Greek inscriptions) warning foreigners (Gentiles) of the penalty for passing through them. If the warning was universal I would expect to see a native language, Aramaic or Hebrew, included as well. Since the Jews could pass through as they pleased (as long as they were ritually clean and this they should know from upbringing and would be done prior to even entering the temple) they could safely ignore the foreign words in their temple court while Gentiles could essentially read "STOP or DIE."

 

Assuming real history should we expect the Jesus in the stories to speak Greek? No. Even if this character was real it would not be something a Jew, much less a rural Jew, would be expected to know. If we assume that this was a special case and he did happen to know Greek should we expect the Jesus in the story to speak Greek? Still no. Because his audience would be lost. Consisting largely, if not entirely of Jews, they would still not know Greek for themselves. Even Nicodemus would know little or no Greek. It would be impossible to effectively communicate using Greek. The native language, whether Aramaic or Hebrew, would be what Jesus would have to speak if he wanted anyone but foreigners to understand him.

 

So now that I think it's clear that the story couldn't have originally occurred in Greek let's look at the NIV English translation of the Greek :

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

That was the setup...

 

3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

All those "born's" are basically the same word ("gennao" - to be born, brought forth). And the "again" is "anothen" (again, from above/on high). Both words have multiple meanings in the Greek which can be punned in this little conversation.

 

So as we know there's already a misunderstanding. Jesus will now have to clarify. This is a fairly common rhetorical technique.

 

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Born is used and can be taken as "brought forth" (the word doesn't translate precisely). But you must be "brought forth" from the water and the spirit. This is how baptism can get introduced into the passage. Born/brought forth from the water. These are both imprecise translations but convey the idea (it's related to birth...being born...being brought out of or from). Likewise being "brought forth" from the spirit.

 

6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'

The above idea is further explained. Flesh "brings forth" flesh. Spirit "brings forth" spirit. So he has to have a renewed birth and be brought forth from above. Why the "and?" Because these things are being equated using the punning. He has to be "born again" and that has to be "brought forth from above/on high." The two ideas are one and the same. And it only works in Greek.

 

8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

"Wind" and "spirit" are both "pneuma." The wind and spirit both go where they please. The word is identical. The pun is effective but the pun doesn't work outside the Greek.

 

So here comes the knockout punch...

9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. 10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Nicodemus, the representative of the Jewish leadership is ignorant. He can't understand the "secrets." He has already conceded that Jesus is the real thing but beyond that he doesn't grasp the deep mysteries he offers. The person who claims knowledge of "heavenly things" is bested by the one who truly does know of them.

 

Jesus then continues...

13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

What he does is "reveal" a little more of these "secrets" for Nicodemus. Since he's lacking in knowledge Jesus now takes this opportunity to enlighten him. Then the scene just ends. Simply because it can. It served its purpose.

 

So the whole scene is made up so Jesus can best Nicodemus using a rhetorical technique that puns words that only works in Greek. Once he's bested Nicodemus, Jesus can then continue to enlighten him on his theology.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Thanks, I try. I just wish mwc would jump in. He knows as much about the Bible as Ehrman (in my estimation) and he could probably explain the joke a lot better than I.

You flatter me (but Ehrman easily beats me hands down...even though I may not agree with everything I've read from him).

 

mwc

[Petrel]

So the whole scene is made up so Jesus can best Nicodemus using a rhetorical technique that puns words that only works in Greek. Once he's bested Nicodemus, Jesus can then continue to enlighten him on his theology.

Pretty much. I'm sure we've all heard preachers use anecdotes that are supposedly true stories that happened to someone they know, but that we also heard a completely different preacher use at a completely different time, or illustrations that are supposedly true but fail on closer examination (like did you hear the one about how a shepherd would use his staff to break the leg of a straying sheep and then carry it about??? BS!) I think this is an early example. Someone thought it up and later it got incorporated into the Gospel.

[Shyone]

So the whole scene is made up so Jesus can best Nicodemus using a rhetorical technique that puns words that only works in Greek. Once he's bested Nicodemus, Jesus can then continue to enlighten him on his theology.

 

mwc

Excellent! And you add another twist (the pneuma) that I hadn't considered. Greek, like English, is a sophisticated language with homonyms and words of multiple meanings that make it the perfect vehicle for such puns.

[Neon Genesis]

Mcpng,

 

I don't have example texts in front of me, but throughout the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) there are passages whose usage of the Greek language make it evident to scholars that the original words were in Aramaic. In other words, the way the Greek language is used - word choices, sentence structure and certain idioms - make it apparent that the story is a translation from the Aramaic. In fact, scholars who know biblical Greek and Aramaic will often be able to translate these stories back into the Aramaic pretty much word for word.

 

Like Spong has argued that the phrase about how it's easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle makes no sense at all but it makes more sense when it's translated in Aramic. Is that the kind of example you mean?

[NonXNonExX]

Good point, Petrel. In fact i think this is how most of the book of Mark originated. According to Papias, via Eusebius, Mark got his material from the sermons of Peter after Peter died. He wrote down what he had heard Peter say in his sermons, translating them into crude Greek and probably also adding some of his own material that he felt would enhance the story. He probably added the conversation with Nicodemus based on the clever from above/again pun. He apparently also added or incorrectly remembered some details about Jewish history and customs and geographical data.

 

The fact that Paul never mentions that Peter actually knew (let along hung out with) Jesus to me is convincing evidence that there was no earthly Jesus anyway. Mark is almost universally recognized as the original gospel and John came much later. Since Mark is poorly written, contains numerous errors and is based on the memories of Peter's translator after he died and could no longer be consulted, how can anyone believe any of it?

 

On the other hand, i do enjoy these discussions. Trying to make sense of the whole fairy tale seems to make it even more obvious that it is just that--a fairy tale.

[★ Citsonga ★]

In fact i think this is how most of the book of Mark originated. According to Papias, via Eusebius, Mark got his material from the sermons of Peter after Peter died. He wrote down what he had heard Peter say in his sermons, translating them into crude Greek and probably also adding some of his own material that he felt would enhance the story. He probably added the conversation with Nicodemus based on the clever from above/again pun.

 

The conversation with Nicodemus isn't in Mark, it's in John (chapter 3).

 

Trying to make sense of the whole fairy tale seems to make it even more obvious that it is just that--a fairy tale.

 

Amen!

[oddbird1963]

Like Spong has argued that the phrase about how it's easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle makes no sense at all but it makes more sense when it's translated in Aramic. Is that the kind of example you mean?

 

 

Yeah. I believe that's an example right there. There are more, but I'd have to dust off some old books and I'd rather read my books on critical thinking for now.

 

Anyway, the evidence is mounting, thanks to mwc, that this passage really couldn't have dated back to Jesus with any reasonable degree of confidence.

[mcpng]

ah! thanks to all who have participated here. I'm sorry for not getting back quickly, but have been a little busy lately. I read the responses and feel more convinced, but until I sit down and spend some time pondering over the text, I'm still a little hazy and reluctant to be convinced that this whole conversation must have been invented in Greek.

 

the eye of camel thing is interesting. I tried googling a little, but mostly ended at Christian sites. It's hard to be sure of anything these days...

[NonXNonExX]

My bad! The story of Nicodemus is indeed in GJohn, not GMark. Even more reason to believe that it was invented just to enhance the fairy tale since GJohn is the latest in the canon.

 

On the eye of the needle thing, some believe it should really have been a rope not a camel. Personally, i like the idea of trying to force a camel through the eye of the needle since it adds a little humor, but using a rope instead of a thread makes a lot more sense.

[Neon Genesis]

So the Christian story that there was a gate called the Needle's Eye that a camel could get through only on their knees to explain how the saying of Jesus makes sense is just a myth and there was no such thing as a gate called the Needle's Eye?

[mwc]

So the Christian story that there was a gate called the Needle's Eye that a camel could get through only on their knees to explain how the saying of Jesus makes sense is just a myth and there was no such thing as a gate called the Needle's Eye?

No. Everything they say is true. I learned that as a xian.

 

I'd love to get one of them to show me how to get a camel to crawl around on its knees through some small-ass gate for 10-20 feet (however thick the base of a city wall was at the time...they varied but were quite thick). I guess this is why most people preferred horses and donkeys?

 

There was a gate of that type (no not for screwing over camels) in some city though. I want to say up in the old Hittite empire (don't quote me on that). It required those entering/exiting the city to pass through tunnels so it may have been a feature elsewhere.

 

Other than that there's no such gate. To my knowledge there never was. I suppose they could make one now?

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

So the Christian story that there was a gate called the Needle's Eye that a camel could get through only on their knees to explain how the saying of Jesus makes sense is just a myth and there was no such thing as a gate called the Needle's Eye?

...I'd love to get one of them to show me how to get a camel to crawl around on its knees through some small-ass gate for 10-20 feet

 

Jesus' advocate: "Well, he did say that it was difficult!"