Відео

Jesus spoke the Universal Language….L💖VE

Kevin, I have taken 9 credit/hrs of Greek in bible college and 6 hours of exegesis im seminary (currently doing an exegesis of 1 Peter class). I still consider myself relatively new to Greek. I wanted to ask, have you read von Siebenthal's Ancient Greek Grammar? What do you think of his work? It seems he has some chapters that relate more to what you have been discussing in several videos I've watched (e.g., text-comprehension). If you have read it, I would love to hear your thoughts about the book in general. @biblingo

I have no idea who is right, but I started with Biblingo first 😅

Doesn't a reading like this defeat both Calvinism _and_ modern Israel supporters as holding unbiblical positions? The covenant with Israel is with Christians. Not a replacement but a fulfillment of prophecy. And the idea that God foreordained or decreed evil for his own glory is damnable error.

Kevin, thanks for your work. I’m unclear on the example you give in English to argue that the English past “can refer to only part of the event.” - the example is, “Amos read the Bible during church” (57:04). But this does not seem to be an example of this; I think it is still perfective in aspect with an endpoint. In this sentence, due to the nature of the Bible (how long it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos only read part of the Bible. In this case the endpoint is still present: Amos completed reading (part of) the Bible during church. In contrast, if the sentence is “Amos read Cat in the Hat this morning,” due to the nature of the book (how short it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos read the whole book. In this case again the endpoint is still there: Amos completed reading (all of) the Cat in the Hat. But other cases may be ambiguous as to what all is implied, e.g., “Amos read The Great Gatsby yesterday,” which may be met with the question, “the whole book?” In all of these examples, the aspect is the the same, but the difference is in what is implied when talking about some activity with some thing (reading a certain book). So my questions are these: (1) Where am I going wrong in my framing of this? (2) Can you give another example in English of the past that refers “to only part of the event”? And (3) what is the resource you show at 57:04 that argues for this point? I couldn’t find it in the links you provide but maybe I’m missing it. Thanks again!

40:17 - the paroxytone Greek surname Λασκαρίδης is pronounced like Laskaridis. The iota and eta of the last two syllables are both pronounced like /i/ in Modern Greek (iotacism).

Thank you for this! Campbell is right that people really can be acerbic and unkind when it comes to linguistics in biblical studies...but that's not characteristic of these reviews at all.

This has 100% been my experience. I started with Koine at a Bible college, but then finished in a Classics program at a public school. It was night and day, the difference between them. Second semester of seminary everyone is in "NT Exegesis" as a kind of Greek II, but the whole thing is about interpretation. One might barely scratch 50 lines of Greek the whole semester. And no further courses offered above that. But in the Classics program you have a whole year of five classes a week with 2-3 hours of homework *every night.* Third semester plops you right into Plato and Lysias; fourth is Homer. You still need two more courses on top and by the end we were taking Byzantine poetry with Phd students. When we were reading Plato I remember asking my prof "what Plato meant" in a particular passage - by this I meant philosophically - and he said "I don't know" before returning to the real task at hand: Reading Greek. I'm not saying every single pastor needs to be a philologist, but I have a friend doing a Phd on Paul and she doesn't read the Greek except under duress. It's wild.

The Jesus of the gospel narratives spoke the language of his literary creator’s intended reader/audience: Koine Greek.

Very helpful video! If ἐκπλήσσω can only be an achievement predicate, is there any difference in meaning between an aorist and imperfect form of the word? I had been reading it as describing a state, with imperfects expressing an sustained “state” of astonishment (or expressions of the same), and perfective instances (eg in the LXX) describing the onset of the state without reference to the state’s continuation. And Luke 9:43 seemed to hint this way with the genitive absolute of marveling in the next line providing the context for Jesus’ speech. Seemed like an expression of the ongoing amazement.

Great explanation and research! I have been persuaded to use Dana Harris for beginning Greek and Mathewson/Emig for intermediate. What would you recommend to supplement Biblingo?

I know you are currently writing a grammar, but are there any existing Greek grammars that present verbal aspect in the way you articulated in this video?

Very helpful, looking forward to the rest of the analysis thanks Kevin.

Thank you for taking the time to present your analysis and explanations - it’s a lot to digest.

Hi Kevin, Gero & von Stechow is good for what it is, but they actually provide little data evidence for the grammaticalization path they describe. Specifically, at best, the data that supports the idea of the postclassical Greek perfect as an Anterior is ambiguous at best. This paper is diachronically wide, but nowhere for a given historical era is it deep in its data collection/documentation. Example: all their data for "experiential/existential perfects" (a classic representative for Anterior like the English perfect: "John has been to Chicago") are state predicates. The problem is that the perfect's actual distribution with state predicates doesn't fit and the Greek perfect is never realized with activity predicates. You can say in English: "I have walked in Grant Park" (=experiential perfect, i,e, anterior). There are no instances in Classical or postclassical Greek of the perfect being used with an atelic activity predicate like this.

This is desperately needed in the field of NT exegesis. People are not aware of this whole other world of how to conceptualize koine Greek. The Greek Verb revisited book is a good place to start reading about a more linguistic approach to verbs. Thanks for the video.

I disagree with the major premise of this book . We know the northern tribes of Israel are not lost nor have they assimilated into the nations because… 1)The Biblical accounts of Ten Tribes in Judea after the Assyrian capture of the north in 722 2) The archeological evidence of a surge of 80,000 people in Judea population at the time of the Assyrian deportation circa 720 BC. Population of Judea goes from 40,000 to 120,000. This is from 10 Tribes migrating to Judea. 3) The biblical account of Ten Tribes mentioned to be in Judea circa 530 BC after the Babylonian captivity and Ezra's and Nehemiah's repatriation 4) The strict Jewish laws prohibiting inter-racial/religion marriage 5) Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, calls those who were alive and in the land of Judea and the greater Roman Empire " Israel" when speaking to Agrippa. 6) Paul mentions Israel (and he means literal Israel, distinct from Gentile) 12 times in Romans Ch 9-11 7) James addresses all 12 Tribes in James 1:1 8) Anna (Luke 2:36) was from the tribe of Asher (one of the ten supposedly lost tribes) 9) Zechariah and Elisabeth-and therefore John the Baptist-are from the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5) 10) Jesus chose twelve apostles as a typological representation of the 12 tribes 11) King of the Jews equals King of Israel Mark 15:32 12) The massive aliyah of Israelites from Iran, Turkey and Iraq (formerly Assyria) prophesied and being fulfilled! 13) The Revelation lists 12 tribes to be restored before Christ’s second coming. 14) Peter addresses all Israel in Acts 2:22, 36 etc 15) Josephus did not understand the northern tribes to have assimilated into the nations. He saw them as still a distinct and identifiable people group.

Love Staples work. My really only critique is that he isn't apocalyptic enough and hold to some form of realized eschatology. Second temple Jews, especially the believing Jews in the second temple period - especially including those who wrote the NT - didn't hold to any kind do realized eschatology; this is anachronistic. An awesome resource to start the dialogue on this is 'The Gospel of Christ Crucified' by John Harrigan. Otherwise, staples work is great, some of the best, and needs to get more widely discussed.

Well, Jesus is God, so He could speak and still can speak every language ;)

To confirm, does this redefinition of the term “Gentile” still include us pagan/heathen as we traditionally understand it? Or has it always referred to the non-Jew Israelites who had no hope prior to Christ’s work on the cross/Paul’s ministry?

I am convinced about the Aramaic and Greek. But I do not know about the Hebrew use.

NT Wright made the same point Staples makes about the puzzle with leftover pieces. I heard Write say, "If an exegete finishes their exegesis and you see bits and pieces of Romans on the floor, then you know something's gone wrong with their exegesis."

Aramaic

I find Campbell's resolution to the challenges with the aspect of the Greek indicative verb and aktionsart quite convincing. It explains some of the problem passages a little better in a manner that is consistent and makes sense. How would you explain and translate the aorist verb "ευδοκησα" in the context of Mark 1 : 11, if you hold to its encoding a temporal sematic value?

I will never read Romans the same. Praise the God of Israel !

Why do you not mention the fact that it was also possible that Jesus spoke or at least understood Latin? How did he communicate with Pontius Pilatethen, the Roman governor? Are you again assuming that all the Latin speakers also spoke Greek? That is not necessarily true. That he understood Hebrew is obvious because he taught in the temple in Jerusalem which used Hebrew. Aramaic is an offshoot of Hebrew, too. Although Latin may not have been the primary language of that area, Rome was the conquering power and that is what they spoke. Normal foot soldiers are not usually highly educated, which means they probably were not fluent in 3 languages. These are conjectures. At the time of the crucifixion, above Jesus's head was an inscription which was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, so one could assume the Christ also knew Latin, but nowadays people want to dismiss the marvelous sacred language because it is Roman Catholic. Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and you mean that neither of them spoke a word of Latin?????

Pretty sure Hebrew was only a liturgical language with a very small lexicon in ancient times. To my understanding, (correct me if you know more history) Hebrew as a general purpose language was only recently invented circa the time of Theordor Herzl.

To believe, as I understand it, is essentially to trust-to rest your mind in the integrity, fidelity, and character of another. Those who truly believe will be saved. It means that those whose minds have found rest in the faithfulness of God are saved from the corrupting influence of the world.

A multicultural society requires - by necessity - a multilingüal foundation for communication. This varied view of the world around him, makes Jesus’ message of empathy, acceptance, love, and forgiveness a more universal one, still applicable today in a global world. As opposed to the traditionally monolithic American interpretation of the ‘narrow’ way that simply prolongs the old testament view into Jesus’ ministry.

Robinson Shirley Wilson Edward Walker Linda

Tiflah qumiy in arabic. Both are semitic language. Benjamin MILEIKOWSKI Netanyahu is Belarusian 😂

There was no alphabet with the symbols to produce the j sound. You are only off by 1500 years. 1962 first grade language history.

I would love to see videos explaining the other 2: soul and strength.

I would love to hear your understanding of the phrase. "μια των σαββατων". Especially in light of Acts 20:6 clearly referring to the feast of unleavened bread, with the biblical counting of sabbaths immediately following.

Love your channel! Just to add another possibility: Jesus might not refer so much to God‘s name from Ex 3:14 but rather to God‘s other signature "name“ which is the mighty אני הוא (LXX: εγώ είμι) of Deut. 32:39 (and Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; 48:12; 52:6). I am pretty sure that is what we also see at play in John 8:23-24: "He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he (אני הוא) you will die in your sins.”” Additionally, this reference would shed light on the strange incident reported in John 18:4-6: "Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” (אני הוא) they drew back and fell to the ground.”

What’s more important trying to apply what you know and understand from your English environment Or Forever digging deeper into rabbit holes of languages ~ Greek Hebrew Aramaic comparing say the old in Hebrew with the Septuagint? Where does it stop?

Jason Staples hit a bullseye on this topic! These are truths that I have seen in my own study but Jason has organized it and expressed it in his book excellently! Great job and thank you! Anyone and everyone who thinks they have salvific privelage based on genetics, they are the ones who need to be criticized, not the other way around! That goes for Jewish / Christian Zionists, Black Hebrew Israelites, British Israelism, Nazism … they are all heresies at the least, and usually cults at there core! Obviously YHWH looks at the heart and those who take after Him and His way! The Messiah said it this way, “who is my mother, brother, sister, family, but those who do the will of my father in the heavens”! These are the children of Abraham, those who have the faith of Abraham. That goes for Jews, Israelites, Italians, Irish, American……. YHWH is no respecter of persons. It doesn’t matter what your father did or your brother, what we each will be judged for is our own beliefs that expressed themselves in righteous or unrighteous practice. I don’t know why that is so hard for people to understand. If this was not the case our Elohim would not be good, righteous, or just!

The issue every time Paul addresses circumcision is in regards to salvation! He never addresses circumcision as a non-salvific issue / as a sign of the covenant! If Abraham, the former pagan who converted and became, the father of the nation of Israel, was asked to receive the sign of circumcision as a sign of the covenant then, why wouldn’t the father require that of us all? Secondly, if our hearts are circumcised, and our father Abraham and our Messiah Yeshua was circumcised, isn’t it natural that we as the sons of Elohim would want to be circumcised as well? The last point I would like to make is, in the millennium those who are not physically circumcised in the flesh will not be allowed into Jerusalem to partake in the Passover! That alone tells the story regarding circumcision, and if it is a requirement, not for salvation, but for complete obedience! The bottom line, if the Torah is not done away with, then the sign of circumcision is not done away with! One more point to be made, circumcision is an issue of being in the land of Israel. Moses did not circumcise the children that were born to those who came out of Egypt in the wilderness , Joshua circumcised them just before they went into the land the issue of circumcision is an issue of fulfilling all righteousness, like when our Messiah was baptized! We know that at the second coming those are in Messiah will be resurrected and made immortal, which is the true circumcision of the flesh. That being said, there will be those during the millennium who are mortal and still in a temporal body, in order for them to enter Jerusalem and the sacred space of the temple, they must be circumcised. For what it’s worth that’s my take on it.

Assyrians still speak Aramaic today

You didn't mention Egyptian. There are good arguments for Jesus knowing 5 languages: Aramaic Hebrew Greek Latin Egyptian

I understand that you and Campbell have different definitions of aspect and Aktionsart. But if one uses Campbells definitions as he explains them and applies them to Greek verbs, how does this lead to a wrong analysis of verbs? In the following I am not trying to teach you anything, but just explaining my reasoning a là Campbell and wondering where this is wrong. In John 5:9 καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἦρε τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει. I see two aorist verbs giving the outline of the narrative, Then immediately the man became well and picked up his mat and περιεπάτει. According to Campbell this imperfect tense form encodes remoteness and imperfective aspect. The lexeme means walk which is non punctiliar, the imperfective aspect suggests we are viewing an action that is incomplete, ongoing, occurs over a period of time, perhaps background material, remoteness here along with the genre of narrative lends itself use for past time. The context of a man who was unable to walk being made well and then suddenly walking, especially with εὐθέως, suggests that he began to walk when he couldn’t previously. Inceptive action is a possible use of the imperfect tense form. I conclude then that by putting together lexeme, aspect, remoteness, context that the Aktionsart is a past tense verb used to indicate the inception/onset of action. He began to walk. I wonder if you could comment where this is wrong. What have I misunderstood?

Aramaic obviously, Hebrew because its a scholarly language when reading old testament and Greek since he was a carpenter going to different places to fix wooden stuff with gentiles

I have to admit that as a German speaker, a twisted pleasure is derived from hearing scholars who know more about Greek than I do mispronounce Aktionsart 😊

As for the older scholars being fluent in Greek, Latin, Hebrew etc. and certainly for valedictorian speeches, they would have been delivered orally of course but they would have been written down -- the fluency that older scholars had and some current living ones, is from doing many hours of composition -- in grad school, we might do two courses in composition but the older scholars who started Latin and Greek in grade school or the latest middle school, would have been immersed in composition exercises -- until recently, all the Oxford Classical Text (Greek and Latin) had the preface and introduction written in Latin -- in classical studies, being able to do so is expected -- or at least it used to be. Writing and reading are different skills but from my experience, the reading fluency you speak of in your videos is greatly supported by the active control and feel you get from being able to write in the target language fluently. All that said, I enjoy the work you are doing.

So cool!

So Burling’s wrong, Campbell’s wrong and, by extension, I guess Porter is wrong?

Well done.

Thank you, a clearer understanding of linguistics is much needed in this field.

Thanks for the review. I would appreciate a dialogue with Con Campbell to hear his response to your critique. Also, can you make a video on Greek Grammar Beyond Basics by Dan Wallace, if possible? This book is written in a very grammatical way of interpreting the NT with many categories that confuse students. This book is considered a reference book in scholarly circles. I would like to hear your perspective on this book with your approach to learning Greek.

Listened to this on the way into work this morning. Great review and thank you for doing this. As you said: for newbies, bluntness is necessary for understanding. Around my office we say "To be clear is to be kind." Anyway, would you agree, then, that aktionsart is the bare/native meaning/action of a verb that you get when you pull it off the lexical shelf for use? And would you also agree that pragmatics is the cultural situation in which a word is used that is the final setting for that word's use and through which it is finally understood? Also, it seems like you were saying that aspect is a more temporal category than is usually discussed in the exegetical literature. It has to do, according to your definition, with whether the action in question is (at the time of writing or from the perspective of the speaker) perfective (completed and whole) or still in process? Is that a correct understanding of your view?