The Truth About Jesus' Arrest: The Missing Facts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 жов 2023
- Thanks to Magic Spoon for sponsoring this video! Code: METATRON
Link: magicspoon.com/metatron
Promo: $5 off
Links to the previous six episodes:
Did historical Jesus exist? EP1
• Is Jesus Historical? W...
Jesus' real ethnicity EP2
• What Did Jesus REALLY ...
Crucifixion from a legal and medical perspective EP3
• Crucifixion From A His...
Is the Shroud of Turin real? EP4
• Is the Shroud of Turin...
The truth about biblically accurate angels EP5
• The Truth About Biblic...
The truth about biblically accurate demons EP6
• The Truth About Biblic...
The truth about Adam and Eve EP7
• The Truth About Biblic...
The arrest of Jesus was a pivotal event in Christianity recorded in the canonical gospels. It occurred shortly after the Last Supper (during which Jesus gave his final sermon), and immediately after the kiss of Judas, which is traditionally said to have been an act of betrayal since Judas made a deal with the chief priests to arrest Jesus. The event ultimately led, in the Gospel accounts, to Jesus's crucifixion.
The nature of this video is epistemological, mostly in the sense that we'll try to organize a professional framework to establish the distinction between justified belief and opinion, through a deep dive into the historical, cultural, and linguistic context, including a brief review of the main areas of Roman law interested, both substantive and procedural, and how the legal system interacted occupied territories and provincial Roman life.
There will be things you'll hear here today for the first time, That is because we will not just use English translation of scripture, but we will see exactly what words were used in the original language through exegesis and interlinear textual analysis.
As we are talking about his arrest, of course this is not a video where we wish to discuss whether historical Jesus existed or not. I've already made a video about that topic, and I side with those scholars and historians who do believe Jesus existed. If you don't, I respect that but for this video you'll have to allow me the premise here that he did in fact exist.
Contents of This Video
Intro
1 - A pivotal event
2 - Greek interlinear analysis
3 - Roman military context
4 - Socio-cultural context
5 - Are you the son of God?
6 - Son of which God?
7 - On The Grounds of Law and Order
The specific case we are discussing today is mentioned in all 4 gospel accounts. The arrest of Jesus was a pivotal event in Christianity. Occurring shortly after the Last Supper. According to the canonical gospels, after the Last Supper, Jesus and his disciples went out to the garden Gethsemane.
But even though the gospels say similar things, they don't all say the exact same thing, and the problem alluded to is the fact that there is one word specifically in Greek that I'd like to focus our attention on today. This word.
Matthew 26,47-56; Mark14,43-52,15; Luke 22,47-53; John 18,1-11
The Military Context
Whether you be a christian or not, I think we are all familiar with Jesus' arrest. You may have read it, or maybe you've seen in in a film representation. Usually we tend to focus out attention to the main players of this occurance, Jesus and Judas.
Judas accompained by Roman guards, reaches the garden. Once Jesus is identified with the kiss, or by him speaking out depending on the version, we imagine the Roman guards making the arrest.
Let me ask you a question. While I was describing this event you were probably imagining it in your mind. When you heard the sentence "Judas accompained by Roman guards, reaches the garden".
How many guards did you imagine? 2? 10?
Let's see what the scripture tells us in English first.
οχλος | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek) (abarim-publications.com)
The three synoptic gospels use a rather vague word, crowd. But definitely if it's a crowd the number is significant already. Luke However doesn't. He is MUCH more specific in the original langauge. But one thing at a time.
Let's first double check the word crowd in Greek.
In the original Greek text we have this word. Ok so what does Luke say?
In Luke the word used is consistently mistranslated, and that's where my team and I can bring some good textual analysis to the table here
What I'm about to tell you sheds lights to the event and will engage the socio cultural and political implication behind it.
The best and most coherent translation in period of this word, is cohort and I'm adamant about it.
Show all the different versions of the verse John 18:12
#metatron #jesus #bible
Thanks to Magic Spoon for sponsoring this video! Use the Code: METATRON
Link: magicspoon.com/metatron for a Promo: $5 off!
Im suprised you didn't touch on the soldier who said truly he was the son of God
Hi there! Thank you for the video. I have one little addition to the mix. Acts 1:13 mentions that one of the disciples of Jesus, Simon (not Simon Peter) is a zealot (zélótész). This could have been known to the authorities to some degree, so this could have also added to the reasoning to why bring that many soldiers, or maybe Judas could have told them, although this part is pure theory on my part.
❤More incredible than.. Holy Spirit energy) starting now.
All black and white sheep are allowed. Yr choice is yr path.
There is no magic spoon, and the cake is a pie.
God bless you sir .
I had no idea that the original language indicated that 600 soldiers were involved in His arrest. Thank you for your excellent work.
neither did I...
and now i feel sorry for the soldiers.
commander: alright men we are going to arrest a man who could be the leader of a rebellion, who has armed followers, oh and this man might be as strong as hercules.
It was actually 6 million soldiers
If one studies such correctly, they will discover this.
Yup, 600 soldiers to arrest one carpenter's son. Seems just as legit as the rest of the bible.
@@Beer_Dad1975 So extremely legitimate
I have been listening to this series as a faithful Catholic, and I have to say that almost all of this can be harmonized with current teaching and in fact provides a lot of excellent contextualization that I, as a lover of both history and theology, absolutely relish. Questions of faith aside, I find this strengthens the coherence of the Christian account within the context of the 1st-century environment where these events took place. If I didn't know any better, this honestly could be used as an apologetics resource. Thank you for this Metatron!
My pleasure
Could?
Should.
@@metatronyt minor correction but the word is pivotal not pivital at the 1st chapter
@@Blox117 Yes it was a typo. My wife noticed too, but it was too late
@@metatronyt You should reach out to TIK History. He has some very good takes on what education is in terms of rendering the answers your professor wants (even if false) and then when one has that piece of paper, one can go further.
As an archeologists, military historian, and follower of Christ I love these videos. My first year in seminary showed me how far modern "Christians" have strayed. They mean well, but in my opinion the modern felt board Sunday school evangelical version can only exist in a place of ignorance.
You should definitely check out Revelations of Jesus Christ ministries then, they might just be exactly what you're looking for.
FAR. Luke warm Christians
All monotheistic religions have their roots in zoroasterism and many of even nowadays rituals/events clearly derived from paganism.. Many stories from the bible are likely metaphorical or rather personifications (from e.g. early mythology/astrotheology). Religion is pretty much cultural interpretation if not adapt on adapt on adapt of former doctrine/folklore mixed with historical events(…)
These are the facts
@@hoidoei941 all except those Disciples of Christ. He gave 2 commandments Love thy Father with all thy heart and soul and love thy neighbor as thyself. Baptism comes form Judaism. But just because something is a spinoff doesn't make it untrue.
Nice to take part in a channel that is so scholastic in nature, it is a pleasure to escape the tumultuous absurdity of todays society. Thank you for being so real.
Many years ago, when I studied Ancient History at high school, my teacher explained:
“You will never understand history if you don’t allow yourself to understand what the people of the time believed. You need to understand their laws, their religions and you need to be able to walk in their shoes”.
Basically contextualisation. I’ve always found belief systems to be fascinating and how those systems affected a culture. I love the linguistic side of this channel as I have always wondered, “What happens if this source was not translated properly?” Thank you for the video.
Considering how often direct translations are imperfect the answer to is it translated incorrectly is almost alweas yes. This is with a translator doing there honest best and not making any simple copy errors. A real problem when every thing had to be copied by hand. Add in that most translations of religious writings alweas have some slant on them from the translator. Internal politics of a religion insure this, this is not even considering how often religion affects politics outside the curch.
Sad reality: people regularly won’t even try to understand what their contemporaries believe. Quite often even when they are slapped in the face with the implications of those beliefs.
A very wise teacher.
You needed an even like number....But, yeah...Fascinating . I do not believe that people were "less intelligent"...That we, a later version of humanity, are smarter..Deeper thinking...Like I was told in high school. I learned from my Bible that any one of us would have like behaviours if we were put 'back in time'....Good or bad. Great or small. Dog or cat lover.
@@peterruiz6117 fairly accurate though you do not need to study the Bible to figure that out. It is a view that is out there just berried by the mass of people screaming that we are the most enlighted our way is the one true way. This is not ragging on the Bible or religion. I personally am agnostic because I am aware enough of history to know how much of religion is influenced by men inserting errors into any thing they touch both through honest mistakes and intentionally to benefit themselves. That said I tend to have very Christian centric views being brought up in a nominally Christian society.
I always got the impression that Pilot's only real interest with Jesus was whether he had a claim of secular authority in Roman occupied territory, given how he was done once he heard that Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. It seemed to me that Pilot was probably sick and tired of hearing religious disputes that were couched as threats to the empire, and he wanted to cut to the chase on whether this was religious leaders trying to get him to do their dirty work for them. The way he tried to release Jesus and eventually dumped the responsibility for his death back on the religious leaders suggests this is a reasonable take.
*”Pilate” is the typical English rendering of the name of the governor of Judea at the time of Jesus’ arrest, not “pilot”. Otherwise, a great comment.
@@JRLeemanfound the grammar Nazi lol
It's Pilate, not Pilot. As for your argument; Sadly.. Pontius Pilate was still guilty in Jesus' eyes because he still went through it..... he only did so for how he was forced to by the Pharisees who stirred up the crowd to tumult level and Pontius did not want to cause a revolt which Pontius would have paid dearly for with his life perhaps from his superiors in Rome. Also his own wife told him have nothing to do with that man inferring His innocence.
@@JRLeemanmy first thought was a phone autocorrect. 😊
He was a Roman governor and and religion and politics were not separate things in those times. If he was not a roman citizen and he claimed to be king of the Jews in whatever form they would just kill him. Trial not really necessary if they were in a hurry but torture very much because they would want to stamp it out. To end it as quickly as possible.
Crucifixion is a roman punishment designed to bring a message to other rebels. It was as gruesome as possible. The victims were left to hang on that cross for a long time to strengthen that message. They would probably kill you if you tried to get him off. He was not the first and he was not the last.
This story was invented by the non Jewish Greek Christians to blame the Jews and absolve the Romans. It is highly unlikely.
We know how the Roman’s acted in similar circumstances. After the Spartacus rebellion: “After Crassus defeated Spartacus the senator was given a triumph on the Appian Way - the Roman victory parade. The road was lined with 6,000 crosses. Upon each cross was a crucified slave. The message was clear: This was how Rome dealt with threats to their interests. This event as much as any established crucifixion as the symbol of Roman ruthlessness when it came to suppressing their enemies. “
This is how it worked.
Love these series!! Digging deeper into the Original texts uncovers so many new and exciting elements. Keep it going 👌
I absolutely love this series. You bring astounding intellect, research and objectivity to the topic. What an extraordinary presentation, given the subject matter is highly polarized across the human spectrum. I introduced a friend to your series with the Shroud of Turin video. Not knowing you have an ongoing production regarding Christianity. She had no knowledge about the artifact; a whole new enlightened world opened up to her. Thank you for the uniqueness of your channel. Please present additional chapters to this glorious history. During❤ these times of strife, your engagement is deeply important and appreciated!
I'm not Christian, but these series about Jesus are my absolutely favorite. Looking forward to more of such videos.
Why?
@@monkeybarmonkeymanreligions are extremely interesting, to me anyways. I think Christianity is especially interesting due to most people being Christian where I lived, and it makes knowing this useful in conversation. I can't speak for everyone on how often it'll come up, but literally two days ago I had a conversation with a coworker about Jesus being crucified, as well as how he went about dealing with the woman in John 8, and how him drawing on the ground (let he who is sinless cast the first stone) is likely a reference to an earlier book.
@@normanfury8259want an interesting conversation, see the only video I've uploaded
@@normanfury8259Same, I really like these videos of atheists or people of different faiths. I am a christian and really interested in different religions since childhood, there were alot of muslims at my school/town. I believe videos like this help me see various perspectives and sides of a subject, which helps me learn and think more about my own beliefs.
Why are you not a follower of Jesus?
When I took Ancient Greek many a moon ago, the professor used Biblical passages and he loved to demonstrate how the Bible has been mistranslated in several critical ways and to contrast what the Greek really said. One of these was the famous passage about Christ's birth -- "peace on earth and good will to men" is actually "peace on earth to men of good will" -- very different meanings.
According to my New American Standard, it's "to men whom he favors," with a footnote that the Greek is literally "of his good pleasure." Which puts yet another spin on it. A slightly Calvinistic one. Which pains me as a Methodist to admit. ;-)
interesting, because in portuguese I've always heard it as to men of good will, so, yeah, I can see the issue
To men, not Rainbow warriors
@@MajWinters100 I just looked up the New Catholic Bible: "and on earth peace to all those on whom his favor rests." The King James is kind of Universalist, the old Catholic translation sounds a bit works-based, but this way makes it a matter of Grace, as it implies there are those on whom His favor does not rest. I like it because the "men of good will" translation is often used by Catholics to criticize Protestants who go by the KJ, when actually both appear to be inaccurate. Which fits my increasing sense that ALL denominations get some things right and some things wrong and we all need to stay humble and focus on Christ.
@@MajWinters100Same in French "paix aux hommes de bonne volonté" already follows the Greek version.
I really enjoyed listening to your teaching. Especially the way you bring in the laws of the time to give a more full understanding.
I am so glad I've stumbled upon your channel! Some of the questions you asked are truly new to me. Fascinating!
PLEASE Metatron, continue this series! It is truly excellent and of great value to both the faithful and to those outside.
John 3:1-21 qualified ones, what the austere Scriptural authentic Jesus the Christ _[God]_ commands to be for it is the optimus prime and only way in His eyes to be adopted by him, the John 3:1-21 qualified ones know this is of some value to His true remnant redeemed/regenerated disciples, but they also know the true Scriptural Jesus taught study thyself to show thyself approved unto Him, in other words, the true Jesus never taught that secular readings of the Scriptures are to take higher place then Acts 17 Berean exegesis / John 3:1-21 readings of the Scriptures for the latter is the only way the true Scriptural the Christ Jesus will grant the spiritual understanding key required, the key is not given to the non John 3:1-21 qualified unless they are truly seeking Him to be truly saved by Him.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 I think you need to learn to write more coherently. Not doing run-on sentences would help. It’s hard to understand what you’re trying to get across.
"...those outside." Ummm...you don't have a clue, do you? There are many atheists who go to church, and even have positions within, like deacon...or even pastor/priest. I know one family that had at least three generations of atheist deacon in a church in Peoria. So I don't know who you think is "outside".
@@TitusCastiglione1503 So rather than care about the utmost importance of the actual message i replied to you with _[the wholesome meat],_ you choose instead to care more about straining at a gnat which qualifies you for Luke 12:26, 16:10. You obviously do not read older higher level English literature, like Bible commentaries of the 1300s to 1800s A.D., where they will at times have long instances of collected thoughts regarding an important issue within the Scriptures, broken up by commas, to help express the collective knowledge of that subject in that passage etc. It requires a trained mind in longer attention spans to consider multiple aspects of a series of thoughts within a matter of ponderance upon the Scriptures, which clearly is much more lacking these days as you clearly embody. You think i need to learn to 'write' more coherently? I'm typing, not writing - the two words exist for that reason, to differentiate between typing and writing. If you mean 'to communicate more coherently', well then consider this strongly: What you think matters, that supposedly i need to type or communicate more coherently, is quite the illusory self-convinced belief of having acute cognition and sound astute intellection on the matter that shows on your part shows it's not me lacking coherence, it's you who observably is incoherent in comprehension. Again you double-down on qualification for Luke 12:26/16:10. It's hard for you to understand what i'm am getting across because you clearly have a short attention span / you lack a capacious and keen mind and you care not to try to understand _[missing the forest for the trees]_ for you have a Goldilocks mentality where something needs to be served to you in a silver spoon and platter way, not hot or cold but just medium for you to eat it. Go see what the Scriptural authentic austere Jesus the Christ has to teach about those as yourself He refers to in Revelation 3:15-16.
@@TheEudaemonicPlaguei think he means outside the faith. if they are atheists they obviously dont really believe in the religion.
Thank you for re-introducing the historical-grammatical method to reading the New Testament. So many people have reduced interpretation to "what I feel this means to me in my favored translation." Digging deep in to what the words meant to in their historical context to the original readers is the essence of understanding the Bible, whether written in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.
So true. The postmodern reader-response hermeneutic has tragically turned biblical interpretation into a subjective undertaking where one is able to twist the Bible to fit their own preconceived beliefs and ideological whims.
As one who is almost have century old John 3:1-21 qualified one who knows full well as a Bible Textuary trained in Bible Hebrew and Greek _[by teachers in those lands]_ and also heuristically taught by the Lord]_ + Latin in varying strengths the utmost importance to obey the true Lord in Acts 17 Berean exegesis and thus historical-grammatical + linguistic + cultural and tribal born again Israelite mindset understanding of the Scriptures with the supreme understanding being spiritual which only the authentic austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ _[God]_ is able to reveal, i agree with you how many have reduced reading _[not interpretation, in the New Testament that word actually means to translate]_ 'what do you think it means' rather than WHAT DOES JESUS ACTUALLY TEACHES IT MEANS in accurate, correct, ordered, precise, proper and sound historical born again Israelite understanding.
Hence Matthew 24:11 as a prime example which leads to Matthew 7:21-23, Revelation 3:15-16, 21:8, 22:15 and all parallel verses in proper Acts 17 Berean exegesis only done by John 3:1-21 qualified ones the authentic austere Scriptural Jesus teaches.@@LAsweetcarolina
@@LAsweetcarolina LOL What are you talking about? For millennia, organized religions have tried desperately to keep religious texts from being studied. Only for about 100 years have we had the opportunity to study the original texts and how they have changed radically. It was organized religions that said: "It's not the details that matter, it's the message that counts." And the message was whatever was convenient at a given stage.
@@albertofernandez2490 You never heard of judaism I assume.
Thank You for the collection and delivery of this information.. I do believe your research and interpretation is as accurate as can be anticipated after 2000 yrs
Fantastic work.. you Sir, are a professional.. keep it up🎉🎉🎉
I am Orthodox Christian. We in our own version have the term "razbojnik", which means roughly criminal. So your translation was accurate and fits with our teaching too.
Where the teachings don't exactly go is the historical context of Why exactly he was crucified (in a Roman legal sense), as that was a very severe punishment for rebels and notorious criminals. We know from scripture that the crowd chose his method of execution, and this is what is thought and believed in my church.
Now, I did discuss this with a friend of mine from Germany who is very well versed in Roman history, and we both agreed that most likely Jesus was crucified on accusations of being "King of the Jews" as was said in the gospel, and that That was the reason Romans decided to use crusifixion as a form of punishment, in addition to the will of the crowd.
They had a "potential usurper" of a client king, which was a big no no for them, despite Jesus obviously being innocent of any crime. Most likely Caiaphas and Pilate just wanted to send a message to any either rebel rabbi or potential revolutionary that if you go against the Sanhedrin or Rome... You get severely punished.
That's basically what i understood of Jesus from The passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson. It wasn't necessarily that those who executed him were evil and he was good kinda thing, he was spreading a message that could destroy the economical and ideological structure of the roman empire in that region, and send a message to other provinces. Of course his persona has an aura of mysticism, miracles etc but it made understand how his actions had immediate and lasting effects, it wasn't just ideology as we think of it today, these were teachings necessary for our human evolution process.
I don't know about Serbian, but in my language "razbojnik" can be literally translated as "bandit"
@@andriusgimbutas3723Interesting! I don’t think that’s exactly the intent here, but it did make me laugh thinking of Jesus as a bandit 🫣 😊
@@Desertflower743In this context it is important to know that *bandit* during Roman times didn't have our modern Robin Hood/Disney-influenced positive/ harmless connotations.
*Bandits and pirates were responsible for most deaths on the road in peace times!*
They were the ones who sold free people into slavery (yes, it happened to Romans too) and / or ransomed them, potentially bankrupting a whole family. This could happen to you even just a single day's travel outside of Rome - let alone out in the country or foreign provinces! Even wealthy Romans weren't exempt from this deadly danger when travelling.
Because of that, the punishments for bandits and pirates were severe. These were one of the few crimes that meant a death sentence even for free Roman citizens! And the punishment methods were the most harsh existing, next to those for rebelling slaves.
Bandit, together with gladiator, was among the harshest insults you could hurl at a Roman! Bandits were scum to Romans, feared and regarded worse than murderers in some ways.
So, if Jesus actually had been convicted as a bandit, such a severe punishment as crucifixion would've made perfect sense, actually. It would be among the normal sentences delivered for such a hated crime and criminal group.
So, accuracy of translation for "bandit" or "rebel" or "thief" etc is very important.
Congrats on another very interesting video!
Maybe a couple of thoughts: "κακούργοι" means people who have done something bad, (κακόν + έργον) without defining what exactly that might be (murder or theft or rebelion, it can be anything "bad", so it would be interesting to try to identify what could Matthew (and obviously the Romans) have considered as "bad").
Regarding Peter's weapon, the exact phrase in greek was "put your "μάχαιραν" back to IT'S place, because everybody who takes "μάχαιραν" also dies by "μάχαιραν". Sο the "μάχαιραν" has a proper place to go back to, meaning a case, but again both swords AND smaller knives can have a case. And people can die both by a knife when they fight in a knife-fight/brawl, and of course also die by a sword when they fight against a sword. But the fact that he says that ALL who take up a "μάχαιραν" die from a similar "μάχαιραν", to me points more to a knife than a sword, becasue obviously not all soldiers die from a sword, but probably all people who engage into activities which involve knife-fighting do die sooner or later by another such criminal.
Furthermore, the word "μάχαιραν" can indeed mean any size of blade, but for a sword there exist also other more popular words, like "σπάθαν", and the word "μάχαιραν" tends to be mostly used for smaller knives.
And finally, to make a quick and delicate move in order to cut an ear would probably be easier with a knife than with a sword, which is bigger and less accurate to use, unless Peter was a real artist with it, which is rather unlikely! :-)
So if we assume that it was a knife and not a sword, then it also makes it more likely that the rest of the team did NOT have weapons (at least with them), otherwise the Romans would probably also arrest more prople (I assume they would search all of Jesus' followers if they expected a rebelion, and especially if one of them would attack a soldier and cut his ear), and we would probably end up in a battle scene.
So to me it seems more realistic that Peter used a knife, and was actually alone in the thought of using violence.
And this would also match the version that Judas gave Jesus up to the Romans because he was dissapointed to find out that Jesus was NOT after all plannning to lead an armed rebellion to overthrow the Romans, which Judas and that part of Jews was hoping for (who also later chose to free Barabas, who would do exactly that).
The full passage from Matthew goes like this:
"Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθε, καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ." ="Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a large mob (="όχλος") carrying knives and wooden sticks, who was obeying (the Archibishops and the Elders of the people (the Farissee)"
"ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς σημεῖον λέγων· ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστι· κρατήσατε αὐτόν", = "and the one who was going to betray him gave them an instruction saying "he whom I will kiss, he is the one, you must hold him" (and "hold him" is not equal to a formal arrest, but to really hold him with your hands so that he does not escape)
"καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπε· χαῖρε, ῥαββί, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν." = "and he walked straight to him to Jesus and said, hello Rabbi, and he kissed him"
" ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἑταῖρε, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάρει; τότε προσελθόντες ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐκράτησαν αὐτόν." = "and Jesus told him: Partner/friend, what are you up to? Then the others put their hands on Jesus and held him" (If there were Roman soldiers there, would they really let the Jews to try to hold/arrest Jesus? Would they not arrest him themselves, as the official power on location?)
"καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς τῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασε τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ, καὶ πατάξας τὸν δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον." = "and here, one of those who were with jesus, by spreading his hand removed his knife (from the case) and, hitting the servant of the Archbishop, he cut his ear" (so he cut the ear of a member of the mob, who was a servant of the Archbishop, not of a Roman soldier").
" τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀπόστρεψόν σου τὴν μάχαιραν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς· πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀποθανοῦνται." = "then jesus tells him: put your knife back to its place, because all those who pull a knife die from a knife"
" ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι ἄρτι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείους ἢ δώδεκα λεγεῶνας ἀγγέλων;" = "or do you think that I cannot ask my Father right now to send here more that twelve legions of angels?"
" πῶς οὖν πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ ὅτι οὕτω δεῖ γενέσθαι;" =" but then how will the scripts be realised?"
"Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς ὄχλοις· ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθετε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με· καθ᾿ ἡμέραν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκαθεζόμην διδάσκων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με." = "At that moment, Jesus said to the mob :Like going against a thief you came to me, bearing knives and woodsticks, to arrest me. Every day I was sitting next to you teaching at the Temple and you didn't take a hold of me."
"τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον." = "and all this happenned so that the scripts of the prophets would be realised. Then all the studens left him and went away".
So at least according to Mathew there was no Roman there during the "arrest", but the Jewish mob delivered him to the Romans at a later stage.
But I see now that word "σπειραν", is not found in Matthew's gospel but in John's. 🙂
It can have several meanings (like something going in rounds, a spiral, etc), but the most fitting would be a group of bad men whio conspire to do something bad. I can't really see any link etymologically to the direction of "cohort".
The full sentence from John is that "ο ουν ιουδας λαβων την σπειραν και εκ των αρχιερεων και φαρισαιων υπηρετας ερχεται εκει μετα φανων και λαμπαδων και οπλων" =" Judas, "receiving" or "holding" the "speira" (whatever that is), AND those who serve the Archbishops and the Farissee, comes there with lights and candles and weapons". So:
1. He does not say "knives", but weapons, which can have more meanings, inclusing military weapons.
2. He says the "speira" AND the servants of the Archibishops and the Farissee, so this could mean either a. the Roman Cohort plus the Jews OR b. the jewish mob plus the servants of the Archibishops and Farisee, whom he does not consider mob.
3. "λαβών" can mean either a. "taking in his hand, ("λαβή" = handgrip), in which case the "σπειραν" would be a (spiral or curved) artifact he can hold, or b. "receiving", and in this case we should try to understand from whom he received the "σπειραν", which would be a group of people. But it sounds rather strange that he would take (in the sense of leading, which the sentense implies) a Roman cohort .
And later he says "η ουν σπειρα και ο χιλιαρχος και οι υπηρεται των ιουδαιων συνελαβον τον ιησουν και εδησαν αυτον" =" the speira and the tribunus (not sure if "tribunus" is correct, the literal translation is "leader of 1.000 men"). So apparently according to John there were also Romans there, at least the "xiliarchos", who apparently would not be there alone.
From the small research I have done just now, I could not find a unit of 1000 men, so this might be an indication that John's version is somehow incorrect (maybe trying to make the whole event more official/fancy?) especially if we consider that the other three all mention no Romans on the spot during the "arrest".
And lastly, if the Romans had arrested Jesus, would they first send him to be tried by the two senior Hebrew leaders? Would they not take over the process entirely? I would assume that any Roman intervention (including the Roman army arresting someone) would be the last and final step, after the locals would finish with their own (lower level of authority) processes.
So again it seems to me more that somehting is wrong with John's mention of the "χιλίαρχος" and that the word "σπείραν" should most likely be explained that it referes to the mob of Jews, who he identifies separately from the Jews who were servants of the Hebrew Archbishops and Elders.
Just some thoughts.
😮I've never read such a long UA-cam comment, all the way to the end. Reading this was a treat. I like the way you express your thoughts 😊
Yes, that seems very analogous with the times and the points you make are all very logical. I wonder if you’ve thought about having your own UA-cam discussion group, your investigative skills and understanding of the original language are precise, well thought out and quite fruitful. I would love to hear more of your interpretations, my own aim is to understand precisely what the Bible is telling us and not necessary the often incorrect and time-worn interpretations the church is teaching, these can often be wrong or misinterpreted.
Interesting and fascinating analysis. Hooked me in to finish reading it. 😂. Well put. You can have your own channel. Food for Thought. Makes a lot of sense. Well done. As someone who teaches research skills, I must say you have way above average research skills, analytical and thought process skills, plus high level of common sense. Take that gift to the next level. 💚 God bless!
As a Roman Catholic and former alter boy, I must admit that your recitation was most enjoyable. I had never considered that the 2 men crucified that day may have had a more significant role in the historical record. Nicely done sir.
What theological advantage does being an alter boy give you?
@@wolfthequarrelsome504
What part of his comment gave you the idea that he was laying claim to a theological advantage? I see the word "enjoyable" cited in reference to the video regarding his altar boy claim. I would go so far as to call this a stupid question, on top of its petulant energy.
Nothing about the anonymously written gospels can be considered as 'historical record'.
@@HughJaxident67😂they aren’t anonymous at all, they LITERALLY have their names in them and they also name each other in full and their families….also they are written in Roman tax and arrest records, PLUS the same John was imprisoned at Patmos when he wrote Revelation. 😂
@@gwldybg
They ARE anonymous and the names were attributed to them by the early church fathers. Evidently you've never even looked into this have you!
"and they also name each other in full and their families"
No they don't.
"also they are written in Roman tax and arrest records"
No they're not!
"PLUS the same John was imprisoned at Patmos when he wrote Revelation"
Wrong again! We have no idea who wrote John. My advice? Stop taking note of dishonest theist sources and read up on peer reviewed NT and historical scholarly sources.
I finally found a supplemental help study for my understanding of Greek. Very helpful and fun enlightenment. Good presentation! Thanks
Somehow the thought of Simon Peter pulling a weapon to defend Jesus makes me feel even more love for him. What a great man he was. I am a Catholic Christian, and I can find no conflict with any of what you say about Jesus. We need to know more about him. Please keep on with this series.
He's very respectful for a non-believer, but we must at all cost not let that stop us from bringing word to such people respectful or otherwise
@@prestonyannotti7661 Does he state his religious/faith beliefs in any of his videos? I haven't come across any videos where he details his religious beliefs. I have often wondered where he stands.
@@prestonyannotti7661 are you sure he isnt a beliver ?
Metatron is Christian.
Imagine drawing a weapon in front of 400 armed Roman soldiers.
In my modest opinion there's a mistake: you are assuming that the people Who arrested Jesus were romans. Instead, at the time of Jesus Is evident the presence of at least antoher legal militia: the guards of the Temple, lead by the ruling class of the Sadducees, allied with the roman emperor and hostile to all the revolutionary jewish factions. This militia had the task of applying the Jewish law to the extent that it did not contradict the roman law.
The Jewish leaders managed to arrest Jesus 1. in the night (without the Jesus' supporting crowd) 2. In the only night that Jesus was in Jerusalem ( he used to spend the night protected in caravansary of Lazzarus)
Then they had to take Jesus in front of a roman tribunal because of the impossibility for a Jewish tribunal to death sentence someone.
The order of moving an entire cohort could have been given only by Pontius Pilate himself but the day After, when Jesus Is taken in front of him, Is evident that he Is not yet aware of the situation.
My conclusion Is that the term speiran has to be intended simply as "troops" not in the techincal meaning of a 600 people part of the roman army.
#JewsKilledJesus
I agree. There are a few other lines of evidence that they were not Romans.
1. The text doesn't say they were Romans. It only calls them men. If they were Roman soldiers, why doesn't it say so?
2. It says they were armed with swords and staves or clubs. Roman soldiers didn't carry staves or clubs. Those were civilian weapons.
3. It says they were sent by the priests. Priests couldn't command Roman soldiers. But they could command their Jewish followers.
4. It says that one of Jesus' followers cut an ear off of one of the men. If the follower had in fact wounded a Roman soldier in front of such a large group, the other soldiers would have killed him immediately. He would have no chance against soldiers in armor. By contrast, if they were just armed Jewish men, taking them on would be much more feasible.
Given all these clues, I think it's almost certain that the men were not suppose to be Roman soldiers.
@@dwaneanderson8039Thank you.
Well said !
The biggest clue is they take Jesus to the high Priest Anna's/Chiapas not into Roman custody.
Thank you for your analysis and insight. Revisiting statements made by people living at the time of these events rather than interpretations formed later by individuals with an agenda or bias is refreshing.
Wow! 🤯
As always, your ability to paint a Factual, Truthful, and Accurate picture of an event or period in time...
Just blew my mind!
Thanks and please don't stop! 👍
I do consider myself a Christian. Your breakdowns of parts in the bible make so much more sense to me then what I've been taught by others. Thank you for all the effort you put in making your videos ☺
Looking into the original languages can explain many things in scripture that seem very confusing in English.
@@libertarianesque8645we dont have any of the full original scriptures though.
@@GameTimeWhyBlame the Catholic Church. They destroyed a lot of historical things in order to make their own narrative, which went on to shape a lot of Christianity as a whole today.
@@GameTimeWhyYes we do.
The Dead Sea Scrolls
@@GameTimeWhy That's like saying we don't have any of Shakespeare's original plays. It's true but meaningless. We don't have the original manuscripts, but we have carefully made copies. Every Orthodox Jewish Synagogue has a faithful copy of the Torah ( Genesis through Deuteronomy ). From libraries all over the world you can access copies dating to antiquity of the various books of the Bible.
If you mean we don't have the original manuscripts, that's true of any ancient document. But so what? If you mean we don't have reliable copies of the originals, that is simply historically inaccurate.
I already had popcorn today... But for this, I think I need to make more!
You totally should
This was a great video, as always. Thank you!
Your analysis is both brilliant and informative. Thank you as always.
The Romans viewing Jesus the same way they would view Achilles or Hercules makes a lot of sense and wasn't something I had thought of.
Then again I think a lot of us tend to forget a lot about the Romans in the context of the Gospels despite them being ever present in the background.
Comes from watching Romans speak with British accents.
If i may state, as one as myself who is an elder Bible Textuary - trained in Bible Hebrew + Greek by teachers in those lands, and learned in Latin a bit also _[i'm Italian first generation in Canada, Italian is closest to Latin]_ who knows full well that Jesus taught his true John 3:1-21 qualified remnant to be an Acts 17 Berean with His Holy Writ AKA true first century born again Israelite minded exegesis of His love letter written to mankind in His blood, we know you will never find the word "Gospels" in the Greek or English, it's actually one Gospel, and four accounts of that one Gospel, hence why, again you never see the word "Gospel" pluralised in the New Covenant and if you do, it's a mistake.
I think it makes more sense that Jews had a history of revolts and sedition. AFAIK, the Romans formed Judaea province exactly because the former vassal state couldn't keep rebels in check.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 Judea was the land where the tribe of Judah resided. It wasn't created by the Romans. That was the name of Palestine.
There was kind of a severe Juda - Samaria rivalry at the time@@gergelymagyarosi9285
I am a Christian who loves to delve into church history. I really like your approach of going back to original texts. Things can really be "lost in translation." Thanks again for another thought-provoking topic.
Not a Christian anymore but I also am super intrigued about early church history along with Post-Classical Rome in general
@@Mcgif21Are you from a fundy background?
@@justchilling704 my parents were “evangelical” for sure but I wouldn’t say they were fundamentalists. They know I’m not Christian anymore and even though it was hard on them we still have a great relationship.
The king James Bible was a purposful attempt to retranslate. Reforming the Bible was about reformi g the social order and address the fanatics thst scripture kept producing.
@@DJWESG1are you catholic??
Again my friend thank you for sharing this with me and others. God bless you. 👍✝️✌️
I really think the Bible needs to be retranslated from its original texts again. And should have a means to also provide context when necessary. I’m so glad you are doing this series. It has rekindled my interest in both religion and history, and just understanding things about my own existence. I love the approaches you take, prioritizing context and correct translation, and done so with great respect of faith of other people. Keep it up.
The problem here is that it's been retranslated again and again and again. But no translation will ever perfectly handle the nuances of language differences.
You can't always translate things 1:1. For example, idiomatic language frequently doesn't translate, you have to interpret the meaning, which requires judgement calls that can be subjective. There are also questions as to the actual meaning of certain words. There are no native speakers of ancient Greek or Hebrew that you can ask. Yes, there is modern Greek and Modern Hebrew, and they are related, but just like early English is very different from modern English, the ancient languages are different from today's versions. In most cases, the meanings of the language is fairly clear and easy to convey into modern language. In others, we may not fully understand the meaning. Compounding this is the fact that we have no original copies of any Biblical documents, and the copies we have frequently have differences. For example, the earliest versions of the Gospel of Mark we have are around 200 years after we believe it was originally set down. Those copies do not have verses 9-20 as found in modern copies. Some end at verse 8, others add a two-sentence ending, and others add the full passage from vv 9-20.
Of course not everyone is up to learning the bibilical languages. It helps somewhat, however, if you can learn enough of the basics of the language (alphabet, basic word forms) to be able to find corresponding words or phrases in the greek or hebrew and then do research on the meanings of those words looking for possible differences in meaning or alternate connotations.
There are no "original texts".
A new translation from the oldest source, with annotations for cases when a word can't be directly translated.
I have no idea how many cases of deliberate double meanings are using in the old greek text, but the chance is high that it is more than zero.
The oldest sources aren't necessarily the most reliable.
All we have is copies of copies of copies. Even if we did somehow have an original, we wouldn't have any way of knowing that it was.
The copies are from a variety of sources, and those, in turn, are copies from a variety of sources. We might have one copy from, say the 7th century that's a copy of the document from the 6th century, which is a copy of a copy from the 5th... all the way back roughly a century apart for each. We might have another copy from the 8th century, so not as old, but it was a copy of a copy from the 3rd century. Which do you use?
Generally speaking, the fewer iterations, the more accurate the copy is likely to be. But then you also have to take into account the fact that the scribes doing the copying are not all the same. Some may be more precise than others.
The end result is that it's very difficult to determine what the most accurate version is.
The most common practice to deal with this is to compile a critical text. For this, you take all of the copies available, or, more likely, all of the copies considered of high quality as far as the faithfulness of the reproduction. You then create a new copy based on these. Where copies don't match, a group of experts analyzes the available options and tries to decide what the original likely said, and compiles a set of notes with the alternatives, at least those that make sense to retain. For example, obvious mistakes are likely to be discarded.
When this is complete, you have a body of text that seeks to be as close to the original as possible, but provides the alternatives where differences exist.
When making a translation, then, you work from this critical text. BUT, new discoveries that occur over time may provide new versions with different readings and call for updates to the critical text, and so every generation or so you may need to revisit translations.
I mentioned idiomatic language before. Let's say you're trying to translate a novel from English into Chinese. In the English text, a character says "just give me a ball-park figure." I don't speak Chinese, but I don't expect that a direct translation of those words would make sense to a Chinese speaker. For speakers of English, at least in the United States, we know this term means a rough estimate, and so when translating the novel into Chinese, the translator would likely use the Chinese term for estimate. But this does require an act of interpretation, and that interpretation may not convey the same meaning.
Let me give a specific example from scripture. A lot of people believe in the idea of the Rapture. I'm not simply referring to the second coming of Christ, which is fully established in scripture. I'm referring to the idea that believers will be taken away before a great tribulation.
One of the key verses in scripture that is used to support this is found in 1st Thesalonians 4:16-17: "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. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever."
The key word I want to point to is the term that is translated "to meet." The Greek is ἀπάντησιν, from ἀπάντησις. The word does mean "to meet", but has a connotation attached. That connotation is closer to the concept of reception. It is used in two other places in the New Testament. In Matthew 25:6, the Parable of the Bridegroom, someone shouts out "Look, the bridegroom, Come out to meet him." Here, meet is ἀπάντησις. In Acts 28:15, as Paul is approaching Rome, the author writes: " The brothers and sisters from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us." Here, to meet is once again ἀπάντησις. In both of these cases the clear context is that someone is being met and brought into a place.
The term is found in secular writings from the period as well and conveys the same meaning. An example of this usage is to refer to people of a town going out from the city gates to meet an approaching ambassador and welcome him into the city.
So if you return to the verse in 1 Thessalonians, you see the connotation of the Greek is not of believers being snatched away completely, but that the believers are going up into the clouds to meet the Lord and welcome him back to Earth.
There's also the fact that what is rendered as the word "love" in English is actually several different possible words in Greek, each of which with a different subtext. Take for example, John 21:15 through 17. Three times Jesus asks Peter, "Do you love me" to which Peter replies, "Yes, I love you." What the English translation doesn't show is that Jesus uses the word ἀγαπάω, agapao, while Peter uses φιλέω, phileo. Phileo is the love you'd have for a friend or even brother. Agapao, on the other hand, is the kind of love that transcends, that is the selfless love that unites, heals, and would compel one to sacrifive oneself for the beloved.
Yet, again, English doesn't convey this. In English, we really only have one word. You can love your wife, love your brother, love your mother, love your dog, and love your favorite food. In Greek, different words are used for different types of love. Eros is the love you'd have for your significant other, philia for your friends, philautia is your love of yourself, storge is your love of family, mania is obsessive love, and agape is selfless love.
Unfortunately, when it comes to biblical translation, at some point you have to interpret the language, not just translate, in order for the translation to make sense.
There are two extremes you can choose: do you try to convey the overall meaning or do you try to convey the literal translation. Most translations take a path somewhere in between, but when you have to interpret, there are choices to make that become judgement calls.
This is why any serious student of scripture should take some time to learn at least a little bit about the biblical languages in order to better understand these issues. You don't have to become a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but being able to research a word and see what nuances it may hold that don't come across in translation can be a very helpful.
Translation will never be perfect, that's why there is an ancient church and tradition to preserve the interpretation of the text.
Very interesting video! Never thought of this detail!
During the Greek War of independence of 1821, the guerilla fighters were actually called "κλέφτες", and in modern Greek "κλέφτες" is considered a synonym of "ληστές".
So what you present, that the word "ληστές", could also be referring to rebels/guerillas back then, seems very plausible!
Thank you for this video!
I have always assumed that "bandit" in the context of the time basically meant rebel, which would neatly explain crucifixion as the punishment. It is interesting to see linguistic evidence to support that line of reasoning.
Indeed, my understanding is that "bandit" was a Roman euphemism for rebel.
Onky rebels and rebellious slaves are executed by cruxidmfication. The christian fan fiction and PR department tried to hide that.
No, because his crucifixion is already explained. Pontius declares Jesus innocent, then offers to have Jesus pardoned for Passover (the people chose a murderer instead), then Pontus says he'll have Jesus whipped and the crowd demands crucifixion. Jesus tells Pontius the greater sin is on the crowd, Pontius washes his hands (literally and figuratively) of the action, and the crucifixion proceeds. He is declared innocent by Rome.
@normanfury8259 Wrong crucifixion. The Romans wouldn't crucify thieves, is my point. Rebels, though? Rebels and slaves are the two classic crimes punished via crucifixion, IIRC.
@@normanfury8259 This is the fan fiction fantasy version of the cult to promote the cult. Pilate's residence was in Ceasaria on tve coast to begin with so no evidence he was in Jerusalem at all. Secobd the highest Roman official does not look after another criminal. Third Roman officuals let not a mob pick criminals to go free. This is another if so many fantasy elements. Fourth If you are crucified by a Roman you stay dead and end in a public dumbster if anything is left over. Please treat fan fiction for what it is.
You make a real good job. Keep on.
It is fascinating! Keep preaching!
Awesome video as always Metatron! Two things:
1. A little mistake: It's spelled "pivotal"
2. I would say that the roman soldiers could have been at MOST around 600 men IF the cohort was at full strength and was fully deployed, which often didn't happen for any number of reasons.
Anyway, keep it going Noble One!
Yes I noticed this too
As a Protestant I love this series. You and my pastor are the only people who go into this stuff in detail, with context and looking at the original text. Love it
Your religion was a created by a Murderous King Henry VIII who wanted to separate from Roman Catholic Church just to get his Divorce.
you have a rare treat of a pastor there, give him my regards.
I am glad I grew up in a reserved country with Lutheran pastors. Ones I know would never get mad at someone taking apart the subject. They do have their beliefs but they never imposed them, respected individuals of their church and offered guidance if it was asked. Not like my dear friend who grew up in an Catholic church and, as a kid, was asked to confess to pastor about masturbation, lying or other things resulting in confusion because her grandma lied and said it was ok.
@@Jaze09 I agree. Many Christians just condemn and then wonder why they didn't convert anyone and no one cones to their church.
@@Jaze09 thanks fellow Noble one
Very good stuff, as always. Thank you for your scholarly analysis.
Good one!
I always thought it interesting that Pilate found Jesus innocent. As a Christian, I had much sympathy and even a measure of respect for him because he was an unbeliever that had a duty to his government yet still had a pretty profound response to Jesus’s answers. The context you brought up made the interactions even MORE interesting to me. Thanks for your work
I agree..more so than not _[btw Jesus cares for honour, not respect which the latter be of men and is the Devil's cheap imitation of God's/Jesus' honour, a bunch of New Testament Scriptures in the KJV solidify this since it's the most reliable English translation, but of course, no language ever translates to another perfectly.]_ but sadly.. he was still guilty in Jesus' eyes because he still went through it..... he only did so for how he was forced to by the Pharisees who stirred up the crowd to tumult level and Pontius did not want to cause a revolt which Pontius would have paid dearly for with his life perhaps from his superiors in Rome. Also his own wife told him have nothing to do with that man inferring His innocence.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Yea I did have that realization that Pilate’s wife probably influneced his ultimate decision, but I also thought he had a very interesting compromise even with that in mind. When he gave the official charge of the crime to be nailed to the cross above Jesus, he chose to make the charges, “The king of the Jews,” and openly defied the Pharisees’ request to edit it. I always found that to be a subtle reminder that Pilate was only going forward with it because he felt that his hand was forced against his better judgement
The gospels were written after the Jewish War, when Jews were not popular- indeed,the mission to the Jews is pretty well over. The Christians were hostile to the Jews and trying to suck up to the Romans; the softening of the image of Pilate was much more likely to be the first stirrings of Christian antisemitism than a factual report.
............and thus the start of antisemitism. As chronologically the NT authors are writing - Pilate becomes more and more innocent - literally washing his hands, and the Jews saying Jesus blood is on them. This is why they have been called Christ Killers throughout history.
Yeah I always liked Pilate too! I thought I read he wasn't saved, but now I can't find anything like that! I hope he did believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior eventually!
I have been a Christian for many, many years and was taught to do proper exegesis long ago. Most of what you said is what I was taught and I now continue to teach. Also, in the CSB translation, in John 18:40 specifically, it says Barabbas was a revolutionary with a notation that refers you to the Greek word. Such a great video! Thank you!
Yes, Yeshua was a revolutionary son of man.
no... the Devil is the first rebel/revolutionary thus blasphemy to call God/Jesus a revoluionary. @@bobSeigar
If you are not truly John 3:1-21 qualified which Jesus commands which is the optimus prime position He calls man to, then sadly we will be who He refers to in Matthew 7:21-23, Revelation 3:15-16, 21:8, 22:15. Either we obey Matthew 18:1-3, Mark 1:15, Luke 13:1-5, John 3:1-21, Romans 10:9 and all parallel verses or we do not and thus we have chosen the second death. Isaieh 5:19-23. ...... the Antichrist kingdom... the final empire continues to rise. Almost wholly diabolic/lunatic world rising. Dear Jesus.. come quickly but i know it's not yet.. still much more evil to increase.. HE grants strength to endure.. get on the John 3:1-21 Ark while you still are able, the door is closing and the firestorm is approaching, most shall not escape.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Did you skip Genesis or what?
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Also, it is only blasphemous to the Cult of Vespasian, the Serpent worshippers and lovers of the Moon, the Gay-Paedophilic predators that call themselves 'Catholic"
Hi Metatron,your translation is marvellous!
Fascinating analysis. Love your work
Thank you for your video. I am a devout christian and aspiring theologian and the bible is very important to me. I tremendously appreciate the respect you show to the scripture as a historic document and source. I know many scholars who outright dismiss the bible as a source and I want to thank you for the way you treat it with respect. I myself am still studying ancient Greek and did not find the time to learn Hebrew, so I enjoy the your in depth analyses very much. I learned a lot from this video an I am happy to say, that this is very much in line with what I know to be current theological perspective on this matter. I have been quite unsure for a long time, whether or not I may say the Romans brought many soldiers, because I seem to recall a historian scolding me, saying "The Romans would have never brought more than 20 men to arrest a simple carpenter." Thank you for explaining the historic background and the political implications, that would have motivated a cohort of Roman soldiers to be brought to Jesus' arrest.
Again, thank you for your videos. Keep going.
Please forgive any mistakes. It's late, I'm tired and English is a second language for me.
God bless you, Metatron.
I'm also a Christian who studies the Bible, and I agree with this post completely! The new thing I learned was that a second possible way The Roman authorities might interpret "Son of God" was that he might be someone like Hercules. Interesting! And I really appreciate your respectful handling of my beliefs as well as all others'.
I would like to kindly reply to your comment. There are things i agree with and not agree with in your reply. Allow me first to preface with something so you may know i am no rookie;
I am one is an elder Bible Textuary - trained in Bible Hebrew + Greek by teachers in those lands, and learned in Latin a bit also _[i'm Italian first generation in Canada, Italian is closest to Latin]_ who knows full well that Jesus taught his true John 3:1-21 qualified remnant to be an Acts 17 Berean with His Holy Writ AKA true first century born again Israelite minded exegesis of His love letter written to mankind in His blood aka The Holy Bible. Bible Greek is Koine Greek not ancient Greek. That same authentic Scriptural austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ teaches you NEVER go with the 'current theological perspective on the matter' rather you go with accurate correct ordered precise proper and sound _[ACOPPS]_ John 3:1-21 qualified Acts 17 Berean exegesis. Through one's who correct study of the Scriptures in the ACOPPS historical, grammatical, linguistic, societal, cultural, tribal and supremely spiritually born again Israelite understanding, they will learn what Metatron has spoken on, however, sadly, due to a secular treatment of the Scriptures, Metatron, as noble as he seeks to be and as much as i do appreciate his commitment to true facts not opinions masquerading as facts, and as much as he strives for high-integrity academic empiricism etc, a secular position inherently is not always Scripturally correct from a John 3:1-21 Bible Textuary Acts 17 Berean perspective which the austere true Scriptural Jesus taught for if they be no truly John 3:1-21 qualified, they are still the 'natural man' and thus will not obtain the keys to unlock the spiritual understanding which only the true Jesus gives to John 3:1-21 qualified remnant adopted children of His or to them who are truly seeking Him who then become born again truly. Edifying further note: you will never find the word "Gospels" in the Greek or English, it's actually one Gospel, and four accounts of that one Gospel, hence why, again you never see the word "Gospel" pluralised in the New Covenant and if you do, it's a mistake.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Hello, I want to reply to you, for I feel there has been a misunderstanding on some part and I also disagree with something you wrote. Many things however I do agree with.
The misunderstanding: I know that the Greek of the ancient philosophers and the biblical Koine is not the same, however in Germany ancient Greek is a general term for the Greek dialects used between 800 BC and 600 AD (although it can also refer to only the Greek before the Koine). Ancient Greek of the philosophers is usually referred to as classical Greek. If I misused the terms in English, I am sorry.
I disagree with the statement, that Jesus taught to never go with the "current theological perspective of the matter" (btw. what Verses are you basing that statement on?). With this you imply, that the current theological perspective must always be in some way incorrect, but that is not true, but that was perhaps not your intention. I do my own exegesis, however I do often find, that my ACOPPS exegesis lines up with the theological understanding I read (after doing my own work!). Jesus did not always go against the Jewish theological understanding of his time, ex. the understanding that god created the universe. I agree with you, that the correct exegesis is fundamentally important. I however disagree, that one may never go with the current theological understanding on a matter, for that would mean, one would have to reject a ACOPPS teaching if it is the current theological understanding. I believe, you may go with the current theological understanding, if its correct.
To the next point, one can show respect in treating scripture without the Holy Spirit. Metatron shows great respect for the bible as a historical source. One must not be born again to find historical truth and interesting facts in the text. Yes, the deeper meaning of scripture will be hidden to those who are not in Christ, but Metatron was not seeking for the deeper meaning of scripture, he was trying ton understand and explain a curiosity of the Greek text, the curiosity being John use of the word 'speiran'. For the historical and cultural explanation of why the Roman felt it necessary to dispatch 600 Soldiers, no deeper understanding of scripture is needed.
As with the former parts, I also only half-agree with you on your last part. Yes, the gospel is one thing and cannot be pluralized. However, the four books of the gospel are called 'gospel of ...' in English. In this case one may pluralize gospel, if one does not speak of the one εὐαγγέλιον, but is referring to the four accounts, for these books are also called gospels. When speaking of the εὐαγγέλιον, pluralization is wrong, speaking of the books, the accounts, pluralization is correct. Or in other words 'gospels' is not referring to the content, the εὐαγγέλιον, but rather only to the form, the accounts.
God bless you.
While I am more familiar with ancient Hebrew, there are many transferable concepts when doing translation work, which I recognize in your explanation. Therefore, I acknowledge that your explanation appears to be logical and reasonable.
I also must highly commend you for your ability to provide a reasonable and logical exegesis of the text, devoid of any apparent bias!
Brilliant on many levels! Much respect!
Thank the austere Scriptural authentic Jesus the Christ _[God]_ that you seemingly know the difference between reason and logic... the latter is arithmetic and from a John 3:1-21 optimus prime position, eschewed by Jesus and the Apostles in verses like Colossians 2:8-9, 1Corinthians1 and others. Me as an elder Bible Textuary who knows full well that Jesus taught to be an Acts 17 Berean with His Holy Writ AKA true first century born again Israelite minded exegesis of His love letter written to mankind in His blood, for me it's not free of bias nor brilliant on many levels, just rather the latter is striving to be truthful in correct historico-grammatico linguistic study and the former biased in Jesus' eyes due to secular approach. One thing is clear, attempting to study the Holy Bible by taking today's societal mores and overlapping them on a much older text, is considered backwards by God/Jesus.
@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Does that come with sauce ?
Excellent enlightening video
I know I can always trust you to have the best sources and the most thoughtful analysis. You are sharing historical facts and details about language that are absolutely fascinating! As a Catholic in the modern age, I usually have to anticipate purposefully antagonistic personal views to seep into some historians' videos; tends to have me on edge and feeling defensive. But never with you, Metatron. I can fully immerse and enjoy the educational content, stress-free. Thank you!
I've been watching these series on the Bible and Christianity and I have really enjoyed watching them. I love getting into the translations to see what was really meant to say. I am finding that they are strengthening my faith. You remind me of a really amazing history teacher I had when I was in college. He had this way of making history truly interesting. I often looked forward to his classes.
As i told another, i hope you are amicable to considering;
The authentic austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ [God], well John 3:1-21 qualified ones as myself and long time Bible Textuaries trained in Bible Hebrew/Greek and also Latin in varying strengths [I'm Italian also like Metatron but live in Canada, first generation here] know Jesus taught to learn secondarily to learn from the minority of true John 3:1-21 preacher and teachers and supremely from the Lord Himself as you read the Scriptures, for if you truly seek Him in His Holy Writ humbly, He will grant you His wisdom to correctly understand His words.
I had always wondered how many soldiers went with Judas. I was honestly surprised by your translation, but you explained it well enough that it made sense afterwards.
Don't believe Hollywood. They like melodrama because melodrama makes money.
The cohort that went to the garden were all officers of the high priests. A cohort of Roman soldiers would have required the authorization of Pontius Pilate but the high priests did not go to Pontius Pilate until after they had already gone to the garden first.
This is exactly the scenario that Jesus (Yahoshuah) said would happen, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." (Matthew 20:18, 19. It says the same thing in Mark 10).
Also, Judas went to the priests and got his 30 pieces of silver from the priests. His agreement was with the priests and not with the Romans.
So don't believe what Hollywood tells you and don't believe what Metatron tells you and don't even believe what I am telling you because we all are individually responsible to read the scriptures word for word for ourselves.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11, Jeremiah 31:34). Also, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…" (John 16:13).
Soldiers might have been the minority. Most were mercenaries and people who followed.
Part of my born again experience was abandoning most of my previous UA-cam subscriptions, and now here you are, and how wrong I was to lump you in with the other historical UA-camrs.
Excellent video! The context you bring and the emphasis on "how the ROMANS, not US, saw it" is vital as is the breakdown of what the original words really mean, how they're used, what the cultural significance at the time was, etc. It's easy for us to forget that a modern translation of an ancient work is fraught with problems - does the translator really know the language? are they aware/keeping the context in mind? the culture OF THE TIME in mind? etc.
Thanks again for your solid work on these videos! I feel like I actually learn something true after each one.
Only the Romans that were part of the very early church.
Romans in general knew as much of christianity as we know about Scientology.
Yes, generally speaking, biblical translators are experts in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and they do understand context. However, translating into the modern idiom isn’t as easy as it may appear. There could be multiple ways of translating the same passage, each with good rationale. The New English Translation (available online) includes extensive translation notes which reveal the complexity of translation work. Worth a look if you’re interested in the original texts.
This sort of textual analysis in the original language is absolutely vital for the conveyance of the original intent of the authors. When a religious work is translated, you are almost always getting the text filtered through theological biases of the translator (particularly true of the KJV). This is why classical Latin and Greek, written and spoken, ought be taught to all members of the clergy. Thank you for this resource, metatron.
This is why Muslims all over the world are taught Arabic, so we don't have to wait for the internet to be invented for someone to explain to us the original meaning of scripture. One cannot be a Muslim scholar (sheikh, doctor of Islam, AyatOllah, Mullah, Allama) without being fluent in medieval Arabic.
@@tliltocatlalbopilosa1513 Most of the Old Testament is in Hebrew, which was by the time of Christ a liturgical language like Latin is today. The New Testament was mostly written in Greek to my knowledge (it was Paul’s first language).
@@JRLeeman Correct, more specific: it was written in "Koine" Greek ( a kind of lingua franca in that period).
@@Moses_VII While there are some groups/denominations within Christianity which allow preaching and teaching by any believer regardless of their level of formal education, other denominations require education like seminary, which includes learning enough Hebrew and Greek to be able to study scripture in its original language, before permitting one to be ordained as clergy or clergy-equivalent.
@@JRLeeman yup, greek was the dominant language in the eastern part of the empire (And yes, Cleopatra was greek, from the ptolemaic dynasty, named after Ptolemy I, one of Alexander's bodyguards).
So it is understandable that the new Testament was written in a widespread language, like greek.
As a Christian, I am so impressed by your scholarship and intellectual honestly.
As someone who has read the Bible his entire life, you continue to teach me.
Grazie!
@MartinSpeaks. And the path to life is narrow.
@@jep6752 so as a christ9ian will you obey your gods slavery laws in it or fail and suffer the banishment to hell for not doing it? Or is that just another part of the bible you ignore? 🤦♂🤣
Well said!
@MartinSpeaks. thats islam
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 wait if allah is god,then why did muhammad have slaves..check mate
context is key! Thank you. And thanks for the Magic Spoon
JESUS said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me"
You are the truth and the light because the kingdom of God is within you, know how to activate your inner power (Soul)
@@akwasiaddaihammond5098No. We are mere human beings and are incapable of living a perfect and sinless life.
No, the Bible claims Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". Since we have nothing written by Jesus or even any contemporaneous accounts we cannot be sure what Jesus said.
@vatsmith8759 gospels were written by the disciples who lived with JESUS for 3 years and who died (often under persecution and torture) confessing thier faith in the risen JESUS.
God is not new age. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. You are not the way, the truth or the life because no one goes to the Father except through Christ Jesus. To think that you are the way, the truth, or the life is blasphemy against God which is what made Lucifer fall from grace. Do not be deceived by new age doctrine because it is a lie straight from the pit of hell because misery loves company and Lucifer knows that he has already lost the war he is waging against God.
Thank you Metatron. Your presentation of this material (and all your deep dives) are wonderful and help us understand history and the existing material/literature.
So much truth can be lost in translation, and how quickly a single word can make a huge difference is my takeaway.
This is a great series, Metatron
Very interesting.
Well done!
An excellent translation and very thought provoking.
Metatron, I’ve been following you for about 6+ years now. It’s great so see you doing so well. Keep up the stellar work
I suggest the reading of Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" (it's a novel). Not necesserely all of it, just the part that narrates the Pilato's perspective of the trial of Jesus. It totally worth reading it.
I would LOVE to see you do a series on the historical evidence, or lack of, for a variety of the most popular words religions. I am a Christian and I'm currently studying this myself. I love listening to you because I know there is no bias, just facts. Your a great teacher and I can listen to your videos for hours. Your hard work is very appreciated!
Relgions are not based on facts, but rather fables and faith. If you want facts, study physics and philosophy.
In some cases, yes. However, a number of religions (Christianity to a greater extent, but also Islam and the LDS Church, for example) couch their religion's veracity in historical events (Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, and then the respective revelations to the founders of Islam and Mormonism). If these historical events had not occurred, the religions would be false, and useful only as far as the ideas within them were beneficial (as an aside, at least two of the three must be false because of contradictory claims they make).
New Age spiritualism, as one example, does not rely on historical events or facts, so such religions do also exist. Christianity, however, is not among them.
Such a lie! You can find factual information that was presented accurately in the bible the cities thought to not exist, Found, by non believers non the less, Artifacts, And if we trust eye witness accounts in court of law, THERE ARE SO MANY that testify during that time in writing! Yet many died and took to their grave never denying jesus was God in the flesh, it is rare some would die for a man but for a rightous man maybe a few would" MANY died for him, And not through writings alone, But the eye witness's ESPECIALLY which is so important because they didn't have to be biased, and too this very die people lay down their life if asked instead of denying him, And as a first hand acount for my self of in your face demonic, and angel events a few times before i got saved and after, going as far as a chain floating in my hand, An angel on the street, WITH 2 WITNESS'S yes, I get to KNOW , i don't have to guess @@LifeSucks
@@LifeSucksthe Bible is based on FACTS tho
I dont know how you could cram more actual information in 20 minutes..
A big Thank You to the whole team there doing all this wonderful work💯
As someone who preaches expository sermons every week, I found this video superb thanks for all your work😊
Regarding Jesus as a rebel, I think it's also important to consider his Galilean heritage. These were, as far as I understand, not directly under Roman rule, but still tied in enough to be considered well within their sphere of power. So, a Galilean rebel would be a really big threat to Roman rule in the region, as he could potentially mobilize an entire people right on their doorstep. They did not have the total control that they might exercise in their own territories.
Interesting. Will catch up on the rest of the series.
Thank you for sharing 🕊️
So interesting! I am constantly amazed by the quality of the content of this channel. Thanks so much for your hard work and willingness for sharing.
Great video!
Outstanding presentation and very accurate information!
I love these videos, and everything else you do. Thank you for being an intelligent and reasonable voice. So rare!
Glad you like them it's great having you here
In Luke chapter 22 beginning at verse 35 Jesus asks about provisions. He tells his disciples if they do not have a sword to sell their cloak and buy one. In verse 38 they tell Jesus they have 2 swords, and Jesus responds with "It is enough" or "it is sufficient" depending on translation. So according to Luke's account there were at least 2 weapons present amongst the disciples. This passage immediately precedes Luke's account in the garden.
Although according to the commentary I used the most, his "enough" was supposed to cut the conversation short, because the disciples mistakenly thought he was talking about material provisions, while in fact it was spiritual warfare.
There's a change from previous instructions to NOT have a sword. The reason for this eludes me, and haven't the time to study it.
But also don't forget what Jesus said about those swords.
◄ Matthew 26:52 ►
“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
@@ihavetubes Yes. I have no settled opinion on the subject. I have spent little time on this and do not plan to try to figure it out either.
It is pretty clear in Luke 22:37. They need swords in order to fulfill the prophecy that the Mesiah would be counted among the transgressors. The point was to give the authorities an excuse to arrest him. They didn't want to be arrested previously, but the time had come for suicide by cop. @@JRRodriguez-nu7po
this video is awesome!! thank you
Thank you for this content. Great episode
peak content...love this series.
Glad to hear
You do such great work with the languages. Thank you.
So nice of you
I can just imagine the poor waiter who has to understand Metatron ordering a Kaiser salad. A half hour phonetic lesson later...😢
For the past few days I have been watching your videos about Jesus. I very much enjoy them. I saw that I commented previously on one of the videos. I guess I didn't realize there was a whole series. Thank you.
Phenomenal work as always my friend, absolutely phenomenal!
Love history and geography and have done so since school, many thanks for feeding my hunger of knowledge, enlightenment....
Great series. I find your interpretation of scripture based on the translation of text from Ancient Greek based on the common meaning of words in ancient times very thoughtful and compelling. Your contributions certainly add positivity to scholarly analysis of the Gospels. Keep it up!
I love this channel so much - you really have it all: history, religion, politics sometimes, and it’s all so intellectual and cohesive.
Very interesting! Thank you 😊
This was a really well done video. Thank you
Metatron, you never cease to amaze me! Great work as usual and, may I add, your information is priceless. Thank you for all your efforts, I really appreciate it. Grazie mille!
Loved the entire episode. Thanks for shedding light especially on the numbers of soldiers involved as well as the political and religious implications which dictated Pilate's response. Very enlightening.
Don't believe Hollywood. They like melodrama because melodrama makes money.
The cohort that went to the garden were all officers of the high priests. A cohort of Roman soldiers would have required the authorization of Pontius Pilate but the high priests did not go to Pontius Pilate until after they had already gone to the garden first.
This is exactly the scenario that Jesus (Yahoshuah) said would happen, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." (Matthew 20:18, 19. It says the same thing in Mark 10).
Also, Judas went to the priests and got his 30 pieces of silver from the priests. His agreement was with the priests and not with the Romans.
So don't believe what Hollywood tells you and don't believe what Metatron tells you and don't even believe what I am telling you because we all are individually responsible to read the scriptures word for word for ourselves.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11, Jeremiah 31:34). Also, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…" (John 16:13).
Excellent presentation, thank you.
Excellent analysis !!!
Yay new video!!
If you taught this in a lecture format I would absolutely be in class to hear you speak about this subject
Great work brother!
Very good, sir. Bravo!
Great video! Your channel is one of the best to get historically sound information, thank you for your service to the community! My 2 cents... Another possible reason for the 600 soldiers would be the very likely presence, beyond the apostles, of many other disciples as the Getsemani was a place where they used to gather if I remember correctly.
Don't believe Hollywood. They like melodrama because melodrama makes money.
The cohort that went to the garden were all officers of the high priests. A cohort of Roman soldiers would have required the authorization of Pontius Pilate but the high priests did not go to Pontius Pilate until after they had already gone to the garden first.
This is exactly the scenario that Jesus (Yahoshuah) said would happen, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,
19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." (Matthew 20:18, 19. It says the same thing in Mark 10).
Also, Judas went to the priests and got his 30 pieces of silver from the priests. His agreement was with the priests and not with the Romans.
So don't believe what Hollywood tells you and don't believe what Metatron tells you and don't even believe what I am telling you because we all are individually responsible to read the scriptures word for word for ourselves.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11, Jeremiah 31:34). Also, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…" (John 16:13).
This was absolutely fabulous! Thank you so much for these kinds of videos.
Would you mind terribly looking at the English translation of the first seal in the book of Revelation, specifically the word translated as "bow"?
Go to Bible Gateway. They have a Greek lexicon for the NT. You don't have to accept the offered translation. Once you have the Greek word, you can find other opinions on its meaning.
Very well explanied 👍👍
Metatron, you are an amazing educator. I love your work!
Well done as usual!!
As a Catholic and amateur historian I feel
You investigating history
As it should always be done
Seeing a Historical moment in context to its time.
Not through a modern lens
But objectively without bias as humanly possible
(A tough thing)
And always through primary sources when available
Thank you
Please continue doing dives into Bible history
Hey hey Metatron! I've been a sub for quite awhile now and just found this series you've put together and thus far loving it! I've always studied "monster" lore, vampires, werewolves , mermaids, but oddly enough I felt including Angels (but not demons) was a good move and in the other Angel video when you said they were "dangerous," I was like "OMG YES!" I would NOT want to run into one on the sidewalk! I mean they're a god's henchmen! Nope nope!
Perhaps later I'll tell in the Demons video why I do not consider demons to be "monsters."
Anyway, as a child from a strict Protestant household growing up (Church of the Nazarene), being naturally inquisitive did not bode well for me.
Diving deep into history was frowned upon, and a'course now I know it was because I would learn something that contrasicted what I was taught at church and home. I kept going however and when I read my state adoption papers at 18 and discovered that alongside being descended from ze French, my parents purposefully did not tell me that my biological mother was Jewish. This was me at that moment since I knew by then this fact could explain SO much about who I was/am 🤯
Already disillusioned with Xtianity, I began attending the reform Jewish synagogue just down the road from the church I grew up in, began learning Hebrew and turns out our teacher was also a New Testament scholar and taught his at our local university, FSU. He explained all this you've just menti from the size of the Roman guard coming to arrest Josh (it's what I call him, Joshua Ben Joseph), to what "criminal" type he was finally convicted to be.
Thank you for mentioning it. And also wanted to thank him because in the three previous videos Abt what the original Hebrew text says, I was able to nod along bc I'd learned it all before and it felt SO good to have someone of your caliber telling it all on a platform like this, so the masses can have the info, regardless of whether they agree with it.
So thank you!
Rock on!
😀🤘
Lady Aszneth
"Asz"
(Why yes, my name is a combo spelling of the ancient popular Kemet girl's name). 😁👍
This is good stuff. Thank you for making it.
Thank you sir. It's very informative.