www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where's the Catholic Church?

Dear Dr. John,

You can wup me anytime you like, Mentor in Christ!

What the heck do I know? If it's in the papers, it must be true, no?

God bless,

Alex

Dear Dr John;

You say, �The only thing that sounded an alarm was the statement the: "The gospel was obviously first written by a Hebrew in Hebrew for Hebrews to read��
I believe you are in the right ballpark. In other words I agree with you. I used the term Hebrew in the sense of the �current common Hebrew� of Jerusalem as compared to Greek or other Hebrew variations. As you say, the common Hebrew of the time was a variant leaning toward Aramaic and �real Hebrew� was only for the learned and Temple services.

We can compare the use of Temple Hebrew to how the Latin Church continued to use Latin as its official �holy language� even when the common people of the �West� no longer understood it. I believe Latin is still the Vatican�s �official� language of official documents for universal use.

Temple Hebrew (the Babylonian version) was used in Second Temple services by the High Priesthood when officiating. It was used in place of the original �Holy Language� of Moses (considered the actual tongue of God) and of which knowledge had vanished during the exile. No doubt Jesus was able to speak current Temple Hebrew and probably did when answering at his trial before the Sanhedrin (it was the official language of Temple Services and Law). That Paul knew it and could read the existing �Hebrew� scriptures is evidenced by scripture quotations in his epistles, and assuredly from being trained �at the feet of� Gamaliel�. The existing Hebrew Scriptures were heavy on the Chaldean with the original demotic script used by Moses now lost. Most outside of Jerusalem and in dispersion read the Septuagint version. Legend has it that Christ spoke in perfect High Hebrew to Saul �Why do you persecute me?� - on the road to Damascus (which was another reason why Paul was �floored� when he heard �the tongue of God�)

The common language of Jerusalem was, as you say, heavy on the Aramaic, and this is what I called Hebrew (meant as the commonly spoken Hebrew) as opposed to Greek. Of the apostles it appears only Paul and John were multilingual � the rest being common men of no great learning with Peter himself only knowing Galilean (heavy on the Greek influence) and could not write or read Jerusalem�s brand of Hebrew (Mark writing his gospel). The Jerusalem crowd considered Galilee a gentile region of lowly trators who spoke a gutter version of Hebrew/Greek slang.

These things always seem sharper, more cut and dried, on paper, when in the human theater there are �slow shifts�. We can compare the whole thing to the fact that Americans speak �English� while there is a noticeable difference between England�s English and it variants (now isn�t that the true English?) and the variants of American English (Boston, NY, deep South) yet the world knows �English� as it is used for international law and commerce as the American version (making that variant of American comparable to High English?). Just muse.

You are right, heavy on the Aramaic, and that is what I had meant as the being the common Hebrew.

My considered opinons only.

Dear Alex;

Yes. And the orginal gospel of Mark written in Hebrew is alluded to by early church fathers as existing in Alexandia (Mark founded the School of Alexandia). While the manuscript in Hebrew is not found and presumably burned (when the Library was last burned) more than a few church fathers with roots in Alexandia quote portions of it in several places.

I would be interetsed in the alleged India version. If true - it may be that Thomas took a copy with him. This would be most interesting - one way or the other.

If you find info or a URL I would apperciate it.

Dear rkaliss,

I certainly do hope that Dr. John reads your posts! He beat up on me . . .

I will do the best I can to get a hold of that article.

One of its underlying premises was that European scriptural scholarship has tended to downplay the role of Hebrew in communicating the Gospel message. Instead, Greek was touted.

As our friend Stuart has said, scholars' views are changing.

God bless,

Alex

some excerpts from �THE HEBREW CHRIST� by Claude Tresmontant ( 1989, Franciscan Herald Press )

( Introduction, pages 3 thru 5 )


�The question of which language, or more exactly, which languages, were spoken in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria in the period just prior to the conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70 still remains an open question. It is certain that the people spoke Aramaic. It is equally certain that scholars and theologians, men of the Book, knew Hebrew; certainly they read and wrote it. What is in question- what remains an open question- is the extent to which Hebrew was also a spoken language, at least among educated people. There were many educated people in Jerusalem. Prior to the destruction of the city, Jerusalem boasted perhaps the greatest density of educated people of any place in the world; they were well grounded in an abundant written theological language.

The other open question to be considered is that of the relationship that existed between Aramaic, the language spoken by the people, and Hebrew, which was for the most part, though not exclusively, a written language. Hebrew was the language of educated people and of scholars � the question becomes one of determining whether there was not some overlap between the two �

That there was some osmosis or interchange between them is certain; it is evident from some of the later books of the Bible, the last sacred books written in Hebrew � especially Ecclesiastes, which contains more than 30 words of Aramaic origin. The Hebrew of the first century of our era must have closely resembled the Hebrew found in Ecclesiastes �

Our Lord thus taught in Aramaic but also, most probably, in Hebrew in a certain number of instances and in certain circumstances, where his listeners were men of the Book, the educated and professional Jewish religious scholars.

Around Jesus, watching him and listening to him, there were always the people who could neither read nor write. But numerous gospel texts attest to the fact that many men of the Book, scholars, theologians, and scribes, whether belonging to the party of the Pharisees or to that of the Sadducees, were also to be found gathered around him and listening to him �Numerous gospel texts also attest to the fact that there were Zealots ( or National Liberation Front members ) among the immediate disciples of Jesus �

It would also seem to be evident a priori, indeed wholly certain a priori, that among the educated people who heard Jesus at first hand, some would at some point have taken down some notes. This would have been the most natural thing in the world for those who spent virtually their whole lives studying the sacred Hebrew texts. Some of the immediate disciples of Jesus were of that number.

The hypothesis that no one actually hearing Jesus could or would ever have taken down any notes is simply absurd- psychologically as well as historically, especially when we consider the Jewish milieu of the time and the unusually high density of men in that milieu who knew how to read and write.

The oracles or preaching of the ancient prophets, of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the others, were all set down in writing, either by the prophets themselves or by their disciples. How is it possible to imagine- why would anyone want to imagine- that among the disciples of Jesus who knew perfectly well how to read and write and who, indeed passed a good part of their lives study the holy Scriptures, there would never have been even one who was moved to take down anything of what he had heard from the lips of the Galilean rabbi? The notion is even more incredible when it is remembered that this Galilean rabbi came to be considered by them not as just another prophet in the category of ancient prophets, but as much more than just another prophet. All four who did take down notes- notes that were translated from the original Hebrew into the Greek of the Gospels as we have ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John- expressly recorded the conviction that Jesus was more than just a prophet.

It is an a priori absurdity to assume that disciples such as these never took down any notes, were somehow constrained or forbidden or prevented from taking down any notes. They considered their Galilean rabbi to be greater, much greater, than Amos, Hosea, Isaiah or Jeremiah. Yet the words of all these prophets had been taken down.

The notes that were made were taken down in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. How do we know this? Quite simply because Hebrew was the written language, the language of the scribes and scholars. There were ORAL translations in Aramaic of the sacred books written in Hebrew; they were called �targumin�. A translator in the synagogue would read aloud, translating a passage from the Torah or one of the prophets. But in the era before the destruction of the Temple, putting these translations into writing was formally prohibited.

Several of the disciples who were literate, or learned, no doubt noted in writing gestures, acts, words, and sayings of Jesus as well as other facts about him, something done undoubtedly under varying circumstances. It is very likely that a number of such collections of written notes in Hebrew existed. It will be our task here either to confirm this hypothesis, or to show it to be untenable. We will do this by a detailed examination of the four Gospels which we possess today, written in Greek.

========

Hello Dr John,

I offer some general comments.

The idea that the Jews of Jerusalem at the time of Christ spoke Aramaic simply does not hold water for me. If by that flat statement it is meant that they no longer spoke Hebrew but were speaking Aramaic.

I have no problem with the way the author of �The Hebrew Jesus� puts it and I am interested in reading that book. Thanks aseeker.

Most assuredly, there was a mixing of languages in the city, but I would maintain that the national language of Hebrew (as it existed then) was the language of the common resident of Jerusalem, the capital and city of the Temple.

No one doubts that the Jewish Torah in Masorite text as we have it today is Hebrew. Certainly not the Jews. No matter where the form of the letters came from (Chaldean from Babylon?) it is Hebrew (the national language) from the time of the rebuilding of the Temple on. The Masorite text of today remains essentially unchanged from the time of the return from Babylon. The Samaritan texts (copies) were written in a variant of Aramaic (I believe) and the nationalistic puritans of Jerusalem considered this blasphemy. It seems ridiculous to say that Jerusalem left Hebrew and adopted the language of the Samaritans they so despised.

Not to my knowledge has archeology turned up any serious evidence of Aramaic inscriptions or text being widely used from the era of the destruction of Jerusalem (or before) to indicate that Aramaic had become the main language of Jerusalem at any time. Signs, inscriptions, pottery, amulets, scriptures, texts, letters, etc.. and so forth are overwhelmingly written in Hebrew script.

Now, despite what some books and scholars may say, I would have to ask myself if it would not it seem silly to have a population that spoke Aramaic� and to put up a sign for your shop that was written in Hebrew? The scripts are very different. Or should we say they spoke Aramaic but read and write in Hebrew all over the city? I think not any more than we can imagine Washington DC removing every trace of written English within the city and replacing it with Spanish.

Here is an example of Aramaic script. http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/aramaic.html

We know for certain that the sign placed upon the cross was written in three languages. This relic exists today.

�King of the Jews�
1)Latin - the international the language of Law throughout the Roman empire.

2) Greek � the international language of trade and commerce and widely used by the Jews of dispersion.

3) Hebrew � the national language of Judah and Jerusalem.

If the majority of people in Jerusalem spoke Aramaic � would not we expect to see it also written in Aramaic so people could read it? No, it was written in Hebrew so the people of Jerusalem could read it.

I think you would agree that the Jews of Jerusalem were fanatically nationalistic. The concept that at some point Jerusalem ceased using Hebrew and switched to the foreign language of Aramaic � simply makes no sense for a people who would rather die than trade off the external signs of their nation and religion (which were inseparable).

One of the problems that Rome had with Jerusalem was its refusal to adopt the languages of its conquers and the powers that be. Dispensation was given from Rome for that reason and for reason of the Temple because Rome knew it would have to kill every Jew down to the last woman and child if it put Roman Gods into the House of Yahweh (the method used in every other nation they conquered). Jews were also exempt from mandatory Roman Army service � because they made horrible soldiers who would rather die than fight for the man Caesar who called himself a god. Josephus is clear on these things.

The concept that many Jews could not read or write Hebrew is understandable for Jews grown up in dispersion and for Jews born in dispersion making pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The Septuagint was what most of the dispersion read.

It is certain that Aramaic words and pronunciations had crept into everyday Hebrew. Greek words (written in Hebrew characters) also had crept in. Where ever two cultures that speak different languages come together for long periods these things happen.

High Hebrew was relatively free from these common corruptions and remained essentially the same as it had been in use from the time of the reconstruction of the Temple. While the day to day Hebrew was influenced by these normal human ways.

No matter how heavily influenced by Aramaic or any other language along the way, the common language of the residence of Jerusalem was still Hebrew in a lineage of word roots, character and pronunciation, etc, since the time of the Babylonian exile.

I agree and accept that the common Hebrew of the time of Christ had gained heavy influences of Aramaic. But unless I find the Hebrew University of Israel saying �They spoke Aramaic� I can not accept any author or any other scholar telling me they spoke Aramaic unless it is meant they spoke a common (low) Hebrew which was heavily influenced by Aramaic.

My considered opinion and thank you for the discussion.

Now I am reading stuff on the net that is saying that it was Araamaic Jesus spoke. Humm.. I could be wrong. But I am not sure that would effect the gospels being written in Hebrew.

Looks like I need to do some more reading.

Thanks guys.

Well that didn't take long...

From the Book of Acts regarding Paul's arrest in the Temple at Jerusalem when it was Paul was accused of being an Egyptian malcontent who had brought Greeks into the Jews-only Temple areas.

"And when he (the chief captain) had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs. ... And there was a great silence; he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue. And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silent." (Acts 21:39 through Acts 22:2).

Obviously the great crowd of common Jews in this incident spoke Hebrew and once they recognized him as a fellow Jew by speaking Hebrew and not a foreigner Egyptian or Greek defiling the Temple � they fell silent in order to listen.

Just more evidence that Hebrew was still the national language.

That seems to pin it down.

I would ignore any scholar who tells me the Jews of Jerusalem spoke Aramaic (as opposed to Hebrew) as someone who is unwittingly perpetuating a long-standing error that has become sacrosanct. Like the name Jehovah (born of a copyist error) and the J&P theory of Genesis compilation from different sources � all good intentioned errors that for reason of laziness are hard to kill.

Getting back to the topic ... Our friend, Alexus, posts this:

//It seems many people / churches want to call themselves Catholic; besides those of us Roman / Latin Catholics there are some Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglicans and others who want to call themselves Catholics. But who are the "real" Catholics? OK do a survey. If a person stood outside an Orthodox church and quizzed a 100 people walking by asking "Where is the Catholic Church?" I bet that the majority would not point behind you to the Orthodox church and say "There it is!". It's common knowledge where the Catholic Church is --> UBI PETRUS EST, IBI ECCLESIA EST. This is not meant to offend; it's just stating a simple fact. To be Catholic is to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome! That's where it's at. Rome is home!//


Someone earlier quoted a church document which states that the "Church ... subsists in the Catholic Church ..."

SUBSISTS?

Can we comment on the meaning of this per the council fathers? What does it mean? How does it tie in with Alexius' initial post?

Where can I find the phrase "UBI PETRUS EST, IBI ECCLESIA EST" in the New Testament?


Joe


[This message has been edited by Joe Thur (edited 08-24-2001).]

Can we comment on the meaning of this per the council fathers?

About the same thing as the Orthodox favorite �we know where the Church is; we don�t know where it is not�? IOW, one can hold that the one true Church (the Catholic or universal Church made up of particular Churches) is visible but at the same time hold that God can give grace wherever. Catholicism dogmatizes more about non-Catholics (that the Orthodox are real Churches with all the sacraments, that Protestants have Baptism) than Orthodox do about non-Os but the basic teaching is the same.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

�Where is the Catholic Church�

Dear Joe,

I offer this practical answer as to where the public presence of the Church is.

The full Church would be with union and cooperation with Peter and with all seven sacraments.

Without Peter, but with all seven sacraments, we might say the sacramental Church is where ever the legitimate seven sacraments are (defined by a legitimate priesthood).

With only the sacrament of baptism (priest not officiating) we can still say the church extends to them and they are members but not in sacramental union or full ecclesiastical union.

And with no sacraments at all we can say they are not members of the sacramental or ecclesiastical functions of the church but are members by desire for Christ.

Without any of the above the Church is not publicly present but may be present in non-public ways. It is unknown - as God does what he wants and need not tell us.

I am not sure if it is possible to break entirely with the office of Peter and at the same time have the legitimate seven sacraments. I think not. I am not sure that the Providential will of God would allow such a thing to be in creation. What is broken between some fully sacramental churches is good human relations which spills over into doctrinal misunderstanding.

A Note On Schism.

I bet absolutely no one here would agree with me but I would say that as regards the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, they have remained in union of like minds as far as (take everything else away) the essential that comprise �the Church� - all along. I would say that on those things that are not essential (you may take away and the Church remains) they have differed in words and lack of understanding and cultural differences causing disagreements based upon these misunderstanding � all rooted in events of the past which are now blurry and debated at best.

The full essentials of the Church existed in the first century of the church (otherwise we would not be able to say the church existed), all else since that time are beyond the essential, non-essential sacramentals (if you will) and cultural aids, which may be removed and the Church still exist.

Even during the �schism� both Church were vitally aware of what the other was doing, and each of the two (East and West), in will and intentions, remained dedicated and true to what had been forged before the schism, in their own minds and hearts, and that is all Christ demanded for Him to take care of the rest.

In retrospect study and research it is believed that excommunications and �anathemas� were leveled against persons, not churches or bishopric offices, and these had effects that went far beyond what was foreseen and beyond the original intentions. All persons involved are long dead.

Full communion (communication) between the Orthodox and Latin would be the repair of human relations also � on which human misunderstandings on essential issues would then repair.

My considered opinon for the survey boils down to ... The Catholic Church is PUBLICLY present in any of three ways. 1) Priesthood and full sacrements. 2) Sacrement of baptism without priesthood. 3) By publicly displayed desire.

>>>I bet absolutely no one here would agree with me but I would say that as regards the Orthodox and Catholic
Churches, they have remained in union of like minds as far as (take everything else away) the essential that
comprise �the Church� - all along.<<<

You lose. That is, and has always been my contention as well. Which is why I act as much as is possible as though the schism does not exist.

Can you refresh me by giving me a URL to the event of meeting of Orthodox (I believe it was the Ecumenical Patriarch) and Pope John Paul? to the effect of publicly and mutually making null and void any excommunications involved. I have often seen what your library like mind quickly produces.

I believe the event I am referring to declare that schism of Churches never existed. �It is to be erased from memory and history� or something to that effect. I should like to read it again.

Man is the only creature that can �live� in attachments to what he believes happened in the past (and he is often wrong � clouded by imaginings) which attachments stand in his way of clearly perceiving � today.

If � today � you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

Good advice if one lives in � today.

My considered opinion.

Joe,
You can find it in Matthew 16:18 and I dont see where finding it in the NT is relevant to the discussion. Unles you are one who supports "sola scriptura".

Where does one find the term trinity or homousia in the NT. The point is you don't, but you do find the thought.

It has been the teaching of the eraly fathers from the begining of Christianity. Now there are some who want to d eny that but the reality is that that ideology is there. Study, search it out.

Fr Stephanos

All of the earliest Fathers, East or West, believed with St.Ignatios of Antioch that,

"Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

If there ever was an ecclesiological doctrine that clearly defined the origin, nature, and purpose of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church and that was received and adhered to unanimously by ALL of the earliest orthodox Fathers, this surely must be it!

Bill