Messianic Judaism

[ContraMundum]

"Baptism as a rite of immersion was not begun by Christians but was taken by them from Jewish and pagan forms...."[SIZE=-2] - Dr. Merrill Tenney, the editor of the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible


Mikvah and baptism
[/SIZE]According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Dr. William LaSor in the Biblical Archaeology Review says apparently the Biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

According to Dr. David Flusser, the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament teach that water can purify the body only if the soul has first been purified through repentance and righteousness.

Lots of opinions on this around. You have above the standard Baptist pov which Dr Tenney held to, with high distinction. I don't really see that as the whole gamut on baptism, and this is why I am not a Baptist. The bottom line we should all agree on is that baptism is not optional, and the Church is called to baptize others.

 

[ContraMundum]

Morning CM,
Regarding the infant baptism, I always thought it was more of a vow the parents made concerning the child (and oops Heber kind of confirmed that) but then at whatever age it is, the child "confirmed" it and that is what the "Confirmation" was all about.

Kinda. Confirmation is basically Acts 8:12-17 stuff.

The child doesn't get baptised a second time as this one would be at his request and understanding? I had thought that a second baptism took place at an orthodox's child confirmation ceremony.

I've not heard that.

And for me, the baptism that my friend and I took part in so long ago in a swimming pool stands firm to this day. No need to repeat it. When I began following Messianic Judaism, the mikveh stood for a turning back to God. I had never left the Family I had been a part of, I just hadn't been a very active member for awhile, I was the prodigal child returning to what was already my home - it was not a second baptism.

If I understand you correctly, you have an interesting perspective, in that it does not violate scripture AFAIK, although it is a tradition of men nonetheless. Perhaps this is further proof that all traditions of men do not violate scripture.

 

[yonah_mishael]

There has been some ideas pushed around that the translations themselves were originally translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek..

William M. Schniedewind, "Prolegomena for the Sociolinguistics of Classical Hebrew", The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures vol. 5 article 6 states that in its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between the 10th century BCE and the turn of the 4th century CE.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in 1946-1948 near Qumran revealed ancient Jewish texts overwhelmingly in Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Qumran scrolls indicate that Hebrew texts were readily understandable to the average Israelite.

In what language have Jewish religious texts been published over the past 1500 years? (There are some texts that were published in Aramaic, most notably the Zohar, but I'm talking about the vast majority.)

Are you aware that there have been major religious texts published in the last millennia (such as Mesillat Yesharim and Sefer ha-Ikkarim)? What language did they publish them in? They published them in Hebrew. Do you think that the majority of Jews were able to read Hebrew just because of this fact? Or, were the books published for a specific audience that was Hebrew literate?

I never made the claim that there was zero Hebrew literacy in Israel at the time of Jesus. It should come as no surprise that Jewish religious books, even sectarian in nature, were published in Hebrew. In fact, during the Bar Kochba revolt we even see an attempt to revert to the ANCIENT Hebrew alphabet, which is really something! Don't misunderstand what I've stated or consider that I've gone to any extremes here. I'm not stating something that isn't readily agreed upon among the majority of scholars.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Aramaic and Arabic are totally different so I don't think it's that. I would like to understand why it doesn't say Aramaic if that is truly what it is.

I really don't know. It doesn't make any sense for them to say "Hebrew" when it's obviously "Aramaic."

This is from the New International Version (1984). Notice that it translates these things correctly.

John 5:2
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.

John 19:13
When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha).

John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).

John 19:20
Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

John 20:16
Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

Acts 21:40
After receiving the commander’s permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned to the crowd. When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic...

Acts 22:2
When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.​

The NIV translates the term correctly. I don't know why the others didn't.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Actually, just checking through translations online, I found that the following translate the word as "Aramaic" when context demands it:

Contemporary English Version
English Standard Version (minus the references in Acts)
J.B. Phillips adds Aramaic to Matt 27:47; Mark 5:40; 7:31; 15:35 and Acts 1:18, but he doesn't include it in the above.
Lexham English Bible
New Living Translation (only the references in Acts are translated as "Aramaic")

Apart from these, none of the translations on The Bible Gateway contains the word "Aramaic" in these positions in the New Testament. I have no idea why they wouldn't.

 

[visionary]

Actually, just checking through translations online, I found that the following translate the word as "Aramaic" when context demands it:

Contemporary English Version
English Standard Version (minus the references in Acts)
J.B. Phillips adds Aramaic to Matt 27:47; Mark 5:40; 7:31; 15:35 and Acts 1:18, but he doesn't include it in the above.
Lexham English Bible
New Living Translation (only the references in Acts are translated as "Aramaic")

Apart from these, none of the translations on The Bible Gateway contains the word "Aramaic" in these positions in the New Testament. I have no idea why they wouldn't.

scholars with an agenda.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Of course, that should have included all of the editions of the New International Version, which translates them correctly (I quoted it above). Sorry not to have included it in the list. I'll go add it now.

 

[yonah_mishael]

It would be worthwhile to remember that not all NT translators know either Hebrew or Aramaic. It could be that they simply didn't know the difference and couldn't make a judgment as to which was Hebrew and which was Aramaic, so they just translated ἑβραϊστί all the time as "Hebrew." It would seem that translators today would be without such an excuse to make this mistake.

 

[visionary]

In KJV I found a website that tells a little about the men who translated it.

Who were the King James Version Translators?

 

[yonah_mishael]

That's taken from a KJV-Only site.

 

[visionary]

I haven't research the other translated versions yet to find websites telling of their translators and where they came from and what their purpose is, and what languages they are fluent in. This site doesn't give much details either. But it is a start.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I haven't research the other translated versions yet to find websites telling of their translators and where they came from and what their purpose is, and what languages they are fluent in. This site doesn't give much details either. But it is a start.

I would never impute outright misleading to the translators. They are very intelligent people generally, and they work on committees, so translations are not typically the work of one single person with an agenda. This may be born from the desire for consistency - to always translate the term ἑβραϊστί the same in every context. Or, it may be that they simply didn't know Hebrew vs. Aramaic. It could also just be that they were sticking with the traditional translations, not wanting to contradict the likes of the KJV on such a minor point (they already get enough flack for the differences!). I wouldn't go so far as to say that they did it on purpose to mislead people. I don't believe that any person who devotes himself to language study and translation would engage the text to that end.

 

[yedida]

I think, Yonah, you're right in that area, mostly. The "traditional" translations were usually done by a "committee." I don't think their "agendas" would be so much to delude the people as to leaning toward their particular belief system. That doesn't mean that passages that cannot be even a little changed without changing to total meaning is corrupted, they probably are left alone. But those that can slide closer to the group's pov are most likely tweaked a bit. None of the tweaking was done to corrupt, just to slide ideas more or less into certain pov's. Nothing outrightly malicious. Just my view, anyway.

 

[Heber]

The whole idea of having a large editorial committee of academics is precisely so that no particular bias is served or that anything is 'tweaked' in one direction or another. As I said earlier - peer review is the best way to do it. Where differences of opinion are evident a wider body comes to agreement on how that particular point is to be addressed in translation. That is why, often, in serious translation works you will find an editorial that explains that certain words, phrases and/or language has been used. These sections cover the variants in possible translations of key words, letters or phrases, so that reader can make their own decision if necessary.

 

[visionary]

I would never impute outright misleading to the translators. They are very intelligent people generally, and they work on committees, so translations are not typically the work of one single person with an agenda. This may be born from the desire for consistency - to always translate the term ἑβραϊστί the same in every context. Or, it may be that they simply didn't know Hebrew vs. Aramaic. It could also just be that they were sticking with the traditional translations, not wanting to contradict the likes of the KJV on such a minor point (they already get enough flack for the differences!). I wouldn't go so far as to say that they did it on purpose to mislead people. I don't believe that any person who devotes himself to language study and translation would engage the text to that end.

I have always understood that scholarly training involved learning both Greek and Hebrew as one of the basic foundations a skill they would definitely need to be even considered "translators".

 

[Heber]

I've just checked my NIV and it tells me just how they resolved issues and that they also entered key variations as footnotes. It also states which versions of ancient texts they used to in order to come up with the final version. I think that if you read the comments carefully you will be amazed to see how diligent they were. I really do not think they could have done more!

 

[Steve Petersen]

NIV also has a lot of footnotes for the OT that say 'meaning of the Hebrew uncertain.'

 

[anisavta]

Why not start a thread about second Baptism?

Is that like a second breakfast?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Is that like a second breakfast?

Elevensies?

 

[Desert Rose]

I was baptised by a good minister friend in the Yarden (long before it grew to what it is now

(considering baptismal site been built many ( at least 30) years or so ago. how old is he..?Br Heber, you personally knew King Solomon, I bet
Thanks much to you and CM for opinions expressed, as always.

The Church and its theology

CM, you know i am not trying to be a pain, not deliberatly at least, but what is The Church? does it have any more or less unified theology on anything, like baptism?Do you mean "christian orthodoxy", more or less?

While i agree that we, modern people, have little respect for the church authority , probably due to xtianity's despicable history and notoriously bad present, I do think authority and certain discipline is good. Sports, military and such prove the benefits of discipline. I was in a churches were anarchy in thought and deed ruled,and it stifles the personal spiritual growth, i'd agree