Originally posted by whodey
My question was simply what words were used in Aramaic and how are they translated? By what source are we BLINDLY acceptiing the fact that the original conversation could not have occured in Aramaic? I think this is a reasonable request. However, if BB does not know the original Aramaic words and how they are accuratly translated then the entire post is suspect. Forgive me for not merely taking his word for it.
There isn't an original Aramaic to translate
from, whodey. I don't have to understand Aramaic to know that, do I? As the Preacher put it, "what is lacking cannot be counted."
No need to ask for pardon for questioning, although a simple search will provide you with a decent list of sources. If you want to trudge to a bookstore, the most commonly cited book specifically with reference to this issue is: Brown, Raymond E.
The Gospel According to John (i-xii) (AB Vol.29) (New York: Doubleday, 1970).
For instant gratification, here are a few internet sources, from believers of various persuasions:
http://philenid.tripod.com/biblestudy/NT/Jn3_5_water.htm#Bibliography
(See Part I: "Second, the question of historicity affects both the setting and contents of the discourse. There are numerous difficulties: in vv.3-4 a wordplay possible only in Greek..." )
http://www.abidingplace.org/translation/john/chapt3.htm#_ftnref6
(See footnote #6, about 4/5 of the way down: "The Greek ‘anothen’ means both ‘again’ and ‘from above.’ There is no Hebrew or Aramaic word of similar meaning with such ambiguity." )
http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-oct-05.htm#Question%2010
(See question 10. In his response to a question, the Catholic priest argues that attempts to recreate/resuscitate a viable Aramaic original of the conversation are missing the point: "As for whether Jesus and Nicodemus spoke Aramaic, we simply don't know this for certain, and even if they did speak Aramaic, it would be inconsequential in regard to our exegesis of John 3:5, 7 where anothen is used. The text was inspired in Greek by the Holy Spirit, and that is where our exegesis must lie. Attempts at guessing what the Aramaic might have been, sometimes does more harm than good in Catholic apologetics." )
http://www.christian-faith.com/bible-answers/jn.htm
(See the entry for John 3:5. In the discussion of what is meant by "water in that verse, the writer cautions that "you cannot make too much out of the Greek grammar, for Jesus probably spoke to Nicodemus in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek." )
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2002-December/023922.html
(An archive of a discussion group for bible translators working with ancient Greek. The whole post here is worth reading. Note that the author offers a few possible Hebrew words.)
That work for you?
EDIT: Darn those parenthetical marks. They always get botched after quotation marks!