Nicodemus Said How Can We Be Born Again

John 2:24-three:11/ Syriac Peshitta.

Bart Ehrman has published an argument concluding  the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3 "could not have happened, at least non every bit it is described in the Gospel of John" (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155). We present Ehrman's argument hither with brief critique. As a preview, our principal gripe with Ehrman's presentation (more fully explained below) is that whereas Ehrman supposes an original Aramaic conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus would necessarily have had Jesus using an Aramaic give-and-take which tin but mean "from above," but non "second time," it turns out the aboriginal Aramaic versions we do actually accept, such as the Syriac Peshitta, have Aramaic men derish ( "once again" -or a second time- … which can indeed as well mean "from above," or lit. "from the head" [1] Both the Greek text and Aram. translations suggest 2 possibilities: (1) the possibility of an original Aram. conversation (with Ehrman we presume Christ and Nicodemus would have probably spoken Aramaic, from which the Gospel of John was translated into Greek) with double entendre on men derish or (2)the possibility that the narrative considered from the perspective of both Aramaic and Greek reads only fine with a single meaning of either ανωθεν/anothen (Gk.) or men derish (Aram.) in view, as "over again" without inductively presuming there absolutely had to accept been an original double entendre (which is certainly possible, but is not an accented exegetical necessity, but an inference, nonetheless plausible it may be made to seem past ancillary arguments). Either manner, (1) since there is an Aramaic give-and-take that allows the double entendre, or (ii) since information technology is not an accented exegetical necessity to presume the narrative requires a double entendre in the first identify, Ehrman'due south novel argument has come to ruin.

Here is Ehrman's original argument:

"In the Gospel or John chapter three, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which says, "You must be born again." The Greek word translated "once more" actually has two meanings: it tin can mean not "a 2d time" but also "from above." Whenever it is used elsewhere in John, information technology means "from above" (Jn 19:eleven, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from in a higher place in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other significant of the discussion, that he has to be born a second time. "How can I crawl back into my mother's womb, he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking well-nigh a 2d physical nativity, only a heavenly nascence, from in a higher place. This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has ii meanings (a double entendre). Absent-minded the double entendre, the chat makes picayune sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not have been speaking Greek, just Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for "from above" does not also mean "second time." This is a double entendre that works just in Greek. Then it looks as though this conversation could not accept happened—at least not equally information technology is described in the Gospel of John" (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 155).

Note that Ehrman does non actually specify what exact Aramaic word or phrase he has in mind. Nosotros will proceed on the assumption that the Aramaic men derish in the Syriac Peshitta (and besides the Old Syriac) could have served nicely in an original Aramaic conversation with Jesus and Nicodemus, later on translated into Koine Greek in the Gospel of John narrative, and nevertheless later translated into our early Aramaic versions which are still extant using the Aramaic men derish.

Equally we have seen, (1) if we presume double entendre, men derish (lit. from the head) s translated "again" -i.e. a second time, and serve the purpose of double entendre just fine;[1] but that, alternately, (2) if it is not absolutely irrefutable to assume double entendre in the Greek narrative (which information technology isn't) the narrative in both Gk. and Aram. could brand perfect sense understanding the respective words to but mean "once again" without any double entendre.

Permit united states of america look at possibility (ii) more closely.

Hither is an English translation[1] of the dialog every bit it occurs in the original Aramaic of the Peshitta:

John 3:three – "Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you lot, If a man is non born AGAIN he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:4 "Nicodemus said to him, How tin an quondam man be built-in over again? Can he enter again a second fourth dimension into his mother'due south womb, and be born?"

Verse iv follows quite nicely from verse 4 in the Peshitta under the 2d hypothesis Nicodemus would have understood "once more" in vs. iii to hateful… well.. "again"(!), and his reply in vs. iv would have made perfectly good sense -no "double entendre" required (nor was it always supposed past any of the numerous early on ancient translations of the Greek NT into other languages (versions), all of which simply render Jn 3:3 with equivalents of "again." In the ancient world it seems the natural reading "again" was obvious and unanimous. No straight aboriginal evidence for anything else exists in Aramaic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, or whatsoever other linguistic communication into which the Greek text was translated).

Here also is an interlinear translation from peshitta.org with Jn 3:3 in blood-red; the footnote to their English language rendering "over again" has Lit. 'from the beginning' ('over again').

The last os we have to pick concerns Ehrman's monolithic/uncompromising agreement of the Greek text.

Concerning the Greek text, Ehrman wrote "Whenever information technology [Gk. ανωθεν/anothen] is used elsewhere in John, information technology means "from above" (Jn 19:11, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus…"

Perchance ανωθεν was meant to convey the same pregnant in John 3 and possibly it wasn't. If it wasn't there is no problem with the consistency of the narrative either originally understood or subsequently translated equally "again" in either Greek or Aramaic. If it was, the Aramaic men derish, literally "from the head" also means "again" and is then translated in every major English translation of the Aramaic version into English language, so there is no trouble supposing an original dialog in Aramaic with a double entendre.

How accept the major English language translators rendered the Greek text? Most major translators have not rendered the Greek narrative Ehrman's manner. Using http://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm nosotros detect a minority of 4 translations using Ehrman's preferred rendering "from above"; 17 translations have "again."

Unless the majority not simply "might" be wrong to translate John three:iii as they accept, only are absolutely and definitively incorrect, Ehrman's argument has lost its punch at the level of the Greek text in addition to having completely evaporated at the level of his assertions virtually an underlying Aramaic narrative. Simply even on the assumption, with no argument in Ehrman's volume, that the preferred rendering of a majority of our major English translations of the Greek narrative were just apartment wrong, that too would work out fine if an original Aramaic narrative had men derish where John used anothen. The narrative potentially reads just fine in both languages on either assumption most the correct meaning of anothen. Ehrman's novel argument is creative, but it fails to convince.

__________________

[1] Cf. http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/PayneSmith/index.php?p=540  Etheridge, Murdock, Bauscher, Lamsa, and peshita.org all render it as "again" or "anew." Men derish suggests from the "head" or beginning of a procedure (cf.  Heb. bereshith: "in the beginning"). Men derish also occurs in the Old Syriac version.

Meet Too OUR EXTENDED CRITIQUE OF BART EHRMAN'S LOST CHRISTIANITIES Hither: https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/bart-ehrmans-lost-christianities-a-critique-part-one/

colvincleakettent.blogspot.com

Source: https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/the-born-again-narrative-in-john-3-an-aramaic-impossibility-well-no/