Robert Low writes:
>Hmm...A thought just occured to me. I don't know any
>Aramaic, and my Hebrew is at best rudimentary, but
>is it possible that the original charge was that
>Jesus was making himself out to be one of the "elohim"
>in the sense of someone divinely chosen? *If* there
>is an ambiguity in Aramaic similar to that in Hebrew,
>then Jesus's response seems to make sense as a rebuttal
>of their accusation. Scholars of Semitic languages,
>your comments would be appreciated! (But be gentle,
>it's only an off-the-cuff idea.)
>One obvious problem with this interpretation is that it
>provides no obvious grounds for a charge of blasphemy,
Robert, it was for suggestions and insight such as these that I started
the list. I think you have hit upon something that solves certain
problems, specifically why Jesus' answer doesn't seem to answer the
charge of making himself out to be divine, perhaps because they were
not charging him with being divine, but rather "chosen by God."
Claiming to be "chosen by God", could that be a way of saying "THE King"
or "the Messiah"? I could still envision it being a blasphemous claim
if not true, though I don't know the first century religious law. Claiming
to be a prophet when you were not was blasphemous, wasn't it?
I am anxious to hear more from those who know something on this topic!
David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: firstname.lastname@example.org
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8