I can't express how tired I am of this sort of thing, but because a
couple of former students have asked me about the following YouTube
video, I thought I should address it. Although I'm hesitant to even
show it, I want to show how easy it is for someone to mislead others or
create completely false arguments when information or knowledge is
lacking. It is obvious that the person who created the video is either
completely ignorant of Biblical languages or is intentionally playing
upon the ignorance of others.
The video basically makes the following claim(s):
Jesus referred to the anti-Christ by name when he said "I saw
Satan fall like lightning from heaven" and the argument is as follows:
Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic (or Hebrew)
The Hebrew word for lightning (baraq) corresponds to Barack.
The Hebrew word for height (bama) can be used interchangeably
with "heavens" and is used in Isaiah 14 in passages referring to
Satan's "fall".
The Hebrew consonant waw is sometimes pronounced "o" and can mean "from", therefore Obama means "from the heights".
Therefore, speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, Jesus would have said "I saw Satan like Barack Obama".
Therefore (the video implies), Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.
Please watch the video carefully and see if you can catch the errors (and additions) which allow such an argument to develop:
Now let's address the video's claims:
Item 1: The Languages Jesus Spoke
There is no way of knowing what language(s) Jesus actually spoke in a
given situation. The region had been conquered and influenced by both
Greeks and Romans, and evidence points to a first century Judea and
Galilee that were multi-lingual. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example,
contain texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While there are
recorded words of Jesus in the Gospels that seem to have an Aramaic or
Hebrew origination, there are others that indicate an original Greek
saying. Jesus may have spoken Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.
Also, Aramaic isn't the oldest form of Hebrew. Aramaic and Hebrew
are both Semitic languages, and therefore are very similar.
Item 2: Lightning, baraq, and Barack
This is where the author of the video makes his first critical mistake,
and actually the entire argument falls apart at this point. According
to the video, if Jesus were speaking Aramaic/Hebrew the word for
lightning that he would have used would have been baraq.
This may be true, as baraq is used for lightning. However, trying to
connect baraq to Barack is something no one who knows Hebrew would ever
do. The authors mistake is made when he uses the pronunciation guide
in the Strong's concordance which shows the pronunciation of baraq (and
it's related terms) as baw-rak or baw-rawk: (I'm going to use the
Strong's definitions for this article because the author of the video
does, but Strong's is very limited and not meant for in-depth language
research.)
This is further complicated in that several English Bible translations
use Barak as a transliterations of the personal name. The correct
transliteration should be Baraq. This is important because Semitic
languages typically use 3-letter consonantal roots for the core meaning
of their words. The three letter root for lightning is BRQ, not BRK.
The root BRK is the root for words associated with "to bless":
Note that though the root is BRK (barakh), the pronunciation guide also
has "baw-rak". But the pronunciation of the word has nothing to do
with its meaning. Comparing BRQ and BRK would be like comparing
"their", "there", and "they're". Just because they sound the same does
not mean they correspond in meaning. In Hebrew baraq and barakh have
no association. Barack Obama's name corresponds to the semitic root
BRK, "to bless" and his first name literally means "he blessed". For
his name to mean "lightning", it would have to be Baraq not Barack. So
at this point the entire basis for the argument made in the video is
negated.
Item 3: Isaiah 14, Lucifer, and Satan
The author of the video quickly jumps from Jesus' statement in Luke
to the passage in Isaiah 14. It should be pointed out that although
later Christian interpretation of this prophecy was taken allegorically
to refer to the "fall" of Satan, the Bible no where makes that
interpretation. The actual passage in Isaiah is using metaphorical
language in refering to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4) who is judged
for his pride and wickedness. Nowhere in the text is anything other
than a man implied. In the abode of the dead, Sheol, those he
conquered eventually look at him and say, "is this the man ['ish]
who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms?" There is no reason to
think that Jesus would have made a connection between this passage and
Satan.
When it comes to the Isaiah passage, it is also
interesting that the author of the video doesn't use the passage
refering to the "Shining One's" fall from the "heavens" (shamayim), but he uses the passage about ascent to the heights (bamah). That's because shamayim doesn't help him in is argument.
Item 4: Heavens, height, and bama
In the Luke passage, Jesus says that he saw "Satan fall like
lightning from heaven". Using the same assumptions as the author of
the video that Jesus was speaking Aramaic or Hebrew, the corresponding
word to the Greek word "heaven", ouranos, would be shamayim, "heavens", not bamah as the video suggests. Bamah means "height" or "high place," not heaven or sky.
Note also that the root for "height" is BMH. It requires a "h" at the
end. Again, the pronunciation guide is not a help in this instance.
For Barack Obama's name to correspond it would have to be "Obamah".
Additionally, the author of video--because he obviously doesn't know
Hebrew and is relying on a layman's guide that doesn't address changing
forms--is also unaware of the fact that bamah in Isaiah 14:14 is actually plural. It is bamoth, not bamah (actually in this passage specifically it is the constuct bamatay, but let's not split hairs). So, scratch "Obamah", the President's last name would have to be Obamoth.
Item 5: Waw, "and", and "from"
The author of video states that the Hebrew letter waw (vav)
is often pronounced "u-" or "o-", and also serves as a conjunction.
While it is true that waw in the midst of a word can serve as a vowel
pronounced as "-o-", it is NEVER pronounced as "o-" at the beginning of
a word as a conjunction. Not only this, but when waw precedes the Hebrew letter bet ("b"), it is pronounced "u-" and the bet changes its pronunciation to "v". So you would never have o-bamah, but only u-vamah (which would mean "and a height"). And I don't know where the author gets his "from" meaning in association with waw. This NEVER happens. The Hebrew word for "from" most often is min.
Conclusions:
So here's what we have as we look at the "facts" presented for our decision in the video:
Baraq ("lightning") is not in any way equivalent to barack ("he blessed").
Bamah ("height") is not the correct Hebrew/Aramaic translation of "heaven", but it should be shamayim/shamaya.
To correspond with the Isaiah reference using bamah in the way the author suggests, the President's name would have to be Obamah or Obamoth.
Waw is never pronounced "o" at the beginning of Hebrew/Aramaic words but is pronounced "u-" before bet, and when bet
follows waw it is pronounced "v". So, further, Obama's name would need
to be pronounced U-vamah or U-vamoth to correspond to the author's
claims.
Even if we used the author's suggested words, Baraq U-Vamah,would mean "lightning and height", NEVER "lightning from a height."
We could also add this further conclusion: If Jesus (or a rabbi)
were using Hebrew to say "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,"
he would most likely say something like "ra'iyty et-hasatan naphal ca'baraq min-hashamayim".
The Aramaic would be similar. He most definitely WOULD NOT have said, "ra'iyty et-hasatan naphal
ca'barakh o-bamah," which at best means something like "I saw Satan
fall like a blessing (he blessed?) and a height." The truth is that it
would be utter gibberish.
The troubling thing to me is that anyone who follows this guys
line of reasoning has made several false logical jumps with him in his
argument whether you know Hebrew or note. It is simply poor
interpretation based on nothing. And the absolutely revolting thing to
me is that many Christians will buy into this guy's stuff just because
they are opposed to Obama, and any attempt to correct the "facts" of
this video will be ignored. That's the typical response of those who
make willful choices to remain ignorant.
Mark Goodacre, Associate Professor of New Testament in the Religion Department at Duke University, has made a couple of blog posts (here and here) as well as a podcast on the topic of the "mark of the Beast". The blog post contains the following video clip:
(via Peter Head) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri
(vol 73), includes a manuscript fragment of the 1 Peter (P. Oxy 4934). The content of the frament appears to be 1 Peter 1.23-2.5 & 7-12. The date of the fragment is late 3rd century to early 4th. (To link to the Oxychynchus website and info - with high and low res images - click here.)
Mike Heiser, over at The Naked Bible, makes some good points on how to approach the Bible in terms of it's own cultural and historical context. Here's an excerpt:
One of [my] responders [accused] me of being extrabiblical in my approach to Romans 5:12.
Actually, I’m being explicitly biblical, since I refuse to
de-contextualize the Bible in favor of rendering interpretations that
are comfortable, or that are European, American, or anything else
besides the original culture in which the Bible was inspired. My
approach yields something that not only gets Jesus off the hook (still
unaddressed, I remind you all), but makes sense within the ancient
cultural situation. Here’s the bottom line: The Bible is NOT to be
interpreted through the grid of modern culture or our own cultures
which are modern. It is to be interpreted in light of the context in
which it was given. If anyone has any interest in getting to what the
text meant when God inspired its creation, THAT is the proper method —
not appealing to 16th century Europeans or anyone else outside the
divinely chosen cultural context. The latter is to recreate or filter
the Bible in or through our own image.
As a part of John Anderson's posts on "What Kind of God Do You Believe In", he also includes a link to this Brueggemann interview with David Felten as part of the video series "Living the Questions":
As a side note, you can also see my advisor and professor Brandon Scott at PTS interviewed as part of the same series and talking about "Christianity's Betrayel of Jesus", here:
John Anderson, over at Hesed we'Emet, has put up a very interesting couple (series?) of posts concerning the concept(s) of God in the Hebrew Scriptures and in relation to the NT and Jesus (here and here). Here's a few excerpts in which he quotes Brueggemann and Fretheim:
God is, to my eye, quite unpredictable. Walter Brueggemann has argued as such:
In its core testimony, Israel has uttered [YHWH] as a
God who is straightforward in dealing with [YHWH's] partners. In
Israel’s cross-examination, [YHWH] emerges not only hidden as in wisdom
theology but also on occasion as devious, ambiguous, irascible, and
unstable . . . . These voices of witness, nonetheless, constitute a
part of Israel’s countertestimony, and while these texts are commonly
disregarded in more formal theology, they are important data for our
understanding of who [YHWH] is said by Israel to be (Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, 359).
Preconceived notions of God that one brings to a text are ultimately
unhelpful if used as a grid within which the text must fit tidily. It
won’t fit. Indeed, the text should not be expected to conform. Nor
should God. Fretheim writes:
God’s appearance in human form reveals God’s
vulnerability . . . . It suggests an entering into the life of the
world that is more vulnerable, where the response can be derision (see
Gen 18:12-13) or incredulity (Judg 6:13-17). It is to put oneself
concretely into the hands of the world to do with as it will. It is
revealing of the ways of God that the word is enfleshed in bodies of
weakness within the framework of commonplace, everyday affairs, and not
in overwhelming power. For, even in those instances where the
vestments of God’s appearance are threaded with lineaments of power,
they clothe a vulnerable form. There is no such thing for Israel as a
nonincarnate God (106).
Baruch Halpern, Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University, is spot-lighted in a brief Discovery Channel piece on forgery experts: http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/cool-jobs-forgery-expert.html
Today at sundown begins Tisha B'Av in the
Jewish world--the ninth of the month of Av on the Jewish calendar. It is a day of
mourning and fasting.
Historically, several horrible tragedies have
happened to the Jewish people on this day. The first Temple was
destroyed by the Babylonians on the 9th of Av in 586 B.C.E. Herod's
Temple, the second Temple, was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E. on
this day. The Bar Kochba rebellion against Roman rule was crushed in 135 B.C.E. on Tisha B'Av, and a year later what remained of the Temple mount was plowed up by the Romans.
In 1290 King Edward I signed an edict compelling the Jews to leave
England, and on this day in 1492 the Jews were forced from Spain. From the perspective of some, the
outbreak of World War I took place on Tish B'Av, which
many Jews consider to begin a long period of suffering for them (marked
by pogroms and mass executions in Russia, Poland, and other Eastern
European countries) that culminated with the Holocaust of World War 2.
Others date the eve of Tisha B'Av 1942 as the beginning of the mass deportation began of Jews from
the Warsaw Ghetto, en route to Treblinka.
Interestingly, well before many of the modern tragedies, the rabbis held that Tisha B'Av
was marked as a day of tragedy for the Jewish people by God because of
the Israelites' refusal to enter the Promised Land on the 9th of Av in
Numbers 13-14. According to the Talmud, God declared: "You wept without
cause; I will therefore make this an eternal day of mourning for you." (B. Ta'an, 29a)
As
part of the commemoration of this day, from sunset on the 8th of Av to
the appearing of the stars in the evening of the 9th, many practicing Jews
(if their health permits) fast from both food and water, taking baths,
shaving, or wearing makeup. They even fast from studying Torah. It is a
day of mourning--they do no ordinary work and keep themselves from
smiling, laughing, and idle conversation. The book of Lamentations is
read in the synagogue and the prayers of mourning are recited.
During
this time Jewish people are also encouraged in their remembrance of
suffering to also think about its causes, spurring them to consider how
they can work towards tikkun olam...the
repairing of the world. Many Jewish materials from the medieval Period
maintain that the Messiah would be born on this day.
Mourners Kaddish
Glorified
and sanctified be God's great name throughout the world which He has
created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your
lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House
of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.
May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.
Blessed
and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and
lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the
blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in
the world; and say, Amen.
May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.
He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.
It looks like things are slowing down, and I'll be able to start posting again. I know that excites the two or three of you that check in here.
Here are some items that I would have blogged about if I had been blogging:
New Hebrew Bible in the Works
The Oxford Hebrew Bible " . . . will be a new critical edition of the Hebrew
Bible featuring a critical text, apparatus, and text-critical
introduction and commentary." Hugh Williamson comments on it (and gives a good background to the present situation) here.
Codex Sinaiticus
As was announced by multiple news agencies, the complete Codex Sinaiticus is now online. Daniel Wallace provides good bit of information about Sinaiticus and the unfortunate mis-information that has surrounded the launch of the site.
Cool Opportunity To Help With Greek NT MSS Check this out . If you have the skills, this would really be a cool and serving way of moving MSS studies forward.
Mount Zion Excavations
James Tabor provides some very exciting bits of news concerning "spectacular finds" from the recent excavations on Mt. Zion. He writes the following concerning one of the finds:
A stone vessel with an ancient inscription of ten lines written in an
archaic Jewish script. Such stone vessels were used in connection with
maintaining ritual purity related to Temple worship, and they are found
in abundance in areas where the priests lived. We have found a dozen or
more on our site over the past three years. However, to have ten lines
of text is unprecedented. One normally might find a single name
inscribed, or a line or two, but this is the first text of this length
ever found on such a vessel. We have shared high-resolution photos with
various epigraphic experts in Jerusalem who are working together to try
and decipher this text. It is written in a very informal cursive hand
and is quite difficult to read.
h B'Av, which
many Jews consider to begin a long period of suffering for them (marked
by pogroms and mass executions in Russia, Poland, and other Eastern
European countries) that culminated with the Holocaust of World War 2.
Others date the eve of Tisha B'Av 1942 as the beginning of the mass deportation began of Jews from
the Warsaw Ghetto, en route to Treblinka. 
