There is an important aspect of how the gospels were recorded for posterity that is particularly important when discussing the sermons and sayings of Jesus, to which Luke 11:28 belongs. While the New Testament has been handed down to us in Greek, it is unquestionable that most of the sayings of Jesus were originally spoken in Aramaic. This article will address the potential relevance of this issue in relation to the text and meaning of Luke 11:28.
That Jesus spoke Aramaic is undisputed. There are several examples in the gospels of Jesus using Aramaic phrases (Mark 5:41, 7:34). This leads to an interesting dilemma in which we are reading various translations of Jesus’s speeches among the gospel writers. These translations are not intended to be precisely scholarly, but carry the meaning of what Jesus spoke to the contemporary text of the gospel writer. This has led to variations in the exact wording in each synoptic gospel. As a result, it has been overly exaggerated as problematic by scholars such as Bart Ehrman or various Jesus mythicists.
Christians shouldn’t be afraid of admitting that differences of expression – even if contradictory – exist. The Scriptures themselves give a methodology in which to interpret these seeming differences. We will return to this point later.
When we look at the Greek word Μενοῦν (the word used in Luke 11:28 translated “rather”) scholars are divided if it is a positive or negative affirmation of the previous statement. Should it be translated as “no, but” (NIV, ESV, NASB) or “yes, even more” (NLT, CEV, HCSB)?
As discussed in the article Mary and Luke 11:28, one could make the case for either a positive or negative affirmation in the other four places in the Greek New Testament (additionally, Philippians 3:8 uses an abbreviated form almost always translated along the lines of “even more so”). As such, the impetus to translate Μενοῦν as a precise point/word made by Jesus to the woman starts to dwindle. The way the NASB translates it (“on the contrary”) is particularly presumptuous.
The account of Jesus responding to the woman found in Luke 11:28 is unique to Luke’s gospel. In Luke 1:1-4, Luke tells Theophilus that he compiled his gospel both from earlier accounts and eyewitnesses. Since this account in Luke 11:28 is unique to Luke, it is safe to assume that he gathered it from eyewitnesses. This would mean that the translation of the encounter would be more directly fresh from Aramaic than if gathered from an already written source. The conclusion to this is twofold: while more directly translated from its Aramaic context, since Luke is writing to a Greek audience, the Greek reasoning style is followed without referencing the Aramaic as such. This means it is very probable that Μενοῦν was not part of Jesus’s original response but was added as a stylistic Greek form to lead one thought into the other. This is how it is used in all other places in the Greek New Testament, whether one adopts a positive or negative affirmation, Paul’s points remain the same in those passages.
Earlier, I mentioned that the Scriptures give us a model for how to interpret contradicting or differing statements due to translation issues. We will now look at the example:
“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2, ESV).
“And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel” (Matt. 2:6, ESV).
The difference is readily apparent. Micah says that Bethlehem is little among the clans of Judah, but that the ruler will come from there; while Matthew says Bethlehem is NOT least among them, because the ruler will come there. Technically the precise argument being made by Micah and Matthew are completely opposite. Yet the essential meaning remains the same: while Bethlehem was little, that did not hold it back from its position in the role of Christ. If we only focus on the details between the two we may as well concede to the progressive criticisms that the Bible (in particular the New Testament) is unreliable and contradictory. But that is insisting on a view of Scripture that precision is needed in order for it to be the genuine word of God. On this front, the literal Protestant is adopting the same worldview of the New Testament’s greatest critics.
While I do not hold to Aramaic primacy (the view that the NT was originally written in Aramaic), it is interesting to note that the earliest translations of the New Testament into Aramaic and Syriac – such as the Peshitta – omit the word Μενοῦν or an Aramaic equivalent entirely from their rendition of Luke 11:28. This would make sense if the word was a stylistic word added for the flow in Greek and redundant or unnecessary in Aramaic.
