The Weekly Francis – 5 February 2025

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 2 January 2025 to 5 February 2025.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 30 January 2025

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 14 January 2025 to 29 January 2025.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 16 January 2025

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 9 December 2024 to 16 January 2025.

Angelus

General Audiences

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 9 January 2025

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 1 January 2025 to 9 January 2025.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 2 January 2025

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 28 December 2024 to 29 December 2024.

Angelus

Messages

  • [28 December 2024 – Message of the Holy Father, signed by the Cardinal Secretary of State, to mark the 47th European meeting of young people organized by the Taizé Community in Tallinn 28 December 2024 – 1st January 202

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 12 December 2024

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 9 May 2024 to 12 December 2024.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 5 December 2024

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 29 November 2024 to 4 December 2024.

Angelus

General Audiences

Letters

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

The Weekly Francis – 28 November 2024

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week, from 8 November 2024 to 28 November 2024.

Angelus

General Audiences

Homilies

Letters

Messages

Speeches

Papal Twitter/X

Papal Instagram

Who’s Punning? Jesus or John?

A reader writes:

Question: An atheist has claimed that Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus couldn’t have happened because it’s a greek word that has two meanings, critical to the story, and Jesus didn’t speak greek.

I know neither greek nor aramaic, and according to some english, so any thing you happen to know would be useful. Thanks!

It’s true that in John’s account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1ff) the Greek word anothen (an-OH-thin) is used, and that this word can mean either “from above” or “again.” It is often assumed that the Gospel of John uses this word as a deliberate pun (“born again” vs. “born from above”).

However, from an apologetic perspective, this is a non-problem.

#1 Paraphrase is allowed in writings of this sort. It is easy to demonstrate that the New Testament authors employ paraphrase (as do ALL ancient historical writers). The claim is that the gospels faithfully reflect the teaching of Jesus (they speak with his ipsissima vox) not that they give an exact word-for-word Greek translation of what he said on all occasions (his ipsissima verba). Thus in faithfully transmitting the *teaching* of Jesus, John may have noticed that a Greek pun was possible and chosen to use it. On the other hand . . .

#2 Cross-language puns are far easier to construct than people imagine. Just because there is a pun in one language doesn’t mean that there can’t be an *equivalent* pun in another. Jesus may have made a pun in Aramaic and then John constructed an equivalent pun in Greek. On the other hand . . .

#3 The pun may not be intentional on John’s part. The objection assumes that John was deliberately punning, but as we all know, it’s quite possible for someone “to be a poet and not know it.” On the other hand . . .

#4 They *did* speak a good bit of Greek in first century Palestine. While it is more likely that they were speaking in Aramaic, this conversation could have taken place in Greek.

I don’t view these alternatives as equally likely (my money would be on #1 as the most likely explanation, then #2), but they are all possible, and the claim that the conversation couldn’t have happened because of a Greek pun in the gospel is simply false.

Abba: The Case of the Missing “B”

Over on Facebook, a reader writes:

Mr. Akin, could you possibly post "Abba" in Aramaic fully pointed. Why is the Beta repeated?~Thanks again

First let's look at "Abba" in Greek, which is displays the issue that the reader is wondering about. Here is how the word appears in Greek (cf. Mark 14:36 in a typical Greek New Testament):

Abba3

As you can see, the term is spelled alpha-beta-beta-alpha. The reader asks why the beta is repeated, and the answer is that this is how they said it, with a reduplicated "b" sound separating the two vowel sounds. The Greek is giving us a fuller phonetic explanation of the word (how it sounds)–at least in this respect. (The Greek, like the English, does not record the invisible consonant on the front of the word.)

Now here's how the same word looks in Hebrew/Aramaic block script (which is a stylized form of the Aramaic alphabet, though it is most familiar to us as the script used to write modern Hebrew):

Abba2

It's spelled aleph-beth-aleph, which prompts the reader's question: Why only one letter corresponding to "b" in this version?

The answer is that the original Semitic scripts were unpointed, meaning that they only included consonants (aleph is a consonant, believe it or not, though it later came to serve as a kind of vowel marker, making it a mater lectionis). Also, because of the way syllabification works in Semitic languages, their scripts often do not (or in unpointed versions do not) mark reduplicated consonants.

Thus even though you said the word "ABBA," you'd spell it "ABA." In an unpointed script, if you spelled it "ABBA" then the second "B" would suggest an extra syllable: "a-ba-ba" or something like that.

This reflects a fact that is also true of English (and even moreso French!): the script for the language is not fully phonetic. It is assumed that you already know the words you are reading and just need enough visual information to help you identify the word. You don't need how it's actually said spelled out in detail. That's what allowed the ancient Semites to get away without using VWLS N TH FRST PLC.

Eventually, they did come up with ways of indicating vowels–and other things–using a system of "points," which are small marks placed above, below, or within the letters. In the block script version of the word above, the marks under the first two letters (reading from right-to-left) are vowels–two different versions of the "a" sound.

The dot in the middle of the middle letter (beth), however, is not a vowel. It's a mark known as a dagesh forte (borrowing from Latin, meaning a "strong" dagesh). The dagesh forte (also called a dagesh hazak) tells you "double this consonant."

Thus even if you don't know the word "Abba," you could figure out how to say it using the modern, pointed version, because the dagesh forte tells you to say it "ABBA" rather than "ABA."

There are a variety of other Aramaic scripts that the word can be written in, and they have their own unique pointing rules, but the same basic issue applies.

Hope this clarifies the case of the missing "B"!