Sermon Tone Analysis

Overall tone of the sermon

This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.54LIKELY
Disgust
0.1UNLIKELY
Fear
0.16UNLIKELY
Joy
0.13UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.47UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.3UNLIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.79LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.97LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.06UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.45UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.38UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.34UNLIKELY

Tone of specific sentences

Tones
Emotion
Anger
Disgust
Fear
Joy
Sadness
Language
Analytical
Confident
Tentative
Social Tendencies
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional Range
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but it is an area I am \\ interested in, so I will just make a few observations: \\ 1.
Most of Jesus' conversations happened in Aramaic.
Perhaps also in \\ Hebrew, as there are a few scholars now who believe the evidence for the \\ continuation of Hebrew as a spoken language into the Christian era is \\ sufficient for them to say it is highly probable, at least for Jerusalem and \\ the surrounding area.
Therefore, at least in recorded conversations, the \\ idioms are very likely to be Aramaic.
\\ 2. Only the Gospel of Matthew has been put forward by most scholars as \\ having a 'Hebrew' [more likely an Aramaic] original.
Many people seem to \\ confuse these two languages.
Aramaic was the language of Galilee, and \\ Jesus' native language.
Even if Hebrew still existed as a spoken language, \\ Aramaic was still the public language of the whole Palestinian-Syrian \\ region.
\\ 3.
There were almost certainly collections of the sayings of Jesus, and \\ these were almost certainly in both Greek and Aramaic.
They are likely to \\ have been used by the gospel writers, especially Luke.
\\ 4.  Outside the gospels, there are no good reasons [and very few bad \\ reasons] to suppose there was a non-Greek original for any of the NT books.
\\ 5.
Even the books written in Greek were written by writers who were almost \\ certainly more at home in Aramaic.
Paul [or perhaps his secretary?]
and \\ Luke both had an excellent command of common Greek, and as they wrote for a \\ Greek-speaking audience, the occurrence of untranslated Aramaic idioms is \\ likely to be small.
\\ 6.
To know when an idiom is Hebrew~/Aramaic, when it is an Aramaic~/Hebrew \\ idiom translated into a similar Greek idiom by writers familiar with both, \\ or when it is a native Greek idiom is beyond the ability of all but a few \\ scholars who are experts in all 3 languages.
For us laymen, attempting to \\ do so on our own is definitely to run foul of the old saying "a little \\ knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Marchita (such a pretty name) the New Testament was written in Greek - \\ the language of the day.
Hebrew had bee a dead language for over five \\ hundred years.
When the Israelites returned from Babylonian captivity, \\ they were speaking Aramaic.
In Nehemiah 8 we have first translation from \\ Hebrew into Aramaic, so everyone could understand.
\\ \\ Of course, just like Latin is a dead language but still studied, Hebrew \\ was still being taught in the rabbinic schools at the time of Christ - \\ Jesus probably could read Hebrew - the priests were surprised at his \\ ability having never attended their schools.
St.
Paul surely knew his \\ Hebrew - even though he frequently quoted from the Septuagint - a Greek \\ translation of the O.T. books.
There wasn't an O.T. such as we know it \\ in Christ's day.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9