Toto

It wasn't just Mark. Paul's letters continually use the phrase "according to the Scriptures" and it appears that the Scriptures were the LXX. The earliest Christians on record read the Hebrew Scriptures (in their own fashion) as a guide to the nature of the Savior.

jon-eli

As a point of interest, why would Paul have quoted from the Septuagint at all? Supposedly he had rabbinic training, so you'd think he would have provided his own translations, right? When he's getting all exegetical and trying to demonstrate his prowess (and we know that Paul was sometimes a bit of a show off)... what's his motivation for quoting from the LXX? Is he trying to stick to what's familiar to his audience? or did he actually not understand Hebrew in the first place?

bacht

Weren't most Jews of the time unable to read Hebrew? Those in the diaspora would've learned Greek, those in Palestine would've spoken Aramaic like Josephus (?)

And the whole NT is Greek

Clivedurdle

If he was from Tarsus, why assume he spoke aramaic at all?

And he doesn't mention being in Jerusalem to witness the death of Steven...


The reality of Judaism then was that probably the vast majority of Jews were natural Greek speakers.

Clivedurdle

http://books.google.com/books?id=cvW...esult#PPA34,M1

This states Greek was the lingua franca of Jews.

{mod note: the google books deep link is to The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society) (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Shaye J. D. Cohen p. 34}

gentleexit

And the Septuagint made Judaism mainstream. It meant Jewish thought could be teased against Plato and Homer etc. and its influence could spread. Without "it" (there were many variations, all called "Septuagint"), Judaism would have remained an insular national cult. And when the Rabbi's rejected Greek-only books (Maccabees), that is what became of what we call Judaism.

BTW, the library ... all that math and the Grammarians - the definitive Homers were classified there by a succession of library heads. Their techniques were emulated by all the "deep readers" of antiquity.

jon-eli

Oh, assuredly. But I was speaking of a special kind of Jew... those Jews with rabbinic training. That training would have entailed learning to read Hebrew. If you are relying on someone to be a scriptural authority, you expect them to read the scriptures in the original language. Exegesis on translations of scripture is simply not authoritative.

Agreed. I'm not sure what you're getting at, though.

Agreed. But knowledge of Greek doesn't preclude knowledge of other languages. Myself, I live in Australia, was raised in New Zealand, and English is my native tongue. Does this mean I don't speak Russian? Certainly it doesn't, because I do in fact speak Russian. Hypothetically, if I had told you I consider myself to be an expert on the writings of Leon Trotsky, would you find it plausible that I knew how to read them in the language they were written? It wouldn't really stretch the imagination. And I think the same applies to Paul. He claims to be an expert interpreter of scripture, and supposedly received rabbinic training. Seems reasonable that he might have understood Hebrew.

That's a very interesting thought.

This supposes that the time at which a Greek translation appeared was absolutely critical to the spread of Judaism. And what if it had appeared in Latin, instead? It may then have simply spread through a different strata of society.

Toto

The character of "Paul" is not quite coherent. His claim to have been a well-schooled Pharisee might have been one of his boasts, or marketing claims.

jon-eli

True, but I've found myself swayed rather strongly by Luke Timothy Johnson. Are you familiar with his interpretation of Paul? His approach is conservative (from what I recall, he considers even the pastoral epistles to be genuine), but his discussion of 1 & 2 Thessalonians makes for a very tidy picture of Paul. He explains the eschatological difference between the two letters as a kind of "field improvisation," and contrasts it with 19th century German schoolrooms. On the strength of Johnson's depiction, I tend to view Paul as quite coherent most of the time.

But I guess I'm just wondering if there's any other evidence that Paul might not have understood Hebrew.

Toto

Which book(s) by Luke Timothy Johnson? He has always appeared to me to be too ideological to devote much time to, although some of his criticisms of the Jesus Seminar are probably valid.