judge

To return to my original point.
I am claiming it is possible that paul wrote first in Aramaic and that this was later translated into greek.

We have.

1. The LXX written in hebrew and later translated into greek.

2. Philo which shows signs apparently of the same process.

3. Josephus, who translated his own Wars of the jews into greek (presumably from Aramaic or Hebrew)

So again we have enough reason to consider that this might have been the case with Paul. Enough reason to be open to looking at the evidence within the epistles rather than dismissing it out of hand.

And I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them.

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX, chapter XI

We don't see any evidence of jews writing first in greek with the possible (or perhaps probable) exception of Josephus in later works.
Seeing this is the case it seems reasonable to at least consider that paul may have not written in greek.
I am not suggesting that one believe this without confirming evidence but that it should be considered.

show_no_mercy

spamandham brings up a good point about the LXX. The LXX wasn't written first in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. The LXX is Greek. There would be no point for the existence of the LXX if there weren't Jews who couldn't read Hebrew and wanted to read their scriptures. That's the whole point of the LXX.

There would also be no point for the celebration of Haunukka if it weren't for a large quantity of Jews being Hellenized. You seem to be under the impression that if someone was Jewish in the first century, then Aramaic or Hebrew was their primary language. This is an absurd position; Hellenized Jews detached from their Hebrew roots was a continuing, increasing trend in the Mediterranean area since it was conquered by the Greeks in the 300s BCE. There was always a struggle between Jews who wanted to assimilate to Greek culture and Jews who wanted to remain nationalistic.

What evidence do you have that, if someone was Jewish in the first century, then Hebrew/Aramaic was their primary language and not Greek? What about the writings of Ben Sirach? 1 & 2 Maccabbees? Philo also philosophized in Greek as well. The "Logos" concept only makes sense in Greek. Philo's name is Greek and doesn't seem to be a phoneticism of a prior Hebrew/Aramaic name (unlike Ιησους, which is a Hellenized version of Y'shua). The schools that he had were in Alexandria, Egypt - a highly Hellenized city. "Essenes" is a word that's Greek in origin and doesn't seem to have an Aramaic etymology. Both Philo and Josephus talk about the Essenes; it doesn't show any signs of being derived from some Aramaic or Hebrew word/name.

You actually seem to be arguing that "Hellenized Jews" didn't exist in the first century. How could Paul have been so successful evangelizing in Roman and Greek cities (like Corinth) if he weren't Hellenized? Why did Paul stay out of Jerusalem for such a long time after conversion and becoming an apostle for the Gentiles?

spin

What sort of signs would you like? It's wiser not to argue from lack of knowledge, but to admit that lack. We don't know where the term rendered in English as "Essene" came from. There are several theories almost all of which are either based on Hebrew or Aramaic, but we can't get beyond several competing theories. A Greek origin doesn't fit the circumstances well.

Etymologies of these sorts of things are ultimately vain to guess about. Unless there is clear evidence there is no way to verify the etymology, which is therefore useless.


spin

dog-on

Jesus, of course, spoke Greek, just like his writers.

show_no_mercy

True... I should have been clearer about that.

spin

And that doesn't mean that it isn't of Hebrew origin. Names may in fact be translated. Lots of would-be Jonathans cropped up in Greek as Theodorus or Dorotheus. Philo is to do with love and is probably a hypocoristic name, just as David deals with love (="beloved") and is apparently a hypocoristic. The name "Philo", whatever it is short for, may very well be in concept of Hebrew origin.


spin

Clivedurdle

No mention of Hebrew!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phil-

IamJoseph

FACT: If a Judean Jew 2000 years ago, then Hebrew would be the first language, and all other languages, such as aramaic and greek, would be secondary languages, spoken with less than adequate expertise - and only with non-Hebrews. All prayers would be exclusively in Hebrew. All theological/liturgical writings would be in Hebrew, and if any translations are required for non-Jews, these would be undertaken by very few highly educated Jews and require heavy translation fees. All religious writings would be exclusively in Hebrew, as would all written communications between the jews.

Of note is the Latin was never used, and the Romans knew Greek as their second language, or had greeks employed for purposes of dealing with non-romans. This is a factor which makes the NT, a latin writings, an anomoly, and indicates this was not written by Jews.

spin

Which part of the notion "translated" don't you understand?


spin

Solo

A useful overview of the languages spoken in the area during the period of late Second Temple:

Jiri