Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 05-29-2009, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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..

So, how would you explain the targums. If no-one spoke Aramaic with sufficient expertise then why did the jews have Aramaic translations and translators in the synagogues?

Quote:

A targum (Hebrew: תרגום‎, plural: targumim, lit. "translation, interpretation") is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) written or compiled from the Second Temple period until the early Middle Ages (late first millennium). The two major genres of Targum reflect two geographical and cultural centers of Jewish life during the period of their creation, namely the Land of Israel and Babylonia. Aramaic was the dominant Jewish language or lingua franca for hundreds of years in these major Jewish communities.

spamandham · 05-29-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

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.

I'm having difficulty seeing how this supports the contention. Instead, we have to wonder what the motivation was for translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

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

It isn't enough to say that the writings of Philo show unusual grammer, because if that's how Philo spoke, we would expect him to write that way, and this is fundamentally the problem with the approach you've taken.

Under the assumption that these texts are translations from Hebrew to Greek, you must further assume that the translator spoke in broken Greek, or that they were slavishly performing a literal word by word translation. I think we can easily rule the latter possibility out, leaving us with the hidden assumption that the hidden translator spoke broken Greek.

By why then not simply propose that the original writer spoke broken Greek? If there is no way to tell the difference between an original author writing in Greek - but with cultural peculiarities - and a translator doing the exact same thing, then we can not use textual oddities to argue for translation.

Quote:

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

Again, I fail to see the relevance of this, unless you are simply trying to show that some Hebrew works were translated into Greek. I think we all already agree on that much.

Quote:

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.

Well, I certainly allow for the possibility that Paul first wrote in Hebrew, I just don't see any reason to presuppose it, considering in particular that his audience was (presumably) gentiles.

judge · 05-29-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, I certainly allow for the possibility that Paul first wrote in Hebrew,

Excellent, we are on the same page then.

Presumably, as Pauls letters (even the greek versions), contain Aramaic and not Hebrew words it is possible he wrote in Aramaic too.

Quote:

I just don't see any reason to presuppose it

I am not asking anyone to presuppose it. I am not asking anyone to presuppose it was written in greek either.

IamJoseph · 05-29-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

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

============

With the destruction of the First Temple (587 BCE) the scribal schools and royal patronage of writers ended, Jerusalem was depopulated, the country was ruined and much of the population was exiled to Babylonia where the common language was Aramaic. Later, a small number of Babylonian Jews, probably mainly Aramaic speaking, returned to Judah where they provided the leadership, under Persian imperial patronage, for a slow restoration of Jerusalem and a much reduced Judah known as the province of Yahud.

When written sources again give us a look in, the linguistic situation of the country was:

Ø Greek was widely spoken in (see map of Hellenistic and Herodian Cities):

· Coastal plain;

· Decapolis (Jordan Valley north of Parea, the main Jewish area in Trans-Jordan);

· Greek cities within Jewish areas in Galilee;

· Greek cities within Samaritan populated areas of central and northern Samaria;

· Greek cities within Idumean areas in the northern Negev i.e. what was formerly the southern section of the territory of the tribe of Judah.

Ø Aramaic was the majority language of the country. Probably it was the only language, other than Greek, spoken throughout the country except for some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho. It seems to have been the language of the upper classes in Jerusalem; and,

Ø A proto-Mishnaic form of Hebrew was probably spoken, along with Aramaic in some areas of Judea between Lod and Jericho; and,

Ø Late Biblical Hebrew which was a literary language, along side Greek and Aramaic for the Jewish population. There were no speakers of this artificial tongue. This is not dissimilar to the situation of Modern Literary Arabic today or Church Latin in the middle ages.

Spoken Hebrew underwent great changes of three kinds:

Ø Natural developments internal to the language (see Segal, Kutscher 1982, Bendavid);

Ø A mixing of dialects (cf. earlier dialect mixes in the early tenth and late eighth centuries BCE) due to the political upheavals, exile etc.; and

Ø The profound influence of Aramaic in vocabulary, semantics and grammar including inflection.

Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

Basically correct. Aramaic and greek were circumstantial, owing to dispersal and persecution, and forbidden periodically.

Quote:

An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.

This language was old orally, being an ad-mix of aramaic, hebrew and other ancient tongues still in their residual stages. Later, much of Latin was also ad-mixed and a writing was developed in about 400 CE, making Arabic one of the world's newest languages, earlier than english, also an ad-mix language. Like the Latin, Arabic has no 'V' alphabet.

Quote:

The Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse. This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes. The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, often called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

This is post-Jesus datings. Between 2nd temple and 70 CE, when Judea was a sovereign state again, Hebrew was the mother tongue - several prophetic writings in this period are all in the Hebrew. Even Josephus, who became a Roman citizen as late as 70 CE, wrote his works primarily and first in Hebrew. If JC was a Judean Jew - he would have spoken and prayed in Hebrew, not Aramaic or Greek. If the Apostles were real, historical Jews - which is totally doubtful, they would at no time speak or write in Latin - and the absence of Hebrew here makes the entire Gospels story suspicious. Basically, Latin was Roman/European for many centuries after 70 CE, and this language was taboo for all real Jews.

IamJoseph · 05-29-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, I certainly allow for the possibility that Paul first wrote in Hebrew, I just don't see any reason to presuppose it, considering in particular that his audience was (presumably) gentiles.

Paul never wrote anything - he had a vision problem and employed scribes to write for him. We have no writings which can be identified as Paul's handiwork. Paul never met Jesus.

Because of the contradictory depictions of Paul in the Gospels and that of the historically depicted writings of Josephus, namely with the latter Paul never subscribed to any of the Gospels premises, it is most likely what we see as Pauine in the Gospels today, was a later, doctored re-creation to emulate the Greek/Roman beliefs and an anti-Jewish doctrine - this would be a legitimate outcome to cover up the guilt of Rome following what it did in 70 CE - a genocide of 1.2 Million jews in its destruction of Jerusalem. That this is not reflected in the NT says there was a cover-up here, and a dis-history inculcated. IMHO, the christian religion may well be a result of this syndrome.

judge · 05-29-2009, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Paul never wrote anything - .

How do you know that?

Galatians 6:11

"Ye see how large a letter I have written with mine own hand."

spamandham · 05-29-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

it is most likely what we see as Pauine in the Gospels today, was a later, doctored re-creation to emulate the Greek/Roman beliefs and an anti-Jewish doctrine

Perhaps. With such scant and dubious evidence, many conclusions are possible.

Quote:

- this would be a legitimate outcome to cover up the guilt of Rome following what it did in 70 CE - a genocide of 1.2 Million jews in its destruction of Jerusalem.

I find it hard to believe Rome felt any guilt about that. That just isn't the way war victories work.

If Rome invented Christianity, it would have been to undermine Judaism that much more, rather than out of some sense of guilt.

IamJoseph · 05-30-2009, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Paul never wrote anything - .

How do you know that?

Galatians 6:11

"Ye see how large a letter I have written with mine own hand."

While Paul is the only apostle who appears a historical person, we have no contemporary writings from Paul, and quoting one section of the NT to evidence anther section, is not credible. We know he never wrote because of the Josephus documents. Here, the NT is ascribing writings which alligns with its own doctrine, to Paul, who never met Jesus. We also have no evidence if Jesus was a real historical figure, and a Jew - that he would or did condone the Gospels: he was not a christian nor a Greek?

IamJoseph · 05-30-2009, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

it is most likely what we see as Pauine in the Gospels today, was a later, doctored re-creation to emulate the Greek/Roman beliefs and an anti-Jewish doctrine

Perhaps. With such scant and dubious evidence, many conclusions are possible.

Quote:

- this would be a legitimate outcome to cover up the guilt of Rome following what it did in 70 CE - a genocide of 1.2 Million jews in its destruction of Jerusalem.

I find it hard to believe Rome felt any guilt about that. That just isn't the way war victories work.

.

Rome had a problem with all the nations, and had to calm them down it was not targeting them. Thus it initiated stories, mainly from its own historical beliefs, and created the Gospels. Most of the Gospels stories can be read in pre-christian greek and roman archives.

Quote:

[If Rome invented Christianity, it would have been to undermine Judaism that much more, rather than out of some sense of guilt

The people you call christianity, were Romans and Europeans - who wrote in Latin, in Europe, many centuries after the fact and far from Jerusalem. None demanded any proof of the Gospels - which says this was accepted at face value. The belief which emerged held its adherants in a quagmire, with no choice but to follow what was inculcated in their ancesters.

This can also be seen with Islam - both these religions emerged on the heels of the destruction of Judea, both had a pre-dating problem with the Jews; both aspired and coveted the Hebrew scriptures - both held claim, and both are in contradiction of esch other's premises. Reduced to a court trial or a jurisdiction from an unbiased source - both would be thrown out of court.

judge · 05-30-2009, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

How do you know that?

Galatians 6:11

"Ye see how large a letter I have written with mine own hand."

. We know he never wrote because of the Josephus documents.

Can you explain further. I am interested in how you know paul didn't write anything.

It is one thing to say we dont know whether Paul wrote anything (or even existed) and another to claim , as you did, that you know Paul did not write.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.