Steven Carr

So Greek was hardly a lingua franca, if Egyptians could not speak it.

And didn't Josephus say that many could not speak Greek?

Please give the evidence that Peter and the other disciples were good Greek-speakers.

Steven Carr

This brings us back to Paul's silence again.

If the early Church was 'predominated' by Jewish Christians, why did Paul have to write to the Thessalonians and the Corinthians, assuring them that the dead would be resurrected?

Why did 2 churches have such important worries about resurrection that Paul has to repeat that there will be a resurrection, and why did Paul not use the OT stories of raisings from the dead, or even the stories of Jesus rising from the dead?

Why did 2 early churches worry about the resurrection of the dead, when Jesus himself had told them that the dead would be raised.

Matthew 22:31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

'Crowds' of people heard this teaching, yet 2 early Christian churches still doubted the resurrection, and Paul could not be bothered to give the astonishing teaching of his Lord and Saviour, which proved the resurrection.

Gamera

Because you've confused two things: the constituency of the early church (which was mostly Jewish) and Paul's audience (who were mostly gentiles).

Your assumption that they were the same is clearly erroneous. Paul's letters are to gentile churches not the churches in Judea.

So the fact that the early church was predominantly Jewish goes to the issue of the virgin birth.

The fact the Paul was writing to predominantly gentile churches goes to the issue of confusion over resurrection.

Gamera

1. It was a lingua franca in Hellenized Asia, which is the only pertinent fact. The scholarship supports that. If Josephus said that many could not speak Greek, you need to cite that. Don't put the burden on me to support your argument. Query whether even if he did it would rebut the scholarship that shows that Greek was the lingua franca of the region. A lot of people didn't speak french when it was the lingua franca.

2. I beleive I already did give you the evidence. Most recent scholarship indicates that 1st century Jews were trilingual. As to Peter, it's clear he spoke Greek due to the discrepancies of the two letters. One is written in refined koine Greek (probably the work of a scribe), the other is written in rather rough and ready Greek (probably Peter's own hand). At least such is a good explanation of the discrepancy. Regardng Peter and the Greek language see:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html

3. However if you're truly interested (and I suspect you're not) these links may help concerning the linguistic environment of 1st century Judea.

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/art.../0200/0209.php

In chapter three, Millard discusses the shift from the use of rolls (i.e., scrolls) to the codex form, especially from the second to third centuries. Although the development predated this change of centuries, it was given significant impetus by Christian practice, which itself demonstrates, among other things, the largely “non-literary” nature of the New Testament writings. A particularly detailed chapter follows, itemizing the most important evidence for the pervasiveness of written Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin in Herodian Palestine, all more deeply embedded in Jesus' world than most scholars acknowledge. Chapter five discusses the significance of this “polyglot society,” noting the likelihood that Jesus was partially trilingual, working in Hebrew with his Scriptures, Aramaic in everyday life, and Greek with those who could not speak one of the Semitic languages. The Aramaic words transliterated in the Gospels are of such a nature and distribution to suggest authentic reflections of the historical Jesus, not the touches of a historical novelist.



http://answering-islam.org.uk/Bible/nt-languages.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/s1066733.htm

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2966.htm

For references on the linguistic situation, see Randall Buth, "Language use in
the first century: Spoken Hebrew in a trilingual society in the time of Jesus",
_Journal of translation and textlinguistics_ 5:4 (1992), 298-312 (an SIL
publication); and Stanley Porter, "Did Jesus ever teach in Greek?", _Tyndale
Bulletin_ 44:2 (November 1993), 199-235, and their bibliographies.


Also, The Beliefnet Guide to Gnosticism and Other Vanished Christianities
by Richard Valantasis (Author)

Gamera

[QUOTE=Amaleq13]Except that there is no doubt that the early church was predominantly Jewish and that they in fact considered themselves Jews. It seems unlikely that these churches would suddenly promulgate a new and astounding reading of Isaiah 7. As Paul's dispute with James shows, they were unwilling even to give up something as obvious as the requirements of the Law. It's more likely this fit into their prior worldview, especially since the semantic range of parthenos included "virgin."

I don't think Justin and Jerome had any inkling of first century Jewish notions of the messiah, and had little interest or ability to find out.

I beleive the Hebrew is ambiguous on whether she is already pregnant or not, but that's not the issue. The issue is, why would a birth of a kid by a young woman be a "sign" worthy of note? It makes no sense, given that young woman have children all the time, then and now.

Circle back to the opening post and you'll see why. I and other are rebutting the claim that Paul's silence about the virgin birth is evidence that the claim of Jesus virgin birth was a later fabrication. Since it is reasonable from the Septuagint to conclude that the virgin birth motif was associated with the messiah at least among some strains of Judaism, it is reasonable to assume that Paul's silence about it amounts to nothing. The interest of the gentile churches about virgin births was probably nil.

Steven Carr

So Matthew and Luke were writing to churches in Judea, or were they writing to gentile churches?

Or are you going to move the goalposts again?

And why is Paul silent about how his Lord and Saviour proved the resurrection?

Steven Carr

Seen it. Here is what your quoted source says :-

'Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)'

1 Peter says 'All flesh is grass'. Why was he, just like Paul, silent about the idea that some flesh would be made immortal?

The Bishop

Did Matthew write in Greek or not? I thought the old idea that he had written in Hebrew and been translated into Greek was no longer the consensus. It seems obvious to me that Matthew was a Jew, clearly of the Messianic variety, and he wrote in Greek and quoted from the Septuagint.

Let me just first point out that I was talking about 1st Century Messianic Jews. I'm not particularly aware that such a phrase excludes non-Judaeans. Good heavens, you're practically claiming Matthew was the goddam tax collector in the Gospel! I certainly don't expect any of the Evangelists be actual Galileans, and my understanding (from Introduction to the Bible by JW Rogerson) was that none of them were even writing in Judaea. I am ready to be corrected on this.

Gamera, we seem to be on the same side on some of these issues, but certainly not on re-interpreting Isaiah 7:14 from a Christian perspective.The issue is, of what possible use is it to King Ahaz, with Israel and Syria massing on his borders, to be told that a child will be born in c. 750 years time and solve all his problems? It's a prophecy, sure, but it has zero to do with the events of what we are now constrained to refer to as the "first" century. Referring to the imminent birth of a child and what is going to happen before that child can even say "mummy" and "daddy", is hardly untypical of the superb Jewish propensity for poetic metaphor.

Not really. Your claim is that Jews who read parthenos in the Septuagint had no belief that the Messiah was supposed to be born of a virgin. That would make Matthew a solitary loony who made his own stuff up, and who fortuitously was bolstered by Luke who made up a similar story. That is what I meant by "aberration". It's the aberration that has the burden of proof. If, however, Matthew was part of a Messianic movement that found his expectations fulfilled by Jesus, the most likely reason for his having written a "virgin birth" story and justified it with a Scripture that he found, is surely that to Messianic Jews of his acquaintance, the v.b. was a significant sign, and it was important to mention that Jesus had fulfilled this requirement. If you can provide a more likely explanation than that, I will acknowledge that the idea that (at least some) Messianic Jews thought the son of David needed to be born of a virgin needs additional proof.

I've highlighted the only thing relevant. Thank you for explaining why this appears to be an issue. It's perfectly clear that Paul looked on the world slightly differently to the way we do. The significance of this regarding the HJ issue is what escapes me. From Paul's story it seems that he knew that Jesus had lived, and that Jesus had followers who believed him to be the messiah and to have died and been resurrected. All of which was anathema to Paul. (Or Saul, rather.) Then, on the road to Damascus, he had a vision which convinced him that Jesus had spoken to him personally. The source of his later beliefs about Jesus seem to be quite easily derived from this. But those Pauline beliefs about the nature of "the Risen Christ" - who he, at least, had seen only in "spiritual" form - has no bearing whatsoever on the historicity of a real man called Yeshua from Galilee.

Julian

You have misunderstood this passage. Paul is not being asked if he is egyptian but rather if he is The Egyptian (ο αιγυπτιος), a reference to a particular character in, at that time, recent history. The Egyptian caused a lot of trouble through his revolts from 52 to 58CE. The commander is essentially wondering if Paul is a dangerous criminal. Josephus wrote about the Egyptian, summarized here: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants09.html

Julian

Amaleq13

That isn't the "early church" that resulted in the Gospels, though. That "early church" apparently went extinct with the Ebionites. The "early church" that survived, however, was not comprised of Jews (ie Paul's churches).

Yet that is precisely what the evidence suggests and there appears to be nothing to support your estimate of low probability.

Again, and with all due respect, I'm less interested in your opinions than the evidence you believe supports them.

The passage makes this clear as I've already indicated. The child is nothing but a marker for the time when the threat of war will stop.

I think it is best that this tangential discussion be taken to the recent thread created on the subject:

The Virgin Birth