FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2012, 11:29 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dixon CA
Posts: 1,150
Default

What is the point of FRDB, then, Jiri? If only published academics are to be taken seriously, but none of them post on FRDB, why do you write here? Why do you read here?

As for publishing, the reaction I got here led me to trim down my eyewitnesses to support my Gospel According to the Atheists (Proto-Luke plus the Passion Narrative), but there is no openness here to even that. (Are there no Jesus Seminar type Cynics here?) My latest idea has been to publish a Jesus Made-to-Order, giving readers the option to select whichever of my eyewitnesses support their proclivities. As I acknowledge, even given seven eyewitnesses, some are less trustworthy than others (though each supports existence, an HJ), and I have already sorted out an (unidentified) eighth who mangled the apocalypticism.
Adam is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:42 AM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
What is the point of FRDB, then, Jiri? If only published academics are to be taken seriously, but none of them post on FRDB, why do you write here? Why do you read here?
I have not said only published academics should be taken seriously. That is a patently poor inference from what I have written.

As for the other questions, I visit here because I love reading posts by Harvey Dubish and spooking Joe Wallack.

Best,
Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:52 AM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551
Default

Just a question -

Do we know for sure that Aramaic was the main language of Palestine in the first century CE.

It appears that it was, but so far as I understand, its not 100% certain.
semiopen is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:02 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiopen View Post
Just a question -

Do we know for sure that Aramaic was the main language of Palestine in the first century CE.

It appears that it was, but so far as I understand, its not 100% certain.
It was almost certainly the main language of Jews in the Galilee in the 1st century CE.

In Judea Hebrew probably continued to be used in everyday speech as well as Aramaic. Which was the main language of Jews in Judea is not certain, but probably Aramaic.

If you accept the Gospel picture of Jesus as a Galilean, he would almost certainly have used Aramaic as his main language.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:18 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post

It was almost certainly the main language of Jews in the Galilee in the 1st century CE.

In Judea Hebrew probably continued to be used in everyday speech as well as Aramaic. Which was the main language of Jews in Judea is not certain, but probably Aramaic.

If you accept the Gospel picture of Jesus as a Galilean, he would almost certainly have used Aramaic as his main language.

Andrew Criddle
Well, if Aramaic was spoken when gMark was composed then Ehrman's claim is NOT logical.

Aramaic words do NOT determine that gMark's story was originated in Aramaic it MAY mean that the writer knew some Aramaic words. After all the use of a few Aramaic words means that people at the time of writing gMark MUST be able to understand them.

The use of Aramaic words in gMark is PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE that people wrote, spoke and understood the Aramaic language at the time of composition.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:32 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by semiopen View Post
Just a question -

Do we know for sure that Aramaic was the main language of Palestine in the first century CE.

It appears that it was, but so far as I understand, its not 100% certain.
It was almost certainly the main language of Jews in the Galilee in the 1st century CE.

In Judea Hebrew probably continued to be used in everyday speech as well as Aramaic. Which was the main language of Jews in Judea is not certain, but probably Aramaic.

If you accept the Gospel picture of Jesus as a Galilean, he would almost certainly have used Aramaic as his main language.
Likely bi-lingual at least. By the account, He was able to stand up in the synagogue and read from the text of Isaiah. (Luke 4:16-20)
The text of Isaiah that He read, would it have been in Aramaic? or would it have been in Greek? or was it in Syriac? or perhaps Latin? English? Swahili?

The question being, One who even as a child was already erudite enough to discuss Torah with the Temple Priests and Scribes, and who based all of His claims on the Testimony of 'The Law and The Prophets' of the chosen people, Would He have cited foreign language translations rather than that STANDARD and authoritative text of His people Israel? from which He stated that not even one yod (י) or even the smallest part of any letter would ever fail or pass away?

English is my main language, yet I have stood up before The Assembly, and read aloud from the Torah, the Prophets, Psalms and Proverbs in Hebrew.
Anyone care to attempt to prove that I, because I live in the midst of an English speaking society, am not able to read aloud the HEBREW text of Isaiah?
If I (being only a goy) can do so, He who was by birth and by upbringing a E'biri and Ye'hudi and most certainly could and would have.




.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 12:41 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Likely bilingual at least. By the account, He was able to stand up in the synagogue and read from the text of Isaiah. (Luke 4:16-20)
The text of Isaiah that He read, would it have been in Aramaic? or would it have been in Greek? or was it in Latin? or perhaps Syriac? or English? Swahili?

The question being, one who based all of His claims on the testimony of 'The Law and The Prophets' of the chosen people, Would he have cited foreign language translations rather than the STANDARD and authoritative text from which not even one yod (י) or even the smallest part of any letter would ever fail or pass away?
According to the Gospels Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible and probably debate in Hebrew with other Jewish scholars.

However, if he was a Galilean, Aramaic was almost certainly his first language and the one he would use in ordinary conversation.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 05-10-2012, 01:07 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Interesting, yes.
And how much of what He SPOKE would you deem to consist of simply 'ordinary' conversation?
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-11-2012, 05:20 AM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
According to the Gospels Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible and probably debate in Hebrew with other Jewish scholars.

However, if he was a Galilean, Aramaic was almost certainly his first language and the one he would use in ordinary conversation.

Andrew Criddle
After ascension though, he seems to have preferred Hebrew; it is the language in which addresses Paul on the road to Damascus and quotes to him a line from Euripides' Bacchae (Acts 26:14).

Best,
Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 05-12-2012, 12:17 AM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
According to the Gospels Jesus could read the Hebrew Bible and probably debate in Hebrew with other Jewish scholars.

However, if he was a Galilean, Aramaic was almost certainly his first language and the one he would use in ordinary conversation.

Andrew Criddle
After ascension though, he seems to have preferred Hebrew; it is the language in which addresses Paul on the road to Damascus and quotes to him a line from Euripides' Bacchae (Acts 26:14).

Best,
Jiri
It is disputed whether hEBRAIDI in the NT and other ancient Greek texts means Hebrew or Aramaic.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.