Johann_Kaspar

Sorry I can't believe you.

Chris Weimer

Alright Beth. Let's take this one error at a time.

We just had a huge debate here on which Semitic language was used at the turn of the century. Check here, here, here, here, and here. Although Greek was used, to say that no Semitic language was used is factually inaccurate. The rest of the page is insequious and doesn't support the statement above. You can hardly base one philosopher's linguistic skill to support an entire religion, especially when Josephus says the exact opposite. Read in particular the first link.

Chris Weimer

Here you use Adam and Eve as supportive of your examples. However, the Greek has a substantial loss "punnage" compared to the Hebrew. We discussed this here, if you recall.

Beth Phillips

First of all, I resent your thoroughly arrogant opening incitement. If you are planning upon ever being a real scholar, I suggest you work on that. Professionalism goes a very long way.

Second, I did not say that "no Semitic language was used." In fact, Semitic meanings are everywhere in the NT, disguised of course, in 'Greek Wordplay'. What I said was that there is little evidence that first century Jewish people at the turn of the millennium were Semitic speaking people. This comes from just about every scholarly work I have read on the topic. First century Jews were primarily Greek speaking, Greek educated people and biblical primacy was clearly given to the LXX. Scattered Semitic writings within a thoroughly Hellenized world does not make Semitic an actual spoken language. I am actually surprised that you are not aware of that.

Third, please read--and read carefully--the entire work before you start your critique (this seems to be one of your greatest weaknesses.) Until then, you are smirking out the side of your mouth and only showing your own ignorance of the topic at hand.

Fourth, out of curiosity, what in the world does "insequious" mean? I looked it up in four different dictionaries and not one of them has that word. I thought you were a bright lad, but I now realize my error.

Fifth, I am not going to have a p---ing contest with you or anyone else. I will, however, gladly welcome all helpful critiques and suggestions. This work is very important to me Chris, and important to biblical studies. I am trying to make the work stronger by enlisting a readership of other intelligent people, of which you do not have to be one.

In fact, on second thought, don't even bother with your 'one error at a time'. If you don't want to learn something new, and challenge your mind past the habit of appealing to authority and mooching off the hard work of others in order to set yourself up as an 'expert', why don't you just forget about my work? Just skip right over it and go on about your world. I don't need you or your critique.

Beth

p.s. I wish you hadn't forced this hostility into a public forum, but, in order to 'nip this in the bud' before it blooms further, there it is for all to see.

Chris Weimer

I have more errors, I didn't want you to think I was cutting you short by only describing two of them.

If you had even bothered to read the threads I supplied you, you would realize that you are still wrong.

Oh really? And you refuted what, again?

You're right, in fact. But then again, didn't Shakespeare coin some thousand words? Language isn't static, but I won't go in the details of how insequious fits English properly. I figured you were a bright lass...

Barefoot Bree

Interesting theory, Beth. Do you have any examples of this literary device being used outside the bible? Showing that it was a common thing at the time would bolster your position.

On the other hand, the naming of Jacob's sons doesn't strike me as being particularly supportive of it. Most societies include the tradition of naming children for momentous occurences or coincidences. (I used to know a guy in real life named Quintilus, because he was - you guessed it - the fifth son in the family. No joke.) Not to mention so-called "virtue names" such as Charity, Chastity, Joy, etc, common even today. I think you would do better justice to your theory by sticking to names which appear to be prophetic of the bearer's future character or actions, as you do with the various Marys.

Beth Phillips

Yes. In fact, and surprisingly enough, Plato used the same dual-lingual proper name wordplay in quite a few of his dialogues. Since there is no traditional expectation that Plato used anything Semitic in his dialogues, it will be, for some, just as surprising as finding the same literary technique to be so prevalent in the Bible. The Plato material is presented in Part II and clearly shows the same methodology at work as in both the OT/HB and the NT canons. Yes, having the Plato element certainly does just that! But this does not come without serious problems for our traditional understanding of the ancient world, especially vis-a-vis Biblical Studies, because it forces a new look at a lot of old assumptions and faith-based facts.

In seeking the origin for this dual-lingual literary style as found in the New Testament, one scenario involves the query of where did the NT writers learn this methodology? From the Platonic Dialogues, or from Jewish literary tradition? And, is there even a difference between the two?

We know that by the first century of the current era, when the NT writers and early church scholars were actively writing, there is no doubt that Plato was still very much a part of a standard Hellenistic education and, for that matter, a significant part of biblical exegesis for the newly forming church. But this does not explain a Platonic influence for OT/HB, traditionally held as the antecedent for the NT. For all intents and purposes, the OT/HB appears, in its current state, to have been written totally outside of Greek influence.

In order to solve this dilemma, the major pieces are going to have to be moved around a bit.

There is an ongoing controversy over which came first, the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew Bible, and scholars are still wrestling over which was actually the case.

Now that we have a brand new factor to consider: the use of GrecoSemitic wordplay in Plato and the NT, then the primacy question between the LXX and the HB, is a very good one to put in the first premise position.

To start with, GrecoSemitic wordplay is not, of course, present in the Hebrew Bible that we have today, for several obvious reasons, i.e., it is not a Greek text; it is a mono-lingual text and other than a handful of Greek related words, there is no evidence of a heavy Greek influence in the linguistic structure or the content of the texts.

The Septuagint (LXX) however, is a Greek text--known to have existed as early as the 3rd century bce--and if you know what to look for, the dual-lingual wordplays can easily be found scattered throughout this Greek OT.

So, based upon this alone, if the OT/HB was written before the LXX, then it cannot be responsible for the origination of such a dual-lingual literary tool.

If the LXX was written first, intentionally using Semitic meanings for the proper names within an otherwise seeminly Greek text, then it would clearly match the New Testament in its literary construction, as well as, yes...the Platonic Dialogues. This would provide logical continuity for this dual-lingual literary style from Plato to the LXX to the NT.

Without this logical continuity, we have the fragmentary presence of a literary tradition that has no legitimate roots, with the NT appearing like an unacknowledged bastard child to Plato.

So, as you can see, with this new research to consider, many past assumptions will have to be re-evaluated and if 'truth' and 'accuracy' are the goals of academia, then this new research should not be ignored and an appropriate investigation should continue accordingly.

Moshe Garsiel has written the most extensively on proper name wordplay in the OT/HB, showing where virtually every proper name is found in wordplay, either upon introduction into the storyline, or as a part of a future story about them. Sometimes both. There are over 3,000 different proper names in the OT/HB, so that is a lot of wordplays to pick from! I chose Jacob and the Twelve Tribes , as well as King David, as examples in this presentaion primarily because most people are aware of who they are, if not about the details of the stories themselves. I am sure there are more that would appear to be more prophetic, and I see your point, so I will search for some other examples and add them to the site. Thanks for the suggestion!

Beth

DrJim

There is a huge bibliography of research into word play assembled by Scott Noegel at note especially: Rendsburg, G. A., "Bilingual Wordplay in the Bible," VT 38 (1988), pp. 357-362.

On my own Hebrew Bible discussion forum (which is pretty low traffic), I'm trying to get a handle on what sort of motives behind the use of extensive word play in the Hebrew Bible's prophetic texts. Are people reading too much into word play, or was there a sense of encoding hidden or even esoteric meanings in the original composition? Anyway, you can find the few postings at
Jim Linville

Beth Phillips

Thank you, DrJim, for adding a new reference link for Semitic wordplay in ANE literature! It is very nice to dialogue with someone else who is interested in the same thing!

I have been aware of some of these studies for a while now, and so I know that this aspect of biblical wordplay is getting some much needed attention! That is why I have primarily focused on the bi-lingual usage between Greek and Semitic, most especially in the NT and the LXX--an aspect that has yet to get much attention at all! You are certainly asking some of the same questions that I am! I am also sure you will have followed the same line of thinking that I will be including here, but for other readers who cannot read our minds, I will expound a bit!!

Their 'motive' in doing so would help to answer a lot of the other questions, but until we can reasonably ascertain what that motive was, I do not personally think that we are reading too much into these wordplays at all.

Was there an 'encoding' or 'esoteric' aspect within this literary tradition? I certainly think so, but this leads to the question of, "What kind of esotericism are we talking about?"

Yes, there is more and more evidence coming to the fore that 'magical incantations' and certain other superstitions were definately involved--at least to some extent. For example, in the Cairo Geneziah magical papryii, if I recall correctly, there was a 'fertility charm/incantation' using the Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs. But was this 'magic' in the sense that we have come to see 'magic' or was this just earnest religious ritual? Also, these fragments are much later than the NT period, so I don't want to get too far ahead of the game!

But 'magic' is not the only esoteric possibility. My mind keeps coming back to the other possibility that you suggest, and that is a definate sense of 'encoding' for those who knew how to read the esoteric cipher. I especially consider this to be a distinct possibility where what I am calling GrecoSemitic is being used. When wordplays are read in Semitic alone, the wordplays are much more visual and aural, and not particularly 'esoteric' as such. But, when bi-lingual wordplays are found, e.g., Semitic meanings in an otherwise Greek text, the wordplays are 'invisible'--unless you know what to look for by knowing the different languages involved. This, to me, is esoteric indeed!!

For Part II of my study, I am working on a possible connection between the Orphic Mysteries and the branches of Jewish Mysticism(s) that were prevalent in the first century of the common era, e.g., Merkabah Mysticism, which is known to have had a language based foundation, but the task of making more than just a correspondence between the two may be quite tricky. But, certain potential connections are there nonetheless, and this would provide one more thread through which Plato and the first century NT writers can be connected.

Note: I also do not want to focus too much of my attention on the 'mystical' aspects of MM, but rather, to focus on the literary aspect of the tradition. Of course, as Abraham Abulafia would have it in his particular brand of Kabbalah--The Path of Names--one cannot really separate the two!! In other words, an in-depth study of the literary aspect of the Names (wordplays, either alphabetic or numerical) is an act of evoking the 'mystical' aspects as well. It is all fascinating stuff, no doubt.

So, I am not sure what all of these writers were up to, but I do know that 'something' was definately going on. (And this is about all that I have going on in my life too!!! Sometimes I think I need a vacation! but all of these things are never far from my mind!)

Thank you for your response Dr Jim, and if have any opinions as to what is going on in the NT, or you have anything else to add, please do so!

Sincerely,
Beth

cass256

Thanks Beth, and Dr. Jim, for something that looks very interesting to look into.
Beth, I know you said you didn't want to focus on the mystical, but do you think there may be something here behind having in the law of YHWH that the people were not to even mention the names of other gods?