Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 05-26-2009, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The diatessaron does not contain Pauls epistles, 1John, 1Peter, James or Hebrews.
So the peshitta versions of these books cannot be based on the diatessaron.

If we're trying to assess the language Jesus spoke, it doesn't seem to me that the epistles have much bearing on that. Even if we accept the earliest datings for the epistles, Paul is still a late comer, and he is also an outsider (according to the official legend).

In regard to the epistles, if Paul's mission really was a gentile mission, why would he write in Syriac?

Quote:

Our earliest sources, the gospels, the Acts of the apostles, have him speaking Aramaic.

Regardless of which dating is used for Acts, it isn't early enough to be relevant to the discussion.

judge · 05-26-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

The diatessaron does not contain Pauls epistles, 1John, 1Peter, James or Hebrews.
So the peshitta versions of these books cannot be based on the diatessaron.

If we're trying to assess the language Jesus spoke, it doesn't seem to me that the epistles have much bearing on that.

Agreed. I wasn't specifically bring up the epistles for that purpose (got sidetracked)

Quote:

In regard to the epistles, if Paul's mission really was a gentile mission, why would he write in Syriac?

Well I hypothesised some possible reasons above. However whichever side we take; we are speculating. We just can't be expected to give a confident answer about why. We can rather ask did it happen.
What we can do is examine the greek versions of his letters and the Aramaic version. Do they contain any information that is helpful?

Quote:

Our earliest sources, the gospels, the Acts of the apostles, have him speaking Aramaic.

Regardless of which dating is used for Acts, it isn't early enough to be relevant to the discussion.

Maybe... some people have argued that it may be as early as 60 CE although I doubt that dating is too popular.

But, even using a later date, the gospels are still the earliest source, so they are as you note, relevant.

show_no_mercy · 05-26-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Your trying to say that Paul wrote in a language to an audience that wouldn't understand the language he wrote in. .

I am saying that rather than dismissing an idea before investigating it, because we think it makes no sense, as you are doing here, we should look at the evidence.

Would Gentiles in the Roman empire in the 1st century be fluent in Aramaic or not?

judge · 05-26-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Would Gentiles in the Roman empire in the 1st century be fluent in Aramaic ...?

Well I doubt every gentile within the Roman Empire would have been fluent but Aramaic was a big language at that time, being spoken in Judea Galilee the Parthian Empire (of which it was the official language) etc... Doubtless there would have been some fluent people, particularly in a community which had people (including jews) interested in the messiah.

One of these people probably translated.

We do seem to have evidence of Syriac translators in early churches. See here

Quote:

For Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel :"- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This language (as Hug has clearly shown: Einleitung, vol. i. p. 367, ed. 1826) implies that there was, in the days of Hegesippus, a Syriac Gospel, and that it was a different book from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.-And in the Passio Sancti Procopii Martyris, (annexed by Valesius to the Hist. Eccles. of Eusebius, lib. viii. c. 1, ed. Amsterdam, 1695. Annotatt, p. 154,) the martyr is said to have been born at Jerusalem, and to have passed his life at Scythopolis, where he performed three functions in the church,- " unum in legendi officio, alterum in Syri interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus daemones manus impositione consummans ;" until his martyrdom, under Diocletian, A. D. 303. The words Syri interpretatione sermonis, explicitly, make him the public translator, (of the Scriptures, undoubtedly,) from the Syriac language into some other, the Greek, most probably: for we may suppose there were some Greeks in the Syrian church of Scythopolis, for whose benefit the Scripture lessons were translated as they were read.

spamandham · 05-27-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Well I hypothesised some possible reasons above. However whichever side we take; we are speculating. We just can't be expected to give a confident answer about why. We can rather ask did it happen.
What we can do is examine the greek versions of his letters and the Aramaic version. Do they contain any information that is helpful?

This entire exercise is speculation, as is most of ancient historical analysis. Is it *possible* that Paul's letters were originally written in Aramaic? Sure, but is that the simplest position? That's really what we're trying to determine. And in regard to that, it's relevant to note which language was the dominant language (at least in writings), and that language was Greek, even among Jews who lived in the cities.

judge · 05-27-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

And in regard to that, it's relevant to note which language was the dominant language (at least in writings), and that language was Greek, even among Jews who lived in the cities.

What do we have written in greek, by jews, in those cities from that period?

bacht · 05-27-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

And in regard to that, it's relevant to note which language was the dominant language (at least in writings), and that language was Greek, even among Jews who lived in the cities.

What do we have written in greek, by jews, in those cities from that period?

The Septuagint (3rd C bce) - Alexandria

Clivedurdle · 05-27-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

And in regard to that, it's relevant to note which language was the dominant language (at least in writings), and that language was Greek, even among Jews who lived in the cities.

What do we have written in greek, by jews, in those cities from that period?

Septaguint do?

(Alexandria was a Greek city with a huge Jewish population.)

judge · 05-27-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

What do we have written in greek, by jews, in those cities from that period?

The Septuagint (3rd C bce) - Alexandria

The septuagint is a translation, though,into greek. This is precisely what I am proposing the greek versions of Pauls letters are.

There we have jews translating from Hebrew into greek, which is almost exactly what I am prposing happened with the greek NT.

bacht · 05-27-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

What do we have written in greek, by jews, in those cities from that period?

Septaguint do?

(Alexandria was a Greek city with a huge Jewish population.)

Did Philo write in Greek?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.