rlogan

Above we have the map of Roman Empire expansion from 100BCE to 150CE. We note that the Ancient Greek Sphere is fully under Roman Empire control in 100BCE and that the edge of that empire is at Constantinople (Roman Control). It is called Byzantium at the time. Control did not extend into Bithynia. Judea is also beyond Roman Empire control.

As of 44 BC at the death of Julius Ceasar, we see that both Bithynia and Judea have come under Roman control. In Judea, The Hasmonean Dynasty has long ruled, and has a civil war going that assists the Empire in conquest. Herod of Galilee gains the support of the Roman Senate in taking over Judea as a King of the province, but under Roman rule in 40-37 BCE.

Herod is a splendid fellow, drowning a competitor here, executing a wife of political necessity there, and even his own son in 4 BCE. A man of action and swift resolve. Ten wives they say. But not all at the same time. This ushered in an era of Roman Prefect/Procurators after his death. A brief interlude precedes the 6 CE re-organization as a Roman Province.

There was still a lot of sovereignty afforded though with the Romans not interfering in matters of religion and not stationing troops in Jerusalem. During the Reign of Caludius in 41–54, it was even allowed status as a Kindgdom again with Agrippa. He died and his son was judged by the Romans as unfit to rule, and the area was returned to Procurator status.

At this time there is rebellion spreading through the land, and Roman forces come to crush that uprising culminating in the seige of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Did I forget to mention Pontius Pilate 26-36 CE? No, its just that nothing happened in that period of historical note and most especially not some great bright comet screeching through Judea bringing people back from the dead, nearly toppling the Temple Priesthood and founding a religion he personally vests in someone named Peter.

I do hope someone from the varsity team would help us out with a language question. My understanding is that in the first century we have Hebrew being used by the religious scholar types, and Aramaic as the common language of Jesus's alleged haunts. There are both Latin and Greek being used by some but this delineation is something I would like to know more about. Who would be writing in either of those? How does this change as we move into the second century?

Toto

There's a lot of debate over what language Jesus might have spoken.

Latin would be used for official Roman business, but Koine (common) Greek would be used for most other writing in the first and second centuries. Josephus in Rome published his work in Koine Greek.

Koine_GreekThis doesn't change until the fourth century, when Latin becomes predominant.

aa5874

According to the author of Acts, Jesus spoke in the Hebrew tongue AFTER he ascended to heaven.

Acts 26:14 KJV

rlogan

Indeed there is.

Looks like Greek is the language of the Eastern Empire long before the fables of the first century, and yes - one of my study questions was regarding the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible.

If my understanding is correct, then the Septuigint (Translation of 70) arrives more than a century before the legendary exploits of Herr Jesus. I guess this takes a long time to be fully translated, but it is first going on in Alexandria. It is clearly available in Greek for the Eastern Empire long before it is made use of by anyone writing epistles or books in the second century CE.

Being written in Koine Greek doesn't help much in nailing down where in the Eastern Empire these books are written. What helps us is seeing the authors don't know enough about Judea to have been from there.

outhouse

Have a source for the debates in language from Galilee?


He most certainly spoke Aramaic, and the only debate is how much Koine Greek he new.

aa5874

Did Satan the Devil speak in Aramaic to Jesus when he was Tempted on the Pinnacle of the Temple??? Both Jesus the son of God and Satan the Devil must have spoken Aramaic. :constern01:

And what about the angel Gabriel in gLuke?? Gabriel the angel most certainly spoke in Aramaic because there is no mention of an interpreter. :constern01:


There is NO history of the Jesus cult until the mid century 2nd century.

The history of the Jesus cult based on "Against Celsus" is that the Jesus cult was operating in secret for fear of persecution and abuse.

Against Celsus 1

Sheshbazzar

Might as well be arguing about what language big bad wolf in Little Red Riding Hood spoke.

andrewcriddle

Just to clarify.

I was discussing the possibility of Book X in its entirety being a renaissance forgery.

The idea that Book X in general is authentic, but the letters about Christians are not, has its own problems.

a/ Giocondo made available a genuine very ancient manuscript of Pliny a fragment of which survives in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
b/ This manuscript contained at the end a complete text of our present version of book X.

I don't see how a forger could have started with an ancient manuscript containing book X but without the letters about the Christians and just inserted those letters in the middle of book X. At the least he would have had to insert an entire quaternion which would have had several times as much material as the letters about the Christians, and it would have been easier to just insert the entirety of book X at the end.

If the letters about the Christians are a forgery by Giocondo, then either a/ Giocondo fabricated considerably more than the letters about the Christians or b/ he had access to two previously unknown manuscripts of the letters and inserted material into one manuscript on the basis of the other manuscript. Option b/ seems entirely implausible.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Thanks for the clarification.

For the sake of the argument what if the late forger simply changed the name of another group being persecuted (such as "Jews") which was originally preserved in Pliny's letters to Trajan to the group name of "Christians"?

One historian tells us that Trajan had 2000 Jews of the city of Emmaus crucified in the early 2nd century. Pliny may have been asking Trajan what he was supposed to do with the Jews.

andrewcriddle

Apart from the general improbability IMO of this suggestion, we have not only the references to Christians but also the references to Christ (e.g. sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god). I'm not sure what the original would be here if the letters originally dealt with Jews.

Andrew Criddle