aa5874

There is really no corroborative evidence that the character called Jesus did actually teach or did actually teach in Aramaic or Hebrew.

You very well know that earliest maunscripts [2nd century or later] of the Jesus stories we have recovered are in Greek and were found in Egypt or bought in Egypt.

There is virtually no trace of any Jesus story in Jerusalem or Galilee in any language.

If the literal words of Jesus were not preserved then the teachings of the character, if he did live, cannot be recovered.

Once it is understood that we have at least FIVE versions of the Jesus story then we would appreciate that it is extremely difficult to guess which Jesus, if he did live, said anything.

Cheerful Charlie

It is possible. But that does not mean anybody ever wrote any of that down. Early followers of Jesus, the Ebonites did not write anything down and eventually faded away, labeled as heretics. What early proto-Ebionites from the time of Jesus knew is completely lost to us.

Cheerful Charlie

Duvduv

Except, Charlie, that there is not a single shred of evidence in a single ancient or later Jewish source about the existence of this type of heretical/minim sect. None. All discussion in this regard is based purely on speculation connected with bits of claims found in "Irenaeus" and "Eusebius." Nothing else. No physical evidence of their existence either.

Roger Pearse

Certainly.

Although ... do any of the Fathers even raise the issue, I wonder? Does anyone in antiquity indicate that this matters to them? (These are questions).

More broadly, I wonder what the testimonia might be on the relative value, as seen by the Fathers, of Greek versus Latin for the text of the New Testament. That might give some idea of attitudes.

Of course if we wanted to take the same argument a step further we could argue that nobody living today is a native speaker of whatever language Jesus spoke, which means that none of us can truly know what he said. Whoopee! (If finding excuses to ignore what he said is important to us).

But if nobody in antiquity noticed any of this, we are probably engaged in misunderstanding the question.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

James The Least

It continually amazes me that this whole Aramaic-to-Greek scenario advanced by Bible scholars has any credibility among historians. The followers of the historic Jesus, we are told, thought that he was God. The historical expectation follows that the utmost importance would be placed on preserving the words of God in the language that he spoke, and his followers understood. The entire Jesus movement should have been Aramaic-based for hundreds of years at least, with "translations" into Indo-European languages condemned as outrageous corruptions of God's word by prominent church fathers in books we can still read today.

Nothing like this happened at all. Early Christian texts are in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic ... every language except the one that Jesus/God actually spoke!

To me, this is a serious strike against the whole picture of the historic Jesus. Occam's razor: It is easier to believe that our earliest texts are Greek because the people who conceived of the Jesus character spoke Greek. Nothing went back to a historic Aramaic-speaking rabbi.

spin

It's guesswork based on poor assumptions, Andrew. Few in their right minds would deny a Semitic connection to the gospels, but what that connection is hasn't been ascertained with any seriousness. While there is an explainable Semitic linguistic content--the religion is dependent on Semitic sources for the basic theological elements--, there is an unexplainable Greco-Latin content for a Jesus speaking Aramaic or Hebrew.

I have pointed to a writer using Greek in Rome as a means of explaining the linguistics seen in Mark. There is nothing that requires an Aramaic source for any of the traditions, except in the Jewish origins of theological notions. The narratives and expression point away from a Semitic origin with the odd confusion provided by a little trivial Aramaic, along the lines of "little girl, get up" or the apparently anachronous "rabbi".

If Jesus existed, one cannot use the gospels to glean the language he may have spoken. For all we know a real Jesus could have had a Greek name, given that a third of the population spoke Greek and the name Jesus in Greek had been around for a couple of centuries.

There are quite a few layers of conjecture in this Jesus spoke Aramaic theory.

outhouse

Isnt this because of your misunderstanding the evidence we are left with?


Divine and god are two different things, you need to understand this first.

Jesus relationship to god wasnt defined until 325 CE

Augustus was also divine and a "son of god" and very mortal.


Th movement wasnt popular within these illiterate circles. Surround yourself with no one that can read or write, what do you expect. While he was alive, he didnt have the popularity.

The bible deals with the last week of his life and death and resurrection, he only found fame after his death in Hellenism.


False

While alive he was just a teacher/healer going around teaching for food scraps at the dinner table.

Most of these Aramiac speaking people were nothing but peasants.


Just all of the NT based on a different cultures mythology, who used oral tradition and other written sources that no longer survive

outhouse

Which if im not mistaken is just based on his geographic location

andrewcriddle

Hi Spin

Just to clarify.

Do you agree that IFthere was a historical Jesus, a Galilean peasant who was killed by the authorities at Jerusalem, then this Jesus would normally have taught in Aramaic (or posibly Hebrew) ?

For the purpose of this thread I was assuming that there was a historical Jesus and considering the relation between Jesus' actual teaching and what is recorded in the Gospels.

Although Jesus may have been able to speak Greek, using Aramaic would have made for better communication with his fellow Jews.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

FWIW irenaeus seems to think there is an Aramaic (Hebrew) basis to the gospel