Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right. It is probably assumed by many historians, that Jesu did not have Scribes. However, far from being a ''logical'' idea, it is actually sort of odd, because Jesu had consistent, followers, and He traveled and preached. This most likely, means, that some of these disciples, were actually Scribes. There would have been more than one, ,most likely. In this manner, we would probably get notations is Aramaic, Hebrew, and possibly even some other scripts.What is your reason for thinking so? This is not part of what I have heard from historians.
Scribes would not have ''waited'' to take notations. I find the actual notations at the time of events, more likely.The Christian scriptures were all written quite a while after Jesus returned to heaven. Two of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses to the events they wrote about....Matthew and John were both apostles...Mark and Luke were not. Paul wrote after his conversion, being personally chosen by the resurrected Jesus as an apostle to the nations.
The apostle John was given the Revelation at the end of the first century. Nothing written after the close of the Bible canon can be classified as scripture, even if they are of historical significance. God chose what to include in his word.
Since all scripture is inspired by God, it really doesn't matter that he had no scribes at the time of his ministry. (2 Tim 3:16, 17)
First off, I would like to congrgulate you, and welcome you into my faith. I see that you have joined.
secondly, ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
Look, you may be correct, but then why would people think that Jesus's name was Hebrew, it was probably Aramaic, imo. His 'usual' names are Aramaic, or greek transcriptions of such of it seems.
praise the God, Jesus, //disciple
Most folks in the UK have Latin, Hebrew or Greek names, a lot from the Bible. None of my friends happen to be ancient Hebrews. My real name is Latin but I've never lived in Ancient Rome or modern Italy. The Jews gave their children specific names with specific meanings as I'm sure you know. It doesn't change anything if Yeshua's name is Hebrew or Aramaic derived. It certainly doesn't tell us which language he spoke and I'll grant you that it may or may not have been Aramaic but I always thought (and had been taught) that it was. If we went with the name used in the New Testament, we'd use Iesous anyway
Two of the Gospel writers were eye witnesses to the events they wrote about....Matthew and John were both apostles...Mark and Luke were not.
My point was, I don't believe that they had 'forgotten' Hebrew, in the time of Jesu, that makes no sense to me. Remember, depending on the Scribe, you could have had, Aramaic, Hebrew, some other scripts, and even Greek.
Scribes would not have ''waited'' to take notations. I find the actual notations at the time of events, more likely.
But your assumption has no basis in scripture. On what do you base your speculation? Do you doubt that the Creator has the ability to inspire humans to write down what he wanted on record? He did not dictate the scriptures word for word, but inspired the writers to record the events in their own words. In the four gospel accounts each included details that the others omit. Put them all together and you have one story.
So what language was used? Was Hebrew still spoken?
"The strongest evidence...favoring the view that Hebrew continued as a living language down into the first century of the Common Era is found in the references to the Hebrew language in the Christian Greek Scriptures. (Joh 5:2;19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Re 9:11; 16:16) While many scholars hold that the term “Hebrew” in these references should instead read “Aramaic,” there is good reason to believe that the term actually applies to the Hebrew language...
When the physician Luke says that Paul spoke to the people of Jerusalem in “the Hebrew language,” it seems unlikely that he meant thereby the Aramaic or Syrian language. (Ac 21:40;22:2; compare 26:14.) Since the Hebrew Scriptures earlier distinguished between Aramaic(Syrian) and “the Jews’ language” (2Ki 18:26) and since the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, considering this passage of the Bible, speaks of “Aramaic” and “Hebrew” as distinct tongues (Jewish Antiquities, X, 8 [i, 2]), there seems to be no reason for the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures to have said “Hebrew” if they meant Aramaic or Syrian."
Hebrew, II — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
"What language did Jesus speak? On this question there is considerable difference of opinion among scholars. However, concerning languages used in Palestine when Jesus Christ was on earth, Professor G. Ernest Wright states: “Various languages were undoubtedly to be heard on the streets of the major cities. Greek and Aramaic were evidently the common tongues, and most of the urban peoples could probably understand both even in such ‘modern’ or ‘western’ cities as Caesarea and Samaria where Greek was the more common. Roman soldiers and officials might be heard conversing in Latin, while orthodox Jews may well have spoken a late variety of Hebrew with one another, a language that we know to have been neither classical Hebrew nor Aramaic, despite its similarities to both.” Commenting further, on the language spoken by Jesus Christ, Professor Wright says: “The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243."
Aramaic — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
None of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses, according to a majority of scholars who have done extensive research on the subject. After weighing the evidence for and against, I agree with the majority.
Huh? Anyways, Scribes would have no reason to ''wait'' to record anything. That doesn't even make sense.
As to the language thing, what's your point.
I think they would have probably spoken Aramaic, and Hebrew, and possibly some people, Greek, etc. What are you trying to tell me, that I didn't already say.