What language did Jesus speak?

[fallingblood]

Outhouse, much of your argument rests on Jesus being a peasant. So what is a peasant?

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse, much of your argument rests on Jesus being a peasant. So what is a peasant?

excellent point, I knew you would know this.

typical galilean is what it really means, a someone living a rural life farming/functioning for subsistence

I actually provided a decent definition supplied in the botton of the second paragraph, per Reed/Crossan

 

[oldbadger]

Sea of Galilee Boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see a typical Galilean boat.

there is no mention of a large boat

Thankyou for that. Great!

OK. This boat is big! It looks small, until you stand on the deck of a 8.5 meter double-ender, 2.5 meters in beam, then it becomes large. The inshore trawlers around here look big, and they are below 10 meters.

This was one valuable asset. It is very closely ribbed to be strong enough to haul out, and needed a crew of 7+, I reckon. Look at the picture of a similar boat size being launched off an English shoreline, and count the crew!

Zebedee was one very wealthy, very middle class owner, or If he rented this boat, then he was a very wealthy skipper.

Sorry, you never got the pic.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

and we have roughly a 97% percent chance he was illiterate, due to geographic location alone.

You at your best. :yes:

 

[fallingblood]

excellent point, I knew you would know this.

typical galilean is what it really means, a someone living a rural life farming/functioning for subsistence

I actually provided a decent definition supplied in the botton of the second paragraph, per Reed/Crossan

Was Jesus a typical Galilean though? I would say not. Most Galileans, and I think you would agree, we're not religious leaders who went from one town to the next (with a group of people) teaching a message. I don't think that is typical at all.

A typical Galilean also couldn't perform "miracles" as in faith healings.

Jesus was hardly a typical Galilean.

 

[outhouse]

Was Jesus a typical Galilean though? I would say not. Most Galileans, and I think you would agree, we're not religious leaders who went from one town to the next (with a group of people) teaching a message. I don't think that is typical at all.

A typical Galilean also couldn't perform "miracles" as in faith healings.

Jesus was hardly a typical Galilean.

typical Galilean as far as upbring and social class prior to taking off on his own.

The tekton, Nazareth jesus, so to speak

 

[fallingblood]

typical Galilean as far as upbring and social class prior to taking off on his own.

The tekton, Nazareth jesus, so to speak

But we know nothing of his upbringing. We don't know when he took off. And we know very little about Nazareth.

As for being a tekton, we aren't even really told what that meant for Jesus.

So really you are working on very shaky ground here.

 

[outhouse]

But we know nothing of his upbringing. We don't know when he took off. And we know very little about Nazareth.

As for being a tekton, we aren't even really told what that meant for Jesus.

So really you are working on very shaky ground here.

except im the first person to state we know little with historicity that can be stated with certainty.

So that leaves us with Reed's view of the cultural anthropology of the people that would have lived and raised a family there. And tekton only takes on a definition that aplies to that geographic location


and as far as we know, nothing before JtB places jesus any different then any other Galilean

 

[fallingblood]

except im the first person to state we know little with historicity that can be stated with certainty.

So that leaves us with Reed's view of the cultural anthropology of the people that would have lived and raised a family there. And tekton only takes on a definition that aplies to that geographic location


and as far as we know, nothing before JtB places jesus any different then any other Galilean

Unless one takes the view that Jesus was a disciple of Johns. That would mean something quite different.

Also, we must look at later events which tell us that there is something different about Jesus. He was hardly normal, which suggests that his upbringing may have been a little different.

 

[outhouse]

Unless one takes the view that Jesus was a disciple of Johns. That would mean something quite different.

Also, we must look at later events which tell us that there is something different about Jesus. He was hardly normal, which suggests that his upbringing may have been a little different.

if we run with that, and im not opposed, when he became a disciple of johns would come into play.

I think he was a normal Galilean, th eonly thing that would seprate jesus, would be that he was a competent word smith, which he could have blossomed at any age. And it could just be Johns teachings that brought out his skill, but more I see his homegrown cynical ways, to teach the people to teach themselves that made him unique.

this philosophy could and probably was his own, but this is a guess.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So that leaves us with Reed's view of the cultural anthropology of the people that would have lived and raised a family there. And tekton only takes on a definition that aplies to that geographic location

Tzippori

To look to cultural anthropology to determine the literacy or language skills of a single individual leader is preposterous.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unless one takes the view that Jesus was a disciple of Johns. That would mean something quite different.

Also, we must look at later events which tell us that there is something different about Jesus. He was hardly normal, which suggests that his upbringing may have been a little different.

:yes:
Mary was cousin to Elizabeth, who was married to Zechariah, a priest. Both Elizabeth and Zechariah were of the priestly line of Aaron (According to the author of Luke.)
Going by this, we can assume John was educated and literate, and that Jesus, being of the same family, and likely a disciple of John's before getting his own call, was also literate. Trained in the building trades by his father Joseph, and seemingly well versed in Hebrew scripture.
In Luke 4, Jesus is said to have read from the "scroll of the prophet Isaiah, which would have been written in Hebrew. He was also said to to have frequently taught in the synagogues.

It can be assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew as a traveling Rabbi, Hellenistic Greek, being the language of commerce, and possibly limited Latin.

 

[fallingblood]

if we run with that, and im not opposed, when he became a disciple of johns would come into play.

I think he was a normal Galilean, th eonly thing that would seprate jesus, would be that he was a competent word smith, which he could have blossomed at any age. And it could just be Johns teachings that brought out his skill, but more I see his homegrown cynical ways, to teach the people to teach themselves that made him unique.

this philosophy could and probably was his own, but this is a guess.

He was more than a competent word smith, which in its own right would suggest some education. If he was a regular peasant, the idea that such a skill would just blossom really isn't workable. One needs practice to become a competent word smith.

As I said though, he was more than that. He seems quite well versed in Hebrew scriptures, to the point that he is able to debate with Pharisees and scribes. More so, when he is showed to quote from Scripture (at least in Matthew), it is taken from the LXX. That importance of this is that when Matthew himself quotes from the Hebrew scriptures, it is not from the LXX. This would suggest that the tradition that came down to him was that Jesus knew Greek and knew the LXX.

Either way though, it is quite clear that he was well versed in scripture. This means that he was educated to a point, and that he was not a typical Galilean.

Not to mention that there are a number of various other theories that are becoming popular that argue quite convincingly that Jesus was fluent in Greek as well as Aramaic. Hebrew is also very likely. John P. Meier actually makes a very good case.


But really, when we get down to it, Jesus was hardly a normal Galilean. Sure, cultural anthropology can get us so far (and there are differing ideas there as well. Jonathan Reed, even though he is a great scholar, is not the last word). But it doesn't tell us about individuals who do not fit the normal constructs, who are different from the majority.

 

[outhouse]

He was more than a competent word smith, which in its own right would suggest some education. If he was a regular peasant, the idea that such a skill would just blossom really isn't workable. One needs practice to become a competent word smith.

As I said though, he was more than that. He seems quite well versed in Hebrew scriptures, to the point that he is able to debate with Pharisees and scribes. More so, when he is showed to quote from Scripture (at least in Matthew), it is taken from the LXX. That importance of this is that when Matthew himself quotes from the Hebrew scriptures, it is not from the LXX. This would suggest that the tradition that came down to him was that Jesus knew Greek and knew the LXX.

Either way though, it is quite clear that he was well versed in scripture. This means that he was educated to a point, and that he was not a typical Galilean.

Not to mention that there are a number of various other theories that are becoming popular that argue quite convincingly that Jesus was fluent in Greek as well as Aramaic. Hebrew is also very likely. John P. Meier actually makes a very good case.


But really, when we get down to it, Jesus was hardly a normal Galilean. Sure, cultural anthropology can get us so far (and there are differing ideas there as well. Jonathan Reed, even though he is a great scholar, is not the last word). But it doesn't tell us about individuals who do not fit the normal constructs, who are different from the majority.

I can follow some of that, and do understand Reeds work is not definitive, just the view I follow.

The only thing I would add is that, when you talk of jesus being "well versed in scripture" id like to add that is what the gospel authors are stating building their deity.

I actually appose Crossan as well when he reads "to me" to much into scripture literally.


Again pre 30, jesus has no historicity what so ever, so there I find him "typical"

Much of his verses deal with poverty and addressed to the poor. And that is reflected with Q and Thomas, which as far as im concerned, are the most reliable as far as trying to paint a picture.

I find M, L, Mt a little to far removed from his life, time wise as well as geographic, as well as culturally removed, to attribute to much historicity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can follow some of that, and do understand Reeds work is not definitive, just the view I follow

Have you read Reed's work other than what you've googled? Have you actually read any of the books of those who differ with Crossan? I suspect not. Rather, we're presented with pretentious inference sustained by selection bias and shallow thinking ...

... pre 30 there is no historicity to Jesus; therefore, the tekton was a 'typical' illiterate peasant stone worker. Just brilliant. :biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

Just thinking

jesus parables, are unique in philosophy, so much so, I doubt it was taught. It isnt orthodox or following mainstream rabbinical thought.

I believe, it was soley learned under john's teaching and guidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It isnt orthodox or following mainstream rabbinical thought.

How would you know? What have you read about 2nd Temple Period escatological thought?

 

[outhouse]

Have you read Reed's work other than what you've googled? Have you actually read any of the books of those who differ with Crossan? I suspect not. Rather, we're presented with pretentious inference sustained by selection bias and shallow thinking ...

... there is no historicity to Jesus before 30 and, therefore, the tekton was a 'typical' illiterate peasant stone worker. Just brilliant. :biglaugh:

you would do well, to make additions from your opinion in threads, instead of thread bashing from a point of talking down to scholars whom you choose to hold a different view.

you can laugh all you want, that wont give ill concieved historicity, where there is none.

no credible scholar will admit to anything pre 30, or even pre John, as having historicity.



You can stop putting phrases in my post, as that is ignorant. your welcome to share knowledge though.

 

[outhouse]

How would you know? What have you read about 2nd Temple Period escatological thought?

enough to know jesus did not follow Pharisees, or the Essenes, or the Saducees escatological thought.

while some can claim pieces from each, less Saducees. Its obvious he went to John instead of either of the mainstream thoughts

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you would do well, to make additions from your opinion in threads, instead of thread bashing from a point of talking down to scholars whom you choose to hold a different view.

Pay attention. I haven't bashed a single scholar. On the contrary, I'm still waiting for you to show them the respect of actually reading their books. I'm sure you'll get around to it sooner or later. :yes: