Is it? And how would you know? What have you read (beyond your quote-mining) about such thought?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What language did Jesus speak?
- Thread starter CG Didymus
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Unique only in their blend of Jewish and Hellenistic narrative, structure and content.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
hows about his teaching method?
getting people to think for themselves. only issue is it left a huge gap for freedom of imagnation in meaning, some of which has been lost with time, Needing scholars to place it into proper context
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Like Stesichoros and Aesop?
I have little doubt that the above question was, while not really rhetorical, not exactly a request for a definition so much as a request for a particular individual's definition. As I am not that individual, I hope you'll pardon my attempt at an answer (particularly given that you probably know more than I about research on 1st century socio-economic and cultural classification).
The central reason behind responding to a question not directed at me is because I happened upon something rather specific when re-reading my sources related to the historical Jesus specifically and the Roman empire in and around the 1st century in general. Seán Freyne's Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E: A study of Second Temple Judaism (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity) includes a section on social stratification which defines "what we have been calling the Galilean peasant" (p. 195). It's quite specific: farmers. This includes both "those who may have owned their own plots" as well as "tenant farmers". Another classficiation schema Freyne uses is "the so-called 'rural proletariat'" a which "include the day laborers, the traveling craftsmen, even the less organized type of brigands" (p. 196). However, Freyne does emphasize the close relationship between these two socio-economic "classes" and in particular the relationship between a subclass of the first (the tenant farmer) and the bulk of the "rural proletariat", as both tended (according to Freyne) to be subject to greater economic insecurity, thanks to their greater reliance on others along with the economy as a whole. For farmers who did not own land, such reliance needs no explanation, but for those engaged in business or trade, the issue is more complicated. On the one hand, there were successful merchants and businesses (e.g. John of Gischala, who seems to have gone from rags to riches), but it appears entrepreneurial examples are rare. Instead, those who relied on a trade (whether skilled artisan, "employee", or merchant) felt more keenly inevitable economic fluctuations than did farmers who owned their own lands.
According to Freyne, therefore, if we can safely say that Jesus was an artisan (carpenter or whatever), he was not, strictly speaking, a peasant. However, he woulld still have intricate ties with the peasantry, and from a social status and economic standpoint, he belonged to a group of people who tended not to differ much from the peasantry.
Of interest to me is not Freyne's definition (which in many ways doesn't seem to be of use), but how any of this relates to literacy. While views have changed about literacy (and the lack thereof) in the Roman empire as a while, it is still true that in general illiteracy was high. However, as I've said before (either citing or otherwise relying on the work of many others), chances are that the strong correlation between money and literacy acroos the empire in general is rather fundamentally different than it was for the Jewish. No other people so defined themselves by a set of religious texts, rather than just practice. The Jewish were alone in basing religious practice (a central component of everyday living) on literature, rather than producing literature (like the Greeks with drama/plays) based on received myth. Furthermore, neither received myth nor the literature based upon it were as fundamentally related to actual cultic practice as was religious practice and scripture for the Jewish.
Apart from anything else (and there is a great deal "else" to consider), this alone seems good reason to suppose that oral transmission and memorization of scripture did not suffice as it had for the Greeks and their epic cycles, and thus regardless of class literacy in Jewish circles wolud be more prevalent.
Finally, it appears as if those who posit high percentages of illiteracy rely on literacy studies of the Greeks, Romans, and other non-Jewish cultures and simply apply these. In fact, Crossan not only spends almost the entirety of sections on socio-economic classification and strata by talking about Romans, Roman literature, and Greco-Roman studies, but also basis his concept of social stratification on Lenski's (at least mostly) Neo-Marxist theory (see p. 43ff of Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant). This isn't to say modern sociological findings are necessarily inapplicable to another time period, but using one which has at its foundations the Marxian division of factory owners and factory owners should (one would think) be accompanied by quite a bit more rather than used as a basic framework to begin with.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
They aren't building a deity though. There was only one God for them, and they make no statement otherwise. God is the one and only God for them. And even if Jesus was the son of God (which does have different connotations), it still isn't making a new God. Jesus was never a god.
Sure, the authors (or sources that they were using) did add some stuff. However, that can hardly account for everything. And it is quite clear that Jesus was well versed.
That hardly makes sense though. That would be like saying that since we don't have much about many Emperors early lives, then they must have been typical. And we certainly know that isn't true.
Yes, many of his messages deal with poverty, but the reason is exactly because he is addressing the poor. That really shows nothing. That is only logical. And really, the vast majority of his teachings are not on poverty. He often also talks of rich men, or land owners, and does so in positive manners.
But they aren't unique. This type of parables were actually used quite a bit. They really are a brilliant technique that developed in an oral society in order to help people recall the message that was being spread. Jesus was not the first to use this form of teaching.
That is incorrect. Many scholars will even debate about the age of Jesus, as we simply don't fully know. But there are a number of ideas that scholars do give as being historically true, or most likely being true.
There is a problem here. Many scholars will actually argue that John was attached in some way to the Essenes. There is a nice likely hood of this, and if it would be true, that Jesus in fact did search out an Essene (John).
Now, many of the teachings of Jesus are quite close to those of the Pharisees. There are a number of scholars who would argue that Jesus may have been a Pharisee, or a rogue Pharisee. It is a possibility.
But in the end, it doesn't matter, as the eschatological thought that Jesus is presenting is quite mainstream.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
"jesus parables, are unique in philosophy, so much so, I doubt it was taught"
LOL, the golden rule, basically what the supposed Jesus taught, had already been around for 1000's of years.
LOL, the golden rule, basically what the supposed Jesus taught, had already been around for 1000's of years.
Excellent post. Welcome!
outhouse
Atheistically
you mean the scribes and unknown authors had Pharisees influence being influenced by standard judaism they learned in synagogues, and its seen in their writings.
the woes of the Pharisees speak differently.
and the scholarships and cultural anthropology of the time has Pharisees stealing tithes from people using roman muscle, that and the hated Saducees are the type of governement officials jesus would have hated and despised for their greed and corruption
makes no sense, jesus has always been god, unless your trying to claim he wasnt god and they were polytheistic worshipping jesus and god seperately.
yet in many post you claim that early on jesus was viewed as one with god, as part god. It is refelected that the gospel authors do in fact view jesus as god, walking on water, miracles, ect ect ect, they were building his deityship so to speak, competing with roman emporers also called the "son of god"
no one would worship a teacher healer as god, unless this one was different from the many.
Nope
to me, your giving scripture way to much historicity as being accurate. we know it is not.
these authors are all to far removed from actual events to start claiming jesus said anything.
we can barely attribute Thomas and Q as being jesus own words, and then it cant be said with any certainty, allthough I personally believe some are close.
these authors created deity jesus, and they created biblical jesus, which has never been historical jesus.
wrong context
they are complete opposites, from extremely wealthy and powerful, to a abscure village teacher healer looking for dinner scraps to survive, whop got himself in trouble in the big city rather quickly playing games in the temple.
yet the core of what we car really guess about him is that his message was for the typical village residents who were peasants and less, not the wealthy in the city which the bible is completely silent on, he never is said to be in any developed cities teaching or healing until his death.
jesus message is directed to thoe poor oppressed jew, the sick and sinners, the low lifes in his society and culture. he is very clear his meassage is not for the rich or wealthy.
yes they can guess, but they cant speak anything with certainty or credibility making a stand on such limited knowledge would place them as apologist, not scholars
you said it best and it reflects my post, "we dont know"
No no
credible scholars do state, it should be question, but to date, nothing has been found that places him that close to the Essenes to make a credible conclusion, in fact most say theres not enough information to place him there, and what information we do have is often different from the Essenes.
questioning the connection or influence is healthy, but they dont really draw the conclusion he was connected in any way
Which credible scholars make this point? What texts have you read that argue it?
outhouse
Atheistically
Some of his work is outstanding, and I do respect it, even if slightly against much of modern scholarship, in regards to oppressed and poverty stricken Galilean peasants.
I personally think he combines to much hellenization of certain cities like Sepphoris, with the rural people that show absolutely no signs at all of extreme hellenization. In fact most of the poverty stricken villages from the first century show a complete opposite in lifestyle.
It seems to be his main satement, is that the rich hellenistic people followed judaism closer then most thought, that somehow this translates to the rural peasants who he places as richer and more thriving due to the economic status of places like Sepphoris.
I think its important to show the despite hellenism, judaistic roots were in tact, even among the rich places in Sepphoris. He makes a good case for Jesus jewishness, which I dont really think is needed, but he does place it into his context, which is close.
I also like his views on JtB
I see he ignores the god-fearers completely, and this worries me, not placing the romans/gentiles who worshipped judaism into contect, as people who would not oppress typical jew's using them as slave labor.
outhouse
Atheistically
qumran literature does not make a tie, due to the verse that states a man will leed the new messiah in.
which scholar? hows about most?
why dont you provide who you thing is credible, stating there are ties. instead of playing games
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
What scholarship and anthropology support such an idea? The only scholarship on the subject that would paint the Pharisees in such a negative light are from apologetics. The Pharisees did not have much power. And really, there is no suggestion that they were stealing tithes. I would challenge you to actually point to a single thread of evidence, that doesn't come from an apologetic website, that would support your claim.
Also, if your first statement is true, then are you accepting that the Gospels were written by Jews? Also, one has to remember that Pharisees were a minority group. Once when gets out into the Diaspora, one finds even less. And really, I think it is nothing more than a cop out.
If Jesus always was God, then they aren't creating a deity. In order to create a deity, a new divine being has to be created. That is not what is happening here. Jesus is just being combined with God. No creating of a new deity.
That is hardly what I'm doing. But please, if you are going to limit the use of sayings material (and just for the record I am using the list of verses that Crossan and the Jesus Seminar state are authentic sayings), please give us a list of what material is authentic and not. To just rule out everything that disagrees with you really is going to lead us no where, and in the end, makes your whole argument BS, as you aren't really standing on any firm ground.
Also, much of what I have been saying also is apparent in Thomas and Q. So I think you're just trying to dismiss all ideas contrary to your own. As Thomas and Q also make it very apparent that Jesus was quite well versed in the scriptures.
Actually, right context. Not all Emperors were from the wealthy and powerful. Some took it by ruthlessness.
But we can look at other Jewish figures, such as the high priests, who we don't know anything about their early lives, and it again is quite apparent that they were not normal. We can look at Paul, who says nothing about his normal life. But again, to assume that he had a normal upbringing would be wrong. So it is the right context.
What he is saying, and who he is saying it to are two very different things. So you're argument here really is arguing against something I never said, nor does it actually touch on what I said. I even admit that he is primarily teaching the poor. But who he is teaching does not tell us what he is teaching.
When we look at his teachings, they seldom have to do with poverty. Often he talks of quite successful individuals.
That really isn't what an apologist is, and to label such people apologists really is illogical and just throwing mud.
The thing with history is that all we can do is say what is most probable. To speak with complete certainty on any matter, as if it is 100% accurate, simply doesn't work. But that doesn't mean we can't argue for positions and show why one idea is more probable then another.
The problem I see here is that you are trying to speak for all credible scholars, yet you haven't read a wide enough selection. James H Charlesworth, a credible scholar, and quite well respected, who deals with archeology, and is the director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary, has argued that John was an Essene. The basis for his argument is that there are a number of similarities between what we know of John and what we know of Essenes, and he believes it is quite probable that John was an Essene.
So it is patently false to say that scholars do not draw the conclusion he was connected in any way, as I gave you one such scholar who does.
More so, according to Peter Flint, in the book; The Historical Jesus in Context, states that the majority of scholars agree that the Essenes, or the literature attributed to them, the Dead Sea Scrolls, are quite important in understanding Jesus, John, and the early Christian community. So to say there is no connection, and that most scholars would see it that way, simply is incorrect.
outhouse
Atheistically
despite this scholar, which you have provided no source or quote for.
he is still in opposition to mainstream scholaships, which do not view JtB as a Essene due to the many differences
No one is doubting the importance of the Essenes movement in understanding the diversity of early judaism.
E P Sanders goes into detail about the two different schools of thought in modern scholarships in his review of historical jesus, explaining exactly what I posit.
jesus was not always god
while alive he was as man and mortal as anyone.
Only after death was he created into a deity, and that took hundreds of years to define him as some now view him.
combining jesus with god, is creating a deity. And combining him was just solving the problem of keeping monotheistic traditions alive.
people praised what he did in the temple against the corruption, which later turned into worshipped him before he was attributed as a full blown deity.
which still belonged to the wealthy and elite and powerful, what we dont see is peasants ever getting to Emporer status, less jesus
just because it is in Thomas ans Q doesnt mean it is devoid of mythology, only that it has the "possibility" of being traced back as a historical core to jesus
no they were possibly born with jewish silver spoons
jesus was never this kind of high priest.
I believe paul had a semi normal roman/jewish childhood
says who? roman gospel authors who would never portray him as a peasant? when competing with roman emporers?
outhouse
Atheistically
here is E P Sanders
talking about one scholarly view of the Pharisees being villains
http://www.lastseminary.com/general-2nd-temple-judaism/Jesus%20in%20Historical%20Context.pdf
dissenters as demoniacs, thus silencing them. (Horsley here provides a novel view of the activities of demoniacs. They engaged in social and economic criticism of the ruling class
talking about one scholarly view of the Pharisees being villains
http://www.lastseminary.com/general-2nd-temple-judaism/Jesus%20in%20Historical%20Context.pdf
Sketch Two
: Jesus' world faced a severe social and economic crisis, one that grew worse day by day.
Palestine's small landholders were in a "tightening noose of institutionalized injustices such as double
taxation, heavy indebtedness, and loss of land."2 Peasant families "fell ever more heavily into debt under
the steady economic pressures of double taxation."3 The wealthy lent them money that they could not
repay, charged very high rates of interest, and then foreclosed on the property, so that estates became larger
and larger while more and more people were forced off the land.4 There was "rising indebtedness" and a
"declining peasantry,"5 the "social-economic infrastructure" was "in decline" and poverty was
"worsening."6
Palestine's small landholders were in a "tightening noose of institutionalized injustices such as double
taxation, heavy indebtedness, and loss of land."2 Peasant families "fell ever more heavily into debt under
the steady economic pressures of double taxation."3 The wealthy lent them money that they could not
repay, charged very high rates of interest, and then foreclosed on the property, so that estates became larger
and larger while more and more people were forced off the land.4 There was "rising indebtedness" and a
"declining peasantry,"5 the "social-economic infrastructure" was "in decline" and poverty was
"worsening."6
At fault were, first, the Romans, who were generally responsible for the system and who had levied a
second tax on the Jews, but also to blame were the native Jewish leaders, especially the aristocratic priests,
who levied the first tax on the populace. The principal institutional injustice was the requirement to pay
both Roman and Jewish taxes. Allied with the priests, and therefore also culpable, were the Pharisees, who
were the "retainers" of the aristocrats.
second tax on the Jews, but also to blame were the native Jewish leaders, especially the aristocratic priests,
who levied the first tax on the populace. The principal institutional injustice was the requirement to pay
both Roman and Jewish taxes. Allied with the priests, and therefore also culpable, were the Pharisees, who
were the "retainers" of the aristocrats.
7 They did all sorts of wicked things, such as branding social
dissenters as demoniacs, thus silencing them. (Horsley here provides a novel view of the activities of demoniacs. They engaged in social and economic criticism of the ruling class
Still quote-mining ... 
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
You haven't provided evidence of what mainstream scholarship says on the subject, and (even though you are criticizing me for not having provided sources, which you hardly do) have provided no actual sources.
But for Charlesworth, one source should be enough: "John the Baptizer and Qumran Barriers in Light of the Rule of the Community."
I was talking about the Essenes and Christianity.
What review of Historical Jesus are you talking about? I have E.P. Sanders works. And I find it quite funny that you are referring to E.P. Sanders even though every time I have ever brought him up, you have dismissed him and insulted him. So I don't see why you are referring to him now when you clearly don't agree with him on the subject of Paul, the issue of Temple or Temple Tax, or about any other subject I have ever quoted him on.
If you are talking about the link you cited, then you are actually clearly misinformed about what E.P. Sanders is saying. The "Sketch Two" that he references is not his idea, and really, it is an idea that has largely faded away in the last 20 years. This sketch is actually that of primarily Richard Horsley.
If you read the entire argument, Sanders is disagreeing with the position in Sketch Two, and instead stated that the Pharisees have no power. One of his arguments for this is the fact that Josephus mentions pretty much nothing of them from around 6 C.E. to the end of the first Revolt. Meaning, pretty much nothing is mentioned about them during the time of Jesus.
The view that you quoted is actually one, according to the same article, is an old view that is now on the retreat.
So, to sum up, the argument that you presented simply is not credible as it is a view that has largely died out.
You're flip flopping on this issue.
Jesus was never created into a deity. From at least Paul, Jesus was equated to God in some manner. Sure, it took hundreds of years to work out all of the details, (as in there were different views, but they agreed that Jesus was fully divine), but that means nothing.
I won't deal with the issue of the temple here. I'm writing an essay on that subject, so won't spend time here on the subject.
Not really. You seem to be just ignoring what I'm saying.
First, Thomas isn't even accepted to be early by many scholars. I just wanted to point that out.
Second, what I said was that much of what is in Q and Thomas also support my case on what Jesus was teaching. That even though he taught to the poor, much of his message was actually about wealthy people or people in power.
Not all High Priests were wealthy. Especially if we look at the time before Roman occupation. My point then still stands.
Then that would include a pretty good education, as there is no doubt Paul was highly educated both in Greek, as well as probably Hebrew and the scriptures.
No, according to Q and Thomas, which you accepted as more authentic. Plus, your statement here is just false anyway.
Buddha Dharma
Dharma Practitioner
Yes I know this is an old thread, as I've been gotten onto about this before, but I see a good thread and I can't resist.
I think it's likely Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, and maybe even some Latin. Jews in his day were usually educated in Greek, but not Latin, which was for the elite. Most people still would have known a few smatterings of Latin like humans pick up any language by hearing and inquiring. I doubt Jesus spoke modern Hebrew.
I don't know the full details of this- but as I understand it, Masoretic Hebrew doesn't go back to the second temple era. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Targums far more commonly agree with Greek translation in the Septuagint than the Masoretic.
I think it's likely Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, and maybe even some Latin. Jews in his day were usually educated in Greek, but not Latin, which was for the elite. Most people still would have known a few smatterings of Latin like humans pick up any language by hearing and inquiring. I doubt Jesus spoke modern Hebrew.
I don't know the full details of this- but as I understand it, Masoretic Hebrew doesn't go back to the second temple era. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Targums far more commonly agree with Greek translation in the Septuagint than the Masoretic.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Saying Jesus did not speak modern Hebrew is about as insightful as saying Shakespeare did not speak modern English.
Although Greek was the language of Diaspora Jewry, it is much less certain to what extent Greek was spoken in Judea. Even Josephus who was highly educated stated that he wrote in Aramaic and had others translate what he wrote into Greek because he lacked facility in that language. Outside urban areas the exposure to, the need for, languages other than Aramaic was much less.
By the way, there is no such animal as Masoretic Hebrew. Also I would point out that only about 5% of the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Septuagint.