Question About Numbers 15:32–36

[NorrinRadd]

Assuredly - my point was that there is no textual evidence in the gospels to show that they were written with any knowledge of Paul's writings. Nor do Paul's writings give any evidence of familiarity with the gospels. If one group showed that it was calling on the other, there would be evidence of a sequence. No such evidence can be adduced from the texts. With Paul's writings being so influential, it is very difficult to make a case for the idea that the gospels were written later than Paul's letters.

Mmm... Some claim he was familiar with at least oral traditions found in the Gospels, such as the "divorce" teaching to which he gave his own additions, and the sayings recited during the Lord's Supper -- both allusions found in 1 Cor., IIRC.

[tabibito]

Mmm... Some claim he was familiar with at least oral traditions found in the Gospels, such as the "divorce" teaching to which he gave his own additions, and the sayings recited during the Lord's Supper -- both allusions found in 1 Cor., IIRC.

It points to a familiarity with pre-existing precepts, certainly.

[tabibito]

I am claiming that Matthew was written by the eponymous disciple who knew Jesus personally; that Peter's epistles were written by the eponymous disciple who knew Jesus personally (albeit likely with the aid of two different amanuenses), that Mark was written by John Mark, that the Johannine Gospel and Epistles were written by John, probably "the disciple whom Jesus loved." I am claiming that virtually everyone throughout the Roman Empire in the First Century was *at least* "conversant" with Greek ideas and especially language in addition to, and sometimes in preference to, their own ancestral languages and beliefs. I am claiming that the acts, including miracles, attributed to Jesus by the authors were historically factual and true, though not always recorded in the same detail nor chronological order. I am claiming that the teachings attributed to Jesus by the authors are accurate in substance if not verbatim detail.

Agreed, with the exception of "probably "the disciple whom Jesus loved" bit. Nice summation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

With regard to the language: the children of expatriate Jews frequently did not know Hebrew.

What has that to do with a Galilean fisherman?

We are told in Mark chapter 4 that while walking by the sea of Galilee Jesus called Peter and Andrew who were fishermen. Why would two fishermen living in Galilee not know Aramaic? .

Romans frequently did not bother to learn the local languages.

What is that supposed to mean?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not a particularly successful dodge - what you in fact said was

Or are you trying to claim a Jewish Galilean artisan fishermen was conversant with Greek ideas and the Greek language

Not really. You conflated my separate replies to two different individuals.

And as yet no one has actually addressed my question- as to why a [probably illiterate] devout Jewish Galilean artisan fisherman would have the slightest interest in the Greek language and Greek philosophical ideas?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given the situation, for Jesus to not have picked up so Greek ideas and words (and maybe some Roman as well) would be like someone living along the Mexican border and not knowing any Spanish. You'd have to make a very determined effort to avoid it.

Roman words? Or did you mean Latin? And why would he have "picked up" Latin in the Roman east? Your unfortunate tendency to conflate modern situations with contemporary situations prevailing in the ancient world is once again noted.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's beyond debate to say that Paul's epistles didn't have a profound effect on Christianity, but H_A would have us believe that his was the only tradition and we should ignore the Synoptic, Johannine and Petrine influences as insignificant.

You are putting the proverbial wagon before the proverbial horse. Paul is our earliest source. All the rest of those NT texts came later.

[tabibito]

Not really. You conflated my separate replies to two different individuals.

Nope.

And as yet no one has actually addressed my question- as to why a [probably illiterate] devout Jewish Galilean artisan fisherman would have the slightest interest in the Greek language and Greek philosophical ideas?

Plenty of reasons why a person in the first century might choose to learn the trade tongue of the Roman empire. Pretending that you believe a person in the Galilee region would not have had occasion or opportunity to learn Koine Greek is somewhat disingenuous.

You are putting the proverbial wagon before the proverbial horse. Paul is our earliest source. All the rest of those NT texts came later.

You're still preaching that nonsense?

[rogue06]

Roman words? Or did you mean Latin? And why would he have "picked up" Latin in the Roman east? Your unfortunate tendency to conflate modern situations with contemporary situations prevailing in the ancient world is once again noted.

Judaea had been a Roman province for a few generations by Jesus' time. Obviously nobody would ever pick up bits of the language of their conqueror and occupier (Acts 10 mentions the presence of an Italian cohort in Judaea).

[rogue06]

You are putting the proverbial wagon before the proverbial horse. Paul is our earliest source. All the rest of those NT texts came later.

For someone who denies that ancient Christians traveled and that communities kept in touch one another, you appear to think that every Christian back then walked around with copies of Paul's epistles (long before they were ever collected), using them as some sort of guide.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Judaea had been a Roman province for a few generations by Jesus' time. Obviously nobody would ever pick up bits of the language of their conqueror and occupier (Acts 10 mentions the presence of an Italian cohort in Judaea).

Galilee was not Judaea. And the lingua franca for the eastern empire was Greek.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Plenty of reasons why a person in the first century might choose to learn the trade tongue of the Roman empire.

Greek was the language of the eastern empire not the "Roman empire".

Pretending that you believe a person in the Galilee region would not have had occasion or opportunity to learn Koine Greek is somewhat disingenuous.

Give me a valid reason [with some attested contemporary evidence] as to why a peasant fisherman in Galilee would be interested in learning the Greek language and Greek philosophical ideas.

You're still preaching that nonsense?

Again some attested historical contemporary evidence is required by you in order to dismiss as "nonsense" the accepted view that Paul is our earliest source of Christian writing.

[rogue06]

Galilee was not Judaea. And the lingua franca for the eastern empire was Greek.

Funny. Not to long ago you were arguing that Galileans wouldn't know any Greek. Please make up your mind.

Still the conquerors were Roman and Roman soldiers were stationed throughout the region. I think it was Zeichmann who noted that there were 4 Legions and over a dozen cohorts stationed in there.

Finally, you seem to equate learning some words and phrases with being fluent in the language.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Funny. Not to long ago you were arguing that Galileans wouldn't know any Greek. Please make up your mind.

Galilee was not Judaea.

For the educated and mercantile classes Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern empire.

However, there is no evidence that Hellenization had made any significant inroads into rural Galilee in the early first century CE. Galilean cities such as Tiberias and Sepphoris are, however, in a different category.

Still the conquerors were Roman and Roman soldiers were stationed throughout the region.

Not in Galilee in the early first century CE. At that period it was an independent client kingdom with its own ruler who was responsible for its internal administration.

I think it was Zeichmann who noted that there were 4 Legions and over a dozen cohorts stationed in there.

You should actually try reading Zeichmann.

There were no legions stationed permanently in either Galilee or Judaea in the first three decades of the first century CE. At that period legionary garrisons were stationed in Syria and in Egypt.

[Machinist]

"Paul is our earliest source. All the rest of those NT texts came later." Hypatia


"You're still preaching that nonsense"?-Tab

What? This isn't true? I have always heard and read that Paul's epistles were the first to be written. Not that it matters to me, and I don't see any real import that might change the way we look at the Gospels, as though the Gospels are less credible. I've just always heard that Paul's writings came real early in the history of Christianity, earlier than the other books of the NT.