Question About Numbers 15:32–36

[tabibito]

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

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.

There was a time when I was a vineyard hand - that part of my life ended many years ago, and I moved on to other things. Strangely - Peter seems to have stopped being a fisherman in Galilee at some point in his life and moved on, circulating in other parts of the Roman empire.

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.

In real scholarly circles, there is a wide range of dates proposed for the penning of the gospels. Some as early as 40CE, some as late as the end of the first century. Not so long ago, even the second century was considered a reasonable possibility, but the number of scholars subscribing to the second century proposal is diminishing. I state that the most probable timing for the synoptic gospels, according to may own evaluation, is prior to 60CE. You however, insist on late dates as if they are matters of established fact: they are not. You continue to preach your bare assertions because your claims with regard to other matters lack credibility if the dates are earlier.

In previous mention of this matter on TWeb, I have explained my reasons for rejecting late dates. You never bothered to address the points that I raised, and have never bothered to offer anything substantiate your own assertions, beyond appeals to authority. Your favoured authorities don't stand unopposed by credentialled academics.

[rogue06]

Galilee was not Judaea.

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

Again, in another thread, you were mocking the concept that any Galilean might know some Greek. Now you proclaim it was the lingua franca of the region.

Make up your mind.

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.

You're right. After just how many centuries of Hellenizing the region, the Galileans were, through some sort of miracle, able to remain free of any and all influence.

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.

And as long as they never went more than a day's walk or so they would remain in Galilee. That you think that this postage stamp-sized region was able to resist any Roman influence for several generations is indeed remarkable.

But then until recently you were claiming they resisted all Greek influences for centuries only to now utterly abandon that here.

Consistency never was your strong suit.

You should actually try reading Zeichmann.

Got his Military Forces in Judaea 6–130 ce: The status quaestionis and Relevance for New Testament Studies open right now

"...(four legions, 14 infantry cohortes, and five cavalry alae)"

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

Looks like I got it right.

But I'll concede that he doesn't say exactly when.

[rogue06]

There was a time when I was a vineyard hand - that part of my life ended many years ago, and I moved on to other things. Strangely - Peter seems to have stopped being a fisherman in Galilee at some point in his life and moved on, circulating in other parts of the Roman empire.



In real scholarly circles, there is a wide range of dates proposed for the penning of the gospels. Some as early as 40CE, some as late as the end of the first century. Not so long ago, even the second century was considered a reasonable possibility, but the number of scholars subscribing to the second century proposal is diminishing. I state that the most probable timing for the synoptic gospels, according to may own evaluation, is prior to 60CE. You however, insist on late dates as if they are matters of established fact: they are not. You continue to preach your bare assertions because your claims with regard to other matters lack credibility if the dates are earlier.

In previous mention of this matter on TWeb, I have explained my reasons for rejecting late dates. You never bothered to address the points that I raised, and have never bothered to offer anything substantiate your own assertions, beyond appeals to authority. Your favoured authorities don't stand unopposed by credentialled academics.

As noted in another thread the primary reason given for the later dates was that scholars rejected out of hand the passages about the fall of the Temple being an accurate prediction and therefore must come from after 70A.D.

The problem with that hypothesis is that history is full of instances of people predicting something that ended up happening. I even provided a few examples.

As previously noted the entire idea that the Gospels were written after the Fall of Jerusalem is based upon the idea that the prophecies attributed to Jesus just had to be later interpolations because after all, it is impossible to accurately predict the future.

Except that there are documented instances of it taking place over and over.

More than a hundred years before the American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered that Mars has two moons in 1877, Jonathan Swift foretold with uncanny accuracy their existence in his 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels. Moreover, not only did he write about "two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve about Mars," he described them with remarkable accuracy at a time when no technology yet existed that allowed for their detection. Swift predicted not only the number of moons Mars has but gave an accurate description of their sizes as well a pretty good estimate regarding how long it took for them to orbit the planet.

Obviously, this means Gulliver's Travels was really™ written after 1877 -- over 130 years after Swift's death.

A few more examples.

The iconic TV comedy and variety show, Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In had a segment called "News of the Future," where they predicted not only the future presidency of Ronald Reagan -- who at the time was the governor of California and on virtually nobody's list of potential presidential contenders -- but also the exact year of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This all happened in 1969, a full two decades before East and West Germany were reunited.

In 1917, Alexander Graham Bell, best known as the inventor of the telephone, warned of how the continuing unchecked burning of fossil fuels would "have a sort of greenhouse effect" on the planet and recommended collecting solar power from sunlight and using it as an energy source.

Mark Twain, perhaps in jest, predicted his own death:

"I came in with Halley’s comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t. The Almighty said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together.'"

Twain was born two weeks after the comet appeared in 1835 and died on April 21, 1910, the day after the comet returned.

Not so amusingly, in 1955 the actor Alec Guinness warned James Dean, after the latter was showing off his new car and boasting how fast it could go, "Please do not get into that car, because if you do … by 10 o'clock at night next Thursday, you'll be dead." That next Thursday Dean died in an auto accident driving that car.

In 1888, Otto Von Bismark, Germany's first Chancellor, accurately predicted World War I, proclaiming: "One day the Great European War will come out of some damn foolish thing in the Balkans."

And in John Brunner’s 1968 novel Stand on Zanzibar, America in 2010 is run by a President Obomi in a world with satellite news and DVRs (although the book itself was about a world suffering from overpopulation).

All of which numerous Biblical scholars would dismiss as impossible.

[rogue06]

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.

What do you mean by "permanently"?

[*puts H_A hat on*]

Do you propose that they would still have to be stationed there in 2022 in order to qualify?

[*removes H_A hat*]

Besides, we have documentation from the first century that says Roman troops were there.

Scripture Verse: Acts 10:1

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment.

© Copyright Original Source

The "Italian Regiment" was also known as the Cohors II Italica Civium Romanorum, and was a Roman cohort from Italia formed from Roman citizens.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, in another thread, you were mocking the concept that any Galilean might know some Greek. Now you proclaim it was the lingua franca of the region.

Make up your mind.


You're right. After just how many centuries of Hellenizing the region, the Galileans were, through some sort of miracle, able to remain free of any and all influence.


And as long as they never went more than a day's walk or so they would remain in Galilee. That you think that this postage stamp-sized region was able to resist any Roman influence for several generations is indeed remarkable.

But then until recently you were claiming they resisted all Greek influences for centuries only to now utterly abandon that here.

I have never made a categorical statement that no Galilean might know some Greek. So desist in making sweeping generalisations, much as I know you like to do so because it oversimplifies complex situations.

Vermes contends that the Hasmonean conquest marked the shift of that region back into the Jewish sphere with Aristobulus's "Judaization" which had been successful. He also contends that Galilee's annexation into the Hasmonean territory and its position surrounded as it was by gentile neighbours led to a unique Judaism. Martin Goodman's analysis of rabbinic texts found in a primarily Jewish community post the second century revolts and his search through early rabbinic traditions for specific encounters between Jews and gentiles in Galilee discovered few examples. Goodman does contend that it was probable some interaction between Jews and gentiles occurred particularly with regard to social contact in mercantile situations but suggests these would have been more frequent in the border regions where Galileans who were involved would have encountered gentiles from the surrounding cities and villages. Freyne likewise allows for a gentile presence in Galilee but again places it primarily at the region's borders. Meyer also never suggested that the first-century CE population contained many gentiles. His argument held that while first century Galilee was in contact with its gentile neighbours its population was predominantly Jewish.

We also have to consider precisely who these gentiles living near Galilee were. Josephus often refers to "Syrians" and it may be assumed these were the indigenous gentiles. Phoenicians lived in the coastal regions, Itureans in the Golan, and some Nabateans in the Decapolis. The cities contained some "Greeks" but we have no idea as to the lineage of these people; i.e. were they originally of Greek heritage or were they fully Hellenized locals? Likewise Romans were present in some of those neighbouring cities and also the Decapolis. Again were these of actual Roman lineage or locals with a Roman cultural orientation? Again, we do not know.

Then again the questions remain, how much contact did Galileans actually have with their neighbours and which specific groups of Galileans might these have been? These differing regions were in close proximity with Galilean border settlements; and it may therefore be assumed that some frequent contact did possibly occur on those borders. However, there is no evidence to suppose that such contact was likewise repeated within communities in the interior of Galilee. A road system permitted longer journeys from Galilee to other cities for the wealthier Galilean but again there is little evidence or reason to assume the majority of Galileans undertook such journeys.

The most available archaeological evidence is commercial. Hence a generalisation that interactions took place between Galileans who were not directly involved in trade cannot be known. So while we may assume that some contact with gentiles did take place between communities on Galilee's borders it cannot be supposed [on literary and archaeological evidence] that such contact was overly frequent and certainly not in the rural regions in the interior.

Got his Military Forces in Judaea 6–130 ce: The status quaestionis and Relevance for New Testament Studies open right now

"...(four legions, 14 infantry cohortes, and five cavalry alae)"

Not stationed permanently in the region in the early decades of the first century CE. The putting down of the uprising following the death of Herod the Great is another matter.

Looks like I got it right.
But I'll concede that he doesn't say exactly when.

It might be wise to actually read the paper first before posting an uninformed comment upon it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There was a time when I was a vineyard hand - that part of my life ended many years ago, and I moved on to other things.

Interesting but irrelevant.

Strangely - Peter seems to have stopped being a fisherman in Galilee at some point in his life and moved on, circulating in other parts of the Roman empire.

And what corroborative extraneous contemporary evidence is there for that?

In real scholarly circles, there is a wide range of dates proposed for the penning of the gospels.

There is some minority opinion but, for example, Crossley's contentions have not been satisfactorily proven.

In previous mention of this matter on TWeb, I have explained my reasons for rejecting late dates. You never bothered to address the points that I raised, and have never bothered to offer anything substantiate your own assertions, beyond appeals to authority.

And on what basis are you making your assertions?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What do you mean by "permanently"?

Does the name Publius Quinctilius Varus ring any bells?

Besides, we have documentation from the first century that says Roman troops were there

Acts is written after 70 CE when the situation throughout the entire region had dramatically changed.

[rogue06]

I have never made a categorical statement that no Galilean might know some Greek. So desist in making sweeping generalisations, much as I know you like to do so because it oversimplifies complex situations.

You repeatedly mocked the idea that Jesus' Galilean disciples could ever learn any Greek. They were merely dumb fisherman after all.

Now you have Greek being spoken everywhere including in Galilee.

Vermes contends that the Hasmonean conquest marked the shift of that region back into the Jewish sphere with Aristobulus's "Judaization" which had been successful. He also contends that Galilee's annexation into the Hasmonean territory and its position surrounded as it was by gentile neighbours led to a unique Judaism. Martin Goodman's analysis of rabbinic texts found in a primarily Jewish community post the second century revolts and his search through early rabbinic traditions for specific encounters between Jews and gentiles in Galilee discovered few examples. Goodman does contend that it was probable some interaction between Jews and gentiles occurred particularly with regard to social contact in mercantile situations but suggests these would have been more frequent in the border regions where Galileans who were involved would have encountered gentiles from the surrounding cities and villages. Freyne likewise allows for a gentile presence in Galilee but again places it primarily at the region's borders. Meyer also never suggested that the first-century CE population contained many gentiles. His argument held that while first century Galilee was in contact with its gentile neighbours its population was predominantly Jewish.

We also have to consider precisely who these gentiles living near Galilee were. Josephus often refers to "Syrians" and it may be assumed these were the indigenous gentiles. Phoenicians lived in the coastal regions, Itureans in the Golan, and some Nabateans in the Decapolis. The cities contained some "Greeks" but we have no idea as to the lineage of these people; i.e. were they originally of Greek heritage or were they fully Hellenized locals? Likewise Romans were present in some of those neighbouring cities and also the Decapolis. Again were these of actual Roman lineage or locals with a Roman cultural orientation? Again, we do not know.

Then again the questions remain, how much contact did Galileans actually have with their neighbours and which specific groups of Galileans might these have been? These differing regions were in close proximity with Galilean border settlements; and it may therefore be assumed that some frequent contact did possibly occur on those borders. However, there is no evidence to suppose that such contact was likewise repeated within communities in the interior of Galilee. A road system permitted longer journeys from Galilee to other cities for the wealthier Galilean but again there is little evidence or reason to assume the majority of Galileans undertook such journeys.

The most available archaeological evidence is commercial. Hence a generalisation that interactions took place between Galileans who were not directly involved in trade cannot be known. So while we may assume that some contact with gentiles did take place between communities on Galilee's borders it cannot be supposed [on literary and archaeological evidence] that such contact was overly frequent and certainly not in the rural regions in the interior.

Good Lord, another instance of you feeling a need to show you "knows stuff" even if little of it is relevant.

It doesn't matter if they were "Syrians" or "Nabateans" or even "Phoenicians" if, as you say, the entire region was Hellenized and largely speaking Greek now does it?

Not stationed permanently in the region in the early decades of the first century CE. The putting down of the uprising following the death of Herod the Great is another matter.

Again, what does "permanently" mean in this context? A decade or two at most?

And again, we have documentation from the first century that the "Italian Regiment" was there at this time.

[rogue06]

Does the name Publius Quinctilius Varus ring any bells?

Acts is written after 70 CE when the situation throughout the entire region had dramatically changed.

Regardless of the date written, it is not discussing the region after 70A.D. but before.

That is like objecting that "the situation throughout the entire region had dramatically changed" to a book written in the 1950s about WWII.

[Sparko]

Regardless of the date written, it is not discussing the region after 70A.D. but before.

That is like objecting that "the situation throughout the entire region had dramatically changed" to a book written in the 1950s about WWII.

Gee by that objection we can dismiss all history books! Burn them all!!!

[rogue06]

Gee by that objection we can dismiss all history books! Burn them all!!!

Linear logic. H_A rarely if ever thinks her arguments through.

[Sparko]

Linear logic. H_A rarely if ever thinks her arguments through.

But you wrote that after my post so she can dismiss it.

[rogue06]

But you wrote that after my post so she can dismiss it.

That's just your opinion

[Sparko]

That's just your opinion

I simply cannot be bothered with you and your tiresome behaviour.

[rogue06]

I simply cannot be bothered with you and your tiresome behaviour.

Define "tiresome"