Question About Numbers 15:32–36

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why couldn't a fisherman learn about Greek ideas? You seem to want us to believe that some crazy cat lady on the internet is a historian with expertise on every aspect of the ANE.

Why would he want to? What relevance did Greek philosophy and Greek language have for an Aramaic speaking artisan peasant devout Jew?

[tabibito]

Why couldn't a fisherman learn about Greek ideas? You seem to want us to believe that some crazy cat lady on the internet is a historian with expertise on every aspect of the ANE.

Perhaps there is some evidence that Peter never actually left Galilee and remained in his home town throughout his life, never to move in Hellenistic society - not even with the Romans who were present in his home town. Or perhaps, he had no capacity to learn anything new - either of those might present as explanations why Peter would not have been able to develop the ability to express his ideas in Greek.

Of course, the problem remains that there is no textual evidence to suggest that the gospel writers drew on Paul's teachings, and Hebrews was apparently written contemporaneously with Paul's letters. That kind of puts a dampener on the story that Paul was so influential that he set that pattern for the precepts of the first couple of centuries of Christian history.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps there is some evidence that Peter never actually left Galilee and remained in his home town throughout his life, never to move in Hellenistic society - not even with the Romans who were present in his home town. Or perhaps, he had no capacity to learn anything new - either of those might present as explanations why Peter would not have been able to develop the ability to express his ideas in Greek.

Who were these "Romans" in Peter's "home town" [i.e. in the late 20s CE]?

[Sparko]

Perhaps there is some evidence that Peter never actually left Galilee and remained in his home town throughout his life, never to move in Hellenistic society - not even with the Romans who were present in his home town. Or perhaps, he had no capacity to learn anything new - either of those might present as explanations why Peter would not have been able to develop the ability to express his ideas in Greek.

Of course, the problem remains that there is no textual evidence to suggest that the gospel writers drew on Paul's teachings, and Hebrews was apparently written contemporaneously with Paul's letters. That kind of puts a dampener on the story that Paul was so influential that he set that pattern for the precepts of the first couple of centuries of Christian history.

Many of the authors of the NT used scribes.

[tabibito]

Who were these "Romans" in Peter's "home town" [i.e. in the late 20s CE]?

The possibility of a Roman presence in Capernaum is not satisfactorily resolved, Romans being present in Capernaum, at least occasionally, seems likely. However, that point was included to give you something to nit-pick.

Your claim that Peter could never have learnt anything is one that you haven't substantiated any time that you have mentioned it.

[rogue06]

Why couldn't a fisherman learn about Greek ideas? You seem to want us to believe that some crazy cat lady on the internet is a historian with expertise on every aspect of the ANE.

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.

[rogue06]

Perhaps there is some evidence that Peter never actually left Galilee and remained in his home town throughout his life, never to move in Hellenistic society - not even with the Romans who were present in his home town. Or perhaps, he had no capacity to learn anything new - either of those might present as explanations why Peter would not have been able to develop the ability to express his ideas in Greek.

Of course, the problem remains that there is no textual evidence to suggest that the gospel writers drew on Paul's teachings, and Hebrews was apparently written contemporaneously with Paul's letters. That kind of puts a dampener on the story that Paul was so influential that he set that pattern for the precepts of the first couple of centuries of Christian history.

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.

[tabibito]

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.

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.

[rogue06]

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.

Luke knew Paul so if there is any influence that's where we'd expect to find it

[tabibito]

Luke knew Paul so if there is any influence that's where we'd expect to find it

True - some influence is found in Acts, not in the gospel. It's almost as though the gospel was written before Luke encountered Paul.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The possibility of a Roman presence in Capernaum is not satisfactorily resolved,

Not for you perhaps.

Romans being present in Capernaum, at least occasionally, seems likely.

On what evidence from the first two decades of the first century? And what do you infer by "Romans"?

Your claim that Peter could never have learnt anything

I made no such claim. I asked:

Why would he want to? What relevance did Greek philosophy and Greek language have for an Aramaic speaking artisan peasant devout Jew?

[tabibito]

Why would he want to? What relevance did Greek philosophy and Greek language have for an Aramaic speaking artisan peasant devout Jew?

With regard to the language: the children of expatriate Jews frequently did not know Hebrew. Romans frequently did not bother to learn the local languages.

[tabibito]

I made no such claim. I asked:

Why would he want to? What relevance did Greek philosophy and Greek language have for an Aramaic speaking artisan peasant devout Jew?

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

[rogue06]

True - some influence is found in Acts, not in the gospel. It's almost as though the gospel was written before Luke encountered Paul.

Or that Pauline influences don't appear until he does.

[NorrinRadd]

These are all later texts.

Or are you trying to claim a Jewish Galilean artisan fishermen was conversant with Greek ideas and the Greek language; and that this text [along with 1 Peter] are all dated to pre 67 CE? The "traditional" dating for Peter's death.

The fact remains that Paul is our earliest source.

All those other NT texts come several decades later.

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.