Gospel of John 1:14

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some here think that a person who had spent some decades mixing in Greek and Roman society was a rural Galilean.

What will you be telling us next? That a high school dropout could not obtain a university degree?
or perhaps that a janitor could not solve a problem that had continued to vex academics for some years?

Why do you [and others] repeatedly attempt to make fatuous comparisons between attitudes and behaviours within present day western society and completely different societies two thousand years ago?

Now, perhaps you would like to tell us all about Peter's Adult Education programme and his degree. Did he graduate summa cum laude?

[tabibito]

Why do you [and others] repeatedly attempt to make fatuous comparisons between attitudes and behaviours within present day western society and completely different societies two thousand years ago?

By "fatuous," you mean that the argument is beyond your ability to understand, it seems.

It was uncommon for Jews who had been brought up in foreign lands to speak Hebrew or Aramaic. That is the reason for even the temple to use the LXX in its teachings. It would be necessary to become competent in other languages, primarily Greek, to communicate even with the descendants of expatriate Jews. By contrast with today's world, the ancient world had few aids to make it possible to get by in foreign lands if you couldn't speak the local language. However, Koine Greek was the trade tongue, so it would not be difficult to find locals who spoke Koine Greek. Learning a foreign language to competent level, then as now, takes about two years on average when the person is immersed in the culture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

By "fatuous," you mean that the argument is beyond your ability to understand, it seems.

Your comments on modern day education are totally irrelevant to a completely different society some two thousand years ago.

It was uncommon for Jews who had been brought up in foreign lands to speak Hebrew or Aramaic.

Peter was not brought up in a foreign land. He spoke Aramaic. You also seem unaware that Judaism in rural Palestine was not associated with Hellenistic elements. As for language, certainly in the cities amongst many of the mercantile classes and of course the upper classes, Greek would have been known. But not among rural artisan/peasants.

That is the reason for even the temple to use the LXX in its teachings.

What evidence are you citing for that statement?

It would be necessary to become competent in other languages, primarily Greek, to communicate even with the descendants of expatriate Jews. By contrast with today's world, the ancient world had few aids to make it possible to get by in foreign lands if you couldn't speak the local language. Learning a foreign language to competent level, then as now, takes about two years on average when the person when the person is immersed in the culture.

Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter was "immersed" in Greek culture?

[Sparko]

Be careful now Sparko.

Some here think that rural Galileans were fluent in Greek!

Some were. It was a melting pot.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Some were. It was a melting pot.

Not rural Galilee in the early first century CE.

[Sparko]

Not rural Galilee in the early first century CE.

Were you there? And we are talking about Jerusalem anyway.

My claim would be that Jesus probably knew all languages since he was God, but then I never claimed he was speaking Greek to the Pharisees anyway so...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Were you there? And we are talking about Jerusalem anyway.

Given that your comment about it being a melting pot was made in response to my remark about rural Galileans being fluent in Greek, what has Jerusalem to do with the exchange?

My claim would be that Jesus probably knew all languages since he was God, but then I never claimed he was speaking Greek to the Pharisees anyway so...

The belief that he was a deity came much later.

According to Mark 10 Jesus had the perfect opportunity to declare his divinity. He did not do so.

[tabibito]

Your comments on modern day education are totally irrelevant to a completely different society some two thousand years ago.

My comments did not address modern day education.

Peter was not brought up in a foreign land.

He did not live in his home town all his life, and even if he had, people of his hometown had dealings with the nearby Hellenistic towns. Whether he was among them is a matter for conjecture.
Peter spent quite some time Jerusalem, not exactly within commuting distance of the Galilee, rural or otherwise. Rome is not in the Galilee, nor yet Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Achaia. Peter was immersed in the Hellenistic world for well over a decade.

He spoke Aramaic.

Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter spoke Aramaic, or that he spoke only Aramaic?

You also seem unaware that Judaism in rural Palestine was not associated with Hellenistic elements.

On the Galilee? Nonsense, there was trade between the Jewish and Gentile towns. Jews also had a strong presence in the cities of the Decapolis until 60CE. In the territory of Herod? Nonsense. Koine Greek was the official language of Herod's court.

As for language, certainly in the cities amongst many of the mercantile classes and of course the upper classes, Greek would have been known. But not among rural artisan/peasants.

Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter was a subsistence level peasant? And where is the attested historical evidence that poor people in towns would not have known Koine Greek? Did mercantile classes generally have servants to take care of the day to day chores? Would foreign merchants and upper classes learn the language of their servants, or would the servants be expected to learn their employers' languages?

What evidence are you citing for that statement?

I was told that that the temple used the Septuagint for teaching Jews from foreign countries some time ago. So far, I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's too early yet to decide that the information is false.

[alaskazimm]

That God gives his name (as translated in the LXX) as "ο ων" (hot own - the being/living one) not "εγω ειμι (egggo ay-me - I am) should be enough to scotch the idea that Jesus saying "I am" has anything to do with a claim to deity. If that isn't enough, we can feel reasonably assured that when the man born blind from birth, whom Jesus healed, when he answered to the people wondering whether he was in fact that same blind man, was making no claim to be deity when he said "I am."

I agree that Jesus' claim of being "I am" is not linked to the Exodus passage as many assume, rather can be argued that Jesus is calling to mind some passages of the Servant Songs in Isiah which do use the Greek ἐγώ εἰμι in the LXXthey a

Isiah 43:10 - γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, καὶ ἐγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

Isiah 43:25 - ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐξαλείφων τὰς ἀνομίας σου ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ

Isiah 46:4 - ἕως γήρως ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἕως ἂν καταγηράσητε ἐγώ εἰμι

Isiah 56:12 - ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ παρακαλῶν σε

( all cites are from Swete, H. B. (1909). The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge University Press.)

Given that these passages are pretty clearly God talking of things that only he can do, I would say that this is a fairly clear indication that Jesus was claiming deity. The claim of deity is not in the words ἐγώ εἰμι themselves, which as you've shown by the man born blind is just bog standard Greek grammer. The claim comes from what the one who says I am is able to do, as also seen in the seven I am statements of Jesus in John.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My comments did not address modern day education.

You wrote this.

Some here think that a person who had spent some decades mixing in Greek and Roman society was a rural Galilean.

What will you be telling us next? That a high school dropout could not obtain a university degree?
or perhaps that a janitor could not solve a problem that had continued to vex academics for some years?[/QUOTE]

He did not live in his home town all his life, and even if he had, people of his hometown had dealings with the nearby Hellenistic towns.

On what evidence from the early first century CE has that region of Galilee dealings with nearby Hellenistic towns?

Peter spent quite some time Jerusalem, not exactly within commuting distance of the Galilee, rural or otherwise.

And why would Greek be spoken by people within his orbit in Jerusalem?

Rome is not in the Galilee, nor yet Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Achaia. Peter was immersed in the Hellenistic world for well over a decade.

That is all from Acts. There is no extraneous corroborative contemporary evidence he ever went to any of those places. It more likely that he and those others in the Messianic sect were involved in the uprising of 66 and possibly died fighting in Jerusalem or at other battles in that conflict.

Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter spoke Aramaic, or that he spoke only Aramaic?

Perhaps he spoke and wrote in Mandarin!

Aramaic was the language of the region, certain sections of some Hebrew texts are written in Aramaic.

Do some reading.

On the Galilee? Nonsense, there was trade between the Jewish and Gentile towns.

What attested contemporary extraneous evidence links Peter to all that?

Jews also had a strong presence in the cities of the Decapolis until 60CE.

Again you are confusing rural Palestine with other areas.

In the territory of Herod? Nonsense. Koine Greek was the official language of Herod's court.

When was Peter attending Antipas' court?

Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter was a subsistence level peasant?

Where is the evidence that he was not?

And where is the attested historical evidence that poor people in towns would not have known Koine Greek?

There is no evidence from rural Galilee at this period [i.e. first quarter of the first century CE} concerning conversancy with Greek or Hellenism. After 70 CE things did change.

Did mercantile classes generally have servants to take care of the day to day chores? Would foreign merchants and upper classes learn the language of their servants, or would the servants be expected to learn their employers' languages?

Now he's a servant?

As to household slaves they may have come from a variety of regions.

I was told that that the temple used the Septuagint for teaching Jews from foreign countries some time ago. So far, I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's too early yet to decide that the information is false.

In other words - hearsay.

[tabibito]

I agree that Jesus' claim of being "I am" is not linked to the Exodus passage as many assume, rather can be argued that Jesus is calling to mind some passages of the Servant Songs in Isiah which do use the Greek ἐγώ εἰμι in the LXXthey a

Isiah 43:10 - γένεσθέ μοι μάρτυρες, καὶ ἐγὼ μάρτυς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεός, καὶ ὁ παῖς ὃν ἐξελεξάμην, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.


Isiah 43:25 - ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐξαλείφων τὰς ἀνομίας σου ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ


Isiah 46:4 - ἕως γήρως ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἕως ἂν καταγηράσητε ἐγώ εἰμι


Isiah 56:12 - ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ παρακαλῶν σε

Given that these passages are pretty clearly God talking of things that only he can do, I would say that this is a fairly clear indication that Jesus was claiming deity. The claim of deity is not in the words ἐγώ εἰμι themselves, which as you've shown by the man born blind is just bog standard Greek grammer. The claim comes from what the one who says I am is able to do, as also seen in the seven I am statements of Jesus in John.

Yup - if Jesus says I am God, the word "god" identifies who he is, not the words "I am." (though they do identify the speaker as God).

[tabibito]

On what evidence from the early first century CE has that region of Galilee dealings with nearby Hellenistic towns?

It has been provided before, perhaps you have a memory problem?

And why would Greek be spoken by people within his orbit in Jerusalem?

Descendants of Jews from wide areas in the Roman empire would visit Jerusalem. Many of them could not speak Hebrew or Aramaic.

That is all from Acts. There is no extraneous corroborative contemporary evidence he ever went to any of those places. It more likely that he and those others in the Messianic sect were involved in the uprising of 66 and possibly died fighting in Jerusalem or at other battles in that conflict.

I am pretty sure that there are some writings other than Acts which mention Peter's presence in other places - in fact, Paul makes mention of the fact.

Perhaps he spoke and wrote in Mandarin!

I wouldn't know - nor would you.

Aramaic was the language of the region, certain sections of some Hebrew texts are written in Aramaic.

And? Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter, a specific individual, spoke only Aramaic?

What attested contemporary extraneous evidence links Peter to all that?

You are the one making the claim that it was impossible. I only have to show that it was not impossible.

Again you are confusing rural Palestine with other areas.

Hardly, Gadara's territory extended to the Galilee - there was even a harbour that belonged to that city.

When was Peter attending Antipas' court?

Your understanding of what an official court language involves seems somewhat lacking.

Where is the evidence that he was not?

You can't provide evidence for your claim? Is it hearsay?

There is no evidence from rural Galilee at this period [i.e. first quarter of the first century CE} concerning conversancy with Greek or Hellenism. After 70 CE things did change.

The existence of Gadara harbour would indicate otherwise, as also the existence of Tiberius (city). Archaeological findings in Magdala from the early first century show concurrent Roman and Jewish occupation, and Greek/Jewish occupation prior to the Roman period. So - a long history of Greek speakers alongside Jews in the same city, within a stone's throw of Peter's home, and no cross-cultural activity or language exchange whatever? The city would have to be unique in world history.

Now he's a servant?

If you want to speculate.

As to household slaves they may have come from a variety of regions.

All the more reason for them to learn the language of their masters, rather than have their masters learn multiple languages.

In other words - hearsay.

Unless a search for an academic resource is found that attests the claim, yes.

[tabibito]

Unless a search for an academic resource is found that attests the claim, yes.

Update: Current searches haven't revealed any information about the Septuagint being used in the temple itself. Those searches do show, however, that the Septuagint was considered authoritative by the temple hierarchy, and widely used in the synagogues throughout Judaea from the Hasmonean period on (presumably starting after Salome Alexandra became regnant queen, at which time the Pharisees were given a say in the affairs of the country).
Hebrew in the first century was essentially a dead language, having been supplanted by Western Aramaic. The Aramaic targums had not been written at the time, though some few passages had been transcribed.
Seemingly, that puts a crimp in the idea that Koine Greek was not widely known - If the view that Koine Greek was not generally known were correct, the Greek targums (Septuagint) should have been as obscure (if not more so) to the general populace as Hebrew.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It has been provided before, perhaps you have a memory problem?

On the various occasions whenever this topic has arisen neither you nor anyone else has presented cogent and reasoned comments premised on attested historical evidence from Galilee in the early first century CE.

Descendants of Jews from wide areas in the Roman empire would visit Jerusalem. Many of them could not speak Hebrew or Aramaic.

That pilgrims and visitors from the Diaspora came to Jerusalem [particulary during festivals] is not disputed.

However, the rest appears little more than your speculative thoughts that this prompted Peter to learn Greek.

I am pretty sure that there are some writings other than Acts which mention Peter's presence in other places - in fact, Paul makes mention of the fact.

Given that these are your texts, should you not be more familiar with their content?

I wouldn't know - nor would you.

My remark was intentionally facetious.

And? Where is the attested historical evidence that Peter, a specific individual, spoke only Aramaic?

Where is the attested extraneous and contemporary evidence that he spoke [or wrote] in Greek?

You are the one making the claim that it was impossible. I only have to show that it was not impossible.

I never used the word "impossible". I asked you:

What attested contemporary extraneous evidence links Peter to all that?

Hardly, Gadara's territory extended to the Galilee - there was even a harbour that belonged to that city.

At this period Gadara was part of the Decapolis. Given Jesus' comments to his disciples in Matthew 10 his visit to this area remains questionable. However, Warren Carter [Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School in Texas] wrote a very interesting paper on the incident with the swine narrated in Mark. His paper was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 2015 and is entitled "Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark's Jesus: Legion Enters the Pigs [Mark 5:1-20]".

Your understanding of what an official court language involves seems somewhat lacking.

On the contrary. I asked you when did Peter attend the court of Antipas?

You can't provide evidence for your claim? Is it hearsay?

You certainly cannot offer anything but speculation and fanciful imaginings. rogue06 considers it likely that Peter was engaged in a business venture that regularly took him to the fish markets of the nearby cities.

The existence of Gadara harbour would indicate otherwise, as also the existence of Tiberius (city). Archaeological findings in Magdala from the early first century show concurrent Roman and Jewish occupation, and Greek/Jewish occupation prior to the Roman period. So - a long history of Greek speakers alongside Jews in the same city, within a stone's throw of Peter's home, and no cross-cultural activity or language exchange whatever? The city would have to be unique in world history.

Much of your comment comes [although you are unlikely to be aware of the source] from Martin Hengel writing in 1966. It was Hengel who initially made two contentions. Firstly, that Judaism in Israel was already deeply Hellenised by the third century BCE and secondly, that the distinction between Diaspora and Palestinian Judaism was blurred. His view were accepted by many but not all. Both Millar and Horsley wrote lengthy critiques and Hengel later revised his initial comments.

The assumption of cultural continuity rests on yet another assumption of economic reciprocity between city and village or even that villages depended on the city[ies]. For example, some academics assumed that people from the surrounding rural areas flocked to Sepphoris when the theatre was operating either to attend, or to sell their products. However, those assumptions are not supported by either archaeological or literary evidence.

Any influence from the cities to villages would have been through the structure of existing political and economic relationships - the rulers and the ruled, urban versus rural. And it was the cities that depended on the villages for revenue because the villages and towns were subject to the regimes in the cities. Josephus' account of the attack on the royal fortress at Sepphoris in 4 BCE following the death of Herod the Great, indicates that this was a popular rebellion by peasants from the surrounding area which further indicates a marked degree of hostility between rural populations and the city.

There remains the question of how much contact Galileans had with their neighbours in the Decapolis. It may be assumed that frequent contact occurred on the borders and some interactions with gentiles from neighbouring regions would have been unavoidable on the lake, although for the latter, it may be conjectured that there would not have been a great deal of fraternising. However, there is no reason to assume that such contacts were normal for communities in the interior in the early first century CE. There is more evidence of Graeco-Roman culture in that region in the second century CE but the situation by then was very different from the early decades of the first century CE.

If you want to speculate.

Once again it was an intentionally facetious remark.

All the more reason for them to learn the language of their masters, rather than have their masters learn multiple languages.

Where is this leading?

[tabibito]

On the various occasions whenever this topic has arisen neither you nor anyone else has presented cogent and reasoned comments premised on attested historical evidence from Galilee in the early first century CE.

Your concept of "cogent and reasoned comments ~" seems to be flawed. You seem to think it means evidence that you can't hand-wave away.

That pilgrims and visitors from the Diaspora came to Jerusalem [particulary during festivals] is not disputed.

However, the rest appears little more than your speculative thoughts that this prompted Peter to learn Greek.

Actually, that was a response to your request requiring speculation.

Given that these are your texts, should you not be more familiar with their content?

Peter's run-in with Paul did not take place in Judaea.

Where is the attested extraneous and contemporary evidence that he spoke [or wrote] in Greek?

There is an absence of attested evidence showing that he could not have done so. There IS attested evidence suggesting that people of the region could certainly have done so. It is within the realm of reasonable possibility that he could have spoken Koine Greek even before he took up company with Jesus.

I never used the word "impossible". I asked you:

What attested contemporary extraneous evidence links Peter to all that?

And as I pointed out, I don't have to demonstrate that it did happen, only that it could have happened. The available evidence suggests that it is not beyond the realms of reasonable possibility. Your assertion that it did not happen is indeed a declaration that it is impossible.

At this period Gadara was part of the Decapolis.

Well ... yes, I did say that.

Given Jesus' comments to his disciples in Matthew 10 his visit to this area remains questionable. However, Warren Carter [Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School in Texas] wrote a very interesting paper on the incident with the swine narrated in Mark. His paper was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 2015 and is entitled "Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark's Jesus: Legion Enters the Pigs [Mark 5:1-20]".

I suppose I should take a look, so I did.

On the contrary. I asked you when did Peter attend the court of Antipas?

And I replied that you don't seem to understand the implications of Koine Greek being the official court language.

You certainly cannot offer anything but speculation and fanciful imaginings. rogue06 considers it likely that Peter was engaged in a business venture that regularly took him to the fish markets of the nearby cities.

My query addressed the availability of support for your comment.

All you are doing is pitting your own speculation against that of another. Rogue's speculation though, at least takes into account the little that is known about circumstances of the time.

There remains the question of how much contact Galileans had with their neighbours in the Decapolis. It may be assumed that frequent contact occurred on the borders and some interactions with gentiles from neighbouring regions would have been unavoidable on the lake, although for the latter, it may be conjectured that there would not have been a great deal of fraternising. However, there is no reason to assume that such contacts were normal for communities in the interior in the early first century CE. There is more evidence of Graeco-Roman culture in that region in the second century CE but the situation by then was very different from the early decades of the first century CE.

Nope. Magdala is not in a neighbouring region, it is in the Galilee region. Magdala was not in the Decapolis - well separated from it in fact - but had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. Even without a similar situation existing in the cities of the Decapolis, mixed populations are confirmed by archaeology to have existed in the Galilee in the early first century. The findings in Magdala extend back to before the Roman period.