Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Gd1234 »

I skimmed the first 30 pages and wasn't impressed. i sensed her belief is that miracles aren't real, hence its made up. Also her thoughts against a quick growth of Christianity does not relate to the evidence.

I didn't notice any smoking gun and I'm wary of revisionist history people trying to make a name for themselves.

Similarities need to be excessive to be be viewed as proof of fraud.(think of comparing lincoln and Kennedy assassination)

One analagy is someone in their 90s will have memories of the 30s. Similarly people could be alive in 121 ad who remember Christ (and those who heard it first hand) from what I've heard, the gospels were written 60-120 ad.

we don't know a lot about the gospel writers, but we can assume they were very intelligent people who were capable of doing research. They were very knowledgeable about Judaism ( as most correlates with known Judaism) also there appears to be a correlation of Jesus's words with the Hebrew language.

Others have written books arguing the opposite.

J. Warner Wallace - Cold-Case Christianity_ A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels-David C. Cook (2013)

A great book to analyze the gospels is Flusser's sage of Galilee. He is an orthodox jew who was very knowledgeable about second temple Judaism.

Accurate research needs to be unbiased.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:14 pm we don't know a lot about who wrote the gospels, but we can assume they were very intelligent people who were capable of doing research.
Why do you assume the authors were interested in researching what happened in history and writing up a true account for readers?

That's one more thing that I liked about the interview with Mark Goodacre: both Goodacre and Walsh addressed the tendency of many readers to make their primary focus on discovering what historical facts lie behind the text instead of first focussing on what the text itself is in its wider literary context.
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Gd1234 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:56 pm Why do you assume the authors were interested in researching what happened in history and writing up a true account for readers?
Thanks for responding.

As shared previously, reasons why i believe it was researched is.

1) the correlation to what Paul wrote about Jesus. Major points (crucifixion, resurrection, Lord's supper, etc) were written before the gospels and documented.

2) the correlation to second temple Judaism, which i don't believe a non Jew or new gentile convert would know to that level. Much (if not all) of what Jesus said and did correlated with the beliefs of the Jewish Messiah at the time.

3) a correlation of the words of Jesus to the Hebrew language

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LfZUp0GB0hc


4) the documented accounts of the gospel origin from history. (Church fathers)


5. It was accepted as truth (in general) by both the Jewish and gentile congregations. Where there would either be eye witnesses or decedents of eye witnesses

I appreciate and respect everyones right to have their views and appreciate its literary beauty and/or a historical accounting. I dont see it as either-or.

Jesus Christianity is simply one of the most documented in the ancient world from numerous sources.



Ps. I found this article by walsh if of interest.

https://relegere.org/relegere/article/view/647

Pps. As i said, i just scanned the first 30 pages. If i misunderstood her or you recommend listening to the audio, please feel free to enclose a link
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 1:30 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:34 am Am I wrong, or is that another example where the belief in the existence of a historical Paul is an obstacle to a serious understanding of the Origins?
Robyn Walsh does say in the interview with Mark Goodacre that she sees the life of Jesus modelled on the life of Paul.

(Of course, it is beyond the pale to raise the mere concept of the reverse process at this point, that Paul was modelled on Jesus .... the French midrashic school is way too far "out there" for these discussions at this point.)

Amazon: Robyn Faith Walsh argues that the Synoptic gospels were written by elite cultural producers working within a dynamic cadre of literate specialists

Maybe those ''elite cultural producers within a dynamic cadre of literate specialists.' left us with a chicken and egg scenario.....or...the template they were utilizing was just that - a template and not a historical account at all.

Table 6.1: Jesus and Paul: Some Examples (Page 107) The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo

Jesus Paul
1. "Passion Predictions" 1. "Passion Predictions"
Luke 9:22 Acts 20:23-25
Luke 9:34 Acts 21:4
Luke 18:31 Acts 21:11-13
2. Farewell Address 2. Farewell Address
Luke 22:14-38 Acts 20:17-35
3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose 3. Resurrection: Sadducees Oppose
Luke 20:27-39 Acts 23:6-10
4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus 4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul
Luke 22:63-64 Acts 23:1-2
5. Four "Trials" of Jesus 5. Four "Trials" of Paul
A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71 A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30-23:10
B. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:1-5 B. Roman Governor (Felix) 24:1-22
C. Herodian King (Antipas) Luke 23:6-12 C. Herodian King (Agrippa) 26
D. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:13-25 D. Roman Governor (Festus) 25:6-12
6. Declarations of Innocence 6. Declarations of Innocence
Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf.23:4,22) Lysias (Tribune) Acts 23:29
Herod: Luke 23:14 Festus: Acts 25:25
Centurian: Luke 23:47 Agrippa: Acts 26:31
7. Mob Demands Execution 7. Mob Demands Execution
Luke 23:18 Acts 22:22

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by neilgodfrey »

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:56 pm Why do you assume the authors were interested in researching what happened in history and writing up a true account for readers?
Thanks for responding.

As shared previously, reasons why i believe it was researched is.

1) the correlation to what Paul wrote about Jesus. Major points (crucifixion, resurrection, Lord's supper, etc) were written before the gospels and documented.
That doesn't tell me why you assume that Mark was interested in writing a truthful account of what happened in history. Lots of writers mix things they've heard on the news or read in a history book with their stories.

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 2) the correlation to second temple Judaism, which i don't believe a non Jew or new gentile convert would know to that level. Much (if not all) of what Jesus said and did correlated with the beliefs of the Jewish Messiah at the time.
But lots of writers set their stories in settings they know about from their own personal experience.
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm3) a correlation of the words of Jesus to the Hebrew language
That hardly tells us that Mark was interested in writing a truthful account of history. It only tells us that he was writing about a Jewish character in Galilee and Judea.


Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 4) the documented accounts of the gospel origin from history. (Church fathers)
Are you a Roman Catholic? Do you believe the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius are true?

In the field of history -- but not in biblical studies, it seems -- such late testimony is as a rule discarded as worthless unless it can be verified independently by other sources that can be traced to the times in question. So if you want to follow the rules of biblical scholarship and reject the norms of historical inquiry in history faculties then sure.
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 5. It was accepted as truth (in general) by both the Jewish and gentile congregations. Where there would either be eye witnesses or decedents of eye witnesses
And your evidence for that is?
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Gd1234 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:06 am
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:56 pm Why do you assume the authors were interested in researching what happened in history and writing up a true account for readers?
Thanks for responding.

As shared previously, reasons why i believe it was researched is.

1) the correlation to what Paul wrote about Jesus. Major points (crucifixion, resurrection, Lord's supper, etc) were written before the gospels and documented.

That doesn't tell me why you assume that Mark was interested in writing a truthful account of what happened in history. Lots of writers mix things they've heard on the news or read in a history book with their stories.
The opinion of jesus story as news or known contemporary history or events leads credibility to its accuracy.

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:06 am

Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 2) the correlation to second temple Judaism, which i don't believe a non Jew or new gentile convert would know to that level. Much (if not all) of what Jesus said and did correlated with the beliefs of the Jewish Messiah at the time.
But lots of writers set their stories in settings they know about from their own personal experience.
The knowledge would have to be of a very high level of second temple Judaism and its surrounding culture.
Almost have to be a high level jewish level scribe which would be unlikely for a Greek. An example is there are millions of Muslims currently but in order to write a Muslim equivalent, i would need to be a Muslim scholar, which most modern authors are not.
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:06 am
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm3) a correlation of the words of Jesus to the Hebrew language
That hardly tells us that Mark was interested in writing a truthful account of history. It only tells us that he was writing about a Jewish character in Galilee and Judea.
You're missing the point. The current theory is that the words of Jesus in the gospels are not likely originally written in Greek but Hebrew. This would correlate with jesus being Jewish.
Im open to discussing, but i hope it's in the framework of an open mind. I was willing to look the authors material, but did you examine the link i shared from an unbiased truth seeking perspective before responding? I'm open to learning with those who are open to learning also.

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:06 am
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 4) the documented accounts of the gospel origin from history. (Church fathers)
Are you a Roman Catholic? Do you believe the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius are true?

In the field of history -- but not in biblical studies, it seems -- such late testimony is as a rule discarded as worthless unless it can be verified independently by other sources that can be traced to the times in question. So if you want to follow the rules of biblical scholarship and reject the norms of historical inquiry in history faculties then sure.

I'm not catholic. I'm a new studier of church fathers. My reason is that i wish to understand the literature from a perspective of its original time period rather that modern or church doctrines.

My priority of source material is first the Bible books. They are the oldest and most documented.
Next i go to church fathers and contemporary writings (such as second temple Judaism).documents up to the second century have the greatest accuracy. As we get farther, it becomes more strained. However quotes from earlier sources that no longer exist are important considerations.
It may not be perfect but it's the best we have. We're fortunate to have so many testimonies within 100 years of Jesus life.

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:06 am
Gd1234 wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:44 pm 5. It was accepted as truth (in general) by both the Jewish and gentile congregations. Where there would either be eye witnesses or decedents of eye witnesses
And your evidence for that is?

The evidence is two fold. Church fathers such as Justin Martyr and the gospel of the Hebrews which is very similar.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Ken Olson »

Hi Gd1234,
Gd1234 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 12:19 pm The opinion of jesus story as news or known contemporary history or events leads credibility to its accuracy.
This seems to be saying that if your opinion is that the Jesus' story in the canonical gospels is that they are news or contemporary history, this would [lend] credibility to the theory that they are accurate reports of historical events. That's just circular. I think Neil's question was why would you assume in the first place that the gospels are news or contemporary history? Can you justify that assumption?
The knowledge would have to be of a very high level of second temple Judaism and its surrounding culture.
Almost have to be a high level jewish level scribe which would be unlikely for a Greek. An example is there are millions of Muslims currently but in order to write a Muslim equivalent, i would need to be a Muslim scholar, which most modern authors are not.
You are confusing religion and language here. Most Jews living in the eastern Roman empire outside of the province of Judea/Palestine would have used the LXX (Septuagint), the Greek translation of the bible. The term Second Temple Judaism implies Judaism between the Return (later half of the sixth century BCE) and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. It does not imply that the Jews in that period necessarily lived in Judea. Egypt had a large number of Greek speaking Jews and there were some Jews living throughout the eastern Roman empire.

Could you distinguish the work of a first century Jew living in the Diaspora (outside Judea) from one who lived in Palestine? Or one writing before 70 CE from one writing after? How?

Also, Islam is a religion and Arabic is the language in which the Quran was written. There are many Muslims who do not know Arabic (Just as most Christians do not know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew) and over a million Syriac Christians living in the Middle East who speak Arabic as their native language and some Syriac as a liturgical language. What does being a Muslim scholar have to do with it?
You're missing the point. The current theory is that the words of Jesus in the gospels are not likely originally written in Greek but Hebrew. This would correlate with jesus being Jewish
That's the theory currently being considered by you, not the current theory accepted the majority of New Testament scholars. The Jerusalem Perspective is held by a tiny minority.
Im open to discussing, but i hope it's in the framework of an open mind. I was willing to look the authors material, but did you examine the link i shared from an unbiased truth seeking perspective before responding? I'm open to learning with those who are open to learning also.
You are seeking the truth with an open mind? Excellent.

Did you notice the presenter in the video repeatedly claimed he was not claiming to have proved that the gospels were written in Hebrew (though he thought it probably was). The majority opinion of New Testament scholars is that Paul and all the evangelists knew the LXX, though some contend that one or more of them knew Hebrew as well.

How would you show that the author of Luke, for instance, didn't use the word for hand instead of finger because that's what LXX Genesis 41.42 has and Luke had learned to write in a Septuagintal style? That, again, is what most scholars think.

Best,

Ken
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Gd1234 »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
. I think Neil's question was why would you assume in the first place that the gospels are news or contemporary history? Can you justify that assumption?
Thanks ken.

Maybe i misunderstood. My interpretation was that neil meant the gospel writers did no research and wrote creatively, implying what they knew was common news knowledge.

My response was that if things were known to such a high degree of common knowledge , then it says something. We're basically talking within a century of Jesus.

Image

To imply this level of correlation occurs without research does not appear probable to me.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
You are confusing religion and language here..... Egypt had a large number of Greek speaking Jews and there were some Jews living throughout the eastern Roman empire.

The proposition i thought was the gospels were written by greeks, not Greek speaking Jews. I used to understand as you did. Recently i read after the dss discovery, 1st century Jews likely spoke Hebrew.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm Could you distinguish the work of a first century Jew living in the Diaspora (outside Judea) from one who lived in Palestine? Or one writing before 70 CE from one writing after? How?
My assumption is they do it from analysis.
The video i watched implied Greek and Hebrew had different writing styles. For example, if one said "ya'all", there is high likelihood from the south.


Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
Also, Islam is a religion and Arabic is the language in which the Quran was written. There are many Muslims who do not know Arabic (Just as most Christians do not know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew) and over a million Syriac Christians living in the Middle East who speak Arabic as their native language and some Syriac as a liturgical language. What does being a Muslim scholar have to do with it?
Two issues, maybe you are combining writing language/style and religion knowledge?

Based on recent readings, it implied that jesus words were similar to hebraic writing style and a very high level 1st century Judaism knowledge.(Two different issues)One could definitely be one or the other. My current readings implied jesus words correlate to both butI'm open minded . I kept open to Bivin and open to considering other responses also.

My current thoughts are the evangelists/paul were Greek speaking but they used as research jesus words in Hebrew from the Jewish Christians. This could explain both Hebrew and llx similarities and could correlate with papias.

My point was there appears more involved to the gospels than creativity.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Ken Olson »

Gd1234 wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:49 pm Maybe i misunderstood. My interpretation was that neil meant the gospel writers did no research and wrote creatively, implying what they knew was common news knowledge.

My response was that if things were known to such a high degree of common knowledge , then it says something. We're basically talking within a century of Jesus.
I do not think Neil meant to imply that the agreements among the synoptics are due to common knowledge. (I hesitate to speak for someone else, but I've been corresponding with Neil for about two decades now. I don't know what solution to the synoptic problem he currently favors, but I think he accepts the theory (as do 99% of New Testament scholars) that there is a literary relationship among the synoptic gospels).

The vast majority of scholars accept the theory of Markan priority - Mark wrote before Matthew and Luke and they used his gospel. Most scholars accept that then either thy both had a hypothetical common source called Q or that Luke knew Matthew or Matthew knew Luke. I favor the Farrer theory that Luke used Matthew (as does Mark Goodacre).

Goodacre's introduction to the Synoptic Problem is available free online here:

http://www.markgoodacre.org/maze/

So yes, it says something. But why do you think it says more than the synoptic gospels were written in some particular order and each knew the work of his predecessors and borrowed from them? Or is that what you meant by research. On my own theory, Mark wrote first and I don't really have much idea what his sources were, and then Matthew used Mark and added to it and then Luke used Mark and Matthew and added to it. I could be wrong, but how do you know that, or a similar theory, is not what happened?
To imply this level of correlation occurs without research does not appear probable to me.
That's why I, and the vast majority of scholars, think there is a literary solution tot he synoptic problem. But I'm not calling Matthew's rewriting of Mark 'research".
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
You are confusing religion and language here..... Egypt had a large number of Greek speaking Jews and there were some Jews living throughout the eastern Roman empire.
The proposition i thought was the gospels were written by greeks, not Greek speaking Jews. I used to understand as you did. Recently i read after the dss discovery, 1st century Jews likely spoke Hebrew.
I can't tell whether any of the evangelists was born a Jew or a Gentile (I think Matthew practiced the mosaic Law at the time he wrote his gospel, but whether he was born Jew or not I could not say). I don't think you can either. So, first, I think you don't have a good reason to exclude the possibility that any of the gospels could have been written by a diaspora Jew (or, rather, Christian Jew). Second, what would exclude the possibility that the author of Luke, for instance, was born to one of Paul's early converts in the 50's and wrote his gospel when he was 30? Could he not have learned the LXX (and hence Judaism) really well in that time?

Second, while the Jerusalem Perspective School and a few others have argued, based primarily on the DSS, that Hebrew was the common spoken language in Palestine at the time, this is not the majority opinion. Hebrew was the liturgical language for Jews. If you found a bunch of books from tenth century England they'd probably be in Latin, because that was he language of the church and literature. People who were literate were literate in Latin, which they knew as a second language. It's not what people commonly spoke. The gospels present Jesus as speaking in Aramaic on a few occasions. Why?

Also, you should check your source on whether the theory that Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew in the first century applies also to Diaspora Jews. I don't think that's what they are claiming. They're claiming Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew rather than, as is most commonly thought, Aramaic.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm Could you distinguish the work of a first century Jew living in the Diaspora (outside Judea) from one who lived in Palestine? Or one writing before 70 CE from one writing after? How?
My assumption is they do it from analysis.
The video i watched implied Greek and Hebrew had different writing styles. For example, if one said "ya'all", there is high likelihood from the south
.

They meaning the Jerusalem Perspective folks? Why do you find them more credible than other scholars?
Based on recent readings, it implied that jesus words were similar to hebraic writing style and a very high level 1st century Judaism knowledge.(Two different issues)One could definitely be one or the other. My current readings implied jesus words correlate to both butI'm open minded . I kept open to Bivin and open to considering other responses also.
You are making an argument from authority based on appeal to what you've read recently. It seems like you're currently persuaded thee Jerusalem Perspective is correct but are open to the possibility it's not. But why that initial presumption in favor of the JP?

You're juxtaposing Hebrew style with Greek style as if both of those were monolithic things. Septuganitnal style Greek will sound like a translation of Hebrew because the LXX *is* a translation of the Hebrew. I pointed out how this could happen in the case of the ring/hand thing in Luke's Parable of the Prodigal Son. How are you able to tell Septuagintal Greek from a Greek translation of Hebrew? Or do you just have faith that the Jerusalem Perspectibe folks are right when they claim they can?
My current thoughts are the evangelists/paul were Greek speaking but they used as research jesus words in Hebrew from the Jewish Christians. This could explain both Hebrew and llx similarities and could correlate with papias.
Is the basis for your current thought that you presume the claims of the JP are correct? How did you determine that they are?
My point was there appears more involved to the gospels than creativity.

How about plagiarism + creativity? (Yes, I know the term plagiarism is anachronistic because it implies the modern concept of intellectual property).

Best,

Ken
Gd1234
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:03 pm

Re: Robyn Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Post by Gd1234 »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
But why do you think it says more than the synoptic gospels were written in some particular order and each knew the work of his predecessors and borrowed from them?
Obviously there was an order. Whether they used common sources or each other, we don't know.
How do you know differently?
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm Or is that what you meant by research.
I meant i believe that they got facts from other sources instead of creating it. It could be eye witnesses. People who spoke to eye witnesses, now missing documents, ( either q or others from 1st century church) etc i understand each had their own writing style -commentary, etc creating their own feel.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
On my own theory, Mark wrote first and I don't really have much idea what his sources were, and then Matthew used Mark and added to it and then Luke used Mark and Matthew and added to it. I could be wrong, but how do you know that, or a similar theory, is not what happened?
We don't. It's a theory . We both agree they used common sources. Whether it was each other's work or common external sources, who knows?
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
But I'm not calling Matthew's rewriting of Mark 'research".
Matthew being a rewriting of Mark is a presupposition that i don't currently hold. Mark *may* be a source for Matthew, but based on the pie chart, only 46% of Matthew correlates with Mark. I haven't analyzed what the 54% different is, so i can't be more definitive currently.

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
So, first, I think you don't have a good reason to exclude the possibility that any of the gospels could have been written by a diaspora Jew (or, rather, Christian Jew).
Correct. But i believe our definition of writing is different. Mine is non fiction writing.

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
Second, what would exclude the possibility that the author of Luke, for instance, was born to one of Paul's early converts in the 50's and wrote his gospel when he was 30? Could he not have learned the LXX (and hence Judaism) really well in that time?
Is a possibility. Just something we really don't know.
He could also have spoken to people in the church who met jesus.


Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
The gospels present Jesus as speaking in Aramaic on a few occasions. Why?
Idk..
Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
Also, you should check your source on whether the theory that Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew in the first century applies also to Diaspora Jews. I don't think that's what they are claiming. They're claiming Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew rather than, as is most commonly thought, Aramaic.
The question is what jesus spoke? The two most common answers are either Aramaic or Hebrew. So if the gospels are in Greek and he spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, somewhere he got translated.

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:40 pm
They meaning the Jerusalem Perspective folks? Why do you find them more credible than other scholars?
I don't.

My exploration of jewish (or Aramaic) words for jesus is from:
a) biven,
b) Flusser,
https://youtu.be/QcwCs0IIUh0
c) comments by papias and the Jewish church.
D) dss being mainly Hebrew

This is a new direction for me,. It allowed me to see a different perspective. I was under the impression they are representing modern scholarship . Others understand differently. While some perspectives don't make sense to me, iIcan study others like Armenian and calvinism and respect those perspectives also. Even orthodox jewish authors can show me things i might have missed.

If not accurate , I'm open to seeing professional rebuttals to them.

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:54 pm
How are you able to tell Septuagintal Greek from a Greek translation of Hebrew? Or do you just have faith that the Jerusalem Perspectibe folks are right when they claim they can?
I don't.
I'm open to learning if you know.


I think answers were getting repetitive. I hope i addressed your questions.

There is a lot we don't know. We're all looking at different theories.
I don't assume to know the answers. the more we study, the more depth we see. It is not surprising how the gospels changed history and lives.
Post Reply