Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: Actually, according to Josephus, the elite of Jerusalem Jews did not want to learn Greek


Cordially, Bernard

So ONLY language makes one Hellenistic? this is what you are implying

Bernard Muller wrote: I know, as usual, you will not answer my questions. Instead you'll throw me some insults.


Cordially, Bernard

From ignorance you get to steer nothing here. I have provided sources, you have not.

Provide sources the temple cult was not Hellenistic, or take you false opinions and go.


All of my credible sources state Jerusalem and the temple cults were more Hellenistic then say Aramaic Jews in Galilee.

Charles Wilson wrote: Depending on how you view Josephus at this point, this may or may not have meaning. Many look at the Essenes as an Interpolation. This is where outhouse and I have some negotiatin' to do.



CW

Now I commend you on credible criticism. Not vivid imagination taking my quotes desperately out of context.

I don't think the Essenes were an interpolation. We have found camps possibly that address their change in lifestyle over other sects. But what is important here is it shows and describes a sect that wanted nothing to do with the temple elite.

Due to the sheer lack of evidence for the Essenes, debates are wide open and little will be settled with the limited info we possess.

So ONLY language makes one Hellenistic? this is what you are implying

No this is exactly what YOU do, outhouse. You make some off-handed write-while-I-poop comment from your vast knowledge of antiquity and then people react to that comment and a few days later you act surprised that people are debating a point you yourself raised.

outhouse wrote:
Easy.
You have comprehensive issues I have harped on you for over 5 years about.

I can "comprehend" that the problems you (outhouse) have with Bernard may indeed be all-consuming (thus comprehensive), but on our particular thread here you have harped on only one matter, right?
Were you to attack him on many fronts simultaneously then you guys might indeed have "comprehensive" issues, and not just "comprehension" issues.
(That's a "ten-dollar" word all right, but still speaks against your own "comprehension" issues.)

Gday all,

Charles Wilson wrote:1. First, you are to be commended, Bernard, for your good humor. Good Job.

I agree.
Bernard's comments are always measured and impersonal,
even when he deals with posts that are silly and rude, way outside the box.

You know -
this place lately is not quite as friendly and collegial as I remember


Kapyong

Adam wrote: but on our particular thread here you have harped on only one matter, right?

I have proposed the current academic context of the Temple in relationship, to Aramaic Galileans, and I have provided multiple sources that back EVERY last word I have stated.

Now I have only received unsubstantiated rhetoric in return, much like you are now.

Picking on grammar while needed, is a sign of desperation.

Kapyong wrote:
Bernard's comments are always measured and impersonal,


Kapyong

While that may be, it does not make him correct or credible.

outhouse wrote: I have proposed the current academic context of the Temple in relationship, to Aramaic Galileans..

Yet, in those days, Galileans' Aramaic was different to Jerusalem's Aramaic

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote: I have proposed the current academic context of the Temple in relationship, to Aramaic Galileans..

Yet, in those days, Galileans' Aramaic was different to Jerusalem's Aramaic

Understood.

My original point that started all this was concerning the cultural difference/division that ended up being the demise of the temple.

The temple a Hellenistic Roman controlled Jewish temple that generated money for Rome, and the Aramaic Galileans who were oppressed by their Hellenistic overlords living in opulence in cities like Jerusalem and Sepphoris and Tiberias and Caesarea.

The socioeconomic divide was that Hellenist were rich and used Roman muscle to keep money flowing to Rome