3 of 14
3
The Historical Jesus
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15400
Joined  2006-02-14
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

Aramaic is used in Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah and Genesis. You might want to re-check those “scholars” and “facts” of yours. You might also want to re-read what I wrote before responding. What I said about the Bible is that parts of it, the NT in particular, are in Greek.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

Outstanding first post TimONeill.  LOL

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  40
Joined  2012-03-30
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 10:10 AM
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

Aramaic is used in Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah and Genesis. You might want to re-check those “scholars” and “facts” of yours. You might also want to re-read what I wrote before responding. What I said about the Bible is that parts of it, the NT in particular, are in Greek.

“Used in” books that are otherwise in Hebrew (or Greek, there are Aramaic sentences and words in the NT as well) isn’t quite the same thing.  There are words from other languages in there as well, but it’s a stretch to say that means any books of the Bible are “in” these languages.  An “in particular” is a very odd way of saying “only”.  I read what you said just fine thanks.

 Signature 

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Armarium Magnum - Book reviews on ancient and medieval history, pseudo history and atheism

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2011-06-17
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 10:31 AM
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 10:10 AM
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

Aramaic is used in Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah and Genesis. You might want to re-check those “scholars” and “facts” of yours. You might also want to re-read what I wrote before responding. What I said about the Bible is that parts of it, the NT in particular, are in Greek.

“Used in” books that are otherwise in Hebrew (or Greek, there are Aramaic sentences and words in the NT as well) isn’t quite the same thing.  There are words from other languages in there as well, but it’s a stretch to say that means any books of the Bible are “in” these languages.  An “in particular” is a very odd way of saying “only”.  I read what you said just fine thanks.

I pointed your error out once - post #30 - READ MORE CAREFULLY! He never said ‘books’ he said ‘PARTS’ - HECK YOU EVEN HIGHLIGHTED IT.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15400
Joined  2006-02-14
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 10:31 AM
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 10:10 AM
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

Aramaic is used in Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah and Genesis. You might want to re-check those “scholars” and “facts” of yours. You might also want to re-read what I wrote before responding. What I said about the Bible is that parts of it, the NT in particular, are in Greek.

“Used in” books that are otherwise in Hebrew (or Greek, there are Aramaic sentences and words in the NT as well) isn’t quite the same thing.  There are words from other languages in there as well, but it’s a stretch to say that means any books of the Bible are “in” these languages.  An “in particular” is a very odd way of saying “only”.  I read what you said just fine thanks.

I don’t think you did.

I said “parts of the Bible are in Aramaic”. In fact, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic. I did not claim that any complete books of the Bible were in Aramaic, since I did not believe that to be the case.

I said “parts [of the Bible] (the NT in particular, IIRC) [are] in Greek.” In fact, the NT is in Greek. (Though whether it includes other languages I am still not certain. It would not surprise me if there were some words or phrases in Hebrew in the NT).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  40
Joined  2012-03-30
VeridicusMaximus - 30 March 2012 10:06 AM
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

He never said ‘books’ he said ‘parts.’ The Book of Daniel from 2:4b to 7:28 is in Aramaic. Certain words and phrases in the N.T as well.

In that case why not mention the “parts” that are in Persian as well?  Hell, there’s even some Latin (well, transliterated into Greek) in there, so we can throw that in while we’re at it.

 Signature 

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Armarium Magnum - Book reviews on ancient and medieval history, pseudo history and atheism

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 10:10 AM

Aramaic is used in Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah and Genesis. You might want to re-check those “scholars” and “facts” of yours. You might also want to re-read what I wrote before responding. What I said about the Bible is that parts of it, the NT in particular, are in Greek.

I didn’t know Aramaic was used at all in the OT. You learn something every day!

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2011-06-17
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 10:43 AM
VeridicusMaximus - 30 March 2012 10:06 AM
TimONeill - 30 March 2012 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 27 March 2012 06:12 PM

Yes, parts of the Bible are in Aramaic, large parts in Hebrew and parts (the NT in particular, IIRC) in Greek. All three are known languages, and there are modern versions that people speak today.

Really?  Can you name some of the books which are in Aramaic rather than Hebrew?  Because I seem to have missed those.  Along with ... every scholar of the Bible in the whole of history.  You might want to check your facts on that one.  You’ve also got the “the NT in particular” part wrong.  The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.  That’s it.  No Aramaic at all.

He never said ‘books’ he said ‘parts.’ The Book of Daniel from 2:4b to 7:28 is in Aramaic. Certain words and phrases in the N.T as well.

In that case why not mention the “parts” that are in Persian as well?  Hell, there’s even some Latin (well, transliterated into Greek) in there, so we can throw that in while we’re at it.

Sounds good to me - why cant’t you just admit you’re wrong? Why can’t you just take peoples own word about what they meant? Why do you start your 1st post, arrogantly, nit-picking? You are only 4 post in and already you have made yourself look like a fool. Way to REP J.C.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15400
Joined  2006-02-14

OK folks, let’s try to leave it be. We should all try to learn things every day ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  40
Joined  2012-03-30
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 11:20 AM

OK folks, let’s try to leave it be. We should all try to learn things every day ...

Looking back, it seems I did read “parts” as “books”.  Perhaps I shouldn’t post at 4.00 am.  Apologies to Doug.

Back on topic - has anyone finished Ehrman’s book?  I’m half way through and so far it’s very good.

 Signature 

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Armarium Magnum - Book reviews on ancient and medieval history, pseudo history and atheism

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 March 2012 11:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  31
Joined  2011-06-17
dougsmith - 30 March 2012 11:20 AM

OK folks, let’s try to leave it be. We should all try to learn things every day ...

Sorry but that attitude rubs me wrong esp. after writing something like this ‘The OT is wholly Hebrew and the NT is wholly Greek.’

With that said I’ll leave it be. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 02:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Just heard Erhman on NPR. He sounds like he’s unbiased (agnostic) and knows what he’s talking about. He made a point about how just because there were no Roman records of Jesus doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, because there are no Roman records of lots of people. Why should Jesus be any different? My question is, he was crucified, so shouldn’t there be a record of that?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15400
Joined  2006-02-14
domokato - 02 April 2012 02:27 PM

My question is, he was crucified, so shouldn’t there be a record of that?

The Romans crucified thousands of people, for what would be considered today even very minor crimes. Crucifixion was a standard punishment in the day. And this was in a real backwater of the empire.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  40
Joined  2012-03-30
domokato - 02 April 2012 02:27 PM

My question is, he was crucified, so shouldn’t there be a record of that?

The Romans were good administrators, though whether they meticulously documented every rebel, brigand, pirate or rabble rouser they nailed up is unclear and probably doubtful.  That aside, even if they did document this particular rabble-rouser’s execution, we wouldn’t have that record today.  This is because we have NO such administrative records of any Roman executions.  None.  We actually have very few Roman administrative records of any kind: mainly some tax receipts from Egypt on papyrus and a few military supply requisitions from Britain and that’s about it.  People who try to argue that Jesus should be mentioned in Roman records because the Romans kept careful administrative documents don’t seem to realise that we, generally, simply don’t have these records.  So to expect a Roman document mentioning this Jesus being executed is fairly fanciful.

 Signature 

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Armarium Magnum - Book reviews on ancient and medieval history, pseudo history and atheism

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  40
Joined  2012-03-30
dougsmith - 02 April 2012 03:14 PM
domokato - 02 April 2012 02:27 PM

My question is, he was crucified, so shouldn’t there be a record of that?

The Romans crucified thousands of people, for what would be considered today even very minor crimes. Crucifixion was a standard punishment in the day.

It was a standard punishment, but not for “very minor crimes”.  Crucifixion was considered the ultimate and most extreme form of execution and was reserved for rebels, brigands, pirates and escaped slaves only.  Roman citizens were also (usually) exempt from it.

 Signature 

Humani nil a me alienum puto

Armarium Magnum - Book reviews on ancient and medieval history, pseudo history and atheism

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 14
3