The one thing I find interesting about the historical New Testament..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Greek speaking Hellenistic jews from the dispersion would not have been found in rural Judea..

Who says the writing was done in rural Judaea?
From a very early stage in Acts, the church was dispersed, and many of them ended up in Antioch and other parts of the Greek-speaking world, where they would be in the company of Greek-speaking Jews.
There it would be easy enough to collect the oral traditions, bringing the narrative together and writing it down in the language of the community, viz. KOINE Greek.

What is the chance the just happens to be the best Jewish author who writes in Greek ON THE PLANET.

I have been trying to explain to you that there was nothing particularly brilliant about the Greek style of the gospels. Most of it was "rough". All conclusions based on "this was highly educated, sophisticated Greek" are false, because the statement is not true.

The people who wrote the gospels were not “Jews who had picked up a little Greek in their travels..”

You're really not listening, are you? I've been trying to explain that these Jews in the Dispersion were brought up as Greek-speakers. They read and wrote the Greek of the Septuagint. They read and wrote the Greek of the Greek New Testament.

They were master wordsmiths in greek.. to rival ANYTHING else being put out at the time.. ANYWHERE..

No, they were not! They were "rough"! Again, you haven't been listening.

That is what I mean by “The sheakspear of their era..

Incidentally, Shakespeare himself was not a "highly educated" style. That was why he was popular. He was the only major playwright of his era not to go to university. It's necessary to be "educated" to read him now, only because popular speech has changed in the interval.

Matthew was not uneducated, neither was Paul.

But if you insist that they were uneducated could God not also give them the ability to write and understand, which would actually prove that it was divinely inspired?

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Not the gospels which were the earliest books. They were written in Classical Greek.

Scholars know that that is all the Jewish people could read/write, so they assume its origins were Aramaic, but with the exception of maybe mark (the oldest book) . The rest were written In Greek “first” and we’re thought to be oral traditions before their Greek. There are loads of proverbs and sayings that cannot be translated into Aramaic. Meaning it was first written in Greek.

I don't believe you are correct at all. The MSS of which the NT were translated show various letters of various authors in various time frames. It was not as though the NT developed by scribes simply coping the original autographs. In the first place you have no original MSS to make such statements and it is irrelevant whether it's a scholar or simply a layman. If you do not have the autographs then you can not state a certainty that anything was originally written in any particular language.

The main reason I strongly disagree with you and your so called scholars is the history of the church of Britain who has far more written records of Jesus and the Bethany family than any other source. In fact the first church of Christianity is not the Roman church but is in fact the church of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury Briton. That my friend is a fact and even recognized by the Roman organizations.

The synagogue of James was the first Jesus movement for over three decades. The entire liturgy of the synagogue of James was Hebrew/Aramaic with the languages of both Greek and Latin forbidden in the congregation. The Hellenist Jews were allowed (under James) to have their own synagogues with the understanding that eventually all of the Jesus movement would once again be Hebrew/Aramaic. But James John and Peter (the three pillars of the Christ) forbid any influence or teachings to be in Greek or Latin. Rome had nothing to do with this Jesus movement.

With this history of the Nazarene's, the strong indication was that the letters sent to the Greek congregations were translations from Hebrew/Aramaic to the various congregations who were proselytized by the missionaries of James as well as Paul. No Proof at all. Simply evidence by Nazarene history. As you can see it may be far more complicated than what you can imagine. Even if you have the autographs you would then have to understand how they were conveyed to the receivers of those letters. That in itself could explain why Paul, who was a Hebrew of Hebrews, might have used Luke's knowledge of languages. No one actually knows and to cite it as fact is not in good taste.

A very good source of vast understanding is [St. Joseph of Arimathea] by Lionel Smithett Lewis among other avenues of Nazarene [Christian Jewish] literature.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The argument against that is the fact the Roman purges can account for the softening of the 2 religions dogmas, no conspiracies required.

The Romans killed all the militant Jews and Christians, only the ones teaching nonviolence survived..

That may or may not be true

The Romans may have very well been killing off only the Christians that weren't following along with the accepted ( mainstream today ) Christian dogma and really targeting the Gnostic sects. I know mainstream history often says it was all Christians across the board, but I have a feeling it wasn't.

Just my 2 cents. I don't have a source for that.

a reply to: Seede

I could be messing up a point or two lol. Watch some Bart Erhman debates... he lays it out amazingly well.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

TextI could be messing up a point or two lol. Watch some Bart Erhman debates... he lays it out amazingly well.

If you really want to be confused about the bible then by all means cling to Bart Erhman. He is a great book salesman but a very poor source of Christian knowledge. Ehrman is one of the greatest agnostic and confused individuals on this earth. He is publicized as a great NT scholar but is actually one of many unbelieving biblical agnostic salesman on the market. If you build your biblical information on this guy then i doubt that you will ever get your mind straight. Ehrman is not a Christian nor even close to understanding his own hype. He is a salesman.

a reply to: Seede

Serious issues with that notion... Ehrman was a fundamentist pastor for a long time

Saying he doesn't know the material is laughable

His issues with the bible are understandable as well

Just because most "christians" don't agree with him is hardly a reason to knock his knowledge of the bible

a reply to: Akragon

Serious issues with that notion... Ehrman was a fundamentist pastor for a long time Saying he doesn't know the material is laughable His issues with the bible are understandable as well Just because most "christians" don't agree with him is hardly a reason to knock his knowledge of the bible

The NT literature is basically centered around the development of Christianity and Ehrman is not the one that even understands that premise. I did not say he did not know his market but I did say that he is a poor source of Christianity. Big difference. I also said that he was a very confused agnostic and that is a fact that even he admits. In fact he has admitted that he is an atheist.

There are many people who can quote you large amounts of both OT and NT literature without understanding the purpose of the author. In fact that fits Ehrman completely. If you were an agnostic, believing that God is unknowable, why would you specialize in selling literature that is purposed for understanding the God that you believe is not knowable is knowable?

Ehrman's mission in life is to use his knowledge and his past experience to sell books and he is very good at that. He has lived off the system all of his life and he knows the market of academia. But in my opinion he is not in any way honest in his outward endeavor to make money using the guise of being a New Testament scholar. He is a book salesman who graduated from another one of the many atheistic universities in this failing system.
My opinions of course.

a reply to: Seede

The NT literature is basically centered around the development of Christianity and Ehrman is not the one that even understands that premise. I did not say he did not know his market but I did say that he is a poor source of Christianity.

Oh but i believe he understands that all too well... He just no longer agrees with Christianity

I also said that he was a very confused agnostic and that is a fact that even he admits. In fact he has admitted that he is an atheist.

confused?

No i think not... agnostic or atheist, he is not confused about what Christianity teaches... he taught it for years as a pastor and full on believer... again, he just no longer believes in said religion

There are many people who can quote you large amounts of both OT and NT literature without understanding the purpose of the author. In fact that fits Ehrman completely. If you were an agnostic, believing that God is unknowable, why would you specialize in selling literature that is purposed for understanding the God that you believe is not knowable is knowable?

His books are not Christian books... Even though some reinforce some Christian beliefs... such as the fact that historians believe Jesus was actually a real person

Ehrman's mission in life is to use his knowledge and his past experience to sell books and he is very good at that. He has lived off the system all of his life and he knows the market of academia.

Well he us an author, and a professor of NT literature... why wouldn't he know his market considering his past experiences?

But in my opinion he is not in any way honest in his outward endeavor to make money using the guise of being a New Testament scholar.

the guise of being a NT scholar? LOL

really?

he is probably one of the best NT scholars out there today.... the reason being he IS honest... he tells it like it is, and doesn't rely on dogma or faith to teach. He will tell you blatantly that there are flaws, and contradictions in the texts... that we don't actually know who wrote most of the NT

and again keep in mind, while being a NT scholar, he is NOT Christian anymore

Sure he is good at selling his books... mainly because the topics of his books are interesting, especially to people who are questioning their faith or their religion in general

My point being... IF you buy one of his books expecting it to strengthen your faith in the bible... you're climbing the wrong tree all together

But.. As i've said previously saying he is confused... or even dishonest is nothing short of laughable

a reply to: Seede

I apologize for the long wait for a response..

It was great man take longer than I felt like at the moment then I forgot about it..


A) the reason I have hyped the skill level required for the Bible is because to a man every critical and apologist scholar I have seen lecture has hyped it as “The sheakspear of its day or repeatedly referred to how beautiful the text is written...


Maybe they were referring to the final edit after the Bible was compiled..

Maybe they have spent their whole lives studying it and thus believers or not, it is beautifully written to them..


I do know the skill level required to write the earliest gospels was very high, but maybe the “best authors on the planet at the time” was referring to later translations.

B) I thought Joseph of aramathia was from the time of jesus or Paul??? If so I found it hard to believe he found his way to Briton..

Maybe different guy but same name??


C) i also think maybe there is maybe a distinction between the Pauline letters and the gospels..

I have been referring to the gospels as they are the only people with an AT ALL credible chance of being first person witnesses..

I personally do not buy Paul’s visions at all....

Historically, they cannot be counted because they require a miracle, and miracles by definition of are least probable option..


That’s what makes it a miracle.. it’s a super super improbable event..


CONCLUSION)

I personally think the only thing in the Bible that can be AT ALL trusted to be credible EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS of jesus, is Mark.. Well copies of eye witness accounts..

a reply to: Seede

You mean he is an unbiased source who STARTED A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST, and the history showed him the Bible wasn’t even first person accounts..

That the different books didn’t agree on the story...

It takes faith to believe in the divine SPECFICLLY because there is no evidence for it..

a reply to: JoshuaCox
You should ask John the apostle, where did he learn to write koine Greek, or how did he paid the scribers, or where did he get the Greek logos into his writings since Jesus never say anything about it.

My guess is he didn't. It's more likely the work of anonymous author or it may not be intended for public reading/teaching.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Yea..

I have heard John is an obvious forgery..


Imho mark is the only book with ANY chance of being an account from an actual eye witness..

a reply to: DISRAELI

I have to go with you here on the subject of Greek authorship. First, the Bible that we read is not the original but is a translation of the original. In the case of the King James, a poetic and well written translation. The original manuscripts may have been a simpler style.

I read that the quotes from the Old Testament that are found in the NT come from the Septuagint not the original Hebrew.

In some Bibles beside the KJV and the Massoretic version there are additional books called Maccabees. The ones in the Catholic Bible go into conflicts between the Hellenistic Jews and the traditional Jews. No doubt Jesus and his followers were Hellenistic. They followed some Greek customs and could speak Greek.

In addition, some could also speak other languages. Paul spoke Hebrew and probably also Latin since he was a Roman citizen and went to Rome.

originally posted by: toms54
True.

Paul spoke Hebrew and probably also Latin since he was a Roman citizen and went to Rome.

Actually Rome itself was almost a Greek-speaking city in that period. Immigrants, you know. So Paul says "you Greeks" even when writing to the Roman church. I think he could have got away with not knowing any Latin.

a reply to: toms54

I've done some more reading on this and feel the need to qualify my own statements. It seems there is reason to believe that Matthew was first written in Hebrew. This was the belief of at least one early church father. I can't recall which, exactly, but he was discussing the gospel used by the Ebionites when he made the remark. Apparently they only used one of the gospels - Matthew and that was a shortened form in the original Hebrew.