This sounds interesting

[Diserner]

Yes, I'm familiar with Paleo-Hebrew and such.

The Joshua Curse tablet is now the oldest written Hebrew extant:

The earliest form of the divine name ever found:

Pretty cool, I put it on a baseball cap as a logo.

 

[Diserner]

LEGEND:
1 Proto-Sinaitic writing
2 Proto-Canaanite writing
3 Ahiram Sarcophagus
4 Mesha Stele
5 Ostraca House
6 Lachish Ostraca
7 Coins
8 Scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls
9 Scroll of the war of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness
10-11 Ossuaries
12 Letter of Bar-Kochba
13 Waiver for selling a house
14 Samarian writing

NumisWiki - The Collaborative Numismatics Project - Thousands Of Online Numismatic Books, Articles And Pages. paleo-hebrew

paleo-hebrew

www.forumancientcoins.com

 

[praise_yeshua]

LEGEND:
1 Proto-Sinaitic writing
2 Proto-Canaanite writing
3 Ahiram Sarcophagus
4 Mesha Stele
5 Ostraca House
6 Lachish Ostraca
7 Coins
8 Scroll of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls
9 Scroll of the war of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness
10-11 Ossuaries
12 Letter of Bar-Kochba
13 Waiver for selling a house
14 Samarian writing

NumisWiki - The Collaborative Numismatics Project - Thousands Of Online Numismatic Books, Articles And Pages. paleo-hebrew

paleo-hebrew

www.forumancientcoins.com

1. Your source is treating Aramaic and Hebrew as a singular language.
2. This isn't an exhaustive cross reference. There are gaps in the transition.

 

[Diserner]

It's just an example, there's lots of charts like that.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Are you actually claiming this "Greek" people spoke Aramaic and searched the Aramaic Scriptures? Please be clear. It is rather obvious they didn't. They were Greek. It would be a very rare oddity for them to know and search Aramaic references.

Again, you are misreading and assuming things I never stated. I am responding to your unfounded claims that Acts 17 presents a "clear picture" that the Old Testament in Greek was the main text being used. That verse does not say anything of the kind. Neither is that implied anywhere in the text.

These Jews spoke Greek. These Jews shared their Scriptures with the Greek culture. You're insisting that Greek people fluently speak Aramaic.

Yes, these Jews very likely did their business dealings in Greek as that was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. But the lingua franca of mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, the Parthian empire to the east was Aramaic so linguistically the Jews of Judea and of the Diaspora was Aramaic. As I stated in a previous comment, the actual fact that there exists Aramaic translations called Targums and both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are in Aramaic shows that their language of religion was Aramaic.

It's really not that much a of stretch. My church in North American still conducted all church services in German - not English - until the 1980's as that was the cultural heritage of that particular denomination.

You left out "not a few". The grammatical construct of the statement does not establish a separate group of "Greek women" and "Greek men".

No I didn't. That's what the particular sentence structure means. I also checked in the Aramaic Peshitta. But I left that out since I know you wouldn't accept that as important.

Also, the next verse present a scenario wherein the "Jews" you referenced began to argue with these people. There is no appeal to any "translation issues".

What does this have to do with anything? This is what I refer to when I say you claim things I never said. I never said there was any "translation issues". Where do you even get that?

Paul later silenced the descenter when he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Appealing to this verse is not doing you any favors. It actually shows that the Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

[Act 21:27 LSB] 27 Now when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon noticing him in the temple, [began to] throw all the crowd into confusion and laid hands on him, ...
Paul was in Jerusalem when Jewish visitors from outside Judea started to rile up the crowd with unsubstantiated accusations.

[Act 21:37 LSB As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, "May I say something to you?" And he said, "Do you know Greek?
Paul is taken into custody by the Romans and he speaks to the commander. The commander is shocked to hear Paul talk to him in a different language than the rest of the population. "Oh, you know Greek?" is what is actually meant here.

[Act 21:38 LSB] 38 "Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago raised a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?"
Something about this convinces the Roman commander that Paul is NOT what the rabble rousers have accused him of. It's because he can speak Greek - a language that is not commonly used by the general public.

[Act 21:40 LSB] 40 And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying,
Then Paul is allowed to speak to his accusers - in their native language - not Greek. The current language of the Hebrews. Not necessarily the Hebrew language.

So here is actually Scriptural support that the Jews of Judea and Asia did not use Greek as their common language.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It's just an example, there's lots of charts like that.

Okay. I'm aware. In my view, much of it is conjecture.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Again, you are misreading and assuming things I never stated. I am responding to your unfounded claims that Acts 17 presents a "clear picture" that the Old Testament in Greek was the main text being used. That verse does not say anything of the kind. Neither is that implied anywhere in the text.

It doesn't have to. We can tell from the circumstances what they are using. You're presenting a requirement that you do not equally apply among your own appeals to information.

I remind you that I don't have to "live in" your example with my response. I'm cutting out a "ton" of senseless debate with my response. I'm trying to focus the conversation on important details.

Yes, these Jews very likely did their business dealings in Greek as that was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. But the lingua franca of mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, the Parthian empire to the east was Aramaic so linguistically the Jews of Judea and of the Diaspora was Aramaic. As I stated in a previous comment, the actual fact that there exists Aramaic translations called Targums and both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are in Aramaic shows that their language of religion was Aramaic.

So you have references to these editions existing in the area at the same time as the historical period? You're appealing to the later 2 and 3rd century references. There isn't a pattern that places their influence at this time. You're appealing to conjecture. The LXX had long been available and of significant influence among both Greek and Jewish people. It took TIME to create this bond where the circumstances could take place. You don't get this by appealing to a 2nd century Aramaic reference. Even so...... There are completing Talmud and Targum editions. You have no point of reference to choose between them here.

These references did not have the wide distribution necessary to drive any explanation of the circumstances.

It's really not that much a of stretch. My church in North American still conducted all church services in German - not English - until the 1980's as that was the cultural heritage of that particular denomination.

Your church is an oddity. Not the norm. You're appealing to oddities as the norm. That is not a proper method to employ given these circumstances. There is a better choice.

No I didn't. That's what the particular sentence structure means. I also checked in the Aramaic Peshitta. But I left that out since I know you wouldn't accept that as important.

It was large diverse assemble with people from various cultures united around a common text. That could possibly have only been the LXX.

What does this have to do with anything? This is what I refer to when I say you claim things I never said. I never said there was any "translation issues". Where do you even get that?.

Logic. If there had been a variant reading among them, then someone would have said something. It would have been part of the narrative. It was not. Just like now. We are arguing over variants of choice.

Appealing to this verse is not doing you any favors. It actually shows that the Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

[Act 21:27 LSB] 27 Now when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon noticing him in the temple, [began to] throw all the crowd into confusion and laid hands on him, ...
Paul was in Jerusalem when Jewish visitors from outside Judea started to rile up the crowd with unsubstantiated accusations.

[Act 21:37 LSB As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, "May I say something to you?" And he said, "Do you know Greek?
Paul is taken into custody by the Romans and he speaks to the commander. The commander is shocked to hear Paul talk to him in a different language than the rest of the population. "Oh, you know Greek?" is what is actually meant here.

[Act 21:38 LSB] 38 "Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago raised a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?"
Something about this convinces the Roman commander that Paul is NOT what the rabble rousers have accused him of. It's because he can speak Greek - a language that is not commonly used by the general public.

[Act 21:40 LSB] 40 And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, saying,
Then Paul is allowed to speak to his accusers - in their native language - not Greek. The current language of the Hebrews. Not necessarily the Hebrew language.

So here is actually Scriptural support that the Jews of Judea and Asia did not use Greek as their common language.

Some of these Jews knew both Greek and Hebrew. I never denied this. Not all of them did. The ones causing the problem knew Hebrew. You need to stop treating Aramaic and Hebrew as the same language. It is not. Either establish the connection or stop conflating.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

It doesn't have to. We can tell from the circumstances where they are using. You're presenting a requirement that you do not equally apply among your own appeals to information.

I remind you that I don't have to "live in" your example with my response. I'm cutting a ton of senseless debate with my response. I'm trying to focus the conversation on important details.



So you have references to these editions existing in the area at the same time as the historical period? You're appealing to the later 2 and 3rd century references. There isn't a pattern that places their influence at this time. You're appealing to conjecture. The LXX had long been available and of significant influence among both Greek and Jewish people. It took TIME to create this bond where the circumstances could take place. You don't get this by appealing to a 2nd century Aramaic reference. Even so...... There are completing Talmud and Targum editions. You have point of reference to choose between them here.

These references did not have the wide distribution necessary to drive any explanation of the circumstances.



Your church is an oddity. Not the norm. You're appealing to oddities as the norm. That is not a proper method to employ given these circumstances. There is a better choice.



It was large diverse assemble with people from various cultures united around a common text. That could possibly have only been the LXX.


What does this have to do with anything? This is what I refer to when I say you claim things I never said. I never said there was any "translation issues". Where do you even get that?



Some of these Jews knew both Greek and Hebrew. I never denied this. Not all of them did. The ones causing the problem knew Hebrew. You need to stop treating Aramaic and Hebrew as the same language. It is not. Either establish the connect or stop conflating.

Ok. You are no longer responding accurately to things. I think you have made your views clear. And it's pointless to continue to argue when things are just shoved aside as meaningless and not refuted with actual evidence. It becomes a waste of time and energy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ok. You are no longer responding accurately to things. I think you have made your views clear. And it's pointless to continue to argue when things are just shoved aside as meaningless and not refuted with actual evidence. It becomes a waste of time and energy.

If you reference some specific mistake I made, then I will correct it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ok. You are no longer responding accurately to things. I think you have made your views clear. And it's pointless to continue to argue when things are just shoved aside as meaningless and not refuted with actual evidence. It becomes a waste of time and energy.

I think you mistook my response. It seems to me that you were literally demanding a direct implication of the LXX from the text instead of a logic implication. That is why I said what I said. Hope that helps.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I think you mistook my response. It seems to me that you were literally demanding a direct implication of the LXX from the text instead of a logic implication. That is why I said what I said. Hope that helps.

But there isn't even any logic implication. There is no known absolute factual evidence for either view. That's why this is such a confusing issue.

However, no matter the cultural practices attested to historically, no matter the existence of non-Greek religious documents from the same era, no matter the fact that Aramaic was absolutely the lingua franca of that entire region since at least the 7th century BC, no matter the Scriptural suggestion (as I showed in Acts 21), nothing matters. It's either just an anomaly. Or it's not what things actually mean. Or it's "of course they read it in Greek". I don't think there has been any refutation based on the same kinds of evidences that I've presented. It's just: the Greek Old Testament (LXX) existed so of course everyone used it. The entire point has been - where is the evidence for this view?

 

[praise_yeshua]

But there isn't even any logic implication. There is no known absolute factual evidence for either view. That's why this is such a confusing issue.

I disagree. We have the evidence that they shared a common text they both were able to adequately search without any issues. At the very least, we know this. If we look at the evidence we have for what was available to them, there is only one choice that "fits" the circumstances. I know you disagree. We can just decide to disagree. We can certainly discuss further at a later date.

However, no matter the cultural practices attested to historically, no matter the existence of non-Greek religious documents from the same era, no matter the fact that Aramaic was absolutely the lingua franca of that entire region since at least the 7th century BC, no matter the Scriptural suggestion (as I showed in Acts 21), nothing matters. It's either just an anomaly. Or it's not what things actually mean. Or it's "of course they read it in Greek". I don't think there has been any refutation based on the same kinds of evidences that I've presented. It's just: the Greek Old Testament (LXX) existed so of course everyone used it. The entire point has been - where is the evidence for this view?

I believe we can consider the actual evidence of what was quoted by the apostles. Some of these arguments were made by Augustine in his writings to Jerome. He appealed to the historic use of the LXX among the early church and questioned the value of an new translation into Latin taken from other questionable sources. Jerome couldn't even complete his task entirely using Hebrew manuscripts. He didn't have them to complete his work. They were not widely available. Jerome actually used the LXX to translate the Psalms and the book of Esther. He also translated Aramaic works such as Tobit and Judith. There is evidence that he may used Greek sources for others.

Just making the point. Good day brother.

 

[Exeter]

The term "messed up" gives the impression that things were in chaos and in complete disarray. Actually, the problem was well understood - for centuries. They needed a recognized authority to enact wide ranging corrections. And at the time, that still was the Pope of the Roman Church.

Notice that in the link you shared, there is nothing about changing the day of the week. One day it was a certain date and the following weekday they proclaimed it a different date. No changing of the weekday.

This calendar correction is well known. It's in all accurate date converters. It's not some mystery. It's one of the reasons for the invention of the Julian Day system. This is not the same as the Julian Calendar. A Julian Day is a specific number assigned to a particular day in history. It refers to the same day whether in Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar, Babylonian, Jewish, Greek, Aztec...... It makes calendar math much more easy. And it's one of the ways to show that there has been no shifting of weekdays.

Bound to be upsetting

The International Date Line (IDL) is an imaginary line on the surface of the Earth that separates two consecutive calendar days. It is located halfway around the world from the prime meridian—the zero degrees longitude established in Greenwich, England, in 1852. The IDL was established in 1884 at the International Meridian Conference. The IDL is not a straight line and has been moved several times since its inception.
The change in the International Date Line (IDL) in 2011 disrupted the observance of Saturday Sabbath by some groups. The IDL was moved to accommodate Samoa and Tokelau, which had decided to move from one side of the dateline to the other. This meant that Samoa lost a day and jumped forward by one day, moving from UTC-11 to UTC+13. This change meant that Samoa would now be one day ahead of American Samoa. As a result, Seventh-day Adventists in Samoa had to observe Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. [BingChat]

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

Bound to be upsetting

The International Date Line (IDL) is an imaginary line on the surface of the Earth that separates two consecutive calendar days. It is located halfway around the world from the prime meridian—the zero degrees longitude established in Greenwich, England, in 1852. The IDL was established in 1884 at the International Meridian Conference. The IDL is not a straight line and has been moved several times since its inception.
The change in the International Date Line (IDL) in 2011 disrupted the observance of Saturday Sabbath by some groups. The IDL was moved to accommodate Samoa and Tokelau, which had decided to move from one side of the dateline to the other. This meant that Samoa lost a day and jumped forward by one day, moving from UTC-11 to UTC+13. This change meant that Samoa would now be one day ahead of American Samoa. As a result, Seventh-day Adventists in Samoa had to observe Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday. [BingChat]

Upsetting to who? It's not evidence of anything that was being debated.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I disagree. We have the evidence that they shared a common text they both were able to adequately search without any issues. At the very least, we know this. If we look at the evidence we have for what was available to them, there is only one choice that "fits" the circumstances. I know you disagree. We can just decide to disagree. We can certainly discuss further at a later date.

Again, what evidence? It's the same argument - the LXX Greek existed so it must have been in use by everyone. That's just not true. There is not "only one choice".

I believe we can consider the actual evidence of what was quoted by the apostles. Some of these arguments were made by Augustine in his writings to Jerome. He appealed to the historic use of the LXX among the early church and questioned the value of an new translation into Latin taken from other questionable sources. Jerome couldn't even complete his task entirely using Hebrew manuscripts. He didn't have them to complete his work. They were not widely available. Jerome actually used the LXX to translate the Psalms and the book of Esther. He also translated Aramaic works such as Tobit and Judith. There is evidence that he may used Greek sources for others.

Just making the point. Good day brother.

What someone did or did not do in Rome several centuries after the period we are talking about really is not applicable. It's the same type of argument you are trying to use with me when I state that the Targums and Talmuds being in Aramaic.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Again, what evidence? It's the same argument - the LXX Greek existed so it must have been in use by everyone. That's just not true. There is not "only one choice".

What someone did or did not do in Rome several centuries after the period we are talking about really is not applicable. It's the same type of argument you are trying to use with me when I state that the Targums and Talmuds being in Aramaic.

As I mentioned, your only evidence is an appeal is to 2nd or 3rd century writings that are external to the Scriptures themselves. You're not providing an viable alternative.

Your bias is showing. Discounting the fact that Jerome could not find Hebrew sources for his work in the Vulgate proves your claims of wider distribution of texts to be bogus. He had LXX reference that were not available in Hebrew. This is getting ridiculous. Have you reviewed the writings of Jerome and correspondence with Augustine? The canon itself was set by the same contemporaries of the men you're discounting here. If what you say is true, there would be no shortage of Hebrew texts. We know that is not true.

 

[Exeter]

Upsetting to who? It's not evidence of anything that was being debated.

Upsetting to those in the story who were bound by their culture. Is there a debate?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

As I mentioned, your only evidence is an appeal is to 2nd or 3rd century writings that are external to the Scriptures themselves. You're not providing an viable alternative.

If you were expecting me to provide a viable alternative then you have misunderstood what the main purpose of this discussion has been. This has all stemmed from your claim that there are gaps in genealogies evident within the LXX. Then after a bunch of round and round you brought up the claim that Acts 17 presents "a clear picture" that Greek scripture was used by all early Christians. At no time did I think this thread should be derailed to get into "viable alternative" - another thread should tackle that.

Your bias is showing. Discounting the fact that Jerome could not find Hebrew sources for his work in the Vulgate proves your claims of wider distribution of texts to be bogus. He had LXX reference that were not available in Hebrew. This is getting ridiculous. Have you reviewed the writings of Jerome and correspondence with Augustine? The canon itself was set by the same contemporaries of the men you're discounting here. If what you say is true, there would be no shortage of Hebrew texts. We know that is not true.

There are so many issues with these statements but I really do not want to get into another long refutation presenting evidences which will just be summarily dismissed because you really aren't open to hearing it. And this thread is not the place for it.

It's been interesting to be presented with what evidence there is for your particular view. Would there be something new that I had not already researched? The only thing new to me was the claim about gaps in genealogies. Hopefully you can present that. And we can return to the thread topic about old vs young earth matters.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you were expecting me to provide a viable alternative then you have misunderstood what the main purpose of this discussion has been. This has all stemmed from your claim that there are gaps in genealogies evident within the LXX. Then after a bunch of round and round you brought up the claim that Acts 17 presents "a clear picture" that Greek scripture was used by all early Christians. At no time did I think this thread should be derailed to get into "viable alternative" - another thread should tackle that.

There are so many issues with these statements but I really do not want to get into another long refutation presenting evidences which will just be summarily dismissed because you really aren't open to hearing it. And this thread is not the place for it.

It's been interesting to be presented with what evidence there is for your particular view. Would there be something new that I had not already researched? The only thing new to me was the claim about gaps in genealogies. Hopefully you can present that. And we can return to the thread topic about old vs young earth matters.

I referenced gaps in Genesis and in after the dispersion. I believe they are large enough to discredit your claims of certainty in the very specific dating you're employing. I don't believe you are being accurate in what you've studied. I don't believe you adequately know the details of which you claim understanding when it comes the historical canon you're referencing. I mean seriously, you denied the relevance of the work of Jerome. That is what you did. You can't deny this. Someone who actually was adequately versed in the information would have taken that action. Never.

I feel like I have been accurate in what I've said and fair in my assessment. None should feel obligated to believe me just because I've said something. Please, do your own work. Know the subject. Make decisions for yourself. I hope to be around for a while to discuss most any topic. If you would like to discuss this again, we can. I'm leaving open the possibility to continue. It doesn't have to be in this thread.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

I referenced gaps in Genesis and in after the dispersion. I believe they are large enough to discredit your claims of certainty in the very specific dating you're employing. I don't believe you are being accurate in what you've studied. I don't believe you adequately know the details of which you claim understanding when it comes the historical canon you're referencing. I mean seriously, you denied the relevance of the work of Jerome. That is what you did. You can't deny this. Someone who actually was adequately versed in the information would have taken that action. Never.

I feel like I have been accurate in what I've said and fair in my assessment. None should feel obligated to believe me just because I've said something. Please, do your own work. Know the subject. Make decisions for yourself. I hope to be around for a while to discuss most any topic. If you would like to discuss this again, we can. I'm leaving open the possibility to continue. It doesn't have to be in this thread.

Hmmmm...did I deny the relevance of Jerome? I responded to your understanding of what he did as not relevant to the topic. Big difference.
I can state the same things you advise me on right back at you. You assume you know what I do and do not know. That's pretty arrogant.

Still waiting for some specific examples of gaps shown in the LXX.