What is the nature of the “conquest” to which John is referring (for the image itself see John 16:33; Rev 2:7)? The masculine τὸν πονηρόν, “the evil one” (rather than the neuter τὸ πονηρόν, “the evil”; see the textual note above) suggests that the enemy in the conflict is “the Satan” (ὁ Σατανᾶς), the personification of evil, and not “evil” in the abstract (although presumably the two are not very far apart; cf. John 17:15). In biblical terms the Satan is man’s accuser or adversary, the prince of evil (Num 22:22; Job 2:1– 7; Mark 1:13; Luke 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 7:5; cf. John 14:30; also 1 Pet 5:8). John represents the “evil one,” without using the actual title ὁ Σατανᾶς, as controlling the world of darkness rather than light (5: 18–19; cf. 2: 14; 3: 12). Over this source of evil the Christian, through the victory of Jesus, is able (initially and continuously) to be triumphant (cf. Luke 10: 18; Col 2: 15; Rev 20: 2). The idea of conquering evil is introduced for the first time in 1 John at this point. Here it leads into an appeal to resist worldliness (vv 15– 17; cf. 5: 4– 5). But the next time victory is mentioned in this letter (at 4: 4), the thought of resisting false teaching is included (καὶ νενικήκατε αὐτούς, “you have defeated them”; that is, “you have successfully resisted those who were propagating heretical doctrines”); and it is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that John was also anticipating this theme in the present v. All wrong must be conquered by the genuine Christian believer, including wrong thinking and theology!
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3150-3153). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3146-3150). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3141-3146). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
This is reminiscent of the petition ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, “but deliver us from (the) evil” in the fuller text of the Lord’s Prayer preserved in Matt 6:13. It is impossible to be sure here whether τοῦ πονηροῦ is personal (masculine) or impersonal (neuter); the latter is defended by M. Dibelius (ad loc.), but the personal “evil one” forms a more effective antithesis to the personal κύριος. Behind the ἄτοποι καὶ πονηροὶ ἄνθρωποι, “perverse and wicked men” (v 2), may be recognized ὁ πονηρός himself (for this as a designation of the devil cf. Matt 13:19, 38; Eph 6:16; 1 John 2: 13, 14; 5: 18, 19). The activity of Satan against the interests of the preachers and their converts has been referred to in 1 Thess 2:18; 3:5 (ὁ πειράζων); here (as in 2:9 above) there may be an allusion to Satan’s intensified activity in the endtime; such an allusion is more probable than that there is a parallel here to the Jewish prayer for deliverance from the evil inclination ().
Bruce, F. F.; Bruce, F. F.. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Volume 45 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6778-6780). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Bruce, F. F.; Bruce, F. F.. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Volume 45 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6772-6778). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
My time is going to be very limited today, but I read the B-Greek link, but I'm still puzzled about the referent of "that" when you pose the question about Hebrew. Whatever "that" is, I'm also not confident I could say how it should be written in Hebrew.
I'm working on an article, I'm gonna submit to a theological journal (macrina magazine, I've published there before), about Satan actually, i.e. about how belief in Satan is reasonable.
Roman, at this point, I can't necessarily give you much input on the piece you're writing, but I might like to read it. I'm bogged down in legal matters pertaining to my mom. But it sounds interesting.
Duncan, thanks for mentioning 1 John 3:12. Satan (the Satan) first becomes prominent in the intertestamental literature. See https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/jub24.htm
I respect Randall and his expertise, which is much better than mine in many respects, but I think people are barking up the wrong tree if they want to deny Matthew is likely referring to the evil one as opposed to evil itself, etc. 6:13 is likely using the Greek word as a substantive (i.e., the evil one). The definite article points in that direction: τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Comments from Grant R. Osborne (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary):
[Matthew] 6:13 … but deliver us from the evil one (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). The second element of this petition (not a separate prayer) asks God for the flip side of “don’t let us yield,” namely, “deliver us from the evil one.” The personalized form is better than the traditional “from evil”³⁴ because the articular “the evil one” (τοῦ πονηροῦ) favors the more personal concept, though of course “evil” and “the evil one” are virtually synonymous. In Matthew the “evil one” causes us to twist our words into lies (5:37), takes kingdom truths out of our heart (13:19), and sows evil in our lives (13:19). “Deliver” means “save us from” and connotes the idea of both protection and removal from his power. So the final petition asks God for strength and deliverance from the temptations wrought by Satan.
Footnote 34: Though see E. Milton,“ ‘Deliver Us from the Evil Imagination’: Matt. 6:13b in Light of the Jewish Doctrine of the Yêtzer Hārā ʾ,” RelStTh 13 (1995):52–67, who in light of the Jewish doctrine of the two yetzers (“impulses”) interprets this of human imagination and its “inclination” to evil.
That point by Buth is not decisive since the Jewish concept of Satan gradually developed: the New Testament seems to amplify the concept, but it builds on the Hebrew bible.
We don't know what language Jesus spoke Matthew 6 in, but one scholar thinks he could have been trilingual. The account is also preserved in Greek.
Given the Sitz-im-Leben, they could have been, but possibly or probably is all one can say. The debates about which language Jesus spoke are interminable, but trilingualism for Christ appeals to me.
Once I have something to show I'll send it to you :), I dont' expect any feedback. It's not exegetical/historical or anything, more philosophical/theological (the nature of the journal is such).
I disagree (nothing new their), as the evidence for the region that this speech was given would have been predominantly Midrashic Hebrew (as Buth would call it, others might call it Aramaic).
I have no problem with the trilingual (or more) languages spoken but its horses for courses. Greek as the business end of conversation.
Do you mean Mishnaic Hebrew? Did it exist before 70 ce? Buth's people is speculative either way: Greek was the Mediterranean Weltsprache at the time. And the LXX is more than Egyptian; it's Semitic and Greek.
Yes mishnaic Hebrew that did not spontaneously emerge. I have no problem with the papers you post which tell me that these gospels were originally written in Greek but implying that this is what Jesus was speaking to the given audience on the mount is another matter altogether. I think we can look for modern equivalents as a guide, eg. India and its use of colonial English in the upper classes.
For those who listened to scripture, where were they hearing it & would it have been read in Greek?
1) I've already said that I'm not dogmatic when it comes to what language Jesus spoke in Matthew 5-7. It is a minor concern for me.
2) I actually think the Septuagint, though produced in Egypt, is quality Greek, albeit translation Greek. See Lee's book: that is his whole argument.
3) Why assume Luke didn't speak and write in Greek? There is no good reason to deny he did.But again, I'm not being dogmatic. However, we have no Lukan Hebrew text. To posit a Hebrew Ur-text or Vorlage is highly speculative.
Your point 3 is not what I meant, but whoever wrote Luke could translate Hebrew into Greek so their is no reason to compare his quote to the LXX and the fact that it does not coincide in all words. How many different ways can a Hebrew sentence be translated into Greek. Many, just as we have into English.
Yes, a Hebrew sentence can be translated many acceptable ways into Greek. Personally, I think that Luke wrote Luke, but regardless, where is the evidence that the book was written in Hebrew first, then into Greek or where is the evidence that the Lukan Jesus spoke Hebrew, then it was translated into Greek? I've never seen any probative evidence to support these ideas: to my knowledge, there is none.
If Luke or Paul deviate from the LXX, it's not simply because the original words might have been in Hebrew. We can't read our practices back into the ancient world: for instance, we know writers/speakers often quoted scriptures from memory or paraphrased biblical texts. They did not always see the need to quote a writer verbatim like we often do today.
My point for posting that link is this, isn't the majority of 1st century evidence from "Palestine [DSS, rabbinic traditions]" demonstrate significantly more documents in Hebrew & Aramaic that Greek?
DSS does include Greek, but are these the newest documents & the Hebrew the oldest?
I enjoyed reading Hurtado's blogs on codex a year or so ago, so I purchased a copy of H Y Gamble's book on the subject. Oft quoted by Hurtado and I recommend it.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out tonight: Hurtado's Christian Artifacts work is also good.
To address your question, I think the answer will depend on which part of Palestine we're talking about, and regardless, the historical data suggest that Greek was the lingua franca of the time.
It's hard to infer much from the DSS b/c they were probably written and produced by one group of hermetic-type Jews. As for the rabbinic traditions, they're too late to tell us much about 1st century Palestine. Even the rabbinic documents that we know are post 2nd-century are still written in Hebrew rather than Greek. We also have Philo of Alexandria and Josephus as early Jews, who wrote in Greek besides the Greek papyri and the LXX.
Josephus apparently was appealing to Romans, and he may have directed some of his material toward fellow Jews.
See https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021949/00001/pdf
Possibly Masada, but it seems late for many of the DSS, some of which were produced before Jesus was born. The most popular explanation (as you know) is the Essene hypothesis.
Some scrolls were discovered at Masada, but it eems that the bulk of them were not. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/ancient-scribe-links-qumran-scrolls-to-masada/
Masada as an inhabited location not as an event. My point is that the bulk of Jewish evidence is in Hebrew, not Greek.
The NT witnesses we have are all decades away from the events and the vast majority of Christians in those later decades were not Jewish.
Today we have many countries that have signs and adds on display in English but the general man on the street does not speak English in those countries. Many can read those signs and adds, but between locals they speak the native language. Not English.
Greek was the language of business just as English is today.
What do DSS scholars/archaeologists say about the provenance of most DSS? Do they locate them in Masada? If yes/no, then why? From what I've seen, not that many DSS finds come from Masada. At any rate, I don't think it tells us most of what we need to know about the GNT.
I understand what you're claiming about the Jewish evidence, but I feel that Greek data is being ignored and Hebrew data is being accentuated in this case.
Greek was more than the language of business in the first century: read Horrocks and A.T. Robertson. Due to Alexander the Great, Koine Greek was the Weltsprache of the time, not just a language of commerce. Hence, the LXX, Philo, Josephus, and the ancient Atticists. The Koine period was from circa 300 BCE-300 CE.
"Although the two are related, the question of whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is completely different from the question of whether the New Testament records his very words. Once we establish that Jesus spoke Greek, we must go on to ask the questions of whether and why that Greek is or is not identical to the Greek recorded in the NT. Gleaves seems occasionally to get sidetracked from the former in his concern for the latter."
1) Why wouldn't the Greek spoken by Jesus in the NT resemble Greek we have elsewhere? In fact, it does, as evidenced by the Greek papyri and other 1st century writers. And I'm not saying that Jesus only spoke Greek: he could have been trilingual.
2) For the LXX, see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-septuagint-and-biblical-theology/
One thing I have not claimed in this thread is that all NT quotations derive from the LXX/OG. In other places on this blog, I've contended the very opposite.
"Richard Longnecker has pointed out that in the Gospel of Matthew the evangelist’s own quotations of the Old Testament usually follow the Hebrew reading, whereas the citations by Jesus “are strongly Septuagintal”. This raises the interesting question of why Matthew would make his own translation from the Hebrew at times while using the Septuagint Greek translation when quoting the words of Jesus, especially since it is hardly likely that Jesus himself taught in Greek."
Who translates Acts 6:1 as "natural Jew"? The NWT doesn't do it, nor do any of the translations on biblehub
This link might shed some light: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hellenistes
Philo and Josephus are two 1st century writers: I'm not going to say that we have the originals, but both writers do some work in the 1st century. We also have the writings of Strabo the geographer, and Epictetus the Stoic philosopher. The Loeb library contains volumes and textual information about these writers. Other uni presses have also published classical texts.
The Biblehub page says, "a Hellenist or Greek-speaking Jew" for ελληνιστων
Your original question was what the term means in Acts 6:1, and every source I've read for that passage applies the term to a Greek-speaking Jew. The big Greek lexica all apply the term in the same way for the NT references (see LSJ, Louw-Nida and Mounce).
I've seen the phenomenon more than once where NT Greek means something different from classical or patristic Greek. Here's a quote from Rogers and Rogers Exegetical Key concerning Acts 6:1:
"Hellenist. The word seems to refer to the Greek-speaking Jewish believers of the Diaspora in contrast to the Hebrew, or Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians (SF, 19-85, 219-34, 309, 329-31; Longenecker, 327-30; Barrett; LC; BC, 5:59-74; Martin Hengel, “Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die ‘Hellenisten’, die ‘Sieben’ und ‘Stephanas’ [Apg 6, 1-15; 7, 54-8, 3],” ZThK 72 [1975]: 151-206; Edvin Larsson, “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde,” NTS 33 [1987]: 205-25; Schneider, 406-16; for the composition of the Jerusalem church s. BAFCS, 4:213-36)."
I also checked BDAG. It defines hELLHNISTHS (Acts 6:1; 9:29; 11:20) as "one who uses the Greek language, Hellenist, spec. a Greek-speaking Israelite in contrast to one speaking a Semitic lang."
Many references follow. Compare the adverbial use in John 19:20.
No problem with the references to it being the Greek language, only the point of saying that it is a Greek speaking Israelite is what I am not seeing, at least in 6:1.
In the quotes above, Louw-Nida, Rogers and Rogers, BDAG and LSJ aloing with Hurtado all say the term refers to Greek-speaking Jews in Acts 6:1 and the other verses in Acts. Craig Keener (in his commentary about Acts) claims that the first time HELLHNISTHS occurs is in Acts, and he says it refers to a Greek-speaking Jew.
The verse presents a contrast to me: ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους
Besides what the influential lexica, scholars, and commentaries say, I'm not sure what I can add to change your mind :)
What we seem to have is a specialized meaning in the GNT of the word, HELLHNISTHS.
There is a contrast, but page 7 of the book I posted says that there was quite a mixed bag in Jerusalem at that time and we know that some Greeks and others had become Jewish converts. I do not think that commentaries are there to convince me of anything. Only evidence that spells out that these must be native Jews that demonstrates that the meaning of the word had changed.
I'm not denying that some Greek became Jewish converts; Hengel proves things of that nature too in his book about Judaism and Hellenism. But we also know that many Jews spoke Greek; for instance, what about the Alexandrian Jews and there is evidence that Jews in Palestine used Greek for more than just commerce.
And I'm not saying you should believe something because a commentary says it. However, the lexica make the same point plus the commentaries give evidence about the word's meaning. One extensive commentary on Acts is the one by Haenchen: he argues extensively that the word as used in Acts most probably refers to Greek-speaking Jews. Haenchen doesn't just assert, but makes a case for the word's meaning.
Additionally, if the word first appears in Acts as Keener writes, then how could its meaning have changed? Furthermore, Keener gives references from Maccabees where we find a similar usage. In light of Alexander's conquests, it is hardly surprising that Jews spoke and wrote in Greek.
88 comments:
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2017
Let's start with 1 John 2:14 (Stephen Smalley):
What is the nature of the “conquest” to which John is referring (for the image itself see John 16:33; Rev 2:7)? The masculine τὸν πονηρόν, “the evil one” (rather than the neuter τὸ πονηρόν, “the evil”; see the textual note above) suggests that the enemy in the conflict is “the Satan” (ὁ Σατανᾶς), the personification of evil, and not “evil” in the abstract (although presumably the two are not very far apart; cf. John 17:15). In biblical terms the Satan is man’s accuser or adversary, the prince of evil (Num 22:22; Job 2:1– 7; Mark 1:13; Luke 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 7:5; cf. John 14:30; also 1 Pet 5:8). John represents the “evil one,” without using the actual title ὁ Σατανᾶς, as controlling the world of darkness rather than light (5: 18–19; cf. 2: 14; 3: 12). Over this source of evil the Christian, through the victory of Jesus, is able (initially and continuously) to be triumphant (cf. Luke 10: 18; Col 2: 15; Rev 20: 2). The idea of conquering evil is introduced for the first time in 1 John at this point. Here it leads into an appeal to resist worldliness (vv 15– 17; cf. 5: 4– 5). But the next time victory is mentioned in this letter (at 4: 4), the thought of resisting false teaching is included (καὶ νενικήκατε αὐτούς, “you have defeated them”; that is, “you have successfully resisted those who were propagating heretical doctrines”); and it is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that John was also anticipating this theme in the present v. All wrong must be conquered by the genuine Christian believer, including wrong thinking and theology!
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3150-3153). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3146-3150). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Smalley, Dr Stephen S.; Smalley, Dr Stephen S.. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3141-3146). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Commenting on 2 Thess. 3:3, F.F. Bruce writes:
This is reminiscent of the petition ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, “but deliver us from (the) evil” in the fuller text of the Lord’s Prayer preserved in Matt 6:13. It is impossible to be sure here whether τοῦ πονηροῦ is personal (masculine) or impersonal (neuter); the latter is defended by M. Dibelius (ad loc.), but the personal “evil one” forms a more effective antithesis to the personal κύριος. Behind the ἄτοποι καὶ πονηροὶ ἄνθρωποι, “perverse and wicked men” (v 2), may be recognized ὁ πονηρός himself (for this as a designation of the devil cf. Matt 13:19, 38; Eph 6:16; 1 John 2: 13, 14; 5: 18, 19). The activity of Satan against the interests of the preachers and their converts has been referred to in 1 Thess 2:18; 3:5 (ὁ πειράζων); here (as in 2:9 above) there may be an allusion to Satan’s intensified activity in the endtime; such an allusion is more probable than that there is a parallel here to the Jewish prayer for deliverance from the evil inclination ().
Bruce, F. F.; Bruce, F. F.. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Volume 45 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6778-6780). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Bruce, F. F.; Bruce, F. F.. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Volume 45 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6772-6778). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
See also https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/poneros
John 17:15 and poneros: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/John/chapter17/15
So how would one write that in Hebrew?
I appreciate that Hebrew is not relevant to all examples.
My time is going to be very limited today, but I read the B-Greek link, but I'm still puzzled about the referent of "that" when you pose the question about Hebrew. Whatever "that" is, I'm also not confident I could say how it should be written in Hebrew.
"that" = "evil" Ra "one" ?
Ok, got it. See https://www.accordancebible.com/product/hebrew-new-testament/
I'm working on an article, I'm gonna submit to a theological journal (macrina magazine, I've published there before), about Satan actually, i.e. about how belief in Satan is reasonable.
I will have a look at this book but I am not sure it's what I'm looking for.
Are there any intertestamental books that use the same Greek wording?
1 John 3:12 needs to be included in above the list for comparison.
https://engediresourcecenter.com/tag/deliver-us-from-evil/
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2833/
A fairly comprehensive article.
Also, he notes an interesting comparison of Mat 13:19, Mk 4:15 & Luke 8:12.
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3627
Note Randall Buth's comment.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OzFEi4A7T3sC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=%22Deliver+Us+From+Evil%22+randall+buth&source=bl&ots=_c7O7yRC-c&sig=ACfU3U1As3idZCfVwfaycwnvDgLPXVYtfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMk8myq-nsAhVloFwKHalFBWcQ6AEwD3oECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Deliver%20Us%20From%20Evil%22%20randall%20buth&f=false
So some instances seem to be ambiguous & others not so.
Roman, at this point, I can't necessarily give you much input on the piece you're writing, but I might like to read it. I'm bogged down in legal matters pertaining to my mom. But it sounds interesting.
Duncan, thanks for mentioning 1 John 3:12. Satan (the Satan) first becomes prominent in the intertestamental literature. See https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jub/jub24.htm
I respect Randall and his expertise, which is much better than mine in many respects, but I think people are barking up the wrong tree if they want to deny Matthew is likely referring to the evil one as opposed to evil itself, etc. 6:13 is likely using the Greek word as a substantive (i.e., the evil one). The definite article points in that direction: τοῦ πονηροῦ.
See the Matthew commentary by R.T. France. He's one of the most thorough scholars on Matthew.
Comments from Grant R. Osborne (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary):
[Matthew] 6:13 … but deliver us from the evil one (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). The second element of this petition (not a separate prayer) asks God for the flip side of “don’t let us yield,” namely, “deliver us from the evil one.” The personalized form is better than the traditional “from evil”³⁴ because the articular “the evil one” (τοῦ πονηροῦ) favors the more personal concept, though of course “evil” and “the evil one” are virtually synonymous. In Matthew the “evil one” causes us to twist our words into lies (5:37), takes kingdom truths out of our heart (13:19), and sows evil in our lives (13:19). “Deliver” means “save us from” and connotes the idea of both protection and removal from his power. So the final petition asks God for strength and deliverance from the temptations wrought by Satan.
Footnote 34: Though see E. Milton,“ ‘Deliver Us from the Evil Imagination’: Matt. 6:13b in Light of the Jewish Doctrine of the Yêtzer Hārā ʾ,” RelStTh 13 (1995):52–67, who in light of the Jewish doctrine of the two yetzers (“impulses”) interprets this of human imagination and its “inclination” to evil.
So did Jesus speak Greek in this dialogue - this is the critical point.
As Buth points out, speaking of RA - "was never once a title of the devil in biblical or post biblical Hebrew, or in all ancient rabbinic literature."
That point by Buth is not decisive since the Jewish concept of Satan gradually developed: the New Testament seems to amplify the concept, but it builds on the Hebrew bible.
We don't know what language Jesus spoke Matthew 6 in, but one scholar thinks he could have been trilingual. The account is also preserved in Greek.
So the audience for the mount sermon, is it probable that they were Greek speaking?
Given the Sitz-im-Leben, they could have been, but possibly or probably is all one can say. The debates about which language Jesus spoke are interminable, but trilingualism for Christ appeals to me.
Once I have something to show I'll send it to you :), I dont' expect any feedback. It's not exegetical/historical or anything, more philosophical/theological (the nature of the journal is such).
I disagree (nothing new their), as the evidence for the region that this speech was given would have been predominantly Midrashic Hebrew (as Buth would call it, others might call it Aramaic).
I have no problem with the trilingual (or more) languages spoken but its horses for courses. Greek as the business end of conversation.
https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/9789004378452/B9789004378452_s006.xml
Buth has supposed that Jesus could have said "satan" instead of "ra" and that later redaction in the Greek gives us what we now have.
Bear in mind that LXX is more of an Egyptian creation so why do yo think it fits the Sitz-im-Leben?
another problem is that Matthew uses diablos with the definite article but not for satana.
Do you mean Mishnaic Hebrew? Did it exist before 70 ce? Buth's people is speculative either way: Greek was the Mediterranean Weltsprache at the time. And the LXX is more than Egyptian; it's Semitic and Greek.
Buth's proposal
For Matthew's use of Satan, see https://biblehub.com/greek/4567.htm
Greek in 1st century Palestine: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004335936/B9789004335936_010.xml
For the Greek Septuagint, see https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2019/2019.08.12/
http://jgrchj.net/volume12/JGRChJ12-10_Porter.pdf
Yes mishnaic Hebrew that did not spontaneously emerge. I have no problem with the papers you post which tell me that these gospels were originally written in Greek but implying that this is what Jesus was speaking to the given audience on the mount is another matter altogether. I think we can look for modern equivalents as a guide, eg. India and its use of colonial English in the upper classes.
For those who listened to scripture, where were they hearing it & would it have been read in Greek?
Are you implying that quality Greek translation could not be achieved in Egypt?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22330/was-the-lxx-used-in-palestine-in-the-first-century
An example of a misguided question. When was Luke written down and is the quotation of Jesus verbatim? Not disputing that it is correct in essence.
In fact why assume that Luke is quoting anything other than Hebrew while translating it into Greek himself?
1) I've already said that I'm not dogmatic when it comes to what language Jesus spoke in Matthew 5-7. It is a minor concern for me.
2) I actually think the Septuagint, though produced in Egypt, is quality Greek, albeit translation Greek. See Lee's book: that is his whole argument.
3) Why assume Luke didn't speak and write in Greek? There is no good reason to deny he did.But again, I'm not being dogmatic. However, we have no Lukan Hebrew text. To posit a Hebrew Ur-text or Vorlage is highly speculative.
With regard to your India point, so research on Atticism in the first century: we have literary evidence for this phenomenon.
Your point 3 is not what I meant, but whoever wrote Luke could translate Hebrew into Greek so their is no reason to compare his quote to the LXX and the fact that it does not coincide in all words. How many different ways can a Hebrew sentence be translated into Greek. Many, just as we have into English.
Yes, a Hebrew sentence can be translated many acceptable ways into Greek. Personally, I think that Luke wrote Luke, but regardless, where is the evidence that the book was written in Hebrew first, then into Greek or where is the evidence that the Lukan Jesus spoke Hebrew, then it was translated into Greek? I've never seen any probative evidence to support these ideas: to my knowledge, there is none.
If Luke or Paul deviate from the LXX, it's not simply because the original words might have been in Hebrew. We can't read our practices back into the ancient world: for instance, we know writers/speakers often quoted scriptures from memory or paraphrased biblical texts. They did not always see the need to quote a writer verbatim like we often do today.
I never implied or said that Egypt couldn't produce good Greek; that was the farthest thing from my mind. :)
The book I referenced by Lee, see the link above, makes a compelling case for the LXX being great Greek.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2015/09/gle398009
Discusses what languages were spoken in 1st century Palestine.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/courses/735/book/jewish%20codices.html
See problems - point 3.
If you recall, Hurtado seemed to do quite a bit of work with early codices.
My point for posting that link is this, isn't the majority of 1st century evidence from "Palestine [DSS, rabbinic traditions]" demonstrate significantly more documents in Hebrew & Aramaic that Greek?
DSS does include Greek, but are these the newest documents & the Hebrew the oldest?
I enjoyed reading Hurtado's blogs on codex a year or so ago, so I purchased a copy of H Y Gamble's book on the subject. Oft quoted by Hurtado and I recommend it.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out tonight: Hurtado's Christian Artifacts work is also good.
To address your question, I think the answer will depend on which part of Palestine we're talking about, and regardless, the historical data suggest that Greek was the lingua franca of the time.
It's hard to infer much from the DSS b/c they were probably written and produced by one group of hermetic-type Jews. As for the rabbinic traditions, they're too late to tell us much about 1st century Palestine. Even the rabbinic documents that we know are post 2nd-century are still written in Hebrew rather than Greek. We also have Philo of Alexandria and Josephus as early Jews, who wrote in Greek besides the Greek papyri and the LXX.
"Philo of Alexandria, also called Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt."
Also, who was Josephus target audience?
I have heard all the speculations about the origins of the DSS including Jerusalem itself.
What about masada?
Josephus apparently was appealing to Romans, and he may have directed some of his material toward fellow Jews.
See https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021949/00001/pdf
Possibly Masada, but it seems late for many of the DSS, some of which were produced before Jesus was born. The most popular explanation (as you know) is the Essene hypothesis.
Some scrolls were discovered at Masada, but it eems that the bulk of them were not. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/archaeologists-biblical-scholars-works/ancient-scribe-links-qumran-scrolls-to-masada/
Masada as an inhabited location not as an event. My point is that the bulk of Jewish evidence is in Hebrew, not Greek.
The NT witnesses we have are all decades away from the events and the vast majority of Christians in those later decades were not Jewish.
Today we have many countries that have signs and adds on display in English but the general man on the street does not speak English in those countries. Many can read those signs and adds, but between locals they speak the native language. Not English.
Greek was the language of business just as English is today.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Masada
Note how far back it has been inhabited.
The DSS seems to indicate a community but not a place. Vermes made some good points about members of the community in Jerusalem.
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)30552-3.pdf
Taking DSS analysis to another level.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27806738?seq=1
A few quick points:
What do DSS scholars/archaeologists say about the provenance of most DSS? Do they locate them in Masada? If yes/no, then why? From what I've seen, not that many DSS finds come from Masada. At any rate, I don't think it tells us most of what we need to know about the GNT.
I understand what you're claiming about the Jewish evidence, but I feel that Greek data is being ignored and Hebrew data is being accentuated in this case.
Greek was more than the language of business in the first century: read Horrocks and A.T. Robertson. Due to Alexander the Great, Koine Greek was the Weltsprache of the time, not just a language of commerce. Hence, the LXX, Philo, Josephus, and the ancient Atticists. The Koine period was from circa 300 BCE-300 CE.
See https://www.academia.edu/12426381/Did_Jesus_Speak_Greek_The_Emerging_Evidence_of_Greek_Dominance_in_First_Century_Palestine
"Although the two are related, the question of whether or not Jesus spoke Greek is completely different from the question of whether the New Testament records his very words. Once we establish that Jesus spoke Greek, we must go on to ask the questions of whether and why that Greek is or is not identical to the Greek recorded in the NT. Gleaves seems occasionally to get sidetracked from the former in his concern for the latter."
https://williamaross.com/2016/01/29/did-jesus-speak-greek-a-review/
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2017/3/22/aramaic-tobit-at-qumran
https://brill.com/view/book/9789004285569/B9789004285569_002.xml
https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words04/structure/latin.html
This also has to be considered with the letter to the Romans & the fact that Paul was also a roman citizen.
A fundamental question is, does the NT actually quote the LXX:-
https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
https://blog.stephencook.com.au/2013/04/16/it-is-written-quotations-from-the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament-3/#:~:text=There%20isn't%20a%20single,as%20well%20as%20Hebrew%20manuscripts.
1) Why wouldn't the Greek spoken by Jesus in the NT resemble Greek we have elsewhere? In fact, it does, as evidenced by the Greek papyri and other 1st century writers. And I'm not saying that Jesus only spoke Greek: he could have been trilingual.
2) For the LXX, see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-septuagint-and-biblical-theology/
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LUmGZ0NiweAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=early+christianity+and+septuagint&ots=olAfOTC6rq&sig=LFhR6ZvyFf7FSE6pQHdKnWy9k9c#v=onepage&q=early%20christianity%20and%20septuagint&f=false
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014.08.13
3)See John Lee: https://mq.academia.edu/JohnALLee
One thing I have not claimed in this thread is that all NT quotations derive from the LXX/OG. In other places on this blog, I've contended the very opposite.
"Richard Longnecker has pointed out that in the Gospel of Matthew the evangelist’s own quotations of the Old Testament usually follow the Hebrew reading, whereas the citations by Jesus “are strongly Septuagintal”. This raises the interesting question of why Matthew would make his own translation from the Hebrew at times while using the Septuagint Greek translation when quoting the words of Jesus, especially since it is hardly likely that Jesus himself taught in Greek."
https://blog.stephencook.com.au/2013/06/12/it-is-written-quotations-from-the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament-5/
He does make an interesting point about the quotations of Jesus VS the quotations of Matthew.
Those "1st century writers", do we have 1st century witnesses of the texts? And how much do we have?
For Acts 6:1 - What is the justification for translating Ἑλληνιστῶν as a natural Jew?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208581-ancient-dna-reveals-that-jews-biblical-rivals-were-from-greece/
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/josephus/jewish-antiquities/alexander-the-great-visits-jerusalem/
Who translates Acts 6:1 as "natural Jew"? The NWT doesn't do it, nor do any of the translations on biblehub
This link might shed some light: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hellenistes
Philo and Josephus are two 1st century writers: I'm not going to say that we have the originals, but both writers do some work in the 1st century. We also have the writings of Strabo the geographer, and Epictetus the Stoic philosopher. The Loeb library contains volumes and textual information about these writers. Other uni presses have also published classical texts.
you might also benefit from this information: https://www.bl.uk/greek-manuscripts/articles/manuscripts-of-classical-greek-authors
For clarity, by natural Jew, I mean a Jew as opposed to a Gentile.
Thanks for clarifying, Duncan. If you looked at Mounce's page, you can see that he states Ἑλληνιστῶν may refer to a Jew instead of a Gentile.
See also https://www.laparola.net/greco/parola.php?p=%E1%BC%99%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%E1%BD%B5%CF%82
You'll see that Thayer, Louw-Nida, and LSJ all define the word as a Jew, who imitates Greek ways/customs. BDAG probably does the same.
I am not getting that sense from the text: https://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/6-1.htm
Brilldag pg 664 gives more than one definition - it also says "pagan, gentile" for some non NT references.
The Biblehub page says, "a Hellenist or Greek-speaking Jew" for ελληνιστων
Your original question was what the term means in Acts 6:1, and every source I've read for that passage applies the term to a Greek-speaking Jew. The big Greek lexica all apply the term in the same way for the NT references (see LSJ, Louw-Nida and Mounce).
I've seen the phenomenon more than once where NT Greek means something different from classical or patristic Greek. Here's a quote from Rogers and Rogers Exegetical Key concerning Acts 6:1:
"Hellenist. The word seems to refer to the Greek-speaking Jewish believers of the Diaspora in contrast to the Hebrew, or Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians (SF, 19-85, 219-34, 309, 329-31; Longenecker, 327-30; Barrett; LC; BC, 5:59-74; Martin Hengel, “Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die ‘Hellenisten’, die ‘Sieben’ und ‘Stephanas’ [Apg 6, 1-15; 7, 54-8, 3],” ZThK 72 [1975]: 151-206; Edvin Larsson, “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde,” NTS 33
[1987]: 205-25; Schneider, 406-16; for the composition of the Jerusalem church s. BAFCS, 4:213-36)."
Note Hurtado's remarks: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/the-hellenists-of-acts-dubious-assumptions-and-an-important-publication/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1007%26context%3Dclassicsfacpub&ved=2ahUKEwj-uZymrIntAhXbQUEAHUsLCCgQFjAQegQIFBAB&usg=AOvVaw2r77whJUzHK0q_ZhhXGoU3&cshid=1605608586420
Page 7 is of note.
I also checked BDAG. It defines hELLHNISTHS (Acts 6:1; 9:29; 11:20) as "one who uses the Greek language, Hellenist, spec. a Greek-speaking Israelite in contrast to one speaking a Semitic lang."
Many references follow. Compare the adverbial use in John 19:20.
No problem with the references to it being the Greek language, only the point of saying that it is a Greek speaking Israelite is what I am not seeing, at least in 6:1.
In the quotes above, Louw-Nida, Rogers and Rogers, BDAG and LSJ aloing with Hurtado all say the term refers to Greek-speaking Jews in Acts 6:1 and the other verses in Acts. Craig Keener (in his commentary about Acts) claims that the first time HELLHNISTHS occurs is in Acts, and he says it refers to a Greek-speaking Jew.
The verse presents a contrast to me: ἐγένετο γογγυσμὸς τῶν Ἑλληνιστῶν πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους
Besides what the influential lexica, scholars, and commentaries say, I'm not sure what I can add to change your mind :)
What we seem to have is a specialized meaning in the GNT of the word, HELLHNISTHS.
There is a contrast, but page 7 of the book I posted says that there was quite a mixed bag in Jerusalem at that time and we know that some Greeks and others had become Jewish converts. I do not think that commentaries are there to convince me of anything. Only evidence that spells out that these must be native Jews that demonstrates that the meaning of the word had changed.
I'm not denying that some Greek became Jewish converts; Hengel proves things of that nature too in his book about Judaism and Hellenism. But we also know that many Jews spoke Greek; for instance, what about the Alexandrian Jews and there is evidence that Jews in Palestine used Greek for more than just commerce.
And I'm not saying you should believe something because a commentary says it. However, the lexica make the same point plus the commentaries give evidence about the word's meaning. One extensive commentary on Acts is the one by Haenchen: he argues extensively that the word as used in Acts most probably refers to Greek-speaking Jews. Haenchen doesn't just assert, but makes a case for the word's meaning.
Additionally, if the word first appears in Acts as Keener writes, then how could its meaning have changed? Furthermore, Keener gives references from Maccabees where we find a similar usage. In light of Alexander's conquests, it is hardly surprising that Jews spoke and wrote in Greek.
Compare John 7:35; 12;20.
https://pro.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/acts-6.html
I think the translation is overstepping the bounds of the text. IMO it should just say "the Hebrew speaking " and "the Greek speaking".
To go as far as saying "Greek speaking Israelites" is beyond the scope of this text.
We have a two way street here:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsistarians
Acts 13:16,26
I disagree that they're stepping beyond bounds. It's difficult to make a final decision without considering all the available evidence.
https://youtu.be/2XQU60hF1IE?t=2437
And I still disagree with him as he is ignoring just how multicultural Jerusalem actually was. The diaspora is just one hypothesis.
https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/911129_Hellenism.html
Two other things that might advance the discussion:
https://www.fuller.edu/next-faithful-step/resources/the-hellenistic-widows/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiIXVRmFsH4
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23509246?seq=1
https://vimeo.com/334669308 might be off topic but just came across this.
Post a Comment