All occurrences are from the NET:
Genesis 21:17-But God heard the boy’s voice. The angel of God called to Hagar
from heaven and asked her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Don’t be afraid,
for God has heard the boy’s voice right where he is crying.
Genesis 22:11-But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am!” he answered.
Genesis 22:15-The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven
Judges 13:20-As the flame went up from the altar toward the sky, the angel of the Lord went up in it while Manoah and his wife watched. They fell facedown to the ground.
2 Samuel 22:11-He mounted a winged angel and flew; he glided on the wings of the wind.
1 Chronicles 21:16-David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord
standing between the earth and sky with his sword drawn and in his
hand, stretched out over Jerusalem. David and the leaders, covered with
sackcloth, threw themselves down with their faces to the ground.
Matthew 22:30-For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
See Matthew 24:36; 28:2; Mark 13:32. Compare Zechariah 14:5.
See Matthew 24:36; 28:2; Mark 13:32. Compare Zechariah 14:5.
174 comments:
Excuse my ignorance, but I thought that all Angels ARE spirit beings...
Hi Anna, please see https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000277
Note how the first paragraph speaks about spirit and human angels. The term in Hebrew and Greek simply means "messenger." A messenger may be spirit or human, depending on the context.
https://biblehub.com/text/2_samuel/22-11.htm
A winged Angel?
I would encourage you to see the note in NET. The reference is to Jehovah riding on a cherub or cherubim. Compare Ezekiel 1:1-28.
Angels have long been depicted as having wings. The key word is depicted. 😀
The Bible speaks of seraphs and cherubs having wings. See also Revelation 14:6 for the case of a flying angel.
Where in scripture is a keruvim called an "angel"?
And birds have wings but I am not going to call them angels either.
The angel in revelation is not depicted with wings.
https://www.peopleofar.com/2013/12/12/armenia-the-heir-of-urartu/relief-depicting-a-winged-god-stepping-on-a-lion-from-the-kingdom-of-urartu-armenia-hittite-civilization-2/
https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/syrian/slab-with-six-winged-goddess-tell-halaf-basalt/nomedium/asset/1218756
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/324010
They're not called angels in Scripture, but we can't rule them out as angels for that reason. I know you're familiar with the act of arguing from silence. Texts have various ways of communicating ideas and not everything is stated explicitly.
As I said, angels are "depicted" as having wings: I never said they have them per their ontology. Nor did I say the angel in Revelation had wings, but the point is that he's flying, which indicates he's not human.
Having wings is not what makes some being angelic: it's a depiction, pure and simple. Like the way God is depicted in the Bible, but that's for our benefit.
You seem to think the cherubs are not spirits, so I guess God has animals upholding his throne or he's riding on beasts? And please don't forget the fact that cherubs are "depicted" with human characteristics too. Does that mean they're part human? The Jewish and Christian tradition by and large understand the cherubim and seraphim to be angels. You could do no worse than read Wood's study that I referenced within the last two weeks. I think even Heiser got much of this issue correct.
The Angel in revelation is not only not human, it is not anything at all other than a vision.
"You seem to think the cherubs are not spirits, so I guess God has animals upholding his throne or he's riding on beasts?" - ITS A VISION. He does not sit on a throne or ride on beasts, unless he is also God of the Hindus.
Angel is a FUNCTION - a MESSENGER.
If you cant give me something from scripture then you are going beyond what is written.
Isn't Trinitarianism the act of filling gaps.
" The Jewish and Christian tradition by and large understand the cherubim and seraphim to be angels." - your point being?
Doe you know WHY the Persians have these depictions made of multiple beasts AND humans?
Please tell me Duncan
For the same reason that cultures around the world do and have imagery like this over millennia. This is part of ecology, the observance of the characteristics of those animals and the belief that those properties can be captured and used by humans.
It's no coincidence that an eagle is the bird of choice for flying in mid heaven, or the bull or the lion for the raw power.
But cattle culture has shaped the world more than any other. Its where the horn of rulership (crown) originates. The double horn of Egypt and the bull keruv at the gates of Nimrud.
It's also why rhinos are in danger as these ideas still run strong in China.
Images like those in Ezekiel were already in use long before it was written, but it wasn't really about false gods, it was about the claims of kings that these powers could be bestowed on them.
I have just looked up some videos from Woods & like most, he lays out a list of options and then picks the one he wants, like they are the only possibilities, because Jewish/Aramaic tradition says so.
I have books on Jewish traditions of the intertestamental period. They are a mishmash of reworked Hellenized folk tales and many are quite bazar.
In answer to your earlier reply, are you claiming that anything occurring in a vision has no extramental/extravisual reality? For example, God appears in some visions (Daniel 7:9-14), but that doesn't mean there is no God apart from the visions. Jesus appeared to John in a vision. He i described thus (ESV): "The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."
Okay, Jesus Christ might not look that way in reality (extramentally/extravisually), but if you're a follower of Christ, I don't think you want to say it's nothing more than a vision. Christians believe there is something to which the vision corresponds apart from the vision.
And I realize God doesn't sit on a literal throne or drive a literal chariot, but what about his figurative throne that the cherubs and seraphs uphold? You see, the throne seen in vision and that other writers speak about, exists apart from visions or human speech. However, the throne is figurative, but cherubs and seraphs can still uphold/support this figurative throne. Remember when Judean kings sat upon the throne of YHWH. That throne was not literal either but represented the authority of YHWH.
Angel is a function? Oh, so a function cried out to Abraham and talked to Hagar? Functions came to encourage Jesus and humans were made a little lower than functions? Not trying to be sarcastic but I just cannot make "angels are reducible to functions" fit with what Scripture teaches. The Bible portrays angels as beings, whether spirit or human.
As for the idea that a teaching or datum has to be explicitly stated in the Bible or else it is not biblical, that will not work. Language doesn't even work that way since certain parts of language fall under the rubric of semantics while others can be subsumed under the rubric of conversational implicature. Certain things are implied, underdetermined, and we have to make some inferences. It is problematic to insist that the Bible must explicitly teach something before we can accept it.
Finally, my point about Jews and Christians is that both of those communities brought us the Bible via God's spirit. We ignore authentic Judeo-Christian teaching/exegesis at our own peril; we cannot understand Holy Writ without the ecclesia of God.
I appreciate the info you gave about the Persians and other cultures. It's important to study the Bible and use various tools at our disposal, but I do not assign completely naturalistic meanings to the cherubim or seraphim. There is a reason that ancient Jews and Christians viewed them as spirit beings. They did not reduce them to cultural artifacts or try to "demythologize" them although I must admit that I'm not sure of your endgame here. And I believe the writer I mentioned is named "Wood" and I believe the writer is a she, not a he.
Please see https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14673326-of-wings-and-wheels
I do agree that symbols like the bull or eagle are hardly ever arbitrary.
A review of Wood's book: https://www.academia.edu/2350200/Review_of_A_Wood_Of_Wings_and_Wheels_A_Synthetic_Study_of_the_Biblical_Cherubim
I don't have an "end game". I just call it as i see it based on all the evidence collected, but not to be confused with opinion. This is why non textual data is so important. Figuring out what they meant by what they actually did. This is why Israelite studies are so difficult to asses. They really did not leave much of a mark on history. Even in Israel, trying to separate Israelite from Canaanite is a big problem and from all I have seen there is a major Hittite connection somehow.
One thing I am keenly interested in at the moment is the find of what is thought to be a temple lower on the mound in Jerusalem, that may well be the house of Melchizedek.
This is Woods - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOsol6QYdQs
His methodology is poor IMO. Apparently Jesus created Angels & Col 1:16 proves that!
It not difficult to pull his arguments apart.
https://youtu.be/X8OtivvRIRs?t=1029 - See what he has to say about Michael.
This whole line of reasoning is just messed up and I am afraid this is where systematic theology without historical and cultural context gets you.
https://youtu.be/68aGbrflhYk?t=1168 - The Micheal arguments that are just a straw man.
I don't want to debate the issue, but it's hard for me to see how anyone doesn't have an end game or a result for which they're striving. Aristotle would call it, a final cause (telos).
I've said this before but will repeat it. I'm all for using various tools to help illuminate the Bible text, whether those tools are archaeological, numismatic or epigraphic, etc.
As I think you know, JWs believe Col 1:16 shows that the angels and other things were created by God through the Son. I realize that you don't agree with that understanding of the verse and we've discussed it before, but I think there is good reason to espouse that view. The Trinity and "God the Son" stuff is another matter altogether.
And I'm not in favor of employing systematic theology without historical and cultural context. My concentration in grad school was ecclesiastical history and I've taught both Old Testament and New Testament via the historical-critical method. So while I have some issues with the HC method, I don't utterly denigrate it. No, we need to study history and culture in conjunction with the OT and NT text.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10779-michael
The video cites Jude 9; Revelation 12:7-9. Of course, he criticizes JWs for associating Jesus with Michael.
I told you before, but I dont know why you do not believe what I said.
If I find something that is wrong or does not work I point it out. I was trained as a quality manager and I apply that process. Recognizing that we do not have an answer does not produce another answer. It only tells us that we need to keep looking for it.
The telos will emerge over time. But if you Press the point that you have "the truth", you stop looking.
Duncan, I still think it's wrong to stick to the letter of the Bible without taking other factors into consideration. You just cannot always do that and language itself doesn't even work that way. Study the difference between semantics and pragmatics.
Furthermore, the Bible cannot be understood without the ecclesia of God. Bible reading alone in isolation won't cut it, and reading without the spirit's guidance won't cut it.
Sorry Edgar but you just saying this - "Duncan, I still think it's wrong to stick to the letter of the Bible without taking other factors into consideration." flies in the face of what I have been saying for a long time, Non textual evidence, Cultural evidence. You are misrepresenting me.
If you are capturing data - how exactly are you doing it alone?
Is it for you to say how spirit guidance works?
As I said, Duncan, I didn't want to debate the issue, but was giving my opinion. You're free to disagree but that is what I think.
I'm not saying that you can't "point out something wrong" if you think it's wrong--you could be mistaken and so could I. But if you feel something is wrong, nothing sinful about asking questions or pointing something out. Now that might not produce an answer, as you stated, but does that mean there is not a desired result from you/I pointing something out?
Why I also made the statement about end results is that at the end of the day, you seem to be highly skeptical about the existence of spirit beings or OT references (and possibly NT references) to "angels." Sorry if I'm skeptical: I was taught to believe in teloi and unconscious processes. I'm even suspicious about my motives for things. Nothing personal.
It might not surprise you that I disagree with your comment about the truth. One can have/claim to have the truth and keep looking. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Did the early Christians believe they had "the truth"?
You hang much on 1 Corinthians 2:14 - Is a tool that can be seriously misused.
Duncan, I realize you appeal to cultural and historical evidence and I commended you for it. So I'm not claiming that you don't do those things. However, you said, "take the Bible at its word." And you appeared to suggest that unless the Bible says XYZ, then one cannot hold that it does teach a certain doctrine. That is what I'm talking about now. For example, if an account says "men" appeared to Abe, you think one cannot believe they were spirit beings. That somehow goes beyond the text in your estimation. Am I wrong?
I'm not sure what you mean about me capturing data? My approach to understanding texts is multi-pronged. I don't believe it's good enough to say, "The Lord showed me XYZ last night."
All I can tell you is what I read in the Bible about the spirit's guidance and how it seems to have worked in my life. I'm not making general rules about the spirit's guidance or trying to dictate how the spirit works in your life or anybody else's life.
Btw, I am not saying that one can rely on subjective leanings of the spirit to the neglect of other things. Sorry if you got that impression.
According to your claims in the past about truth being revealed over time, doesn't that demonstrate the error? For me these ancients had far more capability. I have seen many lines of archaeological evidence the are dismissed today because people say, they could not have known that then, they could not have done that then, you are interpreting incorrectly. But in other cases we attribute knowledge to them that there is no evidence for.
I know that we all have confirmation bias & modern internet media relies on the phenomenon. It keeps people hooked. Having our ears tickled can be nice.
When it comes to the apocrypha I can understand why some want to dismiss it as something misleading. Its as old and is still with us & it does describe the way much of the language is used. Who has the right to eliminate it?
You KNOW you have the truth but keep looking? I hope that is true.
Contrast "men" with "someone LIKE a son of Man".
The language does know how to state the difference.
When you find imagery of 6 winged beings local to the bible geographically that are hundreds of years earlier and then just brush it aside as a coincidence and say "there is no evidence of a direct connection". You may be correct but who is the onus on the one seeing a connection or the one who claims no connection? The evidence is in there hands.
The NT may expand and describe the OT to develop doctrine. But I don't think I was asking a ridiculous question about the endorsement of the Angel interpretation of Gen 18 - https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Luke+10%3A12
Duncan, there are some things the ancients just could not have known. They didn't have the tools to know about DNA or the molecular composition of water plus we know from what they wrote that some things were unknown.
Who wants to eliminate the apocrypha? I don't accept those writings as part of the Bible canon, but that doesn't mean they have no value. The pseudepigrapha has value too although those writings are not inspired either.
I assess evidence like the 6 winged beings you mention but I've seen too many instances where people try to connect things that don't go together or they attempt to water down the Bible on the basis of dodgy connections. So I'm not rejecting these things out of hand but I'm extremely skeptical about them.
Did I call your questions ridiculous? If I did, I offer apologies but I don't remember saying that.
https://www.smith.edu/hsc/museum/ancient_inventions/battery2.html
Contrast "men" with "someone LIKE a son of Man". - Duncan
In some contexts these actually mean the same thing, it seems to be stylistic choice. I don't think it really matters which they use in this case..
a son of man = man
its a Hebrew idiom, the person(s) being addressed are part of the class of the modifying noun, hence the interpretation of angels being called "gods" which I would be inclined to agree with as even Human judges are called "gods" (So is Moses & (who is thought to be)Solomon)
sidenote: that clause is a funny one, as I have stated before Genitives are normally understood as definite, however here we have an example of a genitive that is not inverted but also indefinite - there is no basis for regarding this as definite or qualitative
https://youtu.be/gSmGp7_2VIY?t=2041
Anonymous,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X7800100103?journalCode=jnta
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/exit-the-apocalyptic-son-of-man/
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/kevar_1247.htm
This one is a Tribute to Michael Heiser who has died recently - https://youtu.be/7Q_Svmo9rh0?t=465
your point?
none of that actually disproves what I said - The bible itself proves the opposite when it uses the "son of" idiom to denote a category and is directed at humans without the article.
THE son of man is only ever applied to Jesus (I think the reference in the OT is even meant for him by memory) which in my mind points t something unique about Jesus... him being the Messiah. However like the word Firstborn - it would make sense to understand both meanings.
I do not know Hebrew well enough to know why its translated differently on Bible hub.. however another good place to look would be the Septuagint.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/was-the-baghdad-battery-really-a-battery/
Thanks for posting and messaging me about Heiser. I really do appreciate the news and video, but I have not yet been able to confirm his death. It does sound like he's close to death though. Have you found an obit for Heiser?
Anonymous, I was referring to Daniel 7:13 - someone like a son of man. This is in vision.
For "son of man" see https://core.ac.uk/download/83960135.pdf
Edgar,
I know he went home being stage 4 pancreatic cancer. But, perhaps I have jumped the gun. Some on social media gave the impression that he had.
Since there's a little back and forth here about theological method I would like to throw in my two cents (and mention something about angels).
I agree that one cannot ignore historical reconstruction and exegesis with dealing with revealed theology, since revelation (taken as scripture for my purposes, but one can also be Barthian and say Christ) was given to a culturally and historically bounded people through culturally and historically bounded mediators.
So whatever a text's theological significance that must include its significance for the human author and the original audience.
However, because the context for God is not historically and culturally bounded a theological reading can include the whole of scripture and the whole of reality. This is why it is legitimate to read, for example, Daniel in light of Revelation, theologically speaking (obviously not exegetically), as well as bring in philosophical reasoning.
When it comes to angels, the phenomena of the visions may have been interpreted by the original audience given their limited contexts in certain ways, and perhaps we can reconstruct those interpretations, but we are not bound by them unless they are actually part of the revelation of scripture explicitly.
So as to the metaphysics of spiritual beings, one is not bound to the resources of the ancient world. One is bound (theologically) to the revelation of those beings and the message recorded in the bible. Historically one can reconstruct how ancients thought of the spiritual world, but if that is not the message of scripture then theologically one is not bound by that reconstruction.
In this sense Allegorical interpretation is valid, Origen gets a lot of flack for allegorical interpretation, if you read him closely you see that he was not ignoring historical readings, Origen DID historical readings and DID straight exegesis, as best he could, but he also read scripture AS scripture, not just as any other historical document. I don't agree with his allegorical method specifically, but in principle I don't oppose theological hermeneutics.
I mean I can't see how one can make sense of basically any messianic prophesy without understanding the distinction.
As far as angels, I would say they are embodied in the sense that they are bounded (in my view only God is infinite, necessarily), but not physical in the sense that we understand physical, i.e. that which is describable by natural science, mathematical models, mechanism, and so on, and they are agents: they have purposes which are irreducibly determined by the agent himself and their will (which is itself determined by the agent himself, overtime, i.e. one can form habits of will, kind of like Augustine's model). Perhaps the ancients has a different view of the physical world (they did, there was not a sharp distinction, it was much more a hierarchical gradient), but if we are going to do metaphysics today, and include angelic beings, we have to work with how concepts are used today.
See - A syntactic Aramaism in the Septuagint: ἰδού in temporal expressions.
Then compare NT usage.
Roman, I agree with your observations on method. I believe that we need more than one way of reading Scripture in order to do the Bible justice, but what you say reminds me of the work written by Henri de Lubac (a three-volume work). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Exegesis
I think you're on target respecting Origen; he did not merely read/interpret the Bible allegorically but appealed to the other senses of Scripture too. Lubac thoroughly covers the history of this approach, and the four senses are the allegorical, typological, tropological, and anagogical senses. However, I would submit that one must be careful when reading the Bible allegorically.
You make some interesting comments about angels. It's often fascinated me how Aquinas discussed angels and Pseudo-Dyonisius, but contemporary theologians seems to have been "stumbled" by angels. I.e., read Wolfhart Pannenberg's explanation of angels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_senses_of_Scripture
Does not work.
I'm not sure what doesn't work Duncan. The four senses or something else.
"but we are not bound by them unless they are actually part of the revelation of scripture explicitly." - so what are we bound by? If someone pieces together quotes from disparate passages of OT in the NT does that mean that it defines or even redefines the OT passages? They may have done that to make a point, but it was not precise and educated, however, it did the job for the circumstance.
But we have access to far more raw data. When the NT mentions Megiddo, did they know the history of the mount in the the same way as excavation has revealed?
We know more about history than the people who lived it?
Duncan, for the most part, I will let others address the points you raised. Nevertheless, I'm sure you know that writers of the Bible like Paul did link scriptural passages together and he did it under inspiration of the holy spirit. See an example of scriptural catena in Romans 3. Not only did Paul enage in this practice but so did the Qumran sectaries. G.K. Beale also has shown thoroughly how extensively Revelation uses Daniel and I would add, Ezekiel. One point I extract from what we witness in these texts is that not only is it possible to understand a text within its original setting but later readers/writers sometimes reappropriate texts and texts can be read for their moral value, future applications, etc. Yet such reading of the OT texts does not eviscerate or negate their original application and meaning.
Come on now servant, how did you misunderstand something that simple. These people did not live in those histories and they also were not archeologists.
So Paul used this method "under the inspiration of holy spirit", but the Qumran sect did not, but did it first?
Duncan, one does not have to be inspired to use a method. According to Paul's own words, God committed his sacred oracles to the Jews, Romans 3:2.
That might include the Qumran community, but since their writings in toto did not become part of the canon, I cannot say. Paul's case is different.
Jehovah certainly could have used the Dead Sea community
1 Peter 4:11
Servant,
The earliest settlements may date as far back as 7000 BCE, but archaeologists have unearthed remains of more than two dozen civilisations between 4000 BCE and 400 BCE, when Megiddo was suddenly abandoned.
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/awaiting-the-apocalypse-in-megiddo-israel
"so what are we bound by? If someone pieces together quotes from disparate passages of OT in the NT does that mean that it defines or even redefines the OT passages? They may have done that to make a point, but it was not precise and educated, however, it did the job for the circumstance.
But we have access to far more raw data. When the NT mentions Megiddo, did they know the history of the mount in the the same way as excavation has revealed?"
Of course, Paul does this all the time, as does Jesus, I mean if you take some of Jesus's arguments from scripture as recorded in the gospels, they clearly do not work exegetically.
But when we are reading the bible as scripture one is reading the bible as though the author is God and the context is itself.
Someone can string together scriptures, but then they would have to argue for why they go together, and by what theological hermeneutical principle.
When we're talking about the actual biblical authors, if one believes they are inspired one takes them as such, i.e. whatever they intended in their writing, whatever they wrote also functions as inspiried scripture.
Of course if you don't take the bible as inspired scripture all of this is irrelevant.
So as to your Megiddo question, I don't know how much they did or did not know, and that's important for historical exegesis. It's importance is relativized when we are talking about theological exegesis, in which the authors intent is not necessarily the last word.
I haven't given a full theological hermeneutic here, just pointing out some differences between doing history and doing theology.
Duncan,
Romans 3:1-2 reads (NIV): What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
That is what I mean by "sacred oracles" or writings. But does 1 Peter 4:11 contravene or contradict Romans 3:1-2? I don't think so. When Peter wrote those words, whom was he addressing? Furthermore, the first-century Christian ecclesia was chiefly comprised of whom, ethnically speaking?
I was thinking last night about the Bible and its relevance for us today. If we're only going to study the Bible historically and philologically, what place will there be for application and relevance to our current lives? If the Bible is God's Word to humankind, while the historical/philological method is important, that can't be all there is to it.
I'm reminded that one of the most thorough and exacting works on the Bible was written by Isaac Asimov, a man who was agnostic. Reading the Bible as an artifact is not enough.
Luke CH.10:21NIV"At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."
I completely agree ... and I think that one can say that the original author (Jehovah) intended it to apply for all Christians even if that intention, or the intentions were not at all the idea of the human author/original audience.
But again, this cannot be argued without certain theological priors, if one first believes the bible is scripture then we can have a theological hermeneutic, this implies that God exists, and revealed himself in history, etc etc.
I wouldn't argue with a secular historical for my theological readings because he wouldn't ... and in his role as a secular historian SHOULDN'T, accept those readings. If he wants to step out of his role as a secular historian and treat the bible as scripture, then we can talk about the theological readings.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0008429812441339
"this implies that God exists, and revealed himself in history" - have not argued against these assumptions. Just ponder what you said - "revealed himself in history".
There is a divide between secular history & theological readings, however, theological readings and claims of prophecy need to be backed up quite solidly.
I used Megiddo as a worthy test piece - Revelation 16:16.
Points to take into account -
1) Har Megiddo (Tel Megiddo) is not defined by modern notions of the height of a hill that qualifies it as a mountain. So Har Megiddo is a real place in the same way that Har Zion is a real place.
2) Har Megiddo had ceased to function several hundred years before the Revelation was written.
3) Har Megiddo was not a single settlement but could be several cities, one built of another. The oldest among the oldest discovered.
So, taking these points into account how should Revelation be interpreted?
Coming back to Angels, the secular historian would claim that there is no evidence for Angels. That is not my claim.
However hierarchies of Angels is what I disagree with, I also do not agree that Seraphim and/or Cherubim are angels. There is evidence of both concepts and imagery prior to the biblical text where they are used.
Yehovah in the ancient concepts, he is "higher" that the gods and guards of the Hittite, Persian & Egyptian systems. Is this why Ezekiel's visions have Yehovahs throne above these images. Those that Guard the opponents. This is highly political language.
As I have already said, the NT does not make the claims of modern theology even though it does include angels. I find it interesting that the NT claims that the Sadducee did not believe in resurrection and Angels. One belief is rebutted but the other is not.
So the issue is the tradition of theology VS biblical theology.
Servant - 1 Corinthians 3:1
Duncan,
You make a number of claims I'd like to address but I have limited time and energy now. But for starters:
Its hard to believe that John is talking about a literal/physical locus in Revelation 16:14-16. The book is filled with signs, its tone is apocalyptic, the kings of the earth gather to the place, which seems to be physically impossible. Treating harmageddon as a real place within the context of Revelation is anachronistic and does not account for the metaphors used in Revelation.
The so-called evidence for cherubim and seraphim not being spirit beings can be challenged. And I'm not that concerned about hierarchies
Duncan :1Corinthians ch.3:18 NIV"Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. "
Matthew ch.4;11 KJV"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him."
So this Devil and these angels are they Men as well?
Or an allegory perhaps?
So all spirit beings are angels? Functionally that makes no sense.
We have two categories here, not one.
Duncan, there is more than one definition of "angel." That is why I said the cherubim and seraphim are "spirit beings," but I could have said "angels" and made the same point. However, I did not want to imply that the cherubim or seraphim are "messengers."
How the word "angel" changed in meaning over time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/word-history-of-angel
I know how the meaning changed but it does not make it right or correct. This has always been my point about men, stars and gods. They all become obscured under this blanket term. All the different ways and means that men think yehovah intervenes.
Acts 12:15 is a loaded verse. She knows nothing of what has happened, so of all things, why make that assumption? The culture must have been full of it. She is not saying an angel must of helped him is she?
Servant,
https://biblehub.com/greek/angelon_32.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/1-2.htm
So are you saying that John the dipper CANNOT be one of those who attended Jesus in the wilderness?
Denotation is largely about how people use words to reference things (concepts or signified things): words tend to change meaning diachronically, but is this wrong?
From what you say above, you must be talking about the term "hosts" because I normally distinguish a god from an angel, at least, conceptually. While angels (spirit beings) are identified with the Hebrew elohim at times, not all elohim are angels. While angels and stars are sometimes conflated or angels have astral language applied to them, some distinction between the two still remains. In any event, this is why context is so important to help us sort out how a given writer is using the term "angel."
In Acts 12:15, the servant girl states that Peter is at the door. So what assumption did she make? Other people said it was Peter's angel, not the servant girl. Did they simply mean that a human messenger had assisted Peter? In the context of the verse, why assume it was a human who helped to free Peter?
Yes its wrong, and that why we have misunderstandings about many thing in English over time. The KJV has Unicorn (Rhino) which at the time meant a single horned animal not a mystical pony.
Rose the servant girl stated that "she recognized Peter’s voice". Cf - John 12:2.
Yes Duncan that is exactly what I am saying and given the context the burden of proof for this particularly farfetched( even for you) excuse for a rebuttal lies with you.
What about the devil Duncan, is he a man also?
Matthew ch.26:53 NIV"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"
So these twelve legions of human messengers(no doubt) that JEHOVAH entrusted with the security of his Son do you have anything more than your usual guessing games re: their identity?
Angel, no matter how it's used, has a pretty limited referential or semantic domain. It's pretty clear what it means biblically.
What are we supposed to discern from her recognizing Peter's voice? What's the connection between that and the others saying it's Peter's angel?
Speaking of angels, see Luke 1:19-20.
Servant, you quote these verses but do you really think about the implications of them?
Matthew ch.26:53 NIV"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"
Why does a Hebrew use the term legion?
How many spirit angels did it take to kill 185000 men?
Yes and in the same chapter we have reference to Abraham, alluding to another miraculous birth.
https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Luke+1%3A19
Gabriel - the man in Vision.
Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness - which spirit?
Jesus was led by satan - but did satan have a form? He did speak.
Gabriel in Luke is clearly a spirit creature, not a human. 1:19 makes that clear. Plus, ancient Judaism and Christianity help in this regard.
After watching and investigating that video regarding ancient Christianities and Judaisms, I am not sure we can use much from Judaism as evidences of prior beliefs. They do appear to be sister religions, not mother and daughter.
Does Luke anywhere call Gabriel a man?
I don't think Luke 2 says much if anything about the appearance of the angels either, but it does say "Greatness and honor to our God in the >>highest<< heaven".
Duncan, the founder of Christianity was a Jew and the earliest followers of Christ were Jewish. The two religions, at the outset, had a lot in common. One video does not shape my views of these matters.
To my knowledge, Luke never calls Gabriel a man, but does call him an angel, even angel of the Lord.
Any descriptions of angels would only be phenomenal anyway.
So who are these men Duncan?
The Hebrew in question was born a subject of the then Roman empire Duncan that's why. Why is a person of West African descent conversing with you in the queen's English and not Yoruba Duncan. Twelve legions of men would pose no threat to the Roman empire they would mock such a suggestion. Our lord employed the hyperbole of such a superabundance of heavenly might to make a point,a point that would be lost if he was merely speaking of such a paltry number of flesh and blood humans.
English is the most widely spoken second language on the planet because from of old conquered people had to learn the language of their conquerors.
Servant, your reasoning is weak. Was Jesus speaking Latin?
Jesus was born under the Persian empire. Jerusalem did not become a Roman province until 6 CE.
Do you honestly think that Persian culture was replaced by roman in couple of decades?
Again you mis the point 12 legions does not have to pose a threat, it is what 12 signifies that matters & that is never spirit beings now is it? Try the 12 tribes.
"During the period of peace, called by the Romans Pax Romana, a better legion ranged from 8,000 to 12,000 soldiers and was usually stationed at the border or in inflamed areas."
https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-army/units-of-roman-army/roman-legion/
Does the number total start to look familiar?
So the Maccabean revolt was against the Persians was it?do you have a source to back up any of this?
Here is world history encyclopedia's take on the matter:Rome involved itself in the region's affairs in 63 BCE and, after Augustus became emperor, Palestine became a province known as Roman Judea in c. 31 BCE.:
But what do they know?
As to what language Jesus was speaking at the time I don't know and neither do you.
But Jesus and his companions would certainly have functional understanding of Latin and it would be no surprise if Roman idioms or transliterations made it into the koine Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic they spoke otherwise. Yes the the angels in question had to absolutely guarantee that the might of the Roman state was not going to be employed in anyway that did not harmonise with our Lord's will so we are talking about superhuman soldiers here.
Here is encyclopedia Britannica on the composition of a Roman legion: A legion was nominally composed of 6,000 soldiers, and each legion was divided up into 10 cohorts, with each cohort containing 6 centuria.:
Duncan, I scratched my head about that point too. Jesus was born under the Persian empire?
You also said that 12 never signifies spirit beings? Revelatioin 21:12 and the 144,000 are composed of 12 tribes. They stand on the heavenly Mount Zion, but I won't push that issue.
Here's another point, Duncan. Look at how many times Jesus speaks about spirit beings in the Gospel of Matthew of how often Matthew writes about them.
There are Latinisms in the NT: Jesus and his twelve compatriots were immersed in the Roman world and its culture/language. John Meier suggested that Jesus was trilingual.
Note when the Persian period ended: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0194.xml
Iudaea
In 6 AD Judea became part of a larger Roman province, called Iudaea, which was formed by combining Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. It did not include Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), nor Peraea or the Decapolis. The capital was at Caesarea. Quirinius became Legate (Governor) of Syria and conducted the first Roman tax census of Iudaea, which was opposed by the Zealots.[3] This province was one of the few [[List of Kings of Judea#Roman Prefects and Procurators of Iudaea Province.2C 6-132 AD|governed]] by a knight of the equestrian order, not a former consul or praetor of senatorial rank; even though its revenue was of little importance to the Roman treasury, it controlled the land routes to the bread basket Egypt and was a border province against Parthia. Pontius Pilate was one of these prefects, from 26 to 36 AD. Caiaphas was one of the appointed High Priests of Herod's Temple, being appointed by the Prefect Valerius Gratus in 18. Both were deposed by the Syrian Legate Lucius Vitellius in 36 AD.
Between 41 and 44 AD, Iudaea regained its nominal autonomy, when Herod Agrippa was made King of the Jews by the emperor Claudius. Following Agrippa's death, the province returned to direct Roman control for a short period. Iudaea was returned to Agrippa's son Marcus Julius Agrippa in 48.
"The term "Pax Romana," which literally means "Roman peace," refers to the time period from 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E. in the Roman Empire. This 200-year period saw unprecedented peace and economic prosperity throughout the Empire, which spanned from England in the north to Morocco in the south and Iraq in the east."
"During the period of peace, called by the Romans Pax Romana, a better legion ranged from 8,000 to 12,000 soldiers and was usually stationed at the border or in inflamed areas. It happened that some legions reached up to 15,000, 16,000 soldiers."
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2023/02/archaeologists-uncover-roman-soldiers-paycheck-at-masada/146215#:~:text=In%20AD%2072%2C%20the%20legion,Jewish%20historian%2C%20Flavius%20Josephus).
In AD 72, the legion X Fretensis, commanded by Lucius Flavius Silva, marched on Masada to break the Sicarii resistance. The >>legion<< was supported by several auxiliary units and Jewish prisoners of war (totalling some 15,000 men and women according to accounts by the Romano-Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus).
I don't think the legion section was only 6000, do you?
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004304796/B9789004304796_003.xml
http://oro.open.ac.uk/57438/
http://oro.open.ac.uk/57438/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436338
Who is talking about "the Persian period"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_Kingdom_of_Judea
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/rv042v39r
It took along time for Rome to get full control of the region.
Why did I mention the Persian period? Because you stated that Jesus was born/lived under the "Persian empire." However, there is one problem: the Persian empire did not exist when Jesus was born. It ended, guess when? At the end of the Persian period. That is why I brought the Persian period into the discussion.
Alexander did not end the Persian empire, he took it over at Babylon.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18803290.amp
https://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_death_alexander_resistance_hellenism.php
Duncan why would the legion section not be limited to 6000 as the encyclopedia Britannica and pretty much every other reference I been able to put my hands on state. But this all a distraction I want some names of these human legionnaires who could overwhelm the mightiest warmachine in antiquity.
What does this have to do with your claim that Jesus was born under Persian rule? As you know Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of an imperial decree that demanded that his parents journey there for purposes of an official census. The Persian empire ended Centuries earlier.
Being a subject of Caesar he would be mandated to learn Caesars tongue.
I won't belabor the point and will check your links, but my understanding is that Alexander brought the empire to an end. In fact, that is what I got from Oxford bibliographies.
Persian empire ended in 4th century bce, https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/persian-empire/#:~:text=The%20Persian%20Empire%2C%20also%20known,559%20B.C.E.%20to%20331%20B.C.E.
Every source I check says that.
From the abstract:
Even for the Principate unit sizes are not easy to establish, although it seems likely that legions contained about 5,000 men each, and auxiliary units approximately their nominal quingenary or milliary strengths. Documentary evidence is limited but does tend to confirm the statements of ancient writers - about quingenary equitate cohorts, for example. :
Duncan, I will cite one more source: Olmstead writes that Alexander "destroyed" the Persian empire.
May I also raise the point that the LXX axtaully clears alot of this up..
Anonymous, could you please expand? Thanks.
Roman empire ruled Jewish Palestine in Jesus' day: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/Jewish-Palestine-at-the-time-of-Jesus
"was ruled by Rome’s able “friend and ally” Herod the Great." - right at the start. But these general encyclopedia descriptions are not that accurate and are terrible for generalizing.
People tend to slate wikipedia but they are all on Par.
Edgar, what I mean in places in the lXX the translators made it abundantly clear if it was an angel or a man... even if the original Hebrew said "man" they "corrected" it for understanding purposes
I dont have citations on hand atm
And Herod was Persian?
The satrapal administration was retained by Alexander III the Great and his successors. The title of satrap was also used to designate certain Śaka chiefs who ruled over parts of northern and western India during the first half of the 1st millennium bc.
Things did not change much and Alexander's seat of power was Babylon, he could not have done it any other way.
The LXX has much Persian influence, call it Hellenistic if you like but it means basically the same thing.
Herod was born in southern Palestine. His father, Antipater, was an Edomite (a Semitic people, identified by some scholars as Arab, who converted to Judaism in the 2nd century BCE). Antipater was a man of great influence and wealth who increased both by marrying the daughter of a noble from Petra (in southwestern Jordan), at that time the capital of the rising Arab Nabataean kingdom. Thus, Herod was of Arab origin, although he was a practicing Jew.
So how exactly does this promote the use of LATIN by the general populace ?
Herod was a puppet of Caesar as ruler and thus would have to be knowledgeable of the language of the one pulling his strings that's how colonialism works Duncan. And the real question is how does this prove that Jesus was born under the Persian empire?
Any vassal of the colonial Government would be required to be proficient in the language of the colonial state. That is how colonialism always works Duncan.
For example: Daniel Ch.1:4 NIV"youths in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king's palace; and that he should TEACH them the learning and the TONGUE of the Chaldeans. "
It wasn't Roman in any significant sense other than paying tribute and Aramaic was still lingua franca in this region. By the time of Pilate there is evidence of some Latin inscriptions but trilingualism was much more probably Hebrew (mishnaic), Aramaic and Greek.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/sil358017
https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_01-Buth-Intro.pdf
Edgar has already seen this and I am still in agreement with most points made by Buth.
Paying tribute is plenty. Roman tribute would also include providing auxiliaries to fight in Rome's wars so yes definitely a working knowledge of Latin would be necessary.
Regardless of what language would have been spoken in day to day life.
Aramaic,Hebrew,Greek what no Persian?
I think you need to brush up in your history. Aramaic became the official language of the Achaemenian Persian dynasty (559–330 bce), though after the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek displaced it as the official language throughout the former Persian empire. Aramaic dialects survived into Roman times, however, particularly in Palestine and Syria.
Farsi is a relatively recent language.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1476993X18791425
"I think you need to brush up on your history" said the man who claims that the Persian empire was still a thing in the first century c.e
Here's the encyclopedia Britannica's take on the issue
"Old Persian was the administrative language of the early Achaemenian dynasty, dating from the 6th century BCE,"
The the Persian empire fell in the fourth century BCE Duncan there was no Persian empire when Jesus was born the widespread use of Aramaic as a second or third language in the region is actually a throwback to the days of the Babylonian empire the city remained a cultural powerhouse even after its conquest. Making my point about the influence of empires on language and culture.
None of those previous empires achieved the status of Rome in terms of wealth and military might. In the ancient world a city was considered unusually great with a population of a hundred thousand or so Rome's population in the first century was approx a million strong the visitor to first century Rome would have seen public works on a scale almost inconceivable to a first century mind in fact the record for the largest stadium ever built (the circus maximus) is still held by ancient Rome,it was the America of its time and place it is utterly inconceivable that it had no effect on the language and culture of its subjects and beyond. Certainly the Roman legions whose military prowess made much of this possible would have been well known even by people who spoke very little latin.
Babylon was not conquered, it just adopted a new ruler. All the mechanisms of rulership were Babylonian, thats why the language remained and the point of administrative languages was they were not meant to be read by the general populace. That's why Egypt had more than one written language.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23269873
Rome, well what about Angkor Wat? And why had no one in the west heard of it until recently?
Comparing any other language to English is not a good move. What other language has over a million unique terms? And you know that English came from England, right? Middle English, London English, Oxford English.
It does not rely on other languages because it has technical subsets. That why you hear many English terms used in languages world wide, because they have only become necessary in the last 200 years, and have only been in the English dictionary for a similar amount of time.
www.history.com/.amp/news/eight-surprising-facts-about-alexander-the-great
See point 6
Duncan, I'm letting you and servant have all of the fun because I just don't have time for a full-fledged discussion now, and I'm working on a piece for the blog. However, Babylon qua empire was most certainly conquered. There is little question about it:
Google the fall of Babylon.
"This event saw the conquest of Babylon by the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great and marked the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire."
See also https://www.livescience.com/ancient-babylon-mesopotamia-civilization
Sorry Duncan ,but the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus(khoresh) the great in 539 BCE is a well established historical(both biblical and secular) fact. Google it. If you wanted a career in the public service (one of the few avenues for upward mobility in the ancient world) you had to be conversant in the official language even ordinary people would have to have some working knowledge of the language of their conquerors as there were bound to be interactions with mid level state representatives from outside their country. It is difficult to understand your argument re: English ,one would think that the simpler a language was the more readily it would be adopted, interestingly many of those technical terms you mentioned are derived from Latin,further evidence of the famed city's cultural impact
Neither archaeological nor textual evidence indicates that Babylonian temples
were particularly neglected by Persian rulers - rather where sources are available
they point to continuity and developments in cult-practices and the presence of
the regular temple-staff. Xerxes' destruction of Babylonian temples is a chimaera
without substance. It should no longer be used to credit Xerxes automatically
with other supposed Persian desecrations or a deliberate reversal of a presumed
policy of religious tolerance: rather one should remember that the occasional
destruction of a shrine by imperial rulers was an extreme punishment intended to
deal effectively with persistently rebellious groups. Whether one is discussing Sennacherib's destruction of Babylon's Marduk temple in 689, Nebuchadnezzar II's
of the Yahweh sanctuary in Jerusalem (587), Darius I's of Branchidae after
the Ionian revolt, Xerxes' of the temple of Athena Polias or that of Titus of the
Jerusalem temple - in each instance the destruction of a sanctuary reflects a
calculated political measure to deal with a political problem, not the religious
proclivities of a particular regime or ruler.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-classical-journal/article/abs/achaemenid-empire-a-babylonian-perspective/F7F04CE323B994B1F79A0AC7F4858AC4
The fact that Xerxes did not destroy Babylonian temples raises problems in
understanding Alexander's conquest of Babylon and the apparent readiness with
which he was welcomed there after Gaugamela, so graphically described by
Arrian in the Anabasis and by Quintus Curtius. The explanation for this in the
past has been straightforward: Xerxes had alienated his Babylonian subjects by
blotting out major aspects of their religious practices; in this he was followed by
his successors so that at Alexander's approach the disaffected priests and people
forced the Persian satrap, who was isolated as a result of Darius Ill's flight to
Media after Alexander's victory in 331, to surrender the city because they hoped
the new king would reverse the hated Achaemenid policy by restoring their
temples. In this they were not disappointed: as soon as Alexander had entered the
city he ordered the restoration of the ruined temples to begin.50
My parents generation lived under British colonial rule,thus I can relay a first-hand account of the experience of living under colonial rule. Interestingly they mention being required to learn Latin in school in order to get a handle on some of those technical terms you mentioned. Rome lives on.
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1439397/FULLTEXT02.pdf
That history.com link doesn't exactly state that the Persian empire continued to exist after Alexander conquered, bu my prior comments pertained to the Babylonians anyway. That empire was conquered in 539 BCE.
See https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babylonia-i
Please read the abstract here, Duncan: https://academic.oup.com/book/28459/chapter-abstract/229050651?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Don't know how much clearer it could be :-)
A couple of quotes:
"The Neo-Babylonian kingdom was short-lived, lasting just seventy-five years."
"The Persian conquest ended this empire. Evidence for the ancient Near East gradually eroded away, only to be re-discovered much later."
Many of the Latin and French terms used in English came in relatively recently and it was a way of keeping knowledge restricted. If England was so conversant with Latin then what was all the fuss about having an English translation of the Bible that could be read by the pesants?
Latin taught in some "better" schools was supposed to make it easier for then learn many of the European languages.
I know how schools work in the UK. Eaton college, Stowe school, Rugby School, Lawrence sheriff school etc., The routes into Oxford and Cambridge.
What is an empire?
Just to review, the term empire refers to a central state that exercises political control over a large amount of territory containing many diverse groups. Often, this centralized power rules from one or several capital cities. We usually refer to an empire as if it were a single unit. But, because empires are so large, they are often divided into smaller, more manageable political units, usually called provinces.
From dictionary.com
"English is a Germanic language, related to German, Dutch, Yiddish, and the like. They share some core structures, vocabulary, and sounds. Many of the most frequently used words in English are Germanic (not German) in origin, but over half its vocabulary is derived from LATIN"
# Rome lives.
Getting back on track - https://www.academia.edu/43945171/The_Jews_and_the_Latin_Language_in_the_Roman_Empire
There is a difference between using some anglicised or Hellenised Latin words in day to day banter and being fluent in Latin Duncan. Do try to have a sense of nuance.
And my folks went to public school so I'm not sure how elite we should consider that, of course there has been a decline in education standards here as in many other parts of the world.
Not sure how any of this helps your argument but OK.
Duncan, thanks for the academic link. All I'm going to say about the empire issue is that yeah, an empire can be structured as you mention. However, once it's conquered and comes to an end, it ceases to exist as such. It's no longer an empire like Rome is a thing of the past and so is Egypt qua empire.
I quote" Palestinian rabbis were likely unfamiliar with Latin except for MILITARY and judicial terms and names of objects imported from Latin speaking countries.
There is also an admission that the Greek spoken by Jews in the eastern part of the empire contained Latinism's so certainly they would have been familiar with terms like legion and centurion.
As I said before, English has more than a million terms, how many are in everyday usage and how many of that million are technical terms. Oxford English dictionary will tell you.
So was Jesus a Rabbi? I know his disciples called him Rabbi, but is that what this paper meant? Were his disciples Rabonim?
Context is important here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Latin#:~:text=British%20Latin%20or%20British%20Vulgar,and%20east%20of%20the%20island.
Your analogy of public school education in the UK does not work.
https://sites.udel.edu/britlitwiki/education-literacy-and-publishing-in-victorian-england/
These schools I mentioned, for example Rugby, a more recent one in my list was founded in 1567. Also this is why I mentioned the different forms of English over time.
https://www.bl.uk/medieval-literature/articles/middle-english
David Crystal explains how Middle English developed from Old English, changing its grammar, pronunciation and spelling and borrowing words from French and Latin.
So it has taken the better part of 2000 years for Latin to get a hold on English in a general sense and it is mainly used for technical terms, I don't think any of this is desputed.
The Palestinian Rabbi quote regarding military terms gives no dates or time frame as for your point regarding the same terms in Greek.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23507693
There are books such as this that if you are not careful might think is supports your argument until you realise that the author is a talmudic scholar, so his examples take you up to about 500CE - https://www.commentary.org/articles/moses-hadas/hellenism-in-jewish-palestine-by-saul-lieberman/
Actually the claim that English has a vocabulary of a million words is disputed Duncan. A lot of prefixes and suffixes are Latin in origin also a lot of commonly used adjectives .Who gets to define who is a Rabbi he had a sizable following who considered him an authority, but whether you or Jewish intelligentsia of the time considered him a Rabbi is beside the point latin Military and judicial terms would have been common knowledge in a place like Palestine in the 1st century.
So you are going to argue from silence the paper claims to describe the situation across the duration of the United empire so there is no positive reason to exclude the first century.
From your source Duncan "British Latin or British Vulgar Latin was the Vulgar Latin spoken in Great Britain in the Roman and sub-Roman periods. While Britain formed part of the Roman Empire, Latin became the principal language of the elite, especially in the more romanized south and east of the island. "
Here is a (far from exhaustive) list of commonly used words derived from Latin:
Alien: from Latin aliēnus (which means “outsider” or “foreigner” )
Senior: from Latin senior (meaning “older”), which is the comparative form of senex (meaning “aged”, “old”)
Election : from Latin ēlectiō (meaning “choice” or “selection”)
Extreme: from Latin extrēmus which is the superlative of the Latin word exter (which means “outward”)
Senate: from Latin senātus (meaning “council of elders” or “senate”) itself from the Latin adjective from senex (meaning “old”)
Amateur: from Latin amātōr (meaning “lover”), itself from the Latin verb amāre (which means “to love”)
Aquatic: from Latin aquaticus (meaning “relating to the water”) itself from the Latin word aqua (meaning “water”)
Beneficial: from Latin beneficium (meaning “kindness”, “service” or “favor”)
Claim: from Latin clāmō (which means “to cry out” or “to proclaim””)
Extraordinary: From Latin extrāōrdinārius, itself from extrā ōrdinem (meaning “outside the order”)
Absence: from latin absentia
Family: from Latin familia
City: from Latin cīvitās
General: from Latin generālis
Public: from Latin pūblicus
College: from Latin collēgium
President: from Latin praesidēns
Common: from Latin commūnis
Education: from Latin ēducātiō
Similar: from Latin similis
Single: from latin singulus
Council: from Latin concilium
Final: from Latin fīnālis
Region: from latin regiō
Addition: from Latin additiōnem
English(old and middle) contained latinisms from its roots a clue would be its alphabet which was Latin from the eight century onward. With the Norman conquest in1066 CE the presence of latinisms in the language would have expanded, but certainly that period did not mark the beginning of Roman influence in English language and culture.
Some more on the Latin roots of the English Language:
The Roman conquest had a profound effect on the development of the English language. The most significant impact was the introduction of a large number of words of Latin origin into the language. This increased the vocabulary of the English language and also changed its grammar and syntax.:
Ilovelanguages.com
Why are you quoting back at me the papers I post and omit the pertinent points?
"Latin became the principal language of the elite, especially in the more romanized south and east of the island." And, And, Keep going......
I am not going to spend all my time correcting your omissions.
As for your list of Latin terms, all one needs to do is get an exhaustive English thesaurus, for each term to see how many non latin equivalents are available for each meaning. Or just read the period literature.
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/chaucer/chaucers-language/
Latin was not Bede’s native language. The language of his Northumbrian family was Old English (Anglo-Saxon), but Bede would have been introduced to the study of Latin when he was sent to the monastery of Wearmouth-Jarrow for his schooling at the age of seven.
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/bede-historia-ecclesiastica/intro/bedes-latin
All this demonstrates is the code of elites.
On the Jesus as "teacher" I have no problem calling him so, but that is not what the paper was driving at. I think it's talking about those trained at the pertinent schools.
The term legion would have certainly come to the fore in the first century, from somewhere around 70ce.
https://oldenglishthesaurus.arts.gla.ac.uk/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23265259
The rise in usage goes back to the empire builders.
Ok so let's say that English has 600,000 terms and the many are technical and many are no longer in general use. How does that change what I have already said in any significant way?
Here is a list of Akkadian words
https://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/list.php
How many?
I could do the same for many others.
How about going to
https://www.etymonline.com/word/alien#etymonline_v_44184
https://www.etymonline.com/word/senior#etymonline_v_48505
Just work your way through your list and look at the first recorded usage dates.
Many of the terms have Proto-Indo-European roots so they were never unique to Latin/Greek and may have come through other avenues.
A vulgar Latin was spoken by the common people Latin proper was spoken by the elites why are you ignoring the pertinent parts of my quotes.
I don't get what you are trying to imply if English is more difficult than Latin why would it's widespread adoption prove that Latinism would not have flavored the speech of every day members of the empire one would think that because Latin is simpler Latin loan words would more readily make their way into every day speech.
Proving nothing.
Humanity has common roots so this is only to be expected by the way the list is not mine
That's not what your own source claims and you keep conflating fluency in Latin with the adopting of Latinism in every day speech the way we do even today
From your source: 1300, "strange, foreign," from Old French alien "strange, foreign;" as a noun, "an alien, stranger, foreigner," from Latin alienus "of or belonging to another, not one's own, foreign, strange," also, as a noun, "a stranger, foreigner," adjective from alius (adv.) "another, other, different" (from PIE root *al- (1) "beyond")."
Apparently you're not reading your own source the words came through french from Latin. I believed I mentioned that many Latinism's entered via french which is even more Latinised than English.
Your talent for irrelevancy apparently knows no bounds.
Jewishvirtuallibray.org "The Jews' Great Revolt against Rome in 66 C.E. led to one of the greatest catastrophes in Jewish life and, in retrospect, might well have been a terrible mistake.
No one could argue with the Jews for wanting to throw off Roman rule. Since the Romans had first occupied Israel in 63 B.C.E., their rule had grown more and more onerous. From almost the beginning of the Common Era, Judea was ruled by Roman procurators, whose chief responsibility was to collect and deliver an annual tax to the empire. Whatever the procurators raised beyond the quota assigned, they could keep. Not surprisingly, they often imposed confiscatory taxes. Equally infuriating to the Judeans, Rome took over the appointment of the High Priest (a turn of events that the ancient Jews appreciated as much as modern Catholics would have appreciated Mussolini appointing the popes). As a result, the High Priests, who represented the Jews before God on their most sacred occasions, increasingly came from the ranks of Jews who collaborated with Rome.At the beginning of the Common Era, a new group arose among the Jews: the Zealots (in Hebrew, Ka-na-im). These anti-Roman rebels were active for more than six decades, and later instigated the Great Revolt. Their most basic belief was that all means were justified to attain political and religious liberty.
The Jews' anti-Roman feelings were seriously exacerbated during the reign of the half-crazed emperor Caligula, who in the year 39 declared himself to be a deity and ordered his statue to be set up at every temple in the Roman Empire. The Jews, alone in the empire, refused the command; they would not defile God's Temple with a statue of pagan Rome's newest deity.
Caligula threatened to destroy the Temple, so a delegation of Jews was sent to pacify him. To no avail. Caligula raged at them, "So you are the enemies of the gods, the only people who refuse to recognize my divinity." Only the emperor's sudden, violent death saved the Jews from wholesale massacre."
Only after a century of chafing under Roman oppression would the people of Judea know the name of the instrument of the oppressor( and let's not forget the many collaborators with the Roman state) sorry Duncan but that Just beggars belief
I think my debate with you is over. You are just time wasting & attempting to "win" an argument. I am not playing your game anymore. You know when Latin became part of English. I have listed all the necessary resources. Your assertion about a vulgar Latin used by the general populace in the UK is unfounded & you give no evidence. Just as your assertion regarding Latin being simpler also needs evidence.
As for the rest of your assertions regarding Latin words and usage in Judea in the early part of the fist century & the general language environment of the gospels, take it up with Randall Buth.
https://vimeo.com/130282094
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56441/in-which-language-did-pontius-pilate-communicate-with-jesus
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/hebrew-aramaic-greek-and-latin-languages-of-new-testament-judea/
Check LXX
some places where LXX changes angels to men (vise versa)
Genesis 19:16.
Genesis 19:1, 15
Deuteronomy 32:43
Psalm 96(7):7
Psalm 138:1
Sirach (45:2-3)
source: JWD second edition
Thanks Anonymous
no worries if I dont have sources on hand at the time, you can guarantee ill grab them when I have a free moment
Post a Comment