Archaeologica.org

2. Christian archaeology, as a science, cannot be said to have fairly arisen
before the 18th century. Nevertheless, in the struggles of the Reformation,
both parties appealed to primitive usage, and this appeal made the study of
antiquities a necessity. The church historians, therefore (the Magdeburg
centuriators, 1559-1574, 13 vols. fol., on the Protestant side, and Baronius
[† 1607], in his Annales Ecclesiastici, on the Roman Catholic side), treated
of the polity, worship, usages, etc., of the ancient church.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:There is an online Aramaic-English converter. Had he bothered to check it out he would have found that the word for "on" is the same as the word for "by."

Going to have to kick your ass here a bit. The texts were not written in Aramaic nor where they based on Aramaic texts. They were written in Greek.

The story comes from Mk--Mt and Lk use and soften it. In Mk, Junior is clearly walking on the water . . . however, he is doing it to get away from the dumbass disciples:

Mark 6:45-52 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Beth-sa'ida, while he dismissed the crowd. And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out; for they all saw him, and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear." And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

He could not have entered the boat if he was not on the water. Mk does this do further denigrate the disciples. They are stupid, and even Junior wishes to avoid them. Mt and Lk, of course, soften this a bit--Junior is not so callous. Mk will underscore this by having Junior repeat the "loves 'n fishies" later. Once again, the disciples have no clue who he is.

--J.D.

Controversy over the burial of James, the brother of Jesus, is nothing new. As early as the fourth century A.D., the location of James’s tomb was disputed. In the words of the church father Jerome, writing in 392 A.D.: “Some monks think James was buried on the Mount of Olives, but their opinion is false.” Jerome continues, “He is buried near the Temple from which he was thrown down. The grave-marker was well known up to the siege of Titus [ending the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in 70 A.D.] and even that of Hadrian [ending the Second Jewish Revolt in 135 A.D.].”1

The Bible itself stands first in value as the chief
source of Jewish archaeology.

archaeologist wrote:well i see after 112 pages minimalistis finally tired of talking with me. thats okay, i can rest and do some research.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:If there is any truth to the notion that these were oral traditions which were ultimately written down the oral traditions would have been in Aramaic which was the language of Palestine.

Though koine Greek was also much the lingua franca. However, Mk rather concedes this by having Junior speak bits of Aramaic and translating it.

Maybe for the upper classes. I can't see commoners learning Greek.

To my knowledge the "earliest" extant material--Q--was also written in Greek rather than translated from an Aramaic exemplar. So . . .

I thought there was no "extant" Q material. Hence the designation of Q...rather than the Gospel of Clarence or something.

Personally, I don't believe that, I think they were invented but WTH.

You may indeed be exactly right. One reason for laughing at the Jesus Seminar trying to "vote" on "genuine" statements. I am unaware of any evidence that Q was based on an Aramaic "vorlage" to use a big word.

Heck . . . let me check . . .

Few would contest the fact that Q, like much of the Synoptic materials, reflects Semitic features. . . . preference for και for δε for linking independent clauses. . . . Such features, however, imply only that the author(s) was (were) influenced by Semitic (or Septuagintal) syntax and style; they do not show that the document was penned in a Semitic language. Mark contains similar features, but no one nowadays thinks Mark was translated from Aramaic (Maloney, 1981).
. . . .
Moreover, it is clear that Matthew and Luke have consulted Q in Greek; otherwise their near-verbatim agreement in pericopae such as Q 3:7b-9; 10:13-15; 11:24-26; 11:31-32; and 13:20-21 [Lk is the guide for Q verses.--Ed.] would be inexplicable.
. . . .
Moreover, there are phrases in Q . . . that are impossible in a Semitic language and cannot be direct translation (Kloppenborg-Verbin).

That's all well and good if Q actually existed. Right now, its an article of faith among scholars and you know how I am about articles of faith!

Certainly when appealing to a wider audience within the Greco-Roman world it would have been necessary to write in Greek but it is hard to fathom that the average peasant walking around the countryside would have spoken anything but Aramaic.

Indeed for the group that supposedly comprised the Merry Men and those Crowds that Followed. Similarly, Paul is writing in Greek, not Aramaic. The audience--by the time of the Gospels--are Greek speaking if not only Greek speaking.

Or...assuming for the sake of argument that "Paul's" writings are genuine...they were attempting to appeal to non-Jewish elements within the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire.

Paul was allegedly a Jew but also a Roman citizen from Tarsus. That would explain his Greek abilities and probably Latin as well. The timing of the whole thing has always bothered me. Given the fact that Paul seems to know nothing of the trial and crucifixion of his godman we are asked to believe that he was wildly persecuting christians when he had his miraculous vision. But when was that? Jesus had to have been executed before 36 AD when Pilate was recalled. In order to credit Luke's birth story he would have to have been born in 6/7 AD to account for the census of Quirinius. So....let's say 35 AD for argument's sake. Having killed the leader one might expect the Sanhedrin to follow the old maxim "Kill the shepherd and the sheep will scatter." It would have taken them a while to figure out that this did not happen. So.....their next step is to import a Grand Inquisitor from Tarsus? One would have expected them to use one of their own. And within 10 years of the crucifixion there are suddenly christian communities springing up all over the Roman Empire worshipping a man who the Romans just nailed to a cross like any common criminal? The whole story does not compute. Sorry. I don't buy it.

--J.D.

References:

Aland K, et al. Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 3rd. ed., corrected, Westphalia: Institute for New Testament Textual Research, United Bible Societies, 1966.

Kloppenborg Verbin JS. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings of Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

Maloney EC. Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax. Chico: California Scholars Press, 1981 [Used by Kloppenborg--Ed.]

It is about an "article of faith" among scholars as J, E, P, and D are "articles of faith."

Oh, keep your pants on. Doc's comments require some thought...as opposed to your drivel which can be disposed of with an offhand comment as they rarely make any sense