Is Paradise in Luke 23:43 a Persian loan into Hebrew?

[berndf]

Certainly, the Greek concept of a heavenly garden predates its Jewish counterpart and may have influenced it.

Both concepts evolved over time and had similarities and important differences. You are again unduly mixing that question of the development of the concept with the question which word was when and where used for it.

Both the Jewish and the Greek concept show Zoroastrian influence and the word paradise (in either sense, simply garden or Garden of Eden or dwelling place of the righteous dead) shows Persian influence, regardless of who used it in which sense first.

 

[fdb]

The four canonic gospels must postdate the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, as this event is “predicted” in the gospel texts; they are thus much later than the authentic epistles of Paul. Most serious NT scholars regard 1 and 2 Timothy as “deutero-Pauline” (i.e. forged).

 

[Apollodorus]

Both concepts evolved over time and had similarities and important differences. You are again unduly mixing that question of the development of the concept with the question which word was when and where used for it.

Both the Jewish and the Greek concept show Zoroastrian influence and the word paradise (in either sense, simply garden or Garden of Eden or dwelling place of the righteous dead) shows Persian influence, regardless of who used it in which sense first.

Well, the “mixing” of the concept’s development and the term used by Luke was started by others, see #4 ff. I merely commented on observations made long before I joined the discussion.

Besides, how exactly do you determine influence or borrowing without reference to the historical and cultural backgrounds of a word???

Also, here’s a statement of yours:

“I am not aware of any part in the Tanakh where פרדס could be understood as גן עדן” (#7)

So, presumably, pardes in Judaism wasn’t used in the sense of “Garden of Eden” and even less of “abode of the righteous dead” – as acknowledged by the Jewish Encyclopedia.

And:

“Luke's use of paradise in the sense dwelling place of the righteous dead is a loan translation from Aramaic” (#36)

As a general rule, loans occur from an earlier use to a later one. I haven’t seen any Aramaic sources that would corroborate this.

As for “both the Jewish and the Greek concept showing Zoroastrian influence”, I think most people will agree that some evidence/sources would be preferable to evidence-free statements.

 

[Apollodorus]

The four canonic gospels must postdate the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, as this event is “predicted” in the gospel texts; they are thus much later than the authentic epistles of Paul.

The references to the destruction of the Temple could be an expression of apocalyptic (end-of-days) beliefs that were current at the time or, for that matter, later interpolations - without affecting the chronology of the main narrative.

 

[berndf]

Also, here’s a statement of yours:

“I am not aware of any part in the Tanakh where פרדס could be understood as גן עדן” (#7)

This discussion now is about the Mishnaic and not the Biblical period.

“Luke's use of paradise in the sense dwelling place of the righteous dead is a loan translation from Aramaic” (#36)

As a general rule, loans occur from an earlier use to a later one. I haven’t seen any Aramaic sources that would corroborate this.

I should have written simply translation and not loan translation (provided Jesus existed and did really say that). There are indeed no original sources of Jesus words and we can't know what term he used.

The references to the destruction of the Temple could be an expression of apocalyptic (end-of-days) beliefs that were current at the time or, for that matter, later interpolations - without affecting the chronology of the main narrative.

A very far fetched "could be". Jesus are too specific for that being plausible. He does not predict general destruction but specifically the destruction of the Temple and that Jews be driven out of Jerusalem into the mountains. General consensus among scholars is that Mark was written around the time of the destruction of the Temple and the other two of the three synoptics, Luke and Matthew, some time later and the fourth gospel, John being the youngest.

 

[Apollodorus]

A very far fetched "could be". Jesus are too specific for that being plausible. He does not predict general destruction but specifically the destruction of the Temple and that Jews be driven out of Jerusalem into the mountains.

I disagree. Predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple occur in earlier texts such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

“The land will become desolate (Ezek 12:20) … The city will fall, and you will be destroyed within it …” (13:14).

Luke doesn’t say they will be “driven into the mountains”. He says:

“Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her” (Luke 21:20-21).

If subversive elements were plotting an insurrection against Rome, of course there’d have been retaliation. Telling people to flee was sound advice.

General consensus among scholars is that Mark was written around the time of the destruction of the Temple and the other two of the three synoptics, Luke and Matthew, some time later and the fourth gospel, John being the youngest.

So, you're saying that the first to use paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead” was not Luke but Paul?

 

[berndf]

If subversive elements were plotting an insurrection against Rome, of course there’d have been retaliation. Telling people to flee was sound advice.

Right, because it was written after the uprising that lead to the destruction of the temple, i.e. after Paul's death.

So, you're saying that the first to use paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead” was not Luke but Paul?

I can't understand how you could possibly read that out of what I said. Paul did nowhere

use paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead”

 

[Apollodorus]

Your exact words were:

“Hellenised Jews were the first to use the word is this sense” (#31).

“The term ‘Hellenised Jews’ mainly refers to Diaspora Jews living in Greece and Asia Minor, like St. Paul, who was from Tarsus” (#33)

It follows that St Paul did use paradeisos in this sense (of "abode of the righteous dead").

As far as I am aware, the basic Zoroastrian texts were compiled not earlier than the fifth century AD and seem to have a rather suspect transmission history.

I can see why some might be inclined to detect certain parallels, but it seems far-fetched to suggest that some Jews (the Pharisees?) secretly practised a form of Zoroastrianism while claiming to be followers of the Law of Moses.

If true, this would have serious historical and cultural ramifications. The main issue though, is evidence. How do we prove this without selectively ignoring other evidence, such as Greek influence? After all, there was such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism.

Besides, irrespective of Persian influence on Second-Temple Judaism, the fact remains that Christianity is a different tradition that emerged in the Hellenistic period and the language of which – as used by Luke, Paul and possibly Jesus – was Greek.

Moreover, παράδεισος paradeisos may have been borrowed from Persian in the time of Xenophon (4th c. BC), but by the 1st century AD it surely had long become part of the Greek vocabulary?

 

[berndf]

It follows that St Paul did use paradeisos in this sense.

No. The propositions Paul was a Hellenised Jew and The word paradise was used by Hellenised Jews does not imply The word paradise was used by Paul.

That would only be the case if I had said The word paradise was used by all Hellenised Jews. But I didn't say that.

 

[Apollodorus]

Well, you said that paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead” was first used by Hellenised Jews and when I asked which Hellenised Jews, you gave St Paul as example.

My question was not “what are Hellenised Jews” but specifically “which Hellenised Jews used the word paradeisos in the sense of ‘abode of the righteous dead’”.

Either your answer implies that Paul (and other Hellenised Jews) used the word in this sense, or it isn't an answer to my question and you're being evasive.

IMO Paul was addressing a Greek-speaking audience consisting of semi-converted Pagans for whom the word paradeisos in the context meant “Heaven” by analogy with the Greek term Διὸς κῆπος Dios kepos, literally, “Garden of God” that was used in this sense in Greek tradition.

And the same applies to Luke.

 

[Platytude]

I can see why some might be inclined to detect certain parallels, but it seems far-fetched to suggest that some Jews (the Pharisees?) secretly practised a form of Zoroastrianism while claiming to be followers of the Law of Moses ....
As far as I am aware, the basic Zoroastrian texts were compiled not earlier than the fifth century AD and seem to have a rather suspect transmission history.

One of the main functions of afterlife is to correct the injustice in this world as people don't get just reward and punishment here. This will have negative implications for the belief in a just almighty god. People may overlook it if life is normal and according to an accepted (sanctioned) social hierarchy, but things change when they see everything upside down: that the polytheistic prosperous Babylonian, Greek, and even Iranians were oppressing or subjugating the chosen people of God. They will demand explanation and the idea of afterlife was one could easily pass the test of time.

At that time, the main religious system that believed in afterlife and was in the best position to influence Jews was some form of Zoroastrianism, which had this notion for 500 years prior to the Exile (as it exists in their oldest hymns). So, it is natural to consider Iranians the main suspects in lending the idea to the Jews

Well, you said that paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead” was first used by Hellenised Jews and when I asked which Hellenised Jews, you gave St Paul as example.

I have a feeling you're still conflating the two questions. I don't understand this obsession with this issue. Who do you think people would expect to be the first one using paradeisos? Hellenised Jews spoke Greek and they were obviously the first to use a Greek word to refer to Garden of Eden - either as a place in afterlife or the primordial garden. What is the point of discussing it?

This means the oldest original Greek evidence of the afterlife aspect would be by a Hellenised Jew (Revelation 2.7 then Luke 23.43). But it is not the Greek of the oldest evidence (that would be in Greek translation of Enoch), and is neither the oldest original evidence of this aspect (that would be the original Aramaic of Enoch).

 

[berndf]

Besides, irrespective of Persian influence on Second-Temple Judaism, the fact remains that Christianity is a different tradition that emerged in the Hellenistic period and the language of which – as used by Luke, Paul and possibly Jesus – was Greek.

The consensus theory today is that the original text of the gospels was indeed Greek but that Luke and Matthew used two sources, the older Gospel of Mark and an unknown collection of sayings of Jesus in Aramaic. At the time the Gospels were written, Christianity had already morphed from a Jewish sect to an expansive religion and the gospels were written in the language that promises the widest reach and in the Eastern part of the Roman empire, this was Greek. I have heard from people who know Greek better than I do, that it is unlikely the gospels were written by Greek native speakers but that is something I cannot judge. At one time the theory of a lost Aramaic original of the NT that was later translated into Greek was popular but that is not tenable any more.

But Jesus himself, if he is indeed existed, certainly spoke Aramaic and not Greek. There is not much room for doubt.

 

[berndf]

when I asked which Hellenised Jews, you gave St Paul as example.

I gave Paul as an example of what the term "Hellenised Jew" meant in the context of the mid 1st century AD, before the destruction of the Temple, namely Diaspory Jews from Greece and Asia Minor.

 

[Awwal12]

A very far fetched "could be". Jesus are too specific for that being plausible. He does not predict general destruction but specifically the destruction of the Temple and that Jews be driven out of Jerusalem into the mountains.

Er... what's so specific about it? Frankly, overall everything there looks like a sensible prediction rather than a prophecy. All the story narrated in the Gospels points at the growing dissatisfaction with the Roman rule, and it would likely result in a rebellion (largely mirroring the previous rebellions against the Seleucids). The difference, however, was that Rome was stronger and its rule was almost uncontested, which meant that without God's help (which wasn't presumed from the early Christian perspective) the rebellion would result in a massive retaliation quite common for the Romans, and that would also with all likehood include the destruction of the Temple (the only place of worship for the Jews, destruction of which would seriously harm their morale and increase internal tensions in the long run; in the end the destruction wasn't someone's whim but a well calculated act, not unlike many other acts of the Romans that happened before and after the Judean wars).

 

[Apollodorus]

I gave Paul as an example of what the term "Hellenised Jew" meant in the context of the mid 1st century AD, before the destruction of the Temple, namely Diaspory Jews from Greece and Asia Minor.

Your example has nothing to do with my question. I think we can all agree that the statement “the word paradeisos in the sense of ‘abode of the righteous dead’ was used by Hellenised Jews” makes no sense unless the Hellenised Jews in question can be identified.

That was the clear object of my question in the context of trying to determine when the word was first used and what Luke or Paul’s source might have been.

You’re denying that you included Paul in that group. So, unless you can give other examples apart from Luke, it isn’t “Hellenised Jews living in Greece and Asia Minor” but a single (one) Hellenised Christian who may not have been a Jew.

 

[Apollodorus]

Er... what's so specific about it? Frankly, overall everything there looks like a sensible prediction rather than a prophecy. All the story narrated in the Gospels points at the growing dissatisfaction with the Roman rule, and it would likely result in a rebellion (largely mirroring the previous rebellions against the Seleucids). The difference, however, was that Rome was stronger and its rule was almost uncontested, which meant that without God's help (which wasn't presumed from the early Christian perspective) the rebellion would result in a massive retaliation quite common for the Romans, and that would also with all likehood include the destruction of the Temple (the only place of worship for the Jews, destruction of which would seriously harm their morale and increase internal tensions in the long run; in the end the destruction wasn't someone's whim but a well calculated act, not unlike many other acts of the Romans that happened before and after the Judean wars).

Correct. There were mounting tensions between Jews and Rome resulting in unrest. Saying "There will be rumours of wars. If you see armies entering Jerusalem, head for the mountains", etc. could perfectly well have been said before the destruction of the Temple.

Jesus had followers among the Sanhedrin (e.g., Nicodemus) who must have been well-informed about any preparations for rebellion or unrest among the Jews and the response of Rome would have been entirely predictable.

 

[berndf]

I think we can all agree that the statement “the word paradeisos in the sense of ‘abode of the righteous dead’ was used by Hellenised Jews” makes no sense unless the Hellenised Jews in question can be identified.

Listen, I explained how I used the term "Hellenised Jews" not more and not less. This is completely independent of whether or not any particular member of that group ever used the word paradise and then I mentioned Paul as an example of a "Hellenised Jews". End of story.

 

[Apollodorus]

At the time the Gospels were written, Christianity had already morphed from a Jewish sect to an expansive religion and the gospels were written in the language that promises the widest reach and in the Eastern part of the Roman empire, this was Greek.

Greek was already widely used in the time of Jesus, including at Jerusalem.

I am not aware of any Aramaic Gospel texts that predate the Greek ones.

If the Gospels were originally written in Greek, then paradeisos need not have been a translation from Aramaic. There is even less need to bring Zoroastrianism into it.

 

[Apollodorus]

Listen, I explained how I used the term "Hellenised Jews" not more and not less. This is completely independent of whether or not any particular member of that group ever used the word paradise and then I mentioned Paul as an example of a "Hellenised Jews". End of story.

And I explained what I meant by my question, which ought to have been clear from the start.

As things stand, it looks like the only persons that can be positively identified to have used paradeisos in the sense of "abode of the righteous dead" or "Heaven" at the time in question are Luke and Paul who are writing in Greek.

 

[Platytude]

If the Gospels were originally written in Greek, then paradeisos need not have been a translation from Aramaic. There is even less need to bring Zoroastrianism into it.

You're still conflating the two questions in #47. The word paradeisos has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. It's the concept of reward/punishment afterlife that probably did. paradeisos was the translation of Hebrew gan eden since 3rd. c BC (in Septuagint) and therefore was used with the same meaning in NT.

 

[berndf]

Greek was already widely used in the time of Jesus, including at Jerusalem.

By the Roman stationed in Jerusalem, not by the Jews. At the time of Jesus' death, it has been 200 years that the Jews had shaken off Seleucid rule in a rebellion against Hellenisation, which they manged to resist. Later the Hesmonean Kingdom became a Roman client state and was then replaced by the Herodian kingdom, also a Roman client state. Only some time after the death of Herod did the Romans started to excercise direct rule over Israel. Many Jews were probably able to speak some Greek to communicate with the Romans rulers much like Palestinians today are able to speak Hebrew to communicate with the Israelis but not more than that.

 

[berndf]

As things stand, it looks like the only persons that can be positively identified to have used paradeisos in the sense of "abode of the righteous dead" or "Heaven" at the time in question are Luke and Paul who are writing in Greek.

Luke yes, Paul no.

 

[Awwal12]

By the Roman stationed in Jerusalem, not by the Jews.

Jews in Alexandria *were* mostly Greek-speaking by that time (unlike Jews in Palestine, who spoke Aramaic). They also had to visit Jerusalem as the centre of the cult.

 

[berndf]

Jews in Alexandria *were* mostly Greek-speaking by that time

Yes, like diaspora Jews in Greece and Asia Minor.

Er... what's so specific about it? Frankly, overall everything there looks like a sensible prediction rather than a prophecy. All the story narrated in the Gospels points at the growing dissatisfaction with the Roman rule, and it would likely result in a rebellion (largely mirroring the previous rebellions against the Seleucids). The difference, however, was that Rome was stronger and its rule was almost uncontested, which meant that without God's help (which wasn't presumed from the early Christian perspective) the rebellion would result in a massive retaliation quite common for the Romans, and that would also with all likehood include the destruction of the Temple (the only place of worship for the Jews, destruction of which would seriously harm their morale and increase internal tensions in the long run; in the end the destruction wasn't someone's whim but a well calculated act, not unlike many other acts of the Romans that happened before and after the Judean wars).

The point was that the predictions were too specifically predicting what actually happened for being the usual apocalyptic foreboding. It predicts the destruction of the Temple but not of Jerusalem and Jews having to flee Jerusalem but not other parts of Eretz Israel.

 

[Apollodorus]

Many Jews were probably able to speak some Greek to communicate with the Romans rulers much like Palestinians today are able to speak Hebrew to communicate with the Israelis but not more than that.

According to historians, Jerusalem by the Early Roman period had become a “Greek city” (Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul 1991:54). King Herod I of Judea himself had studied Greek philosophy under his friend and tutor Nicolaus of Damascus and had built theatres for dramatic shows, hippodromes for chariot races and athletic performances as well as gymnasiums for physical and intellectual education.

According to Josephus, in addition to renovating and expanding the Jerusalem Temple, Herod also built large Graeco-Roman temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Caesarea Philippi (or Omrit) (Antiquities of the Jews 15.8.5 ff.).

The Wikipedia Article “Language of Jesus” states:

“There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic … it is also likely that either Jesus or at least one of his apostles knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Judea”.

Do you agree with this statement?

 

[berndf]

“There exists a consensus among scholars that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic … it is also likely that either Jesus or at least one of his apostles knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Judea”.

Do you agree with this statement?

Yes, that is more or less what I said:

Many Jews were probably able to speak some Greek to communicate with the Romans rulers much like Palestinians today are able to speak Hebrew to communicate with the Israelis but not more than that.

 

[S.V.]

Luke

"Hellenistic Greek... the subjunctive... in purpose clauses. However... the future indicative... in the gospels of Luke and John" (2.1.1.1)

After all this time, learners of Spanish & sisters must know the feeling. Un saludo.

 

[Apollodorus]

Yes, that is more or less what I said:

Right. So you agree that Jesus likely spoke Greek.

But there is more to it:

“Inscriptions solely in Greek and bilingual inscriptions in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic were used in ossuaries near the vicinity of Jerusalem” – G. Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek?, 2015, p. 10.

So, Greek wasn’t used only to communicate with Romans.

“Based on the archaeological evidence, all three languages – Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek – were commonly used in the first century” (Gleaves, p. 11).

Many followers and companions of Jesus, Paul and Peter have Greek names: Andrew, Philip, Simon, Nicodemus, Timothy, Luke, Stephen, etc. - which in itself shows the extent of Greek influence.

Considering that most Jews lived in the diaspora (Egypt, Syria, etc.) I think it’s fair to say that most Jews spoke Greek. And this also applies to the Jews of Jerusalem and other cities in Roman Palestine.

 

[berndf]

Right. So you agree that Jesus likely spoke Greek.

No, that Jesus was probably able to communicate in Greek.

“Inscriptions solely in Greek and bilingual inscriptions in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic were used in ossuaries near the vicinity of Jerusalem” – G. Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek, 2015, p. 10.

So, Greek wasn’t used only to communicate with Romans.

And London is full of monuments with Latin inscriptions, so Londoners speak Latin. And Frederick II of Prussia spoke better French than German, so 18th century Prussia must have been French speaking.

 

[Apollodorus]

Jews in Alexandria *were* mostly Greek-speaking by that time (unlike Jews in Palestine, who spoke Aramaic). They also had to visit Jerusalem as the centre of the cult.

It looks like Jerusalem was already Greek-speaking in the third century BC:

"The monumental task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures that resulted in the LXX demonstrates the wide use of Greek by Jews outside as well as inside Palestine. Interestingly, Jerusalem was the place where Jewish knowledge of the Greek language was concentrated and where it was taught" - G. Scott Gleaves, Did Jesus Speak Greek?, p. 54.

 

[Apollodorus]

And London is full of monuments with Latin inscriptions, so Londoners speak Latin.

I'll take that as a joke, because Londoners don't have Latin inscriptions put on their graves. 🙂

Palestinian Jews did have Greek and Greek-Aramaic inscriptions on ossuaries, which is one indicator of bilingualism.

 

[berndf]

I'll take that as a joke, because Londoners don't have Latin inscriptions put on their graves. 🙂

When did you last visit Westminster Abbey?

 

[Platytude]

G. Scott Gleaves

Maybe not the best person to cite.

 

[S.V.]

Maybe not the best person to cite.

That "the GNT contains the very words that Jesus and his disciples spoke in Greek" and "what we have in the GNT is a hybrid Palestinian Greek" (Gleaves) seem to be tied in his book. In that link, “Biblical Greek” as a “Jewish-Greek dialect” has been thoroughly disproved for at least fifty years now.

 

[Platytude]

That "the GNT contains the very words that Jesus and his disciples spoke in Greek" and "what we have in the GNT is a hybrid Palestinian Greek" (Gleaves) seem to be tied in his book. In that link, “Biblical Greek” as a “Jewish-Greek dialect” has been thoroughly disproved for at least fifty years now.

Gleaves is a literalist, or perhaps a "super"-literalist with the presumption or agenda that Jesus preached in Greek, therefore, his words in Greek gospels are exactly what came out of his mouth.

 

[berndf]

Gleaves is a literalist, or perhaps a "super"-literalist with the presumption or agenda that Jesus preached in Greek, therefore, his words in Greek gospels are exactly what came out of his mouth.

That is typical for Christian scholars' perception of the history of the region. They see everything as a mere stage towards the ultimate goal of Christianity. That Judaism has its own development that remained largely unimpressed by Christianity is something they just mask out and that Jewish tradition continued for many centuries in Aramaic is completely ignored. The NT is the culmination point of Jewish history and everything after it is irrelevant.

Sorry for the rant but it annoys me endlessly.

 

[Apollodorus]

Maybe not the best person to cite.

Gleaves is making some valid points some of which are supported by Jewish sources. I think the belief that Jesus couldn’t speak Greek is rather out of date. There is a growing number of scholars who accept that Jesus spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic. That’s why it’s now in mainstream sources like Wikipedia!

Historical and archaeological evidence shows that bilingualism was widespread and Greek was widely spoken not only in Jerusalem but also in Galilee and other parts of Roman Palestine, certainly among the urban population but also rural artisans and traders who interacted with them.

As stated in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, in addition to some 3,000 Greek loanwords in Hebrew and Aramaic, there were major changes in both languages in terms of phonology, syntax, semantics, gender change, increase of reflexive verbs, new properties of prepositions, a new tense system, creation of Hebraized roots from the Greek, etc. (“Rabbinical Knowledge of Greek and Latin languages” | Jewish Virtual Library).

These linguistic developments can be explained only by high levels of bilingualism in which Greek played an increasingly dominant role.

Moreover, it was not unheard-of for religious teachers to instruct their students in both Greek and Aramaic or Hebrew.

In the house of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, St Paul’s teacher, Greek was taught in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic:

“... in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: There were a thousand children in my father’s house. Five hundred of them learned Torah, and the other five hundred learned Greek wisdom. The fact that Rabban Gamliel allowed half of his household to study Greek wisdom indicates that it is permitted” (Talmud, Sotah 49b).

There are several instances in the NT where Jesus likely spoke Greek – e.g., with Pilates and with the Greek woman from Syro-Phoenicia (Luke 23:3; Mark 7:26). And if Jesus knew Greek, theoretically at least, there is no reason why he couldn’t have taught his disciples in Aramaic and Greek as Gamaliel did.

 

[fdb]

with the Greek woman from Syro-Phoenicia (Luke 23:3; Mark 7:26).

The text says only that she was a "Hellene", i.e. a Gentile (non-Jew).

 

[berndf]

have taught his disciples in Aramaic and Greek as Gamaliel did.

If I don't forbid people in my house to study Greek literature, does that make me a Greek speaker?

And beside, if I discuss Plato or Aristotle, I usually do that in English or German and not in Greek. That Greek texts were studied in his house does not mean that he taught Greek philosophy nor that, if he did, he would do the in Greek. There is nothing in the passage you quoted earlier that would allow you to draw the conclusion that Gamaliel "taught his disciples in ... Greek".

 

[Apollodorus]

So, you study Greek literature (literally, "Greek wisdom") in the 1st c. AD in what language exactly? 🙂

You seem to forget that Plato and Aristotle were actually studied in the original Greek for many centuries into the Christian era.

You also seem to forget the significant Greek influence on Hebrew and Aramaic that can only be explained on the basis of a high degree of bilingualism.

“Other peculiarities of Semitic speech—e.g., the Hebrew and Aramaic conjugation of verbs formed from Greek noun-stems, the employment of status emphaticus and status constructus, the addition of Hebrew and Aramaic affixes and suffixes, the plural formations, the determination of grammatical gender (though seldom according to the regular laws of the language)—all these the borrowing language had to employ in so far as it had in view the needs of actual intercourse and not academic usage.

In addition to the forms of the words borrowed from the Greek, it is also important to determine their meanings; for some of these borrowed terms acquired in the mouth of the Jews a deeper religious and moral sense; e.g., γεωμετρία, a certain norm for the interpretation of Scripture (but compare GemaṬria); βῆλον, Latin velum, "heaven"; σχολαστικός, "teacher of the Law"; στρατμγός, "soldier" in general; σύβολον, "covenant" and "wedding present"; τόμος, "book of the Law." The Jewish usage is sometimes supported by the Septuagint and by the New Testament; e.g., κατήγωρ, "Satan"; πάνδοκος, "whore"; βλασφημία, "blasphemy".

These semasiological differences justify one in speaking of a rabbinic Greek … It is estimated that more than 3,000 words borrowed from the Greek and Latin are found in the rabbinical works.”

- “GREEK LANGUAGE AND THE JEWS”, Jewish Encyclopedia

 

[berndf]

You also seem to forget the significant Greek influence on Hebrew and Aramaic that can only be explained on the basis of a high degree of bilingualism.

Ah, you mean like the massive influx of new Greek Latin loans into European languages since the Renaissance proves trilingualism or the massive influx of Anglicisms into languages like French an German since the mid 20th century proves bilingualism in France and Germany.

 

[WadiH]

Ah, you mean like the massive influx of new Greek Latin loans into European languages since the Renaissance proves trilingualism or the massive influx of Anglicisms into languages like French an German since the mid 20th century proves bilingualism in France and Germany.

Surely all these examples required a significant degree of bilingualism among the cultural elite that are in a position to introduce new words?

 

[berndf]

Surely all these examples required a significant degree of bilingualism among the cultural elite that are in a position to introduce new words?

It only requires some knowledge of other language and often only by a small part of the population. The new loans from Greek and Latin in early modern Europe originated from learned language and from there gradually entered general use. The same is true, e.g. the lage influx of French loans into languages like German in the 17th and 18th century, which originated from French having been the language of the aristocracy and the educated classes, a very tiny fraction of the population. Today it is a bit different, because a larger part of the population is reasonably well educated but the use of Anglicisms in modern European languages exceeds by far the group of people that can in any meaningful way be called "bilingual".

This was of course very different with diaspora Jews in Greece, Asia Minor or Alexandria. They were certainly bilingual with Greek maybe even first language.

 

[Platytude]

Jesus spoke Greek

There is no evidence that Jesus spoke Greek, because there is barely evidence of Jesus having done anything. NT was written one or two generations after Jesus, with no eyewitness, mostly after the revolt, and in the context of several other so-called messiahs and wonder-workers, and most probably with the common narrative transposition of moral parables. They were written by people whose mission was to spread and maintain the belief in Jesus and didn't care about facts. For them, as is for many zealots now, a fact was something that would have been true or better be true, rather than what was real.

Knowing some Greek, which most urban Jews would have in that era is very different from speaking Greek. I know hundreds of Greek words (due to loans in English) but I can't make a single sentence in Greek. The everyday administrative language of Judaea, Arabia and Syria, i.e. the internal affairs of ordinary people and their compatriot local officials, was Aramaic not Greek. So, there was no reason for Jesus to speak Greek with anyone, Jew or Gentile, in the region. The apostles' Greek nicknames is not an evidence for Jesus speaking Greek, because they could have been the translation of the nicknames (so, Jesus didn't necessarily call Simon "Peter" but a word for "rock" in Hebrew or Aramaic).

These semasiological differences justify one in speaking of a rabbinic Greek … It is estimated that more than 3,000 words borrowed from the Greek and Latin are found in the rabbinical works.”

This shows how little the influence of Greek was on Jewish liturgical writings. In 2000 years of one-way forceful influence, we have only 3000 words?

 

[Apollodorus]

This shows how little the influence of Greek was on Jewish liturgical writings. In 2000 years of one-way forceful influence, we have only 3000 words?

This shows how little attention you're paying to the sources quoted. It isn't "2000 years" at all!

The 3000 Greek words in Hebrew and Aramaic were already there in the period of Roman Palestine.

 

[Apollodorus]

This was of course very different with diaspora Jews in Greece, Asia Minor or Alexandria. They were certainly bilingual with Greek maybe even first language.

First off, you’re misrepresenting what the Sotah text says.

The discussion is whether Greek language and wisdom should be allowed. While Greek language is expressly allowed, some authorities allow Greek wisdom, others don’t. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “In Eretz Yisrael, why should people speak the tongue of Syriac [Sursi], the Aramaic commonly spoken in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, they should speak either in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or in the beautiful tongue of Greek”.

Next, the Sotah gives the school of Gamaliel (who, btw, belonged to the house of Hillel the Elder who was the spiritual leader of the Jews from about 30 BC to 10 AD) as an example of students “learning Greek wisdom” under their teacher.

The statement “The fact that Rabban Gamliel allowed half of his household to study Greek wisdom indicates that it is permitted” is the conclusion that should not be mixed up with Simeon ben Gamliel’s statement.

The point made is not that students were “allowed to study Greek wisdom if they so wished”, but that they were actively instructed in it and therefore, it is permitted. This passage was written in the 3rd – 4th century AD and shows that rabbinic tradition was aware of Greek language and wisdom being taught by leading teachers in the first century AD.

This is confirmed by Jewish sources like the Jewish Encyclopedia, which also states that Simeon ben Gamaliel II himself was trained in Greek philosophy (SIMEON (BEN GAMALIEL II.) - JewishEncyclopedia.com). Students were trained in Greek language and philosophy, not just “allowed”!

At any rate, Greek influence on rabbinic writings is long-established fact. See Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion, 1963.

And Plato in Hellenistic Fusion | JSTOR

As regards Greek philosophy, it was of course studied in the Greek original. Where are the 1st-century Hebrew or Aramaic translations of Plato and Aristotle? And if there were any, who translated them if not Greek-speaking Jews? 😀

 

[berndf]

As regards Greek philosophy, it was of course studied in the Greek original. Where are the 1st-century Hebrew or Aramaic translations of Plato and Aristotle? And if there were any, who translated them if not Greek-speaking Jews? 😀

I can very well study the Bible in Hebrew but I would never call me Hebrew-speaking. Those are completely different things. The Talmud with its mixture of Hebrew texts and Aramaic comments demonstrates very well that is was within the Jewish intellectual tradition to discuss texts of one language in another.

 

[Platytude]

This shows how little attention you're paying to the sources quoted. It isn't "2000 years" at all. The 3000 Greek words in Hebrew and Aramaic were already there in the period of Roman Palestine.

Where in the link says that? It refers to Bar Bahlul who lived in the 900s AD. In its link to Gematria, once source is Ruth R[abbah] that is from the same Gaonic era (6th to 11th c.). Please take some time and contemplate your own sources instead of mass copy pasting.

By the way, the whole piece (and the estimated "3000" loans) are from the author's 1898 book which lists many medieval sources, and many of his etymologies were contested later.

 

[S.V.]

That Beirut_Hellenistic (AJHG) also seems to point in the opposite direction. With a Seleucid population in the millions.

 

[Apollodorus]

Where in the link says that? It refers to Bar Bahlul who lived in the 900s AD.

Well, "900s AD" isn't 2000 years as you suggested. Besides, there were significant changes in Hebrew and Aramaic that took place as a result of Greek influence. Please re-read the sources.

There is a very good reason why historians refer to the period in question as “Hellenistic period” and to Judaism itself as “Hellenistic Judaism”. It’s because the culture and religion of Palestine at the time experienced changes under Greek influence.

The study of Greek philosophy among Jews has a very long tradition stretching from Greek and Roman Palestine to the Middle Ages.

Of course Greek-speaking Jews had access to Greek philosophical and other texts at the libraries of Alexandria, Antioch and other centres of Hellenistic culture and the knowledge they acquired there was naturally transmitted to Palestine.

But the main point is that Greek philosophy and language were available at Jerusalem itself.

St Paul who was trained in Greek philosophy and debated with the Greek philosophers of Athens, studied under Gamaliel the Elder (ca. 10 BC – 60 AD) who held a leading position in the Sanhedrin. The grandson of Gamaliel the Elder, Gamaliel II, the recognized head of the Jews in Palestine during the last two decades of the first and at the beginning of the second century, was also trained in Greek philosophy.

So, I think there can be no doubt that Greek language and philosophy were being taught at Jerusalem throughout the first century AD (and beyond) and at the highest level. The influence of Greek culture explains how many Greek ideas – moral perfection, eternal life, Godlikeness, tripartite division of man into body, soul and spirit, etc. – found their way into Christianity.

This raises the possibility that Luke’s paradeisos is a Greek term referring to “the abode of the righteous dead” or simply, “Heaven” - by analogy with the Greek term Διὸς κῆπος Dios kepos, literally, “Garden of God” that was also used in the sense of “Heaven”.

It also fits in with St Paul’s reference to “the third heaven” (τρίτος οὐρᾰνός tritos ouranos) which he equates with Paradise paradeisos (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). Like “Garden of God”, “Heaven” in Greek tradition meant the “Abode of God (and other divine beings including humans who had become godlike through moral and spiritual perfection)”.

As both Luke and Paul were obviously Greek-educated and used Greek to address semi-converted, Greek-speaking Pagans at Corinth and other Hellenistic cities, it seems likely that paradeisos in the sense of “abode of the righteous dead”, “Heaven”, is in fact a Greek word. There is no need to over-analyse it and try to make it into something else.