Historical Jesus

[Politesse]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

 

[Swammerdami]

I should qualify my previous post. Even if we agree that "Hebrew" is cognate with the Akkadian word for "mercenary/bandit" it does NOT follow that the Hebrew were bandits -- it became an ethnonym, perhaps in a roundabout way.

Hebrews didn't call themselves "Hebrews" at first either. This was an Akkadian word ( Habiru) often translated as mercenary or bandit.

Scholars are reluctant to cite this etymology for obvious reasons. Yet the Wiki article connects "Habiru" to ʿApiru, meaning "those who cross from the other side"; and Wiktionary gives the etymology of Hebrew /ivri/ as

Traditionally from עֵבֶר‎ ('éver, “Eber”), the ancestor of the Israelites. Probably related to עָבַר‎ ('avár, “to cross”), from the crossing of the river Euphrates or Jordan to Canaan.

I neglected to mention a supporting clue. In Genesis and Exodus most of the mentions of "Hebrew" are spoken by or spoken to Egyptians. When Egyptians are not involved the narrator refers to the "children of Israel." (An exception is the very first "Hebrew" mention, Genesis 14:13 "[One who had escaped from the pillaging of Sodom] told Abram the Hebrew ..." Still named "Abram" rather than Abraham this was before the births of Abram's sons, before the covenant in Genesis 17.)

With the equation Hebrew = Habiru, the 14th-century Amarna Letters shed light on the birth of Israelite domains.

In Palestine, no doubt, peace as regards Egypt would soon have been restored had not the Habiri proceeded to seize certain strongholds, which they used as centres for further expeditions, thus involving the settled inhabitants in wider quarrels.

To the king, my lord, hath spoken Abdi-bjba, thy servant : At the feet of my lord, the king, seven times and seven times do I fall. What have I done to the king, my lord ? They have slandered me before the king, my lord [saying] : " Abdi-Jiiba has revolted from the king, his lord." ...
May the king care for his land ! The lands of the king, my lord, have all fallen away. Ilimilku is destroying the entire land of the king. May the lord care for his land ! I say : " I will go before the king, my lord, and see the eyes of the king, my lord." But the enemies are powerful against me, and I am unable to go before the king, my lord. So may it seem right to the king to send garrison-troops, and I will go and see the eyes of the king, my lord ! So long as the king, my lord, lives, when an officer goes forth, I shall say : " The lands of the king, my lord, are going to ruin." But you do not listen to me. All the local governors are lost ; there remains not one local governor to the king, my lord.

Let the king turn his face to the troops, and let the king, my lord, send troops ! No territory remains to the king, my lord. The Habirii are devastating all the lands of the king. If there be troops in this year, then the lands will remain the king's, my lord's ; but if no troops arrive, the lands of the king, my lord, are lost.

(Caveat: In some of the Amarna Letters it is believed that the rebel chieftain wrote to Pharaoh protesting innocence and falsely accusing another chieftain!)

 

[Swammerdami]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

What gibberish is this? Do you think ancient languages lacked synonyms (indeed cognates) for Israelite and Hebrew???

 

[Politesse]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

What gibberish is this? Do you think ancient languages lacked synonyms (indeed cognates) for Israelite and Hebrew???

No, but I think they likely used their own languages. Arguing about what modern English term is best to use is stupid. Are you insisting on using English? Great. Are you insisting on using Aramaic? Great, do that. but there's no "correct English terminology". You're imposing your language on the past either wat, it doesn't matter which of your own words you want to use to do it. And between near languages cognates are as apt to be deceptive as helpful.

 

[Swammerdami]

Genesis 39:14 speaks of an "Hebrew." On-line I learn that this is עִבְרִ֖י /‘iḇ-rî/ in the original Hebrew. Cognate/synonym or Coincidence? I report; you decide. Wiktionary shows for the etymology of "Hebrew":

From Middle English Ebreu, from Old French Ebreu, from Latin hebraeus or hebraicus, from Ancient Greek Ἑβραῖος (Hebraîos), from Aramaic עִבְרַי‎ (ʿiḇray), from Hebrew עִבְרִי‎ (ʿiḇrī́).

Exodus 9:6 speaks of "the children of Israel." On-line we learn that this is בְנֵֽי־ /ḇə-nê-/ ... יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל /yiś-rā-’êl/ in the original Hebrew. Cognate/synonym or Coincidence? I report; you decide.

/ḇə-nê-/ is shown glossed as "sons" rather than "children," perhaps implying that King James -- or whoever -- might have stooped to slight changes to the text. But Politesse did you really believe that "Hebrew" or "Israel" were made-up words with no relationship to the Hebrew words??

I admit to disappointment that we need to pursue this nit. Anyway, I assume you think your viewpoint is valid; and I will bow out of the thread.

 

[Elixir]

I think they likely used their own languages. Arguing about what modern English term is best to use is stupid.

IME, a lot of words that are "unique" to a language are just badly pronounced words from another (or previous) language.

 

[Politesse]

Well, the context of words just changes, no matter what you do. Necessarily. Being a Jew in today's world is a very different thing than being a Benjaminite in 5th century BCE Damascus, both are different from being a Diaporic Juadoi in Roman era Antioch, and it's not because of translation errors. Connotation matters.

But Politesse did you really believe that "Hebrew" or "Israel" were made-up words with no relationship to the Hebrew words??

I said nothing of the sort.

"A is related to B" is not the same thing as "A is identical to B".

"When did such and such a people start calling themselves Jews" is a nonsensical question, placing the cart far before the horse.

 

[Learner]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

The ancient residents of Palestine didn't speak English back in those days?

Surely Poli, you can't be suggesting that people around the time of Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan didn't speak English too - when we can er... also read about them in English today?

 

[Politesse]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

The ancient residents of Palestine didn't speak English back in those days?

Surely Poli, you can't be suggesting that people around the time of Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan didn't speak English too - when we can er... also read about them in English today?

I'd think it was just as dumb to have a conversation about when the Greeks started calling themselves Greeks.

 

[Learner]

Cheers Swammi for highlighting that. I'll exchange Hebrews with Israelites instead.

Or you could just, you know, learn that the ancient residents of Palestine did not speak English at all.

The ancient residents of Palestine didn't speak English back in those days?

Surely Poli, you can't be suggesting that people around the time of Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan didn't speak English too - when we can er... also read about them in English today?

I'd think it was just as dumb to have a conversation about when the Greeks started calling themselves Greeks.

People calling themselves whatever names, was not the issue . That was not my argument in the discussion. I mean to state the obvious... if we are to describe a group of people to differentiate from another group of people then we can discuss who's who for the conversation to proceed.

Previously in a post I was asking 'what was changed', between the different translations (various English versions in this case in a previous post) responding to the suggestion of narrative changes as per translation etc.. or do they instead, still share the same narrative convention?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey snap ... (briefly until I get back to my pc).

"Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture"

Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

 

[steve_bank]

Hey snap ... (briefly until I get back to my pc).

"Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture"

Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

Don't confuse us with facts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey snap ... (briefly until I get back to my pc).

"Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture"

Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

Don't confuse us with facts.

Another funny one is that when the Christian church split from Judaism and started having mass on Sundays, Christians just went to Jewish temples on Saturday and Christian churches on Sunday. Or just to the one most convenient to their work schedules. Much to the annoyance of the Christian church leadership

 

[DrZoidberg]

All these heresies that kept being stamped out, they stuck around out in the villages. An example Gnosticsm was officially banned at the council of Nicea in 325 AD. But the orthodox church had been trying to supress it since 200 AD. Very unsuccessfully. In 325 AD it was made official and the government now had the go ahead to burn all gnostic texts. Problem solved? No. The gnostic sects like the Paulicians, Bogomils and Cathars kept popping up. These were huge mass movements following a heretical form of Christianity. There would be gnostic priests out in the provinces, who themselves, wasn't quite aware that their teachings did not conform to Catholic Orthodoxy. The Gnostic biblical texts stuck around for a millenea. Gnosticism was more similar to paganism. So would feel more familiar and natural to those living in what used to be the Roman empire.

My point with this is that our idea of clear discreet groupings of religious followers with clear labels is a fantasy. The grey area was huge. And to add to the confusion. In the Roman empire around 0 AD it was common to pick and chose your own faith. It was all one big confusing mess. It stayed that was for a thousand years. The church leadership did their best to clean this up. But it took a lot of work for a very long time, to get somewhat of a clear coherrent message across.

Anway... this is what early Christianity is like. It's a rapidly evolving jumbled mess of ideas and identities sliding back and forward. All Christians claiming Jesus, no matter what their denomination, and putting words in Jesus' mouth. Even if Jesus' really existed. The idea that anything is left from Jesus' original teachings is a fantasy. Trends and the politics of the church wiped that out. Probably very fast. Paul going rogue and opening up Judaism to gentiles is the biggest one. That came from left field, and quickly crowded out the Jewish Jews (they weren't calling themselves Christians yet). All very confusing.

You can actual track in the Biblical texts whether or not it's a text written for ethnic Jewish Chritians or gentile Christians. Since the texts written for Jewish Christians doesn't explain Jewish rites. It assumes familiarity. The texts written for gentile Christians explain basics. And then there's the gem in the gospel of John, just calling ethnic Jews for "the Jews" sharply creating a distinction, and calling them culpable for killing the non-Jewish Jesus. I'm not sure how John thinks that works out. Anyway. Clearly not written for isrealite eyes.

 

[steve_bank]

As I like to say, if you wnat to follow Jesus eat kosher.

 

[Swammerdami]

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

No.

... James, Cephas and John ... gave unto me and Barnabas ... fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.

... Χριστιανούς ...
[KJV translation] ... and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

... Χριστιανὸν ...

... Χριστιανός ...

Many scholars believe Acts was written about 80 AD before the letters of Paul began to circulate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey snap ... (briefly until I get back to my pc).

"Not until Christians started identifying themselves as separate from Jews did the New Testament become important or the primary religious scripture"

Hebrews didn't call themselves Jews before there was a Judah. A good point to note .

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

Don't confuse us with facts.

Another fun little detail is that Nero blamed the fire on "foreign influences". So any religious sect or practice deemed as unroman. This might have flown a hundred years earlier. But the Roman empire had changed a lot. No longer was being unroman a problem. Now it was trendy. Dodgy eastern cult religions was all the rage. Especially the Cult of Isis. Which is an Egyptian cult pre-dating Christianity by centuries, yet almost identical in practice. They were the main target for Nero's persecutions. Not Christians.

Either way, his attempt to blame the foreigners backfired spectacularly. Something I wish our modern world might learn from and emulate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

No.

... James, Cephas and John ... gave unto me and Barnabas ... fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.

... Χριστιανούς ...
[KJV translation] ... and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

... Χριστιανὸν ...

... Χριστιανός ...

Many scholars believe Acts was written about 80 AD before the letters of Paul began to circulate.

Here's two pictures of evolution. Your idea of how Christianity developed is the second picture. While the reality of how Christianity developed is the first picture.

The first council of Nicea was jam packed with bishops having ideas that would later be branded as heresies. Because at that point Christians wasn't quite sure what Christianity was, still.

Just because you can find a guy who had done something at an early age. Doesn't mean it was commonly accepted or even a thing among the Christian population at large.

But most importantly. The hair splitting going on at the upper most eschelons of the Christian leadership could take centuries before it filtered down to the laypeople. Most prosyletizers of Christianity, right up to our day are not priests, have no theological training. And in the ancient world they were illterate. How big chance do you think it is that these guys accurately manage to summarise the current approved teachings of the church?

 

[Swammerdami]

I must admit I find many or most of your posts baffling, Dr. Z.

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

No.

... James, Cephas and John ... gave unto me and Barnabas ... fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.

... Χριστιανούς ...
[KJV translation] ... and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

... Χριστιανὸν ...

... Χριστιανός ...

Many scholars believe Acts was written about 80 AD before the letters of Paul began to circulate.

Here's two pictures of evolution. Your idea of how Christianity developed is the second picture. While the reality of how Christianity developed is the first picture.

The first council of Nicea was jam packed with bishops having ideas that would later be branded as heresies. Because at that point Christians wasn't quite sure what Christianity was, still.

Just because you can find a guy who had done something at an early age. Doesn't mean it was commonly accepted or even a thing among the Christian population at large.

But most importantly. The hair splitting going on at the upper most eschelons of the Christian leadership could take centuries before it filtered down to the laypeople. Most prosyletizers of Christianity, right up to our day are not priests, have no theological training. And in the ancient world they were illterate. How big chance do you think it is that these guys accurately manage to summarise the current approved teachings of the church?

AFAIK, nobody in the thread has adopted a scholarly approach to the question of how Christianity developed. Not me. Not you. The best we can hope for here is to correct simple factual errors.

In the post to which I responded you made two peculiar claims which I have reddened for clarity. These claims are false, as I demonstrated. I've no idea what your rejoinder has to do with the Swammi post you quoted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I must admit I find many or most of your posts baffling, Dr. Z.

They have called themselves all sorts of things. Isrealites mostly. The point I was making is that it took centuries before Christians to identify themselves as separate from Jews. Yes, Nero persecuted Jews. Not Christians. Because that wasn't a thing then.

No.

... James, Cephas and John ... gave unto me and Barnabas ... fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.

... Χριστιανούς ...
[KJV translation] ... and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

... Χριστιανὸν ...

... Χριστιανός ...

Many scholars believe Acts was written about 80 AD before the letters of Paul began to circulate.

Here's two pictures of evolution. Your idea of how Christianity developed is the second picture. While the reality of how Christianity developed is the first picture.

The first council of Nicea was jam packed with bishops having ideas that would later be branded as heresies. Because at that point Christians wasn't quite sure what Christianity was, still.

Just because you can find a guy who had done something at an early age. Doesn't mean it was commonly accepted or even a thing among the Christian population at large.

But most importantly. The hair splitting going on at the upper most eschelons of the Christian leadership could take centuries before it filtered down to the laypeople. Most prosyletizers of Christianity, right up to our day are not priests, have no theological training. And in the ancient world they were illterate. How big chance do you think it is that these guys accurately manage to summarise the current approved teachings of the church?

AFAIK, nobody in the thread has adopted a scholarly approach to the question of how Christianity developed. Not me. Not you. The best we can hope for here is to correct simple factual errors.

In the post to which I responded you made two peculiar claims which I have reddened for clarity. These claims are false, as I demonstrated. I've no idea what your rejoinder has to do with the Swammi post you quoted.

How did you demonstrate they are false? You posted someone having said something at some point, way before that person's opinion was accepted as the official Christian position. That doesn’t prove anything.

The most popular term for Christians in the early years was "Nazarenes". Or "Nazarene Jews". Because its a variant of Judaism stemming from Nazareth.

The guy who first wanted an identity separate from other Jews, was Marcion. His opinion horrified the mainstream Christians bishops, and he was one of the first heretics. Branded a heretic in 208 AD. He was the one who came up with the idea of making a new Bible for Christians. This also horrified mainstream Christians. But they were eventually forced to come around. Because book technology is a great way of spreading ideas. And the only way to stop Marcions ideas from spreading faster than their ideas was to make their own New Testament.

This was when the mission of the church to find early Christian texts began. Yes, this late. Then these new texts became popular. They really really caught on in Egypt. And the need to collate the best Biblical texts became necessary. Which is something the Bishop of Alexandria did (Athanasius 325 AD). This one was later accepted as the definitive one in the council of nicea