He acted on his own authority when he represented himself as an apostle and direct witness of Jesus. — Paine

I agree, but I don't think he saw it that way.

it seems to me that what is claimed matters. — Paine

Indeed! But when one believes he is doing God's will he may draw no sharp line between acts that benefit and acts that harm. Acts that hard may not be seen as an indication by him that he is not doing God's will. The most celebrated and disturbing example is Abram's sacrifice of Isaac.

But it is not just such extreme cases that I was pointing to. When one is convinced that his own beliefs and opinions cannot be wrong his absolute certainty remains the same even if the content of those convictions were to become their opposite.

We cannot witness what other people are 'absolutely certain' about. We can witness what is excluded on the authority of such certainty. Paul's vision excluded other views as a denial of his truth. That is different from simply saying other people don't get it. it is the spirit of that sort of condemnation that has called forth Christianity's darkest aspect.
For myself, the instruction to not judge so as not to be judged is a lesson that does not fit with this view. It is a proposition of physics more than an article of belief.

Paul's vision excluded other views as a denial of his truth. That is different from simply saying other people don't get it. it is the spirit of that sort of condemnation that has called forth Christianity's darkest aspect. — Paine

I think this is more a reflection on Saul/Paul than on what Christianity might have been and in some cases was. He seems to have had conflicting impulses. On the one hand he sought unity but on the other he sowed division and divisiveness.

We see this in John too. According to the author Jesus said to Thomas:

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

(John 14:6)

Only in John are we told of "doubting Thomas". And only in John are we told that Jesus stands between man and God, and of this claim of exclusivity.

As with all movements, factions develop. John's message of exclusivity seems to reflect one such division. John's message is not simply that Jesus is the way but that to follow Thomas and his writings is the way of doubt.

Theologically many modern Catholics are very open to other theological positions in my experience. — Dermot Griffin

I agree, they seem to be particularly open to Marxism, Atheism, and Islam. Though not necessarily in that order ....

Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic, the common language spoken. — Joe Mello

Just out of curiosity, is that what it said in the local paper, or were you there in person? :smile:

I agree, they seem to be particularly open to Marxism, Atheism, and Islam. Though not necessarily in that order .... — Apollodorus

I originally adhered to Marxism and dubbed myself a staunch atheist early in college but soon discarded these beliefs. I think Marx got a few things right but the solution to the problem is what makes me criticize Classical Marxism. Marxist humanism attempts to rectify the problem by stripping Marxism of economic terminology to focus more on everyday problems but this too did not impress me. As far as my faith goes, believe me, I am at odds with some of the things in Catholicism; I like to say I’m culturally Roman Catholic but sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy. If Traditionalist Roman Catholics and Evangelicals were open to biblical studies I think they would have no problem being reasonable people while also practicing their faith. This, of course, does not mean that every Traditionalist and Evangelical is against biblical studies. I’m sure it is only a select group.

@Apollodorus

I’d answer you, but you’re obviously way too smart for me.

I only got a scholastic education, and didn’t spend time on the Internet Googling my ass off.

And isn’t it weird how our calendar represents an imaginary person’s life?

And all those crosses in the sky, and becoming the greatest person who ever lived — just weird.

Thank us for the Internet, where everyone can become a genius overnight.

I only got a scholastic education, and didn’t spend time on the Internet Googling my ass off. — Joe Mello

Great. And part of your scholastic education was to make evidence-free statements?

As far as my faith goes, believe me, I am at odds with some of the things in Catholicism — Dermot Griffin

So, would you agree with @Joe Mello's statement "Jesus said “take and eat”, “take and drink”, and he said it in Aramaic"?

Well I am still a believer in the fact that Jesus understood Greek at least a little bit. It is well documented that Koine Greek was popular in his day. Aramaic just so happened to be his native tongue. So yes I do believe Jesus gave his lectures in Aramaic. When it comes to “Take and eat” it really depends on the theology behind it. Catholicism teaches transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. This not only defies modern science but also defies Aristotelian natural philosophy. This being said I’ve never believed in it. If one were to believe that the real presence of Christ was in the heart of the believer receiving communion then I would not have a problem with this as this is something I believe; “transignification” is what this tends to be called and it is very close to how High Church Protestants view it.

I am still a believer in the fact that Jesus understood Greek at least a little bit. It is well documented that Koine Greek was popular in his day. Aramaic just so happened to be his native tongue. — Dermot Griffin

Sure. However, even if his "native tongue" was Aramaic, it does not follow that the language he used was always Aramaic. On the contrary, precisely because Greek was popular, it would have made sense for Jesus to use Greek, the language that would have been understood by Jews and non-Jews alike.

As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek.

Moreover, Matthew says:

13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell (lit. Hades) shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16)

Note the Greek term "Hades" and the Greek wordplay involving "Petros" and "petra", which suggests that the language used may have been Greek.

The same goes for the Last Supper event, where Jesus conveyed a message that was addressed to the whole community of believers, not only to Aramaic speakers.

Jesus was a carpenter talking to fishermen at the Last Supper.

To look up on Google if he spoke Greek is idiotic.

The way I see it, much of biblical scholarship seems to be stuck in the 1940’s when Israel was controlled by Marxists and there was an effort to dismiss early Christianity as a minor Jewish sect with links to the Qumran scrolls.

However, 1st century Galilee was heavily Hellenized and some of Jesus’ own disciples had Greek names, e.g., Andrew, Philip, Simon, which suggests a Hellenized cultural background.

Moreover, if, as per the NT text, Jesus was the Son of God, then (a) he would have spoken fluent Greek and (b) it would have made sense for him to use the universal language of the time in order to spread a universal message – which, incidentally, is precisely why Greek was chosen as the language of the Gospels.

The alternative view would have to be based on the assumptions that (a) Jesus was not the Son of God but an uneducated man, and (b) that his intention was not to establish a universal religion but a small Jewish sect, all of which IMHO seems to undermine the very foundations of Christianity.

So, I think it all depends on the kind of "Christian" you choose to be .... :wink:

To look up on Google if he spoke Greek is idiotic. — Joe Mello

That may be so, if only because Jesus' speaking Greek in addition to Aramaic is a logical conclusion. However, you haven't told us what language you think Jesus used when he spoke to Pilate.

As per the NT text, there was a conversation between Jesus and Pilates in the judgement hall. It seems to me that the most logical language to have been used in that exchange was Greek. — Apollodorus

Which was the native language of neither of them?

I imagine that Pilate, in his official capacity as a Roman governor, would speak Latin and that he would not lower himself to speak the native language of the people who were subjected to him (even if he were fluent in the language).

It's a power play: In a conversation, he who speaks the other's language thereby becomes the inferior one. It's why old-school politicians and academics insist in either speaking their own language, or a language that is a foreign language for all participants (but which they're all fluent in).

It seems theoretically possible that Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke Aramaic and that both understood eachother's language, but insisted on speaking each their own.

You know what is very sad about modern thinkers today hard at work on their Google Machines?

You can present to them the greatest person who ever lived, a person whose life is relevant to our calendar, whose words and deeds changed humanity for 2,000 years, who actually said that we will never die and gave everything he had to show us, and modern thinkers will not spend a moment pondering what this person actually means, but will spend weeks and weeks pondering what language this person spoke.

Here’s a question this person asked in Aramaic:

“When the Son of Man returns to the earth, will he find any faith?”

What a clever fellow this person was.

It seems theoretically possible that Pilate spoke Latin and Jesus spoke Aramaic and that both understood eachother's language, but insisted on speaking each their own. — baker

Theoretically, anything is possible. However, Greek was universally spoken in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire because the region had been under Greek rule for several centuries and Greek rulers promoted Greek culture and language. Educated Romans, especially the nobility, spoke Greek which was the language of culture, philosophy, and science.

In Roman Palestine, Greek was the common conversational medium between the locals and the Roman authorities, as evident from the NT text itself:

As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, “May I say something to you?” “Do you speak Greek?” he replied (Acts 21:37).

Obviously, Paul addressed the Roman commander in Greek, even though as a Roman citizen, he might have been expected to know Latin. But Greek was the common language, Latin being limited to the Roman-born military and administrative authorities.

For the same reason, as the NT clearly says, Pilate had an inscription written in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, attached to Jesus' cross (John 19:20).

PS To understand the cultural and linguistic situation of Roman Palestine, it is useful to refer to scholars like Martin Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism) or G. Scott Gleaves (Did Jesus Speak Greek?).

The way I see it, much of biblical scholarship seems to be stuck in the 1940’s when Israel was controlled by Marxists and there was an effort to dismiss early Christianity as a minor Jewish sect with links to the Qumran scrolls. — Apollodorus

Well, this goes some way toward explaining what you meant by calling some scholars 'anti-Christian'; You were referring to secular Jews. Perhaps you could cite examples of such influence and motivation.
The origins of historical research in Jesus' life go back at least 200 years. How does your narrative fit into that?

Moreover, if, as per the NT text, Jesus was the Son of God, then (a) he would have spoken fluent Greek and (b) it would have made sense for him to use the universal language of the time in order to spread a universal message – which, incidentally, is precisely why Greek was chosen as the language of the Gospels. — Apollodorus

If you are going to appeal to the divinity of Jesus to say that he would not be bound by any historical condition he found himself in, then it is meaningless to argue for any historical condition being more likely than another. Joe Mello is at least consistent on this point. If one believes that the words and actions of Jesus was accurately recorded and relayed to us is a matter of faith, all questions regarding their veracity has been solved for all time.

IMO it is absolutely crucial to understand the status of Greek in the Roman Empire. The Italic Peninsula itself had been colonized by Greeks for many centuries. Greek culture was regarded as more advanced than the local Italic culture. Even the Italic scripts (Latin, Etruscan) had been adopted from the Greeks. Greek was widely used even in Rome, especially by the educated upper classes. Emperor Claudius referred to Latin and Greek as the mother tongues of the Empire (lit. “our tongues”).

Jesus is said to have grown up in Galilee. The population of Galilee was a mixture of Aramaic, Iturean, Phoenician, and Greek elements, and Greek was widely spoken. It doesn’t say anywhere that 1st-century Galilean carpenters weren’t allowed to speak Greek.

There is continual scholarly discussion and debate today regarding the languages spoken and used in the multilingual speech community of first-century Palestine. The scholarly proposals are many, but there is an increasing awareness among biblical scholars that Greek would have been the primary and prestige language and the lingua franca of that ancient speech community.

The Language and Literature of the New Testament – Academia Edu

Based on numbers alone, Greek had as much currency in first- as it did in second- and third-century Galilee … On the basis of all of the extant evidence, knowledge of Greek was probably quite common, with most people picking it up by force of circumstance rather than through formal instruction.

The Use of Greek in Early Roman Galilee - Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT)

Moreover, we also need to take into account that Jesus was not the only one present in Pilate’s judgment hall. There were also the chief priests and the elders, i.e., Jesus’ accusers, who wouldn’t have spoken Latin. And as @baker has correctly pointed out, Pilate is unlikely to have used Aramaic in a Roman court of law.

All facts considered, the most likely language for Jesus to have used in his conversation with Pilate is Greek.

If you are going to appeal to the divinity of Jesus to say that he would not be bound by any historical condition he found himself in, then it is meaningless to argue for any historical condition being more likely than another. — Paine

Nonsense. Whether divine or not, Jesus would have used the language that had the widest currency at that point in time and space. There is nothing wrong with trying to establish what that language was. Indeed, the growing scholarly consensus is that it was Greek, more precisely, Galilean Greek, i.e., a local dialect of Koine Greek.

Jesus would have used the language that had the widest currency at that point in time and space. — Apollodorus

That might be if it was Jesus's intention to spread a universal message and establish a universal religion, as you assume. It is clear that Paul sought to establish a universal church, but it is also clear, according to Paul himself, that he was opposed by Peter.

You say that if Jesus':

... intention was not to establish a universal religion but a small Jewish sect, all of which IMHO seems to undermine the very foundations of Christianity. — Apollodorus

But you also cite in Matthew Jesus saying that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. In Matthew we also find Jesus saying:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(5:20)

and:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

(7:13-14)

Indeed, this undermines Paul's Christianity, but Paul's Christianity is not the rock on which the church is to be built according to Matthew. Far from being universal, the gate is small and the road narrow and only a few who are exceedingly righteous find it.

Nonsense. Whether divine or not, Jesus would have used the language that had the widest currency at that point in time and space — Apollodorus

But you just argued that Jesus had to have known Greek on account of him being the Son of God

as per the NT text, Jesus was the Son of God, then (a) he would have spoken fluent Greek and (b) it would have made sense for him to use the universal language of the time in order to spread a universal message — Apollodorus

You use the divine to explain capacity and motivation. And then you abandon that argument to justify your thesis on historical grounds again. It is not so much a species of circular reasoning as it is a mobius strip.

It is not so much a species of circular reasoning as it is a mobius strip. — Paine

On the contrary, the "mobius strip" is entirely yours. The scholarly position is that Greek was widely spoken in Roman Galilee, therefore Jesus himself most probably spoke Greek, especially with Pilate.

So, I think your opinion is irrelevant for all practical purposes .... :smile:

if, as per the NT text, Jesus was the Son of God, then (a) he would have spoken fluent Greek — Apollodorus

The fact that some commenters here can’t seem to separate the Gospel authors and their familiarity with Greek, rhetoric, and literary genres similar to Gospels (for bougie Greek audience) versus the Palestinian Jewish characters it’s about and setting the stories take place in is astounding.

By the time of Jesus, all Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism. Martin Hengel's dictum, articulated in his massive book Judaism and Hellenism and elaborated upon in follow-up projects, has been enormously influential. His review of evidence from the Persian through the early rabbinic periods demonstrated that Hellenistic influence was felt in many spheres of Jewish life in Palestine: linguistic, literary, educational, architectural, religious, philosophical, artistic, political, economic, and military. Collectively a tour de force, his works exposed the problematic nature of sharp differentiations between Judaism in the Mediterranean Diaspora and Judaism in Palestine. Hengel argued that any use of the phrase “Hellenistic Judaism” that excludes Palestinian Judaism is inappropriate, and any effort to portray Palestinian Judaism as more “orthodox” than Diaspora Judaism on the basis of its supposedly lesser Hellenization is doomed to failure. Hengel has had his critics, but his main point is rightly accepted as conventional wisdom in most sectors of New Testament scholarship: Palestinian Judaism must be understood as a part of, not apart from, Hellenistic Judaism.

Judaism in Galilee was no exception. It, too, felt the impact of Greek culture, and no one can any longer imagine Jesus living, as it were, on an isolated and untouched island of Semitic culture in a sea of Hellenism. Like the rest of Palestine, it came under the influence of yet another empire's culture when it fell into the orbit of Rome, a point that Hengel and others also correctly made ....

Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus - Cambridge University Press

Incidentally, even the coins that Pilate minted have Greek inscriptions on them. They were minted in Jerusalem and were the official currency in the whole province:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#/media/File:Coin-of-Pilate.jpg

The decisive issue here is not whether Hellenism influenced Jesus but what Jesus, his disciples, and Paul understood by "son of God". To assert or imply that because of Hellenistic influence Jesus or his disciples rejected monotheism and embraced instead the pagan notion of a human god or accepted the tortured and convoluted logic of trinitarianism is nothing more than an attempt to distort the beliefs of these messianic Jews to conform to beliefs that emerged only in later Christian developments.

The term 'son of God' as it is used in the Hebrew Bible always refers to a human being, not to a man who becomes a god or a god who becomes a man. The fact that such notions were accepted in Greco-Roman culture does not mean they were accepted by the Jews of Galilee.

Well, if that's what you think then you're on the wrong thread here! :lol:

The OP states in clear and unambiguous terms:

Several biblical scholars, my two favorite being John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack, suggest that Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic thought. I think the connections are logical. — Dermot Griffin

Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. Although Christian views of Jesus vary, it is possible to summarize the key beliefs shared among major denominations, as stated in their catechetical or confessional texts. Christian views of Jesus are derived from various sources, including the canonical gospels and New Testament letters such as the Pauline epistles and the Johannine writings. These documents outline the key beliefs held by Christians about Jesus, including his divinity, humanity, and earthly life, and that he is the Christ and the Son of God …
Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God

Jesus - Wikipedia

At any rate, the evidence indicates that Jesus spoke Greek and made use of Hellenistic cultural elements because that was the common language and culture at the time ....

If that's what you think then you're on the wrong thread! : — Apollodorus

Have you read your own posts? For example:

IMO what happened was that in later times a new narrative emerged that was based on the "Athens-vs.-Jerusalem" polemic and sought to paint any Greek influence as "alien" or "Pagan". — Apollodorus

The expression "Athens and Jerusalem" refers to the difference between the authority of reason versus revelation. It is not a polemic against Greek influence.

Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God

The point you are evading is not about what most Christians believe but about what the term 'son of God' meant to Jesus and his disciples.

The Lord's Prayer does not say "my father" or "the father of the only begotten son" but simply "our Father". Jesus referred to "the children of God". In John Jesus defends himself by saying:

Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are ‘gods’’

(10:34-36)

He is most likely referring to Psalms 82:6-7:

‘I said, ‘You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.’

If Jesus understood himself to be a son of God in this sense then he is not the one unique Son". And, of course, those who die like mere mortals are mere mortals. Jesus goes on to say, according to John, that he does the work of his father. (10:37-38) He makes the distinction that later Christians do not pay proper attention to on the basis of something he said a bit earlier:

I and the father are one

(10:30)

this expression of unity is later taken to mean one and the same. But this can only be done at the expense of ignoring the distinctions between him and the father that he repeatedly makes. It is only when his words are heard with foreign ears that his words come to take on a very different meaning. A pagan meaning where the distinction between man and God is obliterated.

The expression "Athens and Jerusalem" refers to the difference between the authority of reason versus revelation. It is not a polemic against Greek influence. — Fooloso4

Perhaps you should learn how to read before commenting on other people’s posts. :smile:

Please note that I said “Athens vs. Jerusalem” which does in fact refer to the perceived conflict between (a) Greek philosophy (= Athens) and (b) Judeo-Christian revelation (= Jerusalem), and goes back to Tertullian’s Against Heretics (the title itself says it all) where he argues that the former has no place in the latter:

Heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the Aeons, and I know not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school … What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! (7.3, 9-11)

So, very clearly, it has to do with a Judeo-Christian rejection of Greek influence and subsequent attempts to “de-Hellenize” Christianity. This has culminated in a range of spurious theories to the effect that the Gospels were originally composed in “Aramaic”, that Jesus “couldn’t have spoken Greek”, and other historical and logical aberrations.

You claim:

Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language ... — Apollodorus

and:

I think the main Greek influence on Jesus was linguistic ... — Apollodorus

At one point you admit:

What seems clear is that Hellenistic culture had more influence on later Christianity than on Jesus himself. — Apollodorus

And yet:

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.) — Apollodorus

This notion of divine knowledge is quite different than a linguistic influence. In addition, it ignores the fundamental difference between Athens and Jerusalem. There is no revelation from God in Plato. He was not a prophet.

As Christianity develops attempts are made to reconcile reason and revelation, but this was on "later Christianity rather than on Jesus himself". Moreover you have not shown that those later developments, most importantly, of man becoming God or God becoming man, were not pagan ideas, that they were not foreign, and can be found in Judaism.

As already stated, Greek "influence" on Jesus consisted in his making use of the Greek language and the Hellenized culture of Roman Palestine.

Hellenistic influence increased after the destruction of the Second Temple, which is why synagogues with mosaics representing themes from Greek religion and mythology began to appear throughout the region:

Following the destruction of Second Temple Judaism, the dominant form of Judaism practiced in Judea at the time, a Judaism centered around the Temple, disappeared. Hellenistic Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism in the Holy Land in the following centuries, as the mosaic-adorned synagogues attest.

The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel – Haaretz

Huqoq is located about three miles west of Capernaum, the Galilean town where Jesus taught in the synagogue and near where he gave the Sermon on the Mount … The mosaics decorating the floor of the Huqoq synagogue revolutionize our understanding of Judaism in this period. Ancient Jewish art is often thought to be aniconic, or lacking images. But these mosaics, colorful and filled with figured scenes, attest to a rich visual culture as well as to the dynamism and diversity of Judaism in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods …

Stunning Biblical Mosaics Discovered in Ancient Synagogue - Patterns of Evidence

In other words, there was growing Hellenistic influence from 305 BC into the early centuries of the Christian Era, followed by a counter-movement in Christianity and Judaism alike, that sought to eliminate that influence, as evidenced by the anti-Greek polemics of Tertullian and later authors. There is nothing unclear or contradictory about it whatsoever.

The question of Plato himself being a prophet is irrelevant. According to Plato, knowledge has a divine origin, the divine Form of the Good being the source of all knowledge (Republic 508e1-4), and philosophers and prophets can be inspired by it. “Prophet” (prophetes) is a Greek word originally applied to those who communicate the will of God (Zeus) to man!