Musing About Black and White Thinking in the Abrahamic Religions

[RandomVariable]

Conversations with God can go to levels you have can not even fathom. You are oblivious to your very own creation. And yes, you too were created.

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

 

[BluePhantom]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

Well I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, so I am not going to get too far into this here, but I will comment that I agree with you in certain senses. What I mean is that when we open ourselves to God and allow the relationship to grow freely we must be very careful to ensure that it is growing in the direction God is determining and not what we are determining. So for example, if one says 'I am going to step away from an organized religion and just follow God', that's great, but we can trick ourselves into thinking that our worldly desires represent spiritual growth and God. It's the difference between allowing God to reveal Himself to us and through us, and re-inventing God in our own image in order to satisfy a want or a need that is motivated by material issues and not spiritual ones.

You are trying to claim the higher ground on me by showing how you are more inclusive. Sorry, it does not work that why. When God created mankind he had certain parameters in mind. Those who go outside those parameters go against God's will. It might not be the prettiest scenario but it is the real scenario.

If that's what works for you, then fine. Go with it, but direct it internally. You do not have the right to define the terms by which the rest of the world relates to God. We can't even understand the world we live in and you think you can understand the will of God? Talk about narcissism.

 

[RandomVariable]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

Well I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, so I am not going to get too far into this here, but I will comment that I agree with you in certain senses. What I mean is that when we open ourselves to God and allow the relationship to grow freely we must be very careful to ensure that it is growing in the direction God is determining and not what we are determining. So for example, if one says 'I am going to step away from an organized religion and just follow God', that's great, but we can trick ourselves into thinking that our worldly desires represent spiritual growth and God. It's the difference between allowing God to reveal Himself to us and through us, and re-inventing God in our own image in order to satisfy a want or a need that is motivated by material issues and not spiritual ones.

You are trying to claim the higher ground on me by showing how you are more inclusive. Sorry, it does not work that why. When God created mankind he had certain parameters in mind. Those who go outside those parameters go against God's will. It might not be the prettiest scenario but it is the real scenario.

If that's what works for you, then fine. Go with it, but direct it internally. You do not have the right to define the terms by which the rest of the world relates to God. We can't even understand the world we live in and you think you can understand the will of God? Talk about narcissism.

OK, back to the question you did not really answer, "Why does this spirit in the sky care in the least whether or not anyone has any spirituality?" Does this spiritual being you refer to just like having friends, does it feed of spiritual energy, or some other reason for sticking around. Why not just fly off to another part of the universe if it cares not one way or another?

Bonus question; Did this spirit being create mankind or did mankind evolve from the primordial soup? I am kind of taking a poll here.

 

[BluePhantom]

There are certain truths in this world. The argument that you don't like God and therefore you get to redefine him is flawed. It is similar to saying you don't like gravity so you are going to rewrite the laws of gravity. Why should new born babies who have done nothing wrong their entire short lives, they have not even learned to walk, why should they go splat on the sidewalk when thrown from the top of a tall building. Gravity should stop innocent people from going splat when getting thrown off tall buildings. They should float about 3 feet off the ground for a few seconds, unless its a baby who floats until someone comes and gets it. You don't get to redefine God because you are dissatisfied with the truth.

Well I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, so I am not going to get too far into this here, but I will comment that I agree with you in certain senses. What I mean is that when we open ourselves to God and allow the relationship to grow freely we must be very careful to ensure that it is growing in the direction God is determining and not what we are determining. So for example, if one says 'I am going to step away from an organized religion and just follow God', that's great, but we can trick ourselves into thinking that our worldly desires represent spiritual growth and God. It's the difference between allowing God to reveal Himself to us and through us, and re-inventing God in our own image in order to satisfy a want or a need that is motivated by material issues and not spiritual ones.

You are trying to claim the higher ground on me by showing how you are more inclusive. Sorry, it does not work that why. When God created mankind he had certain parameters in mind. Those who go outside those parameters go against God's will. It might not be the prettiest scenario but it is the real scenario.

If that's what works for you, then fine. Go with it, but direct it internally. You do not have the right to define the terms by which the rest of the world relates to God. We can't even understand the world we live in and you think you can understand the will of God? Talk about narcissism.

OK, back to the question you did not really answer, "Why does this spirit in the sky care in the least whether or not anyone has any spirituality?" Does this spiritual being you refer to just like having friends, does it feed of spiritual energy, or some other reason for sticking around. Why not just fly off to another part of the universe if it cares not one way or another?

Bonus question; Did this spirit being create mankind or did mankind evolve from the primordial soup? I am kind of taking a poll here.

I already answered that on the other thread where it is relevant to the OP. This line of discussion has nothing to do with the OP, which I am really interested in exploring and you are derailing. I will not continue with this sidebar discussion on this thread. If you want to discuss it, do it on the other thread.

 

[Hollie]

You didn't address my gawds being the true gawds. You were intellectually lazy and did nothing more than accept the gawds you were given as a part of your geographic, familial circumstances. In that respect, you're just the typical religious clone.

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

 

[RandomVariable]

That sure sounds familiar to something I have heard before. Are you or have you ever been muslim?

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (third time question is asked) Your stupid meter is in the yellow.

 

[Daniyel]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

Actually Biblical and Modern Hebrew consists three time expressions that are also being used in dialogs all over the Bible that can shed some light about ancient Hebrew of that time, there is also another form of verbs which I couldn't understand that is some mix of all three (common in the Psalms) - if I find any information about it I'll post it here.
However you right, in the translated versions of the Bible many of the content is lost.
I'm pretty fluent with Hebrew so if you need my assistance I'll be glad to help.

 

[jillian]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

but bible "traditions", particularly those being oral, are subject to misunderstanding. the additional factor of multiple translations and the allegories being pieced together over time can lead to additional misunderstanding.

one of my favorites. the idea that there was a "beginning" is specifically a function of English. the original Hebrew was "in A beginning". that could certainly be construed as one beginning of many or at least multiple beginnings.

the same translation issues occur when looking at the commandment "thou shalt not kill" which really, in its original incarnations was "thou shalt not murder". as we all know there are justified killings, which do not equate to murder and would not be a sin. certainly the bible itself deals with a multitude of instances in which killing is justified.

 

[amrchaos]

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (third time question is asked) Your stupid meter is in the yellow.

I'll answer that question.
In theory yes. But I will hold this idea as true as long as there is no contradictory evidence that I am aware of that exist. In other words, I hold this 'belief' tentatively.

I don't believe the Biblical accounts are literally true. However, I do think there is something more important about the Biblical stories and claims than whether or not if they are true. Of course, that is my opinion about the Bible and most other important texts to other religions.

 

[Hollie]

I never expected an honest response. Have you ever been honest about anything?

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (third time question is asked) Your stupid meter is in the yellow.

My, but you are the angry, self-hater.

 

[RandomVariable]

I have a question for you, Hollie. Do you believe you descended from primitive primates. And it is an honest question. We can case it around for as long as you like. Even until you look like a complete moron as you did the last time we played this game.

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (third time question is asked) Your stupid meter is in the yellow.

My, but you are the angry, self-hater.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (forth time question is asked)

Do you think you are being witty, clever, intelligent perhaps? What you are doing is giving yet another example how atheists really are nothing to be admired. Some might have the impression that atheists represents scientist types and rational thinkers but then they read what the atheists in this forum say and they realize the truth. Atheists, for the most part, are just angry, resentful little creatures who can not hold an intelligent conversation with anyone. Maybe atheists think by being an atheist they are automatically promoted to rational, intellectual type status. No such luck, Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

The angry, self-hating religionist thing is so cute. Let me guess, you're a Flat Earth'er.

Does the jeebus approve of that behavior?

Stand up for your beliefs, Hollie. Do you believe in evolution for mankind? (second time question is asked)

Second time you have spammed this thread.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (third time question is asked) Your stupid meter is in the yellow.

My, but you are the angry, self-hater.

Do you believe mankind is the product of millions of years of evolution from primordial ooze? (forth time question is asked)

Do you think you are being witty, clever, intelligent perhaps? What you are doing is giving yet another example how atheists really are nothing to be admired. Some might have the impression that atheists represents scientist types and rational thinkers but then they read what the atheists in this forum say and they realize the truth. Atheists, for the most part, are just angry, resentful little creatures who can not hold an intelligent conversation with anyone. Maybe atheists think by being an atheist they are automatically promoted to rational, intellectual type status. No such luck, Hollie.

Your low self-esteem is a pathology.

 

[aris2chat]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

yet Jesus accepted everyone. Sad what religion has done to he teachings.

 

[Picaro]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

To some degree nuances can be determined by context, but other times no. There are certain things people argue about to this day that have some serious implications and are based in how one reads the tense (present or future) in ancient Hebrew. The prophecy given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 is a great example of this. It can be read as something that is currently happening and/or as something that will happen. Different Greek manuscripts from antiquity write it in both ways; some translate it as a current event and some translate it as a future event. The intention of the author cannot be determined by what is written.

Yes, the NT is written in Greek, but, as best we can tell, it was written mainly by Greek speaking Jews (i.e. Paul of Tarsus) who, despite having a language that allowed for more nuance, still thought like a Jew and related to the world in a very dualistic manner.

Well, there is John as well; both John and Paul both appear to have been taught by the Pharisees faction, with John being the earliest writer, and also the writer most concerned with the apocalyptic literature; the Pharisees were noted for their focus on this type of biblical study. They would have been trained in both the oral and written traditions.

In any case, that would indicate that at least those two would be able to translate the proper nuances from one to the other. Doesn't guarantee it of course, but makes it highly likely that they and the other Greek writers were getting it close to 'right'. But, there is the real concern that the bible wasn't intended to be read by just anybody, and study had to include being taught by a teacher who themselves went through the traditional initiation and study program. Christianity has the Sermon on the Mount and a few other public speeches for the followers to go by, so reading the book wasn't a necessity to get the basics.

 

[Picaro]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

yet Jesus accepted everyone. Sad what religion has done to he teachings.

Seen from a viewpoint of Jesus as a radical fundamentalist, he was attempting to have Judaism take the next step and become a catholic religion, based on Isaiah's writings. Naturally this wouldn't sit well with the established order; no genealogical restrictions determining social position and who could become teachers and priests, for one.

 

[BluePhantom]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

To some degree nuances can be determined by context, but other times no. There are certain things people argue about to this day that have some serious implications and are based in how one reads the tense (present or future) in ancient Hebrew. The prophecy given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 is a great example of this. It can be read as something that is currently happening and/or as something that will happen. Different Greek manuscripts from antiquity write it in both ways; some translate it as a current event and some translate it as a future event. The intention of the author cannot be determined by what is written.

Yes, the NT is written in Greek, but, as best we can tell, it was written mainly by Greek speaking Jews (i.e. Paul of Tarsus) who, despite having a language that allowed for more nuance, still thought like a Jew and related to the world in a very dualistic manner.

Well, there is John as well; both John and Paul both appear to have been taught by the Pharisees faction, with John being the earliest writer, and also the writer most concerned with the apocalyptic literature; the Pharisees were noted for their focus on this type of biblical study. They would have been trained in both the oral and written traditions.

In any case, that would indicate that at least those two would be able to translate the proper nuances from one to the other. Doesn't guarantee it of course, but makes it highly likely that they and the other Greek writers were getting it close to 'right'. But, there is the real concern that the bible wasn't intended to be read by just anybody, and study had to include being taught by a teacher who themselves went through the traditional initiation and study program. Christianity has the Sermon on the Mount and a few other public speeches for the followers to go by, so reading the book wasn't a necessity to get the basics.

No no. John was the last of the gospels written and it almost certainly wasn't written by John, son of Zebedee. Even in Acts, it points out that John and Peter were "agrammatoi"....literally, 'not knowing their letters', or illiterate.

 

[Picaro]

No no. John was the last of the gospels written and it almost certainly wasn't written by John, son of Zebedee. Even in Acts, it points out that John and Peter were "agrammatoi"....literally, 'not knowing their letters', or illiterate.

There are discussions on this. This one I can find that isn't behind a pay wall or on an academic one.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/25-1_matson.pdf

...

 

[Picaro]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

but bible "traditions", particularly those being oral, are subject to misunderstanding. the additional factor of multiple translations and the allegories being pieced together over time can lead to additional misunderstanding.

one of my favorites. the idea that there was a "beginning" is specifically a function of English. the original Hebrew was "in A beginning". that could certainly be construed as one beginning of many or at least multiple beginnings.

the same translation issues occur when looking at the commandment "thou shalt not kill" which really, in its original incarnations was "thou shalt not murder". as we all know there are justified killings, which do not equate to murder and would not be a sin. certainly the bible itself deals with a multitude of instances in which killing is justified.

Throw Aramaic into the mix. At least some of the Old Testament is written in Aramaic, and much of the Hebrew texts were translated into Aramaic in the later years for use in synagogues, after the fall of the Second Temple, because so many Jews did not speak or write Hebrew. And, there is the belief among some scholars that Jesus gave his sermons and parables in Aramaic. So, does Aramaic have the same limitations in writing that ancient or middle Hebrew does?

For example:

A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus

Biblical Aramaic

Passages of the Old Testament written in the Aramaic language are called Biblical Aramaic. They occur in Ezra 4:8; 6:18 and 7:12-26. Daniel 2:4,7:28; and the gloss in Jer. 10:11 and Gen 31:47.

Various scholars have tried to show that the original language of a number of books from the Persian and Hellenistic periods, were written in Aramaic, and that they were later translated into Hebrew. This view has been presented in connection with Job, Koheleth, Daniel, Esther, 1 and 2 Chronicles, proverbs, and Ezekiel11

In the New Testament, various Aramaic words or expressions occur, e.g. "Talitha Cumi" (little girl, stand up) Mark 5:41; "Ephphata" (etphtah, be opened) Mark 7:34; "Eli, Eli, Lama Shabachthani" (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me) Matt.27:46, Mark 15:34; "Rabboni" (my Lord) Mark 10:51, John 20:16; "Maran Atha" (our Lord, come) Cor. 16:22.

Aramaic influence is apparent in personal names such as " Cephas" John 1:42, 1 Cor 1:12 and "Tabitha" Acts 9:36, 40, and in place names, including "Akeldama" (field of blood) Acts 1:19; "Gesthsemane (oil press) Matt 26:36, Mark 14:32; and "Golgotha" (skull) Mark 15:22

The Aramaic Language of Jesus

At the beginning of the Christian era, Aramaic, in various dialects was the dominant spoken language of Syria and Mesopotamia. It developed a number of literary dialects, known as Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan Aramaic, Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic, Syriac, Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic, and Mandaic Aramaic. In Galilee14 and Samaria15 , Aramaic dialects became the day-to-day means of communication.

It is generally agreed that the inhabitants of Palestine, at the dawn of the first century, were acquainted in varying degrees with the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.

Differences emerge, however, regarding the geographical and chronological limits of each language. Some scholars defend the theory that Jesus spoke in Greek, among those in favor of this is Vosius, in the seventeenth century, D. Diodati In the eighteenth century and Paulus, Hug and Credner16 in the nineteenth century. More recently, A.W Argyle argued that Jesus spoke Greek and that his audience understood it as easily as they did in Aramaic.17 Some welcomed this claim, but others were in opposition.18

Evidence of Hellenistic influence, is attested by numerous Greek inscriptions, graffiti, and correspondence, Greek Pseudepigrapha written in Palestine, the Greek fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Greek influence found throughout rabbinic literature.

Others have stressed the role of Latin, the language of the Roman administration19 , they argue that Latin left its mark on a number of public inscriptions as well as in a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Latin influence is manifested in certain aspects of Rabbinic Hebrew.

M. Wilcox, on the other hand, considers the Hebrew language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predominates over Aramaic, as an indication that Hebrew, in New Testament time, was not confined to rabbinical circles, but appears to be a "normal vehicle of expression."20 Along this, runs a similar view of H. Birkeland21 , who challenged the usual view that Aramaic was the regular spoken language of the first century Palestine. According to Dr. Birkeland, Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the language of the Jews and of Jesus.22

In an age of reason, one has to look at the facts surrounding the spread of the Aramaic language, especially the Galilean Aramaic. In the Synagogue, following the Babylonian Exile, Palestinian Jews had their public reading of the Scripture, rendered in vernacular Aramaic. That tradition was necessary due to the growing number of Jews who were more familiar with Aramaic than with Hebrew (Neh. 8:8).23 This oral interpretation began as a simple paraphrase, but later, it became more elaborate and the various explanations tended to become fixed and traditional, and finally, these Aramaic interpretations were reduced to writing, which is known as Targums (or Targumim).

Aramaic Targums exist for the Pentateuch.24 The oldest appears to be the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, which is available in its entirety through the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. It preserves the idiomatic Aramaic used in Palestine perhaps as early as the first centuries of the Christian era. The second is known as the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch (I and II), also known as the Pseudo-Jonathan Targums. The third is the Targum of Onkelos, which was the official Targum of the Synagogue. We might add another Aramaic Targum known as the Samaritan Targum. It was translated from Hebrew into the Aramaic dialect used by the Samaritans.

Not only the Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the Palestian Jews, there were other Aramaic translations also for the books of the Prophets. The official Targum on the Prophets is known as Targum Jonathan bar-Uzziel. It had its origin in Palestine. Aramaic translations are available for the Hebrew cannon of the Old Testament, known as Hagiographa (Heb. Ketubim).25,26

No one doubts the extent to which Aramaic had spread throughout the Levant from the middle of the first millennium BC, until Arabic supplanted it, in the seventh century. A more difficult question, which has led to a significant disagreement among scholars, has to do with differences among, and classification of the various dialects of Aramaic.

The most extreme theory is that during the Exile, the Jews lost their Hebrew language for Aramaic. Reserving Hebrew, already a dead language, for literature. This was Saadiah's view, and also, in different forms, by a number of nineteenth- and-twentieth century scholars, including A. Geiger, A. Meyer, G.H. Dalman, A. Dupont-Sommer, and F. Althei


Read more: A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus

I'll throw in this guy's blog on some of the issues re 'what language did Jesus speak' that some may find interesting.re New Testament writings.

What Language Did Jesus Speak Why Does It Matter

 

[aris2chat]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

To some degree nuances can be determined by context, but other times no. There are certain things people argue about to this day that have some serious implications and are based in how one reads the tense (present or future) in ancient Hebrew. The prophecy given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 is a great example of this. It can be read as something that is currently happening and/or as something that will happen. Different Greek manuscripts from antiquity write it in both ways; some translate it as a current event and some translate it as a future event. The intention of the author cannot be determined by what is written.

Yes, the NT is written in Greek, but, as best we can tell, it was written mainly by Greek speaking Jews (i.e. Paul of Tarsus) who, despite having a language that allowed for more nuance, still thought like a Jew and related to the world in a very dualistic manner.

Well, there is John as well; both John and Paul both appear to have been taught by the Pharisees faction, with John being the earliest writer, and also the writer most concerned with the apocalyptic literature; the Pharisees were noted for their focus on this type of biblical study. They would have been trained in both the oral and written traditions.

In any case, that would indicate that at least those two would be able to translate the proper nuances from one to the other. Doesn't guarantee it of course, but makes it highly likely that they and the other Greek writers were getting it close to 'right'. But, there is the real concern that the bible wasn't intended to be read by just anybody, and study had to include being taught by a teacher who themselves went through the traditional initiation and study program. Christianity has the Sermon on the Mount and a few other public speeches for the followers to go by, so reading the book wasn't a necessity to get the basics.

bit like the talmud or zohar ? Not for the common or unschooled reader.

 

[aris2chat]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

yet Jesus accepted everyone. Sad what religion has done to he teachings.

Seen from a viewpoint of Jesus as a radical fundamentalist, he was attempting to have Judaism take the next step and become a catholic religion, based on Isaiah's writings. Naturally this wouldn't sit well with the established order; no genealogical restrictions determining social position and who could become teachers and priests, for one.

Jesus was a jew that wanted to teach the love of god to others. He want god to be in reach of all people, to reach the god inside of everyone. He was not trying to create catholicism, nor calvinism, etc. Jesus taught that god is everywhere and within everything.
He was not locked away in some box, that only handful ever go near. He is within reach to anyone, anywhere, at anytime, and they don't need an entry card to some private club building.