Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "O" argument
#19
As to the notice, yours is one possible explanation. However, it is improbable for multiple reasons. The first is common sense: if the populace was trilingual, then it would have only been necessary to write the notice in one out of those three languages. More likely, there were two or three elements of the population, each of which spoke only one or two of these three languages. The native (Jewish) population spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. Or both. According to Josephus some of them spoke Greek, but not many. The ruling class (Roman administrators and various officials) as well as any immigrants were most likely to speak Greek. Soldiers would have spoken Latin.

That does not, however, deal with the theory you posit of trilingual origin of the New Testament. I will disagree with that, though. Bilingual is possible. I wouldn't say likely, but hypothetically it could have happened. I do not think, though, that there is any evidence for a Latin original. I know that some people do believe in an Old Latin origin for the New Testament, but it has been very well established that Latin was not used popularly in the eastern portions of the Empire. Greek was used in the eastern portions of Europe, North Africa, and some parts Anatolia, while Aramaic was more popular in the middle east and some parts of Anatolia.
I like the idea of multiple scribes, though I find it unlikely. It's interestingly similar to the old stories about the LXX, or theories of the Church Fathers on the authorship of Hebrews.
On the other hand, it is said of the Gospel According to the Hebrews, at least, that everyone "translated it as best they were able." So I find it highly unlikely that it was written simultaneously in two languages. Translation seems to have been the order of the day.

The name Theophilus seems Greek, but then note that Josephus names three high priests "Theophilus." So this is at least at times used to represent a Semitic name.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-25-2009, 01:58 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-26-2009, 06:59 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-27-2009, 12:44 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Nimrod Warda - 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-28-2009, 12:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-29-2009, 03:19 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:28 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-17-2009, 06:32 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:09 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:12 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 04:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 05:02 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 09-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-22-2009, 09:32 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)