No evidence for Peter in Rome

[Radagast]

"and Jerusalem was a mixture" -- Who said that ? You're fabricating quotes.

That was my summary of the extensive literature on the subject. I showed you a picture of one specific example.

"seems to be from a family that had lived in Rome" -- Rubbish

I refer you to the treatment in Ancient Synagogues - Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research by Rachel Hachlili. It seems likely that the priest Theodotus was the descendant of a slave freed by the Gens Vettia in Rome (hence OYETTENOY on the inscription).

It's even possible (though highly speculative) that the synagogue with this inscription was the "synagogue of the Freedmen" mentioned in Acts 6:9.

fabricating quotes ... Rubbish.

I'm sorry to have to do this to a fellow Australian Presbyterian, but that calls for the ignore button.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Absolutely an overwhelming majority. Most Jews lived outside the Holy Land.

For example, there were 600,000 Jews in Jerusalem, but 1,000,000 in Egypt (for comparison, today there are still 600,000 Jews in Jerusalem, but 6,000,000 in the USA and 2,000,000 elsewhere -- altogether, more than in all of Israel).

Most of the Jews outside the Holy Land spoke Greek, and so did many Jews in Jerusalem and in coastal cities of the Holy Land (we know this from inscriptions in synagogues).

Jerusalem and coastal cities had large numbers of Jews that had come back from the Diaspora (either temporarily or permanently)

And the NT was not primarily addressed to people in the Holy Land (many of those already knew about Jesus from His ministry anyway), it was primarily addressed to those outside (Gentiles and Greek-speaking Jews) for whom the message was completely new. There is no "Epistle to the Jerusalemites."

Where on earth are you getting your numbers from? That 600 000 in Jerusalem, I assume is lifted from Tacitus, and that million in Egypt from Josephus, but the latter is notoriously inaccurate on numbers - saying more than a million died when Jerusalem fell, for instance. Based on the size of Jerusalem, modern historians estimate it was about 60 000 maybe, and the Jewish population in Egypt is also greatly inflated. Regardless, you can't lift numbers from two contradictory sources and treat both as accurate, as Josephus gives implausible numbers for Jerusalem.

Anyway, certainly the Diaspora had a higher percentage Greek speakers, but I see no reason to think there were more Jews outside Judaea than in it. Jews were expelled from Rome multiple times, and Herod was made King of the Jews, not Judaea. Why would such extra-territoriality be given someone if the numbers weren't marginal outside his client kingdom? Don't confuse the later Jewish diaspora with the 1st century - this was prior to the First Revolt, the Trajanic ones, and Bar Kohba, which certainly helped depopulate Judaea somewhat. So more Jews probably kept speaking Aramaic, and there wasa constant movement 'back home' as you note. We are looking at populations in flux, not discrete areas - that is the whole point of the strife I mentioned, which culminated in Rabbinical Judaism eventually repudiating the Greek texts entirely.

 

[philadelphos]

* People, please reference and stay on topic, for future readability etc…

Not quite true, because Paul also preached to Jews in Asia Minor -- see elsewhere in Acts. And anyway, the overwhelming majority of the Jewish audience (except for rural Galilee and Judea) spoke Greek. That's why they used the Old Testament in Greek.

Proof please ?

The Dead Sea Scrolls supports tri-lingualism (Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew) amongst Jews in Israel, but linguistic analysis concludes that Peter spoke Hebrew, "not likely" Greek or Aramaic. -- But this topic is about evidence for Peter in ROME, i.e. LATIN. And this paper would be a resounding 'no'.

See, Shuali, Eran. “Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “i Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 2668, Luke 2260): 70, Mark 14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (Summer 2017).Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “I Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 26:70, Mark 14:68, Luke 22:60) on JSTOR.

Male children of famous patriarchal families took Greek/Roman names, hence Simon (Σίμων) being his original name.

And actually, Peter's nickname Kepa (כיפא) is transliterated into Greek as Cephas(Κηφᾶς), Rock, Stone, translated (later?) into Greek as Petros (Πέτρος).

However, interestingly, when Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and Corinthians it's in ARAMAIC (כיפא), not Greek.

And apparently "when Paul was writing in the mid 50's Paul could have only known Cephas (Κηφᾶς)(as in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5)…. (thus) Petros (Πέτρος) "could not have been written by Paul".

All of which are clues that Peter never spoke Greek, and if so, it would have been the 'Me sell fish -- You buy?' variety.

See McAdon, Brad. Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts: Examining the Influence That Greco-Roman Mimesis May Have in the Composition of Matthew, Luke, and Acts. publication place: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts.

Acts 12:

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) ...Peter therefore was kept in prison ...And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he (Peter) went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode." (Acts. 12:1-3, 5, 19)

Now, the likelihood for Peter to travel from Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms), then to Antioch (784kms), AND then to Rome (a whopping 3,496kms) is dubious…

Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms)

To Antioch (784kms)

To Rome (a whopping 3,496kms)

Peter travelling to Rome is highly irrational and improbable considering:

1. The enormous distance itself
2. His exhaustion from extensive prior travels with the Lord
3. His prior dealings with Herod (evading execution), and from a Roman puppet
4. Linguistic and (lack of) congregational reasons ('ministering to the Jews' without Jews in Rome)
5. The established (and safe) Apostolic presence at Antioch, and
6. Persecution against Jews occurring in Rome by the government and the Roman population itself, e.g. Aquila and Priscilla fled Rome under Claudius's reign (41-54), "because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2)

While Paul went to Rome 'appealing unto Ceasar' etc, but Peter did not…

(See 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5, 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5 KJV;TR1550 - Now this I say, that every one of you - Bible Gateway)

 

[mmksparbud]

There weren't many Jews in Rome from the time of |Claudius---
Act_18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

It was Paul, not Peter that was sent to Rome.

Act_19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
Act_23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Rom_1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Gal_6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. To the Galatians written from Rome.
Eph_6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. To the Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.
Php_4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.
Col_4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. Written from Rome to Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.
2Ti_1:17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
2Ti_4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.
Phm_1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.

 

[Radagast]

Based on the size of Jerusalem, modern historians estimate it was about 60 000 maybe, and the Jewish population in Egypt is also greatly inflated.

Scale them both down, and the ratio remains similar.

but I see no reason to think there were more Jews outside Judaea than in it.

There certainly were a very large number of Jews in Egypt (even if you don't like the estimate I quoted). And everywhere Paul travelled, he found Jewish communities present. The book of Acts tells us this.

There is a reason why the OT was translated into Greek.

Herod was made King of the Jews, not Judaea. Why would such extra-territoriality be given someone if the numbers weren't marginal outside his client kingdom?

Herod was made king of a slice of real estate by the Senate (thus deposing Antigonus). There was afaik no extra-territoriality, even in neighbouring regions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Scale them both down, and the ratio remains similar.

You can't derive a ratio from 2 different sources that contradict each other. Either we take Josephus' numbers - in which case we are looking at about the same amount of Jews in Egypt as in Jerusalem, or Tacitus'. The question is a difficult one, as we don't have the full Indiction censuses available.

There certainly were a very large number of Jews in Egypt (even if you don't like the estimate I quoted). And everywhere Paul travelled, he found Jewish communities present. The book of Acts tells us this.

There is a reason why the OT was translated into Greek.

Fully agree, but that doesn't equate to overwhelming majority of Jews speaking Greek. Sizeable amounts did, but most Jews were probably in Judaea, as the Diaspora is being inflated as a percentage of the overall population here - and we know people went back and forth, and that Rabbinical Judaism eventually repudiated Greek. Either we must assume the Hellenistai eventually succumbed to Christianisation or the Rabbis were better at maintaining Hebrew over Greek. I mean, we still see Greek Jews at Dura Eropus much later, but by then they are an oddity.

Herod was made king of a slice of real estate by the Senate (thus deposing Antigonus). There was afaik no extra-territoriality, even in neighbouring regions.

Romans gave Imperium, not strictly territory. That is how Germanicus and Piso could get in each other's way in Antioch, or Pompey could have swept the Pirates clear by acting inside coastal provinces. Strict 'slices of real estate' was only a much later development. Borders could delineate Imperium though, like Caesar's Rubicon river, but the key here is in the Titles. Herod was King of the Jews, his sons Tetrachs of Galilee and Judaea respectively; and later Herod Agrippa was again King of the Jews, and appealed Jewish affairs to Claudius. Further, we know Herod was granted control over Damascus' environs' policing. So no, Herod was made the client King of the Jews, with control of various territories and cities, but those things aren't completely the same thing.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

* People, please reference and stay on topic, for future readability etc…



Proof please ?

The Dead Sea Scrolls supports tri-lingualism (Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew) amongst Jews in Israel, but linguistic analysis concludes that Peter spoke Hebrew, "not likely" Greek or Aramaic. -- But this topic is about evidence for Peter in ROME, i.e. LATIN. And this paper would be a resounding 'no'.

See, Shuali, Eran. “Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “i Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 2668, Luke 2260): 70, Mark 14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (Summer 2017).Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “I Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 26:70, Mark 14:68, Luke 22:60) on JSTOR.

Male children of famous patriarchal families took Greek/Roman names, hence Simon (Σίμων) being his original name.

And actually, Peter's nickname Kepa (כיפא) is transliterated into Greek as Cephas(Κηφᾶς), Rock, Stone, translated (later?) into Greek as Petros (Πέτρος).

However, interestingly, when Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and Corinthians it's in ARAMAIC (כיפא), not Greek.

And apparently "when Paul was writing in the mid 50's Paul could have only known Cephas (Κηφᾶς)(as in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5)…. (thus) Petros (Πέτρος) "could not have been written by Paul".

All of which are clues that Peter never spoke Greek, and if so, it would have been the 'Me sell fish -- You buy?' variety.

See McAdon, Brad. Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts: Examining the Influence That Greco-Roman Mimesis May Have in the Composition of Matthew, Luke, and Acts. publication place: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts.

Acts 12:

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) ...Peter therefore was kept in prison ...And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he (Peter) went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode." (Acts. 12:1-3, 5, 19)

Now, the likelihood for Peter to travel from Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms), then to Antioch (784kms), AND then to Rome (a whopping 3,496kms) is dubious…

Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms)
View attachment 259909

To Antioch (784kms)
View attachment 259910

To Rome (a whopping 3,496kms)
View attachment 259911

Peter travelling to Rome is highly irrational and improbable considering:

1. The enormous distance itself
2. His exhaustion from extensive prior travels with the Lord
3. His prior dealings with Herod (evading execution), and from a Roman puppet
4. Linguistic and (lack of) congregational reasons ('ministering to the Jews' without Jews in Rome)
5. The established (and safe) Apostolic presence at Antioch, and
6. Persecution against Jews occurring in Rome by the government and the Roman population itself, e.g. Aquila and Priscilla fled Rome under Claudius's reign (41-54), "because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2)

While Paul went to Rome 'appealing unto Ceasar' etc, but Peter did not…

(See 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5, 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5 KJV;TR1550 - Now this I say, that every one of you - Bible Gateway)

Not really a problem in the Pax Romana. There was much back and forth. You find gravestones of people from Palmyra at Hadrian's Wall, for instance. Even in the mediaeval period people left on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem or Rome from such distant places as Scotland or Scandanivia, and then there was no Roman peace to facilitate this or the web of the provincial trade routes ferrying goods to Rome at its heart.

 

[Erik Nelson]

* People, please reference and stay on topic, for future readability etc…



Proof please ?

The Dead Sea Scrolls supports tri-lingualism (Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew) amongst Jews in Israel, but linguistic analysis concludes that Peter spoke Hebrew, "not likely" Greek or Aramaic. -- But this topic is about evidence for Peter in ROME, i.e. LATIN. And this paper would be a resounding 'no'.

See, Shuali, Eran. “Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “i Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 2668, Luke 2260): 70, Mark 14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (Summer 2017).Did Peter Speak Hebrew to the Servant? A Linguistic Examination of the Expression “I Do Not Know What You Are Saying” (Matt 26:70, Mark 14:68, Luke 22:60) on JSTOR.

Male children of famous patriarchal families took Greek/Roman names, hence Simon (Σίμων) being his original name.

And actually, Peter's nickname Kepa (כיפא) is transliterated into Greek as Cephas(Κηφᾶς), Rock, Stone, translated (later?) into Greek as Petros (Πέτρος).

However, interestingly, when Paul refers to Peter in Galatians and Corinthians it's in ARAMAIC (כיפא), not Greek.

And apparently "when Paul was writing in the mid 50's Paul could have only known Cephas (Κηφᾶς)(as in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5)…. (thus) Petros (Πέτρος) "could not have been written by Paul".

All of which are clues that Peter never spoke Greek, and if so, it would have been the 'Me sell fish -- You buy?' variety.

See McAdon, Brad. Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts: Examining the Influence That Greco-Roman Mimesis May Have in the Composition of Matthew, Luke, and Acts. publication place: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2018.Rhetorical Mimesis and the Mitigation of Early Christian Conflicts.

Acts 12:

"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) ...Peter therefore was kept in prison ...And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he (Peter) went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode." (Acts. 12:1-3, 5, 19)

Now, the likelihood for Peter to travel from Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms), then to Antioch (784kms), AND then to Rome (a whopping 3,496kms) is dubious…

Galilee to Caesarea (106-115kms)
View attachment 259909

To Antioch (784kms)
View attachment 259910

To Rome (a whopping 3,496kms)
View attachment 259911

Peter travelling to Rome is highly irrational and improbable considering:

1. The enormous distance itself
2. His exhaustion from extensive prior travels with the Lord
3. His prior dealings with Herod (evading execution), and from a Roman puppet
4. Linguistic and (lack of) congregational reasons ('ministering to the Jews' without Jews in Rome)
5. The established (and safe) Apostolic presence at Antioch, and
6. Persecution against Jews occurring in Rome by the government and the Roman population itself, e.g. Aquila and Priscilla fled Rome under Claudius's reign (41-54), "because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome" (Acts 18:2)

While Paul went to Rome 'appealing unto Ceasar' etc, but Peter did not…

(See 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5, 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; and 15:5 KJV;TR1550 - Now this I say, that every one of you - Bible Gateway)

all Saint Peter would have had to have done is hop aboard a boat bound for roll. Wouldn't you try to flee as far away from a hostile jurisdiction with your arrest warrant and execution sentence there on if you were able?

 

[Radagast]

all Saint Peter would have had to have done is hop aboard a boat bound for roll.

I'm guessing that's autocorrect for "Rome."

And Peter, of course, could have worked his passage if he didn't have the $$$: he knew his way around a boat.

 

[Concord1968]

I'm guessing that's autocorrect for "Rome."

And Peter, of course, could have worked his passage if he didn't have the $$$: he knew his way around a boat.

I'd like to know why, if the distance was too great for Peter, why wasn't the distance too great for Paul.....who travelled far further in his journeys than a mere trip to Rome.

And weren't the Apostles given the gift of tongues at Pentecost, rendering the question of Peter knowing Greek moot?

 

[philadelphos]

The only evidence for Peter in Rome is Church Tradition. This is however very early, with apocryphal gospels and writings from the 2nd century mentioning it, and the excavations in the 60s found a 2nd century shrine (the central grave around which others cluster in the Vatican Necropolis). So the belief has perhaps been present since at least the first 100 or so years of the Church.

Thank you, except 'Church Tradition' and 'early' timing would be a fallacious argument.

"Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition)... that some policy, behaviour, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy. ...But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected."(Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate)

It is mentioned by Tertullian, and possibly Origen as derived from Eusebius, and by the 3rd and 4th century Gospels well established. Clement also reports Peter's Martyrdom along with Paul's, which strongly implies Rome, based on inference. ...You can take it or leave it, but no alternative scenario is as well attested. It isn't provable beyond trust in these sources, but this is true for a lot of Roman history, which is dependant upon such written ones.

Source credibility is everything in textual criticism, history, archaeology, and Judeo-Christianity and scholarship in general, being the pursuit of truth, not wading in a pool of in lies. We're instead warned to be alert to lies, deception, and falsehood: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (Jn. 8:44)

The works of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, are unfortunately as credible as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts, i.e. textually fraudulent. Clement accepted Greek philosophy and Apocrypha, believed that faith could be obtained by human means. Origen denied the Bible's historicity and later allegorised it. And Eusebius was a propagandist, a blatant liar... At best, he was a formal panegyrist and rhetorician, not a historian.

See Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica reprint, 1990, ISBN 0-85229-531-6. Volume I, chapter 16, p.232.

See Smith, Christine. “Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre.” Vigiliae Christianae 43, no. 3 (Sep 1989). Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre on JSTOR.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;" (Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324) PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel, The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.)

See, PRF Brown, The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea, www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_007.htm

Photius: "The man (Eusebius) is indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief" (Photius, Bibliotheca, ch. 13; see
Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.v.html)

"Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood." (Ps. 144:8)

 

[mmksparbud]

I'd like to know why, if the distance was too great for Peter, why wasn't the distance too great for Paul.....who travelled far further in his journeys than a mere trip to Rome.

And weren't the Apostles given the gift of tongues at Pentecost, rendering the question of Peter knowing Greek moot?

I already posted this, but will repost---Peter was not sent to Rome by the Holy Spirit--Paul was.

Act_19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
Act_23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Rom_1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Gal_6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. To the Galatians written from Rome.
Eph_6:24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. To the Ephesians written from Rome, by Tychicus.
Php_4:23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.
Col_4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen. Written from Rome to Colossians by Tychicus and Onesimus.
2Ti_1:17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
2Ti_4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.
Phm_1:25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Written from Rome to Philemon, by Onesimus a servant.

 

[Concord1968]

I already posted this, but will repost---Peter was not sent to Rome by the Holy Spirit--Paul was.

That wasn't my question.

 

[mmksparbud]

That wasn't my question.

Why would Peter go where he was not sent?!

 

[Concord1968]

Why would Peter go where he was not sent?!

That wasn't my question. If you aren't willing to address the actual question I asked, please allow the person to whom the question was actually addressed to answer it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thank you, except 'Church Tradition' and 'early' timing would be a fallacious argument.

"Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition)... that some policy, behaviour, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy. ...But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected."(Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate)

Sorry? I don't think you really understand this. You go on about Source Criticism, one of whose primary tenets is that sources closer to historic events, with more references, are more secure. We trust Xenophon and Plato more on Socrates than Plethon, say. So no, this is not arguing from Antiquity as fallacy, but noting that our earliest sources say this - it is the equivalent of noting that the four Gospels are more trustworthy as 1st century texts, than the apocryphal 4th century ones.

That being said, one does not just take things on purely being the earliest source - Arrian is probably more accurate on Alexander than Plutarch, for instance, though the latter wrote closer to Alexander's time. Arrian seems more secure in military matters, his descriptions make more sense, and lacks a lot of the more 'mythological' material in Plutarch. That is when such fallacy comes into play, but when dealing with a situation in which we don't have competing narratives until much later, probably with confirmation bias for other ends, we really are wholely on different grounds. We can critique and dismiss the early sources by whatever means, but the fact that they are early is not a mark of fallacy, but strength on Historical-Critical methodology.

Perhaps you should read a little more on Source Criticism and Historical Methodology. Toynbee's Study of History is a good place to start.

Source credibility is everything in textual criticism, history, archaeology, and Judeo-Christianity and scholarship in general, being the pursuit of truth, not wading in a pool of in lies. We're instead warned to be alert to lies, deception, and falsehood: "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (Jn. 8:44)

The works of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, are unfortunately as credible as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Manuscripts, i.e. textually fraudulent. Clement accepted Greek philosophy and Apocrypha, believed that faith could be obtained by human means. Origen denied the Bible's historicity and later allegorised it. And Eusebius was a propagandist, a blatant liar... At best, he was a formal panegyrist and rhetorician, not a historian.

See Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Encyclopedia Britannica reprint, 1990, ISBN 0-85229-531-6. Volume I, chapter 16, p.232.

See Smith, Christine. “Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre.” Vigiliae Christianae 43, no. 3 (Sep 1989). Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius' Panegyric at Tyre on JSTOR.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;" (Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324) PE: Praeparatio Evangelica, Preparation for the Gospel, The title of Chapter 31 of Book 12.)

See, PRF Brown, The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea, www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_007.htm

Photius: "The man (Eusebius) is indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause, and general-in-chief" (Photius, Bibliotheca, ch. 13; see
Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius, www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.v.html)

"Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood." (Ps. 144:8)

We know Eusebius is a propagandist. So we take that into account when reading him. The question is, Cui Bono? That answers a lot. For instance, as noted earlier, he is unlikely to quote someone unless that quote is verifiable or known - otherwise it doesn't support his version, and we aren't dealing with the 'Internet' here - few texts means quotations in an argument are usually derived from widely circulated texts. Quoting the obscure is silly and pointless, unless preaching to the converted.

Anyway, I find it hilarious that you would critique Eusebius, but then refer to Gibbon. GIBBON? He is well known as a highly biased and anti-Christian historian. His premiere thesis is blaming the Fall of Rome on the Institutional Church, if not Christianity in general. Of course he would critique Eusebius, as he does Chrysostom and Gregory too. Pot calling the Kettle black.

Besides, Origen didn't fully allegorise the Bible, and we still do so as well. Similarly, Greek philosophy is very much part of the Bible - John says Christ is the Word, the Logos.

Regardless, that is not addressing the substance of what they said, but dismissing it on other grounds. That is a type of Genetic Fallacy, little more, not really legitimate source criticism.

 

[Radagast]

There certainly were a very large number of Jews in Egypt (even if you don't like the estimate I quoted). And everywhere Paul travelled, he found Jewish communities present. The book of Acts tells us this.

There is a reason why the OT was translated into Greek

On numbers, Mark Avrum Ehrlich's Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora suggests "In the first century of the common era, there were an estimated 4 or 5 million Jews in all the principal cities of the Greco-Roman world and along the main trade routes." Reviewing the literature, this seems to be a generally accepted estimate. Philo suggests that there were more than a million Jews in Egypt alone, and in my view he's likely to be reliable.

I stand by my statement that the overwhelming majority of first-century Jews spoke Greek.

The Jews living in the Holy Land were only a small minority of the total number of Jews, and inscriptions show that many of the Jews in the Holy Land spoke Greek as well.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

On numbers, Mark Avrum Ehrlich's Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora suggests "In the first century of the common era, there were an estimated 4 or 5 million Jews in all the principal cities of the Greco-Roman world and along the main trade routes." Reviewing the literature, this seems to be a generally accepted estimate. Philo suggests that there were more than a million Jews in Egypt alone, and in my view he's likely to be reliable.

I stand by my statement that the overwhelming majority of first-century Jews spoke Greek.

The Jews living in the Holy Land were only a small minority of the total number of Jews, and inscriptions show that many of the Jews in the Holy Land spoke Greek as well.

I'd be interested how he derived his numbers. I am unaware of a good source for them, and extrapolating from inscriptions is quite suspect. I'll look up his sources when I have time and means to. Besides, Philo never gives numbers for Egyptian Jewry that I am aware of, just states that 2 of the 5 parts of Alexandria was mostly Jewish and had many Synagogues. A lot of extrapolation seems to be going on here from few sources.

Anyway, again a Diaspora doesn't mean everyone is speaking Greek, nor does Greek inscriptions mean it was their primary language. Looking at the later Diaspora, we see the Jewish populations throughout Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia speaking versions of Neo-Aramaic - so stands to reason they probably spoke Aramaic back in the day.

Likewise, Judaism abandoned Greek entirely, which suggests that it wasn't as dominant to be an 'overwhelming majority' - or where did they disappear to? Did all these Hellenistai convert then?
Yiddish doesn't have a Greek substrate, but a Romance one, as the Zarphatic speakers took up High German, with an Aramaic and Hebrew adstratum. With Ladino this is even more clear. The only Koine Greek derived Jewish language is Yevanic from Greece and Constantinople. Why did such a complete language death of Greek elements occur in all these various Jewish populations, if Koine Greek was overwhelmingly their speech?

I think the Diaspora numbers are being inflated here, but I'll follow up. I might be wrong, but I see no reason to assume the Diaspora 'overwhelmingly' Greek. Obviously many were, perhaps a majority in the Diaspora, but the percentage that remained Jewish into later times certainly weren't Greek speakers - or we would expect more Koine elements therein. That Greek so utterly disappears in Judaism rather suggests a thin veneer than dyed in the wool. Based thereon, I find it more plausible to think most 1st century Jews were Aramaic speakers, or at least still a large percentage not Greek speaking, Diaspora or no.

 

[Radagast]

Likewise, Judaism abandoned Greek entirely, which suggests that it wasn't as dominant to be an 'overwhelming majority' - or where did they disappear to? Did all these Hellenistai convert then?

I would expect so.

And those who didn't, created a new form of Judaism without a Temple, but with an increased focus on the Hebrew language.

I see no reason to assume the Diaspora 'overwhelmingly' Greek.

Within the Graeco-Roman world it surely was. Further east, it was probably largely Aramaic.

And, once again, there was a reason they translated the OT into Greek (not to mention the material that was composed in Greek).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would expect so.

And those who didn't, created a new form of Judaism without a Temple, but with an increased focus on the Hebrew language.



Within the Graeco-Roman world it surely was. Further east, it was probably largely Aramaic.

And, once again, there was a reason they translated the OT into Greek (not to mention the material that was composed in Greek).

No one doubts a significant Greek speaking population of Jewry. That more than explains the LXX and other Greek Jewish texts, although being the prestige language and lingua franca of the day also helps here. I mean Manetho and Berossus, not to mention numerous Romans, also composed in Greek, and no one expects them to hale from Greek home language speakers.

The argument is whether they constitute an 'overwhelming majority'. This seems unlikely, seeing the paucity of Greek language elements left over in subsequent Jewish languages.