Book of Enoch, 1 Peter, 2nd Peter, Jude parallels

[houston]

Why Greek and not Latin?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

Why Greek and not Latin?

When Alexander conquered the known world, he spread Greek ideas, philosophy, and language to throughout the known world. And the Greeks had a term, barbaros (barbarian) which they applied to everyone and anyone who did not speak Greek and who did not hold to certain Greek ideas. So the known world was saturated with a concept of "civilisation = Greek" and everything else was primitive barbarism. When the Romans took over the known world, they adopted much of the Greek ideals and philosophy. And Greek (the language) was considered by them the language of culture and civilisation. They had their own language (Latin) and it too was spread throughout the Empire as a required language for government and military and law, but the vast bulk of the Empire still spoke Greek and held to Greek ideas of civilisation. In fact the Romans adapted the Greek idea of civilisation as tied to culture and language for themselves, but they viewed their Roman culture as the climactic evolution of Greek culture. So the language of Greece was the "lingua franca" of the ancient world. If you were a Roman, but did not know Greek, you were considered a rustic "hillbilly" type even by your fellow Romans.

When the old testament was translated into Greek, the Roman Empire had not yet solidified its power over the ancient near east. So it made sense to translate it into Greek and not Latin. The Judeans of Palestine had been under Greek control and influence for centuries by the time the Romans took over. And they had only really been in control of Judea for a relatively short time by the time Jesus and His apostles were on the scene. So again Greek would be the language of choice. Hebrew (Biblical Hebrew) was a liturgical language used in the Temple and the synagogue during worship and prayer and so forth, but everybody pretty much conversed in either Aramaic (a Hebrew-related dialect of the Syrian-Judean-Idumean area)or Greek. So when it was time for "bible study and a word of exhortation" the language would likely have been in Greek if the synagogue was located in an area where there were a lot of Greek speaking Jews. It would have been in Aramaic in the hinterlands and perhaps among those Jews who were ideologically opposed to Greek culture (ultra con Pharisees, etc).

Remember, Judea was divided between "Hebrews" and "Hellenists". The "Hebrews" were the ultra conservative Judean faction (often having connections to the Zealot parties of "domestic terrorists" and revolutionists). The "Hellenists" were Judeans who felt the Greek culture was the culture of the world society and had a lot to offer. They weren't paganised Jews who had adopted Greek religion, though.

Think of Jews in America today. You have ultra conservative ultra Orthodox Jews who only use English if they have to, they do everything else in Yiddish or Hebrew, they dress in 19 and 18th century European Jewish clothing, they keep to themselves, they have their own neighborhoods, their own markets, their own businesses, they literally are like a Jewish version of the Amish in many respects. Those would be like the "Hebrews" of the Hebrews. Then, you have the Reform Jews and the Conservative Jews and the less hardcore Orthodox Jews who speak English and converse in English and go to American schools and colleges and enter the American business world etc. They are "Americanised Jews". Those are like the "Hellenists" of our day. Sure they use Hebrew in synagogue worship liturgies, but they will often sit down and do bible study or have bible discussions in English using English translations, etc.

In Paul's case, he was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" and was part of the "Straightest sect of the Pharisees" but because he was a rising star under Rabbi Gemaliel his education included a wider exposure to Hellenist thought and language and culture. Especially considering he was also a Roman citizen. This of course implies he was from a rather well to-do family which implies he had access to an extensive religious and secular education.

Paul ministered primarily among Greek speaking Gentiles and Jews scattered around Asia Minor and Greece, the very hotbed of Hellenistic culture and language and philosophy. This is where the infant church was incubated before exploding throughout the rest of the Roman Empire.

And this of course was by Divine design. So God had prepped everything in advance for the Gospel to be made available throughout the Roman Empire, using a language that would have a wider use and appeal than Latin. Many of the nations subjugated by the Romans had little affinity for Romans themselves or Roman culture and power itself. Latin, the official language of the government, was always pretty much stuck in Italy and areas to the west, that never really did get to experience the full effect of Greek culture and influence. Furthermore, the Latin wing of the Empire would be the one to fall first during the 5th century, relegating Latin to the Roman Catholic Church and the entities it controlled, whereas the Eastern wing of the Empire (which did its business in Greek) would lumber on for centuries more. This enabled the texts of Scripture both old and new (written in Greek) to survive from being completely subsumed under the control of a single ecclesiastical and political power and buried under a Latin-only program - which is what happened in the West.

So God's Providence, foreknowing and directing all this, made sure that we today can read the Word of God in our own native language translated from Greek (as it was written in) rather than being forced to rely on a translation of a translation (English from Latin from Greek/Hebrew) which was under the control of what would become probably the longest living and single most corrupt religious and political institution the world has ever known since perhaps the days of ancient Babel.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Now back to something towards the topic of this thread. When Jesus meets Paul on the road to Damascus. Jesus uses a Greek phrase found in a Greek play. It is more than likely a Greek figure of speech an idiom which Jesus knew the Roman Judean Shaul Paulos would recognize. A Greek phrase spoken in Aramaic. Paul used the words of Greek Stoics, and Epicureans to reach his audiences. Used the Greek poets in his epistles. In Acts 26:14 we have Jesus using a phrase out of the Greek tragedy Bacchae, by Euripides. The Middle East of Jesus, the apostles, and Paul was Hellenized, and Romanized. Paul was a Roman, from the patrician family of Paulous. Right now, I really don't know why Jesus uses the words from Euripides' tragedy. The best bet would be that it was a common figure of speech (thank you Esaias) and that it was used by Romans and Hellenized Judeans.

I would like to look more into the usage of Deuterocanonical books, Judean mythologies used in the New Testament. Also Grecian, Roman philosophers quoted by Paul and others. We have been led to believe that the world of Jesus and Paul was Hebrew Onlyism. But the opposite was the truth. The reason the New Testament was originally written in Greek is because the world of the 1st century Judean was very Romanized.

Adam Clarke:

It is hard for thee, etc. - Σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν. This is a proverbial expression, which exists, not only in substance, but even in so many words, both in the Greek and Latin writers. Κεντρον, kentron, signifies an ox goad, a piece of pointed iron stuck in the end of a stick, with which the ox is urged on when drawing the plough. The origin of the proverb seems to have been this: sometimes it happens that a restive or stubborn ox kicks back against the goad, and thus wounds himself more deeply: hence it has become a proverb to signify the fruitlessness and absurdity of rebelling against lawful authority, and the getting into greater difficulties by endeavoring to avoid trifling sufferings. So the proverb, Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim. Out of the cauldron into the fire. “Out of bad into worse.” The saying exists, almost in the apostolic form, in the following writers.
Euripides, in Bacch. ver. 793: -

Θυοιμ’ αν αυτῳ μαλλον, η θυμουμενος
Προς κεντρα λακτιζοιμι, θνητος ων, Θεῳ.
“I, who am a frail mortal, should rather sacrifice to him who is a God, than, by giving place to anger, kick against the goads.”

And Aeschylus, in Agamemnon, ver. 1633: -

Προς κεντρα μη λακτιζε.
Kick not against the goads.

And again in Prometh. Vinct. ver. 323: -

Προς κεντρα κωλον εκτενεις, ὁρων ὁτι
Τραχυς μοναρχος ουδ’ ὑπευθυνος κρατει.
“Thou stretchest out thy foot against goads, seeing the fierce monarch governs according to his own will.”

Resistance is of no use: the more thou dost rebel, the more keenly thou shalt suffer. See the Scholiast here.
Pindar has a similar expression, Pyth. ii. ver. 171-5: -

Φερειν δ’ ελαφρως
Επαυχενιον λαβοντα
Ζυγον γ’ αρηγει. Ποτι κεντρον δε τοι
Λακτιζεμεν, τελεθει
Ολισθηρος οιμος.
“It is profitable to bear willingly the assumed yoke.
To kick against the goad is pernicious conduct.”

Where see the Scholiast, who shows that “it is ridiculous for a man to fight with fortune: for if the unruly ox, from whom the metaphor is taken, kick against the goad, he shall suffer still more grievously.” Terence uses the same figure. Phorm. Act i. scen. 2, ver. 27: -

Venere in mentem mihi istaec: nam inscitia est,
Adversum stimulum calces. - “
These things have come to my recollection, for it is foolishness for thee to kick against a goad.”

Ovid has the same idea in other words, Trist. lib. ii. ver. 15: -

At nunc (tanta meo comes est insania morbo)
Saxa malum refero rursus ad icta pedem.
Scilicet et victus repetit gladiator arenam;
Et redit in tumidas naufraga puppis aquas.
But madly now I wound myself alone,
Dashing my injured foot against the stone:
So to the wide arena, wild with pain,
The vanquish’d gladiator hastes again;
So the poor shatter’d bark the tempest braves,
Launching once more into the swelling waves.

(end quotation)

It appears to have been a common figure of speech familiar to the Hellenistic world. Paul, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet also a Roman citizen and a rabbi-in-training under Gemaliel, would have had an education that would have made him familiar with Greek language, culture, idiom, etc, even if he was a conservative Hebrew Pharisee.

Also, considering the universal nature of oxen to sometimes buck against the goads (the "pricks") of their masters, a phenomenon which any and every cattle raising society would be familiar with, it is possible the expression was a near universally known concept.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Adam Clarke:

It is hard for thee, etc. - Σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν. This is a proverbial expression, which exists, not only in substance, but even in so many words, both in the Greek and Latin writers. Κεντρον, kentron, signifies an ox goad, a piece of pointed iron stuck in the end of a stick, with which the ox is urged on when drawing the plough. The origin of the proverb seems to have been this: sometimes it happens that a restive or stubborn ox kicks back against the goad, and thus wounds himself more deeply: hence it has become a proverb to signify the fruitlessness and absurdity of rebelling against lawful authority, and the getting into greater difficulties by endeavoring to avoid trifling sufferings. So the proverb, Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Charybdim. Out of the cauldron into the fire. “Out of bad into worse.” The saying exists, almost in the apostolic form, in the following writers.
Euripides, in Bacch. ver. 793: -

Θυοιμ’ αν αυτῳ μαλλον, η θυμουμενος
Προς κεντρα λακτιζοιμι, θνητος ων, Θεῳ.
“I, who am a frail mortal, should rather sacrifice to him who is a God, than, by giving place to anger, kick against the goads.”

And Aeschylus, in Agamemnon, ver. 1633: -

Προς κεντρα μη λακτιζε.
Kick not against the goads.

And again in Prometh. Vinct. ver. 323: -

Προς κεντρα κωλον εκτενεις, ὁρων ὁτι
Τραχυς μοναρχος ουδ’ ὑπευθυνος κρατει.
“Thou stretchest out thy foot against goads, seeing the fierce monarch governs according to his own will.”

Resistance is of no use: the more thou dost rebel, the more keenly thou shalt suffer. See the Scholiast here.
Pindar has a similar expression, Pyth. ii. ver. 171-5: -

Φερειν δ’ ελαφρως
Επαυχενιον λαβοντα
Ζυγον γ’ αρηγει. Ποτι κεντρον δε τοι
Λακτιζεμεν, τελεθει
Ολισθηρος οιμος.
“It is profitable to bear willingly the assumed yoke.
To kick against the goad is pernicious conduct.”

Where see the Scholiast, who shows that “it is ridiculous for a man to fight with fortune: for if the unruly ox, from whom the metaphor is taken, kick against the goad, he shall suffer still more grievously.” Terence uses the same figure. Phorm. Act i. scen. 2, ver. 27: -

Venere in mentem mihi istaec: nam inscitia est,
Adversum stimulum calces. - “
These things have come to my recollection, for it is foolishness for thee to kick against a goad.”

Ovid has the same idea in other words, Trist. lib. ii. ver. 15: -

At nunc (tanta meo comes est insania morbo)
Saxa malum refero rursus ad icta pedem.
Scilicet et victus repetit gladiator arenam;
Et redit in tumidas naufraga puppis aquas.
But madly now I wound myself alone,
Dashing my injured foot against the stone:
So to the wide arena, wild with pain,
The vanquish’d gladiator hastes again;
So the poor shatter’d bark the tempest braves,
Launching once more into the swelling waves.

(end quotation)

It appears to have been a common figure of speech familiar to the Hellenistic world. Paul, being a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet also a Roman citizen and a rabbi-in-training under Gemaliel, would have had an education that would have made him familiar with Greek language, culture, idiom, etc, even if he was a conservative Hebrew Pharisee.

Also, considering the universal nature of oxen to sometimes buck against the goads (the "pricks") of their masters, a phenomenon which any and every cattle raising society would be familiar with, it is possible the expression was a near universally known concept.

In Acts 22:7 Paul is recounting his experience to the Jews, and he does not mention the proverbial saying. Yet, when he is before Agrippa (Acts 26:14) he includes the proverb. Many older manuscripts and translations do not include the phrase in Acts 9 when Jesus was speaking to Paul. So some have the theory that Paul added the proverb in his account to Agrippa as a means of emphasis, using a well known Greek proverbial expression to drive his point home to Agrippa (who undoubtedly would be highly familiar with Greek culture, language, and expressions, and even literature).

[Esaias]

Regarding deuterocanonical expressions in the New Testament, they are certainly there. A example is Tobit 7:18, which speaks of God as the "Lord of Heaven and Earth", a expression Jesus uses in his benediction in Matthew 11:25 -

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
(Matthew 11:25)

Be of good comfort, my daughter, the Lord of heauen and earth giue thee ioy for this thy sorow: be of good comfort, my daughter.
(Tobit 7:18)

The expressions occurs I think two other times in the New Testament. It is not found in the Old Testament as a title or appellation of God used in either description, prayer, blessing, benediction, or invocation. The phrase is similar to the medieval and modern Jewish appellation "Lord, King of Heaven and Earth" which has the same meaning.

Apparently, during the intertestamental period, the phrase "Lord of Heaven and Earth" came into common usage as a reference or title of God. Hence, it is not introduced in Tobit, it simply is there, as if the term was already established by common usage when Tobit was written.

As a side note, I often use the title "Lord of Heaven and Earth" in prayer, especially when saying grace before meals.

The term is very similar to the Genesis appellation, "Possessor of Heaven and Earth":

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
(Genesis 14:22)

Wisdom contains a familiar phrase, "gates of hell" also used by Jesus -

For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest vp againe.
(Wisdom 16:13)

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:18)

Although the phrase does not appear anywhere else in the old testament, the concept in a "proto" form seems to be present in Jonah's hymn/prayer:

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.
(Jonah 2:2-6)

The concept is there in Jonah, of hell (sheol, or hades, the grave) as being a prison in or under the earth with bars or bolts that trap the dead there, yet God brought him up from that prison ("from corruption", where corruption is used as a term for the permanent condition of death). In Wisdom, the idea has developed to that of sheol or hades having "gates", again the idea of death as a prison. And in the Gospel Jesus speaks of death as having gates, ie being a prison from which nobody can return except by the Sovereign power of God.

So the phrase seems to be a common idiom, which we find recorded in Wisdom as if the readers were already familiar with it. Since the deuterocanonical books were well known and read among Judeans (and even outside Judea apparently) it would make sense for the common speech of Judeans to reflect the idioms found in those deuterocanonical books.

A familiarity with the deuterocanon will provide some insight into many of the statements in the NT. One will get a feel for how the original readers would have responded to those NT texts, the mental connections and associations that would have been made. All of which is sadly missed when one does not have access to those books. They are period literature and shed a great deal of light on the NT world.

[Esaias]

There is of course the issue of textual integrity when it comes to the deuterocanonical books. Namely, "Is there evidence of post-apostolic interpolation by christian writers?" Or in other words, are there contained within the deuterocanonical books ideas and statements which are most likely to have been inserted into them after the apostles had passed from the scene?

An example of something I believe is likely a post apostolic catholic interpolation is found here in 2 Maccabees:

Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
(2 Maccabees 12:40-45)

Here we have a concept of living saints praying for the dead that the sins of the dead might be forgiven, and that reconciliation for the sins of the dead could be made after the dead had died. This to me is too much to believe, that intertestamental Jews would have believed in efficacious prayers for the dead for the purpose of atonement/reconciliation. So it looks to me like a post apostolic interpolated text (or perhaps an altering of the original text) in order to lend support to the catholic doctrine of prayers for the dead being efficacious through the church's intercession.

I'd be interested to know if my hypothetical interpolation could be traced as to its actual point of origin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Exactly, the writers use it to prove their point. As Jesus using the deuterocanonical book of the Tobit to refute the Pharisees.
Paul using the hymn of Zeus at the Areopagus.

For me, the question remains:

Was the accepted, and most ancient understanding, of what occurred in Genesis 6 truly what happened?

In our day of rationalism, direct interaction with the supernatural is either scoffed at, denied, or deemed outright impossible.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In Acts 22:7 Paul is recounting his experience to the Jews, and he does not mention the proverbial saying. Yet, when he is before Agrippa (Acts 26:14) he includes the proverb. Many older manuscripts and translations do not include the phrase in Acts 9 when Jesus was speaking to Paul. So some have the theory that Paul added the proverb in his account to Agrippa as a means of emphasis, using a well known Greek proverbial expression to drive his point home to Agrippa (who undoubtedly would be highly familiar with Greek culture, language, and expressions, and even literature).

Your Kung Fu is VERY good!



Paul using the phrase makes more sense, especially using it with Agrippa who was extremely Roman.

[houston]

I dig those brows... because mine are thinning.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by houston

I dig those brows... because mine are thinning.

Mine are thickening, I will be able to comb them over my head.

Will that be considered long hair on a man?