Re: Mac Mini hard as *** to use.

In article
<gmgraves-9721CF.11374814102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <141020050858299290%invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgraves-D2A757.12062313102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
> > Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <131020051032522730%invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <gmgraves-2FCD5D.11451312102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
> > > > Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <proto-F7556C.14021812102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > Walter Bushell <proto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <gmgraves-BA30EF.13360711102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I.N.R.I." is for the
> > > > > > > Latin phrase "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm" Literally. "Jesus of
> > > > > > > Nazareth King of the Jews."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not, "I'm nailed right in."?
> > > > >
> > > > > Could be. One makes just as much sense as the other.
> > > >
> > > > Since English with its grammar and spelling was not in existence in the
> > > > 1st Century, it could not have been "I'm nailed right in." If it makes
> > > > sense to you that it means "I'm nailed right in.", you are being
> > > > delusional, and probably need medication.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, the inscription over Christ's head was probably written in
> > > > both Latin and Aramaic, not just Latin, since the rulers of the Jews
> > > > complained about the inscription to Pilate.
> > >
> > > Actually, Biblical scholars (oxymoron?) say that it was written in
> > > Greek, Latin, and 1st century Hebrew. And indeed, that piece of wood
> > > kept in an Italian Cathedral (I forget which one) and claimed to be THE
> > > Titulus, is so written.
> >
> > Since I am not, nor do I claim to be, a Biblical scholar, I don't know
> > for a fact. I was simply trying to bring a little truth into the
> > conversation.
> >
> > Your theory certainly sounds plausible, however. In fact, it is more
> > reasonable than mine. Thank you. However, "1st Century Hebrew" was
> > more than possibly "Aramaic", since the "dead language" (It was pretty
> > dead by that time -- much like Latin today) of Hebrew was only spoken
> > and written by the priests and other scholars of that time, and then
> > only for religious or official reasons, such as on holy days and in
> > Biblical texts.
>
> It's possible because Aramaic is the Language of the Assyrians and the
> Jews picked it up during the First Diaspora when they were captives of
> the Babylonians. Though most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were Hebrew, some
> of the documents were written in Aramaic, and the names found on the
> "death chips" on Mount Masada were written in Aramaic by the Zealot
> defenders.

Also, Aramaic was an "official language" of that time period.
However, I tend to believe that the Romans would have had the
inscription include the Aramaic translation simply because so many
people would be able to read it.

My personal opinion of the Hebrews is that they would have been much
more able to read and write than the nations around them simply because
their religion was a religion "of the Book", and they would have needed
to be able to at least read one or more languages, especially the
language of the Book. Part of the Law of Moses tells the people that
they were to discuss the Law with each other in their every-day lives
on an everyday basis.

In addition, many Hebrews were engaged in commercial enterprises, and
would have had to be able to read and write various languages (although
the majority of the people were probably farmers or other occupations
necessary for an agrarian economy.)

>
> > > > Evidently,they were
> > > > concerned about it because the people gathered around the Cross were
> > > > able to read the inscription.

I'm sure that enough of the people gathered around the Cross would have
been able to read one of the languages written on the inscription
enough to be able to share its meaning to those around them who did not
read or write. After all, many "middle class" people (who probably
would have been able to read or write in one of the languages) also
were interested in Jesus, and had followed him, much like people
followed the Grateful Dead (or the band's remaining members) around
today. Even Jesus Himself was able to read Hebrew (since He read out
loud the Torah reading of a Synagog at least once. In addition, He was
able to discourse with the scholars at the age of 12. He would have
had to be able to read the Scriptures enough to discourse intelligently
about them (note that He astounded the scholars by His knowledge of the
Scriptures), so I assume his parents also read it enough to teach it to
Him.

> >
> > Since the common people spoke and wrote in Aramaic, and were able to
> > read the inscription, I tend to believe that the inscription was not
> > written in Hebrew, but rather in Aramaic.

It is also possible that the inscription may have been written in
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, as you have suggested

> >
> > > > The rulers of the Jews wouldn't have
> > > > wanted an inscription proclaiming Jesus as the ruler of the Jews on the
> > > > Cross of a supposed "criminal". It would be very bad "propaganda" for
> > > > their own cause among the people.

To prove this, the rulers of the Jews DID complain to the Romans when
they saw the inscription. The Romans simply shrugged it off, and said
"What has been written has been written." (or words to that effect).

> >
> > It is possible, however, that the Romans would have had the inscription
> > written in the "official languages" of the day (as you suggest), rather
> > than the language of the common people, for their own ulterior motives,
> > or simply because the Romans were "official" to the max.)
> >
> > > >
> > > > Also, the use of "I.N.R.I" in paintings is more than probably an
> > > > artifice of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than normal Latin usage
> > > > of the 1st Century.
> >
> > I say this because I've personally never seen an ancient Latin
> > inscription which used acronyms. Possibly someone else has.
>
> Actually I.N.R.I. was probably a device used by renaissance painters
> because they couldn't write small enough with a paint brush to fit the
> whole inscription.

That certainly sounds reasonable and plausible.
.

Loading