Johann_Kaspar

I am not kidding. It was first spoken about the gospels. But everything has a Jewish origin. Ps 135:16-17

Johann_Kaspar

:rolling:
Nein. Christliche Verirrung.

Johann_Kaspar

Wrong. Hebrew was spoken by common people.

Johann_Kaspar

No. Xian bs.

post tenebras lux

Salut Jean, ca va?

Could you be so kind as to provide some evidence to back up your claims?

Merci, et A+
Luxie

spin

In passing, Hebrew was much more widely spoken than some here seem to understand.

1. Over 80% of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew, ie many new texts were written in Hebrew, not Aramaic.
2. Many of the texts found at Murabbaat were in Hebrew and these texts include legal contracts and one does not sign a contract that no-one can understand. There were some marriage contracts included.
3. Rabbinical literture talks of different marriage contracts written in either Aramaic or Hebrew depending on where it the contracts were made.

One must remember that the Hasmoneans showed a propensity to use Hebrew -- one need only think of their coins. Herod probably stuck to Greek in contrast to the Hasmoneans for similar though contrary political reasons.

Oh, and dead languages can survive as fossils used in liturgical situations, though without a speech community, so Hebrew certainly became a dead language, only to be resurrected late in the 19th century. (Its relationship with the ancient language is that the latter was mined for grammar and vocabulary for political and religious reasons.)


spin

Steven Avery

True. Ken Penner did a recent paper on this.
And you can get a lot of the links and a summary from a post...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/7527
Date: Wed May 12, 2004 8:51 am
Subject: Hebraisti == Hebrew - What language did Paul speak in Acts 21:22 ?

Note especially this reference, from the handout of his talk (SBL, methinks)

What language did Paul speak in Acts 21:22 ?
Ancient Names for Hebrew and Aramaic
http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/paper...s/handout2.pdf Longer Handout

While I agree that the NT was almost entirely written in Greek, to call Hebrew a dead language, or even to claim that it was generally unknown by the populace, in contra-indicated by various evidences, including archaelogy, such as the Bar Kochba letters, and the New Testament.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

French Prometheus

I personally own several Hasmonean coins. Yes, the inscriptions are written in Hebrew and they're even written in the ancient Hebrew alphabet (not the one actually used in the documents of the time). But that's not an argument. Until not so long ago, Latin was used on French and British coins.

You should also keep in mind that the Hasmoneans came to power as a reaction against the forced hellenization of Palestine by Antiochus Epiphanes. It made sense to use Hebrew as an official language whether people actually spoke it or not.

Your argument about contracts is a good point. But then, again, a contract is an official document requiring a "scribe" (or any literate official). It was commonplace in medieval France for illiterate people to sign official documents that concerned them even though they couldn't read.

Yes. Actually some dead languages are more dead than others. Hebrew, like Latin or Ancient Greek, has a continuous tradition of being taught and learned that goes back to the time when it was actually spoken. Unlike Middle Egyptian or Akkadian, Hebrew never had to be deciphered.

French Prometheus

That's nice, but do you have any reliable scientific source on this? I mean, something like an article published in a peer-reviewed journal?

French Prometheus

Claiming "it's wrong because I say so" is not an argument either.

Funny.