Originally Posted by Pilate

Spin,
I thought you had a Greek dictionary, don't you? Well, if you do and if that dictionary tells you it is feminine, I will confidently tell you to throw it away.
My qualifications?:

Originally Posted by Pilate

Onomastiki: O golgothas
Geniki: tou golgotha
Dotiki: tw golgotha
Aitiatiki: ton golgotha(n) with 'n' is better grammar (someone could argue about this with me)
Klitiki: w golgotha (the w stands for omega)

Originally Posted by Pilate

I could have been your professor teaching you ancient Greek in college. And this is not sarcasm.

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

spin - a great place for Byzantine/Alexandrian comparison is here.

Originally Posted by spin

One Aramaic text to five Hebrew. That tells the basic story.

Originally Posted by judge

Can you state precisely what story this tells?

If the consensus changed following the discovery of the DSS on the language of Judea.

1. Who refuted the old view?

2. What viw did they replace it with?

3. Do you know of any references to investigate the work of the person or persons who refuted the old view and articulated the new view?

Thanks

Originally Posted by spin

The old view that Hebrew was merely a fossil died in scholarly circles. As I see it it's not a refutation. The claim was simply superceded. But here is Norman Golb's opinion from "Who Wrote the DSS", p.361, "we may note the lyrical richness of ancient Hebrew up to the very destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70; and we observe that virtually all of this poetry, as well as over three quarters of the prose texts, was composed in Hebrew, disproving the view that Aramaic had overtaken Hebrew as the main language of the Jews in Palestine in the first century AD." I think you'll find a similar analysis in Lawrence Schiffman, Reclaiming the DSS.


spin

Originally Posted by cass256

I thought the main claim to refute was that Hebrew had been overtaken as the SPOKEN language, by Aramaic, NOT the written language in poetry, religious and other literature.

Originally Posted by Pilate

Johann,
If you are referring to me, I am here. Talk to me directly. Ask me what is my agenda. My answer is: the truth. Simple. How much more simple you want me to get?

Originally Posted by Pilate

Johann,
If you are referring to me, I am here. Talk to me directly. Ask me what is my agenda. My answer is: the truth. Simple. How much more simple you want me to get?
Someone here condemned me as being ignorant of etymology. There are a lot of things I don't know, but I know this: The meaning of words is realtive to time and place. For example, the word "gay" eighty years ago meant "jolly." But today the word "gay" means "homosexual."
(Johann, I hope you are a reasonable man: able to set aside his prejudices.)
Knowing this, let's talk about the word Hebrew. This word can refer to a language or it can refer to a person. In our case it refers to language. Let me remind you what you already know, that languages change over time. English was different in the times of Shakespear. It wasn't even English 1700 years ago; it was Latin. This is true also of the Hebrew language. The people who were called Hebrews, at say, about 900 years BCE, they spoke a language called Hebrew. Then they were captured by people who spoke other languages, and that had a dramatic effect upon their own language. This is a common phenomenon in nations that have been occupied over long periods of time.
The Hebrews, at later times were called Israelites, and Paul called them EEoudaeos (Judah > Judean > Jew). By the way the Israelites did not speak "Israelite." The Judeans did not speak "Judean." Their name "Judean" is not also the name of their language.
When the Greeks conquered the Israelites many Israelites spoke the Greek language. The Hebrew survived, to a great extent because of the Old Testament, but it was transformed over time by a variety of languages. This is a very complex subject, which goes beyond my understanding, but I know this much: Aramaic (or Chaldee) was the common language in Israel at the time of Jesus, and for this reason the Jews invented the Targums. They were Aramaic translation/commendaries of the Old Testament. Scholars, who specialize in this field believe that the Onqelos Targum (an Aramaic 'translation/commentary') originated in Messopatamia/Babylon, but was finished in the 1 CE in Palestine. Had the Jews spoken Hebrew, they would not have needed the Targums.
Ask Shemariahu Talmon, he is a Jew, an renown expert of Semitic languages. If he does not know, then I don't know. Don't expect me or anyone in this forum to be a higher authority on Semitic languages than Shemariahu Talmon.
I spent a lot of time writing about this in my previous posting (for the sake of those who are not laughing at this knowledge). If you have not read them, do yourself a favor: read them. If this does not help, ask me a specific question (I don't know if I will be able to answer it, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know: I will not BS you).

Originally Posted by judge

Just to be clear here. Are you or anyone here arguing that Xtians invented a story that jews spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew in order to cover up the fact Jews spoke Hebrew?

Is there anyone here who subscribes to this idea?

If not then what idea is proposed...or is the space left blank?