semiopen

Nice post, I don't see any obvious errors.

.

IAMJoseph believes very strongly that Hebrew was in common use throughout. Annoying as it is, this opinion is not clearly refuted although I think the majority of scholars hold views similar to your own.

This is generally considered to be Deuteronomy by scholars. Josiah defiled the high places of Israel to centralize worship in Jerusalem by burning human male bodies on the altars (Kings2 23:16).

Majority opinion still favors a completion of the five books before the exile, probably around the time of Josiah. Your suggestion is a reasonable one however and one I've been thinking more favorably about.

He is fantastic, but I wouldn't call him a con artist. If his opinions were a little better, he'd be a great subject for a book.

Toto

Fantastic? I think you mean fanatic?

steve_bnk

Fantastic can also mean 'unbelievable'

Petergdi

It is one thing to claim that Aramaic was the main language in the Second Temple period, quite another to claim that Hebrew was entirely dead as a natively spoken language. The evidence for the first seems quite satisfactory to me. I'm not sure how anyone could be really sure of the second. After all, we still have Aramaic speaking enclaves even though it hasn't been a major language for a long time.

Peter.

IamJoseph

You can dis-allusion me easily before all. Just present us with an *abjad* alphabetical book - or any other aside from the Hebrew - before the Hebrew. You know what alphabets are - abstract symbols embellished with grammatical inclinations; a book is a multi-page continuing narrative.

Don't waste your time though - I will make it very easy for you. Show us an alphabetical book even 500 years either side of the Hebrew emergence. Cave and stone etchings and markings don't apply - books do apply. :wave:

IamJoseph

Aramaic was a peasant, street language, spoken by Hebrews only when the Hebrew was banned - a commonplace situation with the conqering empires. The books of the 55 Hebrew prophetic writings are all in Hebrew, and the Hebrew liturgies cannot be made in Aramaic. The notion of Mad [2000 lashes per frame] Mel making his last supper in Aramaic is one big farce, based on falsehood and abject paranoia of the Hebrew. And no one even made a fuss about it.

Aramaic was spoken by the ancient Egyptians as a generic language for the numerous nationals embedded there - but they never spoke Hebrew - which is a mystery - bacause the non-Hebrew canaanites never spoke Hebrew - an even bigger mystery; nor did the canaanites have any books - which renders credibility to the Mosaic which says the Hebrews entered Canaan with five Hebrew, alphabetical books in hand. They could not have got this from Egypt, nor from any of the nations they encountered, nor from the canaanites. To make the plot even thicker - the opening first two words in the 10 Commandments is not in Hebrew or Aramaic - it is in the original, ancient Egyptian ['ANO CH'/'I AM'] - because the pharoah never spoke Hebrew - so its directed to him, because he declared himself divine. Genesis also says that Joseph spoke with the pharoah via translators! I could list a 100 impacting factors here, all of which says there is a mystery concerning the Hebrew origins, as well as its contemporary narratives.

IamJoseph

I don't know what you mean by hebrew was only used for ceremonies - what about the volumous books called prophetic writings [Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremia, Micah, Ezekiel, Esther, etc]? These are spread over a period of a 1000 years, written about a 100 years apart, with historical stats and authors nominated. For whom were they writing, if none spoke Hebrew? :constern02:

You will find that Hebrew, although banned by Rome, and then Christianity, was still used, but it became liturgical only after 135 CE. Then too, the liturgical factor called for studying, knowing Hebrew, as opposed speaking it. At no time was the Hebrew a dead language, and the reason it remains the only language which returned after a 2000 year hiatus - which is not possible if it was totally dead.

The return of the Hebrew as an active and living language today constitutes a one time only phenomenon, and its magnitude has not yet been understood or recognised by christians and muslims. It is a time machine - its retention of the gutheral sounds tell us how all languages were spoken 2000 years ago - that is why we spell night that way - because it was pronounced in the gutheral a few centuries ago. One can say the Hebrew performed a non-virtual in our face resurrection.

IamJoseph

I think it totally shocking how some so-called schlars spread the notion the Hebrew bible was written at this time, solely because of a stray, one sentence verse in the book of Kings which says 'a book' was found in the destroyed library after it was burnt and razed by Babylon: why ever would a book not be found in a library, and why should it even be regarded as deuteronomy? To infer from this that the entire five books were written then is insane, but one which has spread and used in the Middleeast as a fact.

The book of Kings is a work of historicity, listing the names of the Kings from David's reign. The psalms were already written at this time, and it alligns fully with the Mosaic and the life of Moses - which predates the book of kings. The so-called scholars made an unpardonable leap of imagination here, with no regard for their ubsurd claims. I would better call such scholars as con artists with a definitive agenda. Later, the proof of David cast them in total shame.

IamJoseph

Toss it any way you want, but the Hebrew is always acknowledged as among the first three alphabetical writings, usually placed as one down from a first one. What is impacting on this is that we have numerous and copious historical Hebrew alphabetical books by a wondering peoples - and a blatant lack of it from those who were entrenched in one place. That IS remarkable.

Here, one cannot give a single answer justifying this situation - because it pervades a host of nations in different circumstances, and any one reasoning would not justify. Saying its not remarkable doesn't meant its not, and being in denial doesn't mean its been explained why it is so. The reason of not having writings does not assist - in fact it makes it all the more remarkable that the 'no writings' effected everyone else, even mightier and older nations - except one ever wondering peoples. So I accept that in my mind it is remarkable, just like I accept a spade is a flat dish with a long handle.

semiopen

I agree, this isn't an area that I have any special knowledge but one has to think that the average people didn't speak two languages fluently.

I was remarking that PapaverDeum didn't say anything clearly wrong, and I don't see anything in his post which says Hebrew was dead at this point.

I don't know what I meant either, I didn't say that. Most scholarly opinion is that Aramaic was the more common language in the 2nd temple era. That seems reasonable to me.

This is dependent on when one dates the bible from. A Haredi view might be 1300 BCE, which would be unanimously considered absurd by scholars. A more reasonable number is about 750 BCE, but one could argue even later as PapaverDeum mentioned. It should be noted that the scholarly consensus shows a shift to later and later dates. Richard Elliot Friedman, in his classic Who Wrote the Bible suggested a Davidic source for "J" and this seems almost laughably early nowadays.

The Song of Deborah is currently considered perhaps the oldest biblical passage, from perhaps before 1000 BCE, note this is from Judges not the Pentateuch. I don't know anything particularly remarkable about this being early human writing, like a Guiness book of world records thing. This is part of what makes you special Joseph.

I've learned very little in my life so far, but one thing is that it is not always easy to realize who your friends are. This isn't a stray sentence and without it the dates of writing would be considered later not earlier. "Some so called scholars" would include just about everyone in the field of Biblical studies. I didn't realize how sophisticated this discipline was until a few years ago.

I thought I refuted this convincingly awhile back. Aramaic was a diplomatic language and not known to the lower classes before the first exile.

From here:
http://www.historynet.com/assyrian-m...inst-judah.htm

You get hit by shots that would stop a mad rhino Joseph. I've been amazed that you can usually just keep on coming, but now I'm just wondering if you just don't read the replies.