Steven Avery

Since you don't quote my supposed contradiction, I will have to pass as to why you get confused. What I shared is clear, Hebraisti in Acts best translates as Hebrew, Syriac would be Aramaic, the NT references are to Hebrew, per the Ken Penner scholarship. Why you roll eyes instead of getting the gist, Chris, is your problem, not mine..

Have no idea what your kvetch is here.

The thread has covered a variety of issues, and I mainly have focued on two.
1) Strong evidences of Hebrew as a living language in the 1st century
2) It is wrong to say the "dead language" teaching is historic Christian, as it is recent, liberal modern scholarship.

Apparently, if you check the thread, my points have been reasonably clear to Prometheus, and perhaps others, and mitigate against some of the Aramaic vs Hebrew positions.

(As an aside, I'd be happy to discuss the Aramaic Primacy (over Greek NT) theories, or the Peshitta Primacy theories, however nobody on this forum is really propagating or defending that point of view anyway.)

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

post tenebras lux

Um????

OK: well, I did a 'google search', but all the evidence I found to support your view was a load of c**p. Therefore, if you are unwilling to provide your own evidence, I will conclude that the only evidence to support your view is this 'load of c**p' I found.

Am I correct?

Luxie

PS Regarding the 'coins' issue: the first two or three cathedrals here in Geneva were built by the romans (speaking latin as their mother tongue); when Calvin gained power in Geneva he introduced my name - Post Tenebras Lux - as the new motto for the town; am I to conclude that in Calvin's time, the locals were still speaking latin as their first language?

manu dibango

Judge gave an example of a song that rhymes in Aramaic that is in the NT.
Does this song also rhyme in Hebrew?

yalla

I am under the impression that "We sang to you, and you did not dance...etc" is a quote from a greek play.

Steven Avery

Not sure, and a good question. However, there is no difficulty with Aramaic as well as Hebrew substratum of spoken statements, poems or songs coming into the Greek NT text, or if this was from an earlier Greek play, either :-) Nobody is saying that they didn't speak Aramaic as a common language, simply that Hebrew was also spoken, and in Jerusalem, according to Acts 21, Paul spoke to a crowd in Hebrew and they understood him. One might even conjecture that in Galilee of the Gentiles Hebrew would have been less common, albeit not a dead language. In Acts, I'm quite certain that Paul, if he so desired, could similarly spoken in Aramaic to the crowd.

The Aramaic and Peshitta Primacy theories to which I alluded are theories as to the New Testament Text itself, not the spoken sub-stratum. They are reasaonably popular in some Internet circles.

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

spin

Johann_Kaspar, you are crapping on. It was believed for a long time that Hebrew was a dead language during the early Roman principate, and many people have been arguing since the discovery of new literature written in Hebrew at Qumran that contrarily Hebrew was quite a living language with more than one dialect, ie there was a plurality of speech communities. However, it is still a debated subject. I have defended the Hebrew language in that time (ie the principate) for many years against the common scenario that the Jews had already moved to Aramaic and people usually show early rabbinical literature as evidence that that was the language in use by the Jews. Well, by rabbinical times Jews were using Aramaic... and Greek... and Latin... and who knows whatever else?

This "first negate or kill the language, than the people" is pure propaganda. Here at ii, you won't getting any suckers dribbling over it. We don't need reverse-goebbelsism. You've certainly got your rhetoric mixed. For the anti-Jewish type of christian you should be railing against "christ killer" mindlessness.

The debate regarding the use of Hebrew is a matter of whether Levantine Jews used Hebrew or Aramaic at the beginning of the principate and nothing else. However, we know that a large proportion was using Aramaic because of the funerary inscriptions -- one doesn't put messages regarding one's loved ones in languages one doesn't understand. And for Hebrew, one doesn't make contracts in languages one doesn't understand.

Cut the rhetoric.


spin

French Prometheus

Johann_Kaspar, this point is important. You can read about it in "Jésus-Christ, ce que nous disent l'archéologie et l'histoire", Les Cahiers de Sciences & Vie, n°83.