cass256

He's not handing a paper in. He is having a discussion in class. Well, argument to some. He has already posted as much as he needs to poin t out. It is a no win argument. The information is limited. No one has brought out anything that convinces him otherwise. They only attack . Don't believe what his sources say. It is your prerogitive. It is only going to be bias and opinion on both sides. Not many agree on anything in the New testamnet. Blame the nature of the beast.

cass256

Columbia enclyclopedia
"Hebrew language




member of the Canaanite group of the West Semitic subdivision of the Semitic subfamily of the Afroasiatic family of languages (see Afroasiatic languages). Hebrew was the language of the Jewish people in biblical times, and most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The oldest extant example of Hebrew writing dates from the 11th or 10th cent. Hebrew began to die out as a spoken tongue among the Jews after they were defeated by the Babylonians in 586 Well before the time of Jesus it had been replaced by Aramaic as the Jewish vernacular, although it was preserved as the language of the Jewish religion. From 70, when the dispersion of the Jews from Palestine began, until modern times, Hebrew has remained the Jewish language of religion, learning, and literature. During this 2,000-year period, Hebrew has always been spoken to some extent. At the end of the 19th cent. the Zionist movement brought about the revival of Hebrew as a spoken language, which culminated in its designation as an official tongue of the state of Israel in 1948. There it is spoken by most of the 4.5 million Jews of that country. "



Hebrew was spoken to some extent, but it is interesting
the lack of the word Aramaic in the New testament, and the Hebrew's vernacular at the time was Aramaic. There is no reason to force Pilate to believe the Hebrews' vernacular at the time, was not what was called the Hebrew tongue.

They had been called Hebrews:

1 Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 2 Corinthians 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

3 Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;


So if a scource says a word is Aramaic... it could have been Aramaic it is up in the air.

cass256

Can you cite the Hebrew dictionary that has golgotha meaning skull?

We find 1538
gulgoleth
gul-go'-leth
by reduplication from 'galal' (1556); a skull (as round); by implication, a head (in enumeration of persons):--head, every man, poll, skull.

cass256

Pilate, this one's for you.

I will attempt what I think you tried at one time. It may back fire on me as well.

Spin, can you check your BDB (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon) on page 166 left side, third down gulgoleth from Strong 1538. It doesn't have the english translation of the Hebrew letters, So I am taking forgranted the word is written gulgoleth, but it may differ from Strong's.

Definition skull, head, poll,
It says compare to the Aramaic word shown on the second line. I do not know the related English letters when using the Armaic, are the letters translated the same? It seems the Aramaic has an Aleph on the end. In english an A? Would that be somehing like Gulgoltha in Aramaic comparison, or gulgoletha? We do see here that there is an Aramaic word for skull with an aleph on the end, no? I don't know the Aramaic term for an Aleph. The BDB can be confusing with all the abreviations. Aram. IS Aramaic, no?

I wonder why john did not use the Hebrew word for skull instead?

Does the Greek word show an A on the end? I do not know greek letters either. Just making sure john's Greek was as it says here.

Pilate

There must be conspiracy here I don't know about. Why don't you explain it to me. Who exactly is behind this conspiracy? And what is their motivation?

Pilate

Have no hesitation. It is not a shame not to know. But it is a shame to pretend to know, or act as you know it all.

To help a little:
In John 19:17 appears as "Γολογοθα"
this word appears in Matthew 27:33 as "Γολογοθα" it ends with an "a."
It also appears in Mark 15:22 as "Γολογοθαν" this is more correct: proper
It is the causative (aitiatiki) case. It is common for the Koine writer of the New Testament to omit letters like this one and articles.
One note: The poor grammar may be due in part to the type of language they used (a foreinger's language), but also that the writers did not know the correct grammar. Which would suggest that their mother language, was not Greek.

Pilate

For the umpteenth time:
1 Pilatians 1:1-2 "Are they Americans? So am I. Are the Californians? So am I. Do we speak American? Nooooooo! Do we speak Californian? Nooooooo!"
Can anyone prove that this analogy does not apply?
Look out folks:
I need to hear serious answers, if you want me to respond in a serious manner.

Pilate

I cannot find the above posting, but I received this in my e-mail. If this refers to me, not disclosing specific sources, my answer is: this is not a respectful scholarly environment (some people around here choose what to respond to and what not to respond to, and laugh at serious answers), and I will have to adjust my responses accordingly.

spin

Somewhere I've already mentioned Golgotha. All the consonants found in the Hebrew are in the Greek. BDB kindly supplies related forms in other languages as they have them and indeed the Aramaic form is given with an alef at the end, probably pronounced as a schwa. Things we don't know: did the Hebrew speakers or at least some dialect of Hebrew pronounce a schwa at the ends of words anyway? did the Greek writers in the nt times find it easier to place an alpha at the end of words? did the words get the final vowel in transmission? One thing is certain, the exact pronunciation of the words in either language is not available to us, so to rely on something as mutable as the final segment of a word in translation is hopeful at best.


spin

spin

I'll leave you with the tainting of the discussion with the term "conspiracy".

However, in the past there was a theory that Hebrew wasn't spoken after the return from exile and therefore in the 1st c. CE people in Judea spoke Aramaic. This theory was shot to pieces with the discovery of the DSS, where well over 80% of the documents were written in Hebrew and about 60% were written in dialects of Hebrew that weren't biblical and obviously produced well after the exile, so that one could not accuse the writers of mimicking the biblical Hebrew of their sacred texts. The two previously unknown dialects give orthographic indications of care of pronunciation. The writers were concerned at maintaining the correct pronunciation of words by including more of the liquid consonants often used as vowels themselves so as to show words should be said. One of the dialects links directly to the Mishnaic dialect of a few centuries later, ie it was continued by the Mishnah writers. All indications therefore are that we have a Hebrew very much alive in the 1st c. CE.

With the notion of Aramaic being the language of Judea in the 1st c. CE encrusted in the conceptual world of non-scholarly literature through a century or two of habit however and this diffused throughout the apologetic world, we have been lumbered with the erroneous notion that Aramaic was the one language.


spin