spin

Besides disputing have you seen any substance to the complaint(s)? What do you think Paul meant when he said he was εβραιος εξ εβραιων? Does Rev 9:11 & 16:16 not mean in Hebrew? And what does συριακη φωνη in 2 Mac 15:36 refer to, if not Aramaic? Or when Josephus, retelling the Rabshakeh speech (AJ 10.8), talks of συριστι and εβραιστι, did he know what he was referring to? The disputing seems to have been based on an old status quo that believed Hebrew was a dead language, which was destroyed by the discovery of epigraphy and inscriptions over the last seventy years and only lingers because people haven't updated their secondary sources.

andrewcriddle

εβραιστι clearly sometimes means Hebrew. I'm sorry if I suggested that it always means Aramaic. The isuue is whether it always means Hebrew or whether it sometimes means Aramaic.

Josephus in Antiquities book 1 chapter 1 says whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue. ὅθεν καὶ ἡμεῖς σχολὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πόνων κατὰ ταύτην ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα: δηλοῖ δὲ ἀνάπαυσιν κατὰ τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον τοὔνομα where σάββατα IIUC is Aramaic.

Similarly Antiquities book 3 chapter 10 says When a week of weeks has passed over after this sacrifice, (which weeks contain forty and nine days,) on the fiftieth day, which is Pentecost, but is called by the Hebrews Asartha, which signifies Pentecost Ἑβδόμης ἑβδομάδος διαγεγενημένης μετὰ ταύτην τὴν θυσίαν, αὗται δ᾽ εἰσὶν αἱ τῶν ἑβδομάδων ἡμέραι τεσσαράκοντα καὶ ἐννέα, τῇ πεντηκοστῇ, ἣν Ἑβραῖοι ἀσαρθὰ καλοῦσι, where IIUC ἀσαρθὰ is also Aramaic.

Hence although Josephus obviously knows the distinction he sometimes says Hebrew when he means Aramaic.

Andrew Criddle

spin

I have no problems when you dispute the philology of Josephus. I'm sure he can confuse whether a word is συριστι or εβραιστι. That doesn't change the fact that he should be able to tell generally between the notions of συριστι and εβραιστι. The distinction was clear to the writers of texts from Murabbaat at the time of Simeon ben-Kosiba, when they employed the different languages. So, why should people today have doubts as to the significance of Hebrew in "the Hebrew dialect" as used by a writer in Acts?

thief of fire

That big of you, seeing as you have no choice
Don't like the evidence? Unlucky
Obviously he is capable , he just doesn't do what you wish he would. That is evidence you should accept
.They knew a "distinction" of the "notions"? Amazing stuff
How many times do you want it explained. You are just trying to fight the evidence. Just accept it. That way you are more likely to arrive at the truth.

spin

I think you think you've said something. In that mean-spirited voice you think you must use.

The evidence here is that the Acts of the Apostles uses the term "Hebrew" regarding the spoken language of some people. Some modern pundits don't like the literal significance of that word and want it to mean something else. There is a term for Aramaic in Greek that means "Syrian" to us moderns. People used "Hebrew" and "Syrian" to talk about what people spoke, the first for Hebrew, the second for Aramaic. Now Josephus can say a word is Hebrew when he presents it in what appears to be an Aramaic form as in the case of σαββατα, though the word is Hebrew in origin and represented in Greek as σαββατον. He may make such mistakes of lexis, but in no way impinges on his ability to refer to Hebrew as "Hebrew" and Aramaic as "Syrian". There are no realistic grounds on which to appeal for the claim that Acts "Hebrew" doesn't mean Hebrew based on a few errors of lexis. People make language mistakes frequently, but that doesn't indicate that they may frequently confuse a language that they are well aware of.

So your belly-aching has proven vain. You can now go back to being nasty elsewhere.

thief of fire

Try reading your own posts for a change. You seem unaware of how you interact with others. Would you like some examples?

You seem to think there was just one dialect of Aramaic around. Thats where you err.

aa5874

You have demonstrated that the use of Aramaic words does NOT mean that the Jesus story of gMark originated in Aramaic.

Josephus used Aramaic words up to 93 CE which means people understood Aramaic and still used it.

thief of fire

Probably Akkadian

Toto

Norton says that this link is a malicious site and has blocked it.

Is there another source that would explain what you mean?

thief of fire

Aramaic did not develop out of Hebrew, each developed seperately. The original Akkadian word is sapattu which is thought to be behind sabbath (though it's related to the moon). Apologists probably like to think hebrew is as old as Adam, but like Aramaic and Arabic it developed in the region (later) so one can't say a word contained in both hebrew and aramaic comes from one of them, usually. They often have far older pedigrees.
It's possible that the word in the sense it is used in the hebrew bible passes into Aramaic but I wouldn't think thats conclusive.