Amaleq13

I'm pretty sure spin has consistently acknowledged that all three languages were spoken in the 1st century CE so I don't understand how this contradicts him. More relevant to the actual discussion, however, how does this establish that "language of the Hebrews" should be understood to mean Aramaic rather than Hebrew?

Only by the "elite Jews"? What is the evidence for this?

Johann_Kaspar

I am sorry to say that you have little or no education/understanding about the Jewish people. Read better the gospels, there is an hint about education.

Pilate

<deleted>

Here is a quote, these are facts written by scholars, who specialize in this field:
According to Thayer’s: ‘ΕβÏ?αίος’ plural ‘ΕβÏ?αίοι’ (Strong’s word # 1445) 1.Any of the Jewish or Israelitan nation {in a broad sense, even those who did not speak the language}. 2. In a narrower sense those {Jews} … who lived in Palestine and used the language of the country, i.e. Chaldee {Aramaic} from whom are distinguished οί Ελληνισταί {the Hellenists, who spoke Greek}. That name adhered to them even after they had gone over to Christianity. 3. All Jewish Christians, whether they spoke Aramaic or Greek, equivalent to πιστοί εξ ΕβÏ?αίων. Also: ‘ΕβÏ?αίς’ (Strong’s word # 1446): Hebrew, the Hebrew language; not that however in which the O.T. was written, but the Chaldee (not Syro-Chaldaic, as it commonly but incorrectly called; (cf. A. Th. Hoffman, Grammat. Syriac., page 14) which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had long superseded it in Palestine. Also: ‘ΕβÏ?αίστί’ (Strong’s word # 1447): In Hebrew, i.e. in Chaldee (see the foregoing word and refferenes). The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, pp. 164-165.

<deleted>

Chris Weimer

And you still haven't learned that you just can't argue from authority - especially when you can't judge the evidence on your own.

spin

Is the Greek word for "Aramaic", ie suristi, included in Thayer? No? Thought not. I guess the writer of 2 Maccabees didn't have access to Thayer when he wrote 15:36. But then, neither did Josephus when he used suristi in the rabshakeh story.

So, if these ancient writers were using the term suristi for what we call Aramaic, I guess they needed Pilate to tell them what they should have said, ie ebraisti, but then that would have confused the shite out of Josephus, who in the rabshakeh story (which I'm sure Pilate read after me citing it a few times) tells us that the rabshakeh was asked to speak in suristi instead of ebraisti, so I guess he should have written suristi instead of ebraisti, and finished with the rabshakeh being asked to speak in suristi instead of suristi -- unless of course the term ebraisti didn't mean suristi and Josephus, like the 2 Maccabees writer, knew what he was talking about and the modern dictionaries compiled before the discovery of the DSS were hypothesizing from silence and hypothesizing wrongly.


guru

Chris Weimer

:rolling: spin, isn't this the third time telling this story? I'm getting the feeling that someone is plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALA" as loud as they can.

Amaleq13

What evidence is used to understand what the linguistic situation was after the end of the 2nd century BCE (ie 1st century CE)?

Your earlier quote included at least some of the evidence that resulted in the stated conclusion. Do you know what the specific basis is for the conclusions given in Thayer's?

Pilate

I have the answers to your ΣυÏ?ιστι assertion but I will not converse with you anymore because 1. you are editing my postings. 2. you have a disrespectful attitude. 3. I am not learning much from you. 4. I don't get paid to teach you.

Amaleq13

What assertion? I'm asking questions. If you have the answers, there does not appear to be any rational reason to refuse to share them. Certainly, the reasons you offer do not qualify as rational. I asked my questions because I assumed that you were true to your word and wished to honestly engage in rational discussions here. Your response suggests I was mistaken but I truly hope you will disabuse me of that perception.

1. It is my job as moderator to edit your posts when they contain content that violates the rules or moderator requests. Nothing substantive has been edited from your posts. There is no rational connection between those actions and your unwillingness to provide additional information about your claims. If you are not willing to follow the rules, you should probably not be a member of IIDB.

2. I have been entirely respectful toward you despite your refusal to comply with moderator requests. This claim is simply false.

3. You have claimed to have substantial knowledge so I'm not sure why it should surprise you that you aren't learning anything from me. You earlier indicated you wished to share information but this current reluctance appears to be a complete reversal. If you do not wish to engage in discussions but only wish to make unchallenged assertions, you should probably not be a member of IIDB.

4. Participation in these discussion forums is entirely voluntary so nobody is being paid. If you make claims, you will be asked to explain or support them. Refusing to do so means you are wasting both your time and those who read your assertions. If all you want to do is waste your time and those who read your assertions, you should probably not be a member of IIDB.

Pilate

Earl Doherty joined the fundies in the "conspiracy" to deny the Jews of their heritage: the Hebrew tongue. :Cheeky:
Remember that argument that Josephus talked Hebrew to the Jews in Jerusalem?
Well, here is what Earl Doherty wrote about Josephus:
"The Jewish War was written in Aramaic for use in the east, designed to discourage further revolt against Rome. That initial version has been lost."The Jesus Puzzle, page 205. :thumbs:
Had you guys showed respect, I could have contributed a lot more to your site.