spin

The johannine author wrote that it was Hebrew, ie the language.


spin

spin

When someone asks you to give sources, names are insufficient. One needs citation access. If you mention say Josephus, you specify text, eg AJ, book, eg Bk 18, and verse/section equivalent eg 120, ie Josephus AJ 18.120.


spin

Pilate

Johann,
If you are referring to me, I am here. Talk to me directly. Ask me what is my agenda. My answer is: the truth. Simple. How much more simple you want me to get?
Someone here condemned me as being ignorant of etymology. There are a lot of things I don't know, but I know this: The meaning of words is realtive to time and place. For example, the word "gay" eighty years ago meant "jolly." But today the word "gay" means "homosexual."
(Johann, I hope you are a reasonable man: able to set aside his prejudices.)
Knowing this, let's talk about the word Hebrew. This word can refer to a language or it can refer to a person. In our case it refers to language. Let me remind you what you already know, that languages change over time. English was different in the times of Shakespear. It wasn't even English 1700 years ago; it was Latin. This is true also of the Hebrew language. The people who were called Hebrews, at say, about 900 years BCE, they spoke a language called Hebrew. Then they were captured by people who spoke other languages, and that had a dramatic effect upon their own language. This is a common phenomenon in nations that have been occupied over long periods of time.
The Hebrews, at later times were called Israelites, and Paul called them EEoudaeos (Judah > Judean > Jew). By the way the Israelites did not speak "Israelite." The Judeans did not speak "Judean." Their name "Judean" is not also the name of their language.
When the Greeks conquered the Israelites many Israelites spoke the Greek language. The Hebrew survived, to a great extent because of the Old Testament, but it was transformed over time by a variety of languages. This is a very complex subject, which goes beyond my understanding, but I know this much: Aramaic (or Chaldee) was the common language in Israel at the time of Jesus, and for this reason the Jews invented the Targums. They were Aramaic translation/commendaries of the Old Testament. Scholars, who specialize in this field believe that the Onqelos Targum (an Aramaic 'translation/commentary') originated in Messopatamia/Babylon, but was finished in the 1 CE in Palestine. Had the Jews spoken Hebrew, they would not have needed the Targums.
Ask Shemariahu Talmon, he is a Jew, an renown expert of Semitic languages. If he does not know, then I don't know. Don't expect me or anyone in this forum to be a higher authority on Semitic languages than Shemariahu Talmon.
I spent a lot of time writing about this in my previous posting (for the sake of those who are not laughing at this knowledge). If you have not read them, do yourself a favor: read them. If this does not help, ask me a specific question (I don't know if I will be able to answer it, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know: I will not BS you).

Pilate

Sorry, I will pass on this at this time.

Chris Weimer

Then you pass on credibility. This is not an insult, but fact. If you try writing a paper for any professor and not cite your information, I guarentee you it will fail.

Pilate

I repeat: the Johannine author wrote Evraeestee: which means: "in the language of the Hebrews." What was the language of the Hebrews? Aramaic. I know you don't approve of Thayers.
By the way, you caused me to buy the big Liddell & Scott dictionary ("the ultimate"). (Remember what you said? "Thayer's is for beginners." By the way, if you only knew what a 'beginner" I am: most of the time I don't even need a Greek dictionary. Three months ago I read the whole New Testament -Kurt Alland- without a Greek dictionary, and I understood well 90% of it-- Paul's syntax presents problems in understanding.-- And I will not claim to be an expert.) I installed the Liddel in my computer, thinking that it is inclussive of the Thayer's dictionary. I have news for us (you and me): it is NOT. But, it is not a waste of money, I still can use it for other projects.
Now the words Βηθεσδα and Βηθζαθα according to Thayer's are Chaldee (Aramaic). If you know a higher authority tell me.

Chris Weimer

Authority? Why argue from Authority? If you knew the etymology, you would know that the word is broken down into two roots, BT and HSD both of which are found in most (if not all) Semitic language. The association for Aramaic is tradition, and virtually nothing else. It could very well come from Hebrew, but since it is associated with the New Testament comes the bias that it comes from Aramaic. Thus you have the logical fallacy of a circular argument. Since the word was written in the NT (and thus when Aramaic was dominant), it must mean that it is Aramaic. And since it is Aramaic, that shows that Aramaic was dominant (and if you have the thinking skills of judge that the NT was Aramaic) coming a full 360 degrees. You see the problem now?

spin

But where did Thayer get the information that it was Aramaic and not Hebrew? I have pointed out that Josephus clearly knows the difference between Hebrew and the Syrian (=Aramaic). You have consistently and only given relatively modern opinions that the Jews spoke Aramaic, even when we get indications like that from John that they called it Hebrew.

(Why give this modern strangely transliterated pronunciated version of what the Johannine author wrote (transliterated) ebraisti?)

Why did you think Thayer was included with Liddell and Scott? L&S cover various forms of Greek, not just biblical, which provides you with a language knowledge base to understand beyond what's in the nt, for the nt is such a small sample of ancient Greek and lacks lots of forms, eg you might have a comparative form of an adjective without the base form. (I can understand you finding L&S useful.)

You say, "...according to Thayer's [a Greek tool] are Chaldee (Aramaic). If you know a higher authority tell me." Appeal to authority is no use. I can only say this so many ways. One needs where the idea that it must be "Chaldee" comes from, so that one can check it out. If you can't check it, what's its value?


spin

Johann_Kaspar

From that link given previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgotha
Now in Hebrew it is the same letters : גלגלת . So it is only part of an agenda to say it is clearly Aramaic. I can also say it is clearly Hebrew. Even more interesting, there was never a place called "skull", there is no way to say that it was a hill. All xian fantasy and mythology.

The same Wikipedia on "Hebrew" says that it was spoken until 200 CE...

judge

Just to be clear here. Are you or anyone here arguing that Xtians invented a story that jews spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew in order to cover up the fact Jews spoke Hebrew?

Is there anyone here who subscribes to this idea?

If not then what idea is proposed...or is the space left blank?