spin

You have the habit of not looking!


spin

Pilate

Judge,
I will post a few quotations from ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY.
First, about this "dictionary": it is in reality an encyclopedia of the Bible (6 volumes of total 6,000+ pages). Noel Freedman commisioned over 900 biblical experts, mainly from the US and from all over the world. Each scholar was assigned one or more articles in his/her field of expertise (at the end of each article, each scholar provides valuable bibliography). 900+ of top rated brains in the biblical field put this encylcopedia together (compare this to any book written by a single author). I believe this encyclopedia is one of the great achievements in the biblical research of the 20th century. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT!
Here are the quotations from ABD (I can furnish volume numbers, and page numbers if you want):
"Aramaic was the primary international language of literature and communication throughout the Near East from ca. 600 b.c.e. to ca. 700 c.e. and was the major spoken language of Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia in the formative periods of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism.
Jesus and his disciples, according to the stories in the Gospels, spoke Aramaic. Parts of the later books of the Hebrew Bible, as well as portions of the Gospels and Acts, are often thought to be translations from Aramaic originals, but even if not they are undoubtedly strongly “Aramaized� in their diction."
"In Palestine, Aramaic became the official language and script of the administration of the province of Yehud (Judah), and is found in seals, seal impressions, and written on ostraca. Paleo-Hebrew script is only attested on a few seals and bullae, and was probably still used in copying traditional literary texts such as the biblical texts. However, even in the writing of biblical manuscripts the Aramaic script superseded, little by little, the use of paleo-Hebrew. It was perhaps in the period following Ezra’s mission (probably ca. 398 b.c.) and later on during the Hellenistic period that the Aramaic script came to be used in copying the books of the Torah, which was recognized as the official religious law of the Jews by the Persian administration."
" In fact, all the administrative ostraca from this period {I.E. HELLENISTIC PERIOD} found in Palestine are written in Aramaic; this means that the local functionaries had received formal instruction in Aramaic, while Hebrew was used mainly in the cultic celebrations of the Temple of Jerusalem and in the teaching of the schools as the classical language of national literature."
"The evidence coming from the NT and from extra-NT sources reveals that in 1st-century Palestine, while Aramaic was still the preferred language, Greek was also widely used, not only in the Hellenized cities but also among farmers and craftsmen in the countryside. The knowledge and use of Hebrew was clearly on the retreat and limited to smaller circles (see Lieberman 1962; 1965; Sevenster 1968; Rabin 1976; Mussies 1976: 1040–64; Fitzmyer 1979; HJP² 2: 20–28, 74–80)"
"A major reason for the origin of the Targum must have been the fact that increasingly in the postexilic period Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the vernacular of the Jews of Palestine.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
There is more where this comes from. I can provide more evidence if you want. Just ask me. Call me Mr. Evidence!

Pilate

There once was a man who participated in the athletic games of Rhodes. Later on, he went to Sparta. While talking with the men of Sparta he kept bragging, "When I was in Rhodes I jumped seven meters long!!"
Finally, the Spartans told him, "ΙδοÏ? η Ρόδος ιδοÏ? καί το πήδημα." That is: "Here is Rhodes! Show us the jump!" :notworthy

Pilate

I agree with you to a point: content is by far more important than packaging.
However, you cannot neglect packaging altogether because it makes the discussion run smooth.
Cut the derogatory statements ("white noise"} and stick to clear questions or bring some evidence for everyone to see.

Here is what I would do if I were you. I would copy, paste, and post any archives I think are pertinent, for the sake of everyone to see.
I don't know what you wrote a year ago, and I don't have the time to search for it, and neither does the audience. Since you know what you wrote, copy and post it.
Let's establish a method of discussion, which makes things run smooth for the sake of everyone, not just you and me.
Lets leave our egos aside and get to work. The issue is not you and me. It is Christianity.

spin

When you treat that stuff as evidence you forget that you are putting your head in the lion's mouth.


spin

spin

OK.


Simply unsubstantiated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilate from ABD Syria, and Mesopotamia in the formative periods of Christianity

This is not quite correct. A few words of Aramaic were attributed to Jesus in the gospels. The left overs could have been either Aramaic or Hebrew.

Parts of Ezra and of Daniel, plus a verse from elsewhere. Not much to go on. One needs to ask why biblical Aramaic is so anomalous and one reason given is that it is only translation Aramaic, ie that all of Daniel and Ezra were originally written in Hebrew and partly translated into Aramaic for effect. Both start there use of Aramaic through a textual subterfuge. Ezra starts with a letter in Aramaic then proceeds to continue after the letter finishes. Daniel starts its Aramaic with words spoken to the king and the use of Aramaic then continues for some chapters after the end of the discourse.

The best that they can get is a Semitic substratum to the Greek language, ie the speakers ability in Greek was influenced by their knowledge of a Semitic language. They simply cannot usefully talk about Aramaic originals, as the evidence doesn't strongly support the claim.

There is no problem here, except by implication. The Roman alphabet spread throughout Europe, but that doesn't mean that we speak Latin.

This is a joke. Was there ever an Ezra? When was the book written? Take your head out of the lion's mouth and don't trust him.

Still no problem about the script. The implied notion of canon here is misguided.

Do you think the Persians would have understood Hebrew?

Simple conjecture.

This goes along way to explaining why 1) the Hasmoneans used Hebrewand Greek on their coins and 2) why about a third of the non-religious material from Murabba'at was in Hebrew including various contracts and I hope no-one would suggest that a contract was written in a language that the parties didn't use.

That's why nearly 90% of the DSS were written in Hebrew and why about 50% was non-biblical Hebrew.

Yet targums were very poorly represented in the DSS.

This is the same old tired stuff from the beginning of the 20th century tarted up with some new trappings.


spin

Pilate

You have rejected the authorities of the ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY.
If you want to make this discussion work answer these questions.
#1. Convince us why we should accept your authority and abandon the authority of the experts of the ABD. Are your credentials better than theirs?
#2. Substantiate that the language that was spoken in Palestine during the time of Jesus was not Aramaic.
#3. Substantiate that the language Jesus and his disciples spoke was not Aramaic.
The forum is yours!

spin

Oh shite, what a crime!

I'm not here to stimulate your adulation of ABD.

I'm not working on authority. I employ to varying degrees of success analysis and evidence. If that's no use to you, stick with ABD: you still won't be any wiser, but you'll be happy.

Perhaps you might appreciate one day that when someone makes a substantive claim -- in this case that "the major spoken language of Palestine" was Aramaic -- one has to do more than state the claim. They need to umm, substantite it, otherwise it is umm, unsubstantiated.

Until one can substantiate that Jesus and his disciples actually lived, it would be absurd to attempt such a substantiation as you desire here in #3.

If you'd read the content of my previous post, you would have noted a fair amount of substantial data. I could have been totally wrong, but once again you didn't deal with any of it. It's rather useless that the forum is mine when you don't seem interested in dealing with any evidence.


spin

judge

In here you will find a previous effort from Spin to claim that some of the Aramaic words in the gospels are not from Aramaic. :rolling:

Pilate it is all a game.

spin

Good link. :thumbs:

It shows just how vacuous the claim on Aramaic in the nt is. There is almost nothing beyond "talitha kuma" and "abba" (no, not the group) and perhaps a very few others that can be definitely sourced from Aramaic. Try to substantiate any of the examples as definitely coming from Aramaic. You'll be sadly surprised.

And judge, who is unable to mount an argument on the subject for his own pet theory, has fallen into bleating stuff about games. :rolling:


spin