An Act Of War!

[Ken Brown]

Aramaic

In this example, Josephus refers to an Aramaic word as belonging to "our language": "This new-built part of the city was called 'Bezetha,' in our language, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called 'the New City.'"[14]

Unlike Josephus and other Hebrew priests at Jerusalem, the people of first-century Israel had no knowledge of Hebrew, as is confirmed throughout New Testament. On several occasions in New Testament, Aramaic words are called Hebrew. For example, in John 19:17 (KJV), the gospel-writer narrates that Jesus, "bearing his cross[,] went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha." the last word is, in fact, Aramaic. The word "Golgotha" is a transliteration of an Aramaic word, because -tha in Golgotha is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state.[15]


YOU calling the NT a LIAR Ken?????????

Shalom outhouse, not at all, but as Dr. David Flusser has found out though much diligent research and study:

"There is thus no ground for assuming that Jesus did not speak Hebrew; and when we are told (Acts 21:40) that Paul spoke Hebrew, we should take this piece of information at face value.

This question of the spoken language is especially important for understanding the doctrines of Jesus. There are sayings of Jesus which can be rendered both in Hebrew and Aramaic; but there are some which can only be rendered into Hebrew, and none of them can be rendered only in Aramaic. One can thus demonstrate the Hebrew origins of the Gospels by retranslating them into Hebrew.

It appears that the earliest documents concerning Jesus were written works, taken down by his disciples after his death. Their language was early Rabbinic Hebrew with strong undercurrents of Biblical Hebrew. Even in [those books] of the New Testament which were originally composed in Greek, such as the Pauline Epistles, there are clear traces of the Hebrew language; and the terminology in those books of the New Testament which were composed in Greek is often intelligible only when we know the original Hebrew terms. In these books, we can trace the influence of the Greek translation of the Bible side by side with the influence of the Hebrew original."

Outhouse, did Paul speak Hebrew? Or is Dr. David Flusser in error here also? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[outhouse]

what part of this don't you understand???????


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

 

[Ken Brown]

what part of this don't you understand???????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

Shalom outhouse, that is not at issue here. What is at issue are your blanket statements:

"Hebrew was not a language used." and "Hebrew was almost non existent in this time period."

Are you willing to amend your erroneous statements, or do you still insist in your infallibility? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[prometheus11]

Shalom outhouse, that is not at issue here. What is at issue are your blanket statements:

"Hebrew was not a language used." and "Hebrew was almost non existent in this time period."

Are you willing to amend your erroneous statements, or do you still insist in your infallibility? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Are you claiming that Jesus spoke Hebrew instead of Aramaic? Cause that would be hilarious.

 

[atpollard]

what part of this don't you understand???????


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

You may want to actually read the citations in that Wikipedia article:

[3]
Sáenz-Badillos, Ángel; Elwolde, John (1996), A history of the Hebrew language, pp. 170–71, There is general agreement that two main periods of RH (Rabbinical Hebrew) can be distinguished. The first, which lasted until the close of the Tannaitic era (around 200 CE), is characterized by RH as a spoken language gradually developing into a literary medium in which the Mishnah, Tosefta, baraitot and Tannaitic midrashim would be composed. The second stage begins with the Amoraim, and sees RH being replaced by Aramaic as the spoken vernacular, surviving only as a literary language. Then it continued to be used in later rabbinic writings until the tenth century in, for example, the Hebrew portions of the two Talmuds and in midrashic and haggadic literature

So the historic Jesus falls into the Rabbinical Hebrew as a spoken language period (still transitioning to RH as a written medium only about the time of the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Gospels and NT Letters).

You may be correct (what the heck do I know about what language Jesus spoke), but Wikipedia does not prove your case and "go get an education" really sucks as a counter argument.

Have fun.

 

[outhouse]

but Wikipedia does not prove your case and "go get an education" really sucks as a counter argument

Having known Ken for years now. And knowing what he knows and understands, and knowing he is fighting against something that is not up for debate.

I can say that with certainty.

When he is fighting something not debated in a field that is highly debated, going against academic knowledge with one pitiful source from some old dead orthodox jew who did his research in the mid 40's. I can say that.

You may want to actually read

Reading is one thing, but you did not even comprehend what you read.

Hebrew had ceased to be an everyday spoken language somewhere between 200 and 400 CE, it says NOTHING about Aramaic being the primary or secondary language

So the historic Jesus falls into the Rabbinical Hebrew as a spoken language period

Spoken, yes no one is saying it was never used, we know it was.

But it was barely used. It was not the Jewish language of the day. It was not a Galilean villages dialect that we know without dispute was a Aramaic Galilean different from Aramaic in Jerusalem.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

Aramaic displaces Hebrew as a spoken language

Around the 6th century BCE, the Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the ancient Kingdom of Judah, destroying much of Jerusalem and exiling its population far to the East in Babylon. During the Babylonian captivity, many Israelites learned Aramaic, the closely related Semitic language of their captors. Thus for a significant period, the Jewish elite became influenced by Aramaic.

a local version of Aramaic came to be spoken in Israel alongside Hebrew. By the beginning of the Common Era Aramaic was the primary colloquial language of Samarian, Babylonian and Galileean Jews, and western and intellectual Jews spoke Greek,[citation needed] but a form of so-called Rabbinic Hebrew continued to be used as a vernacular in Judea until it was displaced by Aramaic, probably in the 3rd century CE

 

[Ken Brown]

Are you claiming that Jesus spoke Hebrew instead of Aramaic? Cause that would be hilarious.

Shalom prometheus11, what would truly be hilarious, would be the claim that Yeshua DID NOT speak Hebrew, that Hebrew was a language NOT USED at that time, and at that time Hebrew was almost "non-existent." Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[prometheus11]

Shalom prometheus11, what would truly be hilarious, would be the claim that Yeshua DID NOT speak Hebrew, that Hebrew was a language NOT USED at that time, and at that time Hebrew was almost "non-existent." Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

Your claim to prove.

 

[atpollard]

Reading is one thing, but you did not even comprehend what you read.
Hebrew had ceased to be an everyday spoken language somewhere between 200 and 400 CE, it says NOTHING about Aramaic being the primary or secondary language

My only point (and it was truly the ONLY point I was making) is that Jesus lived before 200 CE ... by several generations.

That happened to be the only quote I checked in the article and I only checked it because it was linked directly to the statement that you quoted. According to that quote, Hebrew was still a common spoken language (perhaps not in Galilee, the quote was not that specific). I actually found it odd that Wikipedia uses a supporting reference keyed to a statement that does not directly support that statement. Jesus did not live after "200 C.E.", so how does that quote prove that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic (as Wikipedia uses it for supporting documentation)?

But like I said, I leave you to your academic debate.
I just find the unsupported statements of 'fact' bantered about here to be less than useful to me as a bystander listening in.
Your clarification was far more helpful in understanding why you make the claims you make.
Thank you.

 

[outhouse]

According to that quote, Hebrew was still a common spoken language

It was spoken, but not common.

 

[Ken Brown]

Your claim to prove.

Shalom prometheus11, I thought I did a pretty good job with Dr. David Flusser, but he is someone that appears to not be credible, according to outhouses standards. How about this information collected from Aaron Tresham concerning what M.H. Segal taught:

"Scholars have argued that Hebrew became a dead language after the Exile, so the first-century Jews spoke primarily Aramaic. However, this view has proven to be too simplistic. Scholars used to believe that Jews had created an artificial hybrid of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic in order to write the Mishna in the second century A.D. However, M. H. Segal refuted this view eighty years ago. His argument was not based on external evidence but on an examination of the grammar and vocabulary of Mishnaic Hebrew itself. Far from being an “artificial scholastic jargon,” it was “essentially a popular and colloquial dialect.”
The alleged dependence on Aramaic cannot withstand scrutiny. In fact, the grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew essentially depends on Biblical Hebrew, not on Aramaic. Those forms which Mishnaic Hebrew shares with Aramaic are usually found in other Semitic languages as well, and Mishnaic Hebrew has some forms that are unknown in Aramaic. In the same way that grammatical dependence had been exaggerated, Segal found that the alleged lexical dependence of Mishnaic Hebrew on Aramaic had also been exaggerated. Segal’s conclusion must have been radical at the time (and still is today): the language commonly used by educated, native Jews of Judea from 400 B.C. to A.D.150 was Mishnaic Hebrew. Although they understood Aramaic, they used it only occasionally."

And it is amazing to me that some will quote and promote Wikipedia as the "be all-end all" of the discussion. Yet, here is a Wikipedia link that will INFORM you that "the Jewish people in the land of Israel, at the time of Jesus, used Hebrew as their primary spoken and written language" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_school_hypothesis).

So prometheus11, do you have anything to prove? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[outhouse]

I thought I did a pretty good job with Dr. David Flusser, but he is someone that appears to not be credible, according to outhouses standards.

You don't have a clue what your even debating.

You only provided a link to a guess, in which you quote mined a few text out of context

 

[outhouse]

what part of this don't you understand???????


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

 

[prometheus11]

No. Nothing to prove. I've read numerous scholars over the course of four decades and have only been aware that Jesus was purported to speak Aramaic. Obviously, I assumed some archaic Hebrew words were still in use and most likely there was some degree of "pidgin" transfer, but I've never heard of any other claim on his language.

 

[outhouse]

Nothing to prove.

That is correct.

He has trouble understanding what his own link states

Segal’s conclusion must have been radical at the time (and still is today):

 

[Ken Brown]

You don't have a clue what your even debating.

You only provided a link to a guess, in which you quote mined a few text out of context

Shalom outhouse, it is VERY clear what I am debating, but with you, I'm not so certain. You began this debate by exclaiming "Jesus" would have never heard Himself being called by a Hebrew name. And that is hogwash. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[outhouse]

"Jesus" would have never heard Himself being called by a Hebrew name

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

 

[Ken Brown]

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic

Shalom outhouse, GENERALLY, PRIMARILY, oh, of course, those are irrefutable doctrines of Truth that establish Yeshua would not have had a Hebrew name, and that He would never had heard Himself called by it. Again, swineswash. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[outhouse]

outhouse, GENERALLY, PRIMARILY,

Do I have to post the definition of the word AGREED for you?

Truth that establish Yeshua

That was not his name, anymore then thinking he would understand the name Jesus

And my quote came from "historicity of Jesus" so it is irrefutable. As all evidence points to such

 

[outhouse]

You notice how IT DOES NOT SAY IT WAS DEBATED

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]



Aramaic-speaking communities