JMAN05:


I didn't know that this thread is still ongoing.

It wasn't till you came back.

There seem to be a problem I have observed here. You seem to think that Christians translated the Hebrew scriptures to Greek and used it extensively, rather than the Greek translation of the OT.

Really? Where did you observe that? From the very start I stated that the LXX was commissioned in the 3rd century BCE. That is 300 years before Christianity. Kindly show me where I said the LXX was a Christian translation.

I don't think that is true. The Christians didn't translate such. It was a translation available even before Jesus birth.

I don't think that's true either. And I never said anything of the sort, however if you want to take out your frustrations on a straw man I won't stop you.

Permit me to say that the version that is available with which Jesus used when he goes to the temple to read, is not the Septuagint, but the OT written in Hebrew. This was the primary version used in the temple. Jesus was conversant with it and he would quote from that version.

You don't need my permission to say anything you please, or even to make up fables without evidence or backing. Please go ahead, but be prepared to have your fables scrutinized when you do.

Where is your evidence that Jesus did not use the LXX in the Temple. Where is your evidence that it is the primary version used in the temple? I'm not saying that it isn't but I suspect that you are just pulling out that conjecture from your hat without any actual evidence or sources.

The fact remains that according to the gospels which are our main source for Jesus' life Jesus quotes again and again from the LXX, not any hebrew bible. Unless you want to say that the Gospels were lying on Jesus' head.

and btw, Hebrew wasn't the lingua franca of the Jews in palestine anymore by the time of Jesus, it was Aramaic.

Secondly, I observed that you think that the Septuagint never at all used YHWH. That view was quite popular, but any bible researcher will agree that the Septuagint we have today is not the autograph produced by the 70/2 scholars in Alexandria. There is hint that the divine name in the Septuagint could have been removed by later christian writers. That the first century disciples of Jesus used a Septuagint with the divine name written there.

Have you got the autographs then? What is the hint that the YHWH in the LXX was removed by later christian writers? and why christian writers? It wasn't just christians using the LXX. All diaspora Jews used it too. What is this hint that the LXX of the disciples had YHWH written in it?
I really hope you are not just making up your argument now building on non existent 'facts' and 'hints'.

Thirdly, Septuagint was most necessary when the preaching went to the gentiles who cannot speak or understand Hebrew. Greek, as an international language, was used to let them know the truth. As such, they made good use of the Septuagint. (Of course, this Septuagint evidently had the divine name).

The entire purpose of the LXX, according to the legend, was make the scripture available to JEWS (not gentiles) who could no longer speak or understand Hebrew.
When you say it 'evidently' had the divine name please present this 'evident' Evidence. I say that what is evident is that you are trying to rewrite history and failing badly at it.

However, back there in Jerusalem, Jesus and other apostles could not convincingly be preaching to a Jew with a Septuagint version. From there youth, Jews were trained with OT written in Hebrew, not Greek. So I don't agree that Jesus will be quoting from the Septuagint. Septuagint would be more effective for those who do not understand Hebrew.

Jews at that time spoke Aramaic, NOT hebrew.

You don't agree that Jesus quoted from the LXX so why don't you just come out clearly and say it.... You don't believe that the account of Jesus' life given to us in the Gospels are true.

This Blue part is the truest thing you've said in this post and possibly in the whole thread. The Jews of Palestine did not Understand Hebrew so Septuagint would be more effective for preaching to them. Religious scholars would have studied some hebrew to enable them to study scriptures etc but it wasn't in common usage on the streets

Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Part of a series on
Jesus
Jesus in Christianity
[show]
Jesus in Islam
[show]
Background
[show]
Jesus in history
[show]
Perspectives on Jesus
[show]
Jesus in culture
[show]

P christianity.svg Christianity portal
Allah-green.svg Islam portal
Wikipedia book Book:Jesus

vte

It is generally agreed by historians that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The villages of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2] It is also likely that Jesus knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Palestine, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew for religious purposes.[3][4][5]

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

[quote author=PastorAIO post=72632223]

Really? Where did you observe that? From the very start I stated that the LXX was commissioned in the 3rd century BCE. That is 300 years before Christianity. Kindly show me where I said the LXX was a Christian translation.

Sorry, maybe something made me say that, I cant remember now. But what matters is that that wasnt what you said. So, anyhow, I may have misunderstood you.

I don't think that's true either. And I never said anything of the sort, however if you want to take out your frustrations on a straw man I won't stop you.

What are you saying is not true?

You don't need my permission to say anything you please, or even to make up fables without evidence or backing. Please go ahead, but be prepared to have your fables scrutinized when you do.

Where is your evidence that Jesus did not use the LXX in the Temple. Where is your evidence that it is the primary version used in the temple? I'm not saying that it isn't but I suspect that you are just pulling out that conjecture from your hat without any actual evidence or sources.

The fact remains that according to the gospels which are our main source for Jesus' life Jesus quotes again and again from the LXX, not any hebrew bible. Unless you want to say that the Gospels were lying on Jesus' head.

I sounded dogmatic on that point. that was wrong. Septuagint may have been used in the temple, but it wont be right to state dogmatically that there were never any hebrew language bible used in the temple.

But a manuscript of the septuagint available during Jesus day was found with the DIVINE NAME written there. The manuscript is Fouad Inv. 266. This shows that the removal of the divine name may not have been done by the hebrew translators. So even if Jesus read with the Septuagint, he would see the divine name there.

On the issue of language of the first century jews, there is a need not to be dogmatic. For example Professor Wright says
"The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243

For example, in Ebonyi, most there speak what we might not technically call Igbo, yet some there can speak and understand the igbo we know. Yet most speak english, while likely few speak french. There maybe some that can even speak other languages. on the issue of Hebrew in the first century, it is better not to be dogmatic. As the source says, there is no certain way of knowing.

Have you got the autographs then? What is the hint that the YHWH in the LXX was removed by later christian writers? and why christian writers? It wasn't just christians using the LXX. All diaspora Jews used it too. What is this hint that the LXX of the disciples had YHWH written in it?
I really hope you are not just making up your argument now building on non existent 'facts' and 'hints'.

As the manuscript above shows, the jewish translators of the Septuagint left the Divine Name there.

The entire purpose of the LXX, according to the legend, was make the scripture available to JEWS (not gentiles) who could no longer speak or understand Hebrew.
When you say it 'evidently' had the divine name please present this 'evident' Evidence. I say that what is evident is that you are trying to rewrite history and failing badly at it.

Jews at that time spoke Aramaic, NOT hebrew.

You don't agree that Jesus quoted from the LXX so why don't you just come out clearly and say it.... You don't believe that the account of Jesus' life given to us in the Gospels are true.

This Blue part is the truest thing you've said in this post and possibly in the whole thread. The Jews of Palestine did not Understand Hebrew so Septuagint would be more effective for preaching to them. Religious scholars would have studied some hebrew to enable them to study scriptures etc but it wasn't in common usage on the streets

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

You might have to research the language Matthew was first written in. That might help you see that Hebrew may not have gone out of use entirely. Secondly, they appear to use Hebrew for there liturgy. So, we cant dismiss hebrew entirely.

JMAN05:

Sorry, maybe something made me say that, I cant remember now. But what matters is that that wasnt what you said. So, anyhow, I may have misunderstood you.

No wahala.

What are you saying is not true?

What you are saying is not true is also what I'm saying is not true. Namely that the christians translated the LXX.

But a manuscript of the septuagint available during Jesus day was found with the DIVINE NAME written there. The manuscript is Fouad Inv. 266. This shows that the removal of the divine name may not have been done by the hebrew translators. So even if Jesus read with the Septuagint, he would see the divine name there.

That may be the case that there were copies of the LXX that used YHWH but that has no bearing on the fact that when Jesus quoted from the LXX he used Kyrios, so the copy used by him would have used Kyrios.

Example Mark 12:29
ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,


Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

On the issue of language of the first century jews, there is a need not to be dogmatic. For example Professor Wright says
"The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243

We may not be certain that Jesus spoke Greek or Latin, but when the gospels tell us that he quotes the scriptures they have him quoting from the LXX, the greek bible. Furthermore he argues from the LXX. So if Jesus never spoke Greek that would mean that the Gospels were lying when they say he quoted from the LXX.

As regards speaking a contemporary hebrew, while it might be true it will have no bearing on their ability to read the scriptures in the hebrew for reasons that I will have to explain in a subsequent post (because it might be long, and I'd rather keep my post succinct and on point).

You might have to research the language Matthew was first written in. That might help you see that Hebrew may not have gone out of use entirely. Secondly, they appear to use Hebrew for there liturgy. So, we cant dismiss hebrew entirely.

I agree that there are strong arguments to suggest that Matthew was written in a contemporary Hebrew. And also that Hebrew was used in Liturgy.

JMAN05:

On the issue of language of the first century jews, there is a need not to be dogmatic. For example Professor Wright says
"The language spoken by Jesus has been much debated. We have no certain way of knowing whether he could speak Greek or Latin, but in his teaching ministry he regularly used either Aramaic or the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew. When Paul addressed the mob in the Temple, it is said that he spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Scholars generally have taken this to mean Aramaic, but it is quite possible that a popular Hebrew was then the common tongue among the Jews.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, p. 243

For example, in Ebonyi, most there speak what we might not technically call Igbo, yet some there can speak and understand the igbo we know. Yet most speak english, while likely few speak french. There maybe some that can even speak other languages. on the issue of Hebrew in the first century, it is better not to be dogmatic. As the source says, there is no certain way of knowing.

Now it is a fact about Language, and a point that I used to discuss a lot here with muslims, that Languages evolves. All languages and they have always done so.

I remember have a long chat with a old timer called Olabowale who came up with a dumb ass statement about the Adam and Eve spoke Arabic, the same Arabic that the quran was written in. The Quran was written in an Archaic Arabic which most arab speakers today would not readily understand. I asked him: 'So from the time of Adam up until the time of Mohammed Arabic language stayed intact, but only after the Quran was written then it started to evolve to the extent that most Arab speakers cannot readily understand it without help.

That being said, because it’s written in an archaic form of Arabic which is not as readily understood today as it was when the Quran was written, there are still many arguments even among the educated about the meanings and intentions of many passages. But that’s a limitation of the written word, period, in any language. That it’s written in a language whose everyday nuances are lost to us just makes it that much easier to argue about. Humans love to argue about an author’s intent when they wrote a particular thing. Why should it be any different when the author is God?-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools

No.

Most Arabs don’t understand the language of the Qur’an. That’s why you’ll typically hear the exegesis of a Qur’anic verse during any given Friday sermon, subject to the biases and prejudices of the speaker of course.

Where I live at least, the Qur’an taught in schools was a matter of memorizing verse X to verse Y of a certain chapter. Explaining said verses was secondary-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools


In a thousand years a language can go through a considerable amount of change to the point that it will be unintelligible to native speakers that come later. For example let us take a look at Chaucer, an english poet from the 14th century. This is his Miller's Tale from Canterbury Tales. Please tell me how well you understand this English.

The Millere that for dronken was al pale,
So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,
He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,
15 Ne abyde no man for his curteisie,
But in Pilates voys he gan to crie,
And swoor, "By armes and by blood and bones,
I kan a noble tale for the nones,
With which I wol now quite the Knyghtes tale."
20 Oure Hooste saugh that he was dronke of ale,
And seyde, "Abyd, Robyn, my leeve brother,
Som bettre man shal telle us first another,
Abyd, and lat us werken thriftily."

Translation:

The miller, who of drinking was all pale,
So that unsteadily on his horse he sat,
He would not take off either hood or hat,
15 Nor wait for any man, in courtesy,
But all in Pilate's voice began to cry,
And "By the arms and blood and bones," he swore,
"I have a noble story in my store,
With which I will requite the good knight's tale."
20 Our host saw, then, that he was drunk with ale,
And said to him: "Wait, Robin, my dear brother,
Some better man shall tell us first another:
Submit and let us work on profitably."


I'm sure that by now you will know where I'm going with all of this. But I'll spell it out anyway.

Presuming Moses wrote the Pentateuch then that would mean that they were written possibly around 1200BCE. 1200 years later the Hebrew language would have evolved to the point that the average hebrew speaker on the streets of Judaea would not be able to understand it readily. It is highly likely that if Moses wrote the pentateuch and it was being read in a contemporary Hebrew in Jesus' time then it would have undergone many updating, translations redactions.

As regards Ebonyi Igbo I can bet my bottom dollar that if you used a time machine to fly back to 500 years ago in your hometown, you would have some difficulty understanding them when they talk. Igbo language too would have undergone some evolution over the centuries. Personally I believe that the further back you go the more likely you are to find much similarity between Igbo and Yoruba. I personally believe that they started off as the same language and forked in different directions at some point many centuries ago. Much like how English started off as a dialect of German.

PastorAIO:


What you are saying is not true is also what I'm saying is not true. Namely that the christians translated the LXX.

ok.

That may be the case that there were copies of the LXX that used YHWH but that has no bearing on the fact that when Jesus quoted from the LXX he used Kyrios, so the copy used by him would have used Kyrios.

Example Mark 12:29
ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,


Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.



We may not be certain that Jesus spoke Greek or Latin, but when the gospels tell us that he quotes the scriptures they have him quoting from the LXX, the greek bible. Furthermore he argues from the LXX. So if Jesus never spoke Greek that would mean that the Gospels were lying when they say he quoted from the LXX.

Well, I didnt say he never read greek nor spoke greek. He must have done so. But he certainly would not be limited to that.

The manuscript of the LXX found indicates that the LXX available during Jesus day evidently has the Divine Name in it. So why will Jesus read "Lord", in following a dead custom of the Jews, when he sees YHWH? You would have to tell me about it.

As regards speaking a contemporary hebrew, while it might be true it will have no bearing on their ability to read the scriptures in the hebrew for reasons that I will have to explain in a subsequent post (because it might be long, and I'd rather keep my post succinct and on point).


I agree that there are strong arguments to suggest that Matthew was written in a contemporary Hebrew. And also that Hebrew was used in Liturgy.

If we assume that Matthew was first written in Hebrew, don't you think that Matthew believed that his target audience could read and understand Hebrew?

PastorAIO:



Now it is a fact about Language, and a point that I used to discuss a lot here with muslims, that Languages evolves. All languages and they have always done so.

I remember have a long chat with a old timer called Olabowale who came up with a dumb ass statement about the Adam and Eve spoke Arabic, the same Arabic that the quran was written in. The Quran was written in an Archaic Arabic which most arab speakers today would not readily understand. I asked him: 'So from the time of Adam up until the time of Mohammed Arabic language stayed intact, but only after the Quran was written then it started to evolve to the extent that most Arab speakers cannot readily understand it without help.

That being said, because it’s written in an archaic form of Arabic which is not as readily understood today as it was when the Quran was written, there are still many arguments even among the educated about the meanings and intentions of many passages. But that’s a limitation of the written word, period, in any language. That it’s written in a language whose everyday nuances are lost to us just makes it that much easier to argue about. Humans love to argue about an author’s intent when they wrote a particular thing. Why should it be any different when the author is God?-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools

No.

Most Arabs don’t understand the language of the Qur’an. That’s why you’ll typically hear the exegesis of a Qur’anic verse during any given Friday sermon, subject to the biases and prejudices of the speaker of course.

Where I live at least, the Qur’an taught in schools was a matter of memorizing verse X to verse Y of a certain chapter. Explaining said verses was secondary-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools


In a thousand years a language can go through a considerable amount of change to the point that it will be unintelligible to native speakers that come later. For example let us take a look at Chaucer, an english poet from the 14th century. This is his Miller's Tale from Canterbury Tales. Please tell me how well you understand this English.

The Millere that for dronken was al pale,
So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,
He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,
15 Ne abyde no man for his curteisie,
But in Pilates voys he gan to crie,
And swoor, "By armes and by blood and bones,
I kan a noble tale for the nones,
With which I wol now quite the Knyghtes tale."
20 Oure Hooste saugh that he was dronke of ale,
And seyde, "Abyd, Robyn, my leeve brother,
Som bettre man shal telle us first another,
Abyd, and lat us werken thriftily."

Translation:

The miller, who of drinking was all pale,
So that unsteadily on his horse he sat,
He would not take off either hood or hat,
15 Nor wait for any man, in courtesy,
But all in Pilate's voice began to cry,
And "By the arms and blood and bones," he swore,
"I have a noble story in my store,
With which I will requite the good knight's tale."
20 Our host saw, then, that he was drunk with ale,
And said to him: "Wait, Robin, my dear brother,
Some better man shall tell us first another:
Submit and let us work on profitably."


I'm sure that by now you will know where I'm going with all of this. But I'll spell it out anyway.

Presuming Moses wrote the Pentateuch then that would mean that they were written possibly around 1200BCE. 1200 years later the Hebrew language would have evolved to the point that the average hebrew speaker on the streets of Judaea would not be able to understand it readily. It is highly likely that if Moses wrote the pentateuch and it was being read in a contemporary Hebrew in Jesus' time then it would have undergone many updating, translations redactions.

As regards Ebonyi Igbo I can bet my bottom dollar that if you used a time machine to fly back to 500 years ago in your hometown, you would have some difficulty understanding them when they talk. Igbo language too would have undergone some evolution over the centuries. Personally I believe that the further back you go the more likely you are to find much similarity between Igbo and Yoruba. I personally believe that they started off as the same language and forked in different directions at some point many centuries ago. Much like how English started off as a dialect of German.

I understand your point. Considering the fact that even some books like Chronicle and Nehemiah were written many years after the Pentateuch was written. Yet we see the writers used Hebrew in the write-up. Again, The translators of the OT into what we know as LXX, had to understanh hebrew VERY WELL to translate, and at about the third century. Checking it from 1200 BC, that is a whole lot of time. Yet they did the translation. But those in Judah was still using Hebrew before the LXX came to them.

Secondly, we see Paul even make use of Hebrew.

Acts 21:39-40

Then Paul said: “I am, in fact, a Jew, of Tarsus in Ci·liʹcia, a citizen of no obscure city. So I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.” 40 After he gave permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. When a great silence fell, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:...."

Paul said alot there in Hebrew. These shows that those there understood Hebrew. I do understand your point, but since Hebrew played a significant role both in the Leturgy and religious instruction, it may not have died out as we see in other languages.

PastorAIO:



Now it is a fact about Language, and a point that I used to discuss a lot here with muslims, that Languages evolves. All languages and they have always done so.

I remember have a long chat with a old timer called Olabowale who came up with a dumb ass statement about the Adam and Eve spoke Arabic, the same Arabic that the quran was written in. The Quran was written in an Archaic Arabic which most arab speakers today would not readily understand. I asked him: 'So from the time of Adam up until the time of Mohammed Arabic language stayed intact, but only after the Quran was written then it started to evolve to the extent that most Arab speakers cannot readily understand it without help.

That being said, because it’s written in an archaic form of Arabic which is not as readily understood today as it was when the Quran was written, there are still many arguments even among the educated about the meanings and intentions of many passages. But that’s a limitation of the written word, period, in any language. That it’s written in a language whose everyday nuances are lost to us just makes it that much easier to argue about. Humans love to argue about an author’s intent when they wrote a particular thing. Why should it be any different when the author is God?-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools

No.

Most Arabs don’t understand the language of the Qur’an. That’s why you’ll typically hear the exegesis of a Qur’anic verse during any given Friday sermon, subject to the biases and prejudices of the speaker of course.

Where I live at least, the Qur’an taught in schools was a matter of memorizing verse X to verse Y of a certain chapter. Explaining said verses was secondary-https://www.quora.com/Can-Arabs-understand-the-Quran-without-learning-anything-else-in-schools


In a thousand years a language can go through a considerable amount of change to the point that it will be unintelligible to native speakers that come later. For example let us take a look at Chaucer, an english poet from the 14th century. This is his Miller's Tale from Canterbury Tales. Please tell me how well you understand this English.

The Millere that for dronken was al pale,
So that unnethe upon his hors he sat,
He nolde avalen neither hood ne hat,
15 Ne abyde no man for his curteisie,
But in Pilates voys he gan to crie,
And swoor, "By armes and by blood and bones,
I kan a noble tale for the nones,
With which I wol now quite the Knyghtes tale."
20 Oure Hooste saugh that he was dronke of ale,
And seyde, "Abyd, Robyn, my leeve brother,
Som bettre man shal telle us first another,
Abyd, and lat us werken thriftily."

Translation:

The miller, who of drinking was all pale,
So that unsteadily on his horse he sat,
He would not take off either hood or hat,
15 Nor wait for any man, in courtesy,
But all in Pilate's voice began to cry,
And "By the arms and blood and bones," he swore,
"I have a noble story in my store,
With which I will requite the good knight's tale."
20 Our host saw, then, that he was drunk with ale,
And said to him: "Wait, Robin, my dear brother,
Some better man shall tell us first another:
Submit and let us work on profitably."


I'm sure that by now you will know where I'm going with all of this. But I'll spell it out anyway.

Presuming Moses wrote the Pentateuch then that would mean that they were written possibly around 1200BCE. 1200 years later the Hebrew language would have evolved to the point that the average hebrew speaker on the streets of Judaea would not be able to understand it readily. It is highly likely that if Moses wrote the pentateuch and it was being read in a contemporary Hebrew in Jesus' time then it would have undergone many updating, translations redactions.

As regards Ebonyi Igbo I can bet my bottom dollar that if you used a time machine to fly back to 500 years ago in your hometown, you would have some difficulty understanding them when they talk. Igbo language too would have undergone some evolution over the centuries. Personally I believe that the further back you go the more likely you are to find much similarity between Igbo and Yoruba. I personally believe that they started off as the same language and forked in different directions at some point many centuries ago. Much like how English started off as a dialect of German.

Are you aware that Ebonyi was formed by the merging of 2 provinces, the Abakaliki province from Enugu and the Afikpo province from Abia. The Afikpo province share cultural similarities and dialect intelligibility with the Ohafia, Abriba, Arochukwu, etc of Abia North. Do your research well before posting half truths in a public forum

UgwuAghachi:



Are you aware that Ebonyi was formed by the merging of 2 provinces, the Abakaliki province from Enugu and the Afikpo province from Abia. The Afikpo province share cultural similarities and dialect intelligibility with the Ohafia, Abriba, Arochukwu, etc of Abia North. Do your research well before posting half truths in a public forum

No, I'm not aware that it was formed by the merging of 2 provinces. I am also not aware of what that has to do with anything we are discussing. I have done absolutely no research on Ebonyi and in fact the only thing I said about Ebonyi was a wager.

JMAN05:


I understand your point. Considering the fact that even some books like Chronicle and Nehemiah were written many years after the Pentateuch was written. Yet we see the writers used Hebrew in the write-up. Again, The translators of the OT into what we know as LXX, had to understanh hebrew VERY WELL to translate, and at about the third century. Checking it from 1200 BC, that is a whole lot of time. Yet they did the translation. But those in Judah was still using Hebrew before the LXX came to them.

Secondly, we see Paul even make use of Hebrew.

Acts 21:39-40

Then Paul said: “I am, in fact, a Jew, of Tarsus in Ci·liʹcia, a citizen of no obscure city. So I beg you, permit me to speak to the people.” 40 After he gave permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. When a great silence fell, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:...."

Paul said alot there in Hebrew. These shows that those there understood Hebrew. I do understand your point, but since Hebrew played a significant role both in the Leturgy and religious instruction, it may not have died out as we see in other languages.

There are a number of points that we should also take into account.

Firstly, Aramaic was often conflated with Hebrew when people spoke about it. Indeed the languages are related.

So When Acts says that Paul addressed the crowd in 'Hebrew' it could quite possibly mean Aramaic.

Thirdly, when we hear that the book of Matthew was written in Hebrew what was actually meant was Aramaic.

Papias stated very clearly:
"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could"
https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

In the same source you find....
Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"

Obviously Aramaic was conflated with Hebrew.

PastorAIO:


There are a number of points that we should also take into account.

Firstly, Aramaic was often conflated with Hebrew when people spoke about it. Indeed the languages are related.

So When Acts says that Paul addressed the crowd in 'Hebrew' it could quite possibly mean Aramaic.

Thirdly, when we hear that the book of Matthew was written in Hebrew what was actually meant was Aramaic.

Papias stated very clearly:
"Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could"
https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

In the same source you find....
Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"

Obviously Aramaic was conflated with Hebrew.

I think the source you have of the use of Aramaic by Papias is inserting there opinion, intead of giving us the real translation of Papias words. They just believe Hebrew language died out. Because some other sources I have didn't translate that word as " Aramaic", but they used "Hebrew". Crosscheck the same quote of Papias in books like " The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 155; M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol 5, p. 890; The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16)"

While I won't be dogmatic as to whether Paul during his words employed few Aramaic (which wouldn't be impossible then), there is no reason to think his statement didn't involve pure Hebrew for the most part.

True, many Jews may not have been fluent in Hebrew back then, but as Albert Edward Bailey said in his book [i]Daily Life in Bible Times[/I] "Boys were trained in piety from early days. This would mean that the boys had a knowledge of the law, which they show by being able to read it, write it, and explain its obvious meaning.."

In addition to the point I raised above about there scholars being able to understand and translate Hebrew to Greek, we can't forget also that Jerome had to translate from the original Hebrew, after learning such Hebrew from a Rabbi.

Jerome confirmed that Matthews account was in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Jerome even said it was in hebrew language and CHARACTERS. Jerome knew the difference because he highlighted the experience he had with some bible books (parts of Ezra, Jeremiah and Daniel) written in Aramaic.

Secondly, if you analyse Matthews quotations from the OT, you will observe that Matthew quoted, not from the Septuagint, but from the Hebrew version. This was confirmed by Jerome himself. (De virus inlustribus chap III). So we see that when Matthew quoted therefrom, he would also see the Tetragrammaton.

I don't agree that Matthew was on Aramaic.