John 19:19 (YHWH?)

[Dawid]

I think it is a huge mistake to say that Aramaic was used exclusively in the first century, and that Hebrew was not the common language anymore, that most people didn't speak it. Go through the Gospels and see how many waw-consecutives you find. That is not a Syriac form. It may have bled over into Judean Aramaic, but it is not Syriac, or proper Aramaic of any sort. See also the Siloam inscriptions, the testimony of the Mishnah, the DSS, and the Apocrypha.
There can't really be any question that Yeshua spoke Biblical Hebrew quite often. The grammatical forms he used were too often foreign to proper Aramaic. I have a monograph by a brilliant scholar, Dr. Lewis Tyler, who points out some of these forms. I'll see if I can find it and post some examples.

Shalom,
David

Hey David,

Why do you think I posted the earlier point about Yiddish? Is that a proper Germanic language?

Of course there were Jewish peculiarities with the Aramaic of the Levant. Just like there's Akkadian peculiarities with the Aramaic of Mesopotamia.

What's your point?

PS - waw-consecutives are a very prominent feature in "Syriac" form. Do you know "Syriac"?

I would not say that I "know 'Syriac'" but I have been studying it, esp in the context of the Peshitta, quite a lot in the last couple of years.
Yiddish is a form of Middle German, only with a superabundance of Hebrew and Aramaic loan words. It also borrows from Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, if I understand it correctly.
Ironically, the waw-consecutive is even foreign to Mishnaic Hebrew. Why? Because of Aramaic influence! So now we are forced to assume that Aramaic got the waw-consecutive because of Hebrew, and Hebrew lost it because of Aramaic. Most curious, indeed.
Even Pickering said, "I conclude that all His public teaching, no matter where, must have been in Hebrew."
How about Luke 22:15, where it clearly uses the infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb to convey emphasis? this is another exclusively Hebrew form.

Shalom,
David