08-28-2012, 12:51 PM
distazo Wrote:There are a lot of 'hebrew root movement' films, and they all have the same thing in common
1) There are a few hebrew words in the NT
2) Ebrayit means Hebrew, not Aramaic.
3) Hebrew was not just a liturgic language in the 1st century.
That's it.
But they forget that the 'hebrew' words in the NT (like Raqa in Matthew 5) in many cases also are valid Aramaic.
There is at least one dictionary that explains that Ebrayit addresses the jews speaking their native tong also can mean 'Aramaic'.
If Hebrew was a spoken language, why would everybody be upset if Yeshu's follower shouted 'hosanna!'? Who does shouts such things in a non-native language?
ow ya
Bar-Kochba used a Hebrew shortened word in his letter. (like writing u2 =you too?) so that would be proof that he had Hebrew as native language.
Unfortunately the YouTube scholar seemed to insinuate that the Aramaic of the Greek NT reflects loan words in Hebrew speech. As an Israeli today saying "hummus" is not really speaking Arabic, but Hebrew.
If the common speech was Hebrew a the time, there would have been no need for Aramaic targums. Again, there wasn't just one or two.
Hebrew has not been a continuously spoke vernacular, otherwise there would have been no need to resurrect it as a spoken language after 1948.
Saying the Jews spoke Hebrew with Aramaic loan words in 1st century Palestine is like saying the Jews spoke Hebrew with German loan words in 17th century Germany. It's just not true and it's not supported by the evidence.
+Shamasha