Vernacular Hebrew after 537 BC

[talmid56]

I'd like to see that challenge answered also. As for the idea that every single person in Judah was exiled, not so. See 2 Kgs. 24:14 and 25:11-12. The poorest people were left to work the vineyards and fields. My guess would be that those folks kept speaking Hebrew. Why not?

[Jason Hare]

I'd like to see that challenge answered also. As for the idea that every single person in Judah was exiled, not so. See 2 Kgs. 24:14 and 25:11-12. The poorest people were left to work the vineyards and fields. My guess would be that those folks kept speaking Hebrew. Why not?

Wait... why wouldn’t farmers learn Aramaic while working the land? Wouldn’t it make sense for them to take the time to learn a language from 750 miles to the east that had little to do with their day-to-day lives? You’ve lost me.

[talmid56]

I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning (or evening).

[Chris Watts]

I am so impatient I can not wait for Karl, I doubt he will take up the challenge. I was going to quote a few scenarios from the the New Testament writings to establish that Hebrew was still spoken by the common man, even while he was outside of Israel, the evidence is there. But I decided instead to dig up an article from the Jewish Quarterly review dated 2nd Oct 1951 Number 42. Page 193 to 212 written by Chomsky. He provided enough evidence from many sources that put an end to this nonsense. The evidence is loud and clear.

Oh, If anyone has this article I would appreciate a copy. Many of the Jewish quarterly reviews are readily available free and legal to download from two different sites that I have, unfortunately not the year 1951, a mystery.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1453249?re ... b_contents

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

I'd like to see that challenge answered also. As for the idea that every single person in Judah was exiled, not so. See 2 Kgs. 24:14 and 25:11-12. The poorest people were left to work the vineyards and fields. My guess would be that those folks kept speaking Hebrew. Why not?

Look at Jeremiah, who was a direct witness to the action, 43:1–7 also 44:1. “All” meant all.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

I am so impatient I can not wait for Karl, I doubt he will take up the challenge.

Chris, you were too impatient. I was away from my computer for one day.

I was going to quote a few scenarios from the the New Testament writings to establish that Hebrew was still spoken by the common man, even while he was outside of Israel, the evidence is there.

There is a difference between speaking a language as a second language, and learning the language at one’s mother’s knee. Just speaking the language is not evidence that it was a natively spoken language.

Chris watts

By your definition of “vernacular”, Latin, which is still spoken, is a vernacular language. I don’t know of anyone who would agree with you.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Chris Watts]

There are a hundred things I wanted to say, evidence that seriously challenges your reasoning, from both the Tanach and the Acts of the Apostles, not to mention outside facts of proven reputability, I wrote a whole post about 45 minutes ago but have deleted it. Karl your pedantic replies constantly re-inforce my feelings that you simply do not want engage with what challenges your beliefs on these two issues. I am finished with you on these particular topics.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Look at Jeremiah, who was a direct witness to the action, 43:1–7 also 44:1. “All” meant all.

Karl W. Randolph.

“‘All’ means ‘all’” is a terrible argument. People frequently use hyperbole.

[Chris Watts]

It is, for me certainly, a poignant point to consider that when Hadrian sent in three legions and more to put down the Bar Kochba armies in 133 AD thereabouts - the historians of the day especially Cassius Dios (?) and many others recorded at least half a million dead, 900 towns destroyed and thousands sold into slavery and hundreds taken to the arenas. The land was emptied and the Land destroyed utterly. Now I can not read latin, but I know without a doubt that words such as 'All' and 'Utterly destroyed" and "no one left" are words employed by these writers to express and elevate the 'SENSE' of the event rather than the 'Actuality'. For these same historians record how many Jews settled along the coasts of Galilee and even further south beyond the Shephalah, and we know that the Mishna began in Galilee here around 200 AD, and NOT IN ARAMAIC either. ALthough Jews were forbidden from even coming within a few miles of Jerusalem, and the land was utterly devastated by 135 AD Jews actually remained.

Now this destruction of Israel was 10 times worse than the ones inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar's father in 603 BC, and then by his son in 597 and 587 BC, so much worse was Rome's than Babylon's. Yet there is clear evidence of a Jewish minority living and remaining in the land.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.” (John 18:20, NIV)

Does “all” mean “all” here? All of the Jews come to the synagogue and to the temple without exception?

A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. (Acts 22:12, NIV)

Is it true that Ananias was respected by ALL of the Jews? Has there ever been a single person in history that was respected by an ENTIRE people group without exception, even among a specific ethnogroup within a given area? No exceptions? Really?

I contest that the claim that “all means all” is just foolish.