Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
KARL WROTE : Then you can’t ignore the evidence of Daniel, that his writing half his book in Aramaic, in spite of him being a native speaker of Hebrew, indicates that Aramaic was already becoming the main language spoken among Jews at his time.
No absolutely NO . The portions in Aramaic are there for a completely different reason, to address the Gentile world, while the Hebrew is there to address the Isaraelite world. Daniel 2:4 to 7:28 is not there proving anything you say, it is there for prophetic and literary reasons.
From where do you get the idea that it was to address the non-Jewish world? Where in that text is that claim made? Are there any evidences where that was applied?
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
Also Saenz-Badillos makes a hugely valuable point that Hebraists today share the majority view that Aramaic in scripture is not proof that Hebrew was lost, he makes references to many books, but brings up the aramaic in Job - the oldest book.
The Aramaic in Job? Where? What’s the evidence that it’s the oldest book? From its literary style, I would place it probably later than Isaiah.
How many times do I have to say that Hebrew was not lost? That it had merely changed its status from a vernacular to a learned, second language?
The Aramaic in Scripture is evidence that Jews knew Aramaic as well as Hebrew. That, taken together with other evidence, suggests that Aramaic was better known than Hebrew with Hebrew being a learned, second language.
Truth is not decided by majority vote, contrary to your first point above.
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
He makes an observation if I remember correctly from
Isaiah 36:11, and demonstrates that it is highly likely that the poor and the less educated classes in the exile probably could not understand Aramaic, now this I do find possible and is new to me, but it is possible having read that portion in
Isaiah 36:11
[/b]
You mean that anachronisms are evidence?
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
KARL WROTE : But the Exile changed those conditions such that the people were no longer socially and linguistically isolated from the majority society that surrounded them.
Prove this. I can prove that it was highly likely more than you could prove the opposite, by taking examples from various minorities in todays society.
I lived in San Francisco, which is/was 40% Chinese. They even have Chinese TV. Yet the American born generation’s vernacular is English. The grandchildren grow up knowing only a smattering of Chinese.
The same thing is true of the Spanish speaking population of the U.S, Southwest.
I have visited the Apache reservation, guess which language is the most common vernacular among young Apaches? It aint Apache.
Do you have any examples extended over three generations, not less than one generation as your previous Polish population, where a people not isolated from the surrounding, majority language people, managed to preserve their ancestral language as their vernacular?
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
KARL WROTE : The Vikings and Normans largely stayed in the cities, though the Normans suppressed the teachings of Patrick to make Ireland Roman Catholic. The Scots made a larger impression by immigrating in large numbers to Northern Ireland. But the Irish countryside was largely untouched, hence the Irish language remained.
No the country side was just as touched as the early dwellings and large towns, I have the history books.
I too have read histories. The Vikings conquered Ireland militarily, but other than founding a few major cities like Dublin and Londonderry, did not have a major population immigration, unlike England.
The Norman invasion was again mainly military, with the added effect of forcing the Irish to become Roman Catholic. That led to English rule. But even there, the loss of Gaelic by the Irish population was gradual, rather than sudden, and probably wouldn’t have had a permanent effect, had it lasted at most a few generations.
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:50 am
Then in recent years there has been a serious effort to revive the Irish language but it is estimated that there are still only pockets in Galway and the far north west and in the far west peninsulars where communites speak Irish and about 10% of the whole of Ireland, the fact that a small group of people have always been steadfast resolute to maintain a sense of individuality and national identity based on their past is a testament to the human spirit that would have prevailed in many of the exiles and those that returned.
KARL WROTE : You make an assumption in the absence of evidence.
Again my history books on Ireland say otherwise. Plus todays newspapers and google will confirm this. Not to mention that my statement here agrees with my favourite form of evidence "the bleedin Obvious'
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:50 am
Just as today a small minority of parents insist on speaking Irish at home and taliking Irish to their children because they want them to never forget where they come from, so too would many Jewsih parents have done exactly the same. But I insist moreso, since the Irish culture has never ever been united in purpose in the same way that the Israelite culture was, despite the idol worship and materialism and murder and greed that is a common factor in all civilisations, there are always a remnant who decline the influences of foreign attributes and manners and customs. And the remnant I refer to in exile are probably that group of people found, as I tried to mention earlier, found in
Jeremiah 24: 2-8 - a group that were not included in God's wrath.
KARL WROTE : This passage describes a situation before the final deportation. They were included in God’s wrath, which is why they ended up in Egypt.
No Jeremiah 24, did you read the WHOLE chapter? Now you make God Himself untrue here, for God says here that He will do them good in Babylon, IN BABYLON, not Egypt. And can you not imagine that this would have been a source of comfort to Jeremiah and the people to whom he might have told, that whereas there are always the innocents that are caught up in the trajedies that happen to the guilty, that the righteous sometimes suffer with the unrighteous through no fault of their own? Get inside this man's heart for a moment and realise that he would have prayed a prayer asking God about those who were not guilty of the crimes that the majority were guilty of, and God comforted him with this response, don't you think this a likely scenario Karl?
Did you read the whole book of Jeremiah? God cursed the people who went to Egypt, even before they did so. And he pronounced that curse here in Jeremiah 24.
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 11:57 am
Chris Watts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:50 am
Not all those in exile suffered, many had farms and communities and would have had a strong sense of identity,
KARL WROTE : But that doesn’t help their grandchildren retain the language.
But it also does not mean the opposite; plus you are certainly making an assumption here Karl
Where they had farms was in Babylon, not Judah. They had a majority Aramaic speaking neighbors, their children had Aramaic speaking friends, the people in the market spoke Aramaic. It takes about three generations for a people to exchange their ancestral vernacular for the majority language of the local population, and the Exile lasted about three generations in a majority Aramaic speaking society.
Chris, at this time I’m ready to stop this discussion. I keep bringing up the same evidence, which you try to refute with speculation. You repeatedly mentioned a book purported to be a history of the Hebrew language, yet on its first page contradicted the written history of Hebrew. You keep trying to convince me that I’m wrong, but you haven’t provided me with a single solid piece of evidence to back up your claims. I see no reason to keep running around in circles. I suggest that we agree to disagree.
Karl W. Randolph.