Vernacular Hebrew after 537 BC

[kwrandolph]

Your use of a mistranslation of one verse, then not listening to a correct translation of a different verse don’t speak well of you.

I do know Koinē. I simply used Bible Gateway to search for “all the Jews.” I didn’t look at the Greek at that point, since my purpose was to show that “all” doesn’t always mean “every single one without exception.” Additionally, I couldn’t care less about you thinking that something “doesn’t speak well of” me. You well know my opinion of you and of your valueless retorts.

That said, ἐγὼ πάντοτε ἐδίδαξα ἐν συναγωγῇ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ὅπου πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι συνέρχονται, καὶ ἐν κρυπτῷ ἐλάλησα οὐδέν certainly means “I have always taught in [the] synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have spoken nothing in secret.” How is this different in meaning to what the NIV says? Don’t tell me that you pretend to know Koinē better than everyone else in the world, too!

After reading and comparing the Byzantine / Majority Text version with the British Bible Society / Nestlé version of the New Testament, I have come to the conclusion that the Byzantine / Majority Text is the more accurate version. The Byzantine / Majority Text reads απεκριθη αυτω ο ιησους εγω παρρησια ελαλησα τω κοσμω εγω παντοτε εδιδαξα εν συναγωγη και εν τω ιερω οπου παντοτε οι ιουδαιοι συνερχονται και εν κρυπτω ελαλησα ουδεν Notice, it says “always”, not “all”. I don’t use the NIV.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

How so? When Jeremiah said “All”, how is your answer that he didn’t mean all not saying that he lied?

If people use non-literal language, then they are lying? Is that what you think? You’re an extremist.

[Jason Hare]

After reading and comparing the Byzantine / Majority Text version with the British Bible Society / Nestlé version of the New Testament, I have come to the conclusion that the Byzantine / Majority Text is the more accurate version. The Byzantine / Majority Text reads απεκριθη αυτω ο ιησους εγω παρρησια ελαλησα τω κοσμω εγω παντοτε εδιδαξα εν συναγωγη και εν τω ιερω οπου παντοτε οι ιουδαιοι συνερχονται και εν κρυπτω ελαλησα ουδεν Notice, it says “always”, not “all”. I don’t use the NIV.

Karl W. Randolph.

So, again, I did not use a mistranslation, nor can you claim that I don’t know the Koinē. I will say, though, that I don’t care what text tradition you think is better than any other. The NA28, the UBS5, and the SBLGNT are all perfectly good Greek New Testaments to use, and no one needs to justify himself to you. You are not the authority on Hebrew, and you certainly aren’t the authority on which text of the New Testament is superior.

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Karl,

Having wormed your way through what is clearly a challenging situation regarding the word "all" and falling back on a defensive line by saying quite a few times that I am calling Jeremiah a liar, I think I will forgo any further discussion on this particular topic.

I will, however, take you up on a couple of points you mentioned:

KARL SAID : Don’t you remember Paul’s training? That he spoke Hebrew, how is that evidence that he learned Hebrew at his mother’s knee? Any more than a man during the European Renaissance speaking Latin means that he learned Latin at his mother’s knee? In both cases, is not such language use evidence of erudition?

ERUDITION, seriously? Are you actually claiming that Paul learned hebrew as a second language? Are you actually insisting that hebrew was a second language and Greek was his first? Or am I now misunderstanding your response?

KARL SAID : The unwritten message is that if there were a population who remained on the land, then Jeremiah would have remained with them. But because there was no such population, therefore Jeremiah was forced to go to Egypt. Did you consider that common sense?

But because there was no such population, therefore Jeremiah was forced to go to Egypt
He was forced - Yes I agree. But your reasoning is absolutely absurd, completely nuts! He was forced by the leaders, not because the land was emptied of people. Also since when in all of Jeremiah's ministry did he cower before the peoples' hostility preferring to align himself with them RATHER than with what God had told him to say in all his messages. What you say is completely out of Jeremiah's character.
Jer 43:5 Jeremiah obviously did not disobey God, this proven by the following verses. What it does say is the very common word Hebrew for 'Take". The point here is that Jeremiah did NOT go willingly, no evidence that he was dragged, but due to the fact that God gave him more words to say and was most definitely in God's favour still, somehow Jeremiah did not disobey the Lord. He was forced somehow, we can only guess. But to exclaim that there was nobody left in all the land for Jeremiah to have an 'evening-dinner-chin-wag' with is universally stupid and crazy. But here you will argue 'All' again, but nobody will agree with you on this point.

KARL SAID : How is Chomsky evidence? Nehemiah 13:24 relates that the kids born to non-Jewish mothers were not learning Hebrew. If Hebrew were the language of the market and street, that would not be a problem because the kids would learn Hebrew from their friends. That they didn’t learn Hebrew is evidence that Hebrew was not spoken on the street, in public

Read what I linked to. It challenges your ideas on a professional and experienced level that I can not.

As for Nehemiah 13:24. Boy oh Boy have you got this the wrong way around Karl. I will list bullet points, it's easier:
1. Neh ch 13 begins with them learning that they should not inter-marry with Moab and Ammon. The thrust of this chapter is on the inter-mingling with foreigners and marrying their women;
2. 13:24 is NOT indicative of the WHOLE land, otherwise you are being absurd in actually assuming that this represents ALL the people, it did not by any means imply that ALL spoke in any language except hebrew, we have here once again a sneak preview representative of a significant amount of people, but it is only a representative, not a whole, a sneak insight, not a complete picture;
3. Nehemiah was angry at the fact that some Jews had married Moabites and Ammonites and Gazans BUT, read verse 25 (Verse 26 in eng) where it says : וָאָרִ֤יב עִמָּם֙ וָאֲקַֽלְלֵ֔ם וָאַכֶּ֥ה מֵהֶ֛ם אֲנָשִׁ֖ים וָֽאֶמְרְטֵ֑ם וָאַשְׁבִּיעֵ֣ם בֵּֽאלֹהִ֗ים אִם־תִּתְּנ֤וּ בְנֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ לִבְנֵיהֶ֔ם וְאִם־תִּשְׂאוּ֙ מִבְּנֹ֣תֵיהֶ֔ם לִבְנֵיכֶ֖ם וְלָכֶֽם
Nehemiah was castigating them, not for not speaking hebrew but for the parents giving their children over to foreigners.

KARL SAID : As for on the way to Egypt, there was no farmer to give bread and water to Jeremiah. Rather those who were not willing to go to Egypt were forced to go

Wow, this would never ever never be accepted in a court of law. Bullet point time again:
1. How do you know that there was no farmer to provide water and bread to Jeremiah? (and I did not make any mention on the way to Egypt in this context); Computer logic here triumphs over yours, it goes like this: Humans need to drink - Jeremiah would have drunk many goblets of water - the culture of the day did not have taps everywhere and cafes - instead they had hospitable people who did not have keys for their front doors - Jeremiah was liked by some - therefore many would have offered him food and water - Ok maybe not a farmer, I give you that one.

Ok so I go to extremes but this is more acceptable to assume than your ridiculous idea that there it did not happen, it's a matter of odds. Do you remember when I said that Pharaoh of Egypt would have bounced baby Moses up and down on his knee, this little bundle of Irony that giggled and caused Pharaoh to smile would one day cause his downfall. Tell me, is what I have just said possible?

2. Many were forced to go, but common sense will always say that there are exceptions to the rule, 'exceptions' is the key word here Karl. Something you stubbornly refuse to admit.

Chris watts

[talmid56]

So, Karl, are you are arguing that the quotes from Kings are not accurate in their description? Are you claiming they and Jeremiah are contradictory? That's an odd take if so, considering your beliefs concerning the authority of the Bible. (I know we can't get into theology, but it does seem a point worth pointing out.) Could they not complement each other?

Now, let's talk about the Jews who went to Egypt with Jeremiah. What language did they speak going in? Hebrew. They might have learned some Egyptian, I'll grant that, but they would keep to Hebrew unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise. What language did Jeremiah preach in? Write in? Hebrew. Babylon did not conquer Egypt under Nebuchadnezzar and successors, but Persia did later. However, that was still in the future at the end of the Exile. So, no reason I can see for them to learn Aramaic. Can you show differently?

[talmid56]

We don't normally deal much with textual criticism here, especially not that of the Greek NT. However, your view of the superiority of the Majority/Byzantine text puts you decidedly in the minority in the scholarly world--including among consevatives. Considering that not a single distinctive Byz reading can be shown to exist prior to the 5th century AD, that's a pretty weak reed to lean on.

[kwrandolph]

Hallo Karl,

KARL SAID : Don’t you remember Paul’s training? That he spoke Hebrew, how is that evidence that he learned Hebrew at his mother’s knee? Any more than a man during the European Renaissance speaking Latin means that he learned Latin at his mother’s knee? In both cases, is not such language use evidence of erudition?

ERUDITION, seriously? Are you actually claiming that Paul learned hebrew as a second language? Are you actually insisting that hebrew was a second language and Greek was his first? Or am I now misunderstanding your response?

What I say is just the facility of speaking Hebrew does not necessarily mean that he learned the language at his mother’s knee. Historical references, however, indicate that it was a second language.

KARL SAID : The unwritten message is that if there were a population who remained on the land, then Jeremiah would have remained with them. But because there was no such population, therefore Jeremiah was forced to go to Egypt. Did you consider that common sense?

But because there was no such population, therefore Jeremiah was forced to go to Egypt
He was forced - Yes I agree. But your reasoning is absolutely absurd, completely nuts! He was forced by the leaders, not because the land was emptied of people.

Where is there evidence of your mythical population that stayed behind? All I hear is speculation.

Also since when in all of Jeremiah's ministry did he cower before the peoples' hostility preferring to align himself with them RATHER than with what God had told him to say in all his messages. What you say is completely out of Jeremiah's character.

Again speculation.

Jer 43:5 Jeremiah obviously did not disobey God, this proven by the following verses. What it does say is the very common word Hebrew for 'Take". The point here is that Jeremiah did NOT go willingly, no evidence that he was dragged, but due to the fact that God gave him more words to say and was most definitely in God's favour still, somehow Jeremiah did not disobey the Lord. He was forced somehow, we can only guess. But to exclaim that there was nobody left in all the land for Jeremiah to have an 'evening-dinner-chin-wag' with is universally stupid and crazy. But here you will argue 'All' again, but nobody will agree with you on this point.

I won’t be swayed by this bandwagon logical fallacy. It doesn’t matter if nobody agrees with me, what counts is what did Jeremiah write? When he wrote that all went, many were not willing, I take him at his word.

KARL SAID : How is Chomsky evidence? Nehemiah 13:24 relates that the kids born to non-Jewish mothers were not learning Hebrew. If Hebrew were the language of the market and street, that would not be a problem because the kids would learn Hebrew from their friends. That they didn’t learn Hebrew is evidence that Hebrew was not spoken on the street, in public

Read what I linked to. It challenges your ideas on a professional and experienced level that I can not.

Chomsky contradicts what I have experienced on the street. The question then comes to, do I trust ivory tower Chomsky, or where the rubber meets the road in life experiences—not only mine but others as well.

As for Nehemiah 13:24. Boy oh Boy have you got this the wrong way around Karl. I will list bullet points, it's easier:
1. Neh ch 13 begins with them learning that they should not inter-marry with Moab and Ammon. The thrust of this chapter is on the inter-mingling with foreigners and marrying their women;
2. 13:24 is NOT indicative of the WHOLE land, otherwise you are being absurd in actually assuming that this represents ALL the people, it did not by any means imply that ALL spoke in any language except hebrew, we have here once again a sneak preview representative of a significant amount of people, but it is only a representative, not a whole, a sneak insight, not a complete picture;
3. Nehemiah was angry at the fact that some Jews had married Moabites and Ammonites and Gazans BUT, read verse 25 (Verse 26 in eng) where it says : וָאָרִ֤יב עִמָּם֙ וָאֲקַֽלְלֵ֔ם וָאַכֶּ֥ה מֵהֶ֛ם אֲנָשִׁ֖ים וָֽאֶמְרְטֵ֑ם וָאַשְׁבִּיעֵ֣ם בֵּֽאלֹהִ֗ים אִם־תִּתְּנ֤וּ בְנֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ לִבְנֵיהֶ֔ם וְאִם־תִּשְׂאוּ֙ מִבְּנֹ֣תֵיהֶ֔ם לִבְנֵיכֶ֖ם וְלָכֶֽם
Nehemiah was castigating them, not for not speaking hebrew but for the parents giving their children over to foreigners.

We were discussing evidences that Hebrew continued to be spoken as a native tongue, not the religious command. This whole argument is a red-herring logical fallacy.

KARL SAID : As for on the way to Egypt, there was no farmer to give bread and water to Jeremiah. Rather those who were not willing to go to Egypt were forced to go

Wow, this would never ever never be accepted in a court of law.

“Court of law” now? Since when is speculation accepted in a court of law?

Bullet point time again:
1. How do you know that there was no farmer to provide water and bread to Jeremiah? (and I did not make any mention on the way to Egypt in this context); Computer logic here triumphs over yours, it goes like this: Humans need to drink - Jeremiah would have drunk many goblets of water - the culture of the day did not have taps everywhere and cafes - instead they had hospitable people who did not have keys for their front doors - Jeremiah was liked by some - therefore many would have offered him food and water - Ok maybe not a farmer, I give you that one.

Ok so I go to extremes but this is more acceptable to assume than your ridiculous idea that there it did not happen, it's a matter of odds.

You make the assumption that those farmers, if there were farmers, were Jews who stayed on the land. Is that assumption accurate? After all, within a couple of days the people crossed onto the land of the Philistines. You don’t need to speculate that there were Jews who stayed behind.

Do you remember when I said that Pharaoh of Egypt would have bounced baby Moses up and down on his knee, this little bundle of Irony that giggled and caused Pharaoh to smile would one day cause his downfall. Tell me, is what I have just said possible?

Not for the example of pharaoh—he was long dead before Moses returned to lead Israel out of Egypt.

2. Many were forced to go, but common sense

“common sense” is speculation. All too often “common sense” is not what happens.

will always say that there are exceptions to the rule, 'exceptions' is the key word here Karl. Something you stubbornly refuse to admit.

The way that Jeremiah wrote about it, there were no exceptions. So are you calling Jeremiah a liar?

Chris watts

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

So, Karl, are you are arguing that the quotes from Kings are not accurate in their description?

Did you read what I wrote? Apparently not.

Are you claiming they and Jeremiah are contradictory? That's an odd take if so, considering your beliefs concerning the authority of the Bible. (I know we can't get into theology, but it does seem a point worth pointing out.) Could they not complement each other?

Do you remember that I wrote that Jeremiah recorded events after those recorded in Kings? As such, how would they contradict?

Now, let's talk about the Jews who went to Egypt with Jeremiah. What language did they speak going in? Hebrew. They might have learned some Egyptian, I'll grant that, but they would keep to Hebrew unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Speculation. The “compelling reason” is generational time. Further, there’s no historical record of any outflow of Jews from Egypt to Judea after the 70 years were up.

What language did Jeremiah preach in? Write in? Hebrew. Babylon did not conquer Egypt under Nebuchadnezzar and successors, but Persia did later. However, that was still in the future at the end of the Exile. So, no reason I can see for them to learn Aramaic. Can you show differently?

Who says that the language would be Aramaic?

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

We don't normally deal much with textual criticism here, especially not that of the Greek NT. However, your view of the superiority of the Majority/Byzantine text puts you decidedly in the minority in the scholarly world--including among consevatives. Considering that not a single distinctive Byz reading can be shown to exist prior to the 5th century AD, that's a pretty weak reed to lean on.

The first clue that I noticed is that the Majority/Byzantine text preserved clues to the Galilean accent that Peter spoke. That led me to question, where else is it more accurate?

Karl W. Randolph.