Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
The decline of the Hebrew language begun before Jesus was born, this is acknowledged in the book of Acts when the Greek speaking Jewish believers complained of being neglected by the Hebrew speaking Jewish believers.
|
Yes, Hebrew is Aramaic, and the early Judeans spoke it since they were occupied by Aramaic speaking peoples, prior to being occupied by Greeks, then Romans
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
However Hebrew still was used around the time of Paul's visit.
|
Yes, because Hebrew was a liturgical language only used in the temple service, and in the readings of the synagogue. Just like Hindus chant and read ancient Sanskrit, Sedevacantists use Latin in the liturgy, Greek Orthodox use Classical Greek in their liturgy, Tibetan Buddhism use ancient Tibetan in their liturgies. Hebrew was employed by the 1st century A.D. as only for religious use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
the destruction of Jerusalem contributed greatly to the decline of the Hebrew language, and the revolt of Bar Kokhba further accelerated it even more.
|
A little background, Herod the Great led the Hellenization of Judea. While there may have been some who were Zealots, there were just as many who weren't and wanted the benefits of the Roman Empire. Remember, there were many Judeans who lived in Rome, they had to be forced to leave (49 A.D.,) and Aquila, and Priscilla (both Latin named Judeans) were part of that expulsion to Asia Minor.
Apollos was an Alexandrian Egyptian Judean who was a disciple of John the Baptist, and would of been fluent in Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, as well as Demotic Egyptian. Just think, if you have one Egyptian Judean, you have a lot more Diaspora Egyptian Judeans running around Judea.
Were Pharisees only in Judea? No, there were Rabbinical synagogues in Rome, Alexandria Egypt, Asia Minor, and Greece. In Judea, we have Greek, as well as Eastern Roman cities where Judeans had to interact for commerce, or whatever needs they had. They had to be able to speak and understand the language of the empire. When we do the math on all of their occupation from Babylon to Rome, Judea was speaking the languages of all her occupiers. Antiochus Epiphanes wanted everyone under his empire to learn Greek. Greek had already been adopted in Egypt with the leadership of the Ptolemies, way before the Romans set a foot in Egypt to start their grain trade. The Maccabean revolt was a Judean revival of everything Hebraic, and anything foreign was to be rejected. Yet, alas, you still have Judeans who like being Greek, like the foreign literature, and customs, so they leave, until everything cools down, and the Diaspora finally return. Same with the 1st Century A.D., coins found in Masada had Greek inscriptions, scrolls found in Qumran were Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
Greek was the language of the Diaspora 200 years before Christ (hence the creation of the LXX) and Greek was the language of the remnant of the Diaspora 60 years after the 2nd Temple destruction.
Now, what about Bar Kokhba? Bar Kokhba tried to do a Maccabean revival of Hebrew, but didn't use Babylonian Hebrew, instead he used Paleo Hebrew. His fighters couldn't even read the writings of Paleo Hebrew on their newly minted coins (which were just re-stamped Roman coins), and letters which were passed back and forth during the uprising had to be written in Greek as their leadership dwindled, and left only the rank and file who could read koine Greek.
I haven't found evidence for an Aramaic Matthew, let alone a Hebrew copy, but I must say this, and Brother Blume can attest because he watched me go back and forth over the idea. If Matthew was originally penned in Aramaic, you have some issues that are way bigger than just
Matthew 28:19.