So -- is that all??? No one else? Josephus?? Tacitus??? any other Greeks closer to the relevant time??? You are basing your claim on one 5th century BC Greek??? == Please.
The Jews spoke Aramaic and referred to Aramaic as "Hebrew tongue" when Jesus walked the earth.
So you are saying that there was no Greek word for "Aramaic" in Greek in those days and the closest word to it was the Greek word for "Hebrew"???? Is that what you are claiming???????
Jewish Encyclopedia reveals that the 1st century Jewish historian "Josephus [Flavius] considers Aramaic so thoroughly identical with Hebrew that he quotes Aramaic words as Hebrew ("Ant." iii. 10, § 6), and describes the language in which Titus' proposals to the Jerusalemites were made (which certainly were in Aramaic) as Hebrew ("B. J." vi. 2, § 1)."
So then if the languages were so nearly identical, it could reasonably be said that the Syrians were speaking Hebrew not Aramaic, rather than vice versa, right???? Adopted words had entered the Hebrew language from Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Chaldean, etc since the days when those scriptures were written, but adopted words just like adopted children take the name and heritage of their adopting parents -- not vice versa.
The Temple Hebrew was the OT Hebrew which was not spoken.
So when Jesus read the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah no body understood him???? or did they remark that he taught as one having great authority because his Hebrew aligned perfectly with the words that he had been giving to his people since the days of Moses???
What you forget, kosta, is that religious Jews, those Jews who regarded their Mosaic heritage, and valued the Hebrew scriptures, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where those Hebrew scriptures were taught, would have spoken and understood a Hebrew closer to the original Hebrew of the scriptures -- Temple Hebrew, as you call it.
Those Jews who kept those original Hebrew scriptures in their heart, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where they could be learned and understood and memorized were the Jews who responded to Jesus when he came and received their Messiah. Knowing the Hebrew scriptures, they recognized him as the author of those Hebrew scriptures that they had in their heart. He spoke their language and they understood his words and that language was the Hebrew of the Hebrew scriptures.
I was only reminding you that different people called it by different names for a long time, and that the name "Palestine" was not invented by Romans as you implied.
So you are saying that there was no Greek word for "Aramaic" in Greek in those days and the closest word to it was the Greek word for "Hebrew"???? Is that what you are claiming???????
Why would Greeks have a separate name for Aramaic? To them, the language spoken by the Hebrews was the language of the Hebrew whether it was Aramaic or not. They didn't bother to learn it and would therefore not be able to distinguish it from "other" Hebrew any more than an English-only speaking person could not distinguish Portuguese from Spanish.
So then if the languages were so nearly identical, it could reasonably be said that the Syrians were speaking Hebrew not Aramaic
The Syrians spoke (and wrote) in Syrian or Assyrian Aramaic. Hebrew Aramaic evolved over centuries into a particular separate language. Aramaic entered jewish literature by the 4th century BC.
A similar differentiation took place among Slavioc tribes with respect to their common Old Slavonic language. In the past 11000 years, the Old Slavonic differentiated into various related but separate dialects which can be understood to a greater or lesser degree among Slavic-speaking peoples. Spanish and Portuguese are another example.
Adopted words had entered the Hebrew language from Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Chaldean, etc since the days when those scriptures were written, but adopted words just like adopted children take the name and heritage of their adopting parents -- not vice versa
These are not simply "adopted" foreign words mixed in with Hebrew, but a distinct language. I already showed you that parts of the "Hebrew" bible are written in Aramaic, not in foreign words added to Hebrew.
So when Jesus read the Hebrew scroll of Isaiah no body understood him???? or did they remark that he taught as one having great authority because his Hebrew aligned perfectly with the words that he had been giving to his people since the days of Moses???
Jesus taught in Aramaic because that's what He spoke. What He read in the synagogues was Aramaic, because the Tanakh (Old Testament) used for public prayer and homilies was Targum, which was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. To untrained eyes and ears it may very well appear and even "sound" as Hebrew, but it ain't Hebrew!
[R]eligious Jews, those Jews who regarded their Mosaic heritage, and valued the Hebrew scriptures, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where those Hebrew scriptures were taught, would have spoken and understood a Hebrew closer to the original Hebrew of the scriptures -- Temple Hebrew, as you call it.
Again, this is partially correct, except that in synagogues they used Aramaic based on Targum. This is similar to Slavonic churches today using vernacular rather than the Church Slavonic. To a non-Slavic speaker, the two languages would be indistinguishable.
In Greece, there were some bishops recently who unsuccessfully pushed for the divine liturgy to be sung in modern (colloquial) Greek rather than in the Biblical (koine) Greek, arguing that the latter is pretty much unintelligible to most modern Greeks.
There is no doubt that the priests (Sadducees) in the Temple kept Biblical Hebrew alive the way eastern Churches keep their ancient languages alive. But it would be a stretch to say that they used it in a day-to-day business transactions or even writing. In Slavonic Churches, the "official language" is Church Slavonic, but only for liturgical use. No one speaks it or uses it in written correspondence.
Those Jews who kept those original Hebrew scriptures in their heart, and hung around the Temple and synagogues where they could be learned and understood and memorized were the Jews who responded to Jesus when he came and received their Messiah.
Do you always make up (even confabulate) things like this? The very people who "hung around" the temple and synagogues were usually the people who rejected Him.
Knowing the Hebrew scriptures, they recognized him as the author of those Hebrew scriptures that they had in their heart.
Do you still read and believe fairy tales?
He spoke their language and they understood his words and that language was the Hebrew of the Hebrew scriptures.
Well, that's not what the learned people say. All evidence seems to show that He spoke Aramaic and taught in Aramaic, and that a particualr Aramaic was the spoken and written language of the Jews of Pelstine of His time. He even died crying out in Aramaic, not in Hebrew.
But you are free to believe in anything your heart desires, if that's what makes you feel better. Of course you have not provided a single piece of evidence, or reference, or link, or author to back up any of these confabulations.