[Uncle Chip]

You have not provided a single educated, academic, learned, intellectual or credible piece of evidence that the use of Hebraïsti in the NT is anything but Aramaic (Chaldee), not Hebrew.

Why is that necessary when the Greek word "Hebraisti" and the translations by educated, learned, intellectual, credible scholars is quite clear.

Of course, you will notice that the KJV translates it incorrectly (imagine that!), and how one lie (oh the devil is so happy with KJV!) becomes the "truth."

Well then how about the learned translators of the Catholic Bible who agree with the KJV translators:

"And Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross, and there was written "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". Many of the Jews therefore read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin." [The Holy Bible, The Catholic Press, Chicago, Illinous, with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Stritch, 1950]

Read it and weep -- and it was written in Hebrew.

[MarkBsnr]

***and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.” ***

And this proves what?

The people that Jesus had hacked off most were the religious hierarchy. Why would they not have written in Hebrew? The inscription that also was in evidence was in Latin. Almost none of the Jewish people knew Latin.

This is grasping at straws. Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Greek.