100% correct, JK,
But unfortunately it’s the atheist, “Euro-secular worshipping” Greek political establishment with their atheist buddies in the media that are doing exactly that now…the same ones that seek the votes of those who are actually pious and foolishly vote for them…

JK,

Likewise, I am also equally eagerly waiting to see you put some additional effort into researching the question that you stated you currently don’t have an answer for. There are several solid historical explanations and perspectives available, and I have them ready for comparison to your explanation when you are also ready with one.

If you had acted “in good faith” many months ago, and if you were quicker to say “I don’t know”, I would have probably supplied what you are now requesting without insisting that you do any research. But because you intentionally continued to waste our precious time responding to repeat instances of the same “big Aramaic claims” in subsequent articles, while ignoring the repeated question about the inscription on the Cross for months, I must now insist that you FIRST invest your own valuable time in researching and producing a lucid, intellectual response (a.k.a. due diligence). When you are ready to produce the fruit of your research, we can gladly compare notes. If you were in the military, this would translate to “time for some push-ups”.

JK,

It’s not about “superior knowledge”. It’s about using our God-given logic to differentiate between what makes sense, and what has been influenced by bias, and (yet again), incorrect translations over the years. You continue to rely on English sources, and that is your fundamental weakness every time you attempt to enter the “intellectual arena” on matters that require a wider linguistic lens…

As a result, on this particular topic, you appear to have become an unintended disciple of, or at least influenced by, the 19th-20th century distortions of the German (Lutheran) Biblical Scholar Gustaf Dalman, and his subsequent “academic disciples”, Paul Billerbeck, Matthew Black, and others, who were part of the modern Western academic movement that influentially “propagated” the “Aramaic hypothesis” that first surfaced about 450 years ago in Western Europe (ironically around the same era when other “scholars” were trying to argue that the Erasmian dialect was “proof” that the “Those who call themselves Greeks today had no relation with the Ancient Greeks)…

Fortunately, there is a modern academic counter-movement in the West to debunk much of these incorrect “scholars” of the past, but the damage that has been perpetrated is immense, and is even probably on your home bookshelf. For example, BDAG, a classic Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament continues Dalman / Billerbeck / Black’s (et al) modern propagation of the “Aramaic hypothesis” in footnotes in the year 2000 edition, intentionally (and incorrectly) stating in footnotes that the Greek word “Εβραις” refers to “Aramaic spoken at that time in Palestine…”
Of course, the natural consequence is that books written in the English language by other scholars that adopted this line of thought eventually ended up in your hands and influenced you as well..

However, thankfully, there is some very good scholarship emerging in the last several years to “set things straight”, and to debunk those followers of the “Aramaic hypothesis”… in one such scholarly article, you can read the following shocking quote about the “great propagators of the Aramaic hypothesis”:

“..The comments by Billerbeck and by Black are a remarkable testimony to the power of presuppositions to hide the plain sense of a text in its context.Both Billerbeck’s and Black’s works are widely cited, but their comments must be rejected as blatant mistakes and they cannot be allowed to influence the meaning of Εβραις…”

Here’s the good news for you…this 47 page article exists online:

https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9789004263406_04-EBRAISTI.pdf

So as your next “round of push-ups”, feel free to absorb the details of this article. Then, take a close look at all the English “scholarly books” you have been relying upon, and see if you can trace their authors’ citations back to sources that may have been influenced by Dalman’s propagation of the “Aramaic hypothesis” in the 19th-20th centuries.

Then, after you have identified all the books you rely upon that have been incorrectly influenced by the Lutheran Dalman and his followers, we can return for another round of “push-ups”…your perennial reliance upon these English translations and their influence by Western “scholars” has unfortunately caused a situation that will take years to “reverse”…Unfortunately, this is only the first of several rounds of “cerebral push-ups” that will provide sufficient, scholarly context as to why Aramaic was not included on the Cross:

“…The push-ups must continue until the mindset is corrected…”

JK,

If you really wanted me to “shut up”, then you shouldn’t have elicited my response by presenting a dead Lutheran scholar’s Aramaic hypothesis as factual, and I wouldn’t have had anything to comment on. Don’t give me a reason, and you won’t hear from me. That’s the way this “game” as you call it works.

Any personal anger management issues and any associated volcanic emotional outbursts don’t really concern the readers here. It is also nobody else’s problem but your own that you have relied on faulty English translations for your sources, as well as the fact you have never heard about those scholars from 100 to 150 years ago (but whose Aramaic theory you have happily adopted).

Most importantly though, it is certainly not my role or obligation to spend hours on a blog “spoon-feeding” an educated grown man who is fully capable of reading on his own. Do you seriously think I work for you, to entitle you to demand that “I serve you” (with commands such as “Put up”)? Am I really expected to dance just because you want to play a fiddle today? Isn’t that a demonstration of a condescending attitude in itself? But I suppose it’s always easier “to serve” the attitude than for it “to be served” to you, isn’t it?

That’s likely why you are interpreting this as “manipulation” (I call it insistence, by the way)…because you are not accustomed to this sort of “courteous reciprocity”. The source of your irritation is simple. 1) You evaded a specific question for a long time while continuing to propagate Aramaic theory. 2) You have been cornered (I call it insistence) with this 47 page academic paper, and now you are stirring up an emotional “squeal-athon”, because it is quite possible that your entire house of cards (Aramaic hypothesis – library of English sources) is about to collapse around you…

To summarize where we left off prior to this tangent. The starting point (in your situation) for understanding why Aramaic was not one of the 3 languages inscribed upon the Cross begins with that 47 page article I provided above, precisely because you personally need to “reset” your current understanding of the Aramaic hypothesis before you can even proceed to the next lesson. If you are serious about understanding this topic, you will invest your own time in the effort…if you just want to waste other people’s time without doing the necessary work, then you aren’t actually serious. Totally your choice.

jaykay, don’t be bitter. Go outside and touch grass or something because you can’t touch Markos.