What he implied, and I think he is has, that it doesn't make much sense to relate a biblical Hebrew word (millah) to a modern Greek word. When you compare it to the classical Greek etymon of the modern Greek word then there is not too much of a similarity left.Yes, I know that milo is a descendant of homilo. But this does not preclude any relation with the Hebrew/Ivrit word. The best argument against such relation would be the actual Hebrew etymology of "milim".
Syriac-Aramaic Christian has מלתא [melto] "word" (from Greek?). John's gospel 1.1 uses Greek [ΛΟΓΟC] "logics". So rabbinic Talmud uses word of Syriac-Christians of Greeks?There are hundreds of Greek loans in Hebrew according to some sources. Is there any chance that Ivrit Milim (words) is related to Greek milo (I speak)?
The Masoretic text is a sufficiently respectable attestation of Hebrew at the time of the end of the Biblical period (3rd century BC), even if this particular Psalm, 139, is not preserved in any Qumran fragment. There are enough fragments of biblical texts that agree sufficiently well with the Masoretic text.And what? Show me the scroll with the exact date when it was written!
There is also the Arabic verb أملى to dictate words (orders also). Lisan Al-Arab has أملل as a Hijazi variant of this verb.Aramaic mellā, determined state mellṯā, occurs already in the Old Aramaic Sefire Treaty (ca. 750 BCE). It is obviously not borrowed from Modern Greek. Arabic milla “sect, nation” is believed to be a loan from Aramaic.