Thank you for the Clarifications, outhouse. I apologize for the mis-characterizations. As we have disagreed through the years, so it appears now.
Life's tough sometimes.
One larger disagreement, however:
Aramaic Galileans in no way could have had a permanent house in a Hellenistic city like Jerusalem where Galileans would have stuck out like a sore thumb on a daily basis
Actually, there was. The Priests were given Settlements in Galilee and would rotate into Jerusalem for Mishmarot Service at appropriate times for their week's Service. Their "House" appears to have been Antonia. There are several entrances to the Temple and one of them is at the "Chamber of the Hearth".
In the "Denial of Peter" Stories:
John 18: 16 - 18 (RSV):
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
Rather non-descript. Somehow, "The Maid" knows something about Peter. NOTE: Peter is allowed in and "In" means he is in the Chamber of the Flames. Only the Priests and select others can get into the Chamber of the Flames. Therefore, Peter is Priestly AND Galilean.
Mark 14: 66 - 70 (RSV):
[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
[68] But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
[69] And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
More of the Puzzle revealed. Peter could have been dressed as a Galilean would have been dressed, for example, but something identifies Peter as "Galilean".
Luke 22:
[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."
[57] But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."
[58] And a little later some one else saw him and said, "You also are one of them." But Peter said, "Man, I am not."
[59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean."
Something is hidden here as more is revealed. In John and Mark, the Functions of the Maid are given: She keeps the door into the Chamber of the Flames from the Chamber of the Hearth and she is a Functionary of the High Priest Apparatus. She is merely "A Maid" in Luke, perhaps a function of the distance in time from compositions of Mark and John compared to Luke.
Which brings us to Matthew (who hides as much as anyone, in my view):
Matthew 26: 59 - 73 (RSV):
[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
[71] And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
[72] And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."
To me, the evidence is overwhelming. To you, not so much.
"
Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.
I discern, from quite a few previous Posts, Peter was from Galilee, of Priestly Origins, from the town of Jabnit, which town believed the Dynastic Hasmoneans came from them. This belief was shared by Jehoiarib from the Settlement of Meiron, just up the (very "Rocky") road. ...And so on.
Therefore, there was a place for Galileans in Jerusalem (Antonia) and the reason for this was that the Priesthood lived in Galilee and - with Hegelian Dynamics - absorbed parts of the Galilean Culture and in this instance, speech patterns, which became apparent when the Priesthood rotated into Jerusalem for Mishmarot.
I still agree with you on the general thrust of the Hellenistic Argument, if not in all its details.
Best,
CW