Biblical Hebrew Forum

[turgueman AT netzero.net]

Aramaic (various of its dialects) still spoken by Orthodox rabbis, at least 
used for prayers. Other dialects are spoken by various ethnic groups in Iraq 
and even in Dearborn, MI.

Concerning Latin, the letters of Paul cannot be used as evidence against 
Latin and on favour of Greek as the language of Rome and its provinces. Latin 
was well alive and this fact is confirmed by its fruiets: the Romance 
languages that are still spoken in the former Roman territories (Castillian, 
Galego, Catala, Rumanian, Italian, Portuguese, French etc).

Of course, the influence of Greek is evident in these languages, but we 
cannot refer to Greek as the mother language of these ones. Latin was the 
mother tongue and to be so it must have been a very common language. Why Paul 
choose to write in Greek rather than Latin. I have no idea. Of course, in the 
region of Northern Israel or Palestine in those days Greek was common too. On 
the cross the title was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. 

Could it be possible Paul's letter were written centuries later by Greek 
Christians? (translated)

But the issue I would like to explore is the use of Hebrew and Aramaic by 1 
century CE Jewish communities and the followers of Jesus. Can someone 
recommend the best books or articles on the use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the 
1st century CE? These can be in Hebrew, German, Greek (modern), Italian, 
French, Portuguese, Spanish (Castellano), Arabic, or Russian.

Toda Raba veshalom uvrakha

Frantz

-- Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2004 15:41, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:

>Dear Peter,
>
>  
>
>>Are you sure? As I understood it, in the first century CE even in ROME
>>the lingua franca was Greek, not Latin, and that Latin was dying out
>>until it was revived under the Flavians. (That explains why Paul wrote
>>his letter to the Romans in Greek.) I suppose that Latin was used by the
>>Romans for official administrative purposes, but that Romans in
>>Palestine would have spoken mostly Greek among one another, The language
>>spoken in the army may have varied from regiment to regiment, and some
>>of the regiment names are recorded, e.g. in Acts 10:1, Cornelius was
>>    
>>
>>from the Italian regiment, and so is more likely to have been a Latin
>  
>
>>speaker - although he probably conversed with Peter in Greek.
>>    
>>
>
>HH: I did not know that, but there seem to be other opinions. ...
>

OK, there are other opinions. But most of what you quote (including from 
Internet sites which can be very unreliable and partisan) is passing 
comments by people who have simply assumed the point without looking at 
the evidence. I think you should look at proper scholarly studies of 
Rome in the 1st century CE. I don't have any at hand, but I have seen 
references to them. But this list is not the place to discuss this issue.

Even Cicero acknowledged that Greek was a more international language 
than Latin: "Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis 
finibus, exiguis sane, continentur."

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - NetZero HiSpeed!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month -visit www.netzero.com to sign up today!